Toronto Sun looks at flawed Kyoto science

[Bingo]

including allegations of a program that specifically sought out hockey stick shaped data, amongst other issues....

Splitered Hockey Stick

[Flames89]

So how did he fake the polar icecaps melting??

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 11 2005, 12:33 PM
So how did he fake the polar icecaps melting??

I think with a statement like that you're falling into the trap that many journalists have found themselves.

Why does questioning the Kyoto science equate to questioning global warming or the need to be more careful custodians of Earth's environment?

The hockey stick, as a theory can be wrong on it's own without a complete disregard to man's affect on the planet, can't it?

Plus ... I've seen a few studies that have suggested polar ice cap melting to be cyclical and not the issue some have made it out to be. Is that right? Man I don't know, I'm a gas trader, not a scientist, but who's to say it's not?

[Flames89]

My impression from the article (and I could very likely be wrong, as my retention seems to be slipping in my ripe age of 28) is that the hockey-stick theory is showing that global warming is increasing at an alarming pace - and that this scientist's finding's were never directly verified therfore there is no global warming, therfore Kyoto is a mistake. However, the journalist fails to quote any other study that supports global warming, and I would bet that there are other studies performed that support the same theory.

Yes, I realize there is no conclusive evidence and there will always be scientists willing to take some cash to produce a report with some numbers arranged in a different way thereby telling a different story - thereby confusing the issue.

In regards to this article, I think the journalist is using the question of one study's evidence to further his opinion on Kyoto as a whole (and for Canada).

My opinion based on questionable reasoning from flawed logic? Global warming is real and harmful, Kyoto is flawed and unreasonable however the underlying objective is a necessary issue.


Edited once for spelling & grammer. Edited twice to write this statement

[Looger]

i see two extremely separate issues here.

being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment, when as far as i'm concerned having a credit system wherin rich countries can buy 'pollution credit' from poor countries really defeats the whole purpose.

maybe it's just me but the kyoto accord seems like a great way to spend billions on administrative and wallpaper solutions, whilst still screwing the environment.

kinda like bc!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 11 2005, 10:00 PM
My impression from the article (and I could very likely be wrong, as my retention seems to be slipping in my ripe age of 28) is that the hockey-stick theory is showing that global warming is increasing at an alarming pace - and that this scientist's finding's were never directly verified therfore there is no global warming, therfore Kyoto is a mistake.

That's what I got out of the article.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Looger@May 11 2005, 10:35 PM
being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do.

[Mr. Ski]

I don't usually get into the political or environmental discussions here, but what the hey...

Whether we're in a real up-tick in climate change or simply riding part of a regular cycle that's been going on for millions of years, buying 'credits' so that you can keep adding to the 'problem' does nothing to address it.

I see Kyoto as a flawed global 'monetary policy' wrapped in feel-good 'environmental policy wrapping paper'.

If the world really needs to cut down on CO2, great, lets do that... But setting targets you can only meet by sending a billion dollar cheque from the Canadian taxpayers to God-Knows-Where-Country that has credits to sell so that some Tin-Pot Dictator can buy a new fleet of Mercedies' is really, really, dumb.

Spend that money at home cleaning up our rivers, harbors, lakes, abandoned lands, real polutants in the air, and on solutions that actually address a contribution to 'global warming'. :angry:

[Looger]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@May 11 2005, 10:35 PM
being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do. [/b][/quote]
fair enough.

have goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

here's the kicker:

NON_TRANSFERRABLE CREDIT!

without this, it's as broken as the last cba.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Looger+May 11 2005, 11:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ May 11 2005, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do.

fair enough.

have goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

here's the kicker:

NON_TRANSFERRABLE CREDIT!

without this, it's as broken as the last cba. [/b][/quote]
Sounds good. Stamp it with a cool name, get all the anti-Kyoto folks on board, and maybe I'll come along.

Until that day... I'll be on the side of Kyoto, because, in the end, I believe it will do more good than damage. I feel like we are definitely destroying this planet, and the lack of alternative solutions is apalling. Until they exist in a comprehensive format, there's no other Protocol for me to support.

[Resolute 14]

Whether Kyoto will do more good than damage depends on whether you believe that rich nations have a responsibility to pay off "poor" nations - nations such as Russia, China and India - for their pollution.

Quite honestly, believing Kyoto will help the environment is akin to jumping off a building and believing God will catch you and you will land unharmed.

Certantly in the best case, Canada would be reducing greenhouse gasses, however rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India will be pumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere than Canada is reducing. How does that help?

For the most part, the anti-Kyoto crowd is fine with the government spending money on reducing our emissions. While a little contrived, the one-tonne challenge is a good idea. Go for it. Offer tax credits to companies that reduce their pollutants? Great! Offer credits to individuals who make their homes more efficient? Wonderful!

Hell, I have a suggestion for the Feds: If you are going to spend billions of dollars on reducing emissions, give that money to Canada's major cities for the express purpose of expanding their LRT and rapid transit systems. Get people on the busses and trains, and get cars off the road.

Where Kyoto fails is where it demands that rich nations artificially prop up the economies of poor nations. That has nothing to do with the environment, that is wealth redistribution.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 11 2005, 05:38 PM
Whether Kyoto will do more good than damage depends on whether you believe that rich nations have a responsibility to pay off "poor" nations - nations such as Russia, China and India - for their pollution.

Quite honestly, believing Kyoto will help the environment is akin to jumping off a building and believing God will catch you and you will land unharmed.

Certantly in the best case, Canada would be reducing greenhouse gasses, however rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India will be pumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere than Canada is reducing. How does that help?

For the most part, the anti-Kyoto crowd is fine with the government spending money on reducing our emissions. While a little contrived, the one-tonne challenge is a good idea. Go for it. Offer tax credits to companies that reduce their pollutants? Great! Offer credits to individuals who make their homes more efficient? Wonderful!

Hell, I have a suggestion for the Feds: If you are going to spend billions of dollars on reducing emissions, give that money to Canada's major cities for the express purpose of expanding their LRT and rapid transit systems. Get people on the busses and trains, and get cars off the road.

Where Kyoto fails is where it demands that rich nations artificially prop up the economies of poor nations. That has nothing to do with the environment, that is wealth redistribution.

Well said.

The developed world got rich by using its resources, and now that we have the luxury of wealth and hindsight we're pretty keen on telling others that they shouldn't do the exact same thing.

Not surprisingly, they're pretty keen on telling us to blow it out our ear.

If we really want to make a difference we should start in our own houses, and move up from there. There is no need for Canada to play martyr for the cause.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 11 2005, 06:38 PM

Hell, I have a suggestion for the Feds: If you are going to spend billions of dollars on reducing emissions, give that money to Canada's major cities for the express purpose of expanding their LRT and rapid transit systems. Get people on the busses and trains, and get cars off the road.

That's a good idea. Spending billions to cut pollution is a lot better than spending billions for the right to keep on going.

I am vaguely for the Kyoto Protocol because at least it's a start but at the same time I'm against it because it doesn't seem to do anything to actually slow down consumption. There are some scenarios (granted, they are very simplistic) under which consumption might increase under this agreement.

Like say a widget factory in Canada is busily building widgets and following the local emissions rules to do so, but if the widget business becomes too expensive under Kyoto might they not move the widget factory to some other place not covered by the treaty at all and with lax enviro-rules (let's call it PollUtopia) and do even more harm? I suppose that can and does happen now, but maybe the agreement would hasten it? I really don't know and I might be easily swayed off this opinion but it seems reasonable that this kind of thing might happen.

Or to put a really harsh spin on it... Maybe the whole environment is going to crash no matter what we Canadians do so do we wanna be rich when it happens or poor when it happens? I'd prefer rich. There could be some amount of guilt associated with that approach though.

Book Report! Not so long ago I read a novel called "A Friend of the Earth" by TC Boyle. He is apparently a well respected author but I gotta say that this book sucked and I recommend not reading it. The premise is quite relevant to this discussion but the book stinks. Don't read it.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@May 11 2005, 10:35 PM
being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do. [/b][/quote]
What a very closed minded statement!

If a guy needs his leg amputated due to gangrene and a person offers up the solution of using a doublebarrelled shotgun to perform the operation. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a bad idea and everyone should try and come up with a different idea...even if one is not readily available at the time.

The money that will be thrown away on Kyoto can be put into R&D while we think of a better idea. With maglev technology and such we can already travel faster and cleaner. What we need is to make it economically viable.

[Flames89]

Originally posted by HOZ@May 12 2005, 11:03 AM
What a very closed minded statement!

If a guy needs his leg amputated due to gangrene and a person offers up the solution of using a doublebarrelled shotgun to perform the operation. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a bad idea and everyone should try and come up with a different idea...even if one is not readily available at the time.

The money that will be thrown away on Kyoto can be put into R&D while we think of a better idea. With maglev technology and such we can already travel faster and cleaner. What we need is to make it economically viable.

Yes, making corporations reduce emissions is akin to blowing one's leg off with a shotgun.

Is it possibly not the most efficient usage of capital? Yes. But c'mon, you can come up with a better metaphor than that...

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by HOZ+May 12 2005, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ May 12 2005, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do.

What a very closed minded statement!

If a guy needs his leg amputated due to gangrene and a person offers up the solution of using a doublebarrelled shotgun to perform the operation. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a bad idea and everyone should try and come up with a different idea...even if one is not readily available at the time.

The money that will be thrown away on Kyoto can be put into R&D while we think of a better idea. With maglev technology and such we can already travel faster and cleaner. What we need is to make it economically viable.[/b][/quote]
I hear you.

A guy has a gangrenous leg, and I'm suggesting a double-barrelled shotgun. Fair enough, I'll accept that analogy. It should be noted that there are no saws, amputation devices, or even other guns around. There's the one shotgun, and the one leg. That's it.

Would it be messy? Sure. It would also save the patient's life. Letting the leg rot and rot until the guy dies, while claiming to be 'looking for other solutions' is bogus.

Where's your solution? What do you have that's better than my 'double-barrelled shotgun'? I think you've got one dead man, of gangrene, because you can't stomach the only current, available option.

Instead of shouting at me to put down the gun, why don't you go get a saw? Maybe you're too close-minded...

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@May 11 2005, 10:35 PM
being against kyoto seems to make people think you're anti-environment

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think the biggest issue pro-Kyoto advocates would point out is that the anti-Kyoto crowd doesn't seem to have a better solution. Doing nothing is generally frowned upon as a 'solution' to human impact on the planet.

If the anti-Kyoto crowd wants to defeat Kyoto AND not look like environment-bashing cash-grubbers, they need to come up with their own comprehensive solution. Are anti-Kyoto people honestly surprised that they're condemned as anti-environment? They're great at pointing out the problems, but I don't see many solutions.

Don't we all love the person who's great at pointing out the problem, but doesn't put forward their own idea? I know I do. [/b][/quote]
I actually take offence to that. You haven't any right to suggest that a person that questions Kyoto may actually be anti-environment.

I agree that a bad plan should be replaced by a good plan whenever possible, but that isn't to say that a bad plan should be just followed until a good plan comes along.

Why not take it easy have another look and come up with a more reasonable time frame in order to come to a consensus?

To just go ahead, in fact go ahead without even answering questions about the possibility that the data basis for the accord could be flawed or worse, rigged, is close minded and foolish.

If there is a better plan out there, but the world is knee deep in a foolish one, every one loses.

I think for starters I'd suggest a corporate tax cut plan tailored by industry in Canada that rewards environmental leaders with greater tax breaks than those that fall behind.

You'd kill two very important birds with one stone.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 12 2005, 04:03 PM
I actually take offence to that. You haven't any right to suggest that a person that questions Kyoto may actually be anti-environment.

I agree that a bad plan should be replaced by a good plan whenever possible, but that isn't to say that a bad plan should be just followed until a good plan comes along.

Why not take it easy have another look and come up with a more reasonable time frame in order to come to a consensus?

To just go ahead, in fact go ahead without even answering questions about the possibility that the data basis for the accord could be flawed or worse, rigged, is close minded and foolish.

If there is a better plan out there, but the world is knee deep in a foolish one, every one loses.

I think for starters I'd suggest a corporate tax cut plan tailored by industry in Canada that rewards environmental leaders with greater tax breaks than those that fall behind.

You'd kill two very important birds with one stone.

You take offence to that? I thought I was being fairly polite. Do you offend easily?

1. Kyoto has not been 'proved' to be a 'bad plan'. Many believe it is a good plan, and many don't. It may be sunk in your eyes, but your word on the issue is hardly final.
2. There is no comprehensive alternative.
3. Those who should be pushing an alternative the most, the anti-Kyoto crowd, haven't found one, and don't really seem to be looking.
4. I fail to see how Kyoto could make this planet a worse place to live. Expensive? Sure. Innefficent? Maybe. But, like the poor shotgun analogy above, unless there's another gun, saw, or other device (solution) around, I don't see the point in delaying.

If Kyoto is truly, truly the absolute wrong way to go, then why hasn't consensus been reached? Why is there still debate about it? I'm not convinced that it is a ruinous plan, and millions of others agree.

Come up with a better plan, compare the two, and if yours is better, I'll be first in line. If its not, I'll stick with Kyoto. Seems fair to me.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 12 2005, 10:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 12 2005, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@May 12 2005, 04:03 PM
I actually take offence to that. You haven't any right to suggest that a person that questions Kyoto may actually be anti-environment.

I agree that a bad plan should be replaced by a good plan whenever possible, but that isn't to say that a bad plan should be just followed until a good plan comes along.

Why not take it easy have another look and come up with a more reasonable time frame in order to come to a consensus?

To just go ahead, in fact go ahead without even answering questions about the possibility that the data basis for the accord could be flawed or worse, rigged, is close minded and foolish.

If there is a better plan out there, but the world is knee deep in a foolish one, every one loses.

I think for starters I'd suggest a corporate tax cut plan tailored by industry in Canada that rewards environmental leaders with greater tax breaks than those that fall behind.

You'd kill two very important birds with one stone.

You take offence to that? I thought I was being fairly polite. Do you offend easily?

1. Kyoto has not been 'proved' to be a 'bad plan'. Many believe it is a good plan, and many don't. It may be sunk in your eyes, but your word on the issue is hardly final.
2. There is no comprehensive alternative.
3. Those who should be pushing an alternative the most, the anti-Kyoto crowd, haven't found one, and don't really seem to be looking.
4. I fail to see how Kyoto could make this planet a worse place to live. Expensive? Sure. Innefficent? Maybe. But, like the poor shotgun analogy above, unless there's another gun, saw, or other device (solution) around, I don't see the point in delaying.

If Kyoto is truly, truly the absolute wrong way to go, then why hasn't consensus been reached? Why is there still debate about it? I'm not convinced that it is a ruinous plan, and millions of others agree.

Come up with a better plan, compare the two, and if yours is better, I'll be first in line. If its not, I'll stick with Kyoto. Seems fair to me. [/b][/quote]
I'm thinking you didn't actually read my post.

Nowhere do I say that Kyoto is flawed, I think you'll find the word "may" littered throughout. If it IS flawed then you should halt the train right now. If it MAY be flawed then I think some pause would be smart to work out the issues. That is all I said, the rest was added by you.

You admitted yourself that there are two schools on this, are you comfortable spending that much Canadian tax payer cash on something that MIGHT be the way to go?

I know I'm not.

And I gave an alternative. Go to the heart of business itself. The bottom line. Big splashy federal pronouncements of corporate tax relief for the stars in industries with green house gas issues. Won't take long before CEOs will start pounding on their underlings to improve their standing on these lists to a) get the tax cut, and b) look better in the media.

Leaving things as they are without even a discussion at the federal level is unacceptable.

And yes ... I do find it offensive to suggest someone that wants a little more investigation is in favour of pollution. That's plain silly. I saw yesterday that you aren't in favour of capital punishment (neither am I), but I'm not about to say that means you are pro criminal, or anti victim.

But then ... where there's smoke there's likely fire.

[Agamemnon]

I'm thinking you didn't actually read my post.

Well, its not like I saw your name, and posted an assumptive response. My post was a reaction to yours, that's why I quoted it.

Nowhere do I say that Kyoto is flawed, I think you'll find the word "may" littered throughout. If it IS flawed then you should halt the train right now. If it MAY be flawed then I think some pause would be smart to work out the issues. That is all I said, the rest was added by you.

So you don't think Kyoto is flawed? Or you don't know? I'd like to know what 'flawed' means. Expensive? Wrong? Right-but-tomorrow-not-today? If the science is explicitly wrong (as apparently pointed out by the academic bastion the Toronto Sun), then lets work on another solution.

I'm just really, really tired of people pointing out the things that are wrong with Kyoto. Why not spend that time and energy developing an alternative, instead of simply saying 'there must be one, i'm sure there is'. Find it. Sell it. I'm ready and waiting to buy it. Right now, there's only one solution for sale... I think its a good idea to go for it. I'd rather make a colossal blunder in an effort to help the situation, than a colossal blunder because I did nothing to stop it.

I guess I think its better to do something than nothing. No other somethings have presented themselves at the international stage. No other solution or strategy, currently, matches the scope of Kyoto. Why not? If Kyoto is so flawed, and so many scientists are aware of it, then why aren't they pushing the 'right' way to go?

And I gave an alternative. Go to the heart of business itself. The bottom line. Big splashy federal pronouncements of corporate tax relief for the stars in industries with green house gas issues. Won't take long before CEOs will start pounding on their underlings to improve their standing on these lists to a) get the tax cut, and b) look better in the media.

Brilliant. You run for PM, and I'll vote for you. Have you been reading Green policy lately? I don't think you and I are enough. Maybe you should get it ratified by half the world first, and then I'll consider it a viable 'alternative'. It's easy enough to say 'sure, I've got a solution, cut pollution'. I think everyone knows what needs to be done (more or less), its how to go about doing it on a global scale, rather than local. If Calgary cuts emissions by 50%, that's a tiny drop in a massive bucket. Localized solutions sound great, but don't work if most locales don't develop/implement a coherent policy.

Leaving things as they are without even a discussion at the federal level is unacceptable.

But its not like Kyoto hasn't been discussed period. Hell, every political Party in Canada was/is talking about it. How is this not 'even a discussion'? I'm sure every single MP is well-aware of what Kyoto means to them and their parties. The Conservatives sure seem to be, and have no problem letting Canada know about it. Would debat in the House honestly do anything? Would some wild new figures and stats come out of it? Doubtful.

But then ... where there's smoke there's likely fire.

A question was posed earlier as to why anti-Kyoto people 'looke like' anti-environment people. I said it was because they lacked an alternative, and look like a bunch of 'can't do's' instead of 'can do's'. That's the image problem for the anti-Kyoto crowd, as I see it. Whether or not you take offence to my theory is up to you I guess, but I certainly don't imply any.