quote:

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Climate Experts Speak Out in New Video - Science underlying Kyoto Protocol seriously flawed

OTTAWA, April 13 /CNW Telbec/ - Today, researchers at the University of Calgary, in cooperation with the Friends of Science Society, released a video entitled:
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America’s foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.

Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) explains the crucial importance of properly evaluating the merit of Canada's climate change plans: “It is no exaggeration to say that in the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was introduced there has been a revolution in climate science. If, back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

---

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

The Lord is always plentiful propaganda gamble is not working so now they have this?

[ 22 May 2005: Message edited by: remind ]

What are reliable sources on global climate change? has a number of links to good information, including

Real Climate which is scientific but not political; and

Deltoid which debunks some of the usual suspects [and also has info supporting the Lancet study re deaths in Iraq]

This rabble thread, Implementing Kyoto and beyond has some links to sites identifying some of the bad guys such as Exxon, Fraser Institute, etc; also various references to evidence of climate change.

The Heat is Online looks like a good source of news about climate change and identifies some of the bad guys.

I had another link way back somewhere that listed various individuals receiving funding from Exxon, including some Fraser Institue guys; but haven't found that thread yet.

[ 22 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

Equally unfortunately, they do not look for their own evidence in things and accept what is thrown at them constantly.

quote:

---

Harsh weather cuts Greenpeace Arctic voyage short
03 Jun 2005 20:42:58 GMT

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) - Extreme weather conditions forced two U.S. explorers to abandon what would have been the first summertime crossing of the Arctic Ocean, environmental group Greenpeace said on Friday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GJJ:
I wonder if anybody on the panel could solve a system of non-linear equations if their life depended upon it, let alone know how to apply it to the atmosphere and ocean.

---

quote:

---

Well, you know how it is ... climate models are only published in rags like Nature

---

What were the conclusions of the IPCC? The Summary For Policy Makers does not reflect the findings of the report. In fact this is what the original report said: " “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases". The report was changed to 'more accurately reflect the summary'. That should make any thinking person go "HUH?"

What is the major greenhouse gas? (Hint) It's not carbon dioxide.

Why was there such a hullabaloo about global warming that suddenly that got switched to 'climate change'? Was it because the Kyoto fanatics realised that they couldn't make sensible people swallow their lies about global warming? Sorta like the ice age scare in the '70s.
How many third world companies did Maurice Strong and Power Corp buy so they could sell emission credits back to Canada?

Can the computor models used to predict climate change include the effect of clouds or the sun's temperature variations?

Now because I believe Kyoto is a big lie and would be an economic disaster that means I just love pollution, right? No, it just means that I'm against implementing Kyoto. And in fact if we don't throw all sorts of billions in the Kyoto garbage can, we could and should spend that money on enviromental initatives that actually would be some benefit.

[ 07 June 2005: Message edited by: Rat lander ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat lander:
Are you talking about global warming or climate change? Because I heard climate change is now the flavour of the month. The global warming dogma just isn't cool any more.

---

It "properly described" (or just more accurately) has climatic change, something caused by the dynamics of global warming or the Greenhouse effect.

The mental connonations with this different terminlogy is important

Climate change : think the film "The Day after Tommorrow"; disasters, famine, massive economic chaos, disappearence of entire cultures who can't afford to adapt, boring things like that, all due to a complex system of reactions done by the world's climate in response to industrial mankind as well as natural processes we still barely understand.

Global Warming: YIppie ! A longer golf season ! Vintages resurfacing in Southern England ! Golly good fun for one and all!

However, people more readily except the concept of GM as opposed to CC. Contrarians like those from the Calgary Institute or better yet "The Science & Environmental Policy Project",
SEPP wisely exploit this to their advantage (as I suppose many ENGOs do in their own right re: action on climate change and related civil society campaigns).

[ 07 June 2005: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]

[ 07 June 2005: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]

I think we are looking for a forum that can weight the differences intelligently.

"The State of Fear" maybe Dr. Conway Non-linear equations would do?

" “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases". The report was changed to 'more accurately reflect the summary'. That should make any thinking person go "HUH?"

That's Junk science talk. Real scientists like those involved in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not alter reports. "Skeptic" scientists funded by vested interests like Exxon-Mobil, Western Fuels and other climate change naysayers stoop to all kinds of levels to hide the truth so that they can continue making their obscene profits - whatever the costs to people.

What is the major greenhouse gas? (Hint) It's not carbon dioxide.

It's CO2. While methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas it only has an atmospheric life of 13 years whereas CO2 has an atmospheric life of more than one hundred years. The carbon banks are not sopping up the excess CO2 being emitted into the air by fossil fuels. Therefore, much of it is left in our atmosphere exacerbating the greenhouse effect and increasing the warming of our earth . And there lies the very big rub!

Why was there such a hullabaloo about global warming that suddenly that got switched to 'climate change'? Was it because the Kyoto fanatics realised that they couldn't make sensible people swallow their lies about global warming? Sorta like the ice age scare in the '70s.

The International Panel on Climate Change has had that name since it was formed in 1989. Global warming was popularized by the public. As for the ice age scare in the 70's we are moving toward the end of an interglacial period . The two phenomena are not incompatible . Rapid global warming could well lead to an early ice age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat lander:
Are you talking about global warming or climate change? Because I heard climate change is now the flavour of the month. The global warming dogma just isn't cool any more.

---

I didn't actually realize you were serious ! The terminology of Climate change has been consistently used since 1992 with the beginnings of the UN Framework Convention on CLIMATE CHANGE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat lander:
Nature, huh? That's one of the rags that got duped by the hockey stick graph fiasco isn't it?

---

Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

A couple of comments:

quote:

---

Well, finally I understand. It is another case of confusing radians and degrees on the part of McKitrick. It would be interesting to look at the package he used for his analysis to see what the warnings are for use of the algorithm.

---

quote:

---

Most climate change denial is normally left to nuts posting on the internet and the occasional bit of disinformation published by right wing think tanks and astroturf organisations.

---

http://tinyurl.com/8fchg

quote:

---

Cut greenhouse gases now, science academies tell G-8 leaders

Last Updated Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:03:06 EDT
CBC News

Governments must act quickly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the world's science academies said Tuesday.

-snip-

"The current U.S. policy on climate change is misguided," said Lord May, president of the Royal Society. He added the policy ignores scientific evidence from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

-snip-

The statement is published by the U.K. national academy of science, along with its counterparts in France, Russia, Germany, U.S., Japan, Italy and Canada.

Academies in Brazil, China and India, countries which are among the largest emitters of greenhouses gases in the developing world, also signed the statement.

-snip-

"It is clear that world leaders, including the G-8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions."

---

Sure I'll play the devil's advocate here. That Crichton insisting enviromental terrorism can accomplish and reinforce a view on Climate Change, that was drummed up to create a state of fear.

Don't you get it? How ridiculous this sounds?

It's a work of fiction. To do what? To instill "bogus fears" to drive you to accept climate change, when counter arguments are presented contrary by the views of other scientists?

It's all laid out there. I present a alternative on these scientific views, and it's based on new views that are being introduced to us.

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.

So what the biggest complaint of those who refuse to ratify the Kyoto Accord? The Cost maybe?

Now trying to remain neutral, but having to play the devil's advocate, why did Bush withdraw?

All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.

So it's not really about scientists is it, or is it? Not with the record being made clear here. So why would they put dissention in front of the economy? Maybe to save face?

HOCKEY STICKS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS AND SPURIOUS SIGNIFICANCE by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick

The term “hockey stick” is often used to describe the shape of the Northern Hemisphere (NH)mean temperature index introduced in Mann et al. [1998, hereinafter “MBH98”]. For convenience, we define the “hockey stick index” of a series as the difference between the mean
of the closing sub-segment (here 1902-1980) and the mean of the entire series (typically 1400-
1980 in this discussion) in units of the long-term standard deviation (σ , and a “hockey stick
shaped” series is defined as one having a hockey stick index of at least 1 σ. Such series may be
either upside-up (i.e. the “blade” trends upwards) or upside-down. Our focus here is on the 1400-1450 step (“AD1400 step”) of MBH98, because of controversy over early 15th century
temperature reconstructions [McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003; Mann et al., 2003]. Our particular interest in the performance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic arises out of that controversy.

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

...HOCKEY STICKS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS AND SPURIOUS SIGNIFICANCE by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick...

---

quote:

---

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues. Before coming to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

---

It's par for the course nowadays for the Bush admin to "suppress and distort scientific knowledge on many issues, and to undermine scientific advisory panels".

Dissent by scientists is growing across the board. Even formerly apolitical scientific Magazines are getting into the act.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 8—Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists released new evidence that the Bush Administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels. The number of scientists calling for an end to these practices and restoration of scientific integrity in federal policymaking now totals more than 4,000,* including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Science

James Inhofe chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And naturally, as one of Bush's boys, he's anti global warming. I quote from the URL below:

"James Inhofe might be an environmentalist's worst nightmare. The Oklahoma senator makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and
theological influences, flawed science, and probably an apocalyptic worldview -- and HE CHAIRS THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.

As committee chair, Inhofe has subtly chosen scripture over science. The origins of his 2003 Senate speech attacking the science behind global
climate change, for example, reveal his two masters: the speech is traceable to the fossil fuel industry think tanks and petrochemical dollars -- but also to the pseudo-science of Christian right websites.

In that two-hour diatribe, Inhofe dismissed global warming by comparing it to a 1970s scientific scare that suggested the planet was cooling -- a hypothesis, he fails to note, held by only a minority of climatologists at the time.

Inhofe's apparent source on global cooling was the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion
and Liberty, a Christian-right and free-market economics think tank. In an editorial on that site called "Global Warming or Globaloney? The Forgotten Case for Global Cooling," we hear echoes of Inhofe's position.

The article calls climate change "a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restriction on our cherished freedoms.

Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism." Inhofe's views can be heard in the
words of dispensationalist Jerry Falwell as well, who said on CNN, "It was global cooling 30 years ago ... and it's global warming now. ... The fact is there is no global warming."

Inhofe's views are also closely tied to the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship, a radical-right Christian organization founded by
radio evangelist James Dobson, dispensationalist Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who has been editing Vatican texts to align the Catholic Church's historical teachings with his free-market philosophy, according to E Magazine.

The ICES environmental view is shaped by the Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth." The group says this passage proves that "man" is superior to nature and gives the go-ahead to unchecked population growth and unrestrained
resource use. Such beliefs fly in the face of ecology, which shows humankind
to be an equal and interdependent participant in the natural web.

Inhofe's staff defends his backward scientific positions, no matter how at odds they are with mainstream scientists. "How do you define 'mainstream'?" asked a miffed staffer. "Scientists who accept the so-called consensus about
global warming? Galileo was not mainstream."

But Inhofe is no Galileo. In
fact, his use of lawsuits to try to suppress the peer-reviewed science of the National Assessment on Climate Change -- which predicts major
extinctions and threats to coastal regions -- arguably puts him on the side of Galileo's oppressors, the perpetrators of the Christian Inquisition, writes Chris Mooney in The American Prospect.

"I trust God with my legislative goals and the issues that are important to
my constituents," Inhofe has told Pentecostal Evangel magazine. "I don't believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn't been dealt with in the Scriptures." But Inhofe stayed silent in that interview as
to which passages he applies to the environment, and he remained so when I asked him if End-Time beliefs influence his leadership of the most powerful environmental committee in the country."
By Glenn Scherer, Oct. 2004:

Hence "chinese lanuage capabilties" that's metapor, can never attain the quality of vision that is necessary if "numerical designations" have been detain to limited visionistic capabilties?

"Calorimetric views" are all encompassing, yet the "diversity of pathways" are contained within this function. Why would nature be any different?

And guess what, they loss track of the energy to a certain degree, so this is attributed to something beyond, in that vision.

I do endeavor to stretch the imaginations of people in a nice way, so look to the developements to that end?

I suspect only 1% will understand this, and maybe, Dr. Conway? So I look to that 1% to respond.

Why do you think Thales as a fictional character was born? You'll understand this shortly. Non!

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: remind ]

ya so?

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 8, 2005

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

You have to ask yourself, the basis of this claim and what is driving the motivations for that elected government?

As much as "the scientist" has been thown in the loop de loop conversation, the basis of this impulse is financial and nothing else? Anything added to this is camouflage of the inhernet issue.

Examples set out before in terms of Germanies response to effective measures in a industrial country, will be the measure of financial gain versus co2 emission reduction. In this case, electrical needs and windmills, versus other means of electrical production?

Co2 reduction methods, measured against financial gain?

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:
oh! that's right, "nonlinear processes don't exist" so there is no feasible way to categorize, cyclical procesess in nature?

Hence "chinese lanuage capabilties" that's metapor, can never attain the quality of vision that is necessary if "numerical designations" have been detain to limited visionistic capabilties?

---

On the contrary, almost all real physical systems are non-linear in nature, and are analytically solved either by abstracting them into linear processes (the famous spherical cow), examining them close to a linear region (for instance near equilibrium), or by using some sort of perturbation analysis (approximate the system as linear with perturbations). Systems of non-linear equations are notoriously hard to solve analytically, so they tend instead to be solved using numerical methods. There are a lot of complexities in doing this as well (for instance in accumulations of errors and the paramterization of low order effects which can be safely ignored in linear approximations but which often are significant in non-linear sytems, but occur on a scale smaller than a doable grid size).

quote:

---

...In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable...

...Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case...

...Exxon, officially the US's most valuable company valued at $379bn (£206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House's unwavering skepticism of international efforts to address climate change...

...In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, both of which have followed the US line against Kyoto...

---

Your a breathe of fresh air. Thanks GJJ

Your points above this quote of yours is of course drawn from perspective, that scientists debate as well. "Intelligent design and such."

Who wants to be drawn into this? A fictious debate drawn up about scientists pro and con climate change, and here I think Crichton understood it. Why he created such a "prepostorous artistic rendition" of 911.

All of a sudden you have two aspects of scientist devoted to two different causes when we know validation processes are what is required.

But they didn't win the US government. The psychopaths have been in control since then. I think the the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" portrays exactly the kind of problem we are faced with. People in Washington who are running the show don't have the capacity to think outside their little neo-liberal box. George Bush can imagine that he is now as popular as Kennedy and therefore committ 500 billion to land Americans on Mars but he doesn't see the point to spending 5 billion on developing an environmentally friendly alternative fuel source and marketing it around the world...

It's quite Zen in a way; using the greatest strength of science, its capacity for constructive skepticism, to try and paralyze those who would make rational use of scientific knowledge.

There is a lot of stuff being bandied about regarding non-linear dynamic systems. There are some things to bear in mind about those systems:

* The fact that they are hard to predict on a micro level does not mean they are hard to predict on a macro level. When you hit a golf ball, the question of the exact path it will take is one of non-linear dynamic theory; but you do not need to solve those equations to predict that the ball will eventually hit the ground or the water and not hang in the air at the apex of its arc.

Levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen by 30%. Human emissions are the cause. Average tempetures have risen signifigantly. There is no reason to think they will stop.

quote:

---

Before you close the books on your bean-counting, you better put a price on the possible extinction of a large fraction of the human race.

---

There are however a few folks out there who've suddenly found great research grants from a few energy based companies by attacking global warming. Many of these you'll find hadn't published anything for years, even decades, in peer reviewed publications before striking it rich and being described in the press as significant scientists.

You can refer to site linked for comments in regards to those made here. It's just better all the way around to not disturb the scientific view we are being given, with such extras, beyond the scientific valuation assigned here.

Although it is limited, it is correct

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]