Re: Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawalNov 30th, 2011
What are their goals within our Govt?
Learn who these people are: The Energy Working Group - Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
What are their goals within our Govt?
Have you ever considered that "energy" is a "strategic asset" just like potash was recently confirmed to be by Parliament and are now under SPP control rather than Parliament or Senate and whatever system thay have going in Mexico?
Its 2011. What is the difference in waiting a month or 2? We are not going to achieve the targets so what difference does it make?
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.So, we're withdrawing one year ahead of the commencement of the first Kyoto period, which began on January 1, 2008, and finishes December 31, 2012. Even though we did nothing from the get-go, the first period resides entirely within the Conservatives as our governing party. That's a point the opposition parties would hammer them on.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Protocol.
But someone has to bite the bullet and lead the way or else everyone will just point the finger.
Really? I thought more where bailing off that train than getting on board. Huh...97%.
Fiction doesn't speak to some folks so how about this one:
Amazon.com: Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam (9781935071839): Brian Sussman: Books
One of the scientists who published that study in 2010 where the 97% claim has come from has an extensive web collection, many lists, and rankings of publications and citations. A Canadian climate scientist is number 10 on the list, his offices were broken into around the same time as the CRU hack.
The science hasn't changed...people's perceptions have.
Just because it's in the non-fiction section, doesn't mean what the man writes is true. Your lesson for the day. Much of what Sussman writes is not factual.
Doran 09 is flawed, but it is not the only paper cited to make the 97% claim. There is one other, Anderegg 2010. This study breaks down climate scientists into two groups, those who are convinced by the evidence (CE) on anthropogenic climate change, and those who are unconvinced by the evidence (UE). Here is the abstract (emphasis mine):The database they are talking about includes more than just actively publishing scientists, it includes some who haven't been working as scientists for decades. But I guess you missed the part I highlighted in red. There are plenty of fields where the old fogies who aren't actively researching anymore still refuse to accept where, they wouldn't want to give you all of the context on Freerepublic afterall... the science has progressed since their days in the lab. It's not surprising at all that the retired folks are outside of the mainstream.Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.There is the 97% claim. Someone reading this might agree it supports the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They mention a dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and then give the 97% number. You might think this mean 1331 researchers believe in ACC, and only 41 researchers reject it. You'd be wrong. The actual numbers are 903 who accept AGW, and 472 who reject it. That gives us a percentage of researchers who believe in ACC of about 66%.
Yummy. Goes great with a Coca Cola. Save the blind polar bear cubs!