Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

"Inconvient Truths" for Kyoto Supporters

I finally got fed up with all the support out there for Kyoto, so, based on a National Post article that a commenter left on my blog today, I started to do some digging. Now, I'm no scientist or enviornmental expert, but here are a few "Inconvient Truths" for Mr. Gore, et. al. that I found...
New Study Decimates Kyoto Pillar

Damaging though these studies have been to the credibility of the human-induced climate change hypothesis, a highly technical paper published in the prominent British journal Energy and Environment at the end of October 2003 may very well be its final coup de grĂ¢ce. The paper's authors, Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph, Ontario economics professor Ross McKitrick, demonstrate convincingly that the well-known "Mann Hockey Stick", one of Kyoto's fundamental scientific pillars, is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.
From EnviroTruth.org

Just do a Google search on this... "MBH98 kyoto". Yikes.

Or how about this? A list of scientists (including some profs from Canada) who DISPUTE THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION OF KYOTO... "Some of the Many Experts Who Contest Kyoto's Scientific Foundation".

I, perhaps like you, had no idea of how much debate there really is on the foundations upon which Kyoto was built. I knew there was some, but had no idea on how vast it really was.

My brief research then led me to this article. Here's just a few of the "money quotes"...
The global warming debate has left the realm of science a long time ago. It has become totally politicised. Any scientific criticism is not met with a scientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare tactics. Some sceptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else.
- - -
A favourite ploy by AGW alarmists is to repeat ad infinitum that the science about AGW has been settled and that there is consensus among scientists that it is happening and that it will have cataclysmic consequences for our planet. People using these consensus arguments forget that scientific truth is not determined by consensus. But apart from being unscientific, the consensus argument is also a myth. There are thousands of independent scientists who do not accept that the science behind Kyoto has been settled.
- - -
The European Union has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Kyoto Protocol and has been very scathing of the US for not signing Kyoto. However, emissions in Europe have risen by 16.4 per cent since 1990, while the US increase was 16.7 percent. Canada increased its emissions by 23.6 percent, and Japan 18.9 percent. Sobering figures.
- - -
Even some politicians are waking up. [...] The Select Committee on Economics of the House of Lords in Britain released a report titled "The Economics of Climate Change." [...] It urges the government to take a different approach to climate change in the future than the one followed for the Kyoto Protocol and to emphasise adaptation to climate change rather than dubious emission controls.
- - -
It is clear that the politicising of climate science has resulted in an abandoning of good scientific practice and ethics. Any critical scientific discussion of the science behind the AGW doctrine is shouted down, ridiculed or ostracised. But fortunately there are sufficient independent scientists who keep the flame of good scientific practice burning, although not much of this is reaching the general public.
- - -
Sea-level rise caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions is another favourite scare topic of AGW alarmists. But geologists know that sea level has risen by 120 metres since the last ice age.
Can we at least talk about this Canada, without the pro-Kyoto lobby jumping down our throats? Let's actually talk about these studies! If we're supposed to commit BILLIONS of dollars to it, I wanna know that it's based on rock solid data!

Maybe the planet is getting a little warmner, but again, I repeat what I said yesterday... 1) is it our fault, or is it just a natural planetary cycle? and 2) does it really matter?

I'm with the guys who wrote the report for the British House of Lords... let's spend the money on reducing pollution, and on methods of adaptation to climate change, not on some dubious scheme (read KYOTO) that may not even work anyway.

27 Comments:

  • At Wed Jul 12, 05:40:00 PM EDT, Blogger Alberta Conservative said…

    I'd also suggest reading following article for a bit of background info.

     
  • At Wed Jul 12, 10:25:00 PM EDT, Blogger OttawaCon said…

    The 'hockey stick' was discredited long ago, and disavowed. It is a straw man to suggest that discrediting it discredits the anthropogenic thesis.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 09:53:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    CC,

    I'm curious if your research lead you to any pro-kyoto site's, or only anti-kyoto one's? If you're searching for information, only to support you pre-supposed opinion, then you're not actually doing research, but simply blindly searching for proof of your own personal dogma.

    With respect to your 17,000 scientists who came out against Kyoto... I believe it was Einstein who, faced with a similar list of scientists who claimed he was wrong, said "... if I was truly wrong, they would only need 1."

    Another quote, this one definitely by Einstein - "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Could these "conclusive" article's be trying to do the same thing?

    Also (and this is a little off-topic), can someone please explain to me why most Conservative's are so against Kyoto and most Liberals support it? It seems to me that believeing or not-believing in climate change should have nothing to do with political affiliation... This really is (or agt least in my opinion, should be) a non-political issue!

    Mike

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 09:59:00 AM EDT, Blogger vicki said…

    Mike ...in simple terms it appears to me that Libs are pro Kyoto because they re 'claiming' it is 'their' solution to environmental problems, and trust that the masses who have not examined it will believe them. The Conservatives who oppose it have examined it, and see that it is about $ redistribution without really changing environmental problems.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 11:16:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Viki is correct that the Liberals and NDP really want to claim Kyoto, but the real reason this is so popular on the "Left" is the underlying premise that massive amounts of regulatory control of the economy is required to combat "climate change".

    As I have pointed out in other blogs/sites, the climate was far warmer in the 1100's, when the Vikings were farming in Greenland; that alone should be enough to put a stopper in people's mouths (it was warmer then than it is today, but were were the disasters pro Kyoto people are always predicting?)

    Based on elementary factual evidence like that and the global cooling of the "Little ice age", climate change is probably driven by some sort of solar cycle, so until Al Gore can prove he is able to regulate the output of the sum, we will have to adapt like our ancestors did.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 12:23:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    Envirotruth.org.
    --Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research


    National Center for Public Policy Research

    --National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

    1998
    $10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
    Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

    2000
    $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    general support
    Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

    2001
    $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    15K for 'climate change' 15K for general support
    Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

    2002
    $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    general support
    Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

    2002
    $30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
    'educational activities'
    Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

    2003
    $25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    General Operating Support
    Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

    2003
    $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    Global Climate Change/EnviroTruth Website
    Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

    2004
    $55,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

    2005
    $55,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    General Support and Educational Activities
    Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

    "Envirotruth" links to ActivistCash.com, a food and tobacco lobby front that bashes progressive and environmental groups, including Greenpeace.

    NCPPR President Amy Moritz Ridenour created the NCPPR-sponsored site Envirotruth.org

    Though NCPPR often accuses environmentalists of basing policy decisions on emotion rather than science, Amy Ridenour of NCPPR once justified her organization's use of fundraising scare tactics: "It's just that you're competing with a lot of other organizations. People seem to respond better to emotion than they do with letters that have lots and lots of facts." (San Francisco Examiner, February 8, 1998)


    An organization funded by big tobacco and Exxon speaking out against Kyoto, and dismissing global warming? What are the odds.

    CC-- I'm dying to read your post about how the 'lung-lobby' has falsely demonized our friend Mr. Tobacco.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 12:25:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    Don't tell me we're back to half-assed research meant only to back your opinions up...

    I thought we'd settled this crap.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 12:27:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    maybe this'll help:

    http://www.envirotruth.net/

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 12:30:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    This might get lost in the mass of numbers, but from my above funding post:

    2003
    $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
    Global Climate Change/EnviroTruth Website
    Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 01:28:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Yes, that is interesting jDave, however, who is doing the funding for those who are pushing the Kyoto agenda? I'd be interested in seeing that.

    My main point was there there are two sides to every debate, but we, the public, are being fed a steady diet of one side only. When the whole debate on AGW started, pre-Kyoto, it was being pushed hard by the big money enviro-lobby.

    So I'm not surprised that, decades later, now that Kyoto has been given legs, that the anti-Kyoto forces are being helped by groups like this... perhaps their afraid of being done in by Kyoto? And why wouldn't they be, especially if Kyoto turns out to be a load of bull, and we're really just going through a natural planetary cycle?

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 01:44:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    CC:

    who is doing the funding for those who are pushing the Kyoto agenda? I'd be interested in seeing that.

    Well, I guess a good place to start would be to determine who benefits from Kyoto being implemented. Which companies, etc...

    But does that really matter? My whole point is that you trumpeted this website as debunking the 'myths' of Kyoto without even bothering to check who's behind this site. There are indeed 2 sides to any debate, and I'd be interested in hearing from an unbiased, non-sponsored, independent (truly independent) source than a mouthpiece for big oil. I'd be interested in seeing if such a source exists.

    This is all too remeniscent of the time you accused the Ontario liberals of accepting donations from shady sources, without bothering to check if perhaps the tories did it too.

    Half-assed research that cites biased, untrustworthy, agenda-driven corporate talking points sources, intended not to enlighten, but rather to convince.

    The worst part is, you've justified this type of website's existence by proudly citing it, without taking the 30 seconds it took me to do a little background research and determine that this source probably has an agenda and that their facts should be taken with a grain of salt.

    I'm not trying to be a prick here, but you're better than this. WAAAAAAAAY better.

    Get back to being the honest broker that you proven yourself capable of being.

    Cheers!

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 01:50:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    "So I'm not surprised that, decades later, now that Kyoto has been given legs, that the anti-Kyoto forces are being helped by groups like this... perhaps their afraid of being done in by Kyoto? And why wouldn't they be, especially if Kyoto turns out to be a load of bull, and we're really just going through a natural planetary cycle?"

    That must be it. Exxon only wants the truth to come out. It has nothing at all to do with Kyoto's efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and move to cleaner energy sources.

    Just like the tobacco lobby only wanted to get the truth out when they were suppressing their own research to conceal the damage their product was causing.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 02:02:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    And I find it kinda sad that you would believe big oil for anything. Do you also believe that the price of oil is entirely justified and reasonable? Do you also (as a big oil rep said just last week) believe that biofuel is 'immoral'?

    "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

    WHAPPP!!!!

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:16:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Andy Charles said…

    CC asks "Can we at least talk about this Canada, without the pro-Kyoto lobby jumping down our throats?"

    Jdave34 obliges with seven rapid fire posts. Too funny.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:21:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    andy:

    I don't consider it jumping down his throat, and I'm not coming from a pro-kyoto lobby, but rather a pro-honest-and well researched-blogging lobby.

    CC and I go back a ways....

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:26:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Actually, jDave, you pointed out a fact about that website that I didn't know... I'm glad you did, I don't want to be anyone's tool via their propoganda either. Where did you get info like that anyway?

    As for my admittedly quick research, relax, I'm not relying solely on that site... but thanks for the caution about them.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:30:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    CC:

    google.com.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:46:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I'm so tempted to toast that comment... more due to a "D'OH" moment more than anything else.

    I was expecting something more like "www.big-oil-funding-anti-kyoto-junk.com"

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 03:50:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    lol...I was waiting to see your reply.

    And I should get some kind of credit for not being an insufferable wiseass about it (for once)

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 04:35:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Your restraint was a marvel to behold... ;-)

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    I just did a screen capture of you saying that. I'm gonna print it out and carry it around as proof that once in a while, I can turn it down. A little.

    just don't tell Joanne!

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 04:54:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    LOL!

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 04:59:00 PM EDT, Blogger Blake said…

    "That must be it. Exxon only wants the truth to come out. It has nothing at all to do with Kyoto's efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and move to cleaner energy sources.

    Just like the tobacco lobby only wanted to get the truth out when they were suppressing their own research to conceal the damage their product was causing."

    I share jdave's suspicions as well, but for the sake of reality we need to keep in mind that we can engage in a logical fallacy here: argumentum ad hominem: circumstantial. Just because Exxon has something to gain from advocating a certain way doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong in what they're advocating. But it sure makes us keep in mind that they are aggressively opposing any political measures that negatively impact their bottom line.

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 05:03:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    blake!

    Good to have you back buddy...

     
  • At Thu Jul 13, 05:11:00 PM EDT, Blogger Blake said…

    Yeah, nice to be back from the Deep South, dude. Quite the different mindset down there. Made me feel like a true Canadian for the first time in my life.

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 02:23:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    CC:

    I'm hoping you see this because I think you'll get a lot out of the following link:

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/07/13/JimHoggan/

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 02:26:00 PM EDT, Blogger jdave34 said…

    this one too:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/

     

Post a Comment

<< Home