Bob Cajun Oct. 15, 12:20 AM
Of course, there is the other reason people are cooling to the global warming message - they just don't buy it.
Has any global warming doomsayer ever explained why:
(1) Greenland was ice-free when Eric the Red got there, long before the Industrial Revolution started?
(2) Why we had a mini ice age in the 18th century, which wiped out all the dairy farms in Greenland that had been there for hundred of years, even though carbon content remained the same?
Fact is, the impact of solar activity on Earth's climate is much greater than man's impact.
Ed A Oct. 15, 12:44 AM
Speaking of Greenland and global warming (or whatever the Suzuki-Goreites currently call it) in 1942 a squadron of P38s running low on fuel, landed on a glacier in Greenland. In 1992 using ground radar, the planes were located, and one P38 was brought to the surface from under 260 feet of ice. Thats not a mistake, it was over 260 feet! So, for anyone who has been drinking the cool aid, and believes in global warming, I would ask you to explain a 260 foot increase in ice thickness over the 50 years post 1942.
stuarmstrong Oct. 15, 1:59 AM
Bob Cajun,check out this web http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html Apparently Greenland farmers are getting back into the dairy farm business because Greenland is getting warmer.
Gerry Werthers from Vancouver Oct. 15, 2:43 AM
It makes more sense to take action on climate change sooner, during the downturn, rather than later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8292175.stm
CMC Oct. 15, 2:59 AM
You know, it is impossible to PROVE that all those smokers who died of lung cancer, died from smoking. Some lived near smelters. Some had asbestos brake linings on their cars. Some had woodstoves. Besides, not all who die of lung cancer are smokers. It goes on and on...
Impossible to prove that smoking killed them. It is just as impossible to prove that humans have pushed global warming by burning fossil fuels. It could be anything, sunspots, tilt of the axis, why, just about anything...
The smoking/climate change analogy holds: no 100 per cent, conclusive proof. So c'mon all you other Gore-hating manly types, join me, light up a king size. Ah, so firm, so fully packed...
Hap1 Oct. 15, 3:49 AM
10,000 years ago our beaches had hot weather Palm Trees along the shores, now we have moderate temperature Cedar and Fir trees in our Rain Forest.
So unscientifically that seems to this dumb hayseed that Vanc Island is getting colder over the long term.
Heck we even had 13" of snow in 1996 and just last Christmas we had 15". See what I mean it's definitely getting colder.
Speaking of cold, its down to only 54 degrees tonight. Excuse me I have to go into the house to put on a 'T' shirt.--Just carry on arguing, this may take some time I have to find some shoes and pants too. BBBBrrrrr Cold enough to freeze my wife's favorite play toy.
henryc Oct. 15, 4:03 AM
Moderator's Note: henryc's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
IndigoHawk Oct. 15, 4:22 AM
CMC,
We can't conclusive prove that smoking causes lung cancer because some people who smoke don't get cancer. But we can conclusively prove that smoking increases the risk of getting cancer.
The distinction is extremely important because if we could prove that smoking causes cancer then governments would have to ban it entirely. Governments have not done that and instead focus on education programs that tell people on what the science can conclusively show us: that smoking is a risk factor rather than a cause.
In the climate debate the only thing than the science can show us is that we are causing the CO2 levels to increase and that temperatures will go up by some amount. The science cannot tell us how much the temperatures will go up or how long it will or what the consequences of higher temperatures will be. Unfortunately, way too many catatrophists make the the mistake you did with tobacco: make claims that are not supported by the science.
henryc Oct. 15, 4:34 AM
In paragraph 1, she quotes this scientist as saying action is needed in the next 10-20 years. By paragraph 5 she's recast him (and others, unidentified) as saying "action by next week." Is it any wonder the public is confused if journalists can't keep their stories straight?
henryc Oct. 15, 4:42 AM
What governments ban or don't ban has little to do with high risk, or inevitable consequential death. Tobacco is highly correlated with lower life span, and is not banned, while cannabis is low risk on the same basis, and is banned. Life insurers ask you about tobacco, and don't ask about marijuana. They know the actuarial trend line quite accurately. There's a pretty clear trend line in average global temperature increases as well. It's very similar science basis.
henryc Oct. 15, 4:48 AM
In short, tobacco isn't banned because it's not an enforceable ban or even good public policy, same as alcohol bans. But you can put a high price on it, and dissuade many users. It's the same public policy prescription for CO2 emitters, that this journalist finds an impossible task because, after all, she isn't anywhere near dying from the emissions.
mememine69 Oct. 15, 5:29 AM
History will ask why irresponsible journalists, teachers,fear mongers like David Nutzuki, politicians and paid consultants in white lab coats were not jailed for leading Canada to war against an invisible enemy of climate variation.
mememine69 Oct. 15, 5:35 AM
Stop scaring my kids hysterical corporate media.
Galois Oct. 15, 5:49 AM
The problem is that it has become a political debate, not a scientific one.
"A poll of urban Canadians conducted by Ipsos Reid last month found global warming is far down the list of people's concerns, somewhere below crime, health care, taxes, municipal spending, transportation and the economy. Not only that, but 41 per cent of respondents said the threat of global warming has been “overblown and exaggerated.” (This view is prevalent among middle-aged men, and in the energy-fuelled West.) In an Ipsos Reid survey last spring, 45 per cent of Canadians said “serious action on climate change should wait until the recession is behind us.”"
I could care less what % of uneducated beer bellied middle aged people "believe" in it. I do care what the actual evidence and positions of both sides of the scientific debate hold.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 6:08 AM
One of the biggest problems concerning public opinion about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, of which global warming is one part, is that the mainstream media like the Globe and Mail do a very poor job of science reporting and the commentary sections encourage contrarians and denialists to push a campaign of disinformation, hiding behind pseudonymity to cloak vested interests. The medium is also unable to convey graphics, which do a much better job than words in communicating scientific reality. Scientists in general are also overly cautious in their dealings with the public.
It's because of those failings that I built a totally non-commercial self-funded website to make the vast amount of scientific knowledge more accessible to G&M readers. I have no vested interest but do feel that it is extremely important to get the message across - there is urgency to come up with solutions and the means to do so are at our disposal without introducing punitive economic measures. Those who do have a vested interest, however, have adopted the tactic of the tobacco ondustry, launching a serious disinformation campaign, often using the same techniques and PR agencies to flog their mythology.
Form your own opinions as is your right but please do so from the basis of verifiable, objective, independent and consilient scientific studies reported in reputable refereed scientific journals. You'll find scores of links to such on my website:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com
especially on the pages "News", "Science" (with many subtopics), "Introduction" (Climate 101) and "Impact and Adaptation".
energyblogwalter Oct. 15, 6:09 AM
Boomers won't do anything to stop their demise and they're intent on taking the rest of us with them. No thanks. A lot will be written of this time, and how a generation of free spirits became the inertia of uselessness and ignorance. Forcing everyone else to pay their bills, being incapable of the most basic of resilience. Make your time. Go back to school. Be useful. If you're going to abdicate your responsibilities, don't be so surprised when you're kicked away. It didn't have to be that way.
Davidovich Oct. 15, 6:14 AM
We can't forget that it was the Liberals who signed on to Kyoto then let Canadian greenhouse gas emissions go up 25 per cent.
We can't forget that Brian Mulroney was named Canada's most green prime minister by the David Suzuki Foundation.
And we can't forget that Harper committed money to carbon capture yesterday.
It just goes to show the Liberals are the Window Dressing Party of Canada - all talk and no action - while the Conservatives actually do things without much fanfare.
WayneCrockett Oct. 15, 6:19 AM
Wente always plays the hysteria card when she is criticizing environmentalists. The fact that an anti-climate change book by a crank in Australia is a best seller proves nothing. Unless she thinks that the sales figures for The Da Vinci Code prove that the Illuminati rule the world.
MP3 Oct. 15, 6:30 AM
41% believe the global warming threat is overblown says Wente - "This view is prevalent among middle-aged men, and in the energy-fuelled West.: Hmmm...this seems to be the same demographic who last year said Canada could no more go into recession than a man could have a baby....who believe the banksters on wall street that all is fine now, nothing to see here, go back to buying overvalued stocks and gamble instead of invest in the real economy....yep. Stick that head in the sand some more.
Anthony S Oct. 15, 6:41 AM
Ed A writes: "So, for anyone who has been drinking the cool aid, and believes in global warming, I would ask you to explain a 260 foot increase in ice thickness over the 50 years post 1942.
________________________________________________
I'm no expert, nor am I a climate change fanatic, but I'll postulate that the ice thickness didn't increase, 50 years of freeze-thaw cycles caused the planes to sink further into the ice.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:02 AM
Ed A, there is a clearly demonstrated thinning of Arctic sea ice - you can find details on my page "Sea Level and Ice":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SeaLevelAndIce.aspx
Multiyear (thicker) ice declined by 40% between 2005 and 2008.
Jerrald Oct. 15, 7:08 AM
Great editorial, something the Toronto Sun might think twice about publishing. Any doubters of the severity of global warming need only look at island of Tuvalu to see that this is real. Although you'd better go soon, as their only runway is being swallowed by the ocean, and it's a long boat ride.
Liz Gillon Oct. 15, 7:12 AM
If global warming truly exists then I don't believe there is anything we can do about it. The fact that the IPPC tried to manipulate their graphs to show a rising trend when in fact, we had had the medieval warm period then the mini ice age in the seventeenth century, tells me all I need to know. There are powerful political forces out there who are determined that the global warming farce has to be sold to the people or else. This isn't science, it's political manipulation.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 7:17 AM
Great editorial, something the Toronto Sun might think twice about publishing. Any doubters of the severity of global warming need only look at island of Tuvalu to see that this is real. Although you'd better go soon, as their only runway is being swallowed by the ocean, and it's a long boat ride. "
=============================================
The people of Tuvalu are getting their feet wet primarily because their land is sinking, not because there has been an inordinate rise in sea levels. Just goes to show the lies that the warming alarmists always seem to revert too!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 7:21 AM
Like a whack-a-mole at the fair, Alan Burke can always be trusted to pop up promoting his ridiculously one-sided view of climate alarmism.
However, don't waste your time at his web site - he has no clue about scientific reality:
http://tinyurl.com/y9bx4bs
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:21 AM
Liz Gillon, I recommend that you read this study, cited on my page titled "Economics"; there are things that we can do, without crippling economic impact:
Deep Reductions, Strong Growth - An Economic Analysis Showing Canada can Prosper Economically While Doing its Share to Prevent Dangerous Climate Change
This report shows that governments — and Ottawa in particular — can no longer argue fighting climate change means job losses and declining standards of living.
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/2020-prelim-full-e.pdf
The study was commissioned by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, with modelling by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc. Key findings include:
* Canada's economy can still grow by almost 20% in the next decade while the country reduces its greenhouse gas pollution to 25% below the 1990 level.
* Canada will continue to enjoy strong net job growth.
* Meeting the 25% reduction target requires a significant price on carbon pollution as well as targeted regulations and investments to expand the use of clean technology.
* By 2020 Canadians will save more than $5.5 billion each year at the gas pump because of more efficient vehicles, more public transit and shorter commutes.
Left Wang Oct. 15, 7:31 AM
"...the World Bank announces that the developed countries must start transferring $100-billion a year to developing countries so they can cope with climate change..."
Maybe the public skepticism stems from seeing so many lining up to make a profit from the fear-mongering. The World Bank isn't the only one.
BRIC countries would love to see Kyoto enforced so that Europe and USA flip the economic off switch (BRIC of course, being fully exempted from Kyoto regulations).
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:31 AM
Eyes Wide Open is one of the regular commentators on climate issues who invariably engages in personal attacks, contrary to G&M posting standards, because he is unable to substantiate his denialist assertions.
Steve M. Oct. 15, 7:33 AM
Adding to the apathy many Canadians feel about global warming has been our cooler than normal summer and fall. Also, people who are at middle age and beyond, and who don't expect to be around to experience the worst effects of it, have a hard time getting excited about this matter.
Stephan Dion's failure to sell Canadians on the carbon tax concept stemmmed in part from the fact that he was the wrong person to do push for it and that he was raising the matter when the recession was about to bury us. I recall him saying about the carbon tax that "the experts say it's a good thing", or words to that effect. But as an academic, he overlooked the fact that it's not the experts who elect politicians. Now the so-called experts on the subject of global warming are having a hard time understanding why so many of the public at large are ignoring them, but since they usually talk to the public in condescending tones, they make us inclined to tune them out.
Mark Shore Oct. 15, 7:34 AM
Since referring to multiple lines of direct evidence of climate change such as Arctic ice cap thinning, glacier retreat in North America, Europe and Asia, atmospheric CO2 increase correlated with fossil fuel burning, atmospheric temperature increase, and sea level rise never seems to get anywhere on these forums, maybe a quote from "The Jungle" would be better.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Feel free to rebut with a quote from Terence Corcoran.
RM1 Oct. 15, 7:40 AM
The earth has had massive "climate change" happening long before people came along. I am not denying that humans have accelerated global warming but the resulting climate change is just that, "change".
Itt will be detrimental to some regions and beneficial to other regions, but it is coming.
It WILL NOT be detrimental to all regions.
Some regions that were previously virtually barren and uninhabitable may become more moderate and productive.
Maybe we should spend less time doing the "chicken little" thing and more time studying how the people in each region will have to adjust to the change that is coming no matter whether it is better or worse.
Durb Oct. 15, 7:45 AM
It's scary how many people on here have no idea what global warming actually does. It doesn't "make it hotter" as some people seem to believe. What it does is melt the polar ice caps, which keep our currents stable. And when our currents get messed up, our weather becomes erratic and we get huge storms, tsunamis, tornadoes (hmm, like the ones recently near Toronto?), and even earthquakes. Eventually the ice caps would have melted on their own, but gradually enough to avoid this mess. We have sped up the process, and it causes a natural reaction that could potentially kill a lot of people.
Global warming naysayers are pretty stupid to ignore this very simple correlation. But then again, I'm all for a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Less people would make the world a better place.
trikebum Oct. 15, 7:51 AM
"This view is prevalent among middle-aged men, and in the energy-fuelled West.: ---------------------------------------------
I guess we know the demographics of this comment board!
chrisvb Oct. 15, 7:52 AM
this carbon scheme will eventually go down as "the worlds greatest flim flam" .what it is , is a socialist "new world order" transfer of wealth scheme. it is (in some places) getting warmer (or was) due to the major heating/cooling factor :SOLAR OUTPUT!!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 7:53 AM
Durb, where did you get your facts? Hollywood by any chance? Thought so!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 7:55 AM
Mark Shore, in reality the quote should be ""It is difficult to get a government-funded climate scientist or a journalist to understand something when their salary depends upon them not understanding it."
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 7:57 AM
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998
Gardiner Westbound Oct. 15, 8:00 AM
Sounds like commonsense is breaking out, just in time to save us from the global warming profiteers.
Dr. G Oct. 15, 8:04 AM
Did any of you warming-deniers happen to read the lead article in the National section, entitled "Arctic Ocean melting fast, researchers say"? According to this, Durb is actually right. "In less than two decades, the Arctic Ocean could be all but ice-free all summer, every summer, and a swiftly melting North would have potentially devastating implications for the rest of the planet..."
Rusty Shackleford Oct. 15, 8:07 AM
gardiner westbound @Oct. 15, 8:00 AM
Sounds like commonsense is breaking out, just in time to save us from the global warming profiteers.
*****************************************
LOL!!! Burke's gonna have to find another religion/scam/hobby or whatever the hell it is he does.
Mark Shore Oct. 15, 8:09 AM
RM1, I agree fully with the first half of your post. A key disagreement being that in the past we didn't have over a billion people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure located within 30 m of sea level.
And by the time most of northern Canada (and subarctic Scandinavia and Russia) developed arable soil horizons over the peat, rock, and glacial deposits that prevail now, we'd have long since starved.
Pennythoughts Oct. 15, 8:09 AM
No wonder people aren't reacting to global warming - there hasn't been any. Temperatures have not risen for over a decade. On the other hand, the absence of sun spots is seen by some scientists as an indicator of cooling - a cycle that scientists say is repeated about every 12,000 years. It's been 12,000 years since the last ice age. So - are we really headed for global warming or are we entering the next ice age? Talk about extremes!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 8:12 AM
"Did any of you warming-deniers happen to read the lead article in the National section, entitled "Arctic Ocean melting fast, researchers say"?"
==========================================
Have any of you alarmist-morons actually looked at some facts? Like that the minimum sea ice extent this year was one million square km. greater than it was 2 years ago? Thought not!
http://tinyurl.com/5x27nn
Grimsby-Bruce Oct. 15, 8:14 AM
What's with all the middle-aged men bashing in this thread? What, you hit 40, and suddenly you're the enemy?
Help, help! I'm being oppressed!
Dr. G Oct. 15, 8:15 AM
Here's another one, this time from the International section:
"Malnutrition will strike another 25 million children in the world's poorest countries if climate change continues unabated, a new study says.
"Climate change threatens millions of children with hunger
"Africa and South Asia will be the hardest-hit regions as rising temperatures lead to lower crop yields and higher prices for basic food staples such as wheat, rice and maize, according to the study to be released Wednesday by the International Food Policy Research Institute."
Peoples Front of Judea Oct. 15, 8:21 AM
Discussing climate change has become like discussing religion; one can always find a credible scientist that supports a particular viewpoint and since it's all speculation about the future anyway, who's to say whose viewpoint is wrong?
“Believers” say we must act now to reduce GHG emissions and stop AGW or we’ll all perish.
By when and by how much they don't know or won't tell us.
Will transferring an as yet unspecified number of billions to developing nations (Kyoto) stop AGW even though the emerging middle classes in India and China have told us there’s no way they’re going to give up cars and go back to oxcarts?
Some scientists opine that the damage has already been done; the Big Melt is inevitable and we should focus on dealing with the consequences.
“Deniers” swear that AGW doesn’t matter, that climate change is a natural cycle.
We can't even get a scientific consensus on what's worse, air pollution or GHG.
Corporations are now starting to push “green” so they can cash in on carbon credit trading.
Politicians meanwhile, twist themselves into knots trying to figure out which way the climate change wind is blowing.
Perhaps they can figure out a way to help create jobs by investment in green technology but chasing the AGW bogeyman is a fool’s errand.
All Canadians need to know is that we account for less than 2% of the world’s GHG emissions and taxing or spending our way into the Stone Age isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference to the climate.
Orest Zarowsky Oct. 15, 8:26 AM
The real issue here is what impact human actions are having on the "Natural" cycle. As in to what extent are OUR actions pushing the the envelope further than "normal".
Considering that Human actions caused a river in Cleveland to spontaneously burn back the late 60's you AGC deniers should pipe down.
But, more critically, what you should contemplate is that the core issue here is not economics. It is species survival.
Note that humans evolved under certain conditions. And while humans can deal with extreme conditions - Arctic and Deserts - the majority of humans have never lived in such extreme conditions.
The thing about "Enviro-Facists" is that they recognize that reality and "Mother Nature" do not care if the Human species survives. Nature could care less about any individual species. See how many have become extinct.
The supposed advantage that we Humans have is our intelligence. The problem us Humans have is that far too many of us Humans refuse to use that intelligence. At all. Most particularly noticeable as the "outlooks" become more extreme.
Only a fool would even attempt to deny that human actions don't impact the global environment. There are too many documented cases. So what does that say about the "deniers"?
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 15, 8:27 AM
Ms Wente claims there is no "tangible evidence" of climate change. In the temperate zones of the planet this is true at the moment, and since that is where most people live in the developed world, a dumbed down media with contrived "reality show" circuses and tabloid "journalism" to distract the rubes, it is quite easy for folks to ignore what is happening at the poles, and equatorial belts.
These zones are the front line of climate change, and changing it is. Shrinking polar caps are changing the albedo of the planet, reflecting less heat back into space, and absorbing it instead into polar seas. This is an algorithmic process that, as it continues, accelerates in a self perpetuating fashion.
You want tangible evidence? Look at satelite photos of the polar ice caps ten years ago, and compare them to this summer.
RM1 Oct. 15, 8:38 AM
I did not suggest that there are easy answers, there are not.
But maybe to find solutions we must first accept the inevitability of global warming.
Maybe we need more concerned realists and less concerned alarmists.
Harvey Mushman Oct. 15, 8:39 AM
Seems to me that "Global Warming" ultimately has more to do with the transfer of wealth from "have" to "have not" countries than it does about global climate.
Harriot Oct. 15, 8:44 AM
Dec 2008:
United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
Flare Stack Oct. 15, 8:45 AM
Let's try and improve our health care and continue to support our education systems. Stay focussed here O.K.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 8:49 AM
Great article!
Anyone claiming certainty of anything in this on a point-by-point, or this-point or that-point basis is going way too far.
Solar behaviour, weather prediction, geological activity and hurricane patterns are just a handful of the known climate-effecting systems and of them we have only the barest (our best) grasp. Drawing any solid conclusion from the data we have is akin to making precise extrapolations on a theory we've only heard rumours on or a single report we have only second hand account of.
None of those systems, thought to play a role in climate, is understood with any real predictability beyond the most obvious basis. We recognize some of the patterns in each, yet still don't recognize how they all will work together in combination with what we don't know to give us reliable medium and long-term predections. We compound these error rates when we attempt to overlap the patterns, essentially multiplying the rate of error. We do this using each field we apply to the equation and then multiply the error rate out over a time scale that basically no single component can predict on and actually believe the results can be MORE predictable?
It is more akin to religious faith than science, to believe that this sort of mathematical adventure could be reliable. If that were the case, we could eventually build perfect weather predicting systems based only on having numerous enough examples of those of the set of 'old wives tales' that bear some 'grains' of truth. Or, that we could fix a leaky water main merely by multiplying its length.
Let the international welfare church take their collection plate elsewhere
Bob Beal Oct. 15, 8:50 AM
Bob Cajun: Contrary to your post, Greenland was not ice-free when the Vikings lived there. Circa A.D.1000, Greenland was about as ice-covered and as warm (or perhaps a little cooler) than it is today. As well, there were no farms of any kind, let alone dairy farms, on Greenland in the 18th century, as you claim.
Iconoclast Oct. 15, 8:58 AM
This is it! No more Wente from now on. I promise.
Captain Slog Oct. 15, 9:05 AM
I listened to that CBC interview. It was like an infomercial for some fanatical religious cult... which come to think of it.. is what the man-made global warming religion is!
BillH2 Oct. 15, 9:06 AM
So, now we know for certain. The world is going to end on October 15, 2019. One deep-fried crispy ball floating around the universe. Will I have time for my morning coffee before the big event?
Mr. Perfect Oct. 15, 9:07 AM
Yesterday I went outside.
It was cool.
The sun came out from behind a cloud.
It was warm.
Haselcheck Oct. 15, 9:10 AM
Al Gore invented the internet and global warming...Ha Ha
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:11 AM
Harriott, AKA MaryClarke, as I noted when you posted a comment identical to your 8 AM comment yesterday to the story about David Suzuki's award:
Well it looks like Harriott is launching a typical contrarian Gish Gallop of blogosphere denialist mythology, not one bit of which is likely to be legitimate science. A case in point is the oft-criticised and rebutted Inhofe Senate Minority Report with it's signatures, almost as badly handled and distortive as the Oregon Petition.
Here's an extract from a critique of the (Inhofe) Senate Minority report:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-20-senate-minority-report-on-global-warming-not-credible/
* Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately 10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively as climate scientists.
* Only approximately 15% could be identified as publishing in fields related to climate science. Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation.
* For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence could be found that they had published research remotely related to climate science. Examples include purported meteorologists—the largest professional field found—who have no refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report the weather forecast.
* Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere. This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.)
James_S Oct. 15, 9:14 AM
In 20 years time, when today's children are voting adults dealing with the double whammy of climate change & peak oil, don't be surprised if they seem less than willing to spend money to provide social services to those generations that put them in that mess.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 9:15 AM
How many of the people confidently passing judgement on global warming science are actually scientifically incompetent themselves?
This issue highlights a real problem with science: the people whose scientific skills are so abysmal that they never took even a single university-level science course are so breathtakingly arrogant that they think they can judge the validity of a scientific theory with no real training and in most cases, without even bothering to read it from the horse's mouth, instead preferring to read simplistic descriptions of it from Internet blogs.
If you are the sort of person who is convinced that it's a big exaggerated hoax and scare tactic despite a total lack of scientific expertise, what makes you so confident? The fact that you can make arguments which makes sense to you? How do you know that what makes sense to you is a valid scientific criticism, if you lack the requisite skills?
This is really not a whole lot different from the evolution vs creationism debate. So many people who know NOTHING about evolution or science pontificate about what a ridiculous theory it is, using almost exactly the same tactics: quoting fraudulent figures on the number of scientists who oppose it, making up simplistic pseudo-scientific arguments which would never get anywhere in qualified peer review, taking scientists' quotes horribly out of context in order to distort their arguments or make it seem as if they agree with the deniers, etc.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:17 AM
Dylan, your 8:49 comment seriously underestimates the predictive power of modern climate models. I suggest that you update your understanding by listening to a presentation made at last month's Geneva WMO climate change conference in Geneva:
PS-3 Advancing climate prediction science
The advances in climate prediction and the associated challenges will be demonstrated. The full range of timescales from seasonal to centennial will be covered including how synergy between the different timescales can achieve seamless prediction.
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
Do yourself a favour if you're interested in climate modelling and listen to the whole audio presentation while following the various slide presentations.
* Audio file: Advancing climate prediction science [.mp3]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3media/mp3/WCC3_PS3_ClimatePredictionScience.mp3
* Presentation by John Mitchell [.pdf]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_mitchell.pdf
* Presentation by Tim Palmer [.pdf]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_palmer.pdf
* Presentation by Mojib Latif [.pdf]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_latif.pdf
* Presentation by Gerald Meehl [.pdf]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_meehl.pdf
* Presentation by Arun Kumar [.pdf]
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_Kumar.pdf
Michael Manning Oct. 15, 9:18 AM
Mankind is akin to a swarm of intelligent lemmings. We've used technology to expand our population to unsustainable levels. We can pretend that we can avert the inevitable day of reckoning but we can't, any more than lemmings can avoid the cliff.
Dr. Malthus wrote 180 years ago about natural limits to human expansion. We've deked around those limits through technology but our population is growing at a faster rate than helpful new technology is coming on line.
I've done what I can. I drive a small car and live near work. I've replaced my furnace, appliances and light bulbs with energy-efficient alternatives. I've replaced my windows, doors and attic insulation. I recycle and compost everything down to SugarTwin packets and soiled Kleenex. We limited ourselves to two children. We've cut back on meat consumption and try to buy locally-grown produce. There just isn't much more that I personally can do and continue to live in frugal comfort.
Meanwhile, the world population is continuing to grow and all these folks are, quite reasonably, demanding to also live in frugal comfort. Such massive demand cannot be met.
Droughts and floods caused by global warming, a pandemic, food shortage, something, sometime is going to check population growth. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing how it's all my fault.
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:18 AM
So Alan Burke,
How do you explain the fact that so very many Scientists are now coming forward to debunk the Global Warming Myth??
Are they all just stupid scientists,and the alarmist scientists are the smart ones?
Some of these scientists are even Nobel prize winners.
And they dispute the findings as misleading and false.
How do you explain that???
Stan Dupp Oct. 15, 9:18 AM
The absolute preferred way to generate reader views and comments is to write a column on climate change or something like it. I'm guilty of it, give Ms. Wente a raise.
As for climate change, well, time will tell. And then some of us will be able to say "I told you so", or not. Of course by then it will be too late but....whatever.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:23 AM
Harriott, you claim that many scientists are coming forward to debunk anthropogenic climate change. Where are citations of their scientific studies? If you are so confident about your perception, please point us to verifiable, independent, objective and non-partisan studies published in peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journals. As it is, all that you have done is made unsubstantiated allegations pushed by the biased blogosphere.
lordshipmayhem Oct. 15, 9:24 AM
One thing I get from this article: she's not taking sides on the global warming debate, she's pointing out why we're not taking action, even those of us who are convinced anthropomorphic global warming is real.
We're convinced floods and forest fires are real, but insist on building pretty homes in flood plains and areas at risk of forest fires. Then we say it' someone else's fault we got flooded/burned out and ask for someone larger than us (like, say, the Government or Red Cross) to come along and bail us out.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:26 AM
Harriott, did you read the report "Senate Minority Report on global warming not credible, says Center for Inquiry" before responding or is your reaction automatic? It's a credible critique of the mythology which you seem to espouse.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-20-senate-minority-report-on-global-warming-not-credible/
PINHEAD Oct. 15, 9:26 AM
Here is a report G&M didn't publish (but reported by other Canadian media):
Canadian position prompts walk-out by developing countries at climate talks
By Steve Rennie (CP)
OTTAWA — The government's push to abandon much of the Kyoto protocol prompted dozens of developing countries to walk out on Canada's address during recent climate talks in Thailand, The Canadian Press has learned.
Mike Kurz Oct. 15, 9:28 AM
Ed A writes: "So, for anyone who has been drinking the cool aid, and believes in global warming, I would ask you to explain a 260 foot increase in ice thickness over the 50 years post 1942."
-------------------------------------------------
A glacier is basically a thick layer of snow that has compacted under its own weight to make ice. The bottom of the glacier is under extremely high presure caused by its own weight, which melts the ice at the bottom, creating a layer of water which run under the glacier. Glacier movement occurs because the layer of water on the bottom reduces friction with the ground. Each winter, excess snow is piled on top, while each summer excess water melts out the bottom. So your plane would be buried (and moved laterally) regardless of whether the glacier was thickening or thinning.
PINHEAD Oct. 15, 9:30 AM
I tell you why Canadians dont' believe in climate change: I have not heard anyone explaining to me why climate change is harmful to Canada? and Why Canada should to about it?
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:31 AM
Alan Burke,
So direct quotes from leading Scientists are not good enough for you?
Here are some more..
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
Demacles Oct. 15, 9:32 AM
Scientists with the requisite knowledge about global warming with tell you its a croc but only if they get to remain anonymous and even then they hesitate for fear of personal and professional vilification by the global warming brown shirts. Since there are always two sides to the issue, thankfully, there is a website that offers the info from both sides on a daily basis: http://climatedebatedaily.com/
It is refreshing there is at least a forum for debate--something the global warming jihadis utterly loathe and vehemently detest.
GK Cheese Oct. 15, 9:34 AM
Alan Burke
The times are a changin' in science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
xvys Oct. 15, 9:35 AM
50 million years ago, Ellesmere Island in Canada's high arctic was once covered by a lush semi-tropical forest, teeming with exotic plants and animals. The climate was 25C degrees warmer, similar to SE USA today, with not a human on the planet. Arctic islands are not affected by continental drift.
Earth is currently in a warming trend, coming out of the last Ice Age. Our climate will constantly be evolving, regardless of the impact of Man.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 9:37 AM
There are many factors that contribute to climate change and no one can claim to be 100% sure of any of it.
We do know that at the current rate we are dumping toxins into the atmosphere, levels of CO2, NOx, SOx, Methane etc are increasing rapidly.
We have proof that these things can cause deleterious effects, though we lack considerable knowledge of how much effect can be expected over all, and what tipping points exist.
What does all this pollution do to our atmosphere, ecosystem and future survivability?
The answer is "we do not know" and is an argument FOR mitigation of our behaviour, not against.
And yet strangely the vast majority of posts arguing what I consider reasonable scepticism are taking the extreme position of complete inaction.
Scepticism is smart. Selective scepticism designed to maintain an unreasonable status quo is not.
k_kerr Oct. 15, 9:39 AM
Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes thrust upon mankind in the last many years. Many scientists (through the IPCC for example) are doing us and themselves a great disservice by passing off anthropormorphic global warming as fact. AGW is far from that. These people will never be held accountable for the false predictions they make on what will happen 30, 100, or 1000 years from now. Their models couldn't even predict the near term global cooling we have been seeing now for 10 years. What makes any reasonable person think they have the ability to predict temps far off into the future. Some brave scientists, the ones not beholden to external sources of funding to justify their existence, have spoken out against the new religion and refused to pray to the AGW god. I would ask all to objectively look at Milankovitch cycle variations, solar output changes, and sunspot activity. Also consider the fact that carbon dioxide levels do not predict temperature rather temperature is a predictor of carbon dioxide levels. The logical result is that we can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere all we want but we will have no impact on earth's temperature. Also carbon dioxide is plant food. I would ask you all to do one more thing. Look at the global temperature graphs for the past 500,000 or 1 million years and you will rest easy. The ice core samples are telling us it warmer now. So what, we humans do quite well in the warmth. Just go home and thank whatever god you pray to that we are not in an ice age right now. An ice age is coming many years from now an humanity may not survive. Things are good now. Good science has given us the ability to feed many more people, vaccinate kids, boost universal health care and fight malaria and disease. Lets allocate our resources there before we chase the dream and fall off the cliff that is AGW.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 9:41 AM
People are so funny. One cannot deny the mechanism of warming via GHGs, and one cannot deny the obvious statistical fact that the earth's temperature is trending upward, even as the wave dynamic itself continues to rise and fall.
The only thing one can reasonably argue is the degree of human contribution, which even the most sceptical papers still peg at />20%.
Perhaps what we're witnessing here is just the typical human psychological reaction to bad news?
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
So technically, not all those objecting to the obvious truth of climate change are deniers.
Some are just clinging to irrational hope.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:43 AM
k_kerr, your mythology is wrong and unsubstantiated. For example, you said "Their models couldn't even predict the near term global cooling we have been seeing now for 10 years." Have a look at the "Grist" article which I cited at 9:26. The cooling change was predicted.
You probably won't look though, will you; you have the mark of one who doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:45 AM
BTW k_kerr, the word you were looking for is "anthropogenic", not "anthropomorphic".
handyandy Oct. 15, 9:46 AM
Michael Manning - Bully for you!
But - "our population is growing at a faster rate than helpful new technology is coming on line." Not so. We are sustaining the current population and technology is developing fast enough to support considerably more. There are huge food surpluses around the world - problem is we can't (or won't) get them to where they are needed. Also governments are forever getting in the way of technology (e.g. GE of crops) or, in the case of Africa by sheer gaft preventing their own people from benefitting.
All of which is not necessarily to say that continued expansion of the world population is a good thing!
Besides, who says it is all your fault?!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:48 AM
GK Cheese, an opinion piece from the BBC does not mark a transition in climate science.
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:48 AM
Philosopher King,
I think what most people would prefer,is that effort and funding be put towards pollution,which is a certain.
And your psychological points are directly from the Elisabeth Kubler Ross book,on death and dying,which is just more fear mongering.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 9:50 AM
Alan's attempt to rebut fails to accept the facts.
The 'models' are not remotely reliable. They are manipulated by their programmers. Garbage in, garbage out. Despite us passing the 'point of no return' a half dozen times in the last 11 years the model promoters still maintained that warming was occuring and we need to act now (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, etc.) In the face of indisputable evidence that warming wasn't happening they ran back and tried to account for it. Instead now, we have some IPCC scientists, present and former predicting a hitherto unpredicted 'pause' in warming ranging from ten to twenty years.
Climate change is a natural process, similar to gravity and earth's rotation. Not to mention weather, solar behaviour, geothermal processes and a other system fields.
If the models can't predict the increment-systems, they can NOT predict the sum of those increments, sorry.
It's a shame that the 'flock' hasn't caught up with the promoters of doom and gloom yet. The climate change industry/religion has done what all the apocalyptics did following Y2K and what they will do following 2012, change the date of doomsday on their 'The End is Near' signs.
The 'better' the models get, the louder and wider the chorus of doubting scientists and 'followers' grows. Is there any wonder why?
NETNUB Oct. 15, 9:53 AM
Flannery,Suzuki,Gore, Klein et al have no credibilty other than with the 20% of people who have the same political bent.
Doomsayers are rarely paid any attention, unlike the voices who propose using money to mitigate any expected negative changes.
I usually tune out the Flannery types, I want to hear solutions not the new world order.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:53 AM
From my page on "Economics":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx#LimitsToGrowth
Do you remember "The Limits To Growth" commissioned by "The Club Of Rome" and published in 1972? Do you also remember how it was pooh-poohed by economists? A recent study shows just how accurate their "Standard Run" of the model developed at MIT is to the reality over the past 30 years or so. The paper, by Graham Turner, is here:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
From the NewScientist, 17 Nov. 2008:
Things may seem bad now - with fears of a world recession looming - but they could be set to get much worse. A real-world analysis of a controversial prediction made 30 years ago concludes that economic growth cannot be sustained and we are on track for serious economic collapse this century. In 1972, the seminal book Limits to Growth by a group called the Club of Rome claimed that exponential growth would eventually lead to economic and environmental collapse. The group used computer models that assessed the interaction of rising populations, pollution, industrial production, resource consumption and food production. Most economists rubbished the book and its recommendations have been ignored by governments, although a growing band of experts today continues to argue that we need to reshape our economy to become more sustainable. Now Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia has compared the book's predictions with data from the intervening years.
Listen to his podcast Examining the limits to growth in MP3 format here:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pn6q.mp3
k_kerr Oct. 15, 9:55 AM
Alan Burke - thanks for the correction, unfortunately i have made that mistake before, i'll watch myself, Alan you seem like a reasonable guy. Why do you not accept that AGW has some serious problems? Especially with some of the issues I raised. Of course I am not the first to raise them as I am just repeating.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 9:55 AM
Alan Burke: Hang tough guy, people always shoot the messenger who bears bad tidings.
The fact is that clearly no one can even come close to arguing the point with you, so instead they shout you down and vote you out.
The basic facts are clear. Regardless of the exact influence of each contributing factor, if we weren't in a natural cooling cycle, the effects of GHGs would be far more severe than they are today.
God help us when the trend line swings back up if we haven't seriously started to deal with this issue by then.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 15, 9:56 AM
Most climate change deniers have only one motivation: they fear they might have to change something about themselves to be part of a solution. They fear there will be some personal cost.
Most of the same crowd scream like stuck pigs at having to pay taxes (any taxes) and are of the "root hawg, or DIE!" brand of social conservative cretin branch of the Human Race.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:56 AM
Dylan, you need a dose of reality. Try "The Cooling Myth":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 10:00 AM
k_kerr, if you surf through my website I think you'll find that I maintain a healthy scientific skepticism - that's in my academic background. The problem is that I have seen very little in the way of credible scientific studies rebutting or refuting the overwhelming consilience of scientists concerning anthropogenic climate change - the independent convergence of highly similar conclusions from diverse disciplines and exploratory pathways.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 10:00 AM
It's really frustrating to see the kind of scientific ignoramus thinking that dominates the right-wing echo chamber nowadays. So many of them are so monstrously ignorant, for example, that they think any scientist who disputes any global warming projection must agree with them. That is NOT at all the case: science is about constantly REFINING theories and improving their accuracy. It is quite possible for a scientist to attack a particular projection as incorrect WITHOUT necessarily saying that the entire concept is a fraud. Many scientists who attack IPCC projections, for example, are actually saying that they're not high ENOUGH, yet they get quoted by right-wing blogs as opponents of global warming.
The level of dishonesty in anti-global warming rhetoric is simply breathtaking. My favourite is the study showing that solar emission patterns may have played a part in past warming and cooling cycles. The authors put a disclaimer right in the abstract saying that this mechanism functions on multi-million year timescales and should not be used to interpret trends on a shorter scale. Guess which part was conveniently snipped out when global warming deniers seized upon this study as proof of their position.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 10:05 AM
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:48 AM
"...I think what most people would prefer,is that effort and funding be put towards pollution,which is a certain..."
They go hand in hand Harriot. The same technologies which increase sustainability also tend to reduce our overall footprint, including CO2.
"...And your psychological points are directly from the Elisabeth Kubler Ross book,on death and dying,which is just more fear mongering..."
Well of course you would say that. You don't believe there's a problem.
From where I'm sitting though there are hundreds of millions of people at risk within the next few decades whether climate change is mostly or only partially manmade.
It's why I say, even if you don't think it's our fault, the facts are clear that it's happening and at the very least adaptation is required.
Anthony S Oct. 15, 10:06 AM
Hmm, so equatorial deserts are expanding north and south; the polar ice caps are melting, and Canada and northern Europe will become more temperate. Whether this is due to human activity or just a natural cyclical change is immaterial. The real challenge for us and for northern Europeans will be our willingness to cope with the mass migration of people from the "south" into our growing habitable space. I wonder if the people who deny climate change (whatever its cause) are the same ones who will cry "Not in my back yard."
permaculture Oct. 15, 10:09 AM
Margaret: You state that temperatures have not risen in the past 10 years. All three of the Hadley Centre, NASA and NOAA show average rises since 1998, the worst El Nino year on record. 1998 saw a temperature spike that allows skeptics to skew the data, claiming a leveling off. While it is true that the rise in atmospheric temperatures has slowed over that time, the upper levels of the Pacific have warmed faster. We're still getting hotter, the heat is just temporarily being stored differently (in the oceans).
flip 1952 Oct. 15, 10:12 AM
I think the global warming guys are not getting the right response because they too are hiding their collective heads in the sand. Most people in the world are striving for a quality of life similar to that of the big rich countries. See what's happening in China where 25% of the world's population is doing their level best to move to large cities, buy houses, buy cars and produce more than they need. India wants to get there too. South east asia wants to get there too. This is not going to change any time in the future (near or for). The only true solution to global warming is a serious reduction in the use of hydrocarbons for energy production and transportation. Ay the risk of offending all the rest of the people in the world, a serious decline in the number of people living in the world is the only solution that will truly affect our slow but inevitable march to an inhospitable planet. Canada if it really wants to do its bit for global warming should immediately stop all immigration and limit people to one child. Turn our country into one big world heritage site and within 200 years there will be no one living here and greenhouse gases will be reduced by 0.2%
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 10:13 AM
It's funny how global warming deniers always use their right-wing talking points to divert attention away from the fact that the fundamental pillar of their argument is the belief that you can pump 30 billion tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere every single year indefinitely, and it will make no difference at all, to anything.
This premise is so preposterous on its face that it's no wonder they expend such great effort to repeat talking points that are cleverly designed to distract attention from it.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 10:14 AM
Yeah, the religious right is always telling us we need doses of reality too, why not the religious left?
I'm pretty familiar with reality, I was once actually somewhat sucked-in by the AGW argument (like the growing number of Canadians who also gave it a fair watch and listen and saw what was really going on). Now THAT was a dose of reality and embarrassment.
Again, there is no certainty in AGW
Harriot Oct. 15, 10:14 AM
So,philosopher king,
..Since you state that pollution and global warming,go hand in hand,then would you agree in the focus of change being addressed primarily on pollution reduction,since I believe that everyone can agree that it exists?
Jack1059 Oct. 15, 10:14 AM
You raised one really solid point. People cant see it, so they just dont worry about it. Also, the denial machine only has to confuse the issue to win its victory, and climate scientists have to prove to people its happening. So the two sides have very different goal posts in terms of whats expected of them.
Michael Manning Oct. 15, 10:16 AM
Handy Andy - you are correct that there is sufficient food to feed the world population and that the problem lies in a mismatch between production location and demand location. The real problem, governmental and popular suspicion of genetic engineering aside, is that those who are hungary cannot pay for the food they need.
Moreover, setting aside the economic cunundrum of funding the purchase and transportation of the food to those that need it, the physical act of such a massive transfer on a consistent basis will consume a significant amount of fossil fuels, exacerbating the production of GHGs and speeding the changes to weather patterns.
Furthermore, a well-fed but poor population is a fecund one. Population will continue to expand to take up the available food resources. We see this in the animal world and throughout human history.
The only curb observable in human populations come when the majority of members of a society have moved up Mazlov's hierarchy of needs into a life of comfort, ease and luxury - approximately where the Western World is now and where the up-and-coming societies such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly approaching.
The problem with this, however, is that the per capita consumption of resources is massively higher than that of subsistence farming. The fast-growing middle classes of India and China are clamouring for cars and electrical gadgets. This requires massive investment in enviromentally-harmful hydro-electric dams, fossil fuel generators, nuclear reactors and so forth - all the bete noir of the environmental lobby.
As to who is blaming me? Blame is implied by every shrill environmentalist who opposes immigration on the grounds that Canadians consume far more than their "share" of resources, as compared with subsistence farmers in Africa and by hypocritical environmental activists, like David Suzuki who has more than two children, Sir Paul McCartney who flew in a private jet to protest the annual seal hunt.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 10:16 AM
Given there can be no historical evidence of the effect of artificially elevated CO2 levels, the fact that they are historically reciprocal means very little other than to show that they are correlated.
To suggest that we can alter the molecular make up of the atmosphere and produce no effect is pure madness, and yet individuals who don't accept the accuracy of models THEN try to claim that X percentage of CO2, NOx, SOx etc could have no appreciable effect! LOL
While I agree climate models are not 100% accurate, does this not illustrate the risk associated with triggering unforeseen tipping points?
Does this not emphasize precisely why we should make our best attempts to reduce our impact?
And yet those who argue here against the models seem to suggest that BECAUSE THERE IS DOUBT, no action is necessary what-so-ever?
This stance belies their own arguments of moderated opinion and reveals that in fact they stand for the extreme position of complete inaction.
Meanwhile the climate change trends in various zones around the world emphasize precisely why we should make our best attempts to reduce our impact.
P. Frederick Oct. 15, 10:21 AM
"The bottom of the glacier is under extremely high presure caused by its own weight, which melts the ice at the bottom, creating a layer of water which run under the glacier."
Please take a course in Glaciology before repeating this piece of stupidity.
Glaciers don't move downhill on a film of water - that is typical Global Warming Alarmism created to support their woeful "science"
Take the Glaciology course and learn about ice elasticity.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 10:25 AM
Dylan wrote: "Again, there is no certainty in AGW."
_____________
Certainty of what? The CO2 greenhouse effect itself is well-researched and not seriously disputed by anyone in the scientific community. The fact that we are pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is also not seriously disputed by anyone in the scientific community. People are simply taking advantage of the complexity of the environment to argue that there's still ambiguity when connecting the dots, even though the dots themselves are beyond dispute.
If you think of the environment as a classical thermodynamic "black box", you know that a warming effect must eventually have a net warming effect on the black box, no matter how complex it is. Appealing to our uncertainty about precisely what happens inside the black box is nothing more than a distraction tactic.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 10:37 AM
To continue, for those who have never taken a thermodynamics course (ie- almost everyone, especially the deniers): the Earth can be treated as a mostly closed control-volume, meaning that it is like a sealed room with only one input and one output.
Specifically, the Earth gets heated by the Sun, and cooled by radiation to space. Other than radiation coming and going, we're pretty much completely insulated.
The amount of radiation coming from the Sun does vary over time, but only on ridiculously long timescales: millions of years. On human timescales, NASA says it stays within 0.5%. Perhaps more to the point, it fluctuates up and down. There is no overall upward trend, and any global warming denier who says otherwise is lying. Go straight to NASA if you want the real information.
If solar input is fairly constant, and the only way of dumping heat is radiation, then it is almost blindingly obvious that if we alter the rate at which the Earth emits radiation, then we alter the thermal equilibrium of the planet and either heat it up or cool it down.
This is where the CO2 greenhouse effect comes in. Upper-atmospheric CO2 has been shown many times to block certain wavelengths of radiation characteristic to Earth's thermal emissions (the Sun's emissions have much shorter wavelengths). Ergo, it alters our thermal equilibrium. No one seriously disputes this fact, which is why so much of the anti-global warming rhetoric completely ignores it instead. How many global warming deniers understand how the concept works, or are even interested in learning?
kferaday Oct. 15, 10:39 AM
Hey Globe editors do you fact check or do you allow fiction to pass for fact. One of the reasons that people are skeptical is that people like Wente who get to write the crap that we see here. As has been pointed out elsewhere 1998 was an anomaly due to the most powerful El Nino in a century. Some other facts:
Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74�C �0.18�C over the period 1906-2005. The rate of warming over the last 50 years of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13�C �0.03�C per decade, versus 0.07�C � 0.02�C per decade). The urban heat island effect is estimated to account for about 0.002 �C of warming per decade since 1900.[8] Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 �C (0.22 and 0.4 �F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally-varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.
And on CBC recently there was a piece that predicted that the Arctic could be completely ice free within a decade further accelerating the trend. As for the impact it's evident everywhere if you would just open your eyes and ears instead of simply yammering on. Severe drought in warmer climates (Africa, Southern U.S., Australia etc) massive forest fires in Europe and North America that are changing the forests, likely forever. More severe weather patterns (longer and more severe hurricanes, tornadoes). If you would get out of your dreamworld and read the news you'd see what's happening.
As for Pilmer well the fact that he sits on the board of three mining companies speaks for itself. He's another fraud.
And as for the G&M, you should be embarrassed to allow this garbage to be printed. Maybe that's why news organizations are in such serious trouble. They've stopped caring about fact and allow anyone to print anything that sells.
kferaday Oct. 15, 10:40 AM
Hey Globe how about providing a thumbs down in addition to the thumbs up that you allow here. You know to allow those of us who feel that this opinion is crap.
Ed A Oct. 15, 10:41 AM
Allan Burke; I had a look at your sea ice thickness charts. My comments are:
1. They cover a period of 4 or 5 years. I don't think that anyone is disputing that this last winter was sure a lot a.) colder or b.) warmer than the winter of 200x. As the argument goes, we're looking at climate, not weather, and,
2. If you are able to draw any statistically valid conclusions from those graphs, then I expect you are a rich man projecting stock prices.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 10:44 AM
Jack is right, it is incumbent on AGW promoters to prove themselves. As of yet they haven't, if anything their methods have have fallen into discredit in a growing number of eyes. As to poking holes in AGW, right again. AGW is not withstanding scrutiny on the bases (there are more than one) that it is being argued. So before we devise a global welfare scheme, the payers deserve proof.
The blackbox analogy represents what's wrong with climate models brilliantly except the uncertainty is invited. It's these modelers, and their ever shifting models, that willfully overlook 'precisely what happens inside.' They fail to take into account the other factors that could cause warming and now that the most ALARMING decade of global warming has been found not to have actually been warming the doubts raised are proven of some value.
I'm not saying that we don't keep our eye on things, that's always been the case. But we need to do so through clearer lenses than we are being allowed to by the alamarists.
We need much more robust and incorruptable data to prove these theories and despite reams of 'tunnel visioned' reports and models we are not getting it.
True science is open to criticism, AGW is not.
aen Oct. 15, 10:50 AM
of course Margaret Wente just happens to be a Director of Energy Probe, and the head man at Energy Probe these days is Lawrence Solomon, author of 'The Deniers'
this book of his is definitely worth a look, they have it at the Public Library, it is a jumble of deniers who are not actually deniers at all, of carefully hedged innuendo ... and outright nonsense, go and read it and see!
at any event it is not surprising to see which side our good and gracious Margaret comes down on eh? doh!
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 10:56 AM
Seems to me the problem is that the science related to climate change is so complex that it allows some to make this into a political issue in which one choses sides based on preference of opinion.
Feather Oct. 15, 10:58 AM
Starship Mechanic wrote: "The amount of radiation coming from the Sun does vary over time, but only on ridiculously long timescales: millions of years."
Interesting. Also interesting is the temperature variation over the last few hundred thousand years as determined by data from ice core samples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
This seems to indicate temperature variations of over 10 degrees over a few thousand years. It also seems to show that the Earth is in the middle of an extended warm phase (which started well before we were pumping GHGs out).
Who fact checks you?
aen Oct. 15, 10:59 AM
I didn't see kferaday's note until after I had posted ... indeed, the firing of Edward Greenspon in the spring is bearing fruit as the (honoured and inestimable) Globe spins to the right, poisoned fruit as the case may be ...
L Harder Oct. 15, 11:01 AM
Most people, like Wente, can't see beyond their pot bellies. Any trend longer than a nano second are incomprehensible to them but still retain strong opinions regardless.
The communal yapping and grunting is to expected of a stimulus/response oriented social species.
Who says there are substantial differences between us and bacteria?
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:06 AM
Let's look at this hypothetically.
When one charts global temperature differentials on a graph, we get a wave that creates visual "hills and valleys" across the time axis.
Now suppose we inject something new into the system that causes an overall warming trend.
Result: The graph would still show hills and valleys, the average the simply be higher.
So what the deniers have simply done is point out the cooling trend with no regard for the overall shift of the wave.
Even if the injected factors were to cancel out the temperature valley altogether, deniers could STILL say "look it isn't getting warmer", despite the fact that is SHOULD be getting colder!
And frankly, if you can't understand this basic explanation, then perhaps you should consider that you're being played for a dupe?
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:15 AM
Feather responded to my statement about solar irradiance with: "Interesting. Also interesting is the temperature variation over the last few hundred thousand years as determined by data from ice core samples."
____________________
You do realize that solar irradiance and temperature variation in one particular spot are two COMPLETELY different concepts, right?
If you have an actual thermodynamic argument to make rather than an attempt to change the subject, make one.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:17 AM
As far as I'm concerned, when you can't debate the facts but instead must rely on appeal to authority, ad hominem attacks and selective misinformation, you've clearly demonstrated you don't have a leg to stand on.
Requiring absolute proof from climatologists is setting up an impossible standard, which is exactly what deniers are gunning for.
From there they need merely throw out poorly supported contradictions in the theory or simply point out questions that still remain to be answered to justify inaction.
It worked for the tobacco lobby for half a century despite very clear evidence that smokers tend to die years earlier than non-smokers.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:17 AM
It's interesting how, when confronted by a thermodynamic argument which is obviously completely over his head, the denier looks for excuses to go back to his canned talking points.
Feather Oct. 15, 11:18 AM
Philosopher King, I agree. There are natural fluctuations in average global temperature that still occur and can very temporarily hide the effects of man-made GHGs in our atmosphere.
I also don't believe the average Canadian is a "climate change denier". However, I do think that the average Canadian think that the effects are overblown.
Al Gore and his crowd deliberately tried to start a panic by mis-representing data. Further, every incident of bad weather is pointed to as evidence of climate change, which the average Canadian knows is ludicrous.
The truth is that scientists may be united on the effects of GHGs, however they are widely divided on how serious the impact will be. Mitigation may well be far more practical and economic than prevention.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:22 AM
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:17 AM
"...It's interesting how, when confronted by a thermodynamic argument which is obviously completely over his head, the denier looks for excuses to go back to his canned talking points..."
Naturally, what else can they do?
Besides vote you down and run away that is. LOL
As though this is an issue in which opinion should be a factor.
Either the science is right or it isn't, and from where I'm sitting the vast majority of our scientific institutions and actual climate scientists are in agreement on principle even if they contest the degree of contribution and effect.
As I have often asked for, please people, show me a SINGLE STUDY that pegs human contribution to global warming at less than 20%, because I know for a fact you won't find EVEN ONE that claims we are having no effect.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:25 AM
Feather wrote: "I also don't believe the average Canadian is a "climate change denier". However, I do think that the average Canadian think that the effects are overblown.
Al Gore and his crowd deliberately tried to start a panic by mis-representing data. Further, every incident of bad weather is pointed to as evidence of climate change, which the average Canadian knows is ludicrous."
________________
Another comment which is long on politics and short on science.
droy50 Oct. 15, 11:31 AM
The basic " what's in it for me?" seems to be missing from the debate. Perhaps a change in approach is in order. How's this? Suppose Climate change or more specifically global warming isn't really upon us. There remains very very compelling health related arguments for changing ones behaviour that would reduce green house gas emissions. Burning fossil fuels causes pollution. Pollution ruins in the air we breathe and is the likely culprit behind things like athesma and other lung related issues. Cancer anyone? NO cure. Kills thousands of Canadians every year. "Gee I sure don't want to die of Cancer like uncle Bill. Better stop polluting."
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:31 AM
Feather Oct. 15, 11:18 AM
"...I also don't believe the average Canadian is a "climate change denier". However, I do think that the average Canadian think that the effects are overblown..."
I don't disagree with this point, though I would argue this position is political and opinion driven rather than scientifically valid in any sense.
"...The truth is that scientists may be united on the effects of GHGs, however they are widely divided on how serious the impact will be..."
Certainly, but I've yet to see a single study that pegs our contribution at <20% which is still massive.
"...Mitigation may well be far more practical and economic than prevention..."
Even if one takes the most conservative estimates of current impact relative to our actual ability to reduce GHGs over the next 50 years, frankly, that's practically all we have left now.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:34 AM
It's interesting that you're starting to hear people say that we should focus on mitigation of effects rather than attacking the cause, as if we must choose between one and the other. Why not both?
It seems to me that this forced choice is just a rhetorical trick being promoted as a sly way of attacking environmental efforts without having to discuss the science at all.
Feather Oct. 15, 11:35 AM
Starship Mechanic, so ice ages only happen every few million years right? Get a clue. Your undergraduate thermodynamics course doesn't make you an expert on the Earth's climate. It's obvious that you're clueless.
And Philospher King, of course it's political. Science presents the theories as best it can and then political decisions are made.
Global warming will not cause the destruction of humanity - thats not seriously on the table from any credible scientist. The amount of damage it causes is what we need to consider.
Your contention that its a black-and-white scientific issue is shallow and deeply unrealistic. You should join the rest of us in the real world sometime.
Feather Oct. 15, 11:37 AM
P.S. Sorry, that second comment in my above post should have directed at Starship mechanic as well and not Philospher King.
As far as investing in both, of course we should. However, investing billions in uneconomic technologies today or setting up carbon trading ponzi schemes because we're panicking is senseless. Invest in the hard research.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:39 AM
droy50 wrote: "Cancer anyone? NO cure. Kills thousands of Canadians every year. "Gee I sure don't want to die of Cancer like uncle Bill. Better stop polluting.""
_________________
Millions of Canadians still smoke. The death poll from tobacco makes every terrorist organization in the world look utterly harmless by comparison. Al-Qaeda could pull off a 9/11 attack every single year and still not kill even a hundredth as many Americans as tobacco does in that same time.
People have a real problem with grasping long-term problems. They can only see short-term problems. If I tell you that you're going to die of severe respiratory illness if you keep chain-smoking, you can just laugh it off. If I point a revolver at you with one round in the cylinder ("Russian Roulette" style) and tell you to put down that smoke or I'll pull the trigger, you'll put down that smoke. The gun is MUCH scarier because it's immediate, even though it's only a 1 in 6 chance of a loaded chamber.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:39 AM
It's very easy to have a dissenting opinion when you don't see any immediate consequences to that opinion.
I wonder what shift in opinion, if any, would occur if people were asked to bet on the issue with their net worth?
How many of you would be willing to risk losing everything for your opinion?
How many would hedge their bets?
I think this would be a far more representative revelation of people's actual concern.
I'd put it all on severe climate change within 50 years and leave the money to my grand children in the hopes they might survive.
kferaday Oct. 15, 11:40 AM
Hey Globe editors, I checked and it is true that Wente sits on the board of Energy Probe and leading denier organization. This is a clear conflict of interests and your tacit approval of this is another black mark on your "news" organization.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:42 AM
Feather wrote: "Starship Mechanic, so ice ages only happen every few million years right? Get a clue. Your undergraduate thermodynamics course doesn't make you an expert on the Earth's climate. It's obvious that you're clueless."
___________
Yet again, you make an argument with ZERO scientific content, and try to act as if you know what you're talking about. Why do past climate cycles disprove anything I'm saying? You know that the CO2 content in the atmosphere has ALWAYS been a function of life, right? It's not as if we're the first organisms to alter our atmosphere. We would just be the first organisms to REALIZE we're doing it.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:43 AM
Feather Oct. 15, 11:35 AM
"...Global warming will not cause the destruction of humanity - thats not seriously on the table from any credible scientist. The amount of damage it causes is what we need to consider..."
I doubt anything short of total annihilation by some cosmic force could destroy humanity.
I do think though that given about 80% of the world's population is poor and living at sea level, you're going to see a serious culling of the human population if we don't at the very least start moving forward on adaptation scenarios.
Hee Hoo Sai Oct. 15, 11:45 AM
Climate change is part of the evolutionary cycle of the planet. Why do the self anointed profits of carbon credit demand cash sacrifices from everyone? How will giving money to a few almost famous media personalities do anything to reverse the course of nature? One volcano will have more influence that all industrialization ever will. Perhaps it's time for the less hysterical pragmatists to speak as the money for salvation doomsayers are spreading speculation and rumour in the interests of personal financial gain.
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 11:48 AM
kferaday Oct. 15, 11:40 AM
"...I checked and it is true that Wente sits on the board of Energy Probe and leading denier organization. This is a clear conflict of interest..."
At the very least this fact should be made clear in or around the article. Bad form at best and certinaly an important thing to know about the author given her pretense of being unbiased.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:49 AM
Hee Hoo Sai wrote: "Climate change is part of the evolutionary cycle of the planet."
____________
Of course it is. There has always been an intimate relationship between the atmosphere and the living organisms that breathe it. But why do you assume that this means it can't hurt us? Evolution cares not a whit about mankind.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:51 AM
Wente's article is a lot like many of the deniers' comments here: she focuses on other peoples' opinions and how reasonable or unreasonable they seem to ordinary people, but says nothing at all about the underlying science.
Look at Feather and his preposterous notion that the science of thermodynamics is somehow irrelevant to climatology: everyone has an excuse to ignore science if it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
Another reason why Canadians are blase about global warming is simple: we live in a cold country. It's not hard to see why we aren't particularly concerned about the prospect of the Earth heating up by 5 degrees. There are a lot of coastal regions and poor equatorial people who will suffer, but that's ... well, that's somebody else's problem, isn't it?
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 11:56 AM
One thing I will say on behalf of the people who oppose Kyoto-style restrictions: I don't think it's fair to assign CO2 output quotas based on population. I think it should be based on land area. CO2 quotas based on population effectively reward nations which are grossly overpopulated, when global overpopulation is the biggest single reason for this problem. If there were only 2 billion humans instead of 7 billion humans, we wouldn't need to have this argument.
openmike2000 Oct. 15, 11:59 AM
kferaday Oct. 15, 11:40 AM
"...I checked and it is true that Wente sits on the board of Energy Probe and leading denier organization. This is a clear conflict of interest..."
Oh goodness, a writer expressing an OPINION on the Opinions page!!! Guess the global warming peeps need trillions of dollars to fight that one. LOL You climate change guys are so owned it's not funny.
Rock on Feather and Hee Ho! At least someone knows what they're talking about. Nice to see the climate chicken littles try spam everyone off because their god failed. LOL
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 12:02 PM
Starship mechanic, on my "Politics" page I cite a study from the Princeton Environmental Institute which discusses a fair mechanism for attribution of CO2 burden.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Politics.aspx
2009-07-06
PNAS: Sharing global CO2 emission reductions among one billion high emitters
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905232106
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/02/0905232106.abstract
We present a framework for allocating a global carbon reduction target among nations, in which the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” refers to the emissions of individuals instead of nations. We use the income distribution of a country to estimate how its fossil fuel CO2 emissions are distributed among its citizens, from which we build up a global CO2 distribution. We then propose a simple rule to derive a universal cap on global individual emissions and find corresponding limits on national aggregate emissions from this cap. All of the world's high CO2-emitting individuals are treated the same, regardless of where they live. Any future global emission goal (target and time frame) can be converted into national reduction targets, which are determined by “Business as Usual” projections of national carbon emissions and in-country income distributions. For example, reducing projected global emissions in 2030 by 13 GtCO2 would require the engagement of 1.13 billion high emitters, roughly equally distributed in 4 regions: the U.S., the OECD minus the U.S., China, and the non-OECD minus China. We also modify our methodology to place a floor on emissions of the world's lowest CO2 emitters and demonstrate that climate mitigation and alleviation of extreme poverty are largely decoupled.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:04 PM
That's not entirely fair either. People in high density areas can easily produce less CO2 per person than people in low density areas. A country with huge distances to cover (such as Canada) and many isolated communities is bound to produce more CO2 per person even if it doesn't have a sharply elevated standard of living.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:06 PM
openmike2000 wrote: "Rock on Feather and Hee Ho! At least someone knows what they're talking about. Nice to see the climate chicken littles try spam everyone off because their god failed. LOL"
_____________
This is exactly the problem with political discussions of science. People judge others to "know what they're talking about" based on whether they agree with them.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 12:19 PM
Starship Mechanic, the Princeton proposal is certainly more fair that any other proposal for mitigation and adaptation funding that I have seen. In the absence of a global user-pays carbon tax, at least it hits on a national basis those countries which contribute emissions proportional to those emissions. This would mean, for example, that China and India would not be totally off the hook for the small percentage of their populations who are responsible for large emissions.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:21 PM
If anybody wants to learn more about CO2 and its interaction with climate, I would suggest that you look for sources which are NOT devoted to the issue. Any webpage whose entire raison d'etre is global warming should be treated as suspect, especially since there are so many charlatans out there spreading false information, with so few standards of conduct.
Go to an organization which does extensive GENERAL work in the field of science, like the American Institute of Physics. Avoid political sources. The AIP has an excellent article on the history of scientific inquiries on the subject, going back to the 19th century.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Beware. It's quite long and detailed. Only those who are seriously interested should read this.
openmike2000 Oct. 15, 12:21 PM
Starship thinks *This is exactly the problem with political discussions of science. People judge others to "know what they're talking about" based on whether they agree with them.*
Nope, but you guys been doing that all through this talk. Lots of people dont trust the stuff you are saying anymore like Margaret Wente was talking about and it burns you up so you try insult people. Tough if you dont like it.
kferaday Oct. 15, 12:24 PM
Philosopher King,
Agreed. Including what financial or other considerations Wente is given by Energy Probe.
openMike2000,
There's nothing wrong with someone expressing an opinion. But I expect to have full disclosure as to their background. Wente is supposed to be a journalist and is in the employ of the G&M so I expect full disclosure. If you don't know the facts you can't make an informed decision. Hiding the fact that Wente has links to climate denier organizations isn't acceptable.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:27 PM
openmike2000 wrote: "Nope, but you guys been doing that all through this talk. Lots of people dont trust the stuff you are saying anymore like Margaret Wente was talking about and it burns you up so you try insult people. Tough if you dont like it."
_______________
It's not a matter of trust. I pointed out that you can go straight to NASA and get their figures on solar irradiance. The First Law of Thermodynamics shows why a system with only one input and one output is going to have its thermal equilibrium controlled by those two factors.
I'm not asking anyone to "trust" me; I'm giving an explanation. The problem is that you don't understand it, so you think I'm just spewing mumbo-jumbo and asking you to trust me.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:32 PM
This thumbs-up thumbs-down thing is pitiful. There are people who are actually giving a thumbs-down to a post where I told people where they can find an unbiased resource on the history of the CO2 theory? What is there to disagree with in such a post? The part where I said they should avoid issue-oriented sources? It's pretty clear that this debate is being treated as some sort of tribal conflict, rather than a rational dispute.
CMC Oct. 15, 12:36 PM
No...seriously. I think you missed my point. You climate-change deniers have convinced me. Let's all start smoking again!
C'mon, all deniers. I'll light up a king size to get things started, seriously. It can't hurt me any more than the tar sands are hurting Alberta, after all
I'll be more relaxed, and won't worry about the sickos trying to save us all.
mememine69 Oct. 15, 12:39 PM
History will ask why irresponsible journalists, teachers,fear mongers like David Nutzuki, politicians and paid consultants in white lab coats were not jailed for leading Canada to war against an invisible enemy of climate variation.
Stop scaring my kids corporate media.
kferaday Oct. 15, 12:39 PM
IndigoHawk,
How timely of you to draw an analogy to tobacco. CBC just broke a story that Imperial Tobacco destroyed evidence linking smoking to cancer. Since many of the same people are involved in attempting to debunk climate change we can expect many of the same unethical practices are used.
Climate denier orgs just have no credibility.
openmike2000 Oct. 15, 12:47 PM
Its not mumbjo because I dont understand you its mumbo jumbo because I do understand. You guys are wrong like everyone keeps telling you. Not everyone who wont agree with you is stupid. Who is going to vote for what you say if that is how you argue with people. Peeps say get better science and prove its there and you say theres no time we need your money to fight it first just in case. Thats just wrong.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 15, 12:54 PM
openmike2000 wrote: "Its not mumbjo because I dont understand you its mumbo jumbo because I do understand. You guys are wrong like everyone keeps telling you. Not everyone who wont agree with you is stupid. Who is going to vote for what you say if that is how you argue with people. Peeps say get better science and prove its there and you say theres no time we need your money to fight it first just in case. Thats just wrong."
_____________
If you understood and saw some actual flaw in the reasoning, you would point it out instead of blustering. For the THIRD time, the First Law of Thermodynamics means that in a system with only one input and one output, those two factors control its thermal equilibrium, REGARDLESS of internal variations.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 12:54 PM
You claim that better science has been proven to exist but where is it, openmike2000? Cite some for us. From reputable sources.
CMC Oct. 15, 12:57 PM
Well, I finished that cigarette. How many climate change deniers joined me, I wonder.
Most of the ones I know are middle-aged white guys like me, they've got plenty of what it takes to get along.
They believe the statistical evidence about smoking and health, so they've all quit, for their health.
The evidence for climate change damaging the planet is of the same nature as that for smoking damaging humans: statistical.
Why believe one set of stats, and not the other?
Self interest.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 1:06 PM
One huge difference between climate change and cigarette smoking is that the latter has an effect only on the smoker and (with second hand smoke) those in his immediate proximity. Climate change has global effects. The irresponsible actions of someone anywhere in the world have an impact around the entire world. Each act may be small but the accumulation is deadly.
How deadly? Have a look at some of the studies cited on my page "Impact and Adaptation", all from credible sources and backed by evidence
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Adaptation.aspx
1) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
2) The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis
3) Climate change: The biggest global-health threat of the 21st century
4) Health Canada Report: Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity
5) Addressing the Health Impacts of Climate Change: Family Physicians are Key
6) Natural Resources Canada - From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007
7) Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
8) Scientific American, 2009-01-08: Croplands May Wither as Global Warming Worsens
9) PNAS 2009-02-03: Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America
10) Climate Change Refugees
11) UN News Centre: Migration spurred by climate change could displace millions
12) IUFRO: New study warns damage to forests from climate change could cost the planet its major keeper of greenhouse gases
Apocalypso Oct. 15, 1:09 PM
Rational discourse on this subject is well-nigh impossible. The Doctrine of Global Warming has metamorphosed from policy-driven science into a [fanatical] religion. Who knows who to believe?
Philosopher King Oct. 15, 1:13 PM
Anyone else notice how quick this article got buried in the archives once Wente's participation on the board of Energy Probe was revealed?
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 1:21 PM
You're right, Philosopher King, the article (and comments!) have been relegated to Wente's depths in the "Columnists" section, even though it's less than a day old.
Reprehensible!
Feather Oct. 15, 1:23 PM
Starship Mechanic wrote: " First Law of Thermodynamics means that in a system with only one input and one output, those two factors control its thermal equilibrium, REGARDLESS of internal variations."
No one is disputing that. However, you contended that the input only changed over millions of years. Obviously false.
Also, the input can be converted into other forms than heat energy, such as plant life. Remember, CO2 rises AFTER temperature increases. The temperature increases are because of rising inputs, not trapped heat energy because of greater GHGs. Although scientists state that CO2 would very modestly contribute to global warming, temperatures have always dropped back down despite very high CO2 levels because its a small factor compared to sun activity.
But still, I never disputed global warming. I do believe high levels of C02 and other GHG will cause problems. I've seen no scenarios from credible scientists that its unmanageable.
Spending many billions for a marginal drop in C02 is insane when a fraction of that money can successfully mitigate the effects. Instead of investing in very immature technologies and carbon-trading scams, we need to invest more in hard research.
You're getting thumbs down because a) you're abusive and b) your posts are not relevent to the discussion.
CMC Oct. 15, 1:23 PM
What I'm waiting to see is the study the connects climate change denial to male menopause. The most viruent deniers are middle-aged men, after all.
Take Rex Murphy, for example. He despises Obama using the same adjective-laden prose, as, say, Rush Limbaugh uses when he's despising Obama. And for the same reason, I suspect. Gore is better looking, and more articulate.
The real source of climate change denial, I am saying, is the inability, as Alan Burke points out above, of the deniers to move beyond the confines of their own self-interest.
If I'm addicted to tobacco, it's my choice to stay that way, but does my stupidity have to extend to the planet?
My lungs look like the land around Ft. Mac., land which looks as bad as it does because the global economy is addicted to fossil fuels. If I can't share my second-hand smoke with you, why can Ft Mac.?
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 1:26 PM
Forget it Mike you are wasting your CO2 on these guys. They aren't open to reason any more than you can seriously talk evolution with Young Earther Christians.
They won't consider the change of heart by a number of IPCC scientists on the validty of the claim the earth is actually heating up over the last ten years. They won't consider that IF climate change were indeed happening that it mightn't be human-sourced and possibly caused by any number of things.
Their minds are made up, regardless of the honest questions raised on the value of their 'evidence'. They argue this like religious fundamentalists asking for proof that God doesn't exist before we reject Intelligent Design as being equal to Evolution.
Take Stars' fallacious example based on the Third Law of Thermodynamics. It completely rules out any possiblity that atmospheric warming could be caused by anything more than the one thing he wants it to be, human caused CO2. Not variations in solar activity, not from within the earth (which is heating up too last time I heard) nor as part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, that we are yet to figure out.
I believe that they believe what they're saying but their faith limits their ability to see beyond what they want to believe and limits the value of debate with them.
So, we don't know if it's happening. If we are right to assume it is, we don't know why. But, they need our money and proclamation of guilt and penance to fix it. We've all heard that one from religion on lots of things too.
You've proven you can make a strong point sans proper punctuation. Don't take their flack personally.
Steeltown Oct. 15, 1:40 PM
Everyone should be made to read Plimer's book before being allowed to comment on human caused global warming.
Harvey Mushman Oct. 15, 1:41 PM
There is a very good reason why AGW proponents cannot believe the sun is the major factor in global climate:
The sun doesn't have any money to send to the third world.
bobskis Oct. 15, 1:48 PM
Margaret writes "...when the World Bank announces that the developed countries must start transferring $100-billion a year to developing countries so they can cope with climate change, what are we supposed to think?"
Well, that's less than the U.S. has been spending in Iraq.
If you think doing nothing is cost free, you haven't seen what the mountain pine beetle has been doing in B.C. and Alberta.
andersm Oct. 15, 1:49 PM
Dr. G. - The research was carried out by three self-professed adentureres and were sponsored by the Catlin Group (climate insurers), the European Climate Exchange (trading in carbon credits), WWF and several others climbing on the AGW bandwagon. The results of the survey were preordained before the plane touched down. "Things are even more dire than we thought - send cheque please."
2009 Arctic ice-thickness survey was also performed by an international group of scientists through the Alfred Wegener Research Institute. They reported ice thickness much greater than the Catlin Survey. Now who you gonna believe?
Randal Oulton Oct. 15, 1:52 PM
Histrionic, apocalyptic language used about funding for any political issue makes most Canadians, I suspect, wonder just who exactly stands to personally gain from such funding.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 1:58 PM
Where's your verifiable evidence, those who deny the validity of anthropogenic climate change? Evidence, not opinion. Verifiable. Objective. Independent. Leading to consilience, not just consensus. Subject to referees and peer review. You claim religion on on the part of AGW proponents yet all you offer is the "revealed truth" of denialism rather than the "discovered truth" of science.
Show me. I'm open to new ideas, as is any scientist who follows scientific method.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:01 PM
"He was more pessimistic than ever. “It's now or never,” he said. “We have about 20 years to address climate change or else our entire future is in jeopardy.”
Why why do these Goricals call now, perhaps they realize their Dogma is running short on their "Apocolyptic claims - claims of Catastrophies which day by day, year by year present an ever diminishing possibility that the Emperor has no clothes. Hey act now I told you you have to act now! Meanwhile things are not heating up because computers can only tell you garbage in = Garbage out!
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:04 PM
Bobskis - hae you ever wondered that fire (naturaly occuring) has been supressed for generations for profit of logging has anything to do with a beetle that existed for 10's of thousands of years with Pine??? Hmmm? no fires beetle population explodes , no must be climate!
CMC Oct. 15, 2:05 PM
I’ve never posted more than a single comment before, but somehow the pan-Canadian nature of the comments from the is climate change denial phenomenon has got me thinking.
You see, I have books on my shelves from the 1970’s that talk about the effect of human activity on climate change. That’s a long time ago now, and we’ve done nothing and I honestly think it likely that we will do nothing and maybe can do nothing but cope with the catastrophes as they come.
Like General Patton, I consult Scripture every g.d. day. I don’t take everything literally, like I don’t think that John the Baptist meant ‘get a shovel’ when he said the mountains would be leveled and the valleys filled. But I know this, and you can check it, my friends, in your own Bibles, or a history book if you prefer:
Jesus told the politicians, the merchants, traders, and the people that the Temple would be destroyed, and hardly anyone believed him, but within a generation the Temple was destroyed, and the people were scattered for 2,000 years.
Daystrom Oct. 15, 2:07 PM
Unless there are serious histrionics, funding will soon run out once people realize they're been had.
Globe Skeptic Oct. 15, 2:13 PM
Its possible that this column shows the beginning of cracks in the Globe's virtually impregnable wall of apocalyptic reporting of this issue.
Possible but extremely doubtful; apocalypse sells papers. And its very doubtful that Einsteins like Mr. Simpson will wake up any time soon and take a critical look at the evidence.
Guess its left to the masses to tell the politicians and media they're idiotic lemmings being herded by Suzuki, Gore and the IPCC.
Of the G&M columnists, Ms. Wente is perhaps the only one who displays a modicum of common sense and critical thought - otherwise conventional wisdom rules. Thats why I'm not a subscriber.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:14 PM
From Paris - The Internation Energy Agency;
"A new IEA report said Canada has one of the highest rates of energy consumption among industrialized countries, but the agency also said Canada is a stellar performer in improving energy efficiency.
Canada's heavy consumption is understandable given factors such as climate, geography, and Canada's need to burn energy to fulfil its role as a major energy producer, said Jean-Yves Garnier, head of the agency's statistics division.
For the nutbars and the per Crapita crowd...look it up yourselves!
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 2:14 PM
I am a climate change scientist-who yes has an alias. Alan burke and others if you want evidence CO2 is not the primary driver of the earths warming read up on the celestial climate driver theory. The theory was really only born in 1997 with the discovery by Dr Heinrich Svensmark that galactic cosmic rays formed low level clouds. Basically when the solar wind produced by the sun is highly active the earth warms and when its quiet, the earth cools because more galactic cosmic rays enter the earth and form low level clouds. Google svensmarks book "the chilling stars (the source of the cosmic rays)" . The reason now the planet is turning to cooling is because we are in the biggest solar minimum since 1913 and the soalr wind has dropped. Google NASA " deep solar minimum". The scientific correlation of temperature change and solar wind variability is much higher than warming by rising CO2.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:19 PM
More from Jean-Yves Garnier of the IEA in Paris :
"He cited Canada's 111 per cent increase in energy production since 1974, combined with strong performances in the areas of energy efficiency and in the generation of clean hydroelectric power.
"One of our best examples, when I make a presentation on energy efficiency indicators, is Canada," he said.
He said major producer countries such as Canada have an obligation to make greater strides in reducing emissions, but dismissed criticisms that Canada's reputation is questionable because of its failure to honour its Kyoto Protocol commitments, and the growth of the heavily polluting oilsands sector."
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 2:21 PM
You would see, gilles monenemie, that I have looked at Svensmark and related theories, as noted on my website. What I have found in addition is refutation of the ideas which you have expressed, or at least upper limits on the effects which you propose. I'd be delighted to see citations confirming your assertions - believe it or not, I'd prefer the AGW hypothesis to be wrong. Unfortunately, the overwhelming evidence which I have seen provides not just consensus but consilience, a much more powerful concept. I'm open to new ideas, if they are real science. If you'd care to disclose privately to me, I'd keep your identity private, otherwise I have difficulty believing your stated credentials.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:28 PM
Alan Burke - truly I tip my hat to your determination, especially in your area of expertise - computer science. This article though is dealing with the toughts and feelings of many Canadians. Your adherence to your singular focus is admirable, though quite against whay many see a folly. There is no Apocolypse Now, Catastrophies and or end of the World. This Planet geologically speaking could care less about us!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 2:29 PM
So, gilles monenemie, as a climate scientist, what is your opinion of the recent papers by Swanson, Tsonis et al. concerning decadal natural variability and long-term monotonically increasing and accelerating temperatures? You can find links on my website if you wish.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 2:30 PM
No need to explain Gilles and bonjour from Gaspe (no acute accent today, am on laptop and can't Alt+130.) The reason I say no need is because it could reflect on your employers and because earlier today Mr. Burke attempt to call out someone by their real name and 'expose' them. Your caution is justifies, especially given your field.
That's a great point you make there and one much better articulated than I was able to earlier when I put it out there as a response to someone invoking that CO2 and Third Law of Dynamics clearly and unquestioningly proves the existance of global warming humanities guilt for causing it.
Merci.
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 2:31 PM
I love the comments on here! Most people clearly cannot tell the difference between weather and climate. Secondly which is even funnier, they look out their windows today and from there extrapolate to climate change around the world. Who writes this stuff? Its great.
Than, there are those who say there is no 'scientific' evidence. I seriously doubt most of these people even understand what is science and secondly there is any evidence that could be produced that would change their minds. (It is a mental state shared by "birthers" in the US who insist Obama is not an American.)
Finally there are the 'conspiracies' by scientists and governments around the world to lie to us. Of course it is never clear what is to be gained by this cabal of scientists who are warning of climate change.
Yes, it is always a delight to see what our educational system has wrought when it comes to articles like this!
Aaron B Oct. 15, 2:32 PM
Alan Burke, I have a question for you. Earlier you cited the following study with respect to the impacts of Canada reducing her GHG emissions:
"http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/2020-prelim-full-e.pdf
The study was commissioned by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, with modelling by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc."
Now, my question is simply this: why, as an impartial observer, should I take these results seriously? The study is funded by two environmental organizations who have a vested interest in advancing the theory of anthropogenic global warming. While I am not going to argue the content of the piece per se, surely these organizations commissioned scientists more sympathetic to their point of view, and scientists who knew that their continued funding would be based on producing results that favour the viewpoint of their funding agencies. I ask this because the identical argument has been advanced against many scientists who have produces results opposed to global warming: that some of these scientists have received funding from, eg. the oil industry, and hence the veracity of their results is thrown into question. If we accept that results from a scientist funded by the oil industry are likely to be tainted in such a manner, surely it is also reasonable to argue that science funded by the environmental lobby would be similarly tainted.
andersm Oct. 15, 2:35 PM
So, Alan Burke, as a climate hobbyist, what do you think of the weather forecasting science employed by Piers Corbyn? You can check him out at http://www.weatheraction.com/ and see for yourself his ability to predict extreme weather events weeks and months in advance. You may be especially interested in his methodology which relies heavily on solar activity events.
Art Vandelay Oct. 15, 2:44 PM
While everything Margaret says reflects the way a lot of Canadians feel about global warming, I have to say that that position shows how weak-kneed and yellow-bellied Canadians (and Westerners in general) truly are.
Do we just throw up their hands and think "just party on and let our kids deal with a bigger problem later on? "
We are the same society that sent human beings to the moon, and banded together to defeat Naziism, yet we can't sacrifice a teensy one or two percent of our daily comforts to provide for the high degree of likelihood that our scientific consensus might actually be right?
It's true we are not talking about life and death, but Canada in 1939 was not really in imminent danger either.
Sometimes we actually have to be brave and confront challenges. The post-war generations have had enormous affluence, and few challenges of any significance. It's about time we changed that.
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 2:44 PM
alan burke
just think about it 10 years of sideways temperatures despite record CO2 emissions, clearly its not the primary driver something else is influencing temperatures more. I would recommend you thoroughly read the works of Dr heinrick Svensmark and also Dr Jan Veizer of the Ottawa-Carleton geoscience group and his 2005 celestial climate driver review paper and also the recent papers of Dr Theodor Landscheidt (he has a correlation of 0.95 with the solar wind and temperature over the last 100 years). CO2 has really only been considered a serious problem since ~1980 yet the warming started 80 years earlier and now that CO2 is at its highest ever, its no longer warming. Sorry but the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not the best scientific fit amongst the data sets that could explain what is the main temperature driver.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:47 PM
Canada has one of the cleanest electricity generating systems, the US and China some of the dirtiest. Canada's system is 75% non emitting - the 26% of the US output is non-emiiting (take a guess on China's). 615 coal fired plants in the US, Canada has just 25...yet Canada is continually portrayed as a Climate Villan by Suzuki, Greenpeace et al....shame on them!
Maximilian Widmaier Oct. 15, 2:50 PM
WayneCrockett: "Wente always plays the hysteria card when she is criticizing environmentalists. The fact that an anti-climate change book by a crank in Australia is a best seller proves nothing."
Not true, it illustrates one of the main points of Wente's article: that large portions of the public are skeptical of climate change claims. Sure, as you point out, sales figures of the book offer us almost no insight into the truth or falsehood of those claims, but then Wente never said they did.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 2:51 PM
Would you humour me and please provide citations, giless monenemie? I have skimmed the Svensmark and Landscheit papers but do not have URLs handy. I'd also very much like to hear what you think about the Swanson and Tsonis papers cited on my page "The Cooling Myth":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:53 PM
Art - you needn't be so picky with your slings accross our great Country. Major contributions to emmissions are the Auto from cradle to grave. So what are the good folks in Southern Ontario ready to give up in jobs? Hmmm seems like last time that came up Billions of dollars went to support that area and employment? What have you given up Art? Heating? Fresh food in January? Oh right just pick apart regions of Canada, that's a compelling argument!
IndigoHawk Oct. 15, 2:53 PM
kferaday,
There is no conclusive evidence that smoking "causes" cancer but there is plenty of evidence that it is "linked" to cancer. The distinction is extremely important to people who care about science and the truth.
Commander Groovechild Oct. 15, 2:54 PM
Anthropogenic global warming - i.e. caused by humans - is difficult both to prove and disprove. Humans haven't been around too long. We have to accept the indisputable truth that global temperatures have fluctuated without humans perhaps for billions and certainly millions of years. Industrial society has been around maybe a few hundred years tops, although arguably it has been less than 100 years. So global warming hinges on a few decades of data, really. But since the focus has been on a sharp recent increase, really we are arguing about the last 10 to 15 years.
So in response to the last 10 to 15 years, I would say, hey, it's been pretty cool recently. I think global warming advocates are financed by the nuclear power industry and really aspiring market manipulators who want to benefit from a carbon-trading system. Throw them all in jail.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 2:55 PM
Plimer's recent book is a total crock. Have a look at some critiques:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer#Books
Russell_T Oct. 15, 2:55 PM
Whether the climate is warming (or not), and whether such warming is affected (or not) by human activity (and by how much) are clearly matters of argument rather than proof.
The problem is not that humans shouldn't find ways to pollute less (because pollution has negative affects), it is that there is an assumption that we know what to do to reduce the purported human affect on climate anyway.
Aside from solar affects, the earth is a closed system. All humans are doing is shaking up the snow globe. Any climate affects are already built into the system. We should focus on coping with the changes, not some wrong-headed attempt to control or reverse it.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 2:57 PM
Indigo Hawk - your continued framing of Cancer reminds me of Al Gores mythical Power Point which is full of untruths, and in the end serves no point in this discussion! BTW "Everything Gives you Cancer" apologies to Joe Jackson!
hikeandski Oct. 15, 2:57 PM
What is so amusing is the the posts by the "warmers" including Burke ignore the facts surrounding the science. Too many "models" of warmers proven fraudulent (hockey stick, which was basis of IPCC report)(U of East Anglia "destruction" of only copy of world temperature records which formed basis of their "research" for IPCC)etc. Refusal of "warmers" to debate scientists on the subject (Canadian media invitation unanswered in three years) (Heartland Institute offer to Gore open and unanswered for three years) etc. And when the debate does happen the "warmers" fraud and deceit (Dr. Jay Gulledge vs Lawrence Solomon December 2008). Burke - why don't you listen to Gulledge of the Pew Center for Climate Change (a leading warmer) self-destruct in the debate on the National Foundation website? Or read Solomon's article in the December 14, 2008 issue of the Financial Post under the appropriate title "Alice in Climate Land". Even you might learn something.
Funny the comments nmade by Ennis about "non-believers" being a reflection of the quality of the education system. I would make the same observation about those believing the "religion" of "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming". The facts lead any intelligent person to know the religion is false.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 2:58 PM
Science on either side is bound to be incorrect at times. I won't deny that, but that applies to all sciences. The Doomesters group sees that as a sign of the Deniers'* failure to prove the guiding more/spiritual entity that they worship doesn't exist.
They present their science as infallible and unquestionable, and this especially applies to their own questionable science.
Those who question problems with the science do face consequences. It doesn't take a salary from an oil company, nor a doctoral degree for people to see that the AGW pushers are not using proper science, but faith.
Deniers aren't trying to prove the existance of something. It is incumbent upon the AGW believers to prove that the unseeable thing they are rejecting reason in order to worship exists before we spend trillions of dollars on a global equalization plan.
*Denier: a term that applies to about 20% of Canadians who believe in global warming above and beyond the just over half (and dropping?) that believe in AGW? Or maybe we should call them those who dared to ask.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:00 PM
Aaron B, would it not be reasonable to read what was said rather than dismiss it out of hand? Yes, the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation commissioned the Jaccard study but the only interference I could detect was an avoidance of the inclusion of nuclear power in the the Jaccard models.
CarlW Oct. 15, 3:02 PM
Margaret is slipping; she misses the bigger strategic picture, perhaps not surprising, when journalists do, would be most of the time. A warmer Canada is a kinder, gentler Canada, more food, more trees, lower heating bills. Why would Canadians spend one cent to prevent this? Most of us object to Ponzi carbon crap schemes anyway, and to trough types flying to Rio on our dime, to dream up new ways to rip our children off even more! Focus, on sewage, on garbage, for a cleaner, healthier Canada!
hikeandski Oct. 15, 3:03 PM
Pembina is a very left wing think tank and any involvement on their part is very suspect. They promote the warmer religion every time and chance they get. They are certainly very very biased and skew everything with regard to their religious belief.
Daystrom Oct. 15, 3:04 PM
hikeandski, do you have a link for the Gulledge-Solomon debate? I'd love to hear it.
Allan McElroy Oct. 15, 3:04 PM
It's fun to watch everyone mention this study to prove GGE increase temps or that study to prove the opposite. The evidence is right outside; I'm freezing my a$$ off here in the 'Peg. Temps have been consistently 5-10 degrees below normal across the entire country other than BC.
So......if GGE do in fact cause temperatures to rise, then we're obviously not producing enough, or it wouldn't be so darned cold!! So all of you responsible people who have been using clean hydroelectricity to heat your homes, please switch back to a coal furnace! Everyone else, go buy a Hummer. Brrrrr........!
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 3:05 PM
alan burke i will email you the papers to your climatechange@rogers.com email i found on your web site.
i recommend everyone read this paper and look at figure 3 (the aa index is a measure of the solar wind) the correlation is 0.95 to temperature
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/solarwind.htm
alan can you share with the group the correlation between CO2 and temperature?
hikeandski Oct. 15, 3:12 PM
I am an old and cannot do that stuff. Go to the National Foundation website and you can tap in there. It was hilariously funny to hear this PHD warmer self-destruct. He contradicted his postings etc. throughout, even during the questions from the audience. The National Foundation is a unit of the US Chamber of Commerce and they gave Solomon an award for his book "The Deniers" (based on his interviews with over 40 leading climate scientists who do not believe "the religion" (are you reading Burke?). Solomon suggested the Foundation arrange for a leading warmer to debate him about his book. They got Gulledge and the rest is history (and facts Burke).
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:12 PM
gilles asked: "alan can you share with the group the correlation between CO2 and temperature?"
There are any number of places I could point readers to - some of which are cited on my page "Greenhouse Gas" and "Introduction".
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Greenhouse.aspx
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Climate101.aspx
I point to my site rather than choosing any particular piece because I'd like readers to be able to choose according to their own level of comfort with the underlying science.
For those who know some mathematics and physics, try:
The "Principles of Planetary Climate Change", an excellent and thorough textbook written by R. T. Pierrehumbert at the University of Chicago. You'll need some background in mathematics and physics to take best advantage of this 400+ page book but it's well worth the effort.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
From the preface:
The climate system is made up of building blocks which in themselves are based on elementary physical principles, but which have surprising and profound collective behavior when allowed to interact on the planetary scale. In this sense, the "climate game" is rather like the game of Go, where interesting structure emerges from the interaction of simple rules on a big playing field, rather than complexity in the rules themselves. This book is intended to provide a rapid entrée into this fascinating universe of problems for the student who is already somewhat literate in physics and mathematics, but who has not had any previous experience with climate problems. The subject matter of each individual chapter could easily fill a textbook many times over, but even the abbreviated treatment given here provides enough core material for the student to begin treating original questions in the physics of climate.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:15 PM
One of the reasons that scientists do not like public debates on the issues of climate change is that a favourite technique of the antagonist is the "Gish Gallop".
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/why-wont-al-gore-debate-climate-change/
Simple, the Deniers would win … because they have no evidence or facts on their side.
Huh? If they have no evidence or facts, how can they win a debate?
Easy, because a debate is not about being right, it is about winning by appearing to be right. The more the audience does not understand the issue, the easier it is to win. You just need one thing, it’s called "the Gish Gallop."
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop
kderlago Oct. 15, 3:18 PM
All good points in the article. When you think of it, our daily exposure of climate is the daily weather report. How many times have you looked at the weather in January and said, excellent, it's minus 30 just as it should be. While extraordinary warm weather is a welcome change. Do people really WANT to prevent global warming in this context? Perhaps this is more at the heart of the issue, science and politics aside.
Neil Garret Oct. 15, 3:19 PM
Like all cults - global warming is a false religion. Believers frothing at the mouth - like jihadi;s do - does not change the fact that it is a crock.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 3:20 PM
Simple Alan and don't act all 'Huh?' surprised. You've been hearing it all day for crying out loud. Thanks to their on magmamony and misrepresentation of the facts, the burden of proof is on the AGW pushers.
Aaron B Oct. 15, 3:23 PM
Okay, Alan, let me spell this out more clearly for you. On your website, you claim that:
"Denialists (Deniers), type A, do have some vested interests in fossil fuels or other industries that might suffer should we all decide to become energy/resource efficient/conservative and go onto alternative energy. They really do disbelieve AGW.
Denialists (Deniers), type B, are like type A, except they actually believe in AGW, but hypocritically don’t admit so publically."
You further link to various websites that argue, in effect, that many scientists who do not support that theory anthropogenic climate change are basically being paid off by, eg. the fossil fuel industry to produce research showing that global warming is not happening, and thus their results should not be taken seriously in the context of the AGW discussion. Now, whether or not this argument is meritous or not is beside the point--it is used, frequently, by proponents of the AGW theory to dismiss critics. But, if this is the case, then I would consider it equally probable that studies funded through environmental agencies such as the Suzuki Foundation, are equally suspect. Would the Suzuki Foundation allow the release a report that found that Canada's economy would collapse if Canada met its Kyoto targets?
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 3:25 PM
Exactly Neil. A majority of deniers (one AGW terms too, btw) would change their minds in the face of actual proof of existance and honest threat assessment. Cultish pseudo-science and histrionics hinder that, pushing us away.
(Yay, I finally got to use 'histrionics'. Thanks whoever brought it in here today. Fits like a glove.)
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:28 PM
Concerning your 2:35 comment andersm, I suggest that you get some background on Piers Corbyn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
Dr. G Oct. 15, 3:29 PM
"Whether or not [the claim of vested interest] is meritous or not is beside the point--it is used, frequently, by proponents of the AGW theory to dismiss critics. But, if this is the case, then I would consider it equally probable that studies funded through environmental agencies such as the Suzuki Foundation, are equally suspect."
The difference is that environmental groups like the Suzuki Foundation are not-for-profit organizations who are pushing their cause out of altruism and concern, not to line their own pockets.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:32 PM
The difference, Aaron B, is full disclosure. In the case of the Jaccard study, that disclosure is there. The website "ExxonSecrets" documents a large number of undisclosed vested interests, using tobacco-lobbyist techniques to raise doubts about the science. Similarly, Margaret Wente should have disclosed her own conflict of interest in authoring this opinion piece.
Open disclosure makes a big difference. It encourages skepticism. Hidden sponsorship attempts to suppress it.
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 3:32 PM
alan
I asked you to share a correlation number with the group for temperature and CO2?? i gave you one and you gave us nothing but pointed us to your web site.
play fair alan, give us the number and the citations and stop the BS.
hikeandski Oct. 15, 3:34 PM
Alan Burke - do you work for Pembina too? I note all the posts and references on your website are anything but impartial. Yet you hold yourself out as impartial. As for your reasons for warmers not debating, just more bull. The audience has northing to do with who wins. It could be in a court format with participants swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (But warmers would not likely attend then).
I was successful in arranging a debate and the "warmer" went down in flames - relied on IPCC models that had been proven false.
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 3:34 PM
aln is BSing the group by not giving us a correlation between co2 and temperature. come on alan come clean, whats your best source i gave you mine. You don't play fair alan burke!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:37 PM
Sorry gilles, I missed the point that you were asking for a correlation coefficient. I'll have to ask in what context. Lab? The correlation is very close to 1.00 there, given the logarithmically increasing rate. It's rather meaningless to quote a single correlation from atmospheric concentration and global temperature because there are so many other factors involved. Once again, I'll ask that you consider the Swanson, Tsonis et al. studies which separated natural variabality from anthropogenic factors.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:42 PM
From the Institute of Physics, Spencer Weart: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 3:48 PM
As far as debates go (see G&M the Monke debates Dec 1) I sure hope Lizzy May grows up a tad and debates without Her past displays of interuptous Lizzy Tizzy! Then again a Zebra can hardly change it's stripes now. Should be a doozy...stay tuned!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 3:49 PM
The Doomsters aren't doing very well at earning their trillions of dollars for the developing nations since public opinion has shifted to their manipulation of the facts. Guess nobody told them about Never Cry Wolf.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:51 PM
Is it ethical, gilles monenemie, for a scientist to set up a strawman argument?
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 3:52 PM
Dr. G - "The difference is that environmental groups like the Suzuki Foundation are not-for-profit organizations who are pushing their cause out of altruism and concern, not to line their own pockets."
Really good Dr. are you serious and sane? Not for profit is so that this Political group gains tax free status, period. Altruistic and tax concerns aside Mr. Suzuki does not leave a light footprint in his domicile nor his travel plans - like Gore they both refuse to lighten their load on the Planet, while basking in comforts not afforded to many. Altruistic indeed!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 3:54 PM
The scientific court, hikeandski, has been around for a long time. It's called publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Why is it that so few contrarians and denialists ever enter that court? That's where the debate really takes place and it can be merciless because there can be instant fame and success in disproving a long-held hypothesis.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 3:56 PM
Lizzy May better get prepped early (Monk debates), Lomborg will be hard to refute, lest he be continually interrupted by someone who doesn't have regard for the rules of debate!
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 4:00 PM
Alan, dark matter, mass of the Universe, the origin of the Universe...you can publish and get peer review...still to this day no-one can say if the theory is correct, after all some things just can't be certain. Computers though are certain, they'll spit out what the program tells them to!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 4:02 PM
Really?
I'm going to assume that wikipedia has it right, that "a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Straw man arguments have been the bread and butter of the AGW movement! Throwing junk science at every actual question does not amount to anything near near a 'proving' position. A la contraire, it undermines the effort and has caused people to turn their backs on AGW.
The level of universality of acceptance of AGW is falling because of those fallacious practices.
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 4:07 PM
alan
yes just so you aren't confused what i asked you for was a correlation coefficient for rising CO2 with the historical temperature record. I presented you the one from Lanscheidt with the solar wind and temperature which is 0.95
Please come clean Alan or were all going to think you are BSing us that you think you know what you are talking about.
Mary Quite Contrary Oct. 15, 4:08 PM
As an average Canadian I have not bought into the Global Warming Theory. Why? Money! From the very start this has been nothing more than a shift of money from developed countries to developing countries who do not want to do a thing because "it's their turn". An east Indian politician was recently on television shrilly declaring that India deserved the money from the western democracies as it was all their fault that India had suffered poor harvests due to a drought in a certain region of India. How do you expect the average Canadian believe in the Global Warming rhetoric when people such as Ivor Strong (Chretien's advisor) who set up the first environmental conference in South America and talked about a one world order, now apparently is in China making huge profits from coal fired electric plants along with Power Corp of Canada. How can one believe the likes of Gore whose personal wealth has increased because of his tie-in with his company that sells carbon credits? Why are we skeptical of the urgency with which the Chretien government pushed for the Kyoto Accord, when it was alleged that Quebec companies were already in place to capitalize on the profit to be made from the sale of carbon credits in Canada, which would then go to France where companies would sell these credits in Europe? Do you really think that the average Canadian wants to buy into something where taxpayers money will disappear to other countries resulting in a devastating blow to our own economy? How can one buy into the propaganda of all of the "green jobs" that will result when we curtail the oil sands etc. What and where are they? How can one buy into a "green plan" that refuses to acknowledge that the ability to produce food is finite and accept that a reduction in population is necessary as it should result in a smaller carbon footprint? I am tired of having Canada labelled and made to look guilty when other countries have contributed much more to their present circumstance.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 4:12 PM
Building an Ark, almost all hard science is built upon mathematical models. Some of the math is very complex, like that used to describe atmosphere-ocean-carbon cycle interactions (plus others) and it's computationally very expensive.
What's the last digit of PI? Supercomputers crunch continually on that one.
You fail to understand that climate models are first mathematical models and second that they are "solved" through computation. Simpler models used to be done using an abacus or desk hand-cranked calulator. Then the computer came along. Believe it or not, it is possible to develop zero-defect software - that's what my career was built on. I certainly didn't want my products going into emergency response environments to be responsible for killing anyone! The same kind of care is used in the modelling of climate, so drop the false perception about garbage-in-garbage-out.
T Friesen Oct. 15, 4:12 PM
C'mon Ms. Wente. You don't have to be a mathematician to understand that an upward trend of global tempertures, doesn't imply that every year is going to be record breaking. Cherry picking 1998 doesn't make much sense. Record El Nino conditions had an enormous impact on 1998 temperatures. It's atrocious mathematics to draw a straight line between the strongest el nino on record to a strong la nina a decade later.
Anyway, have you looked at global temperature anomalies lately? The summer (Jun-Aug) was 2nd on record. The month of September was also ranked 2nd. Solar irradiance is also the lowest it's been since the 1930s. El Nino conditions are picking up, but there is usually a 3-12 month lag between ENSO conditions and global surface temperatures.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 4:12 PM
Great points Ark. And nobody would pay much attention to any cosmological scientist who insisted that all these things exist beyond doubt or question.
Those sciences do perfectly what Doomsters can't and that is accept that they don't know certain things when hit with the hard questions. To do otherwise would be unscientific and irrational. One small reason they don't demand trillions of dollars to pay for our sins and perhaps avert 'the end of the Universe'.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 4:13 PM
Burke: "Why is it that so few contrarians and denialists ever enter that court?"
=======================================
Because it has been clearly demonstrated that the court of which you speak is highly corrupted and beholden to the AGW status quo as has been amply demonstrated by their approval of the fraudulent work by the likes of Mann and Briffa and the courts refusal to force such people to follow the courts rules when it comes to timely and complete data disclosure!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 4:17 PM
I'm not going to play that sillybugger little game, gilles monenemie. That you pose it implies strongly to me that you are not the scientists that you claim to be. The climate is a complex and chaotic system - to ask for a single-factor correlation coefficient (or to advocate one) is a severe misrepresentation of what is involved. I'm angry and disgusted that you are insisting upon a single figure of merit. That is gross oversimplification of the science and from my perspective, a strawman argument posed here only to make a debating point. I've pointed to legitimate science concerning the CO2 greenhouse effect. If you find that unsatisfactory, well tant pis.
andersm Oct. 15, 4:19 PM
Alan Burke, wiki is infamously hostile to any AGW skeptics so they should be discounted as an unbiased source of information.
You need to go to WeatherAction's website and look for yourself at the several months of posted videos where Piers goes out on a limb and makes predictions. Of course he isn't 100% correct, he'll be the first to admit it. However, that doesn't negate the high percentage of time his predictions are right on the money.
It appears your immediate response to the invitation to check out WeatherAction's website was to run off to find someone somewhere who would discredit him. Wikipedia is a fair source of information on many things, but on climate change they're very pro-AGW. I've read of scientists who've published their own climate study work on wiki and someone has gone in and changed it to support the warmist view.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 4:19 PM
Eyes Wide Open, your allegations about Mann and Briffa are denialist blogosphere mythology and you know it.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 4:24 PM
Moderator's Note: Eyes Wide Open's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 4:27 PM
Keep Alan going folks PLEASE. He's doing more to more to prove the Deniers right than we EVER could. See how he tries to play technicalities about other people's points (select technicalities and people) and ignore the realities everyone is laying bare for him? This is GOLD! He can't do anything to prove that AGW exists or that we understand why or what it means. Instead he keeps pretending the burden of proof is on the Deniers, without realizing it doesn't work anymore.
fridaysmom Oct. 15, 4:27 PM
I find it interesting that in the 200 hundred years or so following the end of the last millenium there was a proliferation of doomsday scenarios, and dire warnings of change now or else. It is entirely possible that what is happening to the globe is natural and completely out of our control.... I do realize it is very difficult for some members of the human race to accept that they are not omnipotent and may not be responsible for everything that happens in the universe. It is the green prohibition forced on us at every turn that wearies the average person
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 4:29 PM
Burke: Eyes Wide Open, your allegations about Mann and Briffa are denialist blogosphere mythology and you know it.
==============================
You wish Alan! Both these charlatans have been caught out delaying the release of supporting data for long periods of time and when it finally became available it was evident that there hypotheses had no basis in reality! Look up the Wegman report! The consequences for Briffa`s fraudulent work are only now coming home to roost.
CarlW Oct. 15, 4:29 PM
Alan Burke, your allegations about agw are denialist blogosphere mythology and you know it. And how's that modelling coming on how many molecules of CO2 can dance on the head of a pin?
andersm Oct. 15, 4:33 PM
It seems to me that asking for a correlation coefficient showing the strength of the relationship between only two variables, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature is a reasonable request. It's high school level statistics for Pete's sake. Gore certainly had no problem throwing up a graph when it suited his purposes, though I think he stood science on it's head by making temperature dependent on CO2 concentrations.
wooly bully Oct. 15, 4:40 PM
" Eyes Wide Open is one of the regular commentators on climate issues who invariably engages in personal attacks, contrary to G&M posting standards, because he is unable to substantiate his denialist assertions. "
Hello again Allan. So, "denialist" is NOT a PERSONAL ATTACK? "Eyes Wide Open" shouldn't have started, but you should know better than to repond in kind. All three of us has been here before, so let's stay civil.
Hey, even the BBC is reporting that temperatures have not risen since around 1998 and the models (those almighty climate models that predict doom for us all) have completely missed it. Do you have that link on your website?
hikeandski Oct. 15, 4:42 PM
Burke: you mention the cort of publication in journals and not using "public opinion".
SOORREEE! You and the other warmers conned the media into your fraud; you NEVER relied on "science" even by your definition. Now that your "science" is revealed as fraudulent, you have to try another approach. However, the public is catching on quickly, as per the many posters to this forum.
Hopefully, the UN, IPCC, Maurice Strong, Chretien, Dion, Iggy, Suzuki, Gore, you and the rest will be severely punished for your part in the scam.
Farm Boy Oct. 15, 4:42 PM
I agree with Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe's last post! Also, Alan B. is way out of his depth scientifically and in a constant state of denial when faced with anything that casts doubt on his beliefs.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 4:49 PM
Farm Boy, instead of making an offensive attack claiming that I'm out of my depth, why not address an issue and let's discuss that. Then we'll see who can handle the science. Your allegation is unfounded and vile. Visit my website and let's tackle something there that you dislike, as I did just recently with Richard Wakefield concerning sea level.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 4:53 PM
andersm, I can give a correlation coefficient for the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 under laboratory controlled conditions but to ask for one in the presence of a host of interfering factors is to ignore the need for multivariate rather than single variate analysis and is nothing other than an irrelevant and cheap stage trick.
Xander Oct. 15, 4:55 PM
There are tens of thousands of extremely stupid scientists from across the globe who have bought into this 'climate change' mythology. As if! Who cares if there is a 'general scientific consensus' whatever that is. Thankfully Margaret is here to set those f$cking idiots straight. Proof is what she says it is! Duh! Go back to your Harvards and your Oxbridges and leave us alone, dummies. All that squawking and worry - it's unmanly besides!
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 4:57 PM
Again I will state with full conviction - this article is about how real Candians feel about this issue. You can count molecules and computer temps till he-double hockey sticks freezes over. This isn't about "science" this article represents how Canadaians feel cheated/ conned/ a party to a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions by the same group that brought you the Oil for food scam! Remember that one Kofi Anan? Now these same folks want Canada and others to send Billions to tin-pot dictator regimes to "aid" in Planetary sufferings and doomsday scenarios. Well count me out Alan and others if you feel so strongly I urge you to be the first to cut a check for this PT Barnum line-up!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 5:00 PM
Look back at the commentary - what evidence has been offered by those who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change? Uninformed and disinforming opinion is rampant, without substantiation. As I did much earlier, I invite you to form your own opinions but please to do so from the basis of verifiable, independent, objective and credible evidence from reputable sources. I also invited you to visit my website where there are hundreds of links to such and to offer critiques of what's there but all that has come back is offensive personal attacks, not legitimate debate about the issues.
Spin Assassin Oct. 15, 5:03 PM
Hahahaha! ROFLOL good article and good comments. I don't have to time to read it all.
I will say this to the people hoping for a collapse of civilization. If the apocalypse does come it will be because we spent all our wealth on stupid pie in the sky goals like AGW wealth redistribution. If civilization comes crashing down, I'm going to find you leftards for some payback. We're the ones with the guns remember. Post apocalypse does sound like fun. :D
mememine69 Oct. 15, 5:07 PM
Provide evidence? Speaking as a proud denier of global dooming, it's not our theory top prove and besides, 23 years of predictions and waiting is certainly long enough to prove the theory was a mistake and Globe and Whinner corporate media hype from heII.
That aside:
DAVID NUTZUKI
the BERNIE MADOFF
of CLIMATE CHANGE
-and thanks for scaring our kids with death by SUV gas and plant food and warping children's perception of Nature of it being just weak, tired, frail, dying, tender, unbalanced and fragile.
Why did you waste your love of Nature by making everyone fear for it, instead of fearing it? Nature is power personified and its glory is to be respected and preserved, not saved and rescued with needless fear and panic.
You have led us to war against climate variation itself, a non existent enemy, by convincing us that Nature is not in charge, we human monkeys are. Why not just take us back another 4 thousand years? You have turned Nature lovers into global doomers. Shame on you.
History will not be kind to you sir.
-Rachel Carson, “CO2 is life.”
andersm Oct. 15, 5:09 PM
Alan Burke, your perseverance is commendable. I take it the answer is no you can't provide any statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature because it's just too darn hard.
Somehow Gore did an analysis to come up with the CO2/temperature relationship that is now the cornerstone the AGW movement. How'd he do that if it's so difficult? Perhaps Gore's analysis was of his bank account and the EUREKA! moment was his realization that he could take a natural phenomenon and make a little cash. I hand it to him - it was pure inspired genius. I wish I'd thought of it first.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 5:09 PM
Thanks, Farmboy!
As to Alan's presumption about his chanting today...
The evidence is that the rationale of the AGW argument has been proven questionable and fails to meet the burden of proof. The science may come out to prove your points someday Alan but as of yet. Despite all the 'evidence' you put forward, you can't prove the existance of AGW and the truth of AGW's doomsday predictions. It's precisely this approach that has cost the AGW zealots so much credibility already.
Yaraday Oct. 15, 5:09 PM
I support global warming. It will make my town warmer in winter. All that will cost is some flooding, but do we really need Bangladesh or the Netherlands?
In case you are not skilled in reading comprehension, that was meant to be sarcasm.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 5:14 PM
Burke: As I did much earlier, I invite you to form your own opinions but please to do so from the basis of verifiable, independent, objective and credible evidence from reputable sources.
==============================================
What about the following is not verifiable, independent, objective and credible?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998
CarlW Oct. 15, 5:19 PM
Look back at the commentary - what evidence has been offered by those who pushing their trough mentality, anti-science mentality, agw hypothesis, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that there is none, that climate has always, is always, will always, change? Uninformed and disinforming opinion is rampant, without substantiation. We invite you to form your own opinions, but please to do so from the basis of verifiable, independent, objective and credible evidence from reputable sources. N.B. this means nothing from IPCC, nothing based on garbage in garbage out oops we lost the data modeling, nothing from Wikipedia which erases everything not supportive of the we’re all gonna die maroon crowd, and especially nothing from the AB urls to nowhere. If Alan launches one of his ad hominem attacks, just………..never mind! He does it to most folks not sharing his ideology, notwithstanding that any Canadian that would spend one cent to prevent our country from warming up is suffering from a brain shutdown! And if Alan ignore your facts, sends you to one of his urls to nowhere, dinna worry, as he is not interested in a legitimate debate about the issues.
PEM Oct. 15, 5:24 PM
Re Alan Burke : "what evidence has been offered by those who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change ?"
Your zeal belies your ignorance. The people you label 'deniers' offer plenty of evidence that the 'scientific' underpinning of the global-warming fad is fatally flawed.
On the other hand, they're no more capable of proving human's aren't significantly changing the climate than your heroes in the GW community are at proving they are. But then... they don't make those claims, do they?
The IPPC reports (not the politician-generated summaries) all base their findings on massively complex, unproven and incomplete computer models. No-one can legitimately say that these systems are correct. We can't even estimate the margin of error properly, because they're too badly flawed.
Garbage-in garbage-out is not a legitimate scientific method. You should get yourself a new religion before the bottom falls out of this one.
Dr Strangelove Oct. 15, 5:25 PM
The thumbs-ups and -downs on these message boards suggest a major change in attitude, too. Some time ago, well-reasoned skeptic comments here would get 3:1 thumbs down, now it's more like 3:1 thumbs up.
J Scott Oct. 15, 5:25 PM
Eyes Wide Open - you've cherry picked the data to support your conclusion. 1998 was a high point. You must look at the long-term trend.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 5:26 PM
Where is the evidence you refer to PEM?
PEM Oct. 15, 5:40 PM
Re Eyes Wide Open - "you've cherry picked the data... 1998 was a high point"
Actually, both websites cherry picks the brief amount of time after 1979, before which the temperature was falling, and scientists were warning of Global Cooling. Look up the December 1979 edition of National Geographic. It's all about how we were going to freeze because smog and pollution were blocking the sun's rays. (note : smog and pollution = bad, evidence to support the theory that they're causing climate change = no)
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 5:45 PM
Alan Burke
Alan, I commend your valor in fighting back against an ocean of ignorance. As I said in my earlier post the discussion on here reflects the failure of our educational system to teach basic science or even what the scientific method is.
It is simply amazing to see people on here arguing that there is no scientific proof.
How many reports have there been by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
How many reports from numerous universities, US, UK etc government departments and agencies saying global warming is happening.?
Which major professional scientific governing body in any country has not made a formal policy pronouncement saying it is happening?
How many peer reviewed reports and findings published in recognized scientific journals will suffice to support the claim that global change is happening as a result of greenhouse gas emissions?
But no instead you listen to people expressing their "opinion" with no credible science backing it up. (Oh yes I forgot in a democracy everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ill informed that opinion is.)
Just as as final note a number of people have pointed out that the earth has been much warmer than it is today. They are absolutely correct. But if I might point out that when this condition existed man was not around when those conditions existed.
PEM Oct. 15, 5:46 PM
Re Alan Burke "Where is the evidence you refer to PEM ?"
Um... all over the place. Maybe you should take a break from your ministry and read some of it.
Here's to get you started:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 5:48 PM
J Scott, Mojib Latif already admitted, ten years into the plateau/cooling we're experiencing. That data suggests a prolonged period of cooling. He expects it to resume though, because the models told him and so. Models never lie, right? At least according to what the high priests of AGW tell us.
Not only does it show the break in consensus between AGW blogs and reality, it also exposes what deniers have been saying about models and modelling all along.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 5:51 PM
G Ennis...great to see you heap ignorance on Canadians. Well done - make you feel superior perhaps, or perhaps there might be many who don't wish to follow the Lemmings to the Sea of Catastrophe. You must understand that this article isn't about your "Science" nor ignorance - more about how people feel railroaded by another attempt by the UN for wealth control (remember Oil for food program?) That wasn't about Science either, but run by the same gang to give money to third world despots!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 5:51 PM
Seems there were lots of government and university reports to do with that other old pseudo-scientific sty on civilization Eugenics a century ago too, G_Ennis. We just don't hear a whole lot about it anymore since Nazi Germany actually tried practical applications with it.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 5:53 PM
Re Eyes Wide Open - "you've cherry picked the data... 1998 was a high point"
===========================================
No cherry picking here - it is clear from the facts that there has been no warming since 1998. I could scream about a cooling from that point - but I`m not! (as I know about the 1998 El Nino). Since 2002 temperatures plateaued and then starting in 2007 a cooling trend has taken hold (despite the current El Nino). Certainly temperatures are significantly below what the global warming models called for - they`re just pieces of crap!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 6:06 PM
If the Deniers were advocating for someone asking for trillions (12 zeros) of dollars to throw all over the world on cronyism, they would need bulletproof science. It's the doomsters that are arguing for this sort of foolery, though and simply attacking people who question your science has and continues to fail to PROVE the existance of AGW. All the while they do it the evidence and tactics they use further erodes their argument and their reputation in the eyes of the public and people who believe/d them.
The only people you doomsters are convincing are your own and you're convincing them to walk away from you.
ThePope Oct. 15, 6:24 PM
Alan Burke writes - One of the reasons that scientists do not like public debates on the issues of climate change is that a favourite technique of the antagonist is the "Gish Gallop".
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
---------------
Then Alan provides a link to yet another site fronted by environmentalists, try thinking for yourself Alan, you might surprise yourself!
Al Gore won't debate climate change for a very simple reason, he knows very little about climate change!
Let me explain....
Al Gore was given climate change (Kyoto) in exchange for conceding the Presidency to Bush. It was likely not an easy decision, then I doubt he had much choice in the matter!
Yet it had an upside, money! Lot's of money in fact. At the time Gore left office his net worth was $1.5 million, today it's well over $100 million.
As I said, Al gore can't debate climate change because he knows very little about climate change. He's not required to know anything beyond what James Hansen tutored him on. Just enough to make the movie & lecture all over the world.
It's not because of the gish gallop or anything else, that's simple the enviro's making excuses for not having a debate they would never win today!
Allan Beveridge Oct. 15, 6:32 PM
Certainly the world has been getting cooler...
From Australia
"The world's second-largest winemaker is harvesting on average three weeks earlier than two decades ago because of global warming, giving the grapes less time to develop flavours needed for wines such as its $500 US Penfold's Grange. The company is trying mist sprays, originally installed to battle frost, to cool grapes, while rival Constellation Brands Inc. is building underground watering systems and planting varieties like Tempranillo."
and a study just completed predicts that the Artic will be ice free in 20-30 years...
Must be local anomolies.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 6:35 PM
PEM, if you're using the National Post "The Deniers" series as evidence then I don't think that even the best of real scientific evidence would change your mind. But perhaps you should read a critique of Lawrence Solomon's book "The Deniers":
... "Solomon is not the least interested in considering a climate consensus - and if that means that he has to cherry-pick quotes, misrepresent data, cut off graphs before their curves become inconvenient and blithely ignore the logical inconsistencies in his own arguments, well, Solomon seems not to mind.
In fairness, though, he comes clean very early in the book (on Page 6, actually) and admits that the whole exercise is a parlor game, a work of sophistry." ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-dont-actually-deny-global-warming
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 6:36 PM
You nailed it Pope. In a real debate on AGW they would have to answer to a number of their own inconvenient truths. He may or may not reply to you though. Seems like once you pin him down and demand proof all he has is evidence like that. He thinks we need to prove human caused global warming doesn't exist when it's actually him trying to prove the point that it does. Science as faith.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 6:41 PM
Pope check above in the comments section the Monk debates begin Dec 1 Lizzy May against Lomborg, should be facinating viewing, unless Lizzy get's her underwear in a knot ind interrupts like she did in the Election debates? Anyone want to make a bet she get's in over her skill set?
ThePope Oct. 15, 6:44 PM
Alan, you do a wonderful job of trying to discredit any & all scientist's people mention who play down the gloom & doom of global warming.
You provide many links to environmentalist funded websites, like sourcewatch. That is one of the better sites (sourcewatch), they could link my own mother to big oil, oh that's right she drives a car therefore is in with big oil.
It's interesting how that works for you.
If an anti-global warming scientist is funded in some way by big oil, we can't believe them.
But when a pro-global warming scientist is funded by environmental groups, we must believe them.
Do you note the hypocrisy in your thinking, probably not!
Well here's someone you'll have a hard time discrediting & I'd really enjoy seeing you try.
So how about it Alan, care to comment on this article, or are ya chicken!!!
Both links are to the same article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=2
http://tinyurl.com/cdcaxv
Curious Georgie Oct. 15, 6:50 PM
Even if you don't believe in "Global Warming" we still have AIR POLLUTION which is choking every major population center in the world. We still have epidemics of asthma and other respiatory illnesses to deal with. You can see the pollution, you can touch it, you can smell it . You don't need scientific affirmation .
The remedies are the same ...electric cars , electric heat ... nuclear energy to power all that
ThePope Oct. 15, 6:50 PM
Anyone want a bet Alan will ignore my comments or better still not comment anymore?
That link to Dyson Freeman just rocks Alan's little world of charts & graphs.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 6:55 PM
Soloman doesn't even need to correct on every point to deflate AGW. He's not trying to prove the existance of something that is supported by questionable date.
If someone stabbed your tire with a knife three times and failed to puncture it one or two of those times, who won? The knife or the tire? That's why the need for AGW to be essentially unassailable and it is far from it.
When you get the proof that will be required to convince people that it's worth a global equalization scheme, let us know. If it can be proven we will believe, you're just not there yet with the evidence we have.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 6:56 PM
ThePope, yes, I've previously read the biographical article about Freeman Dyson - he's a fascinating man and someone I'd like to know personally.
But in what respect is that article evidence for anything other than who and what he is? An appeal to authority is not evidence. It's entirely possible that he has published some science which refutes the hypotheses of anthropogenic climate change but they are not cited so what are we supposed to do? Take his opinion as "revealed truth"? Is he now the high priest of climate skeptics? Does he speak with authority?
I keep coming back to the fact that scientific method requires legitimate skepticism and that is probably deeply ingrained in him. But skepticism, with legitimate questioning and investigation, has nothing to do with faith - it results in "discovered truth" rather than the "revealed truth" presented without evidence by some "authoritative" figure.
Sorry, but I still haven't seen any evidence presented here.
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 7:04 PM
Sorry everyone it seems we should follow the science of "Building an Ark". Unfortunately like his name he prefers to keep his scientific citations anonymous.
I redact the above comment let's throw out all the science as 'Dylan' suggests because obviously you can prove nothing.
Sorry, but being asked to consider the other side of the argument (such as it is) is like being asked to debate with someone whether the earth is round.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 7:08 PM
Alan I think you continue to miss the point. Perhaps because " you've been blinded - by SCIENCE" apologies to Magnus Pike. For all of your submissions, articles, peer review you completely miss the escence of the article - Some (perhaps most) could give a flying flinder to your observations? Truly Alan and I say this with respect - many could care about your decimals...so what is the question, we don't buy into your agenda - refute that in a peer review? Canada is large and wide and not all need to heel to your dogma...sorry but that is what this discussion is about.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 7:11 PM
G Ennis According to "Science" what is the mass and origin of our Universe? Science is a wonderful puzzle without an end isn't it?
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:13 PM
OK, ThePope, let's ignore Al Gore - we can discuss the Gish Gallop without needing to refer to him.
This entire series of comments is one huge Gish Gallop. It's a series of unsubstantiated machine-gun questions and opinions on a complex subject, for which there are no one-liner responses. This medium encourages that format - it suffers from amnesia, it supports pseudonymity which encourages outrageous behaviour, it limits responses to blipverts and it's empty in terms of being able to present images or graphics.
There's a cadre of "usual suspects" here who engage in every article concerning climate change which appears here on the G&M. It's always the same people, the debating techniques don't change and they never provide evidence, seeking instead to appear to win the debate by diverting to irrelevant material and swamping the discussion with opinionated and unsubstantiated rants.
I continually point to evidence. How many people actually follow the links and read? One of the reasons that science is so badly understood is that this is a blipvert world, requiring instant satisfaction, reflex response rather than thought, consideration and reply outside of an artificial time limit.
This is not the place to establish any truth - it's just an gladiatorial arena.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 7:16 PM
278 Comments in and still no proof that people cause global warming or even that global warming exist that are worth spending trillions of dollars on yet.
The Deniers keep inviting it, ready to look proof in the eye and accept it and all they get is questions about their own 'convictions.'
Less doctrine and some actual proof would be worth trillions.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:19 PM
Dylan, there's plenty of evidence on my website - visit sometime. You won't find "proof" because absolute truth belongs only to mathematics. But you will find evidence that has been squeezed through the wringer. As I've just said a few minutes ago, this isn't the place to provide "proof". If you have a legitimate question about a single aspect of climate science, I'll try to find and point to an understandable answer but this arena isn't the best place to present even a simplified view of a very complext subject.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:24 PM
The following facts about climate change (including global warming) can all be confirmed by reputable scientific studies referenced on this site:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, causing a rise in atmospheric temperature of at least 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of its concentration.
- In the past 150 years, humans have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 385, an increase of 38%.
- Approximately 57% of emissions from fossil fuels has been accumulated in the atmosphere; the rest has been absorbed by oceans and biomass (e.g., trees).
- The oceans are becoming more acidic, confirmation of their absorption of CO2.
- Increased atmospheric water vapour resulting from CO2 warming has a feedback effect
doubling the impact of increased CO2.
- Other feedback relationships show that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a global average temperature rise of between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius.
- Global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7 degrees in the past 150 years.
- There are other factors having an impact on temperatures but they do not explain the long-term rise.
- CO2 and temperature have a mutually reinforcing positive feedback relationship, a rise in one causing a rise in the other, both leading and lagging.
- Mathematical models of climate change are built upon sound knowledge of physics and chemistry. They include other "forcings" like aerosols (which tend to have a temporary cooling effect). They also track measurements very well, within the bounds of uncertainty in measurement.
- There is risk of reaching "tipping points" which could result in runaway devastating impact on the Earth's climate.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 7:25 PM
G Ennis - "Just as as final note a number of people have pointed out that the earth has been much warmer than it is today. They are absolutely correct. But if I might point out that when this condition existed man was not around when those conditions existed."
Is that a "Scientific statement"? When Greenland held a large Agricultural community on it's land? Science is quickly forgotten by those who wish to tell us new truths!
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 7:31 PM
Alan you sound like a skipping Vinyl record, this article is about how Canadians feel, your tipping points and Apocolyptic/ alarmist doomsdays make us all feel scammed, Bernie Madoff et al!
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 7:31 PM
280 parts per million (ppm) to over 385...
OH GOD... NOOOOOOO!!!!!
Allan Beveridge Oct. 15, 7:32 PM
ThePope, in all fairness I think your suggestion and what followed may have been a little strong. If I am wrong please correct me.
You mention:
"If an anti-global warming scientist is funded in some way by big oil, we can't believe them.
But when a pro-global warming scientist is funded by environmental groups, we must believe them."
Unless I am mistaken, and that is possible, the majority of scientists who do research in this area are independent scientists. I am sure someone could look it up; however, I doubt that environmental groups are funding the thousands of scientists around the globe, from just about every country (if not every one) and a wide spectrumm of disciplines who's research support it. I'm betting a great deal of the $'s come from government grant money for the purpose of pure research. That helps promote objective research. Such is not the case for Big Oil. A great many people would find it hard to believe that big oil would fund research that undermined their case against AGW.
At the same I do not know what percentage of those taking the contrary position are being funded by "big oil". Is it as high as some believe? Your statement implies that the issue isn't the funding source, its trust in the outcome.
Big oil has very deep pockets, certainly they could outbid any environmental group if it is simply a matter of providing sufficient funding to get scientists to provide "the correct outcome".
Bob Beal Oct. 15, 7:38 PM
Building an Ark: Greenland never supported a "large agricultural community." The Vikings survived against the odds for quite a number of years. But they were hardly thriving agriculturalists, and things are not much better today regarding Greenland agriculture.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 7:38 PM
If that's you answer to me Alan I don't think it is worth trillions of dollars. You refuse to even consider that some aspects of your science is questionable. Real science isn't that sloppy.
That in NO means throw away the evidence. That's was a inaccurate of statement on Ennis' part. Although, I do suggest we not gamble trillions of dollars on what we are being told to believe. The evidence may or may not improve, but as of yet it doesn't warrant that.
Attacking those who raise serious questions about the soft spots in the theory will not win AGW any support. Real science works to satisfy legitimate scrutiny, not attack it.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:40 PM
Dylan, this is a false accusation: "You refuse to even consider that some aspect".
Try me. Show me evidence. I am legitimately skeptical but I treat opinion as opinion - it's insufficient to replace evidence.
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 7:46 PM
Dear Building an Ark
Greenland and the earth are not equivalent terms. There are enormous variations in regional climate. BTW you do realize that scientific measurements show the greatest temperature changes are happening in the ocean and not over land. As a short science refresher; oceans cover about 70% of the earth's surface.
Secondly, I am referring to temperature projections showing where we are going in this century assuming we do nothing. and comparing that to a geologic record that goes back much further than 1,000 years.
As it is there is a growing consensus amongst governments that something has to be done. Yes that includes China which is making the largest investments in green technology. When the Chinese government is starting to throw large amounts of money at the problem; that should offer additional comfort that the problem is real.
ThePope Oct. 15, 7:47 PM
Alan your entire premiss of global warming is based on charts & graphs you believe to be factual in nature. Dyson explains without facts but with logic why those charts & graphs of impending doom & gloom are rather meaningless.
Dyson's argument is simply that you can not predict future events with computer models & simulations. There are two many variables missing from those simulations & models. Making any assumptions & conclusions a guess, nothing more.
The further outward in time you go with those simulations & models, the more out of touch the results become. We have enough difficulty as a species predicting next weeks weather let alone 10 years down the road.
Even if you know 99% of the variables needed, a prediction using such data for a 10 year projection is nothing short of fortune telling. Just that 1% missing could be the difference between an ice age & a massive warming.
When scientists start relating future events with past events, you run into the same problem. We simply don't have all the variables to even suggest why an ice age occurs. Sure scientists have investigated layers of earth from the last ice age, does that tell you air pressure, dew points, actual temperatures not just assumed temps that were occurring during that ice age. How many variables are we still missing, which could drastically alter our understanding of why & how an ice age occurs?
To many!
Science's place is within the scope of today & even then science has led to many disastrous results simply because there are to many unknown variables science can't account for.
Science will never account for all variables in anything it does, because like man science is not perfect.
Science tried to be better than religion & science itself succeeded. The problem is our scientists have failed science.
Scientists have forgotten there are no absolutes, the exact thing which is religions Achilles heel. Making present day science no better than a religion!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:47 PM
Building an Ark, is it still paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Is it alarmism if there really is concern for consequences?
There are known consequences of climate change. The degree and timing might be fuzzier but the consequences are pretty well understood. You'll find objective descriptions on my page "Impact and Adaptation".
But if you're more comfortable with your head in the sand by all means go ahead and snooze.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:51 PM
ThePope - have you listened to and followed the presentation about modelling held in Geneva last month by the WMO? If not, your view of models is seriously outdated.
PS-3 Advancing climate prediction science
The advances in climate prediction and the associated challenges will be demonstrated. The full range of timescales from seasonal to centennial will be covered including how synergy between the different timescales can achieve seamless prediction.
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 7:55 PM
Dr G writes: "as rising temperatures lead to lower crop yields and higher prices for basic food..."
Well, since the temperatures are not rising, and have not been for some years, we can expect no such problems, eh?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 7:57 PM
Orest writes: "Considering that Human actions caused a river in Cleveland to spontaneously burn back the late 60's you AGC deniers should pipe down."
Now really, Orest; it's ridiculous to claim that the river fire had any detectable impact of global temperatures.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 7:58 PM
The master of the Gish Gallop has finally joined us. Welcome, GlynnMhor.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 7:59 PM
Alan writes: "Harriott is launching a typical contrarian Gish Gallop..."
You often mention this 'gish gallop' conept, but never seem to recognize how much your own habit of flooding these fora with quoted extracts constitutes the same approach.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 7:59 PM
G Ennis and Alan, the Ocean's are not warming thanks to new telemetry that proves otherwise. Truly though in order of importance let me give you a snapshot of Canadians that care. They care about 1 a job to pay their way, 20 a job to carry their Children forward, 3) they care about their hip/ knee replacement, they care about Local/ Provincial then Federal taxation....your Science demands and distortion of economies take a distant back seat - if any at this point. You may hold the high ground on your reverent belief's - what this article says and you miss the point like an arrow between your eyes...who cares? We have many things to work out - your train has left the station, perhaps that's why your Clan shouts "we only have twenty years" yes perhaps before your robes turn into the fact that you are wearing no clothes!
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 8:00 PM
Why do we need to transfer our money to other countries?
If they are onside, and see the need, they will conform or get flooded/tornadoed/hurricaned/aridized/...
We don't need to help them, we should be selling our technology at REAL market rates...
Even if there is a catastrophe in the works, you can't convince me that I should pay more to exist because the rest of the world happens to be poorer... Why should North America bend over?
Tell me that Alan Burke.
No links please, use your own words...
Art Vandelay Oct. 15, 8:00 PM
Building an Ark...my comment was aimed at Western civilization as a whole, now Western Canadians. Sorry for any confusion.
puppypounder Oct. 15, 8:01 PM
climmate change is an imense industry unto itself,
soon seven billion souls will inhabit this planet all wanting the American dream,what kind of impact do you think that will have
MAG in Ottawa Oct. 15, 8:03 PM
Really too bad that Wente relies so heavily on Ian Pilmer:
"Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear." - Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne's School of Earth Sciences.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/10/ian-pilmer-climate-change-spectator
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 8:03 PM
VanGrungy, if you walked your dog in our neighbourhood and routinely excreted on my lawn, leaving it there, would it be outrageous for me to ask you to pick it up or to pay for that to be done?
That's what the developed world has done to the entire world, exploiting an economic "externality" which is now haunting us.
Do a bit of research and read about the "Tragedy of the Commons". If you don't want to use my website then Google for it, otherwise you'll find it on my "Economics" page.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 8:04 PM
Alan the "Officer and Gentleman" who abhors personal Attacks just said - "The master of the Gish Gallop has finally joined us. Welcome, GlynnMhor."
Well done Alan - ready to renounce your Commission?
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 8:05 PM
Art - Thanks sorry for the confusion as well!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 8:05 PM
Building an Ark, that's fact, not just opinion.
ThePope Oct. 15, 8:06 PM
Since I've already explained Al Gore's part let's look at the agenda "KYOTO"!
Well Kyoto is not really the agenda, Kyoto is the means to an end, it's the catalyst. The agenda is hidden within Kyoto & it's called "Carbon Trading".
But first a question needs asking, a very simple question which may just open the eye's of many pro-global warming (Kyoto) people, provided of course they answer the question as asked & honestly.
Anyone up to the challenge?
"Explain to me as best you can, why we need carbon trading schemes if man-made CO2 is causing global warming?"
If you find the correct answer to that question, then you don't need to reply!
In knowing the correct answer you should understand why we need to forget about Kyoto & get on with the real issue of pollution!
Pollution which is destroying our land, water, air & slowing killing us & the species around us.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:06 PM
PK writes: "The answer is "we do not know" and is an argument FOR mitigation of our behaviour, not against."
Hardly. Risk assessment has to be used to identify what sorts of mitigation expenditures are to be made against what sorts of risks.
The billions proposed to spend on a 'warming' that does not appear to be important would be much better devoted to researching how to deflect asteroids and comets. Those represent a REAL threat, and one upon which everyone agrees.
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 8:08 PM
I don't feel guilty.
Again, give me a good reason I should bend over.
All the while, the rest of the world catches up, spewing as they go, saying, hey, you did it, now its our turn, now give us a discount on your technology and give us money for all the past wrongs that we shall now produce ourselves because you did it first...
sure sounds stupid to me!
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 8:10 PM
Building an Ark, have a look at "Correcting Ocean Cooling":
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:10 PM
PK writes: "...if we weren't in a natural cooling cycle, the effects of GHGs would be far more severe than they are today."
Since the same 'natural cycle' would have had to contribute to the warming at the end of the 20th century, and since we can see that the cooling phase matches the GHG warming, half of the warming attributed to GHGs must now be reassessed as being just that same natural cycle at work.
That must, a priori, result in halving the estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, upon which currently all of the late warming has been blamed.
been_there Oct. 15, 8:11 PM
Judging from the posts, human-made climate change is simply too complicated an issue for the public to handle.
Ignore them and do the right things is the conclusion I am coming to.
I don't follow Wente closely so I don't know where her biases are. But I read this article, and then I read the posts, and the disconnect becomes immediately clear -- most of the posts are from the "climate change is BS" crowd, and they just take this article as proof that "climate change is BS".
But that is not what I read from Wente's article. She only said that they guys who say "the sky is falling" are turning people off. She didn't actually refute that human-made climate change is not happening -- it is more about the presentation of the message. Apparently that is enough to set off posts that says "ha ha, see, there is no climate change".
Climate is a very complex phenomenon. The scientists are, by and large, quite clear and honest about what they know, and what they don't know.
Problem is that in public policy debates, people want things in black-and-white -- and this is where the disconnect comes in.
And most of the public has insufficient understanding of the science, and insufficient curiosity to learn about it. And frankly, what most of them care about is pretty selfish -- "what's in it for me".
That is why you see all sorts of BS and conspiracy theories flowering every which way.
It also doesn't help that there are vested interests stirring up the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt factor to protect their gravy train -- and that includes the public who sees that climate change requires "sacrifice", or "taxes", or "giving to poor countries" as one guy outright blamed as the primary motivating factor for this.
Frankly, if the public can't debate in informed ways about this, then just get rid of them from the debate and just create policies that are sensible and prudent.
Elitist this may sound, but it is better than wasting time on the hopeless public.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:12 PM
Starship mechanic writes: "Many scientists who attack IPCC projections, for example, are actually saying that they're not high ENOUGH..."
Yet the projections call for temperature increases way higher than actually observed.
Figure 10.4, page 762 of the IPCC Fourth Report shows the projected temperatures for this year to be more than 0.1 degrees warmer than actual:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjytr
pretty graph of annual temperature averages updated monthly:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 8:17 PM
Okay Alan, here's a few to ponder.
How do you explain that we can accuractely model climate change, despite the recent failures and breakdowns in climate models? Trillions of dollars rides on your answer.
The models are only as good as the data that they are being provided with, raising the risk of garbage-in, garbage-out if the date is incomplete to accurately represent a complicated system like climate. Remember, trillion might ride on your answer.
Solar behaviour, weather prediction, geological activity and hurricane patterns are just a handful of the known climate-effecting systems. Of these systems we have only the barest (our best) ability to make short and/or medium term predictions. How can you explain your models' ability to reconcile all of these gaps in the data and produce long-term predictions that are accuracte? After having failed to do so before and admittedly working to adapt the models to existing and hitherto not-model-predicted, conditions, how can you convince us the improved model warrents trillions of dollars in spending?
I can answer it before you start with the pasting 'evidence'. You can't adequately do so. Not because you are bad, but because nobody could. Insufficient information. We can't accurately predict most major earthquakes, volcanos, solar events or hurricane patterns with any real accuracy in given time perious. How do you propose that we integrate their complexity (one beyond us, yet) into a large system where each is a part and make precise calls that the AGW movement makes and dire predictions worth trillions of dollars? If you said give me millions of dollars, there's going to be an earthquake within five months and we need the cash, I couldn't. If you said give us millions there will be x to y number of hurricanes next year. You wouldn't get it, either. Same for a specific solar event, they would all be long shots. Even less so could you put them all together to predict climate as you propose.
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 8:20 PM
"Elitist this may sound, but it is better than wasting time on the hopeless public."
Damn democracy, damn mob-rule, If only we could just think for the peons....
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 8:21 PM
Dylan, please get back to me after you've listened to the WCC presentations, preferably following along with the slides as it goes.
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
Otherwise your comments about models are outdated.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:25 PM
Starship mechanic writes: "The CO2 greenhouse effect itself is well-researched and not seriously disputed by anyone in the scientific community."
And it's about one degree per doubling of CO2 concentration. Yet the alarmist estimates are two, four, or even as much as ten degrees, based on the inability to account for all the observed warming based on the GHG effect.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 8:25 PM
Clearly the public is aware, in part thanks to prior failures of scientific prediction and climate modelling, that precise climate predictions are, as of yet, beyond the reach of science.
The evidence to support we that we have enough information and scrutiny to spend trillions of dollars on a global equalization scheme is not up to snuff and growing numbers are realizing all of this.
ThePope Oct. 15, 8:27 PM
Alan Burke -
Yes I'm aware that the WCC3 is attempting to add validity to forecast models.
If you actually understood what Dyson Freeman has to say you'd see it's a waste of time.
Where exactly are the scientists going to get the missing variables for their simulations & models from?
Dyson Freeman points out several missing variables in his questioning of climate predictions, how many other variables are missing that Dyson never mentioned, all having a huge impact on any projection.
Yet suddenly the WCC3 has found all the missing variables making those projects more accurate.
I have some prime real state for sale, it's located in the Everglades, are you interested?
been_there Oct. 15, 8:32 PM
VanGrungy:
If mob-rule doesn't work, get rid of it.
I doubt anyone would want this totally misinformed level of debate to guide his decision on whether to have a surgery or not -- then why should we do the same on this?
It is particularly problematic on this board when an article comes out like this -- the most partisan, ideological and obsessed dominate the airwaves.
I am trying for the most thumbs down because I know the type of crowd lurking here.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:35 PM
Alan writes: "The same kind of care is used in the modelling of climate, so drop the false perception about garbage-in-garbage-out."
Care for what, Alan? The models do not even replicate the past temperature record, so there has been but little care put into identifying missing factors that could account for the obvious discrepancies. The errors are not just round-off computational problems, though those are necessarily present as well.
For the performance of the 'state of the art' 2007 IPCC modelling, bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb
Also bring up this one for comparison:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 temperature observations ran about 0.50 degrees over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows about 0.45 degrees over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.
The IPCC models just don't replicate the known observations prior to 1960 and after 2001, and are thus not reliable enough either to predict the future or to justify the conclusion that AGHGs dominate temperature change.
Figure 10.4, page 762 of the IPCC Fourth Report shows the projected temperatures for this year to be more than 0.1 degrees warmer than actual:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjytr
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 8:37 PM
Trillions for AGW plans would be like basing the decision to get brain surgery on the word of a phrenologist with their track record for acting on questionable or insufficient evidence. They had charts too, afterall.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:39 PM
G_Ennis writes: "How many reports from numerous universities, US, UK etc government departments and agencies saying global warming is happening?"
No matter how many reports can be dug up, since the actual observations do not show warming, then global warming is just not happening.
Building an Ark Oct. 15, 8:40 PM
Alan, I hae to go...I truly admire your life work in an attempt to present factual scientific data. Truly that's an admirable cause - but your posturing and personal attacks (Glymor et al) does you a disservice, seeing that's your defense. Again I tip my hat to your efforts, and I still say they do nor resonate with Canadians - and in that sense you should not mock those who can't or won't agree with you. You are like the kid with glasses who was always right in structure, thought - but forgot about sensibilities. This is not an attack but an attempt to temper your bluster - perhaps a different approach is required but I'll leave that to your learned RMC ways. Goodnight - good luck and remember "Science" is never settled nor static!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 8:42 PM
The question of whether the models are to be trusted as higher, not lower, following AGW's previous failure. This would even be the case if the AGW doomsters weren't preaching that the end is near.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:43 PM
Alan writes: "I continually point to evidence."
No, you actually don't. Yopu instead provide extracts from various sources (voluminous extracts) and sometimes links to some of them. You prefer to ignore the evidence that undercuts the hypothesis that the anthropogenic contribution to warming is overwhelming.
And you frequently trot out the 'strawman' accusing of people denying that there is any anthropogenic influence at all, and arguing in favour of some influence, when the real issue is to what degree.
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 8:44 PM
You can't compare the human system to the GAIA... So to speak...
Pretty bad analogy...
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:47 PM
Alan writes: "- Increased atmospheric water vapour resulting from CO2 warming has a feedback effect
doubling the impact of increased CO2."
And, as you always neglect to consider, water vapour also leads to increased cloudiness and thus increased albedo, reflacting more of the Sun's light away before it even gets to the surface.
Just to be clear, clouds provide a negative feedback leading to global cooling.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 8:50 PM
So GlynnMhor, what can you tell us about the heating/cooling effect differences between low-level and high-level clouds?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:51 PM
Alan writes: "get back to me after you've listened to the WCC presentations..."
Geeze, Alan, I started in on those and they're a grade-school effort, with bold coloured large format text so imbeciles can read it. You provide enough 'dumbed-down' analysis that I need no additional ones.
been_there Oct. 15, 8:51 PM
BTW, just for the record, I actually agree with Wente in that if we are exaggerating things too much and if we talk too much in apocalyptic terms in reference to climate change and if we are careless about the facts and limits of knowledge in order to drum up public support, then getting sensible policies out of this is going to be very difficult indeed.
That said, this climate issue is so complex and necessarily involves decision-making under uncertainty and requires a lot of deep understanding of arcane things that governments should not rely on public opinion alone to guide their actions -- that just results in complete status quo inaction, which I think is really putting the world in a pretty bad position.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 15, 8:55 PM
Alan asks about the relative heating cooling effect of low level vs high level clouds. High level clouds provide very little albedo effect and are as a result slightly warming. Low level clouds provide a GHG effect, plus a much stronger albedo effect and result in net cooling.
Next year the CERN CLOUD experiment will have been able to elucidate how clouds form under various conditions, and if there is intellectual honesty among the climatologists that information will be introduced into their modelling. Then we can begin to approach an actual quantification of the overall GHG effect compared to the contributions of other factors.
VanGrungy Oct. 15, 8:55 PM
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/15/peter-foster-the-weather-exploiters.aspx
Ooops...
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 8:57 PM
alan burke
Dont be angry and frustrated. Just look at the data over the last 50, 100 or 200 years calmly and you will see the correlation is clearly with the solar wind/ galactic cosmic ray/low level cloud cooling theory and not C02. How can you be so naive to believe the C02 modellers. Garbage in garbage out is how they work. The interesting thing if you would actually read the literature is the only models that work with the historical weather records are when they adjust temperatures to low level clouds. So now all you need to do is prove CO2 works as well as the electrons in galactic cosmic rays in seeding clouds as Heinrick Svensmark found in 1997.
EKBlack Oct. 15, 8:58 PM
When science finally does catch up with what really causes global climate change, CO2 induced global warming theory will find its appropriate place along side the co called 'factual' theories of Martian built canals, Vitalism, Alchemy, phlogiston, spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter, maternal impression and geocentricity. Scientific bandwagons are almost as bad as the weather.
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 9:08 PM
GlynnMhor of Skywall states
"No matter how many reports can be dug up, since the actual observations do not show warming, then global warming is just not happening."
This is an example of the conundrum scientists face because the reports reference "actual observations". This is where science meets blind faith in the public square and unfortunately faith has been winning a lot of the rounds in the fight.
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:13 PM
The following are two of several studies which I saw and cited on my website, gilles monenemie, concerning cosmic rays. It appears to me that there is pretty strong evidence that the cosmic ray hypothesis is flawed - the has a limit much too small to have a major temperature effect. Would you comment please about this study and the others on my "Sun and Solar System" page?
2009-05-13
Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037946.shtml
Although controversial, many observations have suggested that low-level cloud cover correlates with the cosmic ray flux. ... The “ion-aerosol clear-air” hypothesis suggests that increased cosmic rays cause increases in new-particle formation, cloud condensation nuclei concentrations (CCN), and cloud cover. In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.
Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7373-7387, 2008.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.html
... Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account.
Jest Oct. 15, 9:16 PM
It is interesting that Wente mentions that middle aged men and westerners are more dubious of the Climate-Change scam.Perhaps that is because we have experienced the vagarys of climate through experiance,and can recognize a ponzi scheme when we see it.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 9:19 PM
Been, we only really disagree over the second half of your statement. Reasonable doubts over difficulties with the theory and presentation have already been raised. A hitherto supportive public is taking a second look and is deciding it needs more information before it commits to a multi-trillion dollar equalization scheme in light of paragraph one. Myself, as part of that public seen more need for scrutiny. You see the need for action with or without public consent to the point of leaving them out of the debate now that you no longer enjoy their support. That'd be akin to me saying we should 'throw away all the science' and never listen to scientists again because of the reasons you refer to your first paragraph. Both would be going to far with the information we have. If it's real it'll pan out scientifically and prove itself, the public and most deniers are open to that. Now's not the time for unfair or rash decision. Now is the time for robust science that typical newspaper readers are unable to poke legitimate holes in. That will convince them, regardless of which side it convinces them to place their faith and economies in.
Mindbender Oct. 15, 9:26 PM
What I want to know is if all these models are so accurate, why aren't they being used by my weatherman. The next day may be close but after that it's not close by a mile. On Sunday it said it was to be 6c out today. Today we were greeted by snow and temps around 0c. So if they can't get one week right, why should I think that they can get a year right? Let alone 10years or more?
Alan Burke Oct. 15, 9:28 PM
Mindbender, climate is about weather over a period of decades, not days or weeks. The official WMO definition is 30 years.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 9:38 PM
And it isn't just weather Mindbender. The climate system is also affected by geothermal heating, solar activity, volcanos also play in too in a few ways as they release massive amounts of CO2, the other materials can cause massive cooling events and none of these small subsystems are completely understood, let alone reasonably predictable over long periods of time.
Add them all together then add the other sub-systems and factors we are yet to learn are at work and you have a loose idea of what the climate is. There is no convincing way we can make the sort of predictions that the global welfare advocates are demanding we base giving away all that money on.
gilles monenemie Oct. 15, 9:39 PM
alan
again you go to the modellers to deny real data. Svensmark actually measured the low level cloud formation from a plane (everyone can read about his experiments in his book the chilling stars, he repeated the plane event with GCR's forming clouds in the lab. I don't understand your devout faith in modellers when you can use real data to make an analysis. Its just bizarre.
Alan everyone is afraid to present a correlation coefficient for CO2 and the historical temperature record because its too weak. Otherwise you can be sure "in your face alan" would be shoving it in front of us over and over.
Mindbender Oct. 15, 9:46 PM
That's fair that climate is measured over decades, 30 years. But still how can you predict long term if you can't even get the sort term right. The last ten years has been predicted completely wrong by the IPCC. So why in 10 years from now should they all of a sudden get it right? If there are still studies going on that effect the climate how can all the variables be plugged in to the program that predicts the climate?
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 15, 9:51 PM
Burke: ... Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account.
=========================================
Obviously your alarmist science hacks weren`t looking at it properly!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf
Svensmark and his collaborators have looked at 26 Forbush events since 1987 (those that were strong according to their impact on the spectrum seen in the low troposphere where it matters): most of them occur close to the solar maxima (in the middle of the 11-year cycles). The observations with a much better temporal resolution imply that the mass of water stored in clouds decreases by 4-7%, with the minimum reached after a nearly 1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down).
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:53 PM
Mary Quite Contrary,4:08 P.M. post.
Great post Mary.
Mindbender Oct. 15, 9:59 PM
@Dylan, I agree, I find it extremely interesting that hardly anyone talks about the sun and what is happening right now. Fact is no one know's what it happening. Every time they predict the beginning of cycle cycle 24 it doesn't happen. Current stretch for spotlessness is 13 days. So if we don't fully understand the sun how can we predict the weather, or climate?
Harriot Oct. 15, 9:59 PM
I'd love to see some World leaders that are bold enough to just say no to this Global warming,GHG alarmism,and instead say yes to acting on pollution.
Controlling pollution is much more realistic and achievable,won't bankrupt our Country,and is beneficial to all.
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 15, 10:10 PM
Support for global warming theories have dropped dramatically in the last few years which suggests the proponents of these theories have lost credibility. Once credibility is lost, it is virtually impossible to regain.
G_Ennis Oct. 15, 10:28 PM
I really hope that some of the people on here have submitted their reports and evidence for publication in peer reviewed journals. Some of the conclusions they are reporting on here regarding global temperature data, solar activity, geothermal warming, volcanos etc. are fascinating. I look forward to reading about how the scientific community responds to this new evidence. There is evidence right? Not just bland assertions, conjectures or opinions not founded on evidence.
Now me, I cannot afford the millions for satellites, research expeditions to Antarctica, mainframe computers. I am at the mercy of scientists who have been provided the resources to do this research and report their findings. What's odd is how a lot of independent research has coalesced around a single conclusion i.e. climate change caused by human activity. But that is part of the world wide conspiracy by universities, national governments, the UN, etc, etc....
I want to thank the many contributors on here who are obviously spending small personal fortunes doing basic research on a complex issue and amazingly enough without much in the way of formal training in any of the sciences like those elitist scientists at the IPCC and similar organizations.
Seasoned Warrior Oct. 15, 10:30 PM
Wonderful article "The Cold We Caused" about climate change in this month's Harper's by Steven Stoll. He gives a detailed explanation of the mini-ice age and relates it to the plague that killed millions in Europe, China and the introduction of diseases into North America that also killed millions. He identifies climate change as having started with agriculture from the first plow in the ground. A fascinating read.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 15, 10:56 PM
It hardly requires millions or peer review to admit we don't have all the evidence on the effects of those unpredictable subsystems of climate like 'solar activity, geothermal warming, volcanos etc,' let alone to extrapolate on them in combination to make accurate long term forecasts with. The model makers tried it once and failed.
Someday they'll figure out the climate, but we all have a lot to learn first. More data is required before we allocate trillions of dollars to global equalization payments in order to combat the 'predictions' of CO2 disaster. But thanks anyway.
Questioning human-caused global warming doesn't demand proof. Human-caused global warming requires more proof than the evidence at hand can can offer, though. Never forget wear the burden of proof lies.
Perhaps someday there will be climate science that stands up to scrutiny and can truly answer the hard questions. There's no predicting what the truth it reveals to us will be yet though.
ped xing Oct. 15, 10:58 PM
This column is about branding, not science. MW is not (necessarily) disputing the science, rather the sanctimony.
http://modernoccidental.wordpress.com/
Harriot Oct. 15, 11:02 PM
These Global Warming alarmists have been telling the rest of us how stupid we are for not "believing" for years.
They've hoisted their superiority of their "brighter" mind,and called any non-believers under-educated cave dwellers.
Now,we've come to understand that the shoe is on the other foot,and these "believers" are nothing but naive fools,willing to accept propaganda and new taxes to the middle class,,so that those with an agenda can become even wealthier.
Hundreds of acclaimed Scientists,have had their consciences come forward with the real truth.
Global warming is a scam,and a wealth distribution scheme,just like Dion's carbon tax.
We ALL know that pollution is important thing that we need to tackle.
But we lost focus,on that,due to all the alarmist theories,and demands for nothing but GHG reductions,carbon trading,and excessive taxation.
Let's focus on the basics again,and forget the Govt.hired scientists agenda.
Mindbender Oct. 15, 11:24 PM
@G_ennis,
"I want to thank the many contributors on here who are obviously spending small personal fortunes doing basic research on a complex issue and amazingly enough without much in the way of formal training in any of the sciences like those elitist scientists at the IPCC and similar organizations."
Elitist scientists? Yes bow down to them and believe everything that is said without question, good idea. Instead I will read their reports plus many others and come to my own conclusions. IF you weren't lazy you would do some research yourself instead of letting other people tell you what to think. The info is out there you just have to look for it. Alan Burke even posted some in the comments a few pages back. Try SpaceWeather.com for the current number of spotless days, current solar wind speed and density, and other measurements relating to earth and space. The IPCC that you mentioned, yes even they have a web site where you can read their reports. So instead of coming on here and contributing nothing why not do some research, and post something worth reading.
Harriot Oct. 15, 11:55 PM
Govt. agenda's abound,and are worldwide.
These Global warming scientists have been specifically hired to fulfill a govt. agenda,which is wealth re-distribution.
Doug H. Oct. 16, 12:34 AM
The biggest problem with global warming is global population control, and until we do something about that, nothing useful is going to happen. It does not do any good to cut emissions by 20% and then increase populations by 30%.
But you never hear any climate expert talk about that. And that is the problem. They can not be considered credible unless they deal with all of the issues.
Harriot Oct. 16, 1:44 AM
For how many years,have we been hearing that those that"don't believe" in the Global warming theory,are a bunch of misinformed,uneducated idiots?
Who are the idiots now?
It's the Global Warming Alarmists,who are having their theories ,questioned and disproved by hundreds of acclaimed Scientists!
..Looks good on you bunch of elitist fact denying snobs.
The entire middle class was suppose to rely on your false theories,and hand over their hard earned dollars,for this wealth re-distribution fiasco.
But you didn't count on the fact,that people were smarter than you believed,and your con job is coming to an end.
Alan Burke..
Try facing Science with an open mind,instead of rhetoric,and false Propaganda scientific claims.
Questions are very relevent and worthy when it comes to Science.
When questioning theories,remember,that they are merely "theories" and not fact.
More and more real Scientists are disputing the Global Warming theory,that's precisely why they don't even refer to it as that anymore.
It's now the "Climate Change" mongering theory.
And any idiot can tell you,that climate change is certainly not only "real",but has been happening since the beginning of time.
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:51 AM
From Alan Burke - VanGrungy, if you walked your dog in our neighbourhood and routinely excreted on my lawn, leaving it there, would it be outrageous for me to ask you to pick it up or to pay for that to be done?
Alan, if you were a fishy in the Ottawa River, would it be outrageous to ask you not to flush your toilet, the one wot dumps sewage in the River? You are a NIMBY hypocrite of the highest order imo!!!!!!!!
CarlW Oct. 16, 3:00 AM
From Starship mechanic - "How many of the people confidently passing judgement on global warming science are actually scientifically incompetent themselves?"
Every single one of the we're all gonna die if Canada warms up a degree are not only scientifically incompetent, they're ideologically incompetent, propagandists, troughsters, nutters!
Lets all pray shall we, for a warmer, gentler, kinder Canada, with more food, more trees, lower heating bills. Perhaps we could spend a moment on sewage and garbage, as the heat ain’t gonna do us in!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 5:51 AM
We're engaged in a massive "game" of "Prisoner's Dilemma" (PD) in climate discussions and negotiations. You've heard the expression a "Win-Win" scenario? It's derived from the "Games Theory" study of PD. In its classical form, the PD is presented as follows:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The iterated prisoner's dilemma
If two players play prisoner's dilemma more than once in succession and they remember previous actions of their opponent and change their strategy accordingly, the game is called iterated prisoner's dilemma. Thus each player has an opportunity to punish the other player for previous non-cooperative play. Axelrod discovered that when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest. He used this to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behaviour from mechanisms that are initially purely selfish, by natural selection.
1/2
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 5:52 AM
The iterated prisoner's dilemma (cont'd)
The best deterministic strategy was found to be t!t for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "t!t for tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1%-5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.
In science
In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate change. All countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The benefit to an individual country to maintain current behavior is greater than the benefit to all countries if behavior was changed, therefore explaining the current impasse concerning climate change.
2/2
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 6:05 AM
Commentary on the Globe and Mail, especially about anything to do with climate change is a PD interaction and I tend to use a "forgiving t!t for tat" strategy in dealing with opponents. If you want to confront and renege all of the time, don't expect me to turn the other cheek and cooperate with your offence. But consider this - enlightened self interest, seeking to maximize one's own benefit is best achieved through a strategy like "t!t for tat" and it tends to lead to altruistic behaviour which benefits everyone, a "Win-Win" scenario.
In the world's current PD game, we all are the prisoners and nature is the cops - we'll be punished for our crimes against the environment unless we all learn to cooperate to solve the problems. That's the quandary which the world faces going into the Copenhagen December negotiations of the UMFCC trying to find a fair replacement for the Kyoto accord.
On a more personal note, gilles monenemie, I see that you have not yet sent me the studies which you had promised (via email). Yet you expect cooperation from me? Were you just playing a game to score debating points or was that a legitimate offer? The ball is in your court.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 6:31 AM
One of those on my "renegade" list is CarlW because he usually is on the attack with arguments like this "strawman" which he posed at 3 AM -
"Every single one of the we're all gonna die if Canada warms up a degree are not only scientifically incompetent, they're ideologically incompetent, propagandists, troughsters, nutters!".
Carl, nobody I know is suggesting even remotely that a one degree change is going to kill us all. You've erected a strawman argument in an attempt to discredit anyone who proposes taking action to mitigate global warming. That's a hostile act and unlikely to win any friends. You certainly won't get any cooperation from me as long as you maintain that offensive stance.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 6:42 AM
Earlier I stated "In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate change. All countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The benefit to an individual country to maintain current behavior is greater than the benefit to all countries if behavior was changed, therefore explaining the current impasse concerning climate change."
What I really should have emphasized is that it's likely that nations will continue to renege in climate negotiations because their perception is that there is more to be gained by reneging than by cooperating, that the payoff is higher. That perception needs to change and will only come when it's fully realized that the cost of inaction will dramatically exceed the cost of action, changing the "payoff matrix".
On my "Economics" page there are studies which show that to be the case and I trust that governments understand that going into the UNFCCC "COP15" conference of the parties in Copenhagen in December.
For more background:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 7:10 AM
Alan. All the same empty arguments, catch phrases and insults we saw spouted all day yesterday. You spam, you spam, you spam. But you spammed nothing that will convince people that AGW is an actual threat.
Thank you for using your own bag of 'tricks' to exemplify our arguments through your antics. Alas, it's not we Deniers that who have to prove your god doesn't exits. It's up to your Doomsters to prove that their arguments are worth so much money.
In all those hours of insults, spamming, fallacies (such as your own straw men) you proved to everyone who reads this that a lot more time and research is needed before the public can gamble off money on someone who can't adequately prove a point to the tune of that much money.
Skeptics don't have to prove AGW doesn't exist. AGW propentents need to prove AGW exists with more certainty than existing evidence can. Your tactics were failing before yesterday (as Ms. Wente's article covers) and they failed you miserably here yesterday.
Rather than seek a more robust argument and evidence you come back to spam aspersions about Carl. This is why people are turning away from your movement. Congratulations, none of us could have illustrated it better than you have.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 7:17 AM
Dylan, please show me where I have used a "strawman" argument.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 7:26 AM
Dylan, why is it that you continue to make personal "ad hominem" attacks on me rather than address what I have to say either here, where opinion seems to be the dominant factor, or on my website, where I try to document the evidence showing anthropogenic climate change and its impact? Is it because you're unable to counter with facts of your own? "Ad hominem" attacks are the refuge of the desperate, which is what you appear to be, in the face of overwhelming evidence disagreeing with your denials of the science.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 7:29 AM
Dylan, what specific substantiation do you have for your claim "AGW propentents[sic] need to prove AGW exists with more certainty than existing evidence can."?
The evidence exists and is shown on my website. Which specific evidence do you dispute?
Pollards Oct. 16, 7:39 AM
OMG!!! I just read the comments. I thought global warming was from carbon and for real but after stuff in the news lately and reading through these comments I don't know anymore. All the people who want the money can do is scream and paste the same stuff over and over and ignore that they can't prove there stuff. It really is more like a religion. After reading these. Put me down as Undecided.
ps. Good article MW, thanks for letting these people prove you right with there comments. Maybe I will vote Harper this time.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 7:53 AM
How about choosing to attack everyone else every time you were confronted and asked to prove your arguments in the face of real doubts and questions about your evidence?
That's a straw man.
You could do nothing new to convince the growing number of doubters. Nothing. That sort of evidence and those sorts of arguments don't win support for what you're saying, it costs it just as they have for the whole AGW crowd.
You AGW doomsdayers are dying by your own swords. Thank you.
Pollards Oct. 16, 7:55 AM
Everyone knew the worm was going to turn on the money hungry sky is falling people. Glad I got to see it happen. Their evidence really does stink. Good article.
Bob Matters Oct. 16, 8:12 AM
Global Warming Apocalypse shot down in FLAMES. Everyone west of Toronto and east of Vancouver knew the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. My only question is how come it took you all so long to figure it out? More of you must have known before Margie Wente and Alan Burke proved it.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 8:22 AM
I once bought into the hokum too, Bob. But as soon as we saw them try to defend what was wrong with their science and theories by by attacking the valid concerns, shrieking 'the point of no return' louder and insisting on the money RIGHT NOW, more and more of us started recognizing that they just aren't certain and don't even care to be.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 8:31 AM
For those of you crowing about denialist victory, I'll merely note that not one of you has offered compelling evidence to support a claim that anthropogenic climate change has been refuted. The science remains intact. If you choose to keep your head buried in the sand that is your right but don't be surprised when the world passes you by.
Trisha Mac Oct. 16, 8:34 AM
These end of the world by global warming people can't prove anything. When I was in uni I was in one of their student groups. When I started asking questions about the stuff that didn't set right I was told it doesn't matter if the science wasn't right and that the ends justified the means. I quit that week. It's interesting that alot of the top global warming hacks still make the 'ends justify the means' argument. Sorry but without the evidence required to defend what they are doing they aren't worth a dime, let alone millions of dollars.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 8:40 AM
Like I said Alan, it doesn't take us to refute you completely, only enough to expose the failings in your arguments.
It takes real answers to the real questions raised to refute the doubts people have before they'll trust the doomsters with their money. Continuing on with the desperate evasions and attacks on those who doubt doesn't do that. It actually does the opposite and costs AGW doomsters public support.
We aren't asking for trillions of dollars of tax money. AGW is and AGW can't justify it's demands with the tactics they use.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 8:52 AM
Humour me Dylan, please. I've reviewed all of the comments to this article and I fail to see unanswered real questions asked that weren't just rhetorical. What are the outstanding issues? I've occasionally pointed readers to my website for detail because this forum isn't the best place for some of the responses. I did evade the strawman argument from gilles monenemie, yes, because he was setting up a misleading argument, which is well answered on my website. A single correlation coefficient for one variable in a multivariate problem is not a valid representation - that's what he asked for.
Please tell me - what legitimate questions remain unanswered?
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 8:55 AM
The reason these guys are losing their support is because they can't prove themselves by attacking other people anymore. Simple. Their arguments aren't worth a dime.
G_Ennis Oct. 16, 8:58 AM
Mindbender
Your comments are as insightful as your moniker.
I have read the elitist reports i.e. IPCC et al and like Burke I do not believe this is really the forum to discuss the science in detail. Again as Burke has pointed out there are a number of appropriately moderated sites for this. However for you to conclude that these reports and their findings do not support the science of global warming is well "mind bending". I am not a scientist and nor do I pretend to be one, unlike many of the people commenting on here. However I do repose trust in the scientists working on this issue. I would agree that on some science issues there are widely divergent views because there is need for more data, studies etc. However on climate change there is consensus that it is happening. What is still up for discussion on the future outcomes is, how far temperature will rise and how fast. The answer to these questions, depends to a large extent on the actions we take in the next few years. However, regardless of what we do there is again consensus that there is already a built in amount of additional warming that will occur over the next century regardless of what we do.
I concur with the observation in Wente's article that it is difficult to convince the public of the need for action now because the consequences of inaction will probably not be experienced by most of us alive today but rather by our children and grandchildren.
That is not to say that people are acting totally irrationally in their decisions when they chose not to think about what they must do today. Survival in the moment no matter how you define it does tend to shorten the time horizon for most us. That is why we have scientists and other professionals do much of this future oriented work. The fact is the scientists warning about climate change are like the 'canary in the mine'. Deniers from my perspective prefer to throttle the bird because they do not like the tune it is singing.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 9:03 AM
There's dozens of pages of questions you failed to answer Alan adequately. I and most people are done humouring people who argue like you do. You know they are there, go read them. You aren't impressing anyone by playing coy. Your research is flawed and reality has even helped to prove it.
If your arguments can't pass muster you don't deserve the money, and attacking, using dishonest tactics and pretending not to hear the things you don't want to are all hallmarks of your movement. Nobody's church has earned trillions of dollars with their arguments yet and neither has yours.
You can't predict the future of the climate (yet) any more than you can predict, with the same accuracy you claim, on the myriad other natural phenomena that go into making up the climate system. Especially not if your going to ignore those other inputs in favour of getting the results you want. Your science failed on that and your arguments failed on it too.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 9:04 AM
Ennis, your analogy reminds me of Monty Python and the dead bird. Except in the AGW case, the Doomsters claimed they were selling a dead bird and it flew away on them before they could close the deal.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 9:13 AM
@Ennis. Stop trying to choke everyone's canaray and blame its death on oil and global warming. If you kill it yourself you can't hold it for ransom with the global warming welfare plan.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 9:15 AM
Dylan, I wasn't being coy. Please identify even just one legitimate unanswered question. I'm not trying to make debating points here but to provide legitimate answers to legitimate questions. Forgive me if I'm dense or haven't found one in my review but I'd like to hear what you feel has been unanswered.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 9:23 AM
You are not being honest Alan. You are well aware of all of the things questions that were raised because you either tried to dismiss them outright, attack the askers. I'm not dropping to your level and spam pasting things over and over that you are already aware of, I'm sorry. You can't shift the blame for why you've been on the losing end of the arguments for two days by pleading for the same questions over and over.
Anyone who reads back will see that my answer to you here is honest and that your inquiry is as dishonest as the arguments and fallacies you've been pasting all along. The doubts and doubters are legion (a growing legion) exactly because of those sorts of games you and the AGW religion play.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 16, 9:26 AM
Ms Wente claims there is no "tangible evidence" of climate change. In the temperate zones of the planet this is true at the moment, and since that is where most people live in the developed world, a dumbed down media with contrived "reality show" circuses and tabloid "journalism" to distract the rubes, it is quite easy for folks to ignore what is happening at the poles, and equatorial belts.
These zones are the front line of climate change, and changing it is. Shrinking polar caps are changing the albedo of the planet, reflecting less heat back into space, and absorbing it instead into polar seas. This is an algorithmic process that, as it continues, accelerates in a self perpetuating fashion.
You want tangible evidence? Look at satelite photos of the polar ice caps ten years ago, and compare them to this summer.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 9:29 AM
That's true Alan, he's pointed out what some of what's wrong with your arguments a couple times while I was reading. You just ignore them and keep pretending you are being open minded. That isn't honest.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 9:36 AM
It was a legitimate request Dylan, not a game. The offer remains open. You don't need to spam - just give me a date and time for the question and I'll follow up. You're welcome to your opinion that I've been on the losing end of an argument; I don't see it that way. You've made accusations about my honesty and intentions; I believe that you should substantiate the accusations and give me an opportunity to reply or withdraw them. There are a lot of comments to this article and it's easy to skip over what's said; please save me some time and identify at least one legitimate question which your feel that I failed to answer.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 9:42 AM
Ken, those satellite photos don't prove that long-term warming is happening. They don't prove that if it were happening that C02 is a factor. The photos don't attribute the cause of any theorized warming by C02 to a human cause nor rule out any other possible causes.
Most ironically, your reference to the last ten years is exceptionally amusing as some of the top AGW scientists, attempting to preemptively defend themselves against the failings of their models, have decided that the last ten years we have not been warming and have manipulated their models to reflect it and to predicted end to the cooling/plateau in temperature. A plateau they themselves weren't able to predict in the first place. That just raises and emphasizes all the doubts and questions that the AGW religion can't answer.
When you get more conclusive evidence, if you can, the tide will turn back in AGW's favour. But not yet, and not on the evidence to date.
It fails to justify trillions in wasteful spending when the money could be put to use on truly substantiated problems.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 9:50 AM
Alan just about every other point that Dylan has made raises doubts about what your tax-and-spend world welfare program is based on. If you can't answer them what makes changing the time and date will help you?
G_Ennis Oct. 16, 9:55 AM
Notice the silly claims such as "trillions in wasteful spending" that "@ Dylan makes. Of course no such money has been spent. However like all good hyperbole it makes for exciting headlines.
After making these ridiculous statements I am supposed to assume this person is engaging in a reasonable discussion? I think not. You all have a great day!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:02 AM
Dylan, I've reviewed you comments to this article and the best I can come up with in terms of unanswered questions are your comments yesterday concerning a plateau/cooling admitted by Mojib Latif and a supposed failure to include other warming factors (unspecified). You seem to be reiterating that in your 9:42 posting.
I'm sure that I pointed to the WCC presentation including comments from Latif and dealing with models.
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
If you listen to the entire presentation and follow with the slides provided, you'll see admissions of some failings of the past models, brought about primarily because of the computational complexity, which I did note. You'll also hear that the ensemble means do track measurements very well. As to missing factors, cosmic rays have been identified as one factor - I addressed that issue by pointing to a couple of studies showing limits to the effect; there's more on my website.
The WCC conference did spend a lot of time discussing regional, decadal and centennial issues in modelling and what has and is being done to improve the models. I haven't seen any response from you concerning what was said. I believe that you'll find that the recent slowdown in warming was indeed predicted by models studying decadal variability, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is acknowledged to have an impact on Arctic sea ice. Nonetheless, the popular press has seriously distorted what was said my Mojib Latif.
Similarly, I pointed to studies by Swanson, Tsonis et al. showing that there is a monotonically increasing and accelerating anthropogenic global temperature rise being affected by decadal variability. Nobody has responded to that evidence.
In short, I fail to see how legitimate questions went unanswered except possibly to those who failed to follow up on provided linkages.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 10:04 AM
Wrong again Ennis, despite weak promises of 100 million for the outset the international administrators were hoping for pledges amount to 500 million dollars to get the ball rolling. Being that this would be an ongoing fight against the invisible AGW DEVIL more money is wanted for continuation. Based on that one can easily and honestly predict that the long term sum they desire will move up into the trillions. A half trillion dollars for start-up doesn't put trillions out of reach for the long-term programme.
Fastest Eddie Oct. 16, 10:09 AM
Round and round they go. These guys have been at it since yesterday someone should put them on TV. Alan must really love kicking himself in the shins. Great entertainment, if you're the spectator.
Fastest Eddie Oct. 16, 10:10 AM
Round and round they go. These guys have been at it since yesterday someone should put them on TV. Alan must really love kicking himself in the shins. Great entertainment, if you're the spectator.
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 10:21 AM
My main has been point was that all the sub-systems are beyond accurate long-term prediction. Trying to account for one of them does NOT address the unpredictability issue with it, nor does it address the fact that none of the others is predictable. Including one with a non-explanation after the models have failed and omitting and underplaying the value of the others to the point of not including them does not make for accurate climate modeling. Until we know more about those systems, which to include and what values to assign them we can't predict climate any more than we can predict what the weather will be like during the next volcano that occurs DURING a solar outburst.
Once the theories coincide with logic and REAL evidence toward climate prediction we can get around to interpreting the 'evidence' and deciding what is going to happen and whether or not it requires trillions of dollars. Not before.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:24 AM
Dylan said "Including one with a non-explanation after the models have failed and omitting and underplaying the value of the others to the point of not including them does not make for accurate climate modeling.". What has been excluded in your opinion? What evidence has been ignored?
Have you listened to the WCC presentation yet?
G_Ennis Oct. 16, 10:25 AM
LOL
Dylan thank you for your in depth analysis and refutation of the work being done by
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) with respect to what is happening in the arctic. These guys put in time and effort to interpret the data they have recorded. Note that the graphic/picture is not the 'data set". As for me I will go with their interpretation of the data and what is happening in the arctic.
For those who are interested:
NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. NSIDC supports research into our world's frozen realms: the snow, ice, glaciers, frozen ground, and climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. Scientific data, whether taken in the field or relayed from satellites orbiting Earth, form the foundation for the scientific research that informs the world about our planet and our climate systems.
Fastest Eddie Oct. 16, 10:27 AM
Boo yeah! They build them and this guy breaks them. We needed this guy doing this a long time ago, would have saved us a lot of worry but what he's saying is gonna save us all a lot of money. I still can't believe the global warming twits actually asked for a half a trillion dollars even though I read that too. What nerve!
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 10:29 AM
Compounding the errors doesn't eliminate them, it increases them. All the bases have HIGH to complete error rates in the long term. No compounding of them makes them predictable. Especially not with the price tag that's been placed on them by their supporters.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:31 AM
Dylan, from my page on "Economics":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx
The "Stern Review on the economics of climate change"
is a series of papers produced for the UK "HM Treasury", available here
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
From the summary of conclusions:
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world - access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 10:34 AM
What he's saying makes perfect sense too. The AGW fanatics won't admit what's wrong with the predicting. Its like they are admitting 2+2 doesn't = 10, but they are trying to say that 2+2 multiplied by 10 = 100. I wish I had thought of that.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:34 AM
Dylan, can you offer a refuting critique of the Stern Review please in support of your position?
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 10:36 AM
LOLs
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:38 AM
Sandra Lubsya, if you were to listen to the WCC presentation, as I have suggested several times, you'd see that climate modellers do acknowledge and understand the limitations of their models and they do admit them. Take off your tinfoil hat and get some reality - review the WCC presentations.
Allan McElroy Oct. 16, 10:39 AM
Just checking back in....glad to see that you guys are still at it.....I'd love to join in but some of us have other things to do that keep baiting Alan B.
ps; still 10 degrees below normal in the prairies.....
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 10:39 AM
He doesnt need to refute your talking points lol he already refuted the whole theory they are based on.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:48 AM
Sandra said "he already refuted the whole theory they are based on.". Maybe I'm just dense but I haven't seen where he did that. What evidence did he offer? I saw none. What scientific journal did he publish in? I saw none.
Wit'sEndNJ Oct. 16, 10:50 AM
I highly recommend that people visit climateprogress.org which is a very readable and comprehensive compendium of actual real science about climate change.
And I also suggest that those who do not understand models and couldn't possible reproduce them, forget about them. Just look at the empirical evidence now. The melting icecaps which have already put into play amplifying feedbacks, ensuring more melting and irreversible effects.
Outside my window, in New Jersey, I can see trees of every species dying. They are being poisoned by toxic greenhouse gases. Just because volatile organic compounds creasing ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrates are invisible doesn't mean they aren't lethal, to humans, animals and vegetation.
You don't have to be an atmospheric chemist or a biologist to recognize the damage and death we have brought on to ourselves and all the other forms of life that share the Earth. You just have to pay attention and remember how it used to be.
The scientists aren't going nearly far enough in scaring people into action to switch to clean, renewable energy. Oh, and NOT putting the facts in their most frightful aspects the past decades since the science of global warming has been clear to scientists, sure made a lot of people sit up and pay attention, didn't it?
www.witsendnj.blogspot.com
Dylan - Maritime Quebec, Gaspe Oct. 16, 10:51 AM
Anyway, I'm out too. It's been fun and glad to see people are coming around to the truth.
Don't forget to ask Alan and the other climate doomsdayers the hard questions when they start spamming off at themselves and those who haven't gotten it figured out yet. The truth will set you free! Well, maybe not free, but it won't cost you trillions of dollars for some cockamamie global equalization plan run by foreign administrators and their pseudo-industrialist cronies.
G_Ennis Oct. 16, 10:52 AM
@Alan McElroy
Thanks for the WEATHER report but we cancheck that out for ourselves. Now if you were talking about climate that last comment in your post might be relevant.
Again than you for making the point that many commentators on here cannot distinguish between weather and climate let alone deal with a complex issue like climate change. But I guess in a world where scientific fact is based on democratic polling of the public I lose.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 10:58 AM
Do return sometime Dylan, please, you've left a lot unanswered.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 16, 10:59 AM
No, he only opened up a hole large enough to drive an army of SUVs through in the whole in the evidence and argument for immediate action and billions on climate change that isn't refuting anything, I guess. Blind faith doesn't change that fact. I'm tired of this might check back later to see if anyone with real evidence to stitch those holes shut comes along. Lub y'all.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 11:08 AM
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it think.
claroch Oct. 16, 12:23 PM
I thought an ounce of cure was worth then pounds of cure ... Look at Hispanola Island. I suppose people like you in Haiti once laughed at Dominicans who wanted to protect their forests. But they do not laugh now! Only trouble, if we mess up our planet, it will be the WHOLE planet that will be in trouble. Do you have an emigration alternative ???
g.d. Oct. 16, 12:30 PM
With the recent comments on here about the recent arctic ice cap size via satellite it makes me wonder what the size of the arctic cap was in 1944 when the St. Roch sailed(it was a wooden schooner,solo, no ice breaker escort in those days) from Halifax to Vancover in about 68 days.Story wise it probally wasn,t the biggest news since WW 2 kind of dominated the news of the day.Thanks Marge for for this piece, I was wondering when you would do another piece on this subject since it does stir up a lot of debate which makes for interesting reading on here.Pesonally I haven't been convinced of this man made global warming/climate change theory just yet.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 12:57 PM
g.d., the St. Roch did not go through the NorthWest Passage on its return journey from Halifax to Vancouver - it went around, where there were sufficient breaks in the ice. This particular trip is cited frequently (minus the detail) as an attempt to imply that the Arctic has been ice-free previously and that current melting is not unusual. That is false, as you can discover if you read some of the science on my page "Sea Level and Ice"
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SeaLevelAndice.aspx
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 12:59 PM
g.d., I invite you to look at some very readable science concerning climate change on my "Introduction" page
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Climate101.aspx
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 1:02 PM
g.d. wrote: "Pesonally I haven't been convinced of this man made global warming/climate change theory just yet. "
_____________
This line right here summarizes the problem with political discussion of scientific issues. People who have ZERO training in the field (in many cases, people who didn't take so much as a SINGLE science course at the university level) appoint themselves as a scientific peer review panel: a job which normally requires a PhD in the field.
Would a regular person pass judgement on a particular type of brain surgery, based on Google research? Of course not; he would never trust himself to know enough to do such things.
So why does the average person think himself competent to judge theories involving climatology, thermodynamics, and physics? One could chalk it up to breathtaking arrogance, but as I said, I doubt someone would do the same thing to the field of medicine, although with vaccine scares, people are increasingly starting to do just that. Still, the delusion is more common with climatology. I blame politicians, for discussing the issue in such a manner as to imply that the average person WILL think himself competent to judge it.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 1:05 PM
Continuing the previous line of thought, I have to say that the evolution/creation debates also tend to instill in people an attitude that any average shmuck can go up against the entire scientific community and tell them they're wrong, using the same tactics: quotes of scientists taken out of context, completely false claims of a building consensus against them (based on blindly believing websites and advocacy groups), etc.
People are simply not inclined to defer to the scientific community's consensus. They think themselves smarter, because they read some websites instead of spending years in university working hard to learn the concepts.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:26 PM
. . . . continued
One only has to do some basic calculations to see what garbage is being pushed here! First off the Arctic Circle only receives about 1.4% of the solar radiation incident to the planet. Of that, an ice loss of 3 million square miles only represents about 1/7 so were already talking about 0.2% of the incoming solar radiation budget! But this would be for the whole year and the reality is that this ice loss really only comes into play for at most the equivalent of 3 months of the year so now we’re down to about 0.05% of the solar radiation budget! However, we’re not done yet! Anyone who has a basic understand of optics would know that when light strikes water at a low angle of incidence the water becomes highly reflective. Given the high latitudes involved and the peak of melting achieved only by the autumn solstice, we are in fact talking about a very low angle of incidence for this light striking the water! As a consequence, at best you’re looking at a minimal increase in albedo – maybe 10% if you’re lucky! So now we’re down to an increased absorption of solar energy of 0.005%. That’s going to give the planet a fever?
However it gets even better than that! What the Alarmists never mention (probably because most can’t even grasp this concept) is that ice cover prevents the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and subsequently to space! Therefore when ice cover is reduced, the planet has an enhanced ability to shed heat energy! So instead of causing the planet to warm, the loss of sea ice cover is instead going to help the planet cool!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:26 PM
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 16, 9:26 AM
Shrinking polar caps are changing the albedo of the planet, reflecting less heat back into space, and absorbing it instead into polar seas. This is an algorithmic process that, as it continues, accelerates in a self perpetuating fashion.
You want tangible evidence? Look at satelite photos of the polar ice caps ten years ago, and compare them to this summer.
Mr. Yurchuk is a typical Alarmist who has no understanding of the underlying facts and associated science when it comes to what is actually happening in the real world (or choses to ignore them like our resident Alarmist troll Alan Burke).
First off Mr. Yarchuk speaks of polar caps. Apparently he hasn’t looked at ANY data with respect to the south pole where sea ice extent has been growing ever since satellite records began 30+ years ago!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
As to the north pole and the decrease in ice extent there the first fact totally ignored by the Alarmists is that changes in sea ice there are driven by cyclic variation driven by changes to oceanic oscillations such as the AMO and PDO. No alarmist talks about how temperatures shot up in the 1930’s and 1940’s to levels comparable to recent time and then plunged down after that only to begin a climb back up starting in the 1980’s.
http://tinyurl.com/nxeqrb
Yes the reality is that northern sea ice extent has decreased as much as 3 million square km. since the satellite record began (although it has recovered a million of that over the last 2 years). However any notion that this will “boil the planet” is complete nonsense (by the way Mr. Yarchuk, what exactly is an “algorithmic” process – one made up by Al Gore by any chance?).
. . . . continued
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 1:31 PM
Eyes Wide Open, are you a scientist? Are you just expert at using Google and repeating talking points from websites which seem convincing to you?
Does it ever occur to you that when a website says the "alarmists" have no answer for a certain point, it might be lying? My favourite is the one about how the CO2 concentration historically lags the temperature increase: scientists noticed that and analyzed it BACK IN THE 1980s, yet you still see anti-GW websites crowing that scientists completely blew it and never noticed it. It's emblematic of the kind of rampant dishonesty that is found all throughout the global warming denial commuinity.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:36 PM
Alan writes: "... calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics."
That's all well and good, but the actual CERN experiment will provide real data upon which to rely for cloud formation rates.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:39 PM
"My favourite is the one about how the CO2 concentration historically lags the temperature increase: scientists noticed that and analyzed it BACK IN THE 1980s, yet you still see anti-GW websites crowing that scientists completely blew it and never noticed it. It's emblematic of the kind of rampant dishonesty that is found all throughout the global warming denial commuinity."
=========================================
Good point that you make Starship but who's being dishonest here? Leading alarmists such as Al Gore try and hide this time lag which proves that is temperature changes that drive changes to CO2 levels and not the other way round! Go figure - another alarmist poster that doesn't have a clue!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 1:40 PM
Starship Mechanic, I believe that Eyes Wide Open claims to have a M.Eng degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 1:43 PM
Alan Burke wrote: "Starship Mechanic, I believe that Eyes Wide Open claims to have a M.Eng degree in Mechanical Engineering. "
______________
I am a mechanical engineer myself, so I know that if "Eyes Wide Open" is telling the truth, he should be perfectly aware that he does not have the authority or expertise to refute published scientific theories in an area outside that expertise. He can certainly discuss them, or illuminate certain aspects of them for the less-informed, but to appoint himself as such an authority that he can actually debunk such theories, and worse yet, to imply that his engineering qualifications give him the ability to do this, is actually unethical as per the code of ethics of engineers in Canada.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:44 PM
Starship Mechanic, I believe that Eyes Wide Open claims to have a M.Eng degree in Mechanical Engineering.
===============================
Actually it's an M.A.Sc. degree which is a notch up from an M.Eng. degree!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 1:45 PM
You did see this in another thread, didn't you, Eyes Wide Open?
The Arctic offers more evidence of human influences on climate change
Recent, sudden and dramatic Arctic warming was preceded by almost 2,000 years of natural cooling
A new study indicates that Arctic temperatures suddenly increased during the last 50 years of the period from 1 AD to the year 2000. Because this warming occurred abruptly during the 20th Century while atmospheric greenhouse gases were accumulating, these findings provide additional evidence that humans are influencing climate.
Incorporating geologic records, biologic records and computer simulations, the study reconstructed Arctic summer temperatures at a resolution down to decades, and thereby extends the climate record a full 1,600 years beyond the 400 year-long record that was previously available at that resolution. This newly lengthened record shows that recent warming was preceded by a cooling trend that lasted at least 1,900 years and should have continued throughout the 20th Century. These results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented, says Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University--the lead author of the study.
Conducted by an international team of scientists and primarily funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the study is described in the September 4, 2009, issue of Science.
Kaufman says that the results of his team's study are significant not only because of their implications for our understanding of human influences on climate change, but also because they agree with the National Center for Atmospheric Research's (NCAR) climate model, which is used for predicting future climate change; this agreement increases confidence in the model's simulations of future climate change.
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5945/1236
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:47 PM
Alan writes (at length) about: "We're engaged in a massive "game" of "Prisoner's Dilemma"...".
But we're not prisoners, have no dilemma, and in the real world the rewards and penalties are not as they are in the game, which is a model only of real world interactions.
The game is no better than the climate models in predicting behaviour, even though it can be a tool for understanding some behaviours even as the climate models are useable tools to understand some parts of the climate.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:49 PM
Tell us Starship, the specific section of the code of ethics and the manor in which I have supposedly breached said section? All I have done is provided some basic calculations that challenge an unsupported position postured by Alarmists! Point me to a specific published paper that substantiates the notion that the loss of northern sea ice to date will have any measureable increase to heat retention on planet Earth! I think it is in fact you that is being unethical in making unsubstantiated statements!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:50 PM
Alan writes: "... evidence to support a claim that anthropogenic climate change has been refuted."
Here you go again with the strawman argument, Alan. No one seriously disputes that there is a greenhouse gas effect, the issue is whether it is powerful enough to justify the alarmism, and there has been plenty of solid evidence offered that the anthropogenic role has been exaggerated.
In fact, the issue is not whether AGW has been exaggerated, but by how much.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:51 PM
Trisha Mac writes: "... I was told it doesn't matter if the science wasn't right and that the ends justified the means."
While I wouldn't refer to a 'conspiracy', there is a host of ulterior motives different people have for supporting the AGW paradigm.
1- For researchers, once a paradigm becomes popular and dominant, it is career limiting to oppose it.
2- If the climate is presented as something about which governments can make policies, then government money will flow for research. If climate is something that we cannot affect, funding is not going to be as forthcoming.
3- Plus of course it gives researchers a good feeling to imagine that they're working to save the world instead of, say, developing a new scent for feminine hygiene products.
4- Environmentalists see carbon emission control as a means to reduce real pollutants like NOx, SO2, Hg, etc. as a side effect.
5- Luddites see carbon strangulation as a way of dismantling the industrial economies to force everyone to a much reduced subsistence.
6- 'Personal isolationists' try to use AGW as a way to eliminate big utility companies, with power generated at home from wind, solar, or even car batteries, and even sold to the local grid at retail (or higher) rates.
7- EU trade isolationists see carbon regulation as a way of increasing the energy cost, and thus decreasing the competitiveness, of North American economies _vis a vis_ EU ones.
8- Opportunities to use carbon emissions as pretexts to block or heavily tariff imports abound, thus degrading international trade even further.
9- Local trade isolationists like the idea of overseas products becoming more expensive, and if they can't do that by punitive tariffs and quotas, they hope to do so by artificially driving up shipping costs.
(continued)
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:52 PM
10- Socialists of various stripes see Kyoto-type agreements as a way of transferring wealth from developed economies to lesser ones, as our one-time Liberal cabinet minister Stewart once claimed.
11- Some socialists also envision carbon strangulation as a pretext for involving governments deeply into the economy, via direct and indirect subsidies for energy alternatives that can claim to be 'green'. Naturally, those who are involved and invested in such industries have their own greed factor.
12- Socialists also love the idea of sending governments even more of our money under any pretext, and use carbon taxes as a way to transfer even more money to people in lower income levels.
13- Some politicians see taking 'the west' off oil as a means of removing the dependence the US in particular has on politically uncertain sources, like the ME, Venezuela, etc.
14- Other politicans see 'cap & trade' or other quota management as a way to direct corruption to their buddies and relatives.
15- Nuclear energy proponents see carbon strangulation as a way to promote nuclear power, emissions from which are trivial.
16- Some people imagine that energy cost reductions will magically pay for, and even squeeze profit from, expensive carbon control technologies whose payback times are actually measured (when they aren't just dead costs) in decades.
17. Opportunistic "businessmen" see the panic of the masses as an opportunity to solicit donations to so-called "non-profit" organizations and operate carbon credit exchanges, both of which they control, in order to enrich themselves financially.
18: In the political arena it is generally held far more important to be consistent than it is to be right. Lies and errors about warming are thus propagated further, instead of being squelched, in order to bolster the political optics.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 1:53 PM
Eyes Wide Open, you must be aware that CI2 and temperature have a mutually reinforcing feedback loop because that has been noted many times before. You're the one who is obscuring the issue. In the past, yes, temperature increases did result in CO2 releases which then went on to reinforce the temperature rise. In the present, it's the burning of fossil fuel and messing with the carbon cycle through deforestation that has triggered the process by releasing extra CO2 into the atmospher and starting the temperature rise. Naturally more GHGs will be release as a result of that temperature rise, further reinforcing the feedback loop. It doesn't run totally out of control, of course, because there is a logarithmic effect. We do run the risk, however, of accelerating the process by triggering the release of methane (CH4) which is a more powerful though less abiding GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2) - it does decay to CO2 and H2O (water) however.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 1:58 PM
Burke; "You did see this in another thread, didn't you, Eyes Wide Open?
The Arctic offers more evidence of human influences on climate change
=========================================
Still pushing these fraudulent Alarmist drumbeaters are we Alan?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7054
And this item was created before the Yamal implosion happened!
Look at a history of Arctic temperatures! They shot up to levels comparable to today back in the 30's and 40's before any major increase in CO2 levels! It is cyclic changes to ocean currents that are the major driver of fluctuations in Arctic temperatures. Any role that CO2 has is minor at best!
http://tinyurl.com/nxeqrb
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 1:58 PM
WitsEnd writes: "I can see trees of every species dying. They are being poisoned by toxic greenhouse gases."
Well, the main greenhouse gas being indicted for warming, CO2, is one of the essentials of life for those trees. They may be dying from NOx and SOx smog, or other city pollutants, but they're not dying from CO2 toxicity.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:01 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Tell us Starship, the specific section of the code of ethics and the manor in which I have supposedly breached said section? All I have done is provided some basic calculations that challenge an unsupported position postured by Alarmists!"
___________
Using your engineering credentials to suggest expertise outside your actual field of expertise. That is a breach of the ethics code of engineers.
The calculations you speak of are themselves based on various assumptions, whose credibility you attempt to bolster by mentioning that you are a mechanical engineer.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 2:01 PM
Alan writes: "...you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it think."
Well, Alan, instead of trotting out all manner of quotations of other people's work, why not try thinking about why the models fail to match the reality so badly.
There are reasonably clear implications that some factor or factors are missing from the modelling. It's past time that the reality is recognized.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:02 PM
Tell me, "Eyes Wide Open", did you study global warming theories with the same rigour with which you studied mechanical engineering? How many of the papers did you read? Did you get all of your information from issue-oriented websites, a practice which would be COMPLETELY unacceptable and unprofessional within your field?
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:02 PM
Burke: "In the past, yes, temperature increases did result in CO2 releases which then went on to reinforce the temperature rise."
===============================================
While underlying temperatures may have rose on the order of 10 degrees, the subsequent additional CO2 would at best have comprised only a fraction of a degree of that. Some reinforcing mechanism that is!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 2:05 PM
Starship writes: "So why does the average person think himself competent to judge theories involving climatology, thermodynamics, and physics?"
When the theories bring forth predictions that fail to be supported by the realities, anyone can judge those theories faulty.
No matter how many times the highly credentialled Royal Dressers, Guild of Clothiers and Master Weavers praised the Emporer's new robes, it took a child to point out that the Regal PP was showing.
The AGW Emperor's PP has been hanging out for some years now and needs tucking in. Or maybe the upcoming solar grand minimum predicted by the Landscheit cycles will bring such cold global average temperatures that the PP in question will just shrink out of sight.
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:06 PM
To Wit'sEndNJ, per this from you:
"Outside my window, in New Jersey, I can see trees of every species dying. They are being poisoned by toxic greenhouse gases."
Name one, a toxic GHG that's causing wot you see out yer window. Perhaps you should go for an eye test, get yer brain tested too, do some modeling on it? :)
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:06 PM
Starship: "Using your engineering credentials to suggest expertise outside your actual field of expertise. That is a breach of the ethics code of engineers.
The calculations you speak of are themselves based on various assumptions, whose credibility you attempt to bolster by mentioning that you are a mechanical engineer. "
==========================================
Any calculations made are well within my field of expertise - any first year engineering student should be capable of them! Based on the stated assumptions the result is completely accurate. If you want to challenge my calculations and assumptions go ahead! My guess is you won't because you know they are perfectly valid (or maybe you have no clue like most Alarmist who chose to share their 'wisdom' with us!)
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:08 PM
"Eyes Wide Open", do you read the Engineering Dimensions newsletters from the PEO? They seem to buy into this "alarmism" as well. Are you saying that the PEO is incompetent, and that you can see through their tomfoolery?
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:08 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Based on the stated assumptions the result is completely accurate."
___________
And those assumptions should be accepted ... why?
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:09 PM
Tell me, "Eyes Wide Open", did you study global warming theories with the same rigour with which you studied mechanical engineering?
Yes!
How many of the papers did you read?
Dozens and dozens!
Did you get all of your information from issue-oriented websites, a practice which would be COMPLETELY unacceptable and unprofessional within your field?
No.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:10 PM
GlynnMhor of Skywall retorts to my criticism of lay arrogance with: "When the theories bring forth predictions that fail to be supported by the realities, anyone can judge those theories faulty."
__________
And how do you know what those predictions are, when you have never bothered reading the papers to understand the theory? Generating an accurate prediction from a theory is impossible if you are not well-versed in the theory; creationists demonstrate this all the time by making utterly preposterous predictions from what they believe to be evolution theory.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:11 PM
And those assumptions should be accepted ... why?
=======================================
The assumptions as stated are based on evident factual evidence. Go ahead and challenge them if you want! I don't think you'll get very far!
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:12 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Tell me, "Eyes Wide Open", did you study global warming theories with the same rigour with which you studied mechanical engineering?
Yes!"
____________
Frankly, you're obviously lying. It takes many years of full-time study to become a qualified mechanical engineer, and then several years of professional internship after that. There is no way you put similar effort into researching a subject with so little overlap into your (claimed) field.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:16 PM
"Eyes Wide Open", do you read the Engineering Dimensions newsletters from the PEO? They seem to buy into this "alarmism" as well. Are you saying that the PEO is incompetent, and that you can see through their tomfoolery?
============================
Many of the articles printed in the PEO magazine are more likely to reflect the views of unprofessional and biased journalists supported by
an unprofessional and biased editor than the views of the broader population of engineers! Besides, I have noted that some of the articles I have read on the subject in the PEO magazine are in fact more balanced by admitting to the uncertaintly in the associated scientific theory.
By the way Starship, where'd you graduate from? Carleton?
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:16 PM
Eyes Wide Open, the supposed Yamal implosion which you refer to is nothing but more denialist mythology. See a rebuttal here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:17 PM
"Eyes Wide Open", you claim that "Any role that CO2 has is minor at best!"
This is an attack not just on global warming theory, but the entire greenhouse gas theory: a theory which has survived extensive peer review. You have made NO scientific argument to refute the mechanisms underlying this theory; instead you have argued extensively about regional fluctuations in temperature: an argument which does not invoke thermodynamics or physics or any of the things I would normally expect a mechanical engineer to use. In short, you do NOT sound like a mechanical engineer at all.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:18 PM
I see that Starship has still to identify any inaccuracies in my assumptions or calculations! Just goes to show he's blowing smoke!
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:19 PM
From the AB man, "Dylan, why is it that you continue to make personal "ad hominem" attacks on me rather than address what I have to say"
Oh well, you can lead Alan to water, but you can't make him drink, and you can't make him address a fact that contradicts his ideology, for example, the fact that a warmer Canada would be a better Canada, also kinder and gentler, with more food, more trees, lower heating bills. If I have judged Alan's ideology correctly, he wants more frozen wasteland, and Ottawa sewage is for the Chinese to fix, while he fixes all their problems?
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:23 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Many of the articles printed in the PEO magazine are more likely to reflect the views of unprofessional and biased journalists supported by an unprofessional and biased editor than the views of the broader population of engineers!"
____________
That is pure nonsense. They do not simply solicit articles from totally unqualified people and then pass them through with little or no editorial control.
You also wrote: "Besides, I have noted that some of the articles I have read on the subject in the PEO magazine are in fact more balanced by admitting to the uncertaintly in the associated scientific theory."
_____________
No, they actually say there is no doubt that the Earth is warming and that it will be harmful to human life. Where they say there might be some doubt is the percentage of this warming which is caused by human activity, which does not in any way substantiate your claim that there's nothing to worry about. The recent issue dealing with this issue discussed the importance of engineers assisting in mitigation efforts: did you not notice? Or are you pretending to have read this newsletter when in fact you didn't?
You finally wrote: "By the way Starship, where'd you graduate from? Carleton? ""
_____________
Waterloo. And I'm curious why you, if you are a real mechanical enginer, you A) say such preposterously false things about the PEO newsletter's standards and B) make comments about the content of that newsletter which are not accurate at all.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:24 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "I see that Starship has still to identify any inaccuracies in my assumptions or calculations! Just goes to show he's blowing smoke!"
________
The fact that you think you can refute GHG theory by focusing on regional temperature fluctuations is a gigantic error, since that does not actually refute the theory. The only one "blowing smoke" here is you, and at this point I would bet money that you are lying about being a mechanical engineer. Your arguments are decidedly unscientific, your rhetorical style is decidedly unprofessional, your attacks on the editorial integrity of the PEO's Engineering Dimensions newsletter are absurd, and your claims about their position on global warming are false.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:27 PM
CarlW while there might be some benefits from a warmer Canada, there will also be detrimental effects, as is well document in studies cited on my page "Impact and Adaptation", for example from Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Ontario College of Family Physicians.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Adaptation.aspx
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:28 PM
"Eyes Wide Open", you claim that "Any role that CO2 has is minor at best!"
This is an attack not just on global warming theory, but the entire greenhouse gas theory: a theory which has survived extensive peer review. You have made NO scientific argument to refute the mechanisms underlying this theory; instead you have argued extensively about regional fluctuations in temperature: an argument which does not invoke thermodynamics or physics or any of the things I would normally expect a mechanical engineer to use. In short, you do NOT sound like a mechanical engineer at all.
==============================
Starship I hope I don't have to rely on any equipment or systems you've worked on because you are demonstrating that you are so unprofessional!
My statement was "Any role that CO2 has is minor at best!"
Do some reading would ya!
Estiamted sensitivity of CO2 (without feedback) by Milne? 80 years ago based on the simplyfying assumption of an infinite atmospheric thickness (obviously a false assumption): 1.2 degrees C
Estimated sensitivity of CO2 (without feedback) based on the recent work of Miscolzski: 0.24 degrees C
Estimated sensitivity of CO2 (with feedback) based on the recent work of Miscolzski: ~0.0 degrees C
Estimated sensitivity of CO2 (with feedback) based on the recent work of Lindzen: 0.3 - 0.5 degrees C
Prehistoric range in CO2 levels from ice core records (180 to 280 ppm).
Anyway you slice it - we're talking a fraction of a degree here!
AmeliaH Oct. 16, 2:29 PM
Of all the people commenting here I wonder what the average length of time we have left on the planet... perhaps a decade or two...
My grandkids will be citizens of the 22nd century and it is foolish to pretend that our lifestyles have not left them with a terribly costly legacy from which they will have to work far harder than us to fix.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:30 PM
Starship, if you are a real mechanical engineer, then how come all you can do is spew rhetoric instead of provide any sort of argument based on fact or analysis?
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:33 PM
Eyes Wide Open, your hypocrisy reeks!
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:34 PM
Let the record show that when Alan, the AB man, accuses someone of using a straw man’s argument, wot he means is that the argument does not agree with his ideology, which I think is that Canada needs to freeze more, so we can cool down China???
CO2, 385 parts per million, contributes to about one percent of temperature change due to GHG's. The sun contributes to about 100% of the earth's warmth, and when it burns out, apparently in a couple of billion years, it's going to become very, very, cold! Ten thousand years ago, Canada was covered in ice, and Alan wuz happy. Then some bad guys made some SUV's, and Canada has been warming for ten thousand years. If you don't believe me, about the SUV's, just ask Alan, or, better still, go to his website, www.suvsproduced10,000yearsago.com.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:36 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Starship, if you are a real mechanical engineer, then how come all you can do is spew rhetoric instead of provide any sort of argument based on fact or analysis?"
_________
I'm supposed to provide an argument for deferring to the qualified experts in the field, for whom CO2 greenhouse gas theory is an accepted peer-reviewed theory? That is in fact the default position that any engineer should take. The idea that one would actually try to substantiate a real scientific theory in a 2000 character post is absolutely laughable. The fact that you actually think one would even attempt to do so suggests to me that you have no idea what a real scientific theory looks like. Hell, even ordinary undergrad lab reports are 20 pages long.
The fact is that you tried to refute GHG theory by pointing out regional temperature fluctuations: a phenomenon that says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of that theory. If you think it does, then explain how. You're the one claiming that a peer-reviewed theory is false without even being qualified in the field; the burden of proof is on you.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:37 PM
Eyes Wide Open, current and legitimate science shows a likely minimum 2 to 4 Celsius degree rise for a doubling of Co2.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:39 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Do some reading would ya!"
____________
Of your sources which you fail to reference properly?
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:40 PM
As I have posted on this thread before but obviously needs repetition, the following is from the Institute of Physics, Spencer Weart's online history:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:41 PM
CarlW wrote: "Ten thousand years ago, Canada was covered in ice, and Alan wuz happy. Then some bad guys made some SUV's, and Canada has been warming for ten thousand years."
__________
You do know that the people who formulate these theories are perfectly aware that the Earth went through these very warm and very cold periods in its past, right? And that this is actually accounted for in their theories?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that they never thought of this?
Sask Resident Oct. 16, 2:41 PM
Starship Mechanic: You know, or should know, the green house effect that keeps the world about 40 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be is theorized as mainly due to water, water vapour and the hydrologic cycle. Water absorbs incoming and reflected energy and reflects or emits that energy. Unlike other gases due to the temperatures needed to change states, water emits or absorbs energy through precipitation and evaporation and moves energy around the world as vapour or droplets (clouds).
So it water vapour provides 90% to 96% of the green house and heat storage effects to raise temperatures 40 degrees, why would you believe doubling a gas that forms 2% or the atmosphere would provide from 10% (4 degrees) to 20% (8 degrees) of additional warming?
Lots of Environment Canada people that work in the climate and natural resource field disagree with the IPCC Summary Report but the anthropogenic climat change is so ingrained into the department, they will lose any grants that they are eligible for if they question the religion. Almost every Environment Canada report requires the term 'effects under climate change' in its title to get funding.
Wit'sEndNJ Oct. 16, 2:43 PM
Uh, acetaldehyde from burning ethanol mixes with UV radiation to create peroxyacetyl nitrates; other volatile organic compounds from burning gasoline turn into ozone. These are greenhouse gasses, labeling them as different, as pollution, is a distinction without a difference, particularly since tying vegetation will turn from a carbon sink to a carbon emitter, thus contributing to global warming. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. There's also methane, come to think of it! And just because water gives life doesn't mean too much of it won't drown you. So just as CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis doesn't mean too much isn't just, well, too much.
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:43 PM
Geez Alan, would that been the same website you had me check out a year ago, before I clued in, that they all went to nowhere? How come your website doesn't mention that ten times as many folks die from cold as from heat? We're all gonna die from Malaria? Circa 1850, Trent Canal construction, 2000 fatalities, 400 due to Malaria, military records, they don't come any better. Did we have global warming back then? I mean I know we had climate change, coz we've had it consistently, for 4.6 billion years now. Don’t tell me, you didn’t know, had no idea!
g.d. Oct. 16, 2:43 PM
Starship mech:Looks like I hit a nerve here,not pretending to be someone I'm not,just a ordinary guy with a interest in the topic,allthough I'm pretty sure if my comment supported your opinion that would be ok, but I still wouldn't be any more qualified by your standards.Commenters such as myself may not hold any degrees in science but we can still read,observe whats happening around us apply a little common sense.There are people with dissenting opinions(that I've read)and are qualified to hold them,that seem to make credible arguements(and please don't play the "they all work for the oil & coal industry" card).Alan youv'e got me curious about the route, will look into it farther,gotta run,stuff to do outside and I need my coat cause baby it's cold (for this time of year)outside......
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:44 PM
Clearly the heavyweight "usual suspects" have arrived with their typical unsubstantiated rhetoric. You won't find citations to reputable scientific journals coming from these guys; from them it's all politically motivated mythology.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 2:49 PM
"The fact is that you tried to refute GHG theory by pointing out regional temperature fluctuations: a phenomenon that says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of that theory."
=================================
Sheesh Starship! Are you obtuse or just plain dishonest (I'm thinking both!)?
The "2000 character post" I did was challenging the statements in the post below. It had nothing to do with basic GHG theory!
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 16, 9:26 AM
Shrinking polar caps are changing the albedo of the planet, reflecting less heat back into space, and absorbing it instead into polar seas. This is an algorithmic process that, as it continues, accelerates in a self perpetuating fashion.
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:49 PM
Starship, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed many times, usually takes decades. The folks pushing the agw "program" do not get the scientific method, which is a polite way of saying that using science to re-distribute wealth contravenes the scientific process. So, to yer question, they thought of it, and discarded it, coz it didn't support the ideology.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:53 PM
Sask Resident wrote: "Starship Mechanic: You know, or should know, the green house effect that keeps the world about 40 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be is theorized as mainly due to water, water vapour and the hydrologic cycle."
______________
Yes, water vapour is another well-known greenhouse gas. However, I've never heard this figure of all OTHER greenhouse gases having less than 4% total contribution to the effect before. Care to list your source?
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:54 PM
g.d. wrote: "I'm not,just a ordinary guy with a interest in the topic,allthough I'm pretty sure if my comment supported your opinion that would be ok,"
___________
You don't need expertise in order to defer to the experts. You do, however, need quite a bit in order to say they're all wrong and that you figured out something which escaped their notice.
CarlW Oct. 16, 2:55 PM
From the AB man Clearly the heavyweight "usual suspects" have arrived with their typical unsubstantiated rhetoric. You won't find citations to reputable scientific journals coming from these guys; from them it's all politically motivated mythology.
That's it! I've had it! Another ad hominem attack. This is gonna drive me away from this site, I'll quit commenting!
Alan, dinna worry yer pretty little head, the vacant one, coz I'm just joshing ya. I won't pick up my toys and go home, coz I'm still wistful for your 400th post on Margaret's article, can't wait!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 2:56 PM
CarlW, with his usual flair for misrepresentation asked "How come your website doesn't mention that ten times as many folks die from cold as from heat?".
Because it's false, as has been shown to you before in other threads.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:56 PM
CarlW wrote: "Starship, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed many times, usually takes decades. The folks pushing the agw "program" do not get the scientific method, which is a polite way of saying that using science to re-distribute wealth contravenes the scientific process. So, to yer question, they thought of it, and discarded it, coz it didn't support the ideology."
____________
The GHG theory has been developed for decades. The mainstream media just didn't get wind of it until recently, and people like you don't know the difference. Nor do you even get the difference between mainstream media descriptions of the theory and the actual theory. The fact that you think the theory has something to do with mitigation strategies proposed by governments is simply more proof positive that you have no idea what it actually is.
Starship Mechanic Oct. 16, 2:59 PM
Eyes Wide Open wrote: "Sheesh Starship! Are you obtuse or just plain dishonest (I'm thinking both!)?
The "2000 character post" I did was challenging the statements in the post below. It had nothing to do with basic GHG theory!"
____________
You have hardly restricted yourself to saying that one particular post from one particular user was wrong. You have been attacking GHG theory itself, not to mention making some gloriously false statements about PEO newsletters. If you HAD actually restricted yourself to attacking one particular post here, we wouldn't have a problem.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 3:06 PM
Moderator's Note: Eyes Wide Open's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
CarlW Oct. 16, 3:07 PM
Because it's false, as has been shown to you before in other threads.
Alan, would that be one of them thar threads to nowhere threads?
CarlW Oct. 16, 3:18 PM
"The GHG theory has been developed for decades. The mainstream media just didn't get wind of it until recently, and people like you don't know the difference."
Per yer comments above starship, mainstream media would be the antithesis of the scientific method. Per the fact that CO2 is a very minor player in the GHG temperature modulating scheme, apparently this is just too complex a chemistry for you to understand? The scientific method would postulate that if CO2 concentrations rise, that temperatures would rise, and vice versa. Unfortunately for your ideology, this relationship does not confirm, so it does not even make the grade as a reasonable hypothesis, which makes it a million light years from a theory!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 3:39 PM
Carlw, what is it, what previously unidentified factor, that over the past 100 years since 1910 has resulted in a global average temperature rise of almost 1 whole Celsius degree? It can't be insolation, heat from the core (geothermal), volcanic, aerosol absorption, change in albedo, or several other factors already included in climate models. The one remaining factor, additional greenhouse gasses, including CO2, CH4 and nitrates do have a warming effect. Of they aren't what caused the rise or if their contribution was very small, what was that mysterious additional factor?
So far all of the scientific literature indicates that it's only by taking the GHG gas into account that the temperature rise can be explained.
What is your supposed "factor X" and how does it mask the greenhouse effect and then add its own?
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 3:44 PM
CarlW, what are you aware of to refute the studies of Swanson, Tsonis et al. which show that there is a monotonically increasing and accelerating temperature increase after accounting for the detected decadal natural variability? An increase that correlates very well with increases in atmospheric GHGs. So far I haven't seen any scientific literature refuting their studies. Where did they go so wrong for you to be so certain that CO2 and other GHGs could not possibly explain that rise, occasionally masked by natural variability?
CarlW Oct. 16, 3:53 PM
“Carlw, what is it, what previously unidentified factor, that over the past 100 years since 1910 has resulted in a global average temperature rise of almost 1 whole Celsius degree? It can't be insolation, heat from the core (geothermal), volcanic, aerosol absorption, change in albedo, or several other factors already included in climate models. The one remaining factor, additional greenhouse gasses, including CO2, CH4 and nitrates do have a warming effect. Of they aren't what caused the rise or if their contribution was very small, what was that mysterious additional factor?”
Alan, you jest. This is your scientific method???? We have warmed for 10,000 years in this country, when were covered in ice a mile thick! And yet we were once tropical, hundred million years ago, had dinosaurs. Solar activity drives the earth’s temperature, sea currents (perhaps influenced by the earth’s magnetic core), volcanic ash. But the biggest change in your time frame, 100 years, the rise of the asphalt jungles, the big burbs, where almost all the temperature measurements are taken. Called big city warming!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 3:56 PM
Burke: "It can't be insolation, heat from the core (geothermal), volcanic, aerosol absorption, change in albedo, or several other factors already included in climate models."
=======================================
Funny, Svensmark demonstrated through REAL WORLD measurement of cloud cover changes that solar driven changes to the planets albedo can account for the majority of the warming. Alan you are just spouting unverified nonsense again!
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 3:58 PM
CarlW, I'm a bit confused - are you saying that it's an albedo effect from dark asphalt? Solar variability is insufficient to account for the change by itself. Or are you referring perhaps to the urban heat island effect? Have you seen that quantified somewhere? Please point me to it if so.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 4:00 PM
I didn't see your 3:56 posting before asking. So you are saying it's albedo. And Svensmark pegged it, did he? Got a URL for his study, please?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 4:09 PM
Starship writes: "And how do you know what those predictions are, when you have never bothered reading the papers to understand the theory?"
For the performance of the 'state of the art' 2007 IPCC modelling predictions, bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb
Also bring up this one for comparison:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 temperature observations ran about 0.50 degrees over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows about 0.45 degrees over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.
The IPCC models just don't replicate the known observations prior to 1960 and after 2001, and are thus not reliable enough either to predict the future or to justify the conclusion that AGHGs dominate temperature change.
Figure 10.4, page 762 of the IPCC Fourth Report shows the projected temperatures for this year to be more than 0.1 degrees warmer than actual:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjytr
"Generating an accurate prediction from a theory is impossible if you are not well-versed in the theory..."
Apparently, from the differences between the predictions and the observations, it's extremely difficult to do so even if you ARE a highly credentialled climatologist. If your models cannot even predict the past, there is a problem somewhere, a problem that needs to be resolved before making extremists pronouncements of doom and gloom.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 4:10 PM
Eyes Wide Open, you are aware, I trust, of this paper which casts doubt on the Svensmark albedo idea:
Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment
using MODIS data
J. E. Kristjansson, et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7373–7387, 2008
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf
... Therefore, the negative correlation between GCR and COD does not necessarily violate a GCR-CCN mechanism, but it does argue against the climate coupling suggested by Marsh and Svensmark (2000), which assumes a positive correlation between GCR and the Earth’s albedo. For cloud amount (CA), the correlation with GCR is positive, but weak. ...
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 4:19 PM
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117980230/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 4:23 PM
Burke: "Eyes Wide Open, you are aware, I trust, of this paper which casts doubt on the Svensmark albedo idea"
====================================
Well Svensmarks own study shows otherwise and indicates the flaws in this other work:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf
CarlW Oct. 16, 4:39 PM
CarlW, I'm a bit confused - are you saying that it's an albedo effect from dark asphalt? Solar variability is insufficient to account for the change by itself. Or are you referring perhaps to the urban heat island effect? Have you seen that quantified somewhere? Please point me to it if so.
Amazing, Alan, confused and obtuse! Albedo effect. I think asphalt pretty much absorbs solar radiation. I was speaking to passing off urban warming, where most temperature measurements are made, as global warming. I call it the asphalt jungle effect. Quadrillions of words have been written on how one might accurately calculate an average world temperature. “More research is required.” :)
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 4:49 PM
Thanks, Eyes Wide Open for link which led to the recent Svensmark study, still in draft so I presume it hasn't yet been published following peer review. It does state "Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget.". It appears rather inconclusive, therefore, and I wonder how you can claim that it explains sufficiently the unusual rise in temperature in the past 100 years. I'm under the impression that Forbush events are rare, last only for a couple of hours at most and effect only polar winter latitudes.
On balance, then, the cosmic ray hypothesis seems rather weak if proposed as an alternative to the greenhouse effect from fossil fuel burning.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 4:52 PM
CarlW, surface temperature measurement and satellite measurement so that the urban heat island effect is extremely small. It's quite a stretch to imply that urban albedo effects are sufficient to replace the current GHG evidence.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 4:54 PM
My 4:52 got mangled a bit - the surface and satellite measurements match so well that they negate implications that the urban heat island effect has skewed temperature measurements.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 5:03 PM
Alan writes: "... paper which casts doubt on the Svensmark albedo idea:..."
I find it remarkable how fast the AGW supporters rush out papers so quickly that are aimed at attacking anyone's work that throws the least doubt on the alarmist extremism of the AGW paradigm. It's as if they care more about defending their own ideologies than they do about the scientific reality.
Svensmark identifies a fairly clear cloud response to cosmic rays, and immediately somebody using a different methodology tries hard not to find any connection at all.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 5:06 PM
Alan writes: "On balance, then, the cosmic ray hypothesis seems rather weak if proposed as an alternative to the greenhouse effect from fossil fuel burning."
Given how feeble the fossil fuel GHG hypothesis is proving to be, the GCR hypothesis looks to have at least as much likelihood of accurate quantification.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 5:24 PM
GlynnMhor, your presumption of malice says more about your character than the scientists doing the studies. In the face of dire consequences from climate change, objectivity is extremely important and the exploration of alternatives should be encouraged but for policy making, there is sufficient evident for anthropogenic climate change coming from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation that action is now being taken to mitigate and adapt. You're grasping at cosmic straws in your continued mythology against AGW.
CarlW Oct. 16, 5:24 PM
From AB - 'the surface and satellite measurements match so well that they negate implications that the urban heat island effect has skewed temperature measurements.'
Alan, Is implication a scientific term when it has negate in front of it? Did I mention that a quadrillion words have been written on this? Apparently you were able to find seven of them from IPCC that supported your......What is it you're trying to support this time? Coz if you're trying to tell me that we have a consensus on what constitutes an average world temperature, yer full of it. Scientists cannot even agree that it is doable, something about chaotic weather, let alone how one might calculate it. I can see it now, a trillion satellites, oops, make that a trillion minus two!
andersm Oct. 16, 5:31 PM
Never mind the science pro or con AGW, the Copenhagen IPCC conference requires some discussion. Here's an excerpt from a speech given yesterday in Minnesota by Lord Moncton:
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement."
For those who want to read this treaty, here's a link.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
For those who want to read more on Lord Moncton's speech, go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/#more-11739
The science argument is moot, the real issue has always been about world governance and wealth transfer. If it wasn't CO2 it would be some other pretext. CO2 was just handy because it's global in scope, it promises future and uncertain negative consequences and it's scaring the hell out of a lot of people. Fear makes people malleable.
This treaty is the real issue that needs attention.
CarlW Oct. 16, 5:44 PM
Alan, Per your "dire consequences of climate change" could you tell us all again about the dire consequences of climate change for Canada. "The world" has been adapting to climate change for 4.6 billion years, human beings for a couple of million, we're both still here. Oh, we're stoopider now, we forgot......how to adapt...to a gentler, warmer, kinder Canada with more food, more trees, have I mentioned lower heating bills? Who said (words to the effect) the intelligence in the world is finite, but the number of people in the world are not?
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 5:50 PM
Burke: "It appears rather inconclusive, therefore, and I wonder how you can claim that it explains sufficiently the unusual rise in temperature in the past 100 years. I'm under the impression that Forbush events are rare, last only for a couple of hours at most and effect only polar winter latitudes."
========================
Yeh well your "impressions" aren't worth much as apparently you haven't fully read the papers on the links provided or your feeble intellect prevents you from understanding what they are all about. As to the forebush duration - you miss the point. Svensmark uses this as a clear test of the ability of cosmic rays to influence cloud formation and atmospheric water droplet content on a short timeframe while specifically referencing the relationship would also extend to frequencies spanning a whole range of time durations.
Here's a "free" link to Svensmark's 2007 paper.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/svensmark_2007cosmoClimatology.pdf
As to the other paper, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, not that that proves anything given the Mann and Briffa frauds were published in supposed peer review journals despite the fact that background data was not made available to support the supposed peer review.
Svensmark et al. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (15): L15101 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL038429
CarlW Oct. 16, 5:55 PM
From andersm: "the Copenhagen IPCC conference requires some discussion"
Read last week that in Copenhagen it is to be proposed that Canada put up $10 billion a year, to be transferred. At first I thought that no one could be that stupid, but then I thought some more, and...
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 16, 5:57 PM
Burke: "My 4:52 got mangled a bit - the surface and satellite measurements match so well that they negate implications that the urban heat island effect has skewed temperature measurements."
================================================
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/13/pielke-sr-on-warm-bias-in-the-surface-temperature-trend/
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 16, 6:05 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, your presumption of malice..."
Malice? I did not imply that, just reflexive turf defense.
If the AGW hype subsides, after all, funding will dry up and the whole AGW industry will suffer. So turf defense becomes as important as truth, or maybe even more so.
GlynnMhor of Skywal Oct. 16, 6:11 PM
Alan writes: "... what previously unidentified factor, that over the past 100 years since 1910 has resulted in a global average temperature rise of almost 1 whole Celsius degree?"
What factor resulted in 0.5 degree warming to 1940 or so, in contrast to the 0.3 degrees proposed by the AGW climate models?
For the performance of the 'state of the art' 2007 IPCC modelling, bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb
Also bring up this one for comparison:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 temperature observations ran about 0.50 degrees over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows about 0.45 degrees over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.
andersm Oct. 16, 6:28 PM
CarlW: never underestimate the power of groupthink. There will a lot of pressure brought to bear on any dissenting country during the Copenhagen conference. If our Canadian representatives go with a strong sense that refusal to sign is supported by the Canadian people AND that the science of AGW is bogus, then we have a chance.
The real problem is that most Canadians aren't aware of what signing the treaty will really mean. $10 billion/year is just the opening bet. As time goes on, the demands for money will rise higher, both internationally and domestically. If Canada starts shipping that much money out of the country, think what that will do to tax rates. The so-called green jobs bonanza is only sugar on the bitter pill of climate change taxation.
And the already corrupt third world dictators will be showered in financial windfalls of which their impoverished people will see very little.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 7:12 PM
CarlW, the "dire consequences" for Canada are listed on my "Impact and Adaptation" page, especially in the documents from Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Ontario College of Family Physicians. Other documents look at worldwide consequences. They are too diverse and numerous to list hear. Go to that page and download the reports.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Adaptation.aspx
g.d. Oct. 16, 7:21 PM
Starship trooper..oops.. mech. When you make comments that imply that you need a degree in the subject at hand to express opinions here it doesn't do your case any good .It's like the unwashed should just sit back and not question the opinions of faceless/nameless individuals on the internet,and we all know that the anonymity granted here(internet) makes it easy for anybody to miss-represent themselves.Marge's piece refers to people like me (and we resent being told by anomymous individuals what to think) who are told one thing and witness something else.The sources I have read and make me doubt the claims about by man-made global warming actually actually have faces and names you can look up & there resumes make it look like they can back up there ideas/opinions. Maybe your just frustrated that the uneducated(by your standards) don't blindly swallow everything you have to say.......
CarlW Oct. 16, 7:28 PM
Alan Burke, Notwithstanding whatever is written on your url to nowhere, there are no "dire" consequences for Canada warming up. There are all kinds of benefits though! Lower human mortality, more food, more trees, have I mentioned lower heating bills and lower CO2 emissions from home heating, and if it really warms up, so we don't get the minus 78 degree temperatures in the Arctic while the Brits are swimming to the North Pole, there will still be 200 km2 of ice for every Polar Bear! Perhaps one of your problems, other than Ottawa sewage, is that you can't see the country for the ice, and I'm not talking dry ice, coz that would be CO2!
CarlW Oct. 16, 7:33 PM
AB Would "dire consequences" be part of "the apocalyptic language of environmentalists (which) doesn't go down well with the public", especially as it applies to Canada, coz the dire consequences are all beneficial?
g.d. Oct. 16, 8:06 PM
Alan,I looked up the return route of the St. Roch in 1944, you were right it took a different return route back to Vancouver, obviously shorter and farther north around Victoria Island, which begs the question was there even more open water farther north?
Btok Oct. 16, 8:07 PM
1. The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia — and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100. Gore’s claim is "a very disturbing misstatement of the science," John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore’s point "is not in line with the scientific consensus.
2. The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation."
3. The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that," Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a "climate myth" because it’s impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming.
4. The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is "an exact fit" between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn’t support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising.
See the other 5. points at: http://www.infowars.com/an-inconvenient-question/
Btok Oct. 16, 8:26 PM
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
There is no global warming. Period.
You can’t find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but…say “yes, global warming is with us.”
There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends – be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents – is wrong. There is no global warming.
Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling – very slightly – .037 degrees Celsius.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.
Because of modern science and improved equipment, this “cooling” trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that’s the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of “warming.”
Read entire article:http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
Btok Oct. 16, 8:32 PM
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position.
Complete Story:http://www.infowars.com/top-rocket-scientist-no-evidence-co2-causes-global-warming/
Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.
“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.
Btok Oct. 16, 8:38 PM
Robert L. Hale
Right Side News
October 5, 2009
It is exceptionally difficult to deny people what they want and enjoy unless force and threats are used to scare them into cooperation and compliance.
If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates.
The President’s chief advisor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, "It’s a shame to waste a good crisis" — certainly this is sound advice. People are willing to give up freedoms and self-determination in times of crisis. In the absence of a crisis, those who wish to force an ideology on a population must create one. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult in a free society to convince the population to do what otherwise makes little sense.
We have heard so much about the dangers of global warming over the last few years that the average person believes it threatens the survival of mankind.
It makes little difference that there is considerable disagreement over whether global warming even exists. If indeed global warming exists, it is even less certain whether it is a normal phenomena or caused by man, or whether it is good or bad thing.
Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly that certain disaster looms unless we stop global warming. The claims range from global flooding in a few short years to food and resource shortages that will mandate the imposition of worldwide Marshall Law. Al Gore recently said that if we do not act in the next several years, it will be too late.
Despite the rhetoric that bombards us, the possibility of positive impacts of a warmer world is simply not discussed. Instead we are told we must take immediate steps — even draconian ones — or life as mankind has known it will come to an irreversible end.
For Full article: http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-the-new-word-for-mandates-and-population-control/
Btok Oct. 16, 8:44 PM
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
Full Article:http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/
Btok Oct. 16, 8:50 PM
http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-founder-no-proof-of-global-warming/
ROCKY BARKER
Idaho Statesman
April 25, 2008
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power – a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that “true believers” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.
“It’s like buying fire insurance,” Moore said. “We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident.”
The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 9:12 PM
I'm in the wrong business. I should be selling tinfoil hats here; I'd make a fortune.
As for CarlW, who refuses to read reputable sources and says "Alan Burke, Notwithstanding whatever is written on your url to nowhere, there are no "dire" consequences for Canada warming up.", all I'll say for now is
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
ThePope Oct. 16, 10:48 PM
Over 500 comments & Alan's still at it.
Alan, you want evidence to prove man-made global warming isn't happening, evidence to show all the dire predictions coming from the IPCC & WCC3 are false.
Well Alan, nobody can provide that evidence for the same reason nobody can provide evidence to prove all the fabulous predictions of doom & gloom that supposedly awaits us these groups are reporting.
All the info you provide on your website, all the info coming from the IPCC & WCC3, all that info when used to make models & simulations returns false predictions & projections.
Alan, we do not need to provide any evidence because it's a well established fact those models & simulations are incorrect, they are not created will all the information required to make such assumptions, predictions nor projections of future events.
It's extremely doubtful science will ever acquire such an ability. Not in our lifetimes nor that of our childrens childrens lifetime will science ever achieve such a feat.
As for "there are none so blind as those who will not see", you might try relating that little insightful phrase towards yourself. You do not see the truth, a truth most everyone else here already understands & see's.
Alan your behavior is what I would described as "fanaticism"!
Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim". According to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", source Wikipedia.
Alan Burke Oct. 16, 11:49 PM
ThePope, this is an "Opinion" piece of course and it's my opinion that you are wrong. I'll repeat what I said right at the start:
One of the biggest problems concerning public opinion about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, of which global warming is one part, is that the mainstream media like the Globe and Mail do a very poor job of science reporting and the commentary sections encourage contrarians and denialists to push a campaign of disinformation, hiding behind pseudonymity to cloak vested interests. The medium is also unable to convey graphics, which do a much better job than words in communicating scientific reality. Scientists in general are also overly cautious in their dealings with the public.
It's because of those failings that I built a totally non-commercial self-funded website to make the vast amount of scientific knowledge more accessible to G&M readers. I have no vested interest but do feel that it is extremely important to get the message across - there is urgency to come up with solutions and the means to do so are at our disposal without introducing punitive economic measures. Those who do have a vested interest, however, have adopted the tactic of the tobacco ondustry, launching a serious disinformation campaign, often using the same techniques and PR agencies to flog their mythology.
Form your own opinions as is your right but please do so from the basis of verifiable, objective, independent and consilient scientific studies reported in reputable refereed scientific journals. You'll find scores of links to such on my website:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com
especially on the pages "News", "Science" (with many subtopics), "Introduction" (Climate 101) and "Impact and Adaptation".
FFentirb Oct. 17, 12:02 PM
Achim Steiner (UN Under_Secretary General and Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme) writes in his preface to "Climate Change Science Compendium (September 2009), "If governments are to make informed and transformative choices concerning climate change, they require the best and most up to date science".
Informed choice is unlikely to happen if the Canadian government does not support science, the media do not read it and report it, and the public for the most part is scientifically illiterate. This explains why Tom Flannery's message falls on deaf ears.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 12:50 PM
Alan writes: "CarlW, the "dire consequences" for Canada are listed on my [webpage]..."
All very interesting as an intellectual exercise, but irrelevant if the globe does not return to its former warming. You should also include the consequences of global cooling somewhere on your site, which would be of more value for future planning.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 12:54 PM
Alan writes: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
As you yourself persistently refuse to see the ongoing cooling, cliaming repeatedly that it's actually warming in disguise.
After all, if the globe were cooling, that would be contrary to the prevailing paradigm; despite the observations the theory still requires warming, so there must, ipso facto, be warming.
Unless the theory has defects, of course, but that would amount to an admission of some sort.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 12:58 PM
Alan writes: "I built a totally non-commercial self-funded website... [I] feel that it is extremely important to get the message across..."
This is a confession that your site is all about propagandizing a particular political position.
I haven't visited it for a while, but it has heretofore been a one sided and blinkered presentation of anything that might support the idea that the globe is warming dangerously and that humans are to blame.
This would be in stark contrast to an objective and unbiased approach that would be far more useful in elucidating the problems and issues that face the science as it now stands.
CarlW Oct. 17, 1:57 PM
Alan, buddy, I’M BACK! From AB, his 413th post on this article, a new world record, Margaret says ta Alan!
"I'm in the wrong business. I should be selling tinfoil hats here; I'd make a fortune. As for CarlW, who refuses to read reputable sources and says no "dire" consequences for Canada warming up.", all I'll say for now is There are none so blind as those who will not see."
You are definitely in the wrong bidness Alan, the propaganda bidness, sucks big time! FYI, tinfoil has not been manufactured for 60 years, which may say something about you’re being behind the curve, but perhaps we already knew that. Per usual, not responsive, not one single “dire consequence” listed, so allow my assistance. A dire consequence of Canada warming up, a warmer, kinder, gentler Canada, is folks would be really happy with the results, but really peed off about all the doomsters, nutters, agw ideologists wot have already wasted $10 billion of our tax dollars, and they kick yer sorry butts away from the trough. Is that dire, that you get a real job?
I read tonnes, some reputable, some not, but all of your urls, the ones to nowhere, which I used to read before I smartened up, contain sanitized crap, modeled bunk. I live in the real world, the one with sewage and garbage and NOx and SOx and particulate issues, as opposed to your world, the one with modeled IPCC data which says we’re all gonna die if you don’t fly me to Rio for a “hot air” meeting so we can plan our next Bali meeting, and every year CO2 emissions increase. I’ve suggested before that you get your head out of your butt, try some travel, and based on your comments on China, and all their CO2 reduction endeavors (????), start there. Don’t drink the water, be careful breathing the air, and walking on all the garbage in the rivers! When you get back we might have something to discuss. Alan, it is true, that not all of us are so blind that we’ll buy the goop that you’re peddling.
CarlW Oct. 17, 2:06 PM
Achim Steiner (UN Under_Secretary General and Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme) writes in his preface to "Climate Change Science Compendium (September 2009), "If governments are to make informed and transformative choices concerning climate change, they require the best and most up to date science".
LOL FFentirb,
That’s a good one, from the UN, the hawkey stick oops we lost the data no science lads. May I suggest you cut back on the kool-aid!
Wit'sEndNJ Oct. 17, 2:41 PM
There are so many blithering idiots on this thread, it is astounding the colossal stupidity on display. I had thought that with the sociopath Sarah Palin, Americans had cornered the market on moron, but I guess not!
First of all, if a neurosurgeon told you that you needed a brain tumor removed in the next week or you would die, would you believe you know better? I should hope not.
So when a climatologist, and an atmospheric physicist, and a chemist, and a paleoclimatologist, and an environmental biologist, and all of their colleagues along with every national and reputable private scientific institution in the world tell you that the climate is dangerously warming thanks to burning greenhouse gas emissions...why do you not accept their expertise and instead seek out the few quacks being paid by the fossil fuel industries to rebut the irrefutable facts?
And I'm not talking about models. I'm talking about what is already happening, which would be droughts, extreme violent weather, and melting ice at the poles and glaciers.
Not to mention the rapid ecosystem collapse and species extinction all over the globe. The boreal forest in Canada, for instance, is likely to be wiped out.
How anyone can perceive such catastrophic disasters as a good thing is a mystery to me.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 3:50 PM
WitsEnd writes: "So when a climatologist, and an atmospheric physicist... tell you that the climate is dangerously warming thanks to burning greenhouse gas emissions... why do you not accept their expertise...?"
That's because the actual obervations show that the climate is not warming at all, despite the notorious increases in greenhouse gases. It would be like some doctor telling me I have been asphyxiating to death when I can feel myself breathing normally.
Here are the 'irrefutable facts' with respect to global average temperatures, and they're not from some fossil fuel quack website, but the Hadley Centre whose dataset is used by the IPCC to reference the observational record:
pretty graph of annual temperature averages updated monthly:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
text chart of monthly and annual averages:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Wit'sEndNJ Oct. 17, 5:09 PM
Sweetheart, maybe a movie will be easier for you to understand?
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610#p/u/3/QwnrpwctIh4
CarlW Oct. 17, 5:56 PM
Wit'send from New Jersey is the maroon that wrote in yesterday to describe how greenhouse gases are killing all the trees outside his kitchen window. He's recently escaped from a home, so we need to humor him, not remind him that the northern half of Canada ain't not tropical paradise, that even the Brits "swimming", or so they thought until it hit minus 78 degrees outside their tent and they had to be rescued, to the north pole to see sanity clause, described it as a "wasteland"! It's too cold to grow a tree in the north half of the country!!!!! A warmer Canada, more trees, more food, I can't wait.
So wit'send, stay calm, no more kool-aid.
Wit'sEndNJ Oct. 17, 6:30 PM
oh lordy, you are too precious, CarlW! First off, you obviously haven't even bothered to check my blog, or my profile, cause last time I checked, I'm female.
And for the record, I do love marroons, as long as they are largely composed of coconuts.
Sip...sip...sip...
oh, and let me know when you manage to get your apostrophe's in order!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 7:35 PM
WitsEnd, movies don't cut it when compared to actual data. Look at the data, and compare it with the models instead of trying to listen to 'talking heads' on youtube.
For the performance of the 'state of the art' 2007 IPCC modelling, bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb
Also bring up this one for comparison:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 temperature observations ran about 0.50 degrees over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows about 0.45 degrees over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.
The IPCC models just don't replicate the known observations prior to 1960 and after 2001, and are thus not reliable enough either to predict the future or to justify the conclusion that AGHGs dominate temperature change.
Figure 10.4, page 762 of the IPCC Fourth Report shows the projected temperatures for this year to be more than 0.1 degrees warmer than actual:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjytr
CarlW Oct. 17, 8:24 PM
Moderator's Note: CarlW's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
volmer soerensen Oct. 18, 9:57 AM
GHG emissions are irrelevant.
The problem is too many people.
Over population is the problem.
To deny this is insanity.
redrider Oct. 18, 10:14 AM
This environmental alarmist movement has discredited themselves too often. I don't buy any of it.
aen Oct. 18, 1:41 PM
clever snark like this can get you a long way in career terms — just look at the number of comments she has garnered, a real-life Globe heroine - the trick is knowing when to stop
it’s one thing to do this on a relatively inconsequential media or cultural issue, but if you’re going to get into issues that are both important and are the subject of serious study, like the fate of the planet, you’d better be very careful not to stray over the line between being snarky and being just plain, unforgivably, wrong.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:25 PM
While I wouldn't refer to a 'conspiracy', there is a host of ulterior motives different people have for supporting the AGW paradigm.
1- For researchers, once a paradigm becomes popular and dominant, it is career limiting to oppose it.
2- If the climate is presented as something about which governments can make policies, then government money will flow for research. If climate is something that we cannot affect, funding is not going to be as forthcoming.
3- Plus of course it gives researchers a good feeling to imagine that they're working to save the world instead of, say, developing a new scent for feminine hygiene products.
4- Environmentalists see carbon emission control as a means to reduce real pollutants like NOx, SO2, Hg, etc. as a side effect.
5- Luddites see carbon strangulation as a way of dismantling the industrial economies to force everyone to a much reduced subsistence.
6- 'Personal isolationists' try to use AGW as a way to eliminate big utility companies, with power generated at home from wind, solar, or even car batteries, and even sold to the local grid at retail (or higher) rates.
7- EU trade isolationists see carbon regulation as a way of increasing the energy cost, and thus decreasing the competitiveness, of North American economies _vis a vis_ EU ones.
8- Opportunities to use carbon emissions as pretexts to block or heavily tariff imports abound, thus degrading international trade even further.
9- Local trade isolationists like the idea of overseas products becoming more expensive, and if they can't do that by punitive tariffs and quotas, they hope to do so by artificially driving up shipping costs.
(continued)
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:25 PM
10- Socialists of various stripes see Kyoto-type agreements as a way of transferring wealth from developed economies to lesser ones, as our one-time Liberal cabinet minister Stewart once claimed.
11- Some socialists also envision carbon strangulation as a pretext for involving governments deeply into the economy, via direct and indirect subsidies for energy alternatives that can claim to be 'green'. Naturally, those who are involved and invested in such industries have their own greed factor.
12- Socialists also love the idea of sending governments even more of our money under any pretext, and use carbon taxes as a way to transfer even more money to people in lower income levels.
13- Some politicians see taking 'the west' off oil as a means of removing the dependence the US in particular has on politically uncertain sources, like the ME, Venezuela, etc.
14- Other politicans see 'cap & trade' or other quota management as a way to direct corruption to their buddies and relatives.
15- Nuclear energy proponents see carbon strangulation as a way to promote nuclear power, emissions from which are trivial.
16- Some people imagine that energy cost reductions will magically pay for, and even squeeze profit from, expensive carbon control technologies whose payback times are actually measured (when they aren't just dead costs) in decades.
17. Opportunistic "businessmen" see the panic of the masses as an opportunity to solicit donations to so-called "non-profit" organizations and operate carbon credit exchanges, both of which they control, in order to enrich themselves financially.
18: In the political arena it is generally held far more important to be consistent than it is to be right. Lies and errors about warming are thus propagated further, instead of being squelched, in order to bolster the political optics.
westslope Oct. 18, 6:38 PM
Looks like the alarmist rhetoric and misdirection are backfiring.
Sigh.
Doesn't mean that the underlying problem doesn't exist.
ThePope Oct. 18, 7:21 PM
Wit'sEndNJ -
Your neurosurgeon example is pathetic, relating that to what scientists, climatologist, biologists & others claim CO2 is causing is a stretch beyond compare.
A tumor is visible, it is factual, you can see it in an xray. If the tumor is growing in size as evidenced by xray's over a period of time, death is pretty obvious if the growth were to continue. All these scientists are doing is creating links to things that have no linkage.
You want to know why the planet is warming, God bought some land in Nunavut & wants to open a resort when he retires. So God's warming the planet up to capitalize on his investment, God even suggested I pick up a few acres while the lands still cheap.
That answer is plausible, believable & as factual as anything our so called experts are suggesting!
Next scientists will be claiming our galaxy is in peril, all the radio waves & microwaves we are emitting is upsetting the galaxies delicate balance & a giant black hole will form & suck us in if we don't create a new tax on cellphones, microwave ovens & satellite TV!
You doom & gloom people need to get out more, take a good long vacation. Take Alan with you, he really needs one more than anyone else!
While your on that vacation, take some time to actually think about things, think about everything you possibly can. Then for everything your thinking about, question those things. Be it Kyoto or income taxes, from why are we here to is there a purpose to life.
Alan stated "there are none so blind as those who will not see"!
Until your willing to ask all the questions of yourself, you will always be blind & unable to see the truth!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 7:34 PM
One could even liken it to not a brain tumour, but a prostate tumour. If the thing is slow-growing the damage due to the surgery outweighs the risk from the tumour.
And since, to extend the analogy somewhat, we aren't even sure there even IS a tumour (as opposed to some other factor increasing PSA titre) the radical surgeries proposed are unjustifiable.
CarlW Oct. 18, 7:36 PM
I'm trying to remember what I wrote, thinking it was fairly tame for what's been said on this board. Does one get ones comment removed for suggesting that someone stating that GHG's are killing trees in NJ and Canada's Boreal forest needs to take a grade nine science and a geography course? Moderator????
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 7:52 PM
CarlW: This is what the G&M quotes as its criteria for removal. Maybe you called a G&M correspondent an idiot, or something:
Editor's Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. HTML is not allowed. The following types of comments are not permited: comments that include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other participants in these forums; comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. For further clarification please refer to our Terms and Conditions.
CarlW Oct. 19, 12:59 AM
GlynnMhor of Skywall,
As I recall, it was a much tamer personal attack than many that are stll listed, so.....confusion reigns!
Non Partisan Oct. 19, 10:12 AM
Gloabl warming my a*s; this spring and summer was RECORD setting cold.
Perhaps places are uncharacteristically warm while others are uncharacteristically cold. The truth which science has taught me, however, is that this has CONTINUALLY happened since the dawn of time, and is one of the reasons continents have formed and split from one another!!
PLease Scientists worldwide, do not ever...even for a moment....think that you are God.
;)
Later.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 3:24 PM
Scientists don't think of themselves as gods; they only claim to know what the gods are thinking.
thorny rose Oct. 19, 9:59 PM
I'm not a scientist, and I can't prove that these ice caps are melting because of this, but I still think its prudent to adopt more responsible consumption habits to conserve resources, which are certainly finite in their availability for a constantly growing global population, and the of which the exploitation causes significant degradation. But of course Ms. Wente will be there with all her skepticism and no solutions as usual when its already too late. Which I suspect it might be.
snowgoose Oct. 23, 8:34 AM
How about we continue to happily pollute with an iron clad committment to feed the millions who will be living on non-arable land in the near future? Better still, we could commit to allowing our green house gas percentage to be translated into immigration increases. Also,our troops will be needed to quiet the instability in marginal agricultural areas. The bottom line is that we are going to pay for our selfishness and greed somehow. Harper will be long gone when we are struggling with our irresponsible support of his inaction. We own it.
aen Oct. 24, 11:11 AM
"The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized." Barack Obama.
Cliffe Oct. 24, 4:41 PM
Hey, Margie, no problem, right?
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE59L05Z20091022
