Dr. Winston O'Boogie Oct. 17, 5:38 AM
The constant assault on Ignatieff and the Liberals by this 'newspaper' is disturbing. Especially so, since Ignatieff & the Liberals are currently not the gov't IE not the ones who are making the bad policies, not the ones whom have undone years of sound economic stewardship, and not the ones that have created an ever-increasing structural deficit. I wonder when this paper will (again) start doing some real reporting and start acting with journalistic integrity and start investigating and reporting on the gov't of today - not the gov't of tomorrow?
soulscanner Oct. 17, 5:41 AM
"– purest idealism built on a mud field of impenetrable prose –"
Wow. Talk about calling the kettle black.
greeneggsnoham Oct. 17, 5:57 AM
Rex - I enjoy your articles and commentary. You always provide a different perspective on things, and overall I agree that the Climate Change activists are not as sure of things as they make out.
However, you embarrass yourself by continuing to refer to Ian Plimer and his book. His book has been debunked page by page, showing his shoddy research, his selective and sometimes inventive quotes, and his omission of data.
pentax Oct. 17, 6:12 AM
Good article Rex,I enjoyed reading it.
Gardiner Westbound Oct. 17, 6:22 AM
Nature's stubborn refusal to comply with their self-serving doomsaying and apocalyptic rants is the reason grantrepreneurs, academics, consultants, enviro-hustlers, second-rate scientists and fearmongers don't call it “global warming” any more. It's been rechristened “climate change” so no matter what happens their meal ticket is safe.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 6:57 AM
This piece by Rex Murphy seriously misrepresents the scientific reality about climate change and I'll address some of that later but in the meantime please form your opinions from a solid base of science rather than disinforming denialist mythology.
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".
soulscanner Oct. 17, 6:59 AM
“For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. ... So what on Earth is going on?”
This question been brought up and explained by climate scientists in both scientific and popular forums. Yet Rex refuses to present the real scientific answer to the of what's going on, preferring political rhetoric.
Climate scientists address questions like these in a direct way here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
An honest examination of the graph shows that 1998 represents the year of very strong El Nino. El Nino's represent a one or two year warming of the entire equatorial Pacific Ocean. This is such a huge area that it brings up the average temperature of the entire planet, overwhelming all other changes (including the effects of carbon dioxide). By carefully choosing this year to start this analysis, you can manipulate the data to make it look like a long term cooling trend since then. They cannot be predicted by climate models, so we shouldn't expect that these spikes and dips be predicted.
This is exaggerated by the fact that 2008 was characterized by a La Nina, an exceptional temporary cooling of the equatorial pacific.
This selective choice of dates is deliberately misleading. There are many ways of doing a more complete, honest analysis.
One way is to compare last years La Nina's to previous ones. If you look at the previous La Nina's of 1992 and 1999, you see a distinct warming trend
Another more honest analysis would involve taking a 5 or ten year average that smooths out the effects of ENSO (El Nino/La Nina fuluctuations). That leaves a consistent upward trend.
Come on Rex. Your intelligent to understand this. Do a little old fashined research before spouting off. Be a responsible journalist and report real science, not just other pundits. It might not get you a Senate appointment, but it will make you a better journalist.
MPowers Oct. 17, 7:00 AM
One of the reasone why this newspaper, and others, are focusing in on Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, is because they are making the news.
Michael Ignatieff standing in the wrong field complaining that the project slated for that field and scheduled to start next year, has not been started yet.
Bob Rae and buddies continually stabing their leader in the back by leaking embarassing goofs and decisions Ignatieff makes.
Ignatieff, announces that he is going to force an election that no-one wants.
And on, and on and on.
It makes good reading and often gives us a morning laugh.
soulscanner Oct. 17, 7:04 AM
'Good article Rex,I enjoyed reading it.
I did too.
Rex could make a denial that smoking causes cancer a good read.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:06 AM
One of the favourite "memes" of denialist mythology is that the world is now cooling. There has been a slowdown in the past decade but that is now well understood and it gives no great comfort. In recent studies published in reputable scientific journals, it is clear that there is natural variability on a scale of decades which occasionally masks an underlying constantly increasing and accelerating warming caused primarily by fossil fuel burning and deforestation. I provide links to the science showing this on my page "The Cooling Myth":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
The anti-science fiction being pushed in a campaign of disinformation is both highly irresponsible and reprehensible in the face of potentially disastrous consequences of inaction.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:15 AM
Another piece of outrageous propaganda from the contrarians and denialists is that taking action to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change would be exorbitantly expensive. This is false, as I show citing studies from my "Economics" and "Politics" pages.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Politics.aspx
For example:
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.
Rusty Shackleford Oct. 17, 7:16 AM
Oh, give it up and find another hobby Burke.
Nobody's buying this junk.
Surely, if you cared about the world sooooo much, you'd do better investing all that time and energy in helping the world in more.....ahem.....tangible ways?
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:18 AM
Here's another economic study, closer to home:
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.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:21 AM
Rusty Shackleford, if you care to attack what I say rather than me in person, I'll start listening but making an ad hominem attack as you have done is just another sign of desperation by those who cannot criticize the reality.
Ursus Oct. 17, 7:23 AM
Thanks Rex, great articles. Please keep researching and writing about this issue.
Alan Burke, do you have to keep writing the same garbage and self-promotion every time someone writes an article about AGW? Move on buddy.
There is absolutely evidence of AGW, there never has been, and no amount of lying, bad science, data manipulation, poor ethics and lack of transparency by the IPCC is going to find any.
Ursus Oct. 17, 7:24 AM
Thanks Rex, great articles. Please keep researching and writing about this issue.
Alan Burke, do you have to keep writing the same garbage and self-promotion every time someone writes an article about AGW? Move on buddy.
There is absolutely evidence of AGW, there never has been, and no amount of lying, bad science, data manipulation, poor ethics and lack of transparency by the IPCC is going to find any.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:29 AM
Yet another weapon in the denialist arsenal is to question the "consensus" among scientists, resurrecting Galileo, of course.
There is no mere consensus among most scientists but rather a much stronger consilience, the convergence of independent studies from independent sources using diverse methods in wide-ranging fields of study, all pointing to highly similar conclusions. In this case, that human action has resulted in dangerous changes to our world which must be addressed if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Think "consilience" Rex, not merely "consensus".
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:33 AM
Ursusm launching another personal attack rather than substantiateing your position merely shows how weak your position really is.
For me this is not an exercise in self-promotion. I gain no benefit from what I do commenting here and working on the content of my website. I have no vested interest or conflict of interest.
My concern is to ensure that any debate is informed by reputable sources rather than knee-jerk politically motivated and unsubstantiated propaganda. The stakes are too high - the consequences of inaction would be devastating to millions.
Apocalypso Oct. 17, 7:33 AM
Rational thinking on this issue has been supplanted by policy-driven studies (as this is where the money is) that provide fodder for a new religion in which sincere people can save the world by recycling old newspapers. Both sides can point to innumerable studies backing their irreconcilable positions. And since when was the Suzuki Foundation independent and unbiased (or even taken seriously by anybody but the popular press)?
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 7:42 AM
Rex, your research and representation are seriously flawed. The reason that there was no disaster around the Y2K computer issue is that we detected and fixed the problems before they could be manifested. Similarly, your comment about "global cooling" predictions in the 1970s misrepresents the reality - it was the popular press pushing the idea - the majority of scientists studying climate even then considered warming a bigger threat.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 8:12 AM
My only criticism of this article is that the picture shows cows when sheep would be more appropriate. And of course we can always count on Alan Burke to step forward as the wannabe sheppard!
I love all this talk of "how this was all predicted" by the cadre of the world's top scientists! Well it most certainly wasn't! It's disingenious to claim this when all one has to do is go back in time and see how the forecasts made 20 or even 10 years ago have turned out! I don't see this analysis on Burke's web site. And Alan, don't bother with your dishonest tricks where you substitute a 30 year average for actual real-time temperature readings!
Billiam Smith Oct. 17, 8:14 AM
Rex - Thanks very much for writing this. I think you may be the only columnist in Canada (and possibly in the west) who consistently provides a counter-view to that proposed by the environment bureaucracies. Keep it up!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:16 AM
Eyes Wide Open, there is no dishonesty in what I di - I state it quite clearly; your accusation is offensive and false.
Among other analysis techniques, I do occasionally show 30-year running averages, also 5-year running averages, annual and monthly. The WMO defines climate as falling into 30-year timeframes and so this is a reasonable thing to do mathematically, especially with running averages, to see trends which might otherwise be obscured by the "noisey" variability of weather.
boulange Oct. 17, 8:21 AM
Another case of a media article quoting another media article and three experts as proof that we shouldn't do anything about climate change. No reference is made to the enormous body of scientific work delivering evidence the climate change is real and we're causing it. This is instead passed off as "herd thinking". At some point there is sufficient scientific and economic consensus that it becomes irresponsible to future generations not to act to prevent huge costs to them. We are now at that point. Let's act.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:34 AM
Rex's caption states "Following the global-warming herd doesn't show courage – quite the opposite, in fact"
The real cowardice comes in not facing up to the reality and in advocating maintaining business as usual. It goes hand in hand with intellectual laziness of the kind shown in the article, which is loaded with mythological tripe about climate change.
As has already been demonstrated by several correspondents here, I'm a favourite lightning rod for those who would deny the reality shown by legitimate science. It most certainly is not cowardice on my part to face the outrageous accusations which I receive every time I comment from people like "Eyes Wide Open", who almost always makes unsubstantiated and offensive remarks.
The real cowardly herd here are those who advocate doing nothing to address the impact of climate change. Among them are readers who take at face value the rantings of denialists like Rex without exercising the healthy skepticism which they demand of others. The truth is out there about the science and while many readers might not be comfortable searching for and reading scientific literature, I try to make it easy. Unfortunately, many in the status quo herd are to lazy to follow the links to reality or prefer to maintain their willful ignorance.
Regrettably too often I encounter readers who fall into the category "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them think". It appears that Rex Murphy is the stallion in one of those herds.
Davidovich Oct. 17, 8:34 AM
Ignatieff won't listen to you Rex - He'll just keep preaching to the choir, even though most Canadian's are sick and tired of hearing their stale, old tune.
You figure he would have learned from the Dion Debacle - but I guess not. And this guy is suppose to be some sort of highfalutin intellectual. What a joke.
Ian St. John Oct. 17, 8:39 AM
The great distortion here is thinking that AGW is about air temperature.
AGW is about "global average surface temperature" increasing. Air is only about 3% of the surface 'thermal mass' and so varies a LOT more than AGW warming overall. (science talks about these short trends as 'noise' for that reason)
Meteorology (weather stations) were convenient and long term data for early estimates since air temps will 'trend' the same as the surface if you take a long sample time, but isolating these 'short term' trends as the denialists do just 'analyze noise'.
The picture becomes clearer if you look at the MAIN thermal masses, oceans (ARGOs) and land (boreholes) which now have enough data to measure directly. These show that AGW has continued unchecked during this recent period of cooler weather.
Shame on Rex for continuiong the 'midsinformation' campaign. Even his role as 'commentator' doesn't excuse such poor fact checking.
Bob Beal Oct. 17, 8:41 AM
The Galileo affair has very little to do with the modern global warming debate, and Rex Murphy should know better than to raise it.
Galileo's main arguments regarding the solar system were with the Catholic church authorities,
not the scientists. Much of what Galileo did was on the cutting-edge of the science of his day. Many other scientists were skeptical, but they came around.
From Wikipedia's description (which seems accurate): “Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas, however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611 Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits. Not all of Galileo's claims were completely accepted: Christopher Clavius, the most distinguished astronomer of his age, never was reconciled to the idea of mountains on the Moon, and outside the Collegium many still disputed the reality of the observations. In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope”.
It is wrong for Murphy to substitute a "consensus multitude" (more properly, the consensus of hard-line Catholic theologians) for the scientific consensus of the day and to substitute arguments with the established church for the process of scientific advancement. Murphy needs a lesson in the use of historical context.
P. Frederick Oct. 17, 8:53 AM
Cooling oceans, dropping temperatures, a very, very quiet sun, increasing polar ice mass and a theory that a small changes in a naturally occurring microscopic atmospheric gas is warming the planet to a point where we will all die.
This entire episode is a giant UN based ponzi scheme to suck wealth out of nations that generate it and redistribute that money to third world nations that can't get themselves organized. Global socialism with our smart as a whip "Progressive Class" of folks determining what is right for us.
Buy long underwear and get really good snow tires. We are in for along round of a cooling planet and hellish Great White North winters.
Maybe the hot air coming from the Warmongers will offset the cooling. One can only hope their hot air is good for something.
You have a choice. You can believe the data or the theory, but since they diverge from each other, you can't believe both.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 9:00 AM
P. Frederick, your rant would be more believable if you'd substantiate your claims. They are demonstrably false; I guess that's why you will not do so.
Lungisimus Oct. 17, 9:04 AM
Rex doesn't understand as other neo-cons don't understand the whole issue of global warming. Or simply the whole God obeying crowd is in complete denial. Pointing to a single article on BBC is rather naive or maybe truly ignorant. Existence or non existence of Global Warming phenomena can't be judged measured by the fact that the warmest year was 1998 and not 2007-2008 as this childish article suggest. It doesn't prove that man made Global Warming doesn't exist. It is simply one small bit of data in the whole pot of clues and facts which undeniably point to a man caused warming of our planet.
Global warming aside it is for sure another opportunity to blast Liberals and Rex doesn't pass on that opportunity for sure. Just wondering why we don't see headlines in The Globe And Mail and CTV about 'cheque-gate" about calling Canadian Government on official website "Harper Government" about having web link to a piano playing PM on official Canadian Government web page (what that has to do with anything except personal ego of the PM?).
Congratulations Rex I was once an admirer but not anymore. Have a nice day.
Brian77 Oct. 17, 9:22 AM
I love Rex Murphy!
telling it like it is.
CatherineWilkie Oct. 17, 9:23 AM
Melting swiss glaciers are releasing highly toxic pollutants. Today.
Ignatieff is quite correct in his concern about the environment.
Rex Murphy is entitled to his own beliefs.
Our gov't is expected to show stewardship for future generations.
fanese Oct. 17, 9:31 AM
Canada has to do what is right, not what other nations do...If Izzy does the right thing then he is right...eh?
AlanW2 Oct. 17, 9:38 AM
Thank you for your thoughtful and courageous article. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Stan L Oct. 17, 9:38 AM
That you don’t like Michael Ignatieff is kind of a no brainer….but I would rather see a 500 word editorial with “I don’t like Mike” repeated over and over again than have to listen to the intellectual dishonesty of this garbage Rex…..but then again that you hold the knuckle dragger view of climate change is hardly a surprise either Rex.
But how brave is it to commit untold dollars into a climate change plan that is simply “I will do what Obama does”? Even if you believe such already debunked authors as Plimer, one thing you must admit is that IF we have to do something…surely being the masters of our own destiny is a better thing than simply acquiescing to whatever the US says…..and there you have the contrast.
All five party leaders have committed to doing something….unless you are telling us something about Stephen that we should know?
Nikola Tesla Oct. 17, 9:47 AM
Moving towards a greener economy and eliminating harmful elements in the air is not synonymous with an attitude in favor of 'global warming'. Mr. Murphy's attempt to marry the two idea's appears ill thought out at best.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a huge move towards greener technology in the spring & summer of 2008, not because of an embrace for 'global warming',it was because Oil was going through the roof and supply was tight, people where starting to look seriously at alternative forms of energy.
Also it just seems counter-intuitive for me as a living human being to degrade the thing that allows me to live.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 9:50 AM
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.
Br_At Oct. 17, 9:57 AM
The Liberals always have and always will latch on to the fad of the day in their quest to win power at any cost. Sadly, this approach has placed them in power for most of the 1900s. They take the easy route, the path of least resistance, and it has worked too many times in accomplishing their one and only goal - to be elected to power. It is a party completely devoid of any principle and without any ability to think beyond whatever will grab them the most votes in the next election. Canadians are slowly but surely recognizing this vacuous embarrassment of a party for what it is - a vacuous embarrassment. It is the most convenient vehicle for any power-hungry egomaniac to ride to the top (yes, this means you Mr. Ignatieff). It is the most convenient party for MPs to defect to when the going gets tough (yes, I'm talking to you Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison). It is my hope that this party will soon end up in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
mememine69 Oct. 17, 10:00 AM
Leave the fear mongering, moralizing and dogmatizing to the evil neocons. At least the deniers are not the ones telling my kids that they don't have a future because we have to SAVE THE FREAKING PLANET.
Stop this insanity and get back to real problems.
Rachel Carson is cursing us all.
"CO2 is life."-Rachel Carson
Earl the Pearl 2 Oct. 17, 10:01 AM
Iggy is trying to heal a fractured party and secure lifetime jobs at the UN for his Liberal buddies.
Carbon dioxide, a benign gas that we all breathe andforms less than 0.000360 of the atmosphere,is supposed to cause oceans to flood and human civilization to end. Ridiculous!
albert _w Oct. 17, 10:04 AM
Rex says,
"There are many warning that the great rush to fix the planet, and re-engineer its economy in the middle of a huge recession, on the basis of incomplete science and vastly overblown advocacy"...
Here's a taste of reality for Rex; this past week Environment Canada declared the South Saskatchewan river basin a "catastrophic disaster". Read into it and you find the disaster is all man made (Oh wait! That one didn't make it into the Canadian media). Need more clear examples? Drop me a line.
I'd suggest Rex throw in some of the "science", he uses to arrive at his opinions. All I see from him and the frothed mouth 'right', is nay sayer...opinion.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 10:05 AM
Earl, what's ridiculous is your willful ignorance of the basics of science. I suggest that you do a bit of background reading about the climate impact of CO2. You could start here:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Climate101.aspx
Auroran Bear Oct. 17, 10:08 AM
Look -- conservatives who believe in global warming!
And they're doing something about it. Too bad they live in Europe. Why can't we have smarter right-wingers?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/25/global_warming_conservatives/
Liz Gillon Oct. 17, 10:09 AM
Alan, give it up. I would much rather listen to opinions on ocean currents and sun spots as the science is not clear. I'm hardly going to read opinions from scientists on the payroll of obviously biased organizations such as Pembina, Suzuki, WWF and IPCC. Nor am I likely to take the opinions of oil based scientists either. I read a few newspapers from overseas and Europeans are now getting fed up with the constant barrage of AGW schtick they are being fed.
And Stan L. would you rather we commit untold dollars into a climate change plan that the US will use as a trade barrier because it's not the right flavour? We will not only be broke, but the border will snap shut to trade with our biggest trading partner. Now that China has come right out and said it will not pay for emitting CO2, I can see the great AGW scare unraveling rather quickly.
linda dial Oct. 17, 10:13 AM
Murphasaurus Rex, the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller missed you.
hollinm1 Oct. 17, 10:15 AM
No matter what we elect to do about global warming or climate change the political party that causes massive job losses in the traditional economy will see their sorry a$$es booted from office faster than you can say climate denier. The fact is there is no switch that can be turned which will move us from a fossil based economy to a "green" economy. The discussion as I see it is to transfer wealth from the industrialized countries to the developing countries. How does that help Canada to become more environmentally sustainable? Beats me! However, if the alarmists have their way we will see the standard of living of the middle class in this country reduced significantly because of the higher costs for goods and services that they consume over the course of a year. Iffy had better be careful what he wishes for. Canadians told Dion in no uncertain terms what they thought of the Green Shift. That could well happen to the current professor if he insists on destroying the Canadian economy with a cap and trade system.
Dmeyer Oct. 17, 10:20 AM
So if deniers are like the dis-informatonalists around the tabacco industry (as some now try to label them), am I going to get sued by the government in 20 years because I drive a V8 today? Even though temperatures will likely still be in the normal, or cool historic range...
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 10:22 AM
As I said last week, the BBC's article will go down as an historic one.
It has opened the door for the international main stream media to question the unquestionable, to open a healthy debate represented by both scientific camps.
We all know there is a massive internationl movement of credible peer reviewed scientists objecting to the science. Many of whom are ex IPCC members, IPCC reviewers and climate modelers/statisticians.
Two credible G&M columnists with the last week have written about the BBC article.
Within 6 months we will see a landslide paradigm shift in the media toward a healthy debate.
Remember David Suzuki's famous outburst two years ago to John Baird in front of the world's television cameras?
"The Debate is Over John"
Well Mr Suzuki, you paid left wing climate cult shill............the debate is not over.
Nikola Tesla Oct. 17, 10:28 AM
hollinm1 - 'The fact is there is no switch that can be turned which will move us from a fossil based economy to a "green" economy.'
The foundation of economic theory would argue your point.
Stan L Oct. 17, 10:29 AM
Liz Gillon writes....And Stan L. would you rather we commit untold dollars into a climate change plan that the US will use as a trade barrier because it's not the right flavour?
=================================
Liz did you actually bother to read Ignateiff's speech....do so an then come back and spew that dreck with a straight face.
Harper's plan...we will do what the US does, we don't know what it will cost or what we have to trade away for the privilege, but that is the plan...
Ignatieff's plan...we will invest in new technologies, incent business and fossil fuel providers to go green, create a national energy grid, introduce new energy technologies, work with the provinces to help foster programs they have in place AND work with the US to ensure that our plans compliment theirs.
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 10:31 AM
The main source for the world temperature records that the IPCC based it's climate models on has, after years of refusing to release the data for intependent review, has now stated that they have lost or destroyed the data.
"The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
lary waldman Oct. 17, 10:34 AM
I have read to the extreme the coal industries attempt to convince me that coal is a good and safe fuel, destined to fuel the Century. I may have come down with yesterday’s rain, and if I did and lived near a coal plant I would likely be black. It doesn't take a genius to know that we need an alternative to coal. And by god Northern Quebec, and Northern Ontario, and Northern Manitoba have the water to create clean electricity. Let’s get on with it and bury the dinosaur called the Tar Sands.
Lary Waldman
nilyab Oct. 17, 10:36 AM
Well, Rex old boy, remind me to be more critical of your credibility next time I watch one of your commentaries. You obviously haven't done as much as a shred of credible research on this matter. Otherwise, you would not be parrotting nonsense.
The temperature measurements being used by your ignorant source don't include temperatures at the rapidly melting polar caps, so the anti-global warming movement is using a bogus argument. The real data, from NASA, shows that global warming is continuing since 1998, and at a rapid pace. Here's the counter-argument:
**************
Recent media reports suggested that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. Some sceptics say this proves that global warming has stopped, or reversed. I wish it were so. Alas, no such hopeful conclusion can be drawn.
Temperatures don't go steadily up or down, they naturally fluctuate around a trend: a cold week in April does not mean that winter will come in June. In any general trend, there will periods when they seem to go the other way.
Besides, it all depends on the dates picked: 1998 was anomalously hot because of an exceptionally strong El Nino, which always warms up the weather. Using it as a starting point produces a very different result than choosing the much cooler 1996, 1997, 1999 or 2000. On any long-term basis, temperatures have risen fast. The hopeful theory relies on Met Office temperature measurements. Nasa, which also takes readings, has the thermometer going up since 1998, with 2005 even warmer. The difference? The Met Office excludes the Arctic Ocean; the fastest-warming area on Earth.
********
See the rest of this at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6349529/Sceptics-figures-on-global-warming-simply-dont-add-up.html
Rex, you really lost my confidence. And, imagine that I always took you seriously in the past! You're just a typical kid who never did any real thinking or research.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 10:37 AM
Uncle Fester said "Two credible G&M columnists with the last week have written about the BBC article. ... Within 6 months we will see a landslide paradigm shift in the media toward a healthy debate.
If someone credible parrots something not credible in the first place, does that somehow change the credibility of the source? Is Rex Murphy now able to turn the water of a flawed BBC opinion piece somehow into the wine of reputable science?
