The Kyoto Infomercial
Date: Tuesday, April 19 2005
Global Warning – Part 3 – The Kyoto Infomercial
Ottawa — Environment Minister David Anderson has acknowledged for the first time that it could cost Canada a total of up to $10-billion to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. And some government sources suggest even that number is not a complete tally of the possible costs, which could run as much as $5-billion higher at $15-billion. The Globe and Mail - April 5 2005
How will we get Kyoto? We almost got it without any debate. The government tried to back door it when they were voting for the budget. Harper lost his voice the same day. Remember Free Trade, helicopters, submarines, fishing treaties that killed a fishery? lumber deals and stumpage fees that nearly killed an industry? Evidently you just can’t walk away from international agreements without paying an awful price? Do you remember the eighties and nineties when one new government after another promised to undo free trade and the GST? Whatever happened to those relics after we disposed of them?
Kyoto was the brainchild of billionaire energy trader, Maurice Strong. Are we are so pompous, so recklessly presumptuous that we now assume that big oil doesn’t like it. They were its creators. BP and Shell was among its early backers. It looks like Canada and the world will have to negotiate with big oil, possibly until we are bled dry to make this deal happen.
The first rule of selling is to convince your buyer he cannot live without what you can sell him. We are certainly convinced. They are playing market hardball now. We are fixated on celebrity pitchmen. We are shoveling currency on the table. They are poker-faced. We are discrediting anyone and everyone trying to save us from our lack of sales resistance. They are single-minded. We are wondering how much big oil is going to make us pay. They are deciding how much they will make us pay. We do have credit cards.
I suspect that the oil industry may even roll over to save this deal if some unforeseen trouble threatens. Remember you heard it from me first. It’s going to be the biggest raid on the public purse in our country’s history. And its legal and exactly what we asked for. Who could blame them?
Besides this part of Kyoto is just a prerequisite to part 2. This is the part that deals with the easy 1% of CO2 emissions and the part that deals with the public. It is suppose to reassure us that we can go for the whole enchilada. Unlike part 1, part 2 would significantly harm big oil’s bottom line. But it would also destroy civilization as we know it so they naturally think we won’t buy it either. But they will keep all the goodies that we are negotiating for them now. Then the negotiations with the provinces can commence.
I believe that Kyoto must be held to the same accounting as everyone else if truth or contemplation means anything anymore. No one should ever be bullied like Kyoto advocates bullied the Russians last year. I believe that Kyoto is disastrously iatrogenic, a bad law made from bad principles and poor science, one that threatens to make buying and selling the deadliest forms of pollution on the planet standard business practice, one that digresses from what is scientific standards of proof to what is a pure radical chic, missing what we came to cherish about the age of enlightenment, as it creates an international class of permanent pollution entitlements for some of the dirtiest polluters in the world. It seems almost my duty to oppose it.
Kyoto has so many red flags it’s almost impossible for someone who learned to be wary of power brokers and big government schemes to believe any of it at all. It has the earmarks of a sophisticated infomercial, an ad campaign with celebrities clamouring their support yet extremely light on science and heavy on personal anecdotes. Advocates will play with the presentation to have its message seem to leap out at you (graphics and maps with greens and lush colours to show today’s temperatures; graphics and maps with reds, brunt oranges, blacks, and browns represent what happens when we are bad). That’s what we called prime bullsh**ing when I was in junior high.
Kyoto advocates decided to frame –oops – to limit their study of what is normal to the end of a long warm cycle called the Medieval Warm which just preceded the much cooler climate they observed. They didn’t count the warm weather! Their measurement does include the Little Ice Age, our last notable cooling-down cycle, although they tend to make light of these altogether (I think it’s the word cycle that gets them going, they seem to prefer quick and final resolutions.) That selective data insures that real temperatures are always above where we should be when we read from their fancy new charts. It’s like no one counted summer in their climate models. Or sunlight. They just averaged out the winters and published the results for you to deal with, without even blushing. Now these are the same thorough fellows who want us to ignore the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm period because they are inconsequential. Why? Doesn’t the existence of a thriving wine-making industry in the British Isles during the Medieval Warm Period mean anything? Isn’t the colonization, its heyday, then the abandonment of Greenland significant? “Greenland is tectonic - it moved” is how one global warning advocate explained this. Is far-reaching crop diversification in the northern hemisphere? The dramatic increase, then killing decrease in foodstuff? Doesn’t the lack of significant manmade greenhouse gases going into the air during the Medieval Warm (when it was warmer than today) have anything to say to us about carbon dioxide now?
The UN bases its global warming policies on two models, one Canadian and one British. There are 40 plus models in all. They predict entirely different futures for us and won’t be reconciled. Of course global warming advocates have chosen to gloss over this discrepancy about Kyoto science. Getting things to add up is probably too insignificant to account for, too.
It has been asked if they can’t predict tomorrow’s weather why they think they would be able to predict the weather next century. The Farmer’s Almanac has a far better record in weather forecasting than anyone else. They use the sunspot activity cycle, that cruel c-word again, and do better than scientists pursuing other forecasting options. Could they be on to something? At least they do not consider water vapor or clouds as greenhouse gases. They, Kyoto’s numbers and its science, have been suspect a long time. Cheaters have been outed again and again. Advocates have stretch grafts or outright distorted them to suit the curve. Even its main centerpiece, the infamous hockey stick pattern, doesn’t show a blip of the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. Too local, critics say. This doesn’t promise good science or even fair politics. Some off-shoots from the meltdown theory would depend on the earth’s elevation changing hundreds of feet for half a continent or more for conditions that would allow these conjectures to happen without divine intervention (i.e. stopping the Gulf Stream). If they got the conditions we wouldn’t need to worry about global warming. We would all be dead from the violent planet-wide upheavals.
Those and similar stories are still in the Kyoto press releases each and everyday. Everything from too lush rain forest growth to a glorious array of cherry trees in bloom on the Potomac has been tagged proof of global warming this spring. I can only surmise that this Cherry tree thing in Washington is not too local since it was reported widely. It is full of significance and meaning. The advocates think global warning pay-offs like these may influence us to act against our best interests in the long run. It is a friendly reminder from the chosen few. God spoke to them; he did not speak to us.
Evidently God speaks to Robert Oppenheimer too. The Carbon Trust advert on television begins with an actor playing Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the A-bomb”. The portentous voiceover tells us: “One man has been where we all are today. When he saw what he had done, he said, ‘I am become the destroyer of worlds’ (cue shot of atomic explosion). Now we all have to face up to what we’ve done. Our climate is changing . . .” Scientific orthodoxy does not prevent today’s skeptics from speaking. It only demonizes them for contrary views. The first reaction I invariably get to a global warming piece is “why are you lying, you dummy”.
The role of the sun in global warming is also considered insignificant by Kyoto advocates.
The one constant in Kyoto scientific flops has been to lay the blame failure of climate models and warming projections (all projections to date) at the feet of the sulfate aerosol, a mysterious cooling agent in the air that is due to be legislated out of existence. (Shouldn’t we blow this stuff from all our smokestacks and cure the global warming problem once and for all. It’s such a cheap, easy cure.) When satellites found cooling, not warning, they said only the global temperature matters. When these measurements didn’t agree with the predictions they practically shouted at everyone, they blamed it on weather stations which were too urbanized. This is awfully crude work coming from the same class of technicians who said age about twenty years ago by now we’d be neck deep in a new ice age. And they only want the US to cut its greenhouse emissions by about 45% in about 8 ½ years.
One spokesman that I saw before the parliament already says Kyoto can’t be voluntary. It must be regulated. It must have teeth. I forget which rock band he plays with though.
The world told Putin – “If you want to be part of the WTO you will be a part of Kyoto.” That was the beginning and the end of the debate on the merits of Kyoto in Russia.
I don't accept that emitting some greenhouse gases will be catastrophically bad for the Earth. Some economists have determined that moderate warming caused by greenhouse gases will be beneficial to the Earth, especially Canada. We have new more reliable information that suggests that the Earth isn't warming as much as alarmists say, that we'll only be facing a 1 degree F rise by 2050 if we don’t restrict anything at all.
Perhaps we might need to do something in 50 or 100 years, but the world will be a very different place. Maybe new technologies will have solved the energy problem without any suicidal restrictions at all. That’s where the safe money is.
The main reason I am against Kyoto has little to do with science or saving myself from a scam. I am against it because it will hurt the most venerable of us, and hurt us bad.
I believe that when victims of Kyoto have had their day in court Kyoto will have folded like cheap patio furniture in a Lake Ontario windstorm. I believe the rising death rates in Africa and Asia plainly underscore the harmful, iatrogenic dimension of the Kyoto Accords and the laws that were its precursors. I think the liberal international courts will see it that way too. The world is stepping into the biggest lawsuit in human history but most everyone would prefer their health. I guess it all comes down to what you’d rather spend your money on.
New statistics are now available: “MORE PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM MAN-INDUCED CHEMICALS POLLUTING THEIR ENVIRONMENT THAN FROM AIDS”- UN ENVIRONMENTAL (UNEP) WARNING - 2004. Am I missing something here? Why can’t I get passed the damned “primum non nocere”, the “first, do no harm” test for the Kyoto Accords? I hate it when I’m stuck like this.