91 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Another Poll Goes Horribly Wrong”

  1. The sun appears to be moving into a Dalton Minimum.
    The PDO is moving into a cold phase.
    El Nino brings cooler summers, and will be with us for years at least.
    We’re seeing the coldest and snowiest winters in decades across the globe, in some places breaking records going back well over 100 years.
    And Oh yeah! France and Germany say that pushing Kyoto in Europe is going to destroy the economy and lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. This from a country in particular- Germany- where unemployment is already almost double that of the US.
    Let’s solve Real pollution problems- and leave faux agw for the hystericysts (the ‘y’ is deliberate).

  2. Awesome as the roadkill power of SDA is, you can’t get 7500 votes on a Globe & Mail poll about Suzuki without a lot of other people also being skeptical about the Fruitfly Guru. This is encouraging.

  3. Put me down as a former fan of David Suzuki. Hey, I was just a kid, and back then he still had some sanity, dignity, credibility, respect.
    Today, however, he’s just a stark raving mad moonbat.

  4. “Although I would submit that its more accurate when you don’t sick your readership on it.”
    Steve @4:27
    The mainstream media in the west have coopted information to flow from one side of the spectrum for so long, there is no way to gauge the accuracy of any poll. People that read that rag are not presented with the best available information from which to make critical choices. They are force fed pap. This forum provides a balance to that and so readers here are in a better position to call that socialist scumbag for what he is. And I second the Canadian Sentinel’s comments. I admired him in the 70’s, couldn’t care in the 80’s and from there watched him publicly become the narcissitic monster that he is today. Turn all their inane polls upside down.

  5. I’ve never tasted whale, but the Japanese seem to consider it a delicasy. I should try it.
    I’ve had rattlesnake and kangaroo and many fish I have seen close up (mmm, grooooupeerrrr). Neither have I tasted polar bear, but as they are not going extinct in the next few millenia, there’s no rush.

  6. John Cross @3:32
    I answer you:
    “…since there is a clear chain of scientifically established points that lead to the conclusion that adding CO2 will cause warming.”
    By how much? by 0.000001 degree Centigrade? irrelevent.
    1) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
    Not proved at all. If, as you believe, the planet is warmer, then so are the oceans. Warmer oceans hold less CO2. The increase can be due to the increase ibn temperature … just as the geologic record suggests. CO2 follows temp.
    2) CO2 will absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.
    Any item that absorbs radiation will re-emit it as thermal radiation – longer wavelengths. No mystery here. Anything dropped falls down.
    3) Enhanced longwave radiation will cause an object to either warm or cool less quickly.
    This is nonsensical without you explaining your GW theory. I think you don’t have a good grasp of teh “science”, only the rhetoric. You should re-examine you statement #2.
    To sumarise:
    1. Cows eat grass.
    2. Digesting grass causes methane farts.
    3. Methane is a strong green-house gas.
    4. Cows are destroying the Earth.
    Do you disagree with any of these?

  7. et: science is open, but if you wish to challenge well established scientific principles you need something to back you up other than a feeling that it is not right. For example we have a hundred years worth of data that says that CO2 will absorb IR radiation. If you want to say it doesn’t, it would be good to have some observations to back you up.
    In fact, it is interesting that a great deal of our knowledge of CO2 in the atmosphere came from military research in the 50’s. They were very interested in infra-red signatures in the atmosphere and consequently did a lot of looking at how CO2 will act with thermal radiation.
    In regards to your 4 points:
    1) I have never said that it is the only factor that controls climate, but I agree that it is one factor.
    2) Even if the climate is complex it will still obey physical laws. Humans are complex but if you feed someone a milligram of botulinic toxin they die. In regards to the 4 points you listed, none of them can be responsible for the observed rise in temperature.
    3) No argument
    4) And are you aware that other planets are cooling.

  8. some great debating people, I applaud everyone, On that note, in Toronto today it was -20C, thank God for global warming because it would have been -30C without it!!! Also, news break it was reported that Lizzy May and Suzuki were just seen leaving a shaddy motel with half a bottle of cheap scotch!!! interesting???

  9. Geoff: You said
    “There is no possible way for you to prove or disprove:
    1) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
    It depends on what you mean by prove. Yes, I can prove it in the scientific sense and in fact there are two ways. The first is by looking at the ratio of isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by neutrons and is radioactive and will thus decay. Fossil fuels which have been underground for millions of years have essentially no C14. By looking at the ratio of the carbon isotopes we see that the increase appears to be coming from fossil fuel sources.
    The other way is my favourite and it is something that anyone can do. Find some global consumption figures for fossil fuels and calculate the CO2 emissions. Figure out how much this will add to the atmosphere. Look at atmospheric CO2 records and see how much the rise is.
    If we produce more than shows up in the atmosphere then we can say without doubt we are the source.
    Regards,
    John

  10. RW:
    I answered your first point in my reply to Geoff above.
    I agree with your second point and I wish you would try to convince some of the posters here about it.
    I don’t follow you in regards to point #3. Why is it nonsensical?
    Regards,
    John

  11. John Cross: The reality is there is a lot of people very sceptical about GW ,they smell a rat , for every one that admits it there are a hundred that keep thier head down. We demand proof!

