Waking up to Kyoto "Myth"

[REDVAN]

Hey Captain, of course some were crushed by the meteor, and some probably also were killed in the time after by falling rock, ash, etc. I am just saying the major cause of their extinction is probably not the meteor, as everyone thinks.

If you need proof of this I direct you to any basic geology book, or if you're lazy I am sure something will turn up on google.

[Hakan]

The larger problem I see is that this debate hasbeen primed in terms of conflicting science relegating a necessity for inaction. Scientific uncertainty is ever present in environmental policy issues. (i should know, i'm a grad student of enviro policy)

For example, the Dioxin case in the early 80s created a paranoia about dioxin in our water supplies from pulp mills. The New York times had a front page article and everything fell out from there. Unfortunately, there still has not been any conclusive scientific experiments proving if dioxin is really that dangerous at all and how much of a concentration of dioxin is considered 'safe'. Because of this lack of science, environmental policy invariably becomes a value judgement of politicians and the public.

You can hire scientists to prove anything you want which is exactly what'iss going on with the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, there is overwhelming credible and relatively unbiased scientific consensus which agrees that human activities are making the problem worse. I don't really see much of an issue about this.

The concerns with the protocol itself are well noted. To think that we should not have to do anything because of a flawed protocol though is stupid. International agreements move at a slow and incremental pace. This protocol framework was the most politically palatable to be signedand made law at the time it was negotiated. This protocol is just the first of many to be signed and made law in the next fifty years as the realities of global warming become more apparent. China and India will be incorporated into the new framework. For the record, I quite agree with the rational that the rich countries should pony up most of the financial burden. We have produced the most CO2 historically and have seen our wealth greatly increase because of our GHG emitting activities. It would only seem fair that we are the first to pay.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 3 2005, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 3 2005, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@May 3 2005, 10:06 PM
Doesn't tell me a whole bunch, though I'll credit you with at least finding an attempt and counting the sides.

I'm not sure why you say it doesn't tell you much. It would seem to suggest that there have been no papers published in reputable scientific journals that support the "myth" side. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding it... [/b][/quote]
I guess I'm a little dense then ... the fact that the first three categories were lumped together made it somewhat vague.

But ...

-who says what a reputable science journal versus non reputable
-there's a lot of noise out there about the flawed Kyoto logic, none of these guys have been published? take the guys in that U of C video that were asked to help the UN report but then were skipped over because of their differing views (allegedly skipped over). do "reputable" science journals pick and choose by their own belief systems?

Through the Iraq thing and recent American politics, I've really learned that just because a source says something doesn't make it remotely close to true. Which is really sad isn't it?

Bottom line ... if the Kyoto logic is right on the money I'm very glad humanity is taking steps to identify and perhaps solve the problem. However, if there are credible voices not being heard and my tax dollars are chasing the wrong path I'm a little choked.

I'd just like to see the momentum halted and a little confirmation done, or at least a good quote from a Liberal MP saying that the've already looked into the broken hockey stick and are still convinced in the data. Right now were getting incredulous no comments as if they're insulted by the notion that the Kyoto logic is messed up. That doesn't give me a warm feeling given their already sieve like history with tax payer money.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by REDVAN@May 3 2005, 10:54 PM
Hey Captain, of course some were crushed by the meteor, and some probably also were killed in the time after by falling rock, ash, etc. I am just saying the major cause of their extinction is probably not the meteor, as everyone thinks.

If you need proof of this I direct you to any basic geology book, or if you're lazy I am sure something will turn up on google.

Wow I was completely joking, and trying to lighten the mood. Chalk that experience up to failure.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 06:29 PM
I guess I'm a little dense then ... the fact that the first three categories were lumped together made it somewhat vague.

But ...

-who says what a reputable science journal versus non reputable
-there's a lot of noise out there about the flawed Kyoto logic, none of these guys have been published? take the guys in that U of C video that were asked to help the UN report but then were skipped over because of their differing views (allegedly skipped over). do "reputable" science journals pick and choose by their own belief systems?

You're not dense, you're just lucky enough not to have wasted enough time reading articles like that which have little use outside winning arguments on internet chat boards.

As for "reputable journals", the only criteria the study used was that the articles had to have been published in "peer reviewed journals" -- journals where any article has to pass inspection by a panel of experts in the field before it is published. Here's an example of a peer reviewed journal, and the type of people who sit on the editorial boards.

Now before someone starts jumping up and down about how this will just ensure that nothing contradictory ever gets published, I can assure you that contradictory stuff get's published all the time. The peer review process is there to ensure that any claims made are backed up properly by data, that the proper data analysis was done and done correctly etc. It's a very thorough process where even noncontroversial papers almost always need revising and need to be submitted multiple times before being published.

[REDVAN]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 4 2005, 01:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 4 2005, 01:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-REDVAN@May 3 2005, 10:54 PM
Hey Captain, of course some were crushed by the meteor, and some probably also were killed in the time after by falling rock, ash, etc. I am just saying the major cause of their extinction is probably not the meteor, as everyone thinks.

If you need proof of this I direct you to any basic geology book, or if you're lazy I am sure something will turn up on google.

Wow I was completely joking, and trying to lighten the mood. Chalk that experience up to failure. [/b][/quote]
No no, my bad. Should not have replied so seriously. This is the off-topic forum after all!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Bingo+May 3 2005, 12:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ May 3 2005, 12:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>10 to 1?

That's somewhat of a stab isn't it? From what I understand the majority may actually be against the global warming theory as it stands though I've seen sources claiming both sides have the numbers.

Bottom line ... it isn't ten to one.[/b]

If it aint 10 to 1, its pretty close. I'm interested to where you've seen so many sources saying that global warming isn't happening. There are many sources that say global warming is hard to understand and aren't sure what to do about it, but not too many that say it aint happening. If there were so many credible sources against global warming theory, the skeptics wouldn't have to repeatedly quote Michael Crichton.

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 12:21 PM
Then you move on to lump those that have some issues with the current science as being conservative, and therefore not objective, and therefore selfish?
Man everything in that paragraph is loaded.

I would say that most people who choose to dismiss global warming are selfish. Absolutely!
These are people who look at the issue from a financial perspective before a humanitarian perspective. People who view issues in that way are fiscaly conservative. (not specificly members of conservative parties)

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 12:21 PM
Don't you think that some liberal politicians and voters may have a somewhat subjective view on the environment as well

Sure they could, but what do these people stand to gain by believing in global warming. Not finances.

Do you think its a coincidence that almost all people who dismiss global warming, are people who are very concerned with their finances?
The fact is that any programs to clean up our planet, will cost money, and the people who oppose these programs tend to be more financially conservative .
You can call my statement loaded, but it's true.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@May 3 2005, 12:21 PM
Like I said earlier ... I'm not about to claim I know the answer, since I honestly don't (though I doubt you do either). However, shouldn't large nations that plan on spending billions of tax dollars chase down the facts and be sure of these things before taking sides and then stubbornly staying there regardless of new studies that come out?[/quote]
There you go and make the issue about money.
And these large nations are doing there research. What sides are there to choose from? The one that says the environment is getting screwed and the one that says who cares. That choice is a no brainer.
How long do they need to wait until they try and fix the environment?
Will you believe it only when the earth is uninhabitable?

There may be flaws with Kyoto, and debate about it's use are warented, but to debate whether or not there is even a problem holds little merit.

[Bingo]

People that don't agree with current global warming theories are selfish? That is a just plain silly observation. I agree there are those that have an interest in not reducing green house emissions, but there are also sceintists that have just found errors in the data and are bringing them forward.

To lump them into a subjective group of selfish people is no more responsible than me claiming that every scientist and backer of current global warming science is bought and paid for by left leaning governments.

Neither are true. Both are silly.

Do you think its a coincidence that almost all people who dismiss global warming, are people who are very concerned with their finances?
The fact is that any programs to clean up our planet, will cost money, and the people who oppose these programs tend to be more financially conservative .
You can call my statement loaded, but it's true.

That is a huge reach, huge. You can't possibly know that. For every money grubbing conservative business man who wants to pollute there just may be two honest science men that see issues with the train wreck that is Kyoto for SCIENTIFIC reasons.

Will you believe it only when the earth is uninhabitable?

Me?

I never said I'm against the theory at all ... I'm against not fleshing out dissenting views and just going ahead and spending tax dollars when the very study that is the basis for Kyoto has been exposed as in error.

That's silly.

Do you buy a house without looking at a few, getting the foundation looked at? Asking about previous owners? Or just look it up on the net and wire them full payment using Paypal?

[CaptainCrunch]

In my mind, Kyoto won't do much to save the environment unless it also enforces the developing nations like India and China for example that have no Environmental protection at all.

All industrialized nations have to see a value in it and sign onto it. Kyoto is useless if the U.S. isn't there, or the Russians aren't there for example.

I'm fine with the theory that humanity is responsible for a lot of the ecological damage on the planet, but the issue is how much of the damage is cause by man, and how much is caused by the life cycle of the planet? Thats where the debate lies.

And to call people that aren't willing to get on board Kyoto as greedy is kinda silly, just like writing off UofC research because we're sitting in the middle of the Oil belt, that would be like me writing off the converse research because they have tree's in thier backyard.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 4 2005, 03:46 PM
just like writing off UofC research because we're sitting in the middle of the Oil belt

Well if that was somewhat directed at me I'll respond.

I wasn't "writing off" the report so much as stating that I'm more skeptical of it because of where it was produced. A pro-pollution report coming out of the city that would arguably benefit the most from it. That makes me go hmmmm, and should make everyone wonder IMO. Plenty of money available in this city for scientists who can make a solid case that pollution isn't harming anything.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 4 2005, 10:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 4 2005, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 4 2005, 03:46 PM
just like writing off UofC research because we're sitting in the middle of the Oil belt

Well if that was somewhat directed at me I'll respond.

I wasn't "writing off" the report so much as stating that I'm more skeptical of it because of where it was produced. A pro-pollution report coming out of the city that would arguably benefit the most from it. That makes me go hmmmm, and should make everyone wonder IMO. Plenty of money available in this city for scientists who can make a solid case that pollution isn't harming anything. [/b][/quote]
I can appreciate you being sceptical, however there is one point in that first story that tells me "big money" is not behind this study.

Fine, but why not buy air time (on TV to air this report)?

"We haven't the money," says Dr. Leahey, bluntly.

IF big corporations were footing the bill to buy this study, then the cost of publicity would have not been an issue.... would it?

[Agamemnon]

In my mind, Kyoto won't do much to save the environment unless it also enforces the developing nations like India and China for example that have no Environmental protection at all.

All industrialized nations have to see a value in it and sign onto it. Kyoto is useless if the U.S. isn't there, or the Russians aren't there for example.

Exactly. Why aren't people on the Russian/Chinese/India/US' case about this? These states refuse to ratify the attempt to alleviate Global Warming, and apparently get off scot-free for their refusal. Instead, the spotlight gets shined on the Protocol, because its too painful economically to implement, and therefore... not worth it.

I'm fine with the theory that humanity is responsible for a lot of the ecological damage on the planet, but the issue is how much of the damage is cause by man, and how much is caused by the life cycle of the planet? Thats where the debate lies.

As far as I can tell, the debate currently isn't over whether or not humanity is damaging the earth, its whether or not to do anything about it. Some people want to do something about it, now, and others don't.

And to call people that aren't willing to get on board Kyoto as greedy is kinda silly, just like writing off UofC research because we're sitting in the middle of the Oil belt, that would be like me writing off the converse research because they have tree's in thier backyard.

You might think its wrong, but I'm not sure why you'd think its silly. I haven't heard too many other valid reasons to not ratify Kyoto other than the expected cost associated. The Conservative Party seems to be basing most of their argument against Kyoto because of the cost, not because of the science. Naturally the science is attacked, but as previous posters stated, this could very likely be because of the cost.

The only other possible argument is that the science behind Kyoto is truly faulty, and that a global conspiracy of funding-grubbing scientists have joined forces to dupe the earth's government's into throwing money down the black hole called 'science'.

The only issue I have w/ the anti-Kyoto movement is that it seems to suffer from a real lack of alternatives. Its one thing to say 'no, that won't work', but if one doesn't propose another solution, where does that leave us?

As far as I'm concerned, Kyoto may be not be 100% perfect, but I've yet to see _any_ other protocol/treaty/agreement come even _close_ to Kyoto. Why doesn't the anti-Kyoto crowd find a new, better solution, and push it? That's what I question.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm fine with your logic. But my gut feeling is that a global environmental bill won't work if the worst polluters aren't going to join in. I'm not really thinking its a positive thing if this becomes a wealth transfer method to India, or China if they're not going to set an environmental policy.

And why should Canada pay an economical price when other countries aren't, considering we have one of the most progressive environmental policies on the planet.

If you want a alternative you really need to go the opposite way and place severe trade restrictions on countries that have an envirnomental issues. In other words, clean up your act, then you can do business globally. No credit or cash transfers.

But I am a hardliner. I'm all for evicting people if they leave a mess in thier apartment, so globally, it would be, I'm sorry Russia you've made a mess of your country, you have 30 days to get out, oh and we need to charge you for cleaning, and you won't get a damage deposit back. Then we can settle them in the arctic circle.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 4 2005, 09:31 AM
A pro-pollution report coming out of the city that would arguably benefit the most from it.

I think you kind of proved one of my points about the look of opposing Kyoto and why some scientists might be less than enthusiastic to come out against it.

Pro pollution report?

Did you honestly get from that video that they are pro pollution? That's a very loaded use of words to describe the fact that they think the Kyoto science might be in error.

So if you oppose a wrong hypothesis on global warming you are cut and dried a pro pollution scientist?

Yikes.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Bad choice of words I guess. No, I don't really believe they are pro-pollution but it's a heck of a lot shorter to type than the stance the video took. Obviously I could have been a lot more clear, accurate and precise in describing their viewpoint. I apologize. It was not meant to mislead.

It's kinda like someone choosing to say "nobody" when in fact they meant "not very many people on this messageboard".

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 4 2005, 03:04 PM
It's kinda like someone choosing to say "nobody" when in fact they meant "not very many people on this messageboard".

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 4 2005, 02:04 PM
It's kinda like someone choosing to say "nobody" when in fact they meant "not very many people on this messageboard".

You honestly think they're similar?

One is missing an elaboration, the other is insinuating that a group of people that think differently than you are in fact pro Earth destruction.

One an exageration, the other an attempt to paint an entire group. I made the mistake of clarity, you on the other hand made a judgement.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bingo+May 4 2005, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ May 4 2005, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 4 2005, 02:04 PM
It's kinda like someone choosing to say "nobody" when in fact they meant "not very many people on this messageboard".

You honestly think they're similar?

One is missing an elaboration, the other is insinuating that a group of people that think differently than you are in fact pro Earth destruction.

One an exageration, the other an attempt to paint an entire group. I made the mistake of clarity, you on the other hand made a judgement. [/b][/quote]
I said "kinda like" not extremely similar

Anyways, my bad. Pro-pollution was obviously a poor phrasing on my part.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 4 2005, 03:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 4 2005, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You honestly think they're similar?

One is missing an elaboration, the other is insinuating that a group of people that think differently than you are in fact pro Earth destruction.

One an exageration, the other an attempt to paint an entire group. I made the mistake of clarity, you on the other hand made a judgement.

I said "kinda like" not extremely similar

Anyways, my bad. Pro-pollution was obviously a poor phrasing on my part. [/b][/quote]
Yeah "pro-pollution" wasn't great a great label. I think Bingo coined a better one with his "Pro-Earth Destruction".

:boh:

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 4 2005, 02:50 PM

I said "kinda like" not extremely similar

Anyways, my bad. Pro-pollution was obviously a poor phrasing on my part.

No worries ... I always respect a guy for admitting a slip up.

Similarly, I never meant to give the idea that nobody on earth had ever heard of Semin. Just that he wasn't being pined for on our site before the pick was being made (i.e. there wasn't pro sight into wanting to pick him).

The hind sight draft critics just drive me nuts.