If the media want to discuss climate change, let them start to read and understand legitimate science concerning climate rather than the unsubstantiated mythology being pushed by vested interests.
Science is built upon healthy skepticism and encourages it but what we see routinely is opinion which runs counter to the evidence, attempting to cloak the reality. The mainstream media need to do their homework better - emotional and unsubstantiated rants like this one by Rex Murphy do a great disservice to everyone seeking the truth about climate change, pretending to an authority which is about at the level of a schoolyard bully.
CON/Reform/Alliance supporter Oct. 17, 10:44 AM
"Green" is about $, nothing more. Cap & Trade is a scheme to make cash, and a lot of it, on the backs of us taxpayers. Earth has been going through temperature cycles for billions of years, but only now are people getting rich from it, starting with climate "Scientists", through to stock traders.
Iggy will suffer the same fate as Dion if he hitches his horse to the "Green" scam.
Ancient Mariner Oct. 17, 10:46 AM
Rex, the concession to Galileo's science notwithstanding, albeit 400 years late, did not start a stampede of Catholics out of the Church. It seems all religions, whether your catholicism or Suzuki's environmentalism, have the same effect on their adherents: they stick to its tenets mulishly in irrational defiance of all the evidence. Who knows? Maybe 400 years down the road, Suzuki, if he's still around - I dare you, God - may be willing to admit that the newfangled icebergs are still made of ice rather than styrofoam.
Stan L Oct. 17, 10:48 AM
CON/Reform/Alliance supporter writes...."Green" is about $, nothing more. Cap & Trade is a scheme to make cash, and a lot of it, on the backs of us taxpayers. ....
=========================
The only ones who are pushing cap and trade is Harper and Layton...and they both eschew hard caps at that
Don't worry though, calm yourself, Rex is just making life easier for Harper by making us feel good about once again 'waiting and seeing'
Stan L Oct. 17, 10:53 AM
Uncle Fester writes....As I said last week, the BBC's article will go down as an historic one.
It has opened the door for the international main stream media to question the unquestionable, to open a healthy debate represented by both scientific camps.
===================================
Actually, it is astonishing in that the theories espoused in the article are not peer reviewed...it is unusual for the BBC and I think if you read the comments attached to that article you will see that fact very clearly.
There is nothing wrong with debate...but for layman as most of us are, we have to be sure we are debating apples to apples....
Roslyn Oct. 17, 10:53 AM
And once the North Pole had the climate of a Caribbean Island.This is true and not a figment of my imagination. In this worls of ours, we have had ice ages, hot ages, and whatever comes in between. We are not having global warming. It is a trick sponsored by idiots such as Al Gore Climate is a product of the sun's activities and not earth's use of carbon products. Wake up and realize that politicians like to natter on and on about nonsense so that they don't face the tough times we are experiencing financially. What about lack of proper medical care? Iggy and the rest of the political nincompoops should pay attention to what is important.
Wily905 Oct. 17, 10:57 AM
How fitting. A man of immeasurable arrogance campaigning on a premise perpetuated by a cult of Human beings so arrogant that they believe their petty actions can incapacitate Nature.
Stan L Oct. 17, 10:58 AM
So if we are to boil this down, what Ignatieff should do according to Rex is read this article by the BBC which talks about a couple of non-peer reviewed theories and from that he should abandon an environmental plan......and you think that would be brave?
kferaday Oct. 17, 10:58 AM
mememine69 and eyes wide shut,
Open your eyes. You just need to look at what's going on in the world right now to know that climate change is real. The number of massive forest fires in North America, Greece, Spain, Indonesia and elsewhere. Even skeptical fire fighters now believe climate change is real. The fact that the polar ice cap is melting faster than expected is something you can see on news programs almost weekly.
Drought in the western States and provinces, Africa, southern Europe and elsewhere in part caused by climate change have left 1 billion people without food. More than at any time in history.
Do you people never get out of bed? Same for you Rex. What kind of dope are you guys smoking. "Everything's good man". You guys sound like super stoners cheech and chong.
Lungisimus Oct. 17, 10:58 AM
How stupid or ignorant a person has to be to believe in the rubbish contained in this article? Anybody able to answer?
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 10:59 AM
This September the Arctic Ice Cap reached it's annual minimum. It has grown by 970,000 square km since it's modern record low annual minimum of two years ago.
That is an area over one and a half times the size of Texas.
That is record GROWTH fot the ice cap since satellite records have been measuring the ice cap.
Now they have switched the rhetoric to the "Thinning" ice cap because they can no longer flow the "Shrinking" ice cap.
Two years ago there were stories in the media about how the ice cap could be "Gone" in the summer by Summer 2009!
In fact it has grown by 970,000 square km instead!
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-not-following-consensus/
GMreader37 Oct. 17, 11:00 AM
Rex, I'm disappointed. Usually appreciating your respectful skepticism and resonant cynicism, I can't believe how mocking you are of environmental perspectives. Like other points made here, 'climate change' doesn't predict annual increases in global temperature, and there are multiple methods for measuring global temperature. What about climate change as predicting increasing volatility? Ask the Australians how long a draught needs to be before it becomes a CHANGE in climate?
In any case, beyond climate change, environmental concerns should not be blanketed together for public flagging. This smacks of the same ignorant simplistic phobia of 'birthers' and anti-Obama-"socialism" in the U.S.
Loss of biodiversity, loss of healthy soil for agriculture, water shortage, water pollution, air pollution... these things are real, getting worse and effect everyone and there should be some concern and debate about it all. Our society is grossly inefficient with energy, consumption and waste. These are real problems with real solutions and to mock the concern about it is pointless, ignorant.
I'm no big fan of Ignatieff and I appreciate your criticism of his politicking, but I have no time for your ignorant and petty shots at broad environmental concern.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 11:05 AM
GMreader37:
Loss of biodiversity, loss of healthy soil for agriculture, water shortage, water pollution, air pollution... these things are real, getting worse and effect everyone and there should be some concern and debate about it all.