  12. John Cross @11.51
    3) Enhanced longwave radiation will cause an object to either warm or cool less quickly.
    You have bass-awkwards. A warmer body produces more thermal radiation.
    Stephan-Boltzman old chap.
    My question, which I will see answered within the next couple of years, is how all these global warming wankers are going to climb down from their hysterical positions.

  13. RW: A warmer body will produce more longwave IR than a cooler one – I agree. However lets take this a bit further. Consider the following:
    Take a body at say 2000 C. I think we can argee that it will emit longwave IR. Now, next to it, lets put one that has a temperature of 2100 C. Will longwave IR from the 2000 C body strike the 2100 C body? If you accept that it does then do you also accept that this increase in longwave IR will cause the 2100 C object to cool more slowly?
    Regards,
    John

  14. Bob: being skeptical (about everything by the way) is good and necessary in science. The issue is how many times does a “talking point” need to be shown wrong before it is finally given a rest (not a permanent rest, just until someone can come up with new observations). The flip side of being skeptical is that when the points you are skeptical about are shown to be correct you accept it and go on to the next point.
    Regards,
    John

  15. John Cross: We can never forget that the best scientific minds and computer models cannot predict the weather tommorow.

  16. You mean the poll wasn’t about the Suzuki Method for violin?
    Global warming? Bring it on. It’s cold outside. I’d love a nice tropical Canadian vacation.

  17. john cross – you are positing two bodies, one at 2000C, one at 2100C. Obviously, the 2100C will cool in interaction with the 2000C.
    However, these two bodies are not in reality isolate; ie, there are more bodies in the universe than the two of them. Therefore, both are in interaction with warmer and cooler bodies; therefore, both are emitters and recipients of longwave IR and recipients and emitters of heat.
    You then claim that the longwave IR from the 2000C hits the 2100C body and prevents its cooling as rapidly as it could without such an interaction. But this reductionism ignores the other bodies that interact with both the 2100C and the 2000C. As well as the internal processing on both sites.

  18. JC,
    So I dig a rock up from deep in the ground and compare it with an sample of air?
    Where exactly does the rock come from and where exactly does the air sample come from. From what I have seen from climateaudit these things matter.
    We have to have a discussion about what proof is?I think I defined it: questions can be tested and reproduced (under exactly the same test conditions) by a multitude of lay persons or scientifically trained personnel.

  19. Geoff: I can accept your definition of proof.
    In regards to your question So I dig a rock up from deep in the ground and compare it with an sample of air?
    Not really. The idea is that C14 is continuously made in the stratosphere and it is radioactive with a ½ life of about 5730 years. If you consider the organisms that eventually turned into oil, they had levels of C14 incorporated into their bodies. If we accept that it takes over a million years to create an oil deposit, this means that the initial C14 will have decayed to somewhere around 1/(2^174) or essentially zero. If we take samples of well mixed atmosphere we can measure how much C14 is found. What we are seeing is that the ratio of C14 is dropping which is what you would expect if you are going to add carbon from a source depleted in C14.
    Regards,
    John

  20. Bob: a valid point, but I would counter that we are not talking weather but climate. To illustrate the difference – while it is hard to predict the temperature at any place tomorrow, I can predict the temperature for the globe for next year and do it much more accurately.
    Reagrds,
    John

  21. “I can predict the temperature for the globe for next year and do it much more accurately.” John Cross
    Proof, the Warmongers are dreamers, not connected with reality.

  22. That’s because, john cross, the average mean of the globe is pretty static – about 15C. So?
    Again, your limitation of causality of climate change to one variable, human-caused CO2, ignoring that all planets in our solar system are warming and that this is correlated to solar output (World Climate Report), is unscientific reductionism.
    You may feel more comfortable with a focus of causality on man and industrialism, and a suggestion of amelioration of this ‘sin’ by controlling man, but this ignores that our solar system and planet are not mechanical; they are complex systems and can’t be reduced to ‘parts’.
    Furthermore, Kyotoism is a money-transference scheme of the UN, which set up this emotive metaphor (sinful Western man) as a manipulative tactic to get money from the west to industrialize China and India.
    Oh- and they and you, ignore pollution, which IS caused by man and IS controllable. Interesting.

  23. ‘I can predict the temperature for the globe for next year and do it much more accurately. ‘ ~john cross
    So, John. Did you predict that the temperature of the globe was going to drop each month, EVERY month, since last January?
    btw, why do I never see you on Anthony Watts blog?
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
    He seems to be finding a great deal of evidence that you do not have.

