Kyoto Protocol

[joeblast]

Ah, the good ol "oil funded propaganda" argument. To which it is very easily responded with the "publicly funded orthodoxy" argument.

 

Seriously, flowery language only conveys so much.

 

Just like ad hominem attacks only get so deep to the core of the issue; only have so much pull this way or that when one uses them.

 

It is the AGW movement that is being unscientific here, so spouting dogma from "the cause" isnt going to convince anyone but the already convinced that we're breathing ourselves to death. Still waiting for a concrete argument that doesnt immediately cite a model that predicts this or that catastrophe

[Informer]

Still waiting for a concrete argument that doesnt immediately cite a model that predicts this or that catastrophe

 

I know you think this is a valid argument in your head, but it isn't.

 

 

[Jetsun]

I'll just say that my father is a scientist who works for the UK government and he used to say that climate change wasn't a big deal and didnt like the tone of the debate how they were calling those apposed as "deniers" as it harmed impartial scientific evaluation. But then he was given the job of evaluating the evidence and data and he completely changed his mind, he even had to go to the north pole to evaluate that the tests were being conducted properly and he has convinced me that this is a big issue and practically all of the serious scientists who aren't paid by big business agree also. Most of the developed world countries with their own independent scientific departments also agree apart from the US.

 

Recently the leaders of 16 of the largest NGO's in the world including Greenpeace, Oxfam and the WWF made a joint statement saying that the US is actually the biggest obstacle to any progress because they purposely block any attempts at talks, so personally I think it is about time the US grew up around this issue and start behaving in a responsible way in their relationship with the planet. Even if you don't agree with the science 100% I don't see how you can argue against becoming more harmonious and less harmful to the environment, why would you want to shit in your own backyard? If you do any sort of Taoist practice it must be clear how pollutants interfere with the functioning of the system of your body on many different levels and the earth is just a macrocosm of this.

[johndoe2012]

Joeblast,

 

Are you denying the climate changes in eg. the Arctic region?

 

Or is this more related to CO2 as the driver for the warming / change?

 

The problem as I see it, no matter what we do now it will take many generations to see the effect in practise, however, this doesn't we should sit down and do nothing. Common sense - like as low consumption of resources as possible go a long way combined with the use of clean energy.

[Jetsun]

It is true that practically none of the countries involved actually meet the Kyoto targets but that doesn't mean that it is worthless because your government policy on a macro level helps dictate the social and political climate around this issue on a micro level, for example in this country since the government has become more proactive around green issues more recycling and social projects have sprung up, there is more stigma around individual wastage and pollution on the individual level and the government is far more able to pass laws which punish polluters and help clean industry and they are able to tax the most polluting cars more. There are other factors come in like supermarkets feel more pressure to make biodegradable packaging, farmers have to advertise their sustainability, car manufacturers work at producing more fuel economic technology, we even had a Green party mp elected to parliament for the first time campaigning on environmental issues. It would be far more difficult for much of this to emerge if the governments stance on the big issues of pollution was in opposition and denial and the effect of this is that it creates an awareness and political movement towards respect of the environment on all levels of society. So even if at the very minimum Kyoto is a symbolic gesture that doesn't mean it's not important as it helps shift perspectives which can have far reaching consequences long term.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Jetsun

[johndoe2012]

[joeblast]

Joeblast,

 

Are you denying the climate changes in eg. the Arctic region?

 

Or is this more related to CO2 as the driver for the warming / change?

 

The problem as I see it, no matter what we do now it will take many generations to see the effect in practise, however, this doesn't we should sit down and do nothing. Common sense - like as low consumption of resources as possible go a long way combined with the use of clean energy.

Like I've said many times before, a climate in perfect stasis is indeed catastrophic - this whole CO2 straw man gets in the way of real science, real environmental efforts, not to mention all of the wet blanket effects of spending a *lot* of time and resources attempting to catch one's own breath. As people are finding out, it is getting ridiculously expensive to subsidize to the hilt.

 

The "problem" isnt going to take many generations to "fix" - it is just a matter of time before people grow tired of the models not being able to predict anything. Normally that's a requirement in science, but its somehow completely escaping Climate Science as a requirement and people are giving it a complete pass because they've been told ad nauseum that the debate is over, humans are responsible, and its primarily CO2 that is doing it.

 

How's that strong el nino this year, Mr Hansen? Right, Doctor, you didnt spend all of that time in school just to be called "mister." Riiiight - instead of the strong el nino that Hansen predicted this year, we have a substantial la nina. His models cant predict the effects of that which he is "studying." Some warming in the antarctic peninsula? Great, we'll extrapolate it to the entire continent using shaky statistical methods - all of that red at the poles will be sure to scare people! Of course they'll ignore the fact that arctic sea ice (and pretty much everything else we're seeing) is well within historical norms - the curve differs each year of where things are at a given time.

 

"How much warming" is taking place depends on where you place the beginning and end of your measurements. Its like when people give that whole income inequality statistic but then are sure to use data circa 2007 to show maximum disparity - what do you think is happening when we're presented "warming" data?

 

They do the same thing that Al Gore just did in his 24 hours of climate hysteria - they falsify - ok, maybe not as blatantly as Gore's carbon dioxide experiment did - but omitting inconvenient data is falsification. (iow, the hockey stick should never have existed.)

 

Really what we are seeing here is a case of only having historically smoothed data for a lot of things (e.g. paleo record) and now that we're populating data people see outliers larger than expected and freak out. Its why CFCs "were the source" of all the cooling back in the 70s because they couldnt figure out what was happening, then because they played with aerosol cooling coefficients, they had to play with GhG warming coefficients to balance their increasingly faulty math. Now "all the warming" is coming from CO2 - and it is a crock, a disgrace to science. As Dr Lindzen put it, "I've been studying this for 40 years and I have yet to isolate a signal amongst the noise."

 

Durban is a joke, we dont need to give up $100 billion a year as carbon indulgences for the UN to distribute to "poor countries" so they can "combat climate change." What sort of contrived, self-declared precociousness is this, that we drive the climate around and the sun has taken a back seat?

 

We should be focusing on real environmental efforts - clean up soot, make cars and trucks run more cleanly, crap like that which will actually have some measurable impact! Unlike all of this carbon tomfoolery, which has had absolutely no measurable impact.

[.broken.]

We can't even predict the weather accurately, so I see where joeblast is coming from Part of the trouble is the sheer complexity of the situation - if it were simple and measurements taken consistently then there would be a more solid basis for the science on which much of it stands.

 

I don't think anyone here would argue against resources being better spent tackling the practical implications such as "clean up soot, make cars and trucks run more cleanly." As I think it was Steve that said it's more likely to come through grassroots solutions.

 

Throughout the last two hundred years, humanity has been creating chemicals which do not occur naturally and which were insufficiently tested. The impacts on wildlife, habitats, flora and humanity (not to mention the environment) have been well-documented and more than often ignored in favour of economic growth.

 

Economic and environmental sustainability are as important now as it ever was - we just happened to forget about it for generations. The urgency with which we need to remember cannot be understated.

 

Nitrogen dead-zones, plastics breaking down to mimic hormones, the pumping of sewage into the water supply, the effects of combustion fumes on air quality, the mass plantation of pine trees, fishing with trawlers, injection of hormones into livestock, monoculture farming... The list goes on. They're all unsustainable practices or results thereof.

 

If we carry on there won't be much left, if at all Climate change is only a part of the equation.

 

Edited December 12, 2011 by .broken.

[effilang]

...invitations to perform acts on you which TTB's posted guidelines do not mention as being offered here.

 

Damn. I'm in the wrong forum again.

 

trololo

Edited December 12, 2011 by effilang

[Informer]

Maybe good news, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/global-climate-change-treaty-durban

 

 

 

 

Let's see if this has any effect.

 

This is good news. It seems like for every step we take forward we are taking two steps back. Like give a little and take a lot.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011129132510922889.html

Playing with fire: Obama's threat to China

Obama says US influence will turn from the Middle East towards the "vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region".

 

"When it comes to China policy, is the Obama administration leaping from the frying pan directly into the fire? In an attempt to turn the page on two disastrous wars in the greater Middle East, it may have just launched a new Cold War in Asia - once again, viewing oil as the key to global supremacy.

 

The new policy was signalled by President Obama himself on November 17 in an address to the Australian Parliament in which he laid out an audacious - and extremely dangerous - geopolitical vision. Instead of focusing on the greater Middle East, as has been the case for the last decade, the United States will now concentrate its power in Asia and the Pacific.

 

"My guidance is clear," he declared in Canberra. "As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region."

 

While administration officials insist that this new policy is not aimed specifically at China, the implication is clear enough: from now on, the primary focus of US military strategy will not be counterterrorism, but the containment of that economically booming land - at whatever risk or cost.

 

The planet's new centre of gravity

 

The new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China is necessary, top officials insist, because the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the "centre of gravity" of world economic activity. While the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the argument goes, China had the leeway to expand its influence in the region.

 

For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington is no longer the dominant economic actor there. If the United States is to retain its title as the world's paramount power, it must, this thinking goes, restore its primacy in the region and roll back Chinese influence. In the coming decades, no foreign policy task will, it is claimed, be more important than this.

 

In line with its new strategy, the administration has undertaken a number of moves intended to bolster US power in Asia, and so put China on the defensive. These include a decision to deploy an initial 250 US Marines - someday to be upped to 2,500 - to an Australian air base in Darwin on that country's north coast, and the adoption on November 18 of "the Manila Declaration", a pledge of closer US military ties with the Philippines.

 

"An economically weakened United States can no longer hope to prevail in multiple regions simultaneously."

 

At the same time, the White House announced the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia and a visit by Hillary Clinton to isolated Burma, long a Chinese ally - the first there by a secretary of state in 56 years. Clinton has also spoken of increased diplomatic and military ties with Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam - all countries surrounding China or overlooking key trade routes that China relies on for importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods.

 

As portrayed by administration officials, such moves are intended to maximise America's advantages in the diplomatic and military realm at a time when China dominates the economic realm regionally. In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, Clinton revealingly suggested that an economically weakened United States can no longer hope to prevail in multiple regions simultaneously. It must choose its battlefields carefully and deploy its limited assets - most of them of a military nature - to maximum advantage. Given Asia's strategic centrality to global power, this means concentrating resources there.

 

"Over the last ten years," she writes, "we have allocated immense resources to [iraq and Afghanistan]. In the next ten years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership [and] secure our interests ... One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region."

 

Such thinking, with its distinctly military focus, appears dangerously provocative. The steps announced entail an increased military presence in waters bordering China and enhanced military ties with that country's neighbours - moves certain to arouse alarm in Beijing and strengthen the hand of those in the ruling circle (especially in the Chinese military leadership) who favour a more activist, militarised response to US incursions.

 

Whatever forms that takes, one thing is certain: the leadership of the globe's number two economic power is not going to let itself appear weak and indecisive in the face of a US buildup on the periphery of its country. This, in turn, means that we may be sowing the seeds of a new Cold War in Asia in 2011.

 

The US military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press. But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington's sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.

 

The new energy equation

 

For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output. In 2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself. The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers. They responded by forging ever closer, more militarised ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of US supply lines.

 

In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels. Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country's major overseas providers - and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.

 

Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn. As a result of China's booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country's oil consumption is exploding. Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections by the US Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035.

 

Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035. Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 - at which time they will exceed those of the United States.

 

"Thanks to increased production in 'tough oil' areas of the United States ... future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises."

 

The US, meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation. Thanks to increased production in "tough oil" areas of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises.

 

In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East or Africa. Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more "tough oil" areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia. According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 - an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.

 

Whose sea lanes are these anyway?

 

From a geopolitical perspective, all this seems to confer a genuine advantage on the United States, even as China becomes ever more vulnerable to the vagaries of events in, or along, the sea lanes to distant lands. It means Washington will be able to contemplate a gradual loosening of its military and political ties with the Middle Eastern oil states that have dominated its foreign policy for so long and have led to those costly, devastating wars.

 

Indeed, as President Obama said in Canberra, the US is now in a position to begin to refocus its military capabilities elsewhere. "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly," he declared, "the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region."

 

For China, all this spells potential strategic impairment. Although some of China's imported oil will travel overland through pipelines from Kazakhstan and Russia, the great majority of it will still come by tanker from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America over sea lanes policed by the US Navy. Indeed, almost every tanker bringing oil to China travels across the South China Sea, a body of water the Obama administration is now seeking to place under effective naval control.

 

By securing naval dominance of the South China Sea and adjacent waters, the Obama administration evidently aims to acquire the 21st century energy equivalent of 20th century nuclear blackmail. Push us too far, the policy implies, and we'll bring your economy to its knees by blocking your flow of vital energy supplies.

 

Of course, nothing like this will ever be said in public, but it is inconceivable that senior administration officials are not thinking along just these lines, and there is ample evidence that the Chinese are deeply worried about the risk - as indicated, for example, by their frantic efforts to build staggeringly expensive pipelines across the entire expanse of Asia to the Caspian Sea basin.

 

As the underlying nature of the new Obama strategic blueprint becomes clearer, there can be no question that the Chinese leadership will, in response, take steps to ensure the safety of China's energy lifelines. Some of these moves will undoubtedly be economic and diplomatic, including, for example, efforts to court regional players like Vietnam and Indonesia as well as major oil suppliers like Angola, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Make no mistake, however: others will be of a military nature.

 

A significant buildup of the Chinese navy - still small and backward when compared to the fleets of the United States and its principal allies - would seem all but inevitable. Likewise, closer military ties between China and Russia, as well as with the Central Asian member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), are assured.

 

In addition, Washington could now be sparking the beginnings of a genuine Cold-War-style arms race in Asia, which neither country can, in the long run, afford. All of this is likely to lead to greater tension and a heightened risk of inadvertent escalation arising out of future incidents involving US, Chinese and allied vessels - such as the one that occurred in March 2009 when a flotilla of Chinese naval vessels surrounded a US anti-submarine warfare surveillance ship, the Impeccable, and almost precipitated a shooting incident. As more warships circulate through these waters in an increasingly provocative fashion, the risk that such an incident will result in something far more explosive can only grow.

 

"Greater reliance on ... the 'dirtiest' of energies will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and a multitude of other environmental hazards."

 

Nor will the potential risks and costs of such a military-first policy aimed at China be restricted to Asia. In the drive to promote greater US self-sufficiency in energy output, the Obama administration is giving its approval to production techniques - Arctic drilling, deep-offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing - that are guaranteed to lead to further Deepwater Horizon-style environmental catastrophe at home.

 

Greater reliance on Canadian tar sands, the "dirtiest" of energies, will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and a multitude of other environmental hazards, while deep Atlantic oil production off the Brazilian coast and elsewhere has its own set of grim dangers.

 

All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world. The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind. It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America's interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial. Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.

 

A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: it's a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible. You don't have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly."

Edited December 12, 2011 by Informer

[gendao]

Whose sea lanes are these anyway?

 

Indeed, as President Obama said in Canberra, the US is now in a position to begin to refocus its military capabilities elsewhere. "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly," he declared, "the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region."

 

By securing naval dominance of the South China Sea and adjacent waters, the Obama administration evidently aims to acquire the 21st century energy equivalent of 20th century nuclear blackmail. Push us too far, the policy implies, and we'll bring your economy to its knees by blocking your flow of vital energy supplies.

Lol, whose sea lanes??? Well, certainly not those of a country halfway across the globe!

 

And after spending 10 years plunging ourselves neck-deep in debt genociding Muslims...why do we need to "refocus" anywhere else anymore - but HERE AT HOME??? Military defense should be defense of our borders - not bullying and terrorizing other countries halfway around the world under false pretenses who pose NO imminent threat to us!!

 

It's abhorrent that with the absolutely dire economic straits we're in today - these self-indulgent Baby Boomer 111uminati bureacraps like Obama still don't hesitate to keep expanding our global military imperialism!! Someone cut up these kids' credit cards already!!!

 

I think the only guys who stand against this are 3rd Partiers like Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - NA

Edited December 12, 2011 by vortex

[joeblast]

[ralis]

[Pub(EPiC)ic_bOb]

Al Quada bombed the twin tower buildings because the United sates did not participate in the Kyoto.

 

That may make people angry, but the planes hitting the towers was not born of just sheer hatred for America.

 

For those now learning of this, I strongly suggest you consider that everyone has hidden agendas and if the people were to know this shattering fact it might have changed how people view the incident.

 

I disagree completely with the bombing and such use of force, nor do I advocate Al Quada agenda. But it is what it is.

[Informer]

Lol, whose sea lanes??? Well, certainly not those of a country halfway across the globe!

 

And after spending 10 years plunging ourselves neck-deep in debt genociding Muslims...why do we need to "refocus" anywhere else anymore - but HERE AT HOME??? Military defense should be defense of our borders - not bullying and terrorizing other countries halfway around the world under false pretenses who pose NO imminent threat to us!!

 

It's abhorrent that with the absolutely dire economic straits we're in today - these self-indulgent Baby Boomer 111uminati bureacraps like Obama still don't hesitate to keep expanding our global military imperialism!! Someone cut up these kids' credit cards already!!!

 

I think the only guys who stand against this are 3rd Partiers like Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304

 

Truth.

 

The Obama China article was entirely off topic.

 

 

As an aside, I have to point out a lesser known fact that Einstein's quote of

 

"the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting different results"

 

was really a dig at Quantum Mechanics.

 

 

Yeah, he was wrong on that one

 

 

I don't think he was wrong in reference to the macrocosm.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

Ralis,

The models do not reflect reality and constantly need to be re-calibrated and reworked so they can find out in some other fashion that their fundamental premise is incorrect despite hitting a few desired data points. "That's proved with data" - what's your excuse for believing the outcomes of models that dont reflect reality? Why is it that no matter how they tweak them, they are still unable to reproduce reality? Your "smartness" be damned, your "concern for the world" be damned - the AGW scam is treading on very thin mathematical ice and has issued damned lies created with statistics.

 

Where exactly is the burden of proof again? You're not going to reproduce reality with statistical trickery, man! The story is only true in its own particular idiom!

 

 

9/11 because of kyoto hahahaha now that's one I havent heard yet hahaha...just in case you're seerious there bob, you do know that happened quite a long time before environmentalists got the great idea to hold a physical echo chamber on carbon dioxide (even though science isnt what they discuss any longer, its moved on to how to tax the West and transfer money to the third world - with the UN taking its usual 85% overhead in costs and salaries.)

[johndoe2012]

Who cares about models?

 

For me it is a big fallacy to try and predict anything, when you can just use plain logic and open your eyes to see the destruction currently happening.

 

It reminds me of the various people who told us about the good things about industrialisation while today we can see increasing numbers of people affected by asthma, reproductive issues, ADHD and so on. We see pestecides in our water because oh organic food is SO expensive - due to false choices presented to us by various engineers, farmers, scientists.

 

The focus on economic resources is pure insanity, when you see the effects it has in eg. the European Union where you produce with lots of pesticides in the South and drive the whole thing to the North.

[ralis]

Ralis,

The models do not reflect reality and constantly need to be re-calibrated and reworked so they can find out in some other fashion that their fundamental premise is incorrect despite hitting a few desired data points. "That's proved with data" - what's your excuse for believing the outcomes of models that dont reflect reality? Why is it that no matter how they tweak them, they are still unable to reproduce reality? Your "smartness" be damned, your "concern for the world" be damned - the AGW scam is treading on very thin mathematical ice and has issued damned lies created with statistics.

 

 

 

You have shown your lack of knowledge in the scientific method and science in general. In terms of quantifying data so as to model any system, absolutes are not sought after in some holy grail quest. The uncertainty principle applies to all rigorous scientific inquiry. Further, this principle with a small degree of mathematical error, and in this case global warming, is within acceptable limits i.e, a small degree of variation. Therefor, your ideology of a real world model is erroneous. Only dilettantes attempt to define reality in terms of real world absolutes.

 

Your crusade against science is flawed to the nth degree!

 

 

 

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N6/king.06o.html

[joeblast]

Chris, who cares about models? Kyoto...Rio, Cancun, Durban, are all because of models. Not because of real world happenings, because of models. It is the models that are providing the confirmation bias AGW proponents are acting upon. With arbitrary concepts of "normal" or "proper," a thousand theories have been made up to approximate reality so that we may test hypotheses. The models do not reflect what reality provides, hindcasting only hits a certain amount of data points, and forecasting calls for certain doom. Meters of sea rise, tens of degrees of average temperature - or at least the threat of, if the models are correct.

 

Which, they're not. It is for that reason we are being told CO2 is choking the planet.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/

 

 

 

 

ralis, nobody's talking absolutes. Whether there are mathematical errors is somewhat irrelevant - a model can be mathematically consistent and contain "no errors," yet, the input and results do not match with input and results from the real world.

 

With regard to Tisdale's smackdown on models -

 

Emphasizing facts that contradict sweeping generalizations is not cherry-picking.

 

The output of the models not matching reality, hindcast or forecast - that's cherry picking??? hahahaha Man, you're gonna have to put out a little more effort than that. I've asked you to put forth your technical considerations before and you havent, you havent used any of your technical opinion-beliefs to effectively rebut a damn thing, and the vast majority of what we're seeing from you is your accosting sources of information.

 

Not impressed in the least - is this a battle rap or is this a CO2 debate? Good eve.

[joeblast]

*applauds Canada*

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2Jp9tWWJUGFOVlYt1sSu2F91nCA?docId=CNG.5611f082b5d1d0d543b2b015f4ad2b41.131

 

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."

[Mokona]

What i don't understand is: Who creates the model for The Kyoto Protocal (TKP) and who is enforcing the TKP? Obviously, countries can just opt-out from what i've read here.

How can TKP models be so out of touch with reality? Also, if it is such a huge concern why isn't this information on the TKP and Global Warming made more readily available?

[Informer]

*applauds Canada*

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2Jp9tWWJUGFOVlYt1sSu2F91nCA?docId=CNG.5611f082b5d1d0d543b2b015f4ad2b41.131

 

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."

 

So the urgency of the matter is evident . . . That is a very Bad Analogy btw.

[Informer]

What i don't understand is: Who creates the model for The Kyoto Protocal (TKP) and who is enforcing the TKP? Obviously, countries can just opt-out from what i've read here.

How can TKP models be so out of touch with reality? Also, if it is such a huge concern why isn't this information on the TKP and Global Warming made more readily available?

 

It's probably just one of those low-key need to know basis things.

 

[Informer]

The Obama China article was entirely off topic.

 

 

It is not off-topic because these events are occurring simultaneously in history.

 

Your initial argument has since become obsoleted by our country.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

What i don't understand is: Who creates the model for The Kyoto Protocal (TKP) and who is enforcing the TKP? Obviously, countries can just opt-out from what i've read here.

How can TKP models be so out of touch with reality? Also, if it is such a huge concern why isn't this information on the TKP and Global Warming made more readily available?

UN bureaucrats and more bureaucrats posing as "scientists" - yeah it was all put forth as optional, but of course there are all of these people saying "wtf! they must obey, we have to find a way to make them!" of Canada.

 

Of course a political decision and hundreds of million dollars a year in payments to the UN and then maybe tens of millions in payments to third world countries, or places like the Maldives who use models to tell everyone their island will disappear if we dont limit out CO2 The UN wastes 85 cents out of every dollar it processes on itself, and we're going to let them set up a one world government and cede authority to them?? Its a laughingstock, defunding the UN would be a great move on America's part.

 

 

 

Informer, the urgency is also contrived. And the analogy is applicable and in the range of the targets being called for - yeah, that is a bad analogy, it would be bad if Canada were that suicidal that it would try to curtail itself that much that it would hobble the cripes out of its citizens to make the UN happy

 

My initial argument has been obsoleted by our country? I cant figure out what the heck you even mean by that.