"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 grâce. 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.