============================================
Hey nobody (including Rex)is arguing against action on the REAL environmental problems you mention. It's the CO2 is bad and is going to kill us all religion, totally unsupported by real world science and observational fact that is the problem and needs to be put away!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 11:07 AM
Typical Alarmists appealling to authority and decrying that the only truths must be "peer reviewed". Well the temperature reconstruction work of Mann and Briffa was supposedly peer reviewed, not quite sure how since these guys withheld the associated supporting data, and yet this so called peer-reviewed "science" turned out to be a total fraud!
Atlas is Shrugging Oct. 17, 11:08 AM
Moderator's Note: Atlas is Shrugging's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 11:08 AM
The Antarctic ice cap has just experienced it's LOWEST ICEMELT in RECORDED HISTORY.
More bad news for Mr "The debate is not over John" David Suzuki.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/10/not-news-antarctic-ice-melt-lowest-in-satellite-history/
Stan L Oct. 17, 11:10 AM
Rex's thumb clicking brigade is out in full force.....LOL
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 11:11 AM
Here is a link to Ignatieff&Dion's Green Shift Handbook.
http://www.cbc.ca/newsatsixns/pdf/liberalgreenplan.pdf
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 11:11 AM
Rex wrote in his usual impenetrable prose (capitals mine): "There are MANY warning that the great rush to fix the planet, and re-engineer its economy in the middle of a huge recession, on the basis of incomplete science and vastly overblown advocacy from the world's swarm of environmental lobbyists, NGOs, foundations, action groups, Greenpeace acrobats and UN politicians, may be terribly ill-advised."
There are MANY, MANY more warning that if we don't cut our carbon emissions soon, we'll have passed the point of no return.
okanaganpakman Oct. 17, 11:12 AM
What a relief!.....the debate is over because Rex and a cadre of CRAPer dimwits decree that a single BBC show is the new gospel truth.....good job Rex....it is easy to see you prefer the Harper "no policy is good policy" approach.....once again CRAPers advocate the lemming versus leadership role.
BC Voice of Reason Oct. 17, 11:12 AM
@ Stan L "Actually, it is astonishing in that the theories espoused in the article are not peer reviewed..."
----------------------------------
Now you want it peered reviewed!? There are massive quantities of Gore-ian like lies and global warming propaganda that was foisted on the voting public in the name of the carbon-trading-money-changers that was published and steam rolled over all dissenting research.
Seems the heretical "deniers" might have crushed the hysteria had they been allowed to review the global warming theories before the cheques were cashed. The European economy was devastated with a scheme that makes Maddoff to be small scale and unambitious.
Thank goodness for George W Bush, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper and Barrack Obama as well as leaders of India and China for not tipping the world into the economic abyss that Al Gore and the Euro-socialists were advocating.
Jean Chretien may have found his legacy.... Along with not going into Iraq he never led Canada into the war against global warming. In his own way he stood up to his overlord Maurice Strong and the UN scamsters.
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 11:13 AM
More than 700 of the worlds top scientists dispute global warming!
Some are X-IPCC reviewers and contributers, others are astrophysists, PHD Climate scientists, climate modelers and statisticians etc..
The debate is not over after all Mr Suzuki!
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:16 AM
Uncle Fester stated "That is record GROWTH fot the ice cap since satellite records have been measuring the ice cap.".
That is blatantly false as you can see from graphs which I update daily from the IJIS AMSR-E satellite data; you can download my spreadsheet to verify the data and analytical methods which I apply.
Here are the facts as of yesterday:
1) Arctic sea ice extent in square kilometers for the same day of the year (289th day):
2002 7,972,500
2003 7,674,063
2004 7,722,344
2005 6,941,875
2006 7,521,875
2007 5,640,156
2008 7,242,344
2009 6,728,750
As you can see, the extent is the 2nd lowest in the satellite record, after 2007.
2) Daily rate of change (7-day average) in sq.km/day:
2004 96,563
2005 99,805
2006 174,950
2007 70,363
2008 148,705
2009 79,821
Average 123,456
Once again - this year's rate is 2nd lowest, after 2007.
You can see graphs of the extent, trends and percentage on my page "Sea Level and Ice":
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SeaLevelAndIce.aspx
Mythology like that stated by Uncle Fester is both irresponsible and reprehensible. Please look at scientific reality rather than unsubstantiated denialist mythology.
Liz Gillon Oct. 17, 11:19 AM
Stan L. as you did not attribute anything in your comment to Michael Ignatieff, I did not assume we were talking about Michael Ignatieff's speech. You may have memorized everything the man said but I certainly haven't. So what is the difference between working with the provinces and ensuring that we are in compliance with US regulations re: Ignatieff and not doing anything until the US does re: Harper. To be compliant with the US means that the US has put forth guidelines first and therefore we won't be doing anything until the US does. Right? No difference, just obscure wording from Mr. Ignatieff.
Hermesacat Oct. 17, 11:20 AM
Rex,otherwise intelligent & rational,has gone off the deep end here.
Climate change deniers like Rex are mostly scientifically unqualified,being neither climate scientists nor scientists of any stripe.
Deniers might reply by correctly pointing out the same is true of most climate change
acknowledgers: Most acknowledgers are not scientists.
I acknowledge the reality of climate change,& like Rex, I myself am not scientifically qualified in the field.
But there's an important difference between me & Rex (& believers and deniers in general). I admit I'm not an expert, therefore I'm willing to defer to the vast majority of expertise in the field saying climate change/global warming is a real and imminent threat.
Deniers refuse to accept the extensive scientific research/evidence/consensus by those best qualified:climate scientist researchers.Deniers like Rex irrationally cling to a position with
little-or-no scientific merit. They are faith-based true believers in "the great climate hoax". However,the acknowledgers' position is a rational one possessing vast and growing scientific merit.
The deniers' position is one of irrationality, willful ignorance, arrogance, intentional disinformation,or some combination of the above.
In Rex's case, he cherry picks quotes out of context,and conveniently ignores facts,including the most visible evidence right here in Canada: the obvious rapid melting of our arctic ice.The N.W. Passage,until very recently was difficult to navigate and required ice breaker ships. It's unexpectedly become easy to traverse in summer.Due to persistent melting, there is already so little ice impeding the way now.
What's behind Rex's untenable position? Is it a kind of chip-on-shoulder Newfoundlander jingoism related to the importance of oil to N.L.'s economy?Or is Rex a wild conspiracy theorist,pegging 99% of climate scientists as perhaps corrupt,"bought off" & part of a(most improbable!)massive disinformation conspiracy -- on zero evidence?
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:21 AM
Eyes Wide Open, you need to read the response by Keith Briffa to the false allegations made against him:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
kferaday Oct. 17, 11:22 AM
Eyes wide shut,
Just an excuse not to do anything. If the causes were manmade in another way I'm sure you'd find another excuse. So let's forget about CO2. Man is causing climate change. The real physical evidence is overwhelming. Drought, massive fire fires, more severe weather patterns, accelerated shrinking of the polar ice caps.
Since you climate change skeptics seem to want 100% proof that climate change is real -- that's what you always demand, I want the same. Given the overwhelming physical evidence of the reality of climate change prove with 100% certainty that it's not. Show me the REAL evidence, not some bogus blog Festerhead.
Come on let's see your 100% irrefutable evidence.
greatgodfrey Oct. 17, 11:23 AM
What has happened to Rex Murphy? He accepts bogus information as scientific fact? Has he done this just to "run-down" Ignatieff which seems to be the principle purpose of the Globe and Mail these days? I used to respect the the Globe and Mail! I used to also respect Rex Murphy but, it is becoming very difficult when he seems to have succumbed and lost his independence to the supporters of Harper and his Cons!
greatgodfrey Oct. 17, 11:24 AM
What has happened to Rex Murphy? He accepts bogus information as scientific fact? Has he done this just to "run-down" Ignatieff which seems to be the principle purpose of the Globe and Mail these days? I used to respect the the Globe and Mail! I used to also respect Rex Murphy but, it is becoming very difficult when he seems to have succumbed and lost his independence to the supporters of Harper and his Cons!
Uncle Fester Oct. 17, 11:24 AM
Alan again you skew the truth.
The Ice cap reached it's THIRD lowest minimum last month.
This year's MINIMUM is a 970,000 square km LARGER AREA than the minimum THREE years ago in 2007.
You understand this I know, you just don't like the fact that it is the truth.
In 2007 there were predictions that the ice cap woudld be GONE BY NOW!!!!!
This is GOOD NEWS!!!
iPhone Oct. 17, 11:26 AM
Set aside the science for a different perspective on Global Warming...
1: The computing and Internet have reached maturity and there is effectively limited growth in businesses in this sector of the economy.
2: US $ is going slide while the US spends its remaining $ pursuing hegemony.
3: The New World Order people are attempting to prevent BRIC countries from establishing a new basket of currencies for global trade.
4: World government will need a source of revenue from which to run its operations.
--
Folks like Al Gore and West's establishment NEED man-made global warming to keep their ball rolling... else their revenue streams fall off and momentum moves to the east.
Ignatieff will play ball with the West until it becomes cold enough in Canada to require tax breaks from Ottawa for winter heating... then Coppenhaggen policies will be dead... and so will Mr. Ignatieff's political future.
greatgodfrey Oct. 17, 11:26 AM
What has happened to Rex Murphy? He accepts bogus information as scientific fact? Has he done this just to "run-down" Ignatieff which seems to be the principle purpose of the Globe and Mail these days? I used to respect the the Globe and Mail! I used to also respect Rex Murphy but, it is becoming very difficult when he seems to have succumbed and lost his independence to the supporters of Harper and his Cons!
Bill G Oct. 17, 11:30 AM
Great article Rex. Mr. Ignatieff is barking up the wrong tree ....
kferaday Oct. 17, 11:30 AM
Fester,
One data point is not evidence. One year can be an anomaly. Show me the evidence that climate change caused by man is not happening. Real evidence not just one piece of information. Same for you Eyes Wide Shut and all the others posting on here (Rex you can comment too). Let's see your evidence given the real PHYSICAL evidence it is happening.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:32 AM
Atlas is Shrugging, from his apparently libertarian perspective stated hatefully "... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie...Hitler...or was it Alan Burke?".
So tell me, Atlas, in the past few postings, who do you think is telling the "big lie"? Is it me with my verifiable and objective presentation of real data? Or is it Uncle Fester with his unsubstantiated claim?
Since you are accusing me hatefully of lying, I ask that you document your allegation, libellous as it is, or withdraw it.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:38 AM
Uncle Fester, I did not make any claim about the Arctic minimum this year - I was objecting to your implication that we had seen record growth. That is false.
greatgodfrey Oct. 17, 11:40 AM
What has happened to Rex Murphy? He accepts bogus information as scientific fact? Has he done this just to "run-down" Ignatieff which seems to be the principle purpose of the Globe and Mail these days? I used to respect the the Globe and Mail! I used to also respect Rex Murphy but, it is becoming very difficult when he seems to have succumbed and lost his independence to the supporters of Harper and his Cons!
wandering spirit Oct. 17, 11:42 AM
Rex Murphy is revealing himself as one of those nasty idealogues who basically denies any need for change based on his innate dislike for a certain type of person who might ride a bycycle or compost or whatever. He postulates his enemies "sniffing" which is basically what he is doing. Surely the worlds climate has its own climatic variations apart from human actions, related to complex variables including a fluctuation in the amount of enery delivered by the sun. However the arctic ice shelves at both ends of the planet are melting and falling into the ocean and any fool should be able to understand that this will cause ocean levels to rise causing untold disruption to humanity. The polar bears are starving and drowning trying to find food and survive. The Columbia icefields are shrinking quickly and they feed many of the great rivers of Western Canada which millions of people rely on. The droughts in Africa are going to be the cause of the deaths by starvation of millions. The forests in BC are being decimated by pine beetles because it never gets cold there anymore. I am no granola hippie even though i like and respect those people as ones who have a social and environmental conscience.Now hear this: I despise you right wing jackasses and climate change deniers as much as you try and make fun of those with evironmental concerns.Your ignorance and mean spiritness has made me quite angry in return. For a more reasoned and moderate comment than mine please refer to Alan Burke's well stated writings. Tyrannosaurus Rex is a bitchy old relic who has an obvious distain for Ignateuf while having unfounded intellectual pretentions of his own.You ignorant clowns just want your big overheated houses stuffed with consumer goods and plastic junk with a couple of gas hogs in the driveway and will suck up all the energy you can get and to hell with the future. If all you care about is the money why don't you admit it instead of this bafflegab and denial.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:44 AM
Uncle Fester, to further illustrate my point, go to my "Sea Level and Ice" page and look at Figure 7. Compare the green line to the blue line. The green is the extent in 2009 as a percent of what it was in 2007 and the blue is the same for 2008. It's quite clear that 2008 exceeded this year in rate of growth. Then look at the brown line, comparing 2008 to 2008. Last year there was an unusual melt in August, which did not happen this year because the ocean currents were different. Nonetheless, with the exception of that unusual spurt, the 2009 season has generally had a lower extent than 2008 and is now at 93% of where it was a year ago.
wandering spirit Oct. 17, 11:45 AM
Good comment greatgodfrey I agree totally.
Aravote Oct. 17, 11:46 AM
Mikle Ignatieff should think about one thing - to go away as soon as he can.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:46 AM
A small correction:
Then look at the brown line, comparing 2009 to 2008.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:49 AM
Wow greatgodfrey, your comment did bear repeating but stated 3 times? ;-)
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 11:53 AM
"So from a practical policy perspective, the big scientific debate is over."
The debate is clearly over at the IPCC. The organization's mandate SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES A DEBATE ON NON-HUMAN CAUSES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE:
You need to read the IPCC mandate. The IPCC reports are not about science. They are political and based on the assumption that the cause of “Global Warming” is due to man’s activity on the earth. This is the starting point of all IPCC reports.
This is directly from the IPCC mandate:
“The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
Evidence of this mandate in action is found in the criteria used by DDC, (Data Distribution Centre) the IPCC's propaganda arm in control of "acceptable" climate change scenarios.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_scen_selection.html
"Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios IF THEY ARE TO BE USEFUL for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested:
Criterion 1: CONSISTENCY WITH GLOBAL PROJECTIONS. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the "equilibrium climate sensitivity"). “
It is clear that ONLY those scenarios that support a predetermined conclusion will be considered.
IPCC’s mandate specifically excludes discussion of any causes for climate change other than anthropogenic and by policy will reject any scenarios that don’t fit their pre-conceived ideas.
At the IPCC “the debate is over” simply because they refuse to
BCFORME Oct. 17, 11:53 AM
Thank you, Alan Burke, for all your well-reasoned comments. It's hard to take on the psychology of denial...people just can't handle the truth. Many will continue to believe what they want to believe despite overwhelming scientific to the contrary.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:56 AM
Political Junkie, the IPCC mandate also does not include debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The debate about the science of climate change belongs where it is, in the reputable scientific journals of the world like "Nature", "Science", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" and so on. Those are the sources for information that the IPCC reports on and they are cited, thousands of articles, in the IPCC reports.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:57 AM
How many of you have actually read the IPCC reports? They are very accessible:
http://www.ipcc.ch
okanaganpakman Oct. 17, 12:01 PM
What fluff....Rex staring at the environmental navel of the Opposition leader while in BC the H1N1 virus rips a deadly swath through the adolescents without a vaccine in sight.....government handwringing and political paralysis because those in power are more worried about Harper's electability has left Canada behind the 8-ball....yeesh.....grow-up Rex or move -on!!
IndigoHawk Oct. 17, 12:05 PM
Alan,
The IPCC report was rewitten to support conclusions that were determined in advance.
Ed B Oct. 17, 12:06 PM
The revelation of AGW as a total hoax is accelerating and thanks to Rex for chipping in.
gzap Oct. 17, 12:11 PM
The question is now 'is Rex Murphy ignorant or willfully ignorant'.
You can listen to the consensus of the scientific community represented by the IPCC or you can listen to the occasional skeptic. Either you are ignorant and can't understand the science or you are willfully ignorant and will not to attempt to understand the science. Either way, Rex Murphy doesn't understand enough of the issue to be allowed to continue to write in a national forum.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 12:12 PM
Burke: "the 2009 season has generally had a lower extent than 2008"
========================================
More lies from you Burke. If you sum YTD ice extent (to Oct. 16) the 2009 total is greater than that of 2008!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
samuel cogley Oct. 17, 12:13 PM
more of the same.gzap attempts to belittle him.
so much for being proven wrong.
let the flaming begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 12:13 PM
For the record, and to illustrate Uncle Fester's point at 11:24, here are the annual Arctic sea ice summer minima (on different days of the year but the minimum for each year), along with the difference from the previous year:
2002 5,646,875 sq. km.
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531
2008 4,707,813
2009 5,249,844
2003-2002 +385,156
2004-2003 -247,343
2005-2004 -469,532
2006-2005 +466,563
2007-2006 -1,527,188
2008-2007 +453,282
2009-2008 +542,031
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 12:21 PM
"accelerated shrinking of the polar ice caps."
=========================================
KFear-A-Day is a liar too!
Polar sea ice extent has been growing for 2 years and the minimum extent this year was 1,000,000 sq. km greater than in 2007. Meanwhile Antartic sea ice extent has been growing for 30 years!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Un Salut Trudeau Oct. 17, 12:22 PM
Thank you Rex, for not ignoring the BBC article.
Some here may have read Simon Winchester's 'Krakatoa'. There, he talks about efforts to explain and prove continental drift. The 'consensus' science community made all efforts to shut down this debate, and succeeded, for several decades. Finally, overwhelming new evidence won the day in the 1960's.
So you see the 'consensus' and vested interests howling to high heaven in this comment section, using insults and belittlement to shut down the debate. Nothing new. They even have a new marketing term, "climate change", because "global warming" was too easy to prove false.
Un Salut Trudeau Oct. 17