http://groups.google.fm/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/50f8567d65ad4196/209cc565f7bedee2?lnk=raot
> Of course, the debate is far from over. Just recently, over sixty
> scientists
> urged the Canadian government to review the science of climate change as
> it
> relates to Canada's position on the Kyoto protocol. The letter stated:
I am not generally a believer in arguments from authority or attacks on > scientists
> urged the Canadian government to review the science of climate change as
> it
> relates to Canada's position on the Kyoto protocol. The letter stated:
other's credentials, scientific arguments must stand on their own. However,
this letter is one big hand wave with nothing specific or substantive to
address, so I feel justified to note that most of the signatories are not
climate scientists and it includes the usual batch of sceptical political
economists and the regular cast of denialists for hire: Micheals, Baliunas,
Singer, Peiser, Jaworowski, Essex and McKitrick.
There some demonstrable liars in there. Check Tim Lambert's blog entry on
this letter for links to some of these guys antics.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/climate_change_is_real.php
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta
| So who are the sixty scientist? Most of them aren't climate scientists, and seventeen of them have got mentioned on this blog, typically for making serious errors of fact and interpretation: Ross McKitrick, Christopher Essex, Benny Peiser, Richard Lindzen, David E. Wojick, Chris de Freitas, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, William Kininmonth, Pat Michaels, Nils-Axel Mörner, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, S Fred Singer and Sally Baliunas. |
Fakename" <faken...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h9CdneVK56hNnaHZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Signatory Bails on Anti-Climate Science Petition
http://www.desmogblog.com/signatory-bails-on-anti-climate-science-petition
> This article makes me wonder:
It shouldn't, the tone and content are not any cause to be impressed. > The Public Policy
> Kyoto Kiddies
> By David Hogberg
> Published 4/11/2006 12:07:14 AM
That's actually kinda funny. Children are an excuse for such leftist ideas > Kyoto Kiddies
> By David Hogberg
> Published 4/11/2006 12:07:14 AM
> If children didn't exist, the left would have to invent them. Case in
> point
as "conservation", "sustainability" and "environmentalism". It's true,
but...get rid of children?
> Of course, the debate is far from over. Just recently, over sixty
> scientists
> urged the Canadian government to review the science of climate change as
> it
> relates to Canada's position on the Kyoto protocol. The letter stated:
I am not generally a believer in arguments from authority or attacks on > scientists
> urged the Canadian government to review the science of climate change as
> it
> relates to Canada's position on the Kyoto protocol. The letter stated:
other's credentials, scientific arguments must stand on their own. However,
this letter is one big hand wave with nothing specific or substantive to
address, so I feel justified to note that most of the signatories are not
climate scientists and it includes the usual batch of sceptical political
economists and the regular cast of denialists for hire: Micheals, Baliunas,
Singer, Peiser, Jaworowski, Essex and McKitrick.
There some demonstrable liars in there. Check Tim Lambert's blog entry on
this letter for links to some of these guys antics.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/climate_change_is_real.php
> Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models,
> so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet
> this
This is hard to argue as they do not specify what observations they think do > so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet
> this
not fit the models. I am frankly not aware of any serious contradictions. It
is likely this is an oblique reference to James Hansen's 1988 testimony and
Patrick Micheals' subsequent perjury about it to the US congress in 1998. I
have debunked that persistent urban legend here.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-befor...
It could also be a reference to satellite readings of upper and mid
tropospheric warming. However last year, Spencer and Christy re-did this
anaysis yet again after uncovering further errors and now the warming trend
they found is in fact in agreement with model predictions. That was a big
blow to the "What warming?" crowd. You can read some detail and see some
references here.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.html (I
note that Roy Spencer is one of the signatories, he at least should know
what his own results are.)
> While Environmental Defense may succeed in stifling debate on the science
> of
> global warming, it is going to have a much harder time doing so on global
> warming policy. One policy Environmental Defense promotes is a "cap-and
> trade" system in which the total amount of greenhouse gases that companies
> can emit is restricted by the federal government. Companies that do a
> better
> job of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions under the cap can earn
> credits that they can trade with companies that do not do as well as
> limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Defense points to the
> successful cap-and-trade system employed to limit sulfur dioxide, the main
> cause of acid rain. However, technologies like smokestack scrubbers and
> low-sulfur coal were already in development when the sulfur dioxide system
> was established. As of yet, there are no such technologies available for a
> greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide.
I don't think that's true. There are cleaner cola technolgies and CO2 > of
> global warming, it is going to have a much harder time doing so on global
> warming policy. One policy Environmental Defense promotes is a "cap-and
> trade" system in which the total amount of greenhouse gases that companies
> can emit is restricted by the federal government. Companies that do a
> better
> job of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions under the cap can earn
> credits that they can trade with companies that do not do as well as
> limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Defense points to the
> successful cap-and-trade system employed to limit sulfur dioxide, the main
> cause of acid rain. However, technologies like smokestack scrubbers and
> low-sulfur coal were already in development when the sulfur dioxide system
> was established. As of yet, there are no such technologies available for a
> greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide.
scrubbers, all kinds of low hanging fruit that can be picked while the
harder problems are worked on.
> in GDP for the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and Italy. Last year British
> PM Tony Blair admitted that Kyoto wouldn't work: "The truth is, no country
> is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a
> long-term environmental problem. Some people have signed Kyoto, some
> people
> haven't signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It's there. It's not
> going to be resolved." If this is the effect cap-and-trade is having on
It is always amazing what happens when you accept that there is no choice. > PM Tony Blair admitted that Kyoto wouldn't work: "The truth is, no country
> is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a
> long-term environmental problem. Some people have signed Kyoto, some
> people
> haven't signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It's there. It's not
> going to be resolved." If this is the effect cap-and-trade is having on
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email:
Unique IP visits:
