Canada Withdraws from Kyoto Protocols

[JimBowie1958]

Canada quits Kyoto climate pact - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Canada officially renounced the expiring Kyoto Protocol on Monday, a day after international negotiators agreed to extend the treaty's limits on carbon emissions blamed for a warming climate.

Environment Minister Peter Kent said Ottawa would keep working to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and help negotiate a new framework for a global pact.

But in a statement to reporters on his return from last week's climate conference in South Africa, Kent said that for Canada, Kyoto "is in the past."

The theory that human activity is primarily responsible for the increase in temperatures since 1850 is collapsing in terms of how many in the public buy into it. The recent cooling temperatures (no matter what statistical lies Hansen publishes from NASA) that we have seen for the last ten years, the realization of new factors that reduce likely human cause, and the revealed fudging of data and the conspiracy on the part of a handful of scientists to silence opponents, have them shunned as well as any publication that publishes sceptical work have all but destroeyd the AGW theory.

All I can say is 'About damned time' people started observing that the Emporer has no clothes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

You are a sharp guy, Old Rocks, and I dont want to get into some pejorative back-and-forth, but we hit the peak temps in 1998, and since then we have been on a shallow slope down in average temperatures.

The Temperature Decline That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Let’s look at the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .11° C during 2000-2009. Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was either no warming, or no warming and even some cooling.

One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasn’t warming as expected

One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasn’t warming as expected by the models (that is, about 0.2°C per decade). For example, as early as 2005 the then head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, wrote in an email: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Fellow Climategate emailer and IPCC contributor Kevin Trenberth wrote to hockey-stick creator Michael Mann in 2009: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” [italics added] Note the date: 2009, the last year of the decade. As far as Trenberth knew‚—and he should have known as a leading IPCC author‚—the planet hadn’t warmed for several years up to that time.

Even Tim Flannery, author of the arch-alarmist The Weather Makers, acknowledged in November 2009: “In the last few years, where there hasn’t been a continuation of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that creates Earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand, that’s what the scientists were emailing about. ... These people [the scientists] work with models, computer modeling. When the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you have a problem.”[1] [italics added]

Yes, you do have a problem, to the point where, in February 2010, after he’d been suspended as head of the CRU following the Climategate scandal, and in an attempt to restore his reputation as an honest scientist, Jones came a bit clean in an interview with the BBC. For example, Jones agreed with the BBC interviewer that there had been “no statistically significant warming” since 1995 (although he asserted that the warming was close to significant), whereas in his 2005 email he was at pains to hide the lack of warming from the public and even fellow researchers.

The planet has been cooling

Jones admitted that from 2002-2009 the planet had been cooling slightly (-0.12°C per decade), although he contended that “this trend is not statistically significant.” In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010‚—and as the keeper of the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to know‚—the planet hadn’t warmed on average over the decade.
...

Curiously, another part of the NOAA website directly contradicts the NOAA report. On its site, NOAA offers a gadget that lets browsers check the temperature trend in the continental United States for any two years between 1895 and 2010. Here’s what the graph shows for the years 2000-2009 in the United States:

This graph shows a temperature decline of 0.73°Fahrenheit (-0.4°C) for 2000-2009 in the U.S. To get a perspective on how large a decline this is: the IPCC estimates that the temperature increase for the whole of the 20th century was 1.1°F, or 0.6°C. In other words, at least in the United States, the past decade’s cooling wiped out two-thirds of the temperature gain of the last century.

While the U.S. isn’t, of course, the whole world, it has the world’s best temperature records, and a review of the NOAA data since 1895 shows that in the 20th century the U.S. temperature trends mirrored, quite closely, the global temperature trends. So, for example, between 1940-1975, a global cooling period, the NOAA chart showed a temperature decline of 0.14°F (-0.07°C).

In other words, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that the global temperature trend from 2000-2009 could be a full 0.51°C‚—half a degree Celsius‚—higher than the temperature trend for the United States (that is, -.4C + .11C).

And one more:

» NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN! - Big Government

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

This isn’t the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it.

James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore’s global warming Moonbat. It was Hansen’s data that was used in Gore’s Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen’s work is ruled by one motto: “If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it’s champagne.
In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced “Oops, never mind, I was wrong.” He only admitted the mistake after he was “outed” by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

In 2007 Hansen was forced by reporter Stephen McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest year in history was not 1998 as he had claimed, but 1934.

Well It wasn’t exactly a correction. He fought tooth and nail against correcting the numbers, mislead the press and in the end Hansen didn’t fully make the change. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request and gained access to all the NASA Documents related to the incorrect data, It showed that unlike an objective scientist, Hansen wasn’t very anxious to correct his mistakes.

According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century [not true].

Hansen announced recently that “The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010 The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.” The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Those arctic numbers that important to Hansen’s announcement were a figment of his creative imagination.

Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That’s a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably that’s not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of “pass the energy taxes.”

ETc, etc, etc.

While I respect NASA, Hansen is full of crap.

 

[Douger]

Graphs are fun ! Like Monopoly !

 

[idb]

Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Graphs are fun ! Like Monopoly !

lol

I have never heard of graphs being compared to monopoly before...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.

My bet is that it has to do with both those things and the simple fact that the US is not following them, so why should they?

 

[Unkotare]

Why should anyone? It was a bad idea from the get-go.

 

[westwall]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Only because of shenanigans. Take away the "adjustments" and voila the 1930's are still the warmest. Certainly all the written history points to that decade being the warmest. They certainly didn't have snow records being set then, unlike now.

 

[westwall]

Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.

That's OK, CO2 has nothing to do with temperature increases so they're even.

 

[Political Junky]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Apparently, around the bend.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Apparently, around the bend.

'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory.

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why should they buy in the pact when the biggest polluters were not in on it in the first place. The entire thing was a waste of time, no matter what the science said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Only because of shenanigans. Take away the "adjustments" and voila the 1930's are still the warmest. Certainly all the written history points to that decade being the warmest. They certainly didn't have snow records being set then, unlike now.

Now Walleyes, you know that is only true for the less than 2% of the surface area represented by the US. For the rest of the world, the '30s were not that warm.

The snow records set last winter were something new, as was the heat records set last summer. And the record for the Missouri and Mississippi being in continous flood from March through September. And then there was Texas, had a few tornados also, last spring in many states.

Wilder and wider weather swings, with an overall warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Apparently, around the bend.

'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory.

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.

You could go on for pages, and most of what you state is totally wrong. You want real science on this subject, here is one place to start. Up to date, and some of the world's best scientists speaking on this and other subjects.

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

 

[westwall]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Only because of shenanigans. Take away the "adjustments" and voila the 1930's are still the warmest. Certainly all the written history points to that decade being the warmest. They certainly didn't have snow records being set then, unlike now.

Now Walleyes, you know that is only true for the less than 2% of the surface area represented by the US. For the rest of the world, the '30s were not that warm.

The snow records set last winter were something new, as was the heat records set last summer. And the record for the Missouri and Mississippi being in continous flood from March through September. And then there was Texas, had a few tornados also, last spring in many states.

Wilder and wider weather swings, with an overall warming.

Yeah, amazing how the 2% with the best temperature data on the planet is immaterial. But, let's look at your statement. You claim the 1930's weren't warm in the rest of the world in the 1930's. So, let us see what the Chinese have to say about your assertion shall we?

Why looky there, they say you're full of crapola too! Who knew! It seems that the opposite side of the world was JUST as hot as the US. So, logically, what does Occams Razor and the Principle of Uniformitarianism tell us was happening in the rest of the world?

We're waiting....

"The understanding of the ongoing climate change needs high-resolution records of the past, which are difficult to obtain in north-central China. Historical documents are unique materials for high-resolution (up to season) climate change reconstruction. Here, we report an attempt of quantitative climate reconstruction covering the main part of north-central China, by combining historical drought/flood index and tree-ring data. The rigorous verification tests confirm the fidelity of transfer functions used in the reconstructions. The precipitation and temperature anomalies/intervals were then defined based on the reconstructions. Finally, the intensity of several big droughts recorded in historical documents was re-examined and the dominant and recessive patterns of heat/water changes within the study area were identified. We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585-1587 AD, 1689-1691 AD, 1784-1786 AD and 1876-1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560-1561 AD, 1599-1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615-1617 AD, 1638-1641 AD and 1899-1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527-1529 AD, 1720-1722 AD, 1813-1814 AD, 1856-1857 AD and 1926-1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm-dry and cold-wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold-dry and warm-wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available. "

North-Central China 530 Year Summer Temperature and Precipitation Reconstructions

 

[idb]

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Apparently, around the bend.

'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory.

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

 

[westwall]

Apparently, around the bend.

'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory.

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Yes. Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world? I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work. Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife? You talking about those peer reviewed studies?

 

[idb]

'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory.

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Yes. Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world? I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work. Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife? You talking about those peer reviewed studies?

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

 

[Toro]

Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.

Yup.

And they should have. It's simply worth too much money to Canada to not abide by Kyoto.

But even without the oil sands, Canada wouldn't have hit the targets.