What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[Jon Miller]

No question that Kyoto is ****ing stupid.

JM

[Thorgal]

So after some funny posts aout how economically dependant is science of gflobal warming and about the mental illnes of the pathetic sciencists we have at least a post that deserves an answer:

Originally posted by Ned


One of the things you are going to have to as of the GW-types is why Kyoto? Why a treaty protocol that allows everyone but the first world off the hook because it would ****** their economic growth? It seems clear that the agenda is to clamp the economic growth of the first world while allowing the economic growth of everyone else. Controlling green house gasses is secondary.

Kyoto and GW activism is politically motivated.

Surely your complaints are mainly becuase China and India cases, so please look For India and China in this list:

O2 Emissions (per capita) by country
#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
#6 Luxembourg: 17.977 per 1,000 people
#7 Trinidad and Tobago: 16.8278 per 1,000 people
#8 Australia: 16.5444 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 15.8941 per 1,000 people
#10 Singapore: 13.8137 per 1,000 people
#11 Czech Republic: 12.115 per 1,000 people
#12 Belgium: 12.0632 per 1,000 people
#13 Palau: 11.9096 per 1,000 people
#14 Estonia: 11.1657 per 1,000 people
#15 Finland: 10.8403 per 1,000 people
#16 Russia: 10.7402 per 1,000 people
#17 Ireland: 10.6612 per 1,000 people
#18 Netherlands: 10.6545 per 1,000 people
#19 Nauru: 10.3924 per 1,000 people
#20 Germany: 10.1591 per 1,000 people
#21 Saudi Arabia: 10.072 per 1,000 people
#22 Israel: 9.99186 per 1,000 people
#23 Japan: 9.61204 per 1,000 people
#24 Denmark: 9.44788 per 1,000 people
#25 United Kingdom: 9.23587 per 1,000 people
#26 Cyprus: 8.99411 per 1,000 people
#27 Greece: 8.63801 per 1,000 people
#28 Oman: 8.32285 per 1,000 people
#29 Kazakhstan: 8.14471 per 1,000 people
#30 New Zealand: 8.08758 per 1,000 people
#31 Poland: 7.87846 per 1,000 people
#32 Austria: 7.8658 per 1,000 people
#33 South Africa: 7.77085 per 1,000 people
#34 Norway: 7.68826 per 1,000 people
#35 Italy: 7.68629 per 1,000 people
#36 Spain: 7.55763 per 1,000 people
#37 Iceland: 7.5208 per 1,000 people
#38 Slovenia: 7.49269 per 1,000 people
#39 Ukraine: 7.41232 per 1,000 people
#40 Korea, North: 7.34636 per 1,000 people
#41 Libya: 7.33176 per 1,000 people
#42 Turkmenistan: 6.98387 per 1,000 people
#43 Slovakia: 6.79936 per 1,000 people
#44 Portugal: 6.1342 per 1,000 people
#45 Bulgaria: 6.00413 per 1,000 people
#46 France: 5.99255 per 1,000 people
#47 Belarus: 5.78257 per 1,000 people
#48 Bahamas, The: 5.71954 per 1,000 people
#49 Hungary: 5.68097 per 1,000 people
#50 Switzerland: 5.5801 per 1,000 people
#51 Sweden: 5.41667 per 1,000 people
#52 Venezuela: 5.38662 per 1,000 people
#53 Malta: 5.36993 per 1,000 people
#54 Antigua and Barbuda: 5.2254 per 1,000 people
#55 Malaysia: 5.16022 per 1,000 people
#56 Suriname: 5.12115 per 1,000 people
#57 Barbados: 4.78503 per 1,000 people
#58 Uzbekistan: 4.50801 per 1,000 people
#59 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 4.3334 per 1,000 people
#60 Croatia: 4.26853 per 1,000 people
#61 Serbia and Montenegro: 4.09594 per 1,000 people
#62 Lebanon: 4.06937 per 1,000 people
#63 Romania: 4.06309 per 1,000 people
#64 Jamaica: 3.77182 per 1,000 people
#65 Azerbaijan: 3.72721 per 1,000 people
#66 Mexico: 3.62584 per 1,000 people
#67 Argentina: 3.51517 per 1,000 people
#68 Chile: 3.42842 per 1,000 people
#69 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 3.22108 per 1,000 people
#70 Lithuania: 3.21763 per 1,000 people
#71 Turkey: 3.21359 per 1,000 people
#72 Iraq: 3.0108 per 1,000 people
#73 Belize: 2.94218 per 1,000 people
#74 Latvia: 2.83406 per 1,000 people
#75 Cuba: 2.76319 per 1,000 people
#76 Seychelles: 2.76149 per 1,000 people
#77 Jordan: 2.69712 per 1,000 people
#78 Saint Lucia: 2.6787 per 1,000 people
#79 Thailand: 2.67498 per 1,000 people
#80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people
#81 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 2.63361 per 1,000 people
#82 Mongolia: 2.60892 per 1,000 people
#83 Botswana: 2.45933 per 1,000 people
#84 Algeria: 2.28009 per 1,000 people
#85 Mauritius: 2.27132 per 1,000 people
#86 Dominican Republic: 2.19743 per 1,000 people
#87 Guyana: 2.13098 per 1,000 people
#88 Tunisia: 2.00289 per 1,000 people
#89 Uruguay: 1.87608 per 1,000 people
#90 Panama: 1.81812 per 1,000 people
#91 Brazil: 1.76161 per 1,000 people
#92 Maldives: 1.72756 per 1,000 people
#93 Egypt: 1.64027 per 1,000 people
#94 Ecuador: 1.54933 per 1,000 people
#95 Colombia: 1.48993 per 1,000 people
#96 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 1.403 per 1,000 people
#97 Equatorial Guinea: 1.35322 per 1,000 people
#98 Georgia: 1.33273 per 1,000 people
#99 Bolivia: 1.32244 per 1,000 people
#100 Costa Rica: 1.30055 per 1,000 people
#101 Armenia: 1.23 per 1,000 people
#102 Indonesia: 1.18206 per 1,000 people
#103 Tonga: 1.16703 per 1,000 people
#104 Zimbabwe: 1.1593 per 1,000 people
#105 Dominica: 1.09809 per 1,000 people
#106 Gabon: 1.04347 per 1,000 people
#107 Mauritania: 1.01636 per 1,000 people
#108 Morocco: 1.01559 per 1,000 people
#109 Peru: 1.00959 per 1,000 people
#110 El Salvador: 0.984012 per 1,000 people
#111 Namibia: 0.957607 per 1,000 people
#112 Kyrgyzstan: 0.942344 per 1,000 people
#113 India: 0.933086 per 1,000 people
#114 Grenada: 0.880427 per 1,000 people
#115 Albania: 0.865871 per 1,000 people
#116 Philippines: 0.857065 per 1,000 people
#117 Guatemala: 0.840461 per 1,000 people
#118 Samoa: 0.820703 per 1,000 people
#119 Djibouti: 0.813924 per 1,000 people
#120 Fiji: 0.784571 per 1,000 people
#121 Honduras: 0.691699 per 1,000 people
#122 Nicaragua: 0.662342 per 1,000 people
#123 Pakistan: 0.652524 per 1,000 people
#124 Tajikistan: 0.621873 per 1,000 people
#125 Paraguay: 0.576386 per 1,000 people
#126 Vietnam: 0.568987 per 1,000 people
#127 Sri Lanka: 0.557299 per 1,000 people
#128 Sao Tome and Principe: 0.533589 per 1,000 people
#129 Cape Verde: 0.506427 per 1,000 people
#130 Yemen: 0.500203 per 1,000 people
#131 Vanuatu: 0.480671 per 1,000 people
#132 Papua New Guinea: 0.44101 per 1,000 people
#133 Cote d'Ivoire: 0.413002 per 1,000 people
#134 Angola: 0.410451 per 1,000 people
#135 Nigeria: 0.373901 per 1,000 people
#136 Swaziland: 0.340685 per 1,000 people
#137 Senegal: 0.335571 per 1,000 people
#138 Solomon Islands: 0.317267 per 1,000 people
#139 Kenya: 0.301241 per 1,000 people
#140 Togo: 0.297944 per 1,000 people
#141 Kiribati: 0.280332 per 1,000 people
#142 Ghana: 0.269835 per 1,000 people
#143 Benin: 0.216329 per 1,000 people
#144 Bangladesh: 0.206999 per 1,000 people
#145 Guinea-Bissau: 0.202548 per 1,000 people
#146 Cameroon: 0.20093 per 1,000 people
#147 Burma: 0.188857 per 1,000 people
#148 Gambia, The: 0.175737 per 1,000 people
#149 Bhutan: 0.174014 per 1,000 people
#150 Haiti: 0.17359 per 1,000 people
#151 Zambia: 0.168656 per 1,000 people
#152 Liberia: 0.14631 per 1,000 people
#153 Sudan: 0.145642 per 1,000 people
#154 Guinea: 0.141363 per 1,000 people
#155 Madagascar: 0.136768 per 1,000 people
#156 Eritrea: 0.133298 per 1,000 people
#157 Comoros: 0.132142 per 1,000 people
#158 Nepal: 0.116682 per 1,000 people
#159 Lesotho: 0.1032 per 1,000 people
#160 Niger: 0.0983228 per 1,000 people
#161 Sierra Leone: 0.0974945 per 1,000 people
#162 Burkina Faso: 0.0801141 per 1,000 people
#163 Tanzania: 0.0733069 per 1,000 people
#164 Rwanda: 0.0705841 per 1,000 people
#165 Central African Republic: 0.0674375 per 1,000 people
#166 Laos: 0.0663664 per 1,000 people
#167 Mozambique: 0.0625857 per 1,000 people
#168 Malawi: 0.0615645 per 1,000 people
#169 Uganda: 0.0528732 per 1,000 people
#170 Ethiopia: 0.0499446 per 1,000 people
#171 Mali: 0.0497854 per 1,000 people
#172 Cambodia: 0.0393077 per 1,000 people
#173 Burundi: 0.030789 per 1,000 people
#174 Afghanistan: 0.0305824 per 1,000 people
#175 Chad: 0.0134721 per 1,000 people
#176 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 0.0123428 per 1,000 people

So an USAian is poluting 8 times more than a Chinesse and about 21!! times an Indian, but they should cut his emissions in the same proportion. Is that OK?

[SpencerH]

It's absurd to analyse a countries CO2 pollution in relation to population (in the context of Kyoto).

Total pollution in 2000

#1 United States: 1,571
#2 China: 775
#3 Russia: 451
#4 Japan: 314
#5 India: 253
#6 Germany: 220
#7 Canada: 158
#8 United Kingdom: 148
#9 Italy: 117
#10 Korea, South: 115

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_fro_fos_fue_200-carbon-dioxide-fossil-fuels-2000

edit: couldnt find the units of measure but you have the link

[SpencerH]

Heres a reason to avoid the Kyoto accords like the plague

Chinese Officials Suspected of Faking Pollution Statistics to Meet Clean Air Targets
December 28, 2006 - 08:35 a.m.
BEIJING (AP) - China's environmental watchdog is investigating whether local officials submitted fake pollution data to the central government after failing to meet annual clean air targets, state media said Thursday.

The State Environmental Protection Administration, or SEPA, calculated that in 2006 emissions of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide nationwide rose 2 percent. However, according to figures submitted by 26 regional governments, emissions of the same two pollutants were reduced by 2 percent, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

Chinese cities are among the world's smoggiest following two decades of breakneck economic growth.

The figures submitted by regional governments matched up with clean air targets set by the central government for the year.

The government plans to cut the emissions of major pollutants by 10 percent between 2006 and 2010 — an average 2 percent reduction per year for the next five years.

"Under the great pressure of assessment, some local governments have fabricated the environmental index," SEPA director Zhou Shengxian was quoted as saying.

Chinese leaders said in March that they would start taking energy efficiency and environmental achievements into account when evaluating local leaders' performance.

The administration will send working groups to the provinces to check the local environmental statistics, Xinhua said.

The report quoted a local official from western Gansu province as saying his colleagues downplayed the province's achievements in cutting emissions this year, so that they would be under less pressure to cut more emissions in the future.

The official, who's name was not given, said sulfur dioxide emissions were down 6 percent and carbon dioxide emissions were cut 4 percent, but that the province reported a 2 percent reduction for both.

The report did not say which provinces or regions SEPA suspected of submitting fake data or explain how the administration had independent data for all of the regions.

[Thorgal]

I agree that industries should be regulated in any country but what dou you expect from China or India?. Negative CO2 emission per capita?

About the supposedly fake chinesse statistics i fail to see why is that a reason "to avoid Kyoto like the plague". OTOH we can see that most countries emissions are increasing much slower in last years, stabilized or even decreasing. With some well known exceptions of course. So it is obvious where the problem is. However all this can be fake too of course.

[OzzyKP]

Blame Canada!

[Ned]

A major, major reason US companies moved their manufacturing to China and SE Asia over the last two decades were environmental laws. I suspect these same countries know this, which is one of the reasons they resist so strongly being subject to "Western" green fanaticism. They will clean up their environment at a pace that will not gut the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[KrazyHorse]

It seems clear that the agenda is to clamp the economic growth of the first world while allowing the economic growth of everyone else. Controlling green house gasses is secondary.

Really? First world leaders decided that hampering their own countries' growth was of paramount importance?

Don't be such a ****ing Ned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It seems clear that the agenda is to clamp the economic growth of the first world while allowing the economic growth of everyone else. Controlling green house gasses is secondary.

Really? First world leaders decided that hampering their own countries' growth was of paramount importance?

Don't be such a ****ing Ned.

I certainly believe this was a prime objective of the Second and Third world.

As to the First World, I think they were motivated by environmental concerns, but were more concerned about getting the protocol agreed to by the conference than in getting an effective protocol that actually would be universal in its effect.

What they also failed to consider, it seems, it the major adverse effect the selectively-effective protocol would have on manufacturing jobs in the First World. These would move even faster to the third world under Kyoto than they had been before as firms choose to expand in Kyoto-free zones to remain competitive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


I certainly believe this was a prime objective of the Second and Third world.

So? They had limited influence on the deal that was signed. The First World was the one making the sacrifices, so they got to say what they could live with.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ned


Historically, I think, cylical temperature changes (caused by the sun and our orbit about it) caused the changes in CO2, not the other way around.

But now it is different, we are told.

Any comment on this point?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. The level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is far above any previous cycle.

Unlike temperature reading prior to the modern age, which are fraught with uncertainty due to the proxies used, CO2 readings are far better understood.

Claiming that human beings have not caused a runup in CO2 levels is stupid. Claiming that the global mean temperatures have not gone up by almost a degree (C) in the last century is stupid. Saying that CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" have no effect on global climate is stupid. Claiming that prior temperature records (before, say, 1850) are not reliable is not stupid. Saying that we don't understand the feedback cycle in temperature is not stupid.

Basically, you're talking out of your ass, Ned. If you want to criticise the conclusions of some climatologists, then you should stick to my last two points. Everything else is simple ignorance.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Straybow
AGWists are essentially the same people who, back in the '70s, said that by this decade oil would run out and the global economy come to a screeching halt, population growth would outpace food production and everybody would starve, etc.

Originally posted by Odin
....
More proof that these "sceptics" are nothing but a bunch of liars.

I call BS. Are you saying ExMo should go around looking for anti-oil Malthusian Luddites to fund? The sceptics are honest scientists, they had to look to a private source for funding because the academic elite (including the federal funding sources) won't fund anything that contradicts their political agenda.

Notice how the Union of Concerned Scientists (a political hack group if ever there was one) can only argue that their opponents were funded by ExxonMobile, not that the work was in any way deficient.

QFT

The sky-fallers bang on about vested interests of those funding the honest research of sceptics, who are subject to a constant barrage of shrill abuse about the equivalent of 'Holocaust Denial', plus what are tantamount to 'War Crime tribunals' and death threats from the likes of Monbiot, while turning a blind eye to the vested interests of the academic elite.

Science doesn't close the book on enquiry and debate. Ever.

[Ned]

KH, the point I am making is that CO2 concentrations historically followed temperature. High warm period CO2 levels in the past did not prevent slides back into ice ages.

Why should we expect anything different today? Why should we expect that CO2 should be able to overwhelm whatever is causing the repeated ice-age cycles, which, btw, is now due to enter another deep cold period.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
KH, the point I am making is that CO2 concentrations historically followed temperature.

a) If you hadn't noticed, I'm quite dismissive of anybody's temperature approximations from before the modern age

b) So what (even if true)? There was no external force driving CO2 concentrations as there is today. It's a completely different situation. Your "argument" holds no relevance.

c) I've already said I don't know what the hell driving CO2 concentrations is going to do to global climate.