Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm sure we wouldn't want to aggravate WMC's visions of black helicopters so I think the logo of the organization that sponsored the Kyoto Protocol is more appropriate than a generic UN logo or a generic photograph of the planet Earth. I mean, what Kyoto has to do with Apollo 17 is unclear - at least to me.--JonGwynne 20:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Apollo 17 but it has everything to do with the planet. The UN logo should be on there but it is a bit boring, so I'm for both.Dejvid 11:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an example of framing - the implication is that support for Kyoto is equivalent to support for the planet. It isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.--JonGwynne 18:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's like saying that an article on the overthrow of S. Husein should not show a picture of Irak as it might imply that the invasion was designed to enable Iraki freedom.Dejvid 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it isn't anything like that. Perhaps you should explain exactly what a photograph of the earth taken from space has to do with the Kyoto Accord.--JonGwynne 00:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's about global greenhouse gases. Image:Earth's atmosphere.jpg doesn't fit quite as well. (SEWilco 22:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))
The issue of the symbol for the kyoto protocol is not the priority so why don't we stop thinking about the useless issues and figure out whats important JeffL
If you had observed the dates you'd have noticed that we had stopped. (SEWilco 17:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

Kyoto is a first step

Article 3 1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

And, yes, exactly what happens after 2012 is subject to negotiation. It certainly would be a good idea to have a section on how these negotiations are going.Dejvid 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that part too. However I don't see where it talks about a "stage 2" or what (if anything) is going to be different after 2012. Could you explain where the concept of "stage 2" originated? And thanks for addressing the point. It is a refreshing change to deal with someone who actually discusses views and in a civil, constructive manner instead of certain others here (who shall remain nameless) who... well, don't.--JonGwynne 00:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I know about the negotiations is only from occasional reports in the news. The negotiations could stall so yes there is no guarantee that they will go deeper. Hopefully there will be well enough informed reporting to ensure that the politicians don't play a game of blame the others. The uncertainty of the outcome is implicit in the current wording of the Wikki article.Dejvid 18:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's fine but it still doesn't help us get to the bottom of the question: Where in the Kyoto Protocol is the concept of a "stage two" mentioned and where does it say that things will be (or are intended to be, provided negotiations proceed in a certain way) different after 2012? I have heard that Kyoto is supposed to be a "first step" from several different sources, but none of them seem to be able to say what the "second step" is going to be. My point is that, unless there is a specific reason not to, Kyoto should be discussed as a distinct entity. Do you agree?--JonGwynne 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The reference now contained in the article implies the existence of a "second phase" of Kyoto by referring to a meeting that was supposed to have taken place no later than the end of 1998. However, the Nature reference to Kyoto's controversial efficacy refers to the application of Kyoto through 2050. What is Kyoto supposed to do after 2050 that will make up for the little that it is projected to do up to that point? --JonGwynne 04:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current provisions are only intended to apply to 2012. I don't understand why you have a problem with the current wording in that it admits the possibility that the process could get stuck there. And yes what happens after 2012 will probably be a new treaty but that doesn't make the long term irrelavant. Any restriction, even a limited one, eases the transition and encourages long term planning on the basis of increasing restrictions on Green house gasses and stimulates further research. Hence Kyoto is the foundation of future cuts. [1]. The reason why it is still open as to what happens after 2012 is because Europe wants to involve the US and the current US administration still regards the negotiations as "totally premature"[2]. Dejvid 12:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another post 2012 link [3]Dejvid 13:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reference in the article refers to a first meeting, and then requires reexamination until the goal is met, with no dates specified. (SEWilco 19:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Again, this is all well and good but it doesn't provide any insight into the claim that Kyoto is a "first step". Can we please find some evidence to support this claim or remove it?--JonGwynne 23:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are asking for a fixed timetable for futher reductions after 2012. For very good reasons these are not being laid down because it is hoped that the US will participate but the for the moment the US is holding back. Would it be sensible to try and lay down a timetable when 2012 is still 7 years away without input from the US?Dejvid 00:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am asking for support of the claim that Kyoto is a first step. Let's change the statement to something like "Supporters of Kyoto are hopeful that it will be a first step in addressing environmental issues"... How would that be? --JonGwynne 04:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kyoto is already defined as a first step, and the US already signed the UNFCCC. Do you understand "shall"? And "regular intervals" sets no timetable until reviews are scheduled. (SEWilco 07:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

UNFCCC Article 4[4]
  • 2(a): "Each of these Parties shall adopt national1 policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. …"
  • 2(d): "… A second review of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall take place not later than 31 December 1998, and thereafter at regular intervals determined by the Conference of the Parties, until the objective of the Convention is met;"
And yet the peer-reviewed journal Nature has said that even if all these things happen, the results of the full implmentation of Kyoto through 2050 will be the reduction of global temperatures by a tiny fration of the projected increases. So perhaps someone could explain what comes after 2050 that will change this...--JonGwynne 23:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
IMHO Kyoto is a first but important step in the sense that it creates a system that allows the regulation of CO2 at all, something which is not possible by now. Though the effect of Kyoto on global warming is indeed very small it is a step in the right direction. These kind of long term changes are not uncommon: it took >10 years to ban CFC and disarming talks between the SU and the USA also needed a long time and never were perfect (there are still enough nuclear bombs around for reaching an overkill). Thus starting with something (small) is often better than doing nothing. -- mkrohn 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Not quite. The UNFCCC created the systems. Kyoto defined some numbers for it. Have you read them? (SEWilco 04:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC))
Thanks for the factual correction, though this does not change the argument itself. -- mkrohn 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't actually know what you are arguing about. (SEWilco 17:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC))
Regulation of CO2 still isn't possible even with Kyoto since some countries didn't ratify it (The US, Austrialia) and others aren't regulated by it even though they have ratified it (e.g. China). So that isn't really a good argument for it. I agree with you that something should be done, but arguing that something that is expensive and ineffectual is better than nothing is not very convincing. Wouldn't be be better to do something that was pratical and effective?--JonGwynne 04:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
But waiting will be far more expensive. First small changes now are worth far larger steps later. Second it is far cheaper to proceed in small steps. Isn't that obvious? If I'm going to double glaze my windows then it makes sense to do it when the windows need replacing. Kyoto works at the macro level but to fufill their obligations the signatories will have to be encouraging small chages like that. The alternative is to do nothing until things get so bad that they must be done in a rush - and that will really cost.Dejvid 11:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dejvid. It is better to begin with small steps (and probably continue with small steps) than sitting around and doing nothing. The evidence for global warming is overwhelming [5] and it is time to do something about it. And to make that pretty clear: I would like to believe that minorities like F. Singer are right and global warming is not happening, all models are wrong and we do not have to do anything about it. But given the scientific evidence this position is IMHO not responsible and thus we have to do something about it (and besides: Singer also needed about 5 more years than everyone else to admit that CFCs do destroy the ozone layer).

Criticising Kyoto is easy, but offering something which is more "practical and effective" is hard, but perhaps Jon has the ultimate solution to reduce CO2 output worldwide? ;-) --mkrohn 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"Doing nothing" about what? Why do you think it is necessary to reduce CO2? (SEWilco 17:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC))
Please read carefully. I did not wrote that it is necessary to reduce CO2. My statement was about reducing the CO2 output (which is so to speak the first derivative). Even stopping the acceleration of CO2 concentration (the second derivative) would be helpful right now. -- mkrohn 18:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
If stopping reducing GHGs is your only concern, are you comfortable with the non-GHG requirements in the UNFCCC? And what is the correct level for GHGs? (SEWilco 20:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC))

Support vs. Opposition

The section on support is about only political support. The section on opposition is about both political and scientific opposition. I doubt there's no scientific support for the treaty; it was based on something. (no snide remarks please ^_^) In any case, there seems to be an inbalance in form between the two sections.

(As a nit, there's mention of an open letter being written to the Prime Minister of Canada in the opposition section. The letter is against the protocol, of course, but the article doesn't bother to mention this.)

(William M. Connolley 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)) There isn't really any science in the opposition section is there? I've just moved a bit of CB stuff out, because it wasn't criticism.

I was thinking of these lines:

For example, Russia's influential Academy of Sciences (RAN) said the government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol was "purely political," and that it had "no scientific justification." [10] ( The Russian experts told president Putin that Kyoto was scientifically unfounded nonsense


In June 2003, an open letter[18] ( was written to Canada's then-future prime minister, Paul Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries—Martin has yet to respond. A open letter previously ( was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to then-current Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien.

Throughout this page, there is mention of groups of scientists opposing the treaty, but only political groups supporting it. This kind of gives the impression that the various goverments/enviromental groups are doing so in opposition to scientific consensus. A quick google came up with this article which while presumably biased contains the claim "Back in 2000, 63 Academies of Sciences throughout the world issued a joint statement urging that early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is vital for conservation of the environment." That's a falsifiable statement which, if true, should probably be included in the article. Another article mentions that "Sixty-five scientists have sent a letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein saying they support implementation of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas emission reductions." Since these are pretty much direct counterparts of statements made in the opposition section, they should probably go in the support section. --Starwed 16:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne's complaint against VSmith

Once again you are engaging in incivil conduct. If you don't think Stott's statements belong in the intro, then put them somewhere else. Calling them "nonsense" is simply rude and incivil - and demonstrates that you have nothing substantive to offer in response to them. In spite of the fact that they reject your deeply-held personal beliefs on the subject, they are relevant to the discussion of Kyoto and your deletion of them is nothing more than censorship. Are you so afraid of opposing views that you seek to stifle them wherever you can? --JonGwynne 04:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed personal attack from header. It is about the Stott quote:

No, you don't get to censor criticism of either yourself or your idealogy. That wasn't a personal attack, it was an objective statement of fact. You engaged in incivil conduct in violation of wikipedia policy. The header was simply an observation of that fact. If you don't like being labelled as a violator of wikipedia policy then I suggest you stop violating it.--JonGwynne 14:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Philip Stott has been quoted in a BBC online interview [6], talking about a fundamental "contradiction" of the Kyoto Protocol: "that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."

Which I removed as it doesn't belong in the intro - or perhaps even in the article. Stott is, by my reading, calling the climate researchers, on whose work the protocol is base, liars. That seems rather inflammatory and not really relevant. Vsmith 13:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet, you don't bother to explain why it doesn't belong. You express your personal opinion that his statements are "inflammatory" and claim they aren't relevant. We'll leave aside the overtly POV nature of this claim and skip right to the fact that at no time do you bother to dispute the factual accuracy of Stott's statement. Oh yeah, and Stott's statement directly addresses the Kyoto Accord - that isn't disputed either, despite your unsupported claim that it is irrelevant. To respond to the only substantive point you actually make in your rebuttal, there is no indication that Stott is calling climate researchers liars - his use of the term is somewhat ambiguous, he might just as easily be referring to policitians. In fact, I think that is more likely. A climate researcher who understood the mechanisms underlying global climate (to the extent that they can be understood at the current time) would be unlikely to subscribe to the view that global climate can be managed "by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions". Such a view doesn't pass the laugh test - yet it is something that policitians might tend to latch onto in order to serve their political rather than scientific agenda. In any event, this is pretty clearly just another case of your idealogical censorship of views you find objectionable.--JonGwynne 14:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
"Stott is, by my reading, calling the climate researchers, on whose work the protocol is base, liars. That seems rather inflammatory and not really relevant." No, that Stott phrase does not mention scientists, and is referring to a contradiction within the Kyoto documents. Stott is saying the politicians creating the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are liars. Stott is saying the concept of controlling the complex climate through only greenhouse gas emissions is a lie which goes beyond scientific uncertainty. If this concept is false, is this relevant? (SEWilco 18:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC))
Do me a favor SE and keep an eye on this. Because of local politics and a handful of biased administrators, I am not allowed to revert Global warming-related articles more than once. So, alas, it will have to be up to others to try to maintain balance here. As you can see, they even try to censor facts about themselves in the discussion page - No Marco, you don't get the censor facts here either. It is highly inappropriate for you to modify other people's commentary here in any case. Please stop doing it. If you have anything to say on the subject, your comments are welcome. Your attempted censorship is not.--JonGwynne 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

:-) Politics and biased administrators have banned you, "the others" are POV warriors and do not have a balanced view. Oh, and yes they always attack personal while "you" present objective facts and if "they" cannot argue anymore the only thing "they" do is censoring the article. -- mkrohn 08:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If you'd stop trying to censor other people's statements, it would be a big help. I'll remind you that it is highly inappropriate to edit other people's comments on this page. This is a place where everyone can speak their mind without being censored. The statement that VSmith is in violation of wikipedia policy isn't a "personal attack", it is a statement of fact. Wikipedia policy states that incivil comments are verboten and yet VSmith makes them. It isn't an attack to point this out. It may be embarrassing to him to be called on his violations but that's his problem. BTW, your assessment is essentially accurate.  ;-> --JonGwynne 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again removed a personal attack from the section header - the issue is the Stott quote. JonGwynne has been reprimanded previously for personal attacks in an Arbcom ruling against him (see:[7]) and he is on "Personal attack parole" as a finding of that case. I consider his actions here and on other talk and edit comments to be personal attacks against me and other users and will file a report to the members of the arbcom involved if his attacks do not cease immediately. I expect an apology from him regarding his inuendos and attacks against me. -Vsmith 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the Stott quote again as it does not belong in the intro to the article. I have also reverted other POV materials JG reverted back in. Vsmith 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your deceptive (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they weren't deliberately and maliciously deceptive) descriptions of this header notwithstanding, you have no right to censor or edit my statements on this board in *any way*. If you disagree with them, feel free to express your disagreement in whatever manner you deem suitable - but you may not edit *my* statements. It is not a personal attack to describe violations of wiki policy as violations of wiki policy. The fact remains that your comments re: Stott were incivil and, as such, a violation of wiki policy. You have no basis to consider the factual descriptions of your actions to be "personal attacks". They are not attacks in any way, shape or form but rather factually accurate and completely impersonal remarks - unlike, for example, your own comments regarding Philip Stott.--JonGwynne 01:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I notice remain unwilling or unable to justify your removal of Stott's remarks regarding the view that global climate can be substantively affected by attempting to modify minor factors that influence it. This is the entire basis of the Kyoto Protocol and his point is directly on point. But, based on your actions in the past, it seems pretty clear that you won't tolerate legitimate criticism of the position of the IPCC and those who support Kyoto.--JonGwynne 01:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Nope, you're still not allowed to censor my comments. And I notice you've still failed to justify your censorship of Stott. What's your thing with censorship? Are you really that worried that your position can't withstand scrutiny that you have to violate other people's freedom of expression on the subject?--JonGwynne 05:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

JonGwinne said: "VSmith is still at it" in reverting the title of this section.
This is incorrect. I changed the title, as it is clearly too long, and contains redundant information which can be found by reading this section. It's pretty obvious that JonGwynne thinks VSmith is violating wiki policy from the first few lines; there is no censorship going on here, just an attempt to make the talk page more readable. --Starwed 16:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentals of what Kyoto Protocol really is? - The math

So there is a lot of talk here (as well as many other places on the internet) about everything that is involved with this protocol; the people, the consequences etc etc...

Nowhere is it defined what this protocol really fundamentally is. How was it decided how certain countries can pollute less by 2010, while others can pollute more? How is this based on population density and land area exactly? What other factors come into play? When a country starts to buy credits, the more it buys, the more expensive they get, what forumla does this follow?

Who made up all these formulas? What univerisity/what prof.? Was there other formulas that were also being concidered?

In my opinion, these are the questions that it all comes down to, and I think it would be super helpful if they were addressed here.



Start with the first sentence in the article and click on something in there: "The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), " (SEWilco 18:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC))

Already have looked around, and double checked the above link and the associated links and there is Nothing about the math formulas that govern kyoto. There really is nothing about this anywhere I have looked. If there is, it needs to be way less hard to find.

You are having trouble finding logical reasons for the decisions because they are political decisions. (SEWilco 17:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC))

Ya you're probably right. It is just sad that there can be so much action and arguing over something that isnt even understood, and worse yet, not even attempted to be explained. Super extra kudos to anyone who can break through and find what model this is based on, who designed it etc.

Rm Stott

(William M. Connolley 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) I removed Stott. He is of no particular significance, nor are his views. I can't see any excuse for putting him in the article at all, let alone the intro.

Well, at least you're trying to abide by the terms of the injunction against you, but in this case you're falling a bit short. You offer no support for your unmarked reversion apart from your traditional "because I said so, that's why" argument. Stott's views on the subject *are relevant* and here's why:
  • He is a noted critic of the Kyoto Accords - his views on the subject have been sought by, among others, the BBC (the source of the quote). So, it is clear that other people in positions of higher authority that yours feel that Stott's views *are* relevant. In fact, if you'd read the article in question, you might have seen that Stott was described as "a prominent British climate sceptic". Ergo, your claim that Stott or his views are "of no particular significance" is untrue on its face. Your abject failure to support your claim is sufficient evidence of its spurious nature.
(William M. Connolley 16:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Stott isn't particularly notable. Being interviewed once by the BBC doesn't make you notable.
He's been interviewed more than once, he's standard source for them on such matter. --JonGwynne 18:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Oh no he isn't. And even if he was, it wouldn't justify his place in the intro to the Kyoto article.
  • The comment in question is spot-on in terms of relevance to the article in question. In other words, he is speaking specifically about the Kyoto Accords and not about generalities which may or may not have any bearing on the issue.
(William M. Connolley 16:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) The comment in question is largely irrelevant and scientifically illiterate.
  • It is appropriate to place Stott's statement in the intro as the intro should reflect the whole of the article in terms of content. In the case of Kyoto, it should include some mention of the criticism levelled at it and Stott's statement is both succinct and completely true.
(William M. Connolley 16:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Stotts statement doesn't reflect mainstream opposition to Kyoto at all.
So you say - your insistence on judging everything by what is "mainstream" is undermining your case. Science isn't about what is "mainstream", it is about finding out what is true. Remember Galileo and Copernicus weren't "mainstream" - but they were right. And you're also wrong about the opposition to Kyoto - Stott's view is precisely in line with the opposition to Kyoto who question the assertion that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming or that humans can manage global climate by reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. --JonGwynne 18:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Au contraire, Galileo *was* the scientific mainstream. You septics are putting yourself, now, in the place of the Catholic church, then: desperately trying to hold back the weight of scientific evidence. And failing.
Are you serious? Galileo was definitely *not* the scientific mainstream - he was in direct opposition to it and what infuriated those who held the "orthodox" view espoused by the church was that he was willing to question things that they preferred to have accepted on faith - just as we see with the "hockey stick" today. It is the IPCC who are playing the role of the Catholic Church in attempting to supress criticism of the orthodox view. The condemnation and indignation of those who supported the "official" view of the universe was the same then as it is now - those who defend orthodoxy resort to the same ad hominem attacks rather that discussing the evidence. --JonGwynne 20:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Since I have completely demolished your claims regarding the quote, I'll replace it. If you (or anyone else) have anything substantive to say in response to the points I've raised, you are at liberty to reply. It would be appropriate for you to do so before reverting the quote. --JonGwynne 00:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 1. The Stott quote is not from a peer reviewed article, it is from a BBC interview.
A lot of statements in that article are not from peer-reviewed sources... Why are you singling out Stott's quote? Oh yeah, because you disagree with it and it embarrasses people who try to push their POV on the Kyoto Accords... --JonGwynne 04:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2. Stott is not a climate scientist and has not to my knowledge published in the field. He does appear to be "a prominent British climate sceptic", but what does that mean - he likes to make noise belittling the possible reality of climate change.
Stott is a professor of biogeopgraphy which, according to the wikipedia article is a field "related to geography, biology, geology, climatology, and ecology". You definition of "skeptic" is a perfect example of why you should refrain from editing anything related to climate change - the idea that you consider skeptics to be "noisemakers" who "belittle" the subjects in which they express their skepticism is pretty clear evidence of your extremist POV. --JonGwynne 04:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 3. The quote is sensationalist and attention grabbing. He is essentially calling the climate scientists responsible for the work Kyoto is based on liars. There are problems and areas for legitimate disagreement with Kyoto and those legitimate criticisms do have a place in the article. This sensationalist BBC quote doesn't cut it, it is POV pushing to insist on putting it in the intro or the article. Find some published criticism instead.
Vsmith 03:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You mean, "sensationalist and attention grabbing" in your personal opinion. You haven't said that you think Stott is wrong (though I'm sure you will now) - just implied that Stott doesn't know what he's talking about (though he clearly has the backgroung to be consider an expert by organizations like the BBC) by engaging in ad hominem attacks on him - the first indication that someone doesn't have a leg to stand on. You have failed to back up your reversion. --JonGwynne 04:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Try Googling Stott - people seem to regard him as a bit of a nutcase. Good job in biogeography, but his extremist sensationalism makes me wonder whether his biased view of science tainted that journal too (ie, what wasn't published because he was editor?) Guettarda 20:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Who gives a damn how "people regard him"? This isn't a popularity contest. People thought Darwin was a nutcase too. Try concentrating on his actual work. Whether or not he's a "nutcase" is irrelevant - what matter is whether or not his work is right or wrong. --JonGwynne 20:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, you are correct that my edit slightly changed the meaning of the affected portion in the into. That was because it was incorrect before and I corrected it. The current version is fatally flawed. There is no evidence that there will be "further cuts" in the future, so creating the expectation that they will be is deceptive. There is also no clear indication what the word "objective" means in the context in which it is used - so I removed it to increase the clarity of the section. The insignificant projected reduction in global temperatures brought about by the complete implementation of Kyoto (as demonstrated by the study published in Nature) is the reason its value is questioned. Confusing the matter with some half-assed attempt to rebut the criticism by describing the wishful thinking of Kyoto cheerleaders and their hopes of what might come to be in their version of the future is extremely deceptive. --JonGwynne 20:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Rv: why

(William M. Connolley 21:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) JG changed: Because of this many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol should the negotiations fail to produce deeper cuts in the future. to Because of this many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol. Omitting the last clause changes the meaning strongly and makes it inaccurate: hence restore the words. Can't see why until the objective is met, was removed either, since JGs edit comment Another edit to attempt to introduce some accuracy and balance to the intro doesn't help.

Perhaps you should consider re-reading the version you reverted. The one you substituted is not only inaccurate, but grammatically incorrect. It is not generally considered correct to insert a paragraph break between two sentences conveying a single thought. The section "the Kyoto Protocol is predicted to reduce the average global temperature by somewhere between 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003), compared to the increase of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 predicted by the IPCC" goes hand-in-hand with the "Because of this many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol". I know, because I wrote it. Your POV attempt to change the meaning of this section and undermine the inherent flaws of the KP are unacceptable and, more importantly, unsupported by any evidence. The feeble attempt to rationalize the flaws of KP by citing wishful thinking on the part of politicians and activists is also POV and, therefore, inappropriate for wikipedia. You want to write an editorial for some blog then feel free. But do please spare wikipedia your cant. --JonGwynne 02:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you have the complete Nature reference? I cannot find the specific paper. The complete reference should be provided or at least the main author.Rolva 23:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


The AlterNet article link seems a bit biased against Bush. Now they may be right, but this article is supposed to be unbiased. --Phoenix Hacker 22:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is expected to

I'd like to know why William M. Connolley restored the text I deleted. The statement "Even though China is currently exempt, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is expected to declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and make itself no longer exempt" is based around weasel terms. It claims that China is expected to declare itself Annex I without saying who is doing the expecting or what their evidence for that expectation is--"it is expected" is used to avoid making an unsupportable assertion outright. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Its an unsupported assertion, but who knows if its unsupported? Not that I've tried to check. I think you're being too picky. The current text is probably worse, though. William M. Connolley 19:16:25, 2005-09-03 (UTC).

Noticed that the later edit changed this again, but I don't feel the replacement is any better. It's literally true that China can choose not to be exempt, but it seems very strange to follow a criticism of China for doing something by pointing out that they could do something different in the future. We don't say "the USA rejected the treaty, but the US could ratify it in the future".

The only way that line makes sense is if it's there to suggest that China *would* do such a thing, not just that they could. In other words, it has the same problem as the original version of the line. Ken Arromdee 15:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


SB's Over the last decade, China's CO2 emissions grew 8.4 percent" appears to be unsourced. But also... what is all this China stuff doing in the US section? William M. Connolley 21:20:48, 2005-09-03 (UTC).

The China stuff is in the US section because a major US objection to the treaty is that under it, countries such as China still have permission to pollute. Describing how much China pollutes and in what way the treaty gives China permission to do so is directly relevant.
As for a source for the 8.4% figure, you can try which is linked from It lists 1.94 metric tons per capita for 1990, and 2.38 for 2000. This is actually about 23%. (More for 2003). I've added this back to the article. Ken Arromdee 06:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. This belongs in a China section if anywhere. There is far too much detail there about not-US production. William M. Connolley 08:43:44, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

Those figures are about "metric tons carbon equivalent" rather than direct tons of CO2, so while they seem smaller, they're pretty much about the same thing, except that these figures go from 0.53 to 0.74, which is about 40%.

The big difference between your version and mine is that your version is obviously intended to argue against the position given in the quote (by implying that because the US produces more in the first place, the fact that China's production may rise is not important).

My version just puts figures on China's increase in emissions because the quote already refers to China's permission to increase emissions, but without any figures. I'm elaborating on it, not arguing against it. Ken Arromdee 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. But don't you think its a bit weird that the "position of the US" section mentions *only* Chinese emissions, and apparently mentioning the US emissions is forbidden (this would actually fit fairly neatly with the official US position, I suppose... is that your point?). William M. Connolley 08:49:33, 2005-09-06 (UTC).
Yes, that is my point. This section is for the US position, not for arguments against the US position. The best place for arguments against the US position would probably be in the Support for Kyoto section, though you'd need to point to supporters who argue that the US produces too much compared to China rather than making it yourself; or alternately, add a "position of China" section (if in fact China has made the argument itself; I have no idea if it has).
I'm personally a bit skeptical of the pro-China argument here. China seems to have a low emissions rate compared to the US because it has lots of poor people, and the more poor people it gets, the lower its per-capita emissions become. (The same goes for India.) A more reasonable figure would be something comparing China's greenhouse gases to its industrial output. I suspect that this would show that China's industries are a lot dirtier than America's. Ken Arromdee 15:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

My source for the 8.4% increase, was from the same source as the 17 percent decrease that was cited, so that is why I didn't provide a separate source. BTW, such contradictions call into question the credibility of the source. Here is the quote:

"By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997."
"Over the last decade, China's CO2 emissions grew 8.4 percent, while U.S. emissions grew 14 percent. During this period, however, China's economy grew four times faster than that of the United States (142 percent versus 31 percent)." [8]

The way to reconcile these statements about the 17% reduction since 1997 and the 8.4% increase in the last dacade, appears to be a huge increase in the first part of the decade. I see now that the press release is from 2001.

The US should be opposing Kyoto, of course, because it doesn't make economic sense. Leaving out the third world, just exports pollution and jobs.--Silverback 10:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback: even according to the tables that give the 23% and 40% figures, there was indeed a decrease from 1997-2000. However, the decrease didn't stick around and it increased again after that. So while I'm not sure about the numbers, you're basically right--there was a decrease, and an increase after 2001. Ken Arromdee 15:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Except both numbers were from the same 2001 press release, as I quoted.--Silverback 18:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

perspective or results section?

I think there needs to be a section that resports the results achieved by the protocol and putting those in perspective. For instance, UK is on track to achieve its goals, however, the calculations don't include the carbon loss from the soil which apparently, coincidently is estimated to have completely canceled out that achievement. The "achievement" is further dwarfed by two orders of magnitude by the peat bog fires in SE Asia in 1997 alone.--Silverback 13:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A perspective or results would be a good idea, but one written in an NPOV manner, which I don't think the above is. The article should certainly mention that carbon loss/gain from soils (and forests?) is outside the protocols scope (this is at least in part because good data doesn't exist for most of the world). William M. Connolley 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

link to objective

why does vsmith keep breaking the link? the section talked about the objective of kyoto and then pointed to a link to it. but the link says nothing about objective. the objective isnt even mentioned in links he puts in. i will put in the correct link to the objective. if he wants to change it he should say why. it is better to have link to objective and to talk about it yes?

Dear anon, the KP article frequently suffers vandalism and people are naturally suspicious about anon edits, especially when banned folk like JonGwynne edit it. An edit summary like "fix broken link" is considered deceptive when the link was not broken. If you mean "swap linkto point to different page" then say that. But the link you removed points to something specific - section 4.2d - so shouldn't be removed.
But I agree that the text you mention re objective would be useful there, so I've added it , with link. I trust you are happy now. ps: it is considered good form to sign your additions here, using ~~~~. William M. Connolley 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC).


"Some public policy experts who are skeptical of the global warming hypothesis see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative."

While we're at it, why don't we have an unsourced quote about the Illuminati being responsible for the protocol? And maybe something about evil terrorist aliens. Another controversial subject, another very low quality article. At least Wikipedia is consistent. (I know several people have put a lot of hardwork into this article, but as with most other controversial subjects, the article has ended up garbage). 09:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A bit less ranting and a bit more editing would help. Remove unsupported text if you see it and don't like it. William M. Connolley 10:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC).


I have referred to my solution that will help achieve Kyoto Protocol limits while at the same time giving a huge boost to the economies of oil-importing countries. Feel free to contact me at (first name)_(last name) if you have any question. The articles can be found at [9] Jayanta Sen 02:16, 4 November 2005

footnotes vs inliners

It appears there is a rather silly edit war between SEW and WMC over this. As the page has been stable with inline links I see no reason for SEW to make a unilateral change. Reach consensus here or elsewhere on the footnote thingy, but stop the edit war. Leave the article style as is (with inline links) until the dispute can be resolved. It seems to me that one reason SEW is pushing his footnote method here and in other climate related articles when he is fully aware of WMC's opposition is to start an edit battle with the purpose tripping WMC up and getting him to violate parole. SEW is clearly trolling here as he seems to be on a vendetta to have WMC censured for anything. I will revert any attempts by SEW to emplace his footnote thingy here and on other climate related articles until this dispute is resolved or taken elsewhere. SEW can play with his favorite footnote thingy on other articles (given consensus there). Now, discuss! Vsmith 16:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More detail is preferred over less detail. Wikipedia:Verifiability prefers more detail about sources over fewer details. Within this article, demonstration of the need for more details is that at least one inline link was pointing to a dead URL; I found the referenced info and provided more detail about the source in case it moves again. (SEWilco 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
I don't need to trip up WMC. He's been ignoring his parole for months and there are plenty of examples. (SEWilco 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
I don't see a consensus for the cumbersome easily broken footnote scheme here. Wikipedia:Verifiability mentioned above reccommends inline links. Vsmith 12:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I see a need for a References section which should include the expanded inline refs much as reccommended by Wikipedia:Verifiability and your notes section would be useful as such without the easily broken numbering system. I'll modify it as such later - no time right now. Vsmith 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like SEW has reverted again without consensus or even trying to discuss to achieve concensus. Will put it back later and convert his notes into a reference section. Vsmith 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Added notes as Reference section. Replaced numbered inline links with keyword which shows up in ref section (need to fix a couple yet). Ref section needs to be alphabetized as the old breakable ordered numbered links aren't there. Also need to include the non URL refs here - such as Nature articles as refs. Always more to do. Vsmith 02:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keywords coordinated & alphbetized. Still need to include non-web refs. Discuss ... Vsmith 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Restored the crosslinked references per WP:FN. No need to break a tool for finding desired citation. Numbered links also resembles the style appearance which has been used in this article. (SEWilco 05:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

The notes style is not policy, see Wikipedia:Cite sources. The version I implemented did cite sources and it did not break anything. The Harvard style, which I am trying to use, is the most common style for science references. The Harvard style uses (name date) rather than meaningless numbers to reference sources. I have tried to use this as inline links leading directly to the referenced material when available online. This is combined with a references section listing the sources in alphabetical order with a link there also. Having a live link in the text allows the user to immediately open the referenced webpage in a browser window without having to first go to the ref section and open the link. The notes system SEW implemented forces a jump to the note then opening the outside link, followed by another jump back to the text being read. This is most cumbersome (especially with a slow connection or wiki slowdown problems).

The note style introduced here by SEW without prior discussion has been rejected by users here. There is no consensus for its use and SEW has made no effort to reach consensus. He is simply pushing his favorite creation against consensus. My modified Harvard style achieves needed referencing while keeping inline links.

Discuss its merits and improve - simply forcing the notes method against consensus is inappropriate and simply disruptive. Vsmith 14:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The version which you implemented broke the links to each specific source citation and required more effort to access and verify citation entries. It also changed the style from the previously accepted numbered style to a previously unused Harvard style. The numbered footnotes follows the established numbered style for this article. Direct links to a source were either not being used much, or nobody cared to report so many dead links. (SEWilco 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
Discussing and reverting is better than just reverting. But it would be even nicer if we could establish consensus first. Currently, it is nearly impossible to work on the article. To throw in my opinion: I prefer the inline links. The current scheme is much harder to maintain - to add or remove something requires work in two different places, not just in one. And if I understand it correctly, if one inserts things in the wrong order, the numbering scheme breaks - this spells disaster. As others have pointed out, it is also much less convenient for the reader. Full references at the end is nice and reasonable for a paper document. But on the web it just means we have wasted one of the advantages of hypertext - the direct, clickable link. And AFAIK nearly all the references are to web sources, and the only extra information we get is when it was accessed. If you really think that is useful, put it into an HTML comment. Finally, why are these links less likely to go dead than inline links?--Stephan Schulz 07:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Read WP:FN. Inserting {{ref}} or {{note}} in the wrong order does not cause disaster, and renumbering has been minimized. The links still work even if a numbering sequence problem occurs. The link's name allows correction of such problems. The fact that there are many dead links suggests that the directly-clickable links are not being used much. More complete citations tend to include at least the title of a document (making searching for a new location or different copy easier), although in some cases the inline link becomes a full journal or book reference with additional info. The date also is helpful when a link goes dead so people know whether it recently went dead, or sometimes the date when an archive copy may become available six months later. (SEWilco 08:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

As Stephan said, consensus is important - and the consensus seems to be for inline links. SEW, your last edit summary was deceptive - my efforts are not perfect, but do include complete citations. I am aware that the notes thingy is your pet project, but it is not adequate here. A more complete references section is needed - not just a notes section. These are references, not footnotes. The Harvard system is preferable as it allows both inline links and references. Any referencing system will need monitoring as new users may not understand and follow the system in use. The modified Harvard system I have proposed needs fine tuning, but it is less cumbersome and not as easily broken as the notes system. And seems more in line with the consensus here. Vsmith 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The consensus for the article style has been to use numbered links, whose appearance I've retained. I had used the WP:CITE general name Notes for the section, but I changed it to References. (SEWilco 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC))
Nonsense, the issue is inline links - numbered or otherwise. I would like to work to improve the current version, but until SEW stops his instant reverting with phoney excuses, what's the point? There was no damage beyond use or repair as he described in his recent edit summary, simply an effort to reach consensus and improve the article. Vsmith 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The links to citations were damaged beyond use. I had to rebuild them. Inline links are too fragile; even your version had one citation with a different reference, and two inline links were different from the link in the related citation. (SEWilco 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC))
That was an amazing bit of confustication :-) - Actually it's called gaming the system to avoid 3rr vio. as what we have is a revert w/out the numbers - truly a work of art :-). What on earth is driving this aversion to consensus? The consensus I see, as stated repeatedly, is for inline links and no one besides SEW seems to want his pet notes thingy. So there's an error or two, not surprising, thanks to SEW's creative revert game it's hardly there long enough to see. I'm tempted just to go back to the inline link version w/out refs - tired of this garbage. Vsmith 13:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
What is needed are full and reliable citations of sources, not unreliable and unused inline links. (SEWilco 14:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

SEW continues to insist on his pet method, despite clear opposition from everyone else. There is a genuine problem of how to do this best (I think that it will eventually be solved by a software upgrade); but I (and others it seems) prefer inline, which have many advantages. As far as I can see, SEW's main motive for all of this is that, having lost on the science issues, he is seeking some way to get his pawmark onto these pages and irritate the rest of us. This is disruptive and unhelpful.

You may care to see

William M. Connolley 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Inline links have many disadvantages so were not incorporated in Wikipedia:Footnotes. Are you against clear and robust citations for some reason? You prefer many inaccessible sources in articles? You want to encourage minimal citations for statements which you allow to remain in articles? (SEWilco 15:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
And yet, the clear and wonderful advantages of your pet method are somehow unrecognised by everyone else. Could it be that there are some problems with your method? could it be that they are listed, below, and you have not even tried to engage? I want the articles to be as well referenced as possible. That means making references *convenient* so that people aren't put off. Your method is cumbersome and... its all listed below. William M. Connolley 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
Convenience is not more important than verifiability. What is listed below is incorrect. Read WP:FN. (SEWilco 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
Convenience and verifiability is my goal. As well as consensus here, a point missed by SEW. The anon added double that and strange out of place character you refered to were themselves not an improvement, stop being deceptive in your edit summaries. Thank you, Vsmith 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
You're in luck. Wikipedia:Footnotes describes templates which allow convenient referencing to source citations. The long-standing consensus here has been to use citations with numbered labels, a style which you suddently changed. (And I wasn't being deceptive in my edit summary, just mentioning why I didn't restore those edits which WMC deleted without mention.) (SEWilco 04:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
What luck! Wow - but your not listening to the consensus here. It is for inline links or do I need to shout INLINE LINKS :-). My apologies for that last deceptive bit, I mis-read the summary. Vsmith 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
URL-only inline links do not contain enough information and are too fragile for required verifiability. References which are not linked to citations are also fragile; as Vsmith's example showed, text could mention a citation name which did not exist, a citation can exist whose text reference is wrong or missing, and the URLs in text and citations can be (and were) different. Even if Vsmith fixes those errors, future problems will be similarly difficult to find and repair. Hyperlinking the reference and citation by name simplifies verification and repair. (SEWilco 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Can't we all just take a vote? __earth 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know 'bout a vote, what is your preference? State it and it will, hopefully, be considered by everyone here. Vsmith 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I would use footnote, but with autonumbering (which will use superscript). Looks more academic. Bu then again, its merely facial changes. =p __earth 06:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes vs Inlines

I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever...

  • it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
  • its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
  • its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
  • perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed

Fans of this exciting dispute may like to look at global cooling too.

William M. Connolley 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

(this section trimmed and sensible-ised, William M. Connolley 16:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Editors who want to learn how footnoting is done should read WP:FN. The above description has a number of errors. (SEWilco 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

WMC quoting SlimVirgin

SEW continues to fail to see sense. Lets quote some wise words from his own talk page:

WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page.

That was by User:SlimVirgin but I'm sure we'd all agree with her. William M. Connolley 17:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

So you prefer to replace Harvard-like style with a numbered style? (SEWilco 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC))
SEW is playing games. The issue is direct inline links (either numbered or Harvard) vs. his notes thing which forces an awkward jump to the notes section to find the link. A reference section is needed also, but is not the point of controversy. Direct numbered inline links were the style previous to SEWs notes edit. His notes have been turned into an alpha list (which I agree, needs refinement) as a reference section. I plan more work to improve the style if SEW will stop reverting to his notes thingy against consensus here. Similar work is needed at Global cooling when SEW stops contrarily reverting to his notes style there. Vsmith 21:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco

I think its time for: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

And if you liked that, you'll love Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. William M. Connolley 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

The arbcomm case is now resolved, the answer is SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles. That should mean peace reigning over the citation format, and we can actually work on the content of the article. How nice. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2. William M. Connolley 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

There is some meta stuff about cite that may in future provide a way to resolve the ref dispute: though at the moment it doesn't seem to have the capacity. But a page/user customisable ref format should be the future. William M. Connolley 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

the us/canada comparison

An anon added;

Interestingly, despite ratifying the agreement the Canadian government has done little to curb greenhouse gas emmissions. A recent study showed that Canada has cut its emmissions by 1% over the past 10 years while the USA which did not ratify Kyoto has cut their emmissions by 45% over the same period.

I've removed it, because the values for the US are certainly junk. Whether the canadian ones are right I don't know. See this [10] sci.env thread, which will point you to a table of data. The US trend on GHG's is upwards. William M. Connolley 16:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

The recent conference in Montreal brought up some new numbers: a 13% increase in emissions for the United States versus a 24% increase for Canada. If confirmed, perhaps these numbers could be worked in? Shame on Canada! 21:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Failure to follow through on commitments

The success or failure of countries to meet their commitments is split up by country, with no overview on how things are going overall. Given that the failure of some ratifiers to follow through is given by some (eg Mark Steyn) as a reason why others should not sign, shouldn't there be some summary? After all, the aim of the protocol is to reduce carbon emissions, not to have people signing bits of paper, isn't it? Andjam 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)