30 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: What Do Scientists Say?”

  1. Facts aside, we should de-industrialize and return to eating leaves in the dark, just in case. But you first, I need my oil and electricity to spread awareness.

  2. For the sake of thoroughness I would say there’s also a 4th group of non-scientific skeptics, politicians, media. They remain an important part of the solution to climate confusion and forming public opinion which is hardly convinced of climate catastrophe.

  3. I find his first group’s use of the terminology “Might” unscientific and all the drivel following a “May” “Could” “Might” is comic book science fiction.
    A theory “must” be a statement of fact such that it is falsifiable

  4. “A theory “must” be a statement of fact such that it is falsifiable”.
    Hummmmm….8:27 AM in Edmonton. Temp +6C. OMG. We are in the midst of the warmest ever!!! The only thing falsifiable from so called global scientists is that they all lie. Theory…Mikkey Mickey Mouse Mann is bald. And lies quite well also. But hey…follow the bucks.

  5. Discussion of climate change rarely debates the $ equation of lost productivity versus a usually nebulous climate quality gain. If a btu of energy is sacrificed then what is gained in return? It comes down to where scarce dollars are invested for maximum return to civilization. Naturally my concern is that trillions of $’s will be spent for no real gain.
    Rather than have a debate on economic return the climate change bunch use the threat of change as a tool for spending. Again, the old trough is surrounded by those who cannot make their way in a free market and must cook the facts to get their feed.

  6. The first group are liars without which group 3 wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
    The International Panel on Climate Change’s name implies that there was some danger or urgent need being addressed for the IPCC to have been created in the first place.
    Indeed it’s continued existence depends on them never telling the truth that CO2 is not a pollutant, that they have falsely represented their position as a consensus, and that they falsified a plethora of studies and the implications that those studies represented.
    If everything is well and good, if CO2 is not a pollutant, if humans are so insignificant that they cannot change the climate, and if it isn’t really known what the global temperature average is even supposed to be at all…then all of the junk scientists and the IPCC will lose their phoney baloney jobs.
    I’ll reiterate, the people at the IPCC have a conflict of interest that keeps them from ever announcing the finding that climate change is insignificant and that even if it were significant, nothing could be done about it anyhow.
    They like their jobs and are acting in bad faith.

  7. And … On top of that, I see very few (if any) HARD science studies … at all … regarding climate change and co2 levels in the atmosphere. And virtually ALL of those studies are statistical, computer-generated, projections that are repeatedly found to be in ERROR. The entire MYTH of Climate Warming Change is built on flawed data manipulated by statistical “projections”. In short … it is entirely “made-up”. Without any empiracal or measured data. Rubbish.

  8. I’ll add a very good description of the catagories in AGW/CAGW.
    The Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers
    Apr 19, 2016 | Updated Apr 19, 2016
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598.html
    Alarmists. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.
    Exaggerators. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause.
    Warmists. These people stick to the science. They may not know the answer to every complaint of the skeptics, but they have grown to trust the scientists who work on the issues. They are convinced the danger is serious and imminent.
    Lukewarmists. They, too, stick to the science. They recognize there is a danger but feel it is uncertain. We should do something, but it can be measured. We have time.
    Skeptics. They know the science but are bothered by the exaggerators, and they point to serious flaws in the theory and data analysis. They get annoyed when the warmists ignore their complaints, many of which are valid. This group includes auditors, scientists who carefully check the analysis of others.
    Deniers.They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They consider the alarmists’ proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598.html

  9. Group 1 and Group 2 like to label everyone who questions any aspect of the science, models and policy as climate change deniers. In reality, most are lukewarmers and skeptics. They understand and agree with the basic theory that CO2 increases temp. They disagree about other parts: that it’s catastrophic, that the models are accurate, on economic and political policies. Lukewarmers in particular think the solutions are driven by alarmists. The alarmist economic/political policies are counterproductive, discount adaptation and push costly mitigation policies too heavily, will do more harm than good, argue the cost-benefit analysis of mitigation is either missing or biased, increase inequality and energy poverty, make it harder for poor countries to increase citizens standard of living.
    Progressives and the media are almost entirely alarmist, with a few being warmist. There’s a few climate denier journalists on the right. The media has no idea that lukewarmers and skeptics exist. I doubt that the majority of journalists have the ability to understand the lukewarmers scientific and economic point of view. The limitations of a social science based PSE education, I guess.