  24. et: you said “… ignoring that all planets in our solar system are warming and that this is correlated to solar output (World Climate Report), is unscientific reductionism.”
    Can you provide a reference to that? Skeptical Science seems to disagree.

  25. John Cross: Even if you toiled for the next year and finally convinced me that the earth is warming, you would then have to convince me that it’s bad, I think that is open for debate, why are you entitled to make that kind of judgement?

  26. John Cross: “Can you provide a reference to that? Skeptical Science seems to disagree.”
    Skepticalscience.com seems to have an illustrious history going back to 2007-08-22. Just to double-check their accuracy, I looked at my own domain name with domaintools.com and it goes back to 2002 in their records (mine is actually much older, but whatever).
    I do not claim that longevity is a sign of a reliable, reputable website but…
    http://whois.domaintools.com/skepticalscience.com

  27. Bob: Check out “Long-Term Aridity Changes in the
    Western United States” by Cook.
    PiperPaul: Well, the thing that I like about SkepticalScience is that he links extensively to published papers.
    Regards,
    John

  29. John Cross: Warming should mean more H2o in liquid and vapour form, and less in that pesky inert,lifeless,icey form. Combine that with increased C02 and that smells like a vibrant ecosystem to me.
    Bob

  30. otter: the IPCC does not produce papers so the answer is no.
    Bob: You have to keep in mind that there are two ways to measure humidity – absolute and relative. The absolute humidity will increase but the relative will decrease. In regards to increased CO2 on plant life, have you ever heard of C3 and C4 plants or nutritional density?
    Regards,
    John

  31. John Cross: So all the ice is going to melt and the sea will rise -but it will be dryer?
    Large political organizations knieving to increase power , scientists makeing mistakes, it’s not like these type of things havn’t happened before.

  32. Bob: I agree completely, “Large political organizations knieving to increase power , scientists makeing mistakes, it’s not like these type of things havn’t happened before.”
    That is why it is so important to consider the problem first from a scientific point of view. You accept what the science tells you and question where there is room for question.
    Regards,
    John

  33. John Cross: What’s the science telling us? What about the thousands of scientists who disagree?
    The whole point is moot anyhow, logic says that the fossil fuels will all be used up,it’s not like thay are going to be left in the ground unused.
    That is unless some evil western capitalist invents something better.
    Bob

  34. Bob: I would sincerely doubt there are thousands of scientists who disagree. However, what they produce must be evaluated. However if they produce work that has no theoretical basis and / or no observations that can support it, it will not find much of a welcome.
    Personally I don’t think that western capitalists are evil. However what we need to do is provide an appropriate incentive to allow innovation to take place. To do this we need to be able to estimate the full cost of fossil fuels.
    Regards,
    John

  35. Hi John Cross
    From the paper:
    “Extending Greenland temperature records into the
    late eighteenth century.”
    B. M. Vinther, K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa, and J. Cappelen.
    “Using old temperature observations from early
    observers, the existing Greenland temperature records have been extended back to the year 1784.”
    This is one the oldest set of surface data on this planet.
    The stations observed are as “rural” as can be – no need for any GISS-adjustment there.
    The temperature curve for these 200+ years – …. is flat. It is so flat, that it is almost scary. So much for warming in an area, that models predict will warm up faster than anywhere else..
    To the conclusion:
    “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.”
    Pray explain how the temperature trend is zero during 200 years of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Regards,
    Henrik

  36. Henrik: Thanks for the reference. I haven’t read the paper, do you have a copy you can e-mail me?
    John

  37. John Cross: Are you pro-nuclear? , I think a new energy policy is in the works regarding nuclear power and the greens are being softened up into accepting it.
    1)Abundant nuclear would make the oilsands even more lucrative,look at that volume of oil there, wars and plenty of skull-duggery have been started for less. Great for lowering the wests dependance on foregien oil.
    2)Nuclear power would make Hydrogen Generation practical. Also great for lowering the wests dependance on foriegn oil.
    Anyway I think somethings behind it over and above deep concern for the planet, the message is to uniform and widespread. There is purpose behind it.
    Bob

  39. Bob: I think that nuclear will be an important part of our energy solution at least in the short term. A nuclear plant may make a lot of sense for the oil sands which require a fair amount of energy to extract. From an engineering point of view, I feel that nuclear is a good technology.
    In regards to there being something behind it, why could it not be as simple as the science supporting the idea?
    Regards,
    John

  40. Henrik: Excellent, thanks for the link!!! I just had a very quick read through the paper. First impression is that it is a good paper. I have downloaded that data and will play around with it in my spare time.
    However I don’t agree with your comment that it is all that flat. If you look at the annual record for Qaqortoq, Nuuk and Ilulissat as shown in figure 10, you can see a noticeable rise (keep in mind the scale it is plotted in).
    Regards,
    John

  41. Controlling our own pollution: A good thing. We don’t want to make ourselves sick.
    Thinking humanity has the power to control the weather: King Canute wants a word with you…

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation