• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kyoto Debunked

Grammatron said:

Since you think GW is happening and it is the fault of humans I have a...Very Specific Question: What do you think we as humans should do now to correct the problem that you think we caused? Please be as detailed as you like.
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly fair question.

Firstly, I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how to "correct" the problem. We dump about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annualy, so we would have to figure out a way to remove at least that much yearly plus another couble billion tons to actually reverse the effect. That's alot of CO2! There has been some research into fertilizing plankton, with the hope that they would bloom, soak up CO2, then carry the carbon to the bottom of the ocean at the end of their life cycle. Last I heard the tests were inconclusive. But the idea is promising, perhaps in the future we will be able genetically engineer organisms to function as highly efficient carbon sinks.

The other alternative is to switch to altenative fuel sources before the problem gets to bad. This is the most likely scenario, IMHO, and I think this will happen within the next hundred years.

Regarding what to do now, personally I would like to see policy that rewards environmentally friendly actions. I'm always in favor of rewarding good behavior over punishing bad.

How about tax breaks for companies that allow their workers to telecommute? Or no registration fees for zero emission vehicles? Or tax relief for individuals whom do not own a car?
 
EvilYeti said:


That's a perfectly fair question.

Firstly, I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how to "correct" the problem. We dump about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annualy, so we would have to figure out a way to remove at least that much yearly plus another couble billion tons to actually reverse the effect. That's alot of CO2! There has been some research into fertilizing plankton, with the hope that they would bloom, soak up CO2, then carry the carbon to the bottom of the ocean at the end of their life cycle. Last I heard the tests were inconclusive. But the idea is promising, perhaps in the future we will be able genetically engineer organisms to function as highly efficient carbon sinks.

The other alternative is to switch to altenative fuel sources before the problem gets to bad. This is the most likely scenario, IMHO, and I think this will happen within the next hundred years.

Regarding what to do now, personally I would like to see policy that rewards environmentally friendly actions. I'm always in favor of rewarding good behavior over punishing bad.

How about tax breaks for companies that allow their workers to telecommute? Or no registration fees for zero emission vehicles? Or tax relief for individuals whom do not own a car?
Click to expand...


Thank you for your reply. First I would like to comment on your last paragraph; I believe such things already happen, in California at least.

As far as alternative fuel source if you want to switch a question arises: how fast? Should we abandon the entire oil industry and its by-products (plastics) and move to some alternative source in a year? I don't think you would disagree with a catastrophic damage that would cause. If not that soon, than how soon and to what extent?
 
Originally posted by Grammatron

As I've showed by the link on BBC, the Kyoto is not doing a thing. In fact things are happening in the opposite manner. However, the changes are taking place that means there are negative economic impacts without any positive environmental results.
Click to expand...
Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.
 
Dymanic said:

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.
Click to expand...

Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.
 
Dymanic said:

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.
Click to expand...

Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.
 
Dymanic said:

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The article -- which from your response I am going to assume you did not read -- talk about how Europe slips on its target for the second year. Meaning their policies which they want us to implement have no affect what so ever. This has nothing to do with USA.
 
a_unique_person said:


Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.
Click to expand...

I don't see the point of bringing WTO into this nor do I agree with its concept, so I will ignore that.

You are right, Kyoto is a structure for change, but there are goals that the countries, which implement it, expect to meet, such as CO2 reduction. If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?
 
Grammatron said:


I don't see the point of bringing WTO into this nor do I agree with its concept, so I will ignore that.

You are right, Kyoto is a structure for change, but there are goals that the countries, which implement it, expect to meet, such as CO2 reduction. If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?
Click to expand...

Once you get a process and structure in place, you can then adjust it to suit the requirements. You would also be able to review the actual results of that process. That is, I don't believe the costs to be as high as those that are projected by the doom sayers.
 
a_unique_person said:


Once you get a process and structure in place, you can then adjust it to suit the requirements. You would also be able to review the actual results of that process. That is, I don't believe the costs to be as high as those that are projected by the doom sayers.
Click to expand...

Well it's irrelevant what YOU believe, facts are what's important. You are essentially advocating implementation of a potentially flawed system just to see if it MIGHT do some good.

If you honestly believe humans are causing global warming would you not want to be sure it can be stoped ASAP and no time be wasted?
 
Originally posted by Grammatron

Europe slips on its target for the second year. Meaning their policies which they want us to implement have no affect what so ever.
Click to expand...
"The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012." Your linked article loosely references some 2001 figures and declares the goal unreachable.
This has nothing to do with USA.
Click to expand...
Tragedy of the commons.
If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?
Click to expand...
Based on a single year's figures? Isn't that a bit hasty?
You've seen the figures on what EU emissions would have been otherwise?
 
Grammatron said:


Well it's irrelevant what YOU believe, facts are what's important. You are essentially advocating implementation of a potentially flawed system just to see if it MIGHT do some good.

If you honestly believe humans are causing global warming would you not want to be sure it can be stoped ASAP and no time be wasted?
Click to expand...

You are potentially advocating the continuing use of a potentially flawed system, just because it might not do some harm.

I cannot see any way other than by doing what Kyoto was created to do, develop a process. It's not as if the greenies are going to use force to get this done.
 
aerocontrols said:
There's an update/response at the McIntyre and McKitrick site.
Click to expand...

David Appell's web site has been tracking the whole mess.

http://www.davidappell.com/

Mann, etal., will not be responding anymore pending a formal published response. Good for them, lets see if M&M can get their response published as well (which is what they should have done from the beginning).
 
aero,

Thanks for the update.

Having just read the 1st installment of MM's proposed three part response to Mann, I came away with the impression that these two researchers are the type to cross their t's and dot their i's.

The fact that they kept all correspondence and directly downloaded all directories pertinent as soon as Mann made know the location, seems to already have caught Mann using deceptive techniques.

It seems that after making public the location of the data, Mann deleted one file, hid another and added still another.

I don't claim to be able to understand everything in the 1st part of their response to Mann, but I'm starting to get a whiff of something over-ripe about to fall from the tree of IPCC knowledge.

Whether Mann is incorrect or not, is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide. I'm sure there will be many qualified people looking into his newly made known data.

Did no one previously do an extensive audit of his data and methods? I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have done it. You would think they would be rushing to his defense with their audit of his claim.

Mann is supposedly preparing a reply for publication in a journal. Nature I guess. I'm looking forward to reading it as well as MM's future installments, which will likely be up in the near future.
 
BobK said:

Having just read the 1st installment of MM's proposed three part response to Mann, I came away with the impression that these two researchers are the type to cross their t's and dot their i's.

Neither of them are researchers.

The fact that they kept all correspondence and directly downloaded all directories pertinent as soon as Mann made know the location, seems to already have caught Mann using deceptive techniques.

Mann has done nothing deceptive, the research is five years old and at this point its not surprising errors were made in providing all of it. What is deceptive is M&M rushing to publish their findings before submitting them to Mann first for review.

It seems that after making public the location of the data, Mann deleted one file, hid another and added still another.

Thats a lie. Mann has nothing to hide, his data and results have already been reviewed, published and independantly verified.

I don't claim to be able to understand everything in the 1st part of their response to Mann, but I'm starting to get a whiff of something over-ripe about to fall from the tree of IPCC knowledge.

And you don't smell anything wrong with M&M original paper, especially since its written by people with no science background? Why give them the benefit of the doubt and not Mann?

Whether Mann is incorrect or not, is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide. I'm sure there will be many qualified people looking into his newly made known data.

Why should they? Its bogus!

Did no one previously do an extensive audit of his data and methods? I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have done it. You would think they would be rushing to his defense with their audit of his claim.

Yes, the original paper was published in "Nature", meaning it was extensively reviewed by scientists prior to publication. The M&M paper was published in an "academic debate" journal, not a science one. Now why, I ask, are you SKEPTICAL of a science paper, authored published and reviewed by other scientists and NOT SKEPTICAL of an unpublished paper written by amateurs? Especially when they have an agenda?
Is it because it reinforces your belief system?

Mann is supposedly preparing a reply for publication in a journal. Nature I guess. I'm looking forward to reading it as well as MM's future installments, which will likely be up in the near future.
Click to expand...

And M&M will again stick to publishing on websites and crank journals. Why do you think that is?
 
Yeti,

Do you really think M&M would put a bald-faced lie in their response, concerning the recent manipulation of files in the quote below?

Don't you think, given the considerable effort they have put into their audit, they would not want to be so easily caught up short?

Doesn't it raise even the slightest possiblity that Mann might, again I say might be trying to thwart further analysis by others?

If you have some concerns, might it not be better to wait and see how the dispute develops?

The apparent manipulation of files raises a red flag in front of me that will not go away. That, along with Mann's evident misrepresentation of the efforts by M&M to acquire the data from Mann. (documented by M&M being astute enough to retain exchanged emails) These concerns give me doubts, that hopefully will be resolved by the scientific community.

If you have no such concerns, I'm sure your unswerving faith in Mann will not be swayed by further discussion.

Clipped from part one of M&M's response.
Events Since MM
Following the identification of UVA as the location of MBH98 data, we downloaded the files pcproxy.txt and pcproxy.mat from UVA, together with the entire contents of ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/. On November 8, 2003, we re-visited this site and discovered the following changes: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had been deleted from Mann’s FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was displayed under the directory, although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file named “mbhfilled.mat” was inserted into the directory. The header in this file reads “Created on: Tue Nov 4 23:37:07 2003.” Interested readers may partly verify (1) and (2) through the following FTP calls: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/ - showing that neither file is listed, but listing the new file; ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/pcproxy.txt - retrieving pcproxy.txt; ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/pcproxy.mat - which does not retrieve pcproxy.mat, formerly located in this directory. We have just reconfirmed these matters (November 11, 2003, 1:46 PM). Given the significance which Mann placed on our alleged use of incorrect data and his insistence that we ought to have relied upon the contents of the UVA site, we are concerned about the deletion from this archive of pcproxy.mat, a file which is right at the center of the current dispute. This is the file which provided evidence of the prior existence of the contested data in the form sent to us, and showed it to be a Matlab product rather than an Excel product. Under the circumstances the deletion of pcproxy.mat, and the removal of pcproxy.txt from the folder directory seems ill-advised. We have posted up the deleted file at www.climate2003.com/data/pcproxy.mat
Click to expand...
 
I am somewhat tired of posting on this over and over, but the idea that the Global Warming hypothesis was just "debunked" or made questionable by two rogue "scientists" is just a bit incredible. Like Yeti, I won't jump in until I see some sort of article in a peer reviewed journal.

Like I have pointed out the NAS:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/o...f6335bf011038bb185256a84005838c7?OpenDocument


Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030102/030102-3.html


Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008C7B2-E060-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21


Royal Society:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates...vents/discussion_meetings/reps/feb_clim03.htm


No small hitters, nor types that get into hysterics. Prominent thinkers and scientists such as Michael Shermer and Jared Diamond have voiced their concerns as well.

In fact Diamond has written an article on why certain groups fail to identify problems and often times act too late, the Global Warming Hypothesis is used as an example (as is Eastern Island ecocide):

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_index.html



In short these are big sources, The most reliable I know of. And if someone goes against them, they really need to be packing some heavy artillery. A questionable article that is already being questioned by prominent scientists is not what I would call heavy artillery. That's more like an intellectual pea shooter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom