Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Craig Read

Kyoto And Social Engineering

Recommended Posts

Wealth breeds responsiblity. Gates is history's wealthiest and most charitable man. The art endowments, collections, museums, operas and classical orchestras i love so much, were and are funded by wealthy families. Many universities as well live off such wealthy grants. In fact Stronach of Magna just opened Austria's first private University. You will see a lot more of this to come.

Gates and other philanthropists are critical in many areas of research - including those that are developing drugs to save lives, notably AIDS, Cancer and child disease research.

Private charity is a noble concept - one that Canadians have long given up.

I always ask my bleeding heart friends to compare their out of pocket charity spend with mine - guess what - i beat them 3x or 4x in the amount every year, every time.

So much for being a rapacious right winger. Most people who make a decent wage are truly conscious of their good luck - and give back time and money. I know of no one who makes good money who does not donate a big sum [relatively] to a good cause.

The Gov't is not the only simple answer to improving the lot of those who need help. Wealth allows us to help those who need it.

Otherwise we will all be poor together. Kyoto is simply, anti -growth, anti-modernity, anti-wealth.

The hell with that idea.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Cameron,

Forgive my tardiness with this post. The 'wobble' of the Earth's axis (if I interpret your question correctly) is called Precession. The Earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees, or so, and remains static,but the direction it points rotates over time. The time to complete that 'cricle of precession' is about 25,800 yrs. Read that in one of my dictionaries the other day, oddly enough.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Read,

I do believe I read somewhere that charity for charity's sake should not be announced, or else it is not charity, but ego-building. I volunteer for an animal rescue organization in my spare time, and while I have put in almost full time hours and many dollars out of my own pocket, I and many others deplore those who 'bean-count'. It suggests that they are volunteers for vain-glorious reasons, not for the charitable aspect which is the intended spirit.

I commend you for being charitable, however.

With regards to AIDS research, I think you may wish to retract this as 'charitable', as many companies refuse to 'pass on the savings' to the needy, and withhold those drugs from the poor because they cannot pay enough. I guess the Pharmaceutical companies think the profit motive can also double as population control measures.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Profit begets innovation. Kyoto is anti-profit and worse nothing more than an illegitimate enterprise to raise taxes, regulations and transfer money from the North to the polluting, illiberal, corrupt and unreformed and certainly unrepetant countries of Africa and the FSU.

I find it immoral that the destruction of society, the environment and of humans is rewarded by a UN welfare program.

This is reprehensible. Let these nations reform, create market economies and improve the lives of their people.

We should never give them handouts.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia looks set to reject this nefarious nonsense - unless the EU coughs up more $ for our vodka loving friends.

Gee, and I thought this was all about love and hugging trees......

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, let's face facts. The Russians are going to stop this thing unless they feel they have squeased all the money they can from everyone.

As for the issue of distroying the planet or not, we cannot distroy this planet. Barring religious ideas, this world has been around longer than any human and will be here after the human race is dead and gone. We don't have the power to distroy this planet. Life, and this planet, will be here for a very very long time, well after we and all our decendants die off.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the issue of distroying the planet or not, we cannot distroy this planet. Barring religious ideas, this world has been around longer than any human and will be here after the human race is dead and gone. We don't have the power to distroy this planet. Life, and this planet, will be here for a very very long time, well after we and all our decendants die off.

Now, what shape it will be in is another story.... :(

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accually, this would be a good thing in some ways. The ozone depletion let's in more ultraviolet radiation that helps things evolve and the increase of CO2 is accually better, that means less oxygen. Oxygen is a corrosive. It accually harms things.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been studies on CO2 emissions - one for instance in North Carolina where a forested area was blanketed by pure CO2 - 5 times more than the normal level.

Result ? Bigger pine cones, faster growing trees, healthy plant life.

Before the UNO and the little scampering socialists decide to re-engineer the world, they actually should;

a. understand what they are talking about

b. confirm their theories with field work.

The UNO and global warming sounds to me like Lenin's defence of Marxism in 1916 with his theories of capitalist expansionism, social stage advancement and the collapse of monied interests.

They just don't jive with the real world.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen. At least I have one suporter.

As I said before, we are only ruining ourselves, not the enviroment. These changes can accually help the world, we are just killing ourselves, which might accually be better considering we have killed thousands of thousands of spieces. <_<

Well, I'll leave on that note for right now. Think about it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we killing ourselves ? 100 years ago life expectancy was 1/2 of what is today ? More capital, more education, more technology, more freedom exists now than ever ?

Where is the proof that things are so bad ? Malthus was wrong. Marx was wrong. UNO social scientists are wrong. The world is getting better not worse.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Locke, you are right. 10 million years ago the Earth warmed considerably. The monkeys in East Africa fell out of their trees as the grasslands expanded and went foraging for food. Eventually they began to walk upright and use their hands as tools..... and well you know the rest.

So what caused a massive warming 10 million years ago to force widespread climate change and kick start Homo Sapiens ? Let me guess. According to the UNO it was the emissions of massive amounts of CO2 and Methane from the industrialised forests of the Monkeys. Belching smelters and clogged highways emitting massive chemical agents from the Monkeyopolis' in Africa were trapped by the Isosphere engendering a heating affect which caused the expansion of deserts and grasslands.

UNO scientists have confirmed that the Monkey's far from pure noble creatures, were in fact polluting sadists, intent on destroying all plant and fauna life in the old world. The UNO provides no scientific basis for this belief, but just states 'we are the UNO and know best.'


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, this revelation will represent the final death knell for Kyoto... http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/...AC-50D9F895E7DE

Kyoto debunked: A pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records, an important new paper reveals

Tim Patterson, Financial Post, October 29, 2003

This has been a nightmare of a year for aficionados of the Kyoto Accord...none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.

The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

As a consequence, governments worldwide are now making some of their most expensive policy decisions ever based on uncritical acceptance of an IPCC Report that we now know to be decidedly unsound in itself.

Dr. Tim Patterson is a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is good article and details the perfidity of the UNO and their supposed data.

In 1995 the UNO took the scientific draft which stated clearly that scientists did not know if 1. Global warming actually was occuring and 2. If humans were causing warming. The 1996 IPCC report deleted the references of 'we don't know' and inserted 'we are certain that...'. This is why 18.000 scientists have signed an anti-Kyoto letter stating that the science is false.

There are so many flaws with the entire theory that a book is needed to list them all. But many posts in this thread and others highlights the main ignorances of the IPCC.

Many scientists on the IPCC panel have condemned the process, the politicisation of the document and some have called it a 'child's exercise' [F. Seitz, IPCC group leader].

Kyoto is the EU's attempt to drive up energy costs in the US and enforce higher taxation and regulation on its own citizens.

It is another program to slake the thirst of government's everywhere for power, money, control; all wrapped in a nice 'save the world' package.

Canada's complicit acceptance of such dogma, with no debates, no analysis [the gov'ts implementation plan was built on 50 power point slides], no objectivity in the media, is shameful.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyoto Accord, she is dead in the water. Russia formally announces today it will give Kyoto the thumbs down.

Pity. Now Mugabe won't be able to get his chunk of re-distributed wealth from the West as a result of Kyoto. Rats! No additional "anti-pollution" money to buy fancy new weapons to kill more white farmers and dissidents.

Russia Won't Ratify Kyoto Protocol, Dec.02/03, FOX News

A senior adviser to President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia cannot ratify the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions, dealing a mortal blow to the pact that required Russia's ratification to take effect. Russia's reluctance to ratify the pact despite its earlier pledge to do so has vexed Kyoto's European and U.N. backers, who warned Moscow that it would lose politically and economically if it fails to ratify Kyoto.

"UN backers"...don't you love it? Fancy phrase to mean thugs, criminals, despots, NGO's and other UN luminati.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

people who ignore initiatives like kyoto are like the genius's who wanted more study on cigarettes. decade after decade, until it became so obvious nobody can deny it.

same thing with killing the planet. we dont know everything, so some people hmm and hah.

but it seems to me, if you are stranded on a desert island with a few bottles of water, do you drink them as you wish and plan to find more later, or ration them in case they are all you have?

we are stuck on this earth, and its obvious that spewing out C02 and pollutants can only imbalance our atmosphere which will certainly harm our quality of life in the near future. if people were forced to back up their indecisiveness with consequences we would see far better action.

for example, if you had informed the tobacco execs in the 60s that they and their children would be executed without if the scientific community ever concluded cigarettes were addictive and cancer causing, it think most of them would not stick to their lies.

tobacco isnt addictive, evolution is just a theory so dont teach it, we dont know how industrial emmisions will effect us; some of the great "science can't prove it" positions that can only be made by those who choose not associate with the consequences of these alternatives.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not one shred of evidence of global warming. Riff and his Raff are such tiresome bores. I have posted so many posts with hard real scientific evidence that I am frankly sick of doing it. Here is a summary for the boneheads and witless wonders who think that global warming exists. If you wiped out mankind you would only wipe out 5 % of CO2 and Methane emissions. 95 % comes from natural biomass. Duh, but Kyoto is really valid science [stated with a Homer simpson accent].

Kyoto is 'READ THIS CAREFULLY' about the EU levelling the cost of energy playing field with the US. The EU politicians have even admitted as such.

KYOTO IS A SOCIAL POLICY TO PUNISH HIGH GROWTH, CLEAN NATIONS. Canada is the biggest loser under Kyoto. It is a diverse, transport dependent country in a cold climate that depends on energy for its economic survival. Canada by measure of GDP output per carbon emission output and the USA are 2 of the cleanest countries in the world. Only Germany, which uses more nuclear energy is cleaner on a GDP basis analysis which is the only valid way to measure energy consumption especially when you take geographic size into account.

For the Kyoto loving Boneheads here is a summary:

Kyoto Bad Science

If you want 40 pages of proof of why Kyoto is the most abysmal politically motivated transference of wealth in history read this:

Kyoto is Politics

If you want to live with mushrooms and grow in the dark, just keeping listening to guys like Sir Riff of Raff.

Quick Summary:

The science behind Kyoto is so bad that 18.000 Climatologists and Scientists have signed a petition urging its rejection. Politicians tell you that the scientific community is united on global warming. It isn’t. Only 800 environmental activists and government scientists support Kyoto. The scientists who oppose Kyoto make the following points that the United Nations has never bothered to refute: [see Bjorn Lomberg’s ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ or Ezra Levant’s ‘Fight Kyoto’]

1.IPCC uses computer models to drive out forecasts. Their models do not include all the variables associated with the climate. About 1 million variables make up the climate. Technically it is impossible to model the interactions of 1 million variables. As such ‘garbage in’ and ‘garbage out’.

2.IPCC models are based on tree ring data from North America for the past 1000 years. There are many problems with this. First the data is land based and geographically limited. Most of the earth is left out. Second tree ring data is not supported by atmospheric data readings. Third, the sample size and number of years is too small to make general statements about temperature swings.

3.The earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period 900-1400 AD. This warm spell ended around 1350-1400 and the temperature decreased precipitating the ‘Little Ice Age’ [1400-1900]. IPCC models can’t explain these temperature swings.

4.Data seems to indicate that there are regular occurrences like the little ice age and the medieval warm period in a rough 1500 year cycle. This cycle has repeated itself endlessly over the past 140.000 years

5.Most of any temperature increase in the 20th century apparently occurred in two phases, during 1910-1945 and from 1975-2000. The first period is impossible to align with greenhouse emissions. The second phase can be aligned with emissions but 25 years does not constitute a meaningful long term trend, especially when between 1945-1975 there were rising emissions but no corresponding increase in temperature.

6.Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal only a very small temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07C per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.

7.IPCC models incredibly do not include Solar Radiation effects or Cloud Cover. Solar Radiation is the most important variable in determining temperature.

8.Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

9.At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

10.Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.

11.Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness.

12.Publications in journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago. There is little correlation therefore between warmth and CO2 levels.

13.Furthermore the IPCC and UN have not bothered to prove that CO2 emissions are in fact dangerous and constitute a threat to the environment through field work. Nature Magazine in 2001 published a report citing that CO2 levels have often been as high as 5 times what they are today. In a North Carolina experiment 50 % more CO2 was pumped into in a forested area which resulted in faster growth, stronger trees and cones and no damage whatsoever to the ecosystem.

14.During the 1970s the UN was warning us about Global Cooling in the same apocalyptic tones. In fact it said that we had until 1980 to fix the global cooling problem. How much faith should we have in an agency that was so wrong about global cooling ?

15.How does one explain that the winter of 2003 was the coldest on record for dozens of areas around the earth ?

16.Most importantly -- Ninety five percent of CO2 emissions come from natural sources and the earth releases 210,000 mega tonnes each year of CO2 gas. Only about 5 % of this comes from industrial and human activity.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pbier

Dear Craig,

I think that all data, even that which you cite, confrims, that

there is a global warming. Data says, that temperatures

rise. Admittedly they rise by a seemingly small amount. I think

it's true, that we simply do not know what causes the global

warming. But we know that any increase of greenhouse gases

contribute to an increase in absorbtion of radiation. So we know

that greenhouse gases contribute their share to rising temperatures.

Besides we have to take acount on reginal effects. If we desert the climate "only" in proximity

of our activities, this will be of desastrous effect to our lifes.

People seem to observe dramatical climatical effects in their

countries. Eight of the hottest Summers in the twenties century

occured in the 1990s. Is it really good advice to say "there is no

global warming" given that background ?

With respect to your remark that human activity only contributes about

5 % of the total CO2 and Methan on earth, I want to remark, that

the documents which you cite tell that it's between five and 10 %.

This is important, because we have a CO2 cycle on the planet. CO2 is

transformed into O2 by the plants on earth; the tropical forrests contribute an

important share to this. The CO2 - reducing plants on earth are deliberately

decreasing. Areas covered by tropical forrests decrease enormously fast.

What we are talking about is a balance between the output of CO2 and its transformation back

to O2 and C-based chemical substances. This balance can

be impacted severely by slight changes in the output.

Balances are very fragile and slight changes on one side can dramatically change the entire picture.

The documents on www.globalwarming.org seem to be biased in

my eyes. Only one example: With respect to the plan to reduce CO2 output in the

European societies, they remark that for instance it's easy

for Germany to reduce

it's contribution due to it's abandoning of plants in eastern Germany

that were energetically totally inefficient. This is true, but what

the document doesn't notice is that EU produces 9 tons of CO2 per year

and inhabitant while the US produce 22 tons per inhabitant and year.

It's only be fair to take into account that the US is economically as productive as the

entire EU while the American population is 280 million and the EU's is 450 million. Calculating this, EU produces about

75% of the CO2 does with the same economical activity.

I think this reflects that there is no reason to assume that

it's easier for the EU to reduce it's production of CO2 than it is for the US - as the document states.

In my eyes, we know little about what our climatic influence on climate really is.

But I think that we are all living on a large spaceship that grants us

very specific conditions our species needed to evolve and flourish.

Since 200 years we're becoming more and more able to change our environment

dramatically and at least since the 20th century we do because our technical

capabilities are applied by millions. I think we should care for the effects of what

we are doing. And it is obvious that the consequences of what we

do today might accumulate its effect not before several decades.

I think you are entirely right, that we don't really know what the impact of our activities will be.

But given the possible consequences that seems to leave us only a very conservative possibility:

To try to keep our earth as close as we can to the way it has been the centuries before; that balance seems to

have worked for quite a long time.

I am quite aware, that there is no way back into the pre-industrial era;

yet I think as long as we don't know what the environmental effect of

our activities is, we might be well advised to try to keep those effects as close as possible

to the way it was in the past centuries. From this

point of view it might be a good idea to reduce output of CO2.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have:

-no sources

-did not bother to read a thing i posted

-did not refute one single argument i made

-i even posted a 40 page summary of what is the wrong with the Accord - Read it if you want to learn about it

Obviously you get your information from either Greenpeace or the CBC.

Climate change is caused more by solar radiation changes and sun patterns than by humans. Humans only produce 5 % of the CO2 and Methane emitted - what then about the other 95 %.

You are also wilfully blind to the base and obvious fact, following of course like a good Canadian the CBC line, that the EU is using Kyoto to address its economic weakness with the USA. The US has more efficient energy assets higher utilisation of the assets and newer assets than the EU. The Europeans need to jump start their sick economies, Kyoto and taxing US energy and regulating it, will level the economic competitive landscape.

This would cost 2 % of GDP for the US and Canada, and in Canada alone according to Ottawa - 300.000 jobs would be lost in the GTA alone in energy intensive industries.

Kyoto is UN junk science at its worst - remember Global Cooling ??? It is a mandate for socialised regulation and taxation and world government. It is a subsidy gravy train for eco fascist groups.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Read,

Kyoto is based largely on the whim (or conspiracy) of large multinationals, most based in the US. You seem to fear that they would lose 'their competative edge' if they were to be held accountable for pollution. They would simply go where there is no labour standards of pollution regulation, to maintain profititability. Yet, that is what you demand of them as an investor.

Then, to counter these fears, say that pollution is not harmful.

You are wrong on every count, but that is not an issue for you, as long as the profit increases.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flea, i don't know what dream world you live in, but stop posting nonsense. You add zero value to this board.

Kyoto is NOT supported by MNCs. Most MNCs are virulently against Kyoto - the minor exceptions are firms like SunCor who line up for SUBSIDIES. Most other firms, in any sector, recognise that Kyoto means higher taxes and higer regulations. The Cdn gov't promised Suncor and the oil patch subisidies to shut them up [ie. a BRIBE Flea]. Other firms in energy intensive sectors will lose jobs, competitiveness and nary a subsidy in sight.

I posted a 40 page overview of the sources, rationale and main purpose of Kyoto.

It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the EU wanting a level energy cost playing field with the US.

Even the Russians, unlike the Canadians, have the common sense to say nyet to such an idiotic concept.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...