Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[josephv]

Very good point, here is a quote:

"During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that during past glacial periods, temperature changes had preceded CO2 changes by a few centuries."

There is an article from the American Physics Institute that describes this issue:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Some of the moderators in the real climate site are very direct in the way they present their arguments. However, many of the users that reply to the postings do not agree with these arguments and even challenge them openly. Also, the site has many links to articles that don't necessarily agree with the moderators. In my view, they are not exactly hiding information. The word cover-up might be a bit strong in this case.

Happy holidays

 

[LCruiser]

On Realclimate covering up:

See if you can post something on Realclimate addressing the methodology of MBH98. Not how close some cherry picked subsequent studies matched it, but the actual scientific methodology itself.

 

[josephv]

Are you saying that they are breaking their code of ethics?

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm

Perhaps you may want to report them?

If you really believe what you are saying, it might be a good idea.

cheers,

 

[LCruiser]

I see you're not interested in finding out.

 

[LCruiser]

P.S. I already tried. They censored my question. Not a comment, a question.

 

[josephv]

Ok, I now see where you are coming from.

They should have posted your question.

Considering that their comment policy says they welcome questions of a scientific nature:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=12

 

[GregLocock]

So.... what was the question?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[LCruiser]

Something to the effect of:

"I have heard that the MBH98 procedure usually produces a hockey stick shape when random numbers are put into it. Is that true?"

Their position is that the procedure does not "automatically" produce a hockey stick - which is true. From what I understand it's only 9 out of 10 times. So, it's not "automatically" but it is "usually".

 

[owg]

Try putting "hockey stick graph" into Google. There are enough sticks to outfit the playoffs.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[LCruiser]

True. However, the original got its name as it suppresses the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which makes the current warming appear alarming.

 

[owg]

LCruiser - I was not defending the hockey stick, I was just surprised by that particular page from Google.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[owg]

I just sent this note off to CBC radio, the public service radio system in Canada.
"I enjoyed the global warming phone-in on Jan 10. However after asking us what we were prepared to give up for global warming, it was really annoying to hear that our leaders in Ottawa were planning to run a refrigeration truck to keep their ice statues from melting during the unusual spell of warm weather here in the great white north. I am prepared to give up their ice statues for global warming."
We still don't have a clue about changing behaviour to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[LCruiser]

Good point owg.

And I am willing to give up Al Gore's jetting around the world drumming up business for his climate change frenzy feeding company, at generationim.com

Also, check this out on the religion of environmentalism:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/03e6dbf4-9f87-11db-9e2e-0000779e2340.html

 

[VisiGoth]

My daughter (heavily influenced by her boyfrineds grandmother who likes anything that is anti-administration) wants me to watch the movie before I give her any criticism of it. I have heard a lot of negatives, and only some mild positives from a climatology URL posted somewhere in this thread.

Could someone reply with only the good points or point to a web or article or review that gives something positive? I want to find some common ground first.

 

[LCruiser]

Here's a transcript:

http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm

Most of the things he says *could* be true.

 

[epoisses]

"Most of the things he says *could* be true."
Yes... that is what is so problematic about this whole discussion.

Yesterday I decided to jump in and ordered both Bjorn Lomborg's and Al Gore's books. I am trying to be as unbiased as I can and just read them and compare them. I know the two don't play in the same scientific league, but everything else I found on amazon sounded so d*mn alarmist and unscientific (after having read the first 2 chapters of "The end of oil" I am fed up with unscientific demagoguery) so I thought I might as well buy the most well-known unscientific book. Or who knows, maybe Gore will surprise me positively.

Anybody read any of these two books?

 

[SnTMan]

epoisses, I have read "Skeptical Environmentalist" and thought it worthwhile. I maybe don't buy into everything in it but overall thought it made sense. I especially agree with Lomborg that we need to allocate resources where they will do more immediate practical good.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SomptingGuy]

I read Lomborg's book too and would recommend it to anyone with an open mind. He certainly did a lot of research for it rather than just skimming the odd newspaper.

 

[LCruiser]

SnTMan -

I agree with your point about allocation. We have better things to be spending our money on. For that matter, since we don't know how bad (or even if) CO2's effect on climate change will be, the fact that it's the base of the food chain and an increase grows more flora:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html

means that maybe, just maybe, we're barking up the wrong tree.

Here's a good paper on the science of "global warming":

http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html

 

[SnTMan]

LCruiser, the paper in the second link was interesting. You will find a similar point of view at

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number watch.htm,

a link I posted earlier in this thread. Worth checking out.

Regards,

Mike