Kyoto Debunked

[EvilYeti]

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs?

I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.


In a comparitive analysis of several possible culprits for global warming, including solar variability, David Thompson found the strongest correllation between CO2 emissions and the warming patterns of the last 150 years. Our emissions are drowning out the other effects, not the other way around. Cite:

Thompson, D. J., 1995. The seasons, global temperature, and precession, Science, 268, 59-68.

Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question.

The whole problem is the atmosphere "absorbing" CO2. Getting it out is the harder part, a molecule of CO2 will stay in the atmosphere an estimtated 200 years.

 

[Malachi151]

National Post article



You might want to go here for links to exchanged emails with Mann.
Study site
Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?

Edit spelling.

Here is a clue. Major companies are paying billions of dollars to push this issue and attack these policies. This is the same as every right-wing issue, the companies pay and they take over the media. Its the same with right-wing radio, right-wing talk shows, opposition to the estate tax, etc, etc. The left simply ooes not have the money to or any motivation other than trying to "do good" to voice its agenda. The oil and coal companies will pay billions on the other hand to dug up every half scientist possible and pay them big bucks to oppose the issue.

 

[EvilYeti]

I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists. The former is a mining executive and oil industry consultant and the latter is an economist. I seriously question whether they have the background to formulate a serious analyses of Mann's work. They might be correct of course, but I would expect at the very least for their work to be reviewed and published in a similar manner before considering their methods.

Logically, the best course of action would be publish in Nature, as thats were Mann's original work was presented. Let other scientists review their work and if they find it valid, I'll accept that Mann's research was flawed.

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.

I've been unable to determine who, if anyone, reviewed the M&M "debunking". Looking at their abstracts page I notice my pal Theodor Landscheidt, astrologer extraordinaire, has published in this "journal". That's more than enough evidence for me to toss the whole thing in the rubbish bin.

If M&M think they have something, they should go ahead and submit their paper to Nature and let it face the same level of scrutiny Mann's work did. I suspect they know it will be rejected, so they would rather publish in a crank journal and hope the journalistic world doesn't know any better. Unfortunately, this strategy appears to be working.

(Edited to add)

Mann has responded:

In short, here's what happened: M&M asked an associate of Mann to supply them with the Mann et. al. proxy data in an Excel spreadsheet, even though the raw data is available here. An error was made in preparing this Excel file, in which the early series were successively overprinted by later and later series, and this is the data M&M used. Mann says:
"...the authors results are entirely spurious. The mistake made insures that the estimates, in particular prior to 1600-1700, are meaningless."
This leads, Mann says, to "the use of series that are artificial combinations of early [e.g. 15th-16th century] and late [e.g. 19th-20th] information accidentally spliced together" with "no relation" to the proxy data used by Mann et. al. in their 1998 (and subsequent) work.

We can safely file the "Kyoto debunking" as itself debunked.

 

[a_unique_person]

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?

I have know plenty of organisations trying to push a political line that make the cost whatever they want it to be. The economists have a political agenda. The scientists get paid whatever they get paid, if there is GW or not. They still have a job to do.

You also have not estimated the cost of GW being as high as the possible forcasts predict.

 

[a_unique_person]

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.

The article refers to it as a "prestigous" journal.

 

[Ed]

I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

Seems to me that anything that warms things up would be good for you folks. Maybe your farmers wouldn't have to dynamite the permafrost every spring so they can plant a handful of beans. Maybe the Tundra Mammoths(tm) will go farther north and leave Copenhagen alone.

I'd think on it, if I were you.

 

[BobK]

I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists. The former is a mining executive and oil industry consultant and the latter is an economist. I seriously question whether they have the background to formulate a serious analyses of Mann's work. They might be correct of course, but I would expect at the very least for their work to be reviewed and published in a similar manner before considering their methods.

That's the reason they put an audit trail of their study on line, so others could verify their conclusions.

Logically, the best course of action would be publish in Nature, as thats were Mann's original work was presented. Let other scientists review their work and if they find it valid, I'll accept that Mann's research was flawed.

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.

They address this question about 2/3 of the way down the linked study page where they answer some anticipated questions. Try reading a little further. They answer several such questions.

I've been unable to determine who, if anyone, reviewed the M&M "debunking". Looking at their abstracts page I notice my pal Theodor Landscheidt, astrologer extraordinaire, has published in this "journal". That's more than enough evidence for me to toss the whole thing in the rubbish bin.

LOL Seems a bit closed minded to me.

If M&M think they have something, they should go ahead and submit their paper to Nature and let it face the same level of scrutiny Mann's work did. I suspect they know it will be rejected, so they would rather publish in a crank journal and hope the journalistic world doesn't know any better. Unfortunately, this strategy appears to be working.

Frankly, I know nothing of the journal, but I tend to think it's probably not as cranky as you try to make out.

I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

 

[EvilYeti]

I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

There is no need for it to be rebutted, as it hasn't even been REVIEWED yet! It's just been published in some crap journal that as far as I can tell is nothing more than thinly-veiled oil industry propaganda.

Why don't you withold judgement until M&M's work is reviewed and published in a proper manner, rather than uncritically accepting their claims?

 

[BobK]

Yeti,

I'm not going to get in a flaming match with you. You're the king of flamers.

Just maybe you could point out where I said I accept their study uncritically.

edit to add...

Otherwise don't go putting words in my mouth.

 

[Checkmite]

100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons.

In not so sure about this. Even taking into account population expansion and all that, 100 years ago the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and very significant amounts of coal and oil smoke were belched into the atmosphere constantly; on land and at sea. I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.

 

[EvilYeti]

Just maybe you could point out where I said I accept their study uncritically.

Are you saying you don't accept their study?

If so, on what basis do you make the following claim?

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Even the Russians don't like the Kyoto Treaty:

Just say nyet

Edited to add:

Russia was apparently banking on a tidy profit by selling "carbon dioxide credits" — illusory tons of hot air not emitted during a resulting economic downturn.

LMAO!

 

[EvilYeti]

I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.

The pollution controls are only in place to keep some specific chemicals and heavy metals out of the air and water. Lead for example. They do nothing for carbon dioxide emissions, they are a necessary byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels.

Here's a graph of the increase in CO2 emissions over the last thousand years, courtesy of ice core samples taken from Antartica. I'll leave it up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

 

[aerocontrols]

I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

Didn't they spell all this out on their webpage?

One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists.

Statistical analysis is statistical analysis. If I take raw data file A and perform procedure B upon it to get result C, I either do it correctly or not. One need not be a climatologist or even a scientist to repeat another's mathematical results, or find errors in them.

(Edited to add)

Mann has responded:

We can safely file the "Kyoto debunking" as itself debunked.

I don't think so.

MattJ

 

[BobK]

Yeti said
Are you saying you don't accept their study?

If so, on what basis do you make the following claim?

BobK said
quote:

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.

Maybe english isn't your native language. When I say "something appears to not be kosher", it doesn't mean it might not be. It simply means it needs further investigation.

Therefore, when you say I accept something uncritically, you are in error.

Edit to add...
Not only that but I said in my post 20 min. prior to your post accusing me of accepting it uncritically...

I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

Are you really that obtuse or just like baiting people?

 

[EvilYeti]

Maybe english isn't your native language. When I say "something appears to not be kosher", it doesn't mean it might not be. It simply means it needs further investigation.

Based on what information? Did you think Mann's study needed further investigation a week ago? Why didn't you post then?

Therefore, when you say I accept something uncritically, you are in error.

I would say M&M's claims need further investigation first, considering they haven't been reviewed yet.

Are you really that obtuse or just like baiting people?

I'm enjoy poking fun at the expense of the ignorant.

 

[Malachi151]

I've read quite a bit about this issue adn seen a few programs on it as well. As far as I'm concerned teh debunking of GW has itself been debunked.

The majority of the "scientistws" have have been reported to be opposed to the GW theory are not even climatologists or even scientists in some cases, and of those many were ot even aware that their names were being used as opponents to GW, and in fact some have said when interviewed that they are in fact proponents of GW theory that theri names are being incorrectly used.

This all comes down to lies and who you believe.

I also saw an interview with one of the heads of the major anti-GW organizations. The guy is basically an creation scientist and believes that everything is part of God's plan. He said that every time you get in your car and burn fuel you are doing God's work, seriously.

I can't remember the names of these people or the programs I saw them interviewed on as this is not a major issue for me, but I've seen enough to know that the debunking of GW is itself bunk.

I've also seen a lot about how major energy companies are paying for the research and destroying evidence that their researchers find that does not fit their agenda, etc.

If you are going to believe oil companies about GW then you have your head up your.... If you don't think that energy companies are are spending billions of dollars to build a propaganda campaign against GW then you have your head up your....

 

[BobK]

Yeti,

My previous message was posted more than and hour prior to your quoting me.

Your redaction of a portion of that post appears to be a weak effort on your part to negate the fact that you accused me of being uncritical when you knew otherwise.

Your seeming inability to admit to a faux pas has been very insightful.

Sorry about the side trip folks, maybe we can now get back to a rational discussion of the article. Or maybe not.

 

[Grammatron]

I've read quite a bit about this issue adn seen a few programs on it as well. As far as I'm concerned teh debunking of GW has itself been debunked.

The majority of the "scientistws" have have been reported to be opposed to the GW theory are not even climatologists or even scientists in some cases, and of those many were ot even aware that their names were being used as opponents to GW, and in fact some have said when interviewed that they are in fact proponents of GW theory that theri names are being incorrectly used.

This all comes down to lies and who you believe.

I also saw an interview with one of the heads of the major anti-GW organizations. The guy is basically an creation scientist and believes that everything is part of God's plan. He said that every time you get in your car and burn fuel you are doing God's work, seriously.

I can't remember the names of these people or the programs I saw them interviewed on as this is not a major issue for me, but I've seen enough to know that the debunking of GW is itself bunk.

I've also seen a lot about how major energy companies are paying for the research and destroying evidence that their researchers find that does not fit their agenda, etc.

If you are going to believe oil companies about GW then you have your head up your.... If you don't think that energy companies are are spending billions of dollars to build a propaganda campaign against GW then you have your head up your....

That's a good explanation of your opinion on the subject, but it does not deal nor does it even attempt to deal with the facts of the link Bobk posted.

It seems people on GW issue are working from the same point as religious people they start of with a belief in either side and then work from there to develop or find proof that supports their beliefs. A skeptical position on this matter would be not disprove the theory that it's happening but to have conclusive proof that it is happening and that we are causing it and that we should do anything about. So far, I have not seen such a conclusive study.

 

[xouper]

Grammatron: It seems people on GW issue are working from the same point as religious people they start of with a belief in either side and then work from there to develop or find proof that supports their beliefs.

Sounds like you may have been reading some of David Wilson's posts on the subject.