  10. Almost 10 years ago I made my first post on smalldeadanimals.com (see below)
    Richard Lindzen’s video above sums up Climate Alarmism religion quite well.
    IMO, both 10 years ago and now, it was all started by a Canadian from Oak Lake, MB. The Kyoto Protocol was the birth of Climate Alarmism.
    ________________________________________________________________
    B. Hoax Aware | May 29, 2006 1:08 AM | Reply
    Kyoto is the biggest Hoax the world has ever seen. Kyoto was born in Oak Lake, Manitoba in the 1930’s. Maurice Strong, yes a Canadian, is the Grandfather of Kyoto. From Stockholm to Rio to The Earth Charter to The UN to One World Governance, MS and his “ideas” are what the Kyoto Protocol is all about. The first hint of Kyoto surfaced in the 90’s while Maurice Strong was Chairman of debt-ridden Ontario Hydro. Out of the blue OH purchased a rain forest in Costa Rica. Many millions. Some were outraged. Where and the hell did this idea come from !! MS countered, it was to off-set OH’s emissions. What many at the time did not realize was the power and influence that the man had in world affairs. He liked NGO’s, The UN, Environmental Activists and other non-elected organizations. Was Paul Martins life long mentor. Google Maurice Strong and you will see why we have the Kyoto Hoax and how the scam was able to engulf the world. It would, however never have got this far without the help of the MSM. This is the puzzling part for me. The best explaination I have found is on Patrick Moore’s (co-founder of Greenpeace) website, Greenspirit. Look up “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”. The Earth’s climate has always been changing. It is not about science.It is a belief. That is why the big promoters like Gore, Suzuki, Chretien, Martin will never debate it.

  11. I mostly agree with his analysis. Two small exceptions I have are:
    1) Crony Capitalists are not capitalists they are Crony Socialists that believe government should be transferring wealth from us lesser evolved tax payers to them, the more fully evolved ESI (Enlightened Self-Interested) riders, to support their superior causes.
    2) There should be a fourth group from the beginning: The Crony Socialists whom I suspect drive the politicians and environmentalists activities with cash as they benefit from the lobbying and concomitant policy changes.

  12. Big fear,big propaganda are the kleptocrats only tools.
    If they were not lying and stealing, they would not be breathing.
    The deliberate political choices made by the Alarmed Ones who congregate at the temples of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, reveal their dishonesty.
    If the story they tell was true, their actions show they do not believe their own BS.
    The repetitious claims of science, these have gone on for near 40 years,yet they still cannot measure their mirage.
    No cultist can tell us,what is the ideal global average temperature?
    What is a global average temperature?
    What are the error bars of your assumptions?
    What part of the short term temperature measurements are natural ?
    What parts man caused?
    What are your measurements?
    Turns out science is not actually welcome at this propagandists ball.
    The scheme and the meme are just The Emperors New Clothes rewrite.
    but public education is so barren of logic,that human nature is studiously not taught.
    This is one of the most successful attempts to steal from the many to enrich the well connected few.
    The UN being an enclave of truly useless parasites, scheming to create the bureaucrats dream, taxation without representation.
    Now the environ-mentalists insist they seek to educate us dumb voters, however I do not think the lessons poverty,economic collapse and fuel poverty are going to teach are going to produce the utopia these fools seek.
    Hard times teach one lesson… Do not give stupids power over your own common sense.
    Stupid people are incredibly destructive and must be kept away from functioning tools and banished from your community if they become too insane.

  13. It seems to me that the only people who are terrified of global warming are the believers in global warming. All others are somewhat apprehensive about the robbery that is taking place to fund this insanity.
    Loved the clip.

  14. A calm, rational, concise analysis of changing climate and the reaction of people to it. Canada and especially Ont cries out for a politician brave enough to articulate this message and engage the doom sayers, alarmists and hucksters associated with the present crisis situation. Instead, sadly we get Patrick Brown who seems determined to play Liberal light on this file, in the hope urban Ontarians will select him rather than the real Wynner.

  16. Unfortunately, I have noticed a shift in propaganda strategies over the past year or so. There is a sytemic attempt to proceed as though there are no longer any questions about AGW. They have tried this for a while, but not been totally successful drowning out skeptic voices from the media. This is changing. TVO had a series last week on energy alternarives. It was kind of flaky and insubstantial. All of the panelists were green lobby people. I think this series may actually have been funded by some green-pushers (UN being one). It seems there are a myriad of groups out there pushing the green agenda. One of the panelists when asked about adaptation just rolled his eyes and indicated that adaptation will be far more costly. He gave no explanation for this, made no reference to any adaptations that would need to be made and later referenced a current plan to turn everything into renewables which itself was going to cost in the billions. (He was a consultant, making a fine living off of advising on this.) Completely ignored is the very, very slow pace of warming. How could it be so hard/expensive to adapt when adaptation from one year to the next is minuscule? Totally nuts. The other annoying thing is the way in which dumb politicians get taken in by all of this. They fund some retrofit and claim “this will help the climate) when absolutely NOTHING Canada can do will impact the “climate”. When did we get so dumb?

  17. Thanks, Kate.
    A great video to distribute to friends and family victimized by the hardcore propaganda of socialists, leftist politicians and their powerful media teammates.

  18. One could consider the obvious.
    Gang Green has great similarities to Gangrene.
    One is an infection of the herd mind AKA society, the other is an infection of the body.
    both prove fatal to their host if untreated.

  19. ‘Climate Change’ is the perfect excuse for everything. Nobody knows how much change is just enough, and nobody knows what the perfect temperature of the earth should be, even if they could measure the average temperature with more accuracy than ±1°C, which they can’t. More importantly there is no way to prove that human activities are causing any of it.
    Toxic pollution however is almost entirely caused by humans and most of it is caused by burning coal in Asia where there are no pollution regulations. The pollution from making all that cheap Asian cr@p consumers love to buy is spewed into the sky, into the water and across the land. But hey, it’s not in Mr&Mrs Canada’s back yard, so who cares; let’s go shopping and consume more cr@p.
    More greenhouse gasses are emitted making all that cheap imported cr@p, than all the Canadian fossil fuel we burn to heat our buildings and run our vehicles.
    The government should tax all that cheap imported cr@p that actually causes most of the global GHGs & toxic pollution, fills our dumps, and takes Canadian jobs. However instead they tax Canadian fossil fuels that pay Canadian taxes, provide Canadian jobs, a roof over our heads and food on our tables.
    Lieberal Progressiveness is a mental disease.

  20. There’s questions that alarmists and warmist want to avoid. How much will this policy (carbon tax, wind/solar) cost in dollars per decade *and* how much warming in degrees Celsius will this prevent or lower the global temps per decade? The costs are massive and benefits are embarrassingly small. Which would then lead to the next obvious questions. Is mitigation worth the cost? Is adaptation more cost effective? Could that money be be spent on other goals? Should that money be left with the people who earned it instead of transferred to politicians, business class environmentalists and rent seekers?
    Instead of directly addressing cost-benefits they’ll dance around the question, scream “denier” and give some BS about imminent catastrophe.

  21. Adapt or Die is the oldest ‘law’ on the planet.
    Humans are amazingly adaptable; that’s how we’ve evolved to this point.
    Adaptation is far more cost effective.
    Thorium fuel nuclear could provide all the energy we need. Only myopic political stupidity and crony capitalism stand in the way.

  22. Yes, a fair cost-benefit analysis would likely show adaptation is the best policy. Especially since all the catastrophic predictions from the past have not happened. If anything, the benefits of mild warming – CO2 fertilization, bigger cops, fewer winter deaths – have been positive.
    The uncertainties in climate science and their models are very large. So big that they can encompass any and all events. It’s like predicting that a child born today has a 95% chance of being between 4.5 to 6.5 feet tall in 20 years. Then claiming you are genius even though your precision and accuracy are crap.

  23. The sad part is the UN appartchik neo-Marxist screw capitalism organization is the INTERGOVERNMENTAL, not International Panel on Climate Change.
    Intergovernmental speaks much for the excesses and fatal conceit of progressivism/statism/socialism/communism and their fusion with watermelonism.
    Panel speaks to the myriad of conferences, confabs, and other trips to climate change striken parts of the world in Rio, Paris, Copenhangen and so on.
    Climate change speaks to the bait and switch between the anti-science notion of CAGW and actual pollution. What are people more worried about, the pollution China and India will cause, or their contribution to AGW? No need to answer that question, better to attack the low hanging fruit of Canadian tolerance of imbeciles and the poster child for all the watermelons and ignoramuses – the oil sands.
    Now they have surely jumped the shark with their idiotic climate change is the existential threat, not ISIS and other hordes of Islamist killers, bent on world nuclear war. Now there is no need to debate/get slimed over the science of climate change, just the ludicrous idea that governments should put all their efforts into climate change rather than security or economic freedom for their people. Trump will pillory Hillary on this, with resounding resonance.
    How did this happen? Because group 3 is made of scientific morons with the ethics of a crony capitalist and the leadership of a mall shootist. The science means nothing to them because they know nothing of it. Ask anyone why they believe CAGW. As soon as you drill down from the “gotta save the earth” and “we’re to blame for (nonexistent) AGW,” all that is left is inane insults and ultimate withdrawal from the “argument.”
    Southern ON voters were just stupid enough in sufficient numbers to elect an idiot who also thinks climate change is the great challenge for society. Will they ever realize they were lied to about that and so many other pivotal issues? Will they care? Not unless they get their economic clock gets cleaned by these fools &/or a large scandal to match Adscam and various other Grit peccadillos.
    When false narratives of Canada/Harper hatred, a recession & deficit that didn’t happen, and Syrians who must be rescued from hotels to prove we’re not racist, the voter goes for the easy out. Don’t try hard, here’s some nice lucre from rich people who created your job, and of course, charisma. That worked so well for his dad, who’s debt still cost us $30b/year now, 30 years later, with Sonny growing it much, much more, when we can least afford it.
    Never trust the mediocracy to delivery any message but their own and that of their Laurentian buddies. Someone has to do a Trump and bypass them; better still, make them slaves to ratings provided by limited government candidates.
    If you want to jail someone for not telling the truth, start with the mediocracy. I’m not advocating that but they must outed as incompetent unethical statists they are. Only then can we move forward instead of towards the economic regression we’re being pulled into by these statist quislings.

  24. If the “climate scientists” and the UN really believed their own swill, why is it that the UN is spending billions in renovations on their headquarters in New York City when it is only 150 horizontal feet away from the East River? Wouldn’t you think they would be looking for higher ground?

  25. I see that Bill Nye the Mad Scientist guy as well as Robert Kennedy Jr wants global warming skeptics and so called Climate Crinimals locked up in jail Yeah Thought Crimes in the minds of a phonie scientist and a spoiled little snot both who need sent to the spice Mines of Kessel,Elba II,Devils Ateroid or the Klingong Penal Moon Rura Pente

  26. Well said 10 years ago, and still true today. All great comments above.
    Spurwing has it right as to where we are headed. People like Lindzen and others of stature such as politicians and scientists who are skeptics, deniers, etc will be jailed at some point and the biggest fraud in human history will have won. No amount of factual evidence disputing the new religion will be tolerated.
    The fellow from Oak Lake is as big a criminal as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

  27. Richard Lindzen is wrong about climate change. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and human-caused.
    Here’s a detailed, footnoted refuting Of Richard Lindzen’s opinions: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm.
    Here’s a detailed biography of Lindzen on DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen.
    Here’s some factual information about climate change from National Geographic: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/

  28. “Crony Capitalists are not capitalists they are Crony Socialists that believe government should be transferring wealth from us lesser evolved tax payers to them…”
    Nope. Transferring wealth from us to them makes them capitalists all right. The capitalist aim is to accumulate capital. If governments are just going to throw capital at you, why would any good capitalist say no?

  29. Group 3 blames all Environmental ills on “capitalists in SUV’s”; including the changing polar caps on Mars and the deep dry cracks on Uranus.

  30. Government transfers wealth all the time, from us to them (or their allies/advocates).
    Are you arguing they’re capitalists too?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation