Re: THAT KYOTO IS A FRAUD

"David Naugler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0312/S00036.htm
>
> That Kyoto Is A Fraud - Owen McShane

Nope. It is an international agreement or protocol. Since it was a group
exercise, there is no way to create a fraud, since those who negotiated it
would have to be their own victims!

> Thursday, 4 December 2003, 9:35 am
> Speech: Centre For Resource Mngmnt. Studies

Ahhh... Another soap box for an idiot.

>
> Two weeks ago I was invited to participate in the Vice-Chancellor's
> debate at Waikato University. The debate was "That Kyoto is a Fraud".
> Jeanette Fitsimons took one side and I took the other. I wrote the
> attached paper to inform myself of the issues. - Owen McShane

Too bad he spend so much time studying his navel and no tiime studying the
subject.

>
> I acknowledge that the city of Kyoto exists. Any claims to the
> contrary are fraudulent.

My. Starting with a non-sequitor?

>
> However, the protocol developed out of the IPCC conference in Kyoto is
> a fraud, because it is based on fraudulent assumptions, fraudulent
> models and fraudulent manipulations of data.

I think this analysis would fit the term 'fraud' a lot better.

>
> First, a few key points:

Key being a codeword for bullshit.

>
> - Climate Change is real. Claims that the climate is static and
> unchanging are fraudulent.

Another non-sequitor. The claim is not that only greenhouse gases change
climate but that THIS set of greenhouse gases change climate. The well known
fact that climate is constantly changing due to factors such as the change
in the greenhouse effect just removes the old claim that the climate never
changes and man therefore can't change it.

>
> - Claims that the burning of fossil fuels has released large amounts
> of carbon into the atmosphere are not fraudulent.

Yes. Or in other words, true. No question.

>
> - Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent
> because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and
> necessary for the growth of plants.

This is non-sequitor. The term pollutant means we don't want it there, or it
is present in too high a concentration, both of which are subject to WHY it
is considered a pollutant. In the case of EXCESS CO2 above the needs of
plants, it is clearly a pollutant due to it's modification of the greenhouse
effect and thus climate which is ALSO necessary to plant growth.

>
> - The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> claims a consensus exists that global average temperatures may
> increase by 1 or 2 degrees by the end of the century. This claim is
> probably not fraudulent in itself.

Actually the consensus is on the PRESENT warming, i.e. the WG1 or
'scientific basis'. No consensus can or does exist on scenarios ( which
explains the amount of debate on the projections ) . Also the scenarios
project a 1.4 to 5.8C warming which is considered wildly high by some and
wildly low by others. The debate depends not only on the climate response
but also the emissions that occur during the time period, and economic
development, all of which have some uncertainty.

>
> - However, most of the other IPCC assumptions, which have led to the
> Kyoto Protocol, are fraudulent.

This is obviously a fraudulent and unbased accusation.

>From above it is easy to see that the rest of this post is not worth
reading.

< snip of the 'usual garbage flood'>.