Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:02 pm    Post subject: Random, Unscientific Kyoto Numbers Reply with quote

I was playing with some thoughts the other day, one of them being that you might get a very rough measure of the 'Kyoto efficiency' of an economy, by dividing a nation's GDP by it's GHG emissions. The resulting number would $ million / megatonne. The higher the number, the more 'efficient' that economy.

Having an abundance of time the other day, I took the 10 largest GHG emitters, and the 10 countries with the highest GDP per capita, and figured out that number (the US was listed twice, so I added Australia to make an even 20). The results:

1. Sweden $6.82 / mt
2. Switzerland $5.80 / mt
3. Iceland $4.75 / mt
4. Ireland $3.88 / mt
5. Italy $3.85 / mt
6. Denmark $3.85 / mt
7. Norway $3.52 / mt
8. UK $3.36 / mt
9. Luxembourg $3.36 / mt
10. Japan $3.25 / mt
11. Germany $3.13 / mt
12. Netherlands $3.09 / mt
13. India $2.98 / mt
14. China $2.85 / mt
15. South Korea $2.23 / mt
16. Canada $2.14 / mt
17. US $2.09 / mt
18. Australia $1.77 / mt
19. Russia $1.10 / mt
20. Qatar $0.69 / mt

Quite obviously, they don't mean anything. But its interesting to note that Canada is the most 'inefficient' of the Kyoto signatories with emission targets.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Kyoto is nothing more then to punish countries for the sins of those who commited in screwing up the Enviroment....If i was at the Conference i would be demanding what are the solutions and what needs to be done. I am absolutely Sick and tired of these Self-asborb Scienitists gloom and doom. To me It goes to show that Gen-X is the worst Generation EVER.
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do I feel like Rome is burning while all the Neros are playing their fiddles. You will never get 100% proof because everything is based on observations and model projections. The important thing is the world's most respected scientists are in agreement on this issue. They are are not funded by oil companies like the naysayers.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
Why do I feel like Rome is burning while all the Neros are playing their fiddles. You will never get 100% proof because everything is based on observations and model projections. The important thing is the world's most respected scientists are in agreement on this issue. They are are not funded by oil companies like the naysayers.


No, you're right...
they're funded by(or work for) the "green tech" companies who are getting huge government grants thanks to their "concensus"
thanks for coming out KPK.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beat me to it, Biggie :)

And, there have always been grave reservations about the UN's IPCC reports, especially charges that the 'Executive Summary' disregards contradictory research from the science in the same report, and that dissenting scientists have had their research expunged from reports altogether. So I guess that's a kind of concensus...

Also, in the most current IPCC Report, they've quitely modified or thrown out most of the dire predictions, because their models were proven wrong. They also did some jiggery-pokery with the statistics. I doubt KPK is interested, but here's a blow by blow demonstration of just how shaky the concensus should be ... IPCC 4th Assessment Report: Analysis and Summary - Centre for Science and Public Policy
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can either of you provide a list of scientists who participated in this UN report who were funded by "green" companies? Thank You.I'm open minded as always.
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
Can either of you provide a list of scientists who participated in this UN report who were funded by "green" companies? Thank You.I'm open minded as always.


Dr Graeme Pearman who helped draft the report allso works for a couple of green companies

"Climate Positive", "an organization that, every tonne of CO2 you produce is offset with investment in accredited renewable energy projects, for a cost."

"Greenfleet", "Greenfleet is a non-profit organisation. Our program provides a simple way to reduce your car's impact on the environment. For $40 (tax deductible), Greenfleet will plant 17 native trees on your behalf".

see link below

http://kitchenerconservative.b.....-ipcc.html
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and there's this:

" Christopher Landsea resignation
In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
"
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Random, Unscientific Kyoto Numbers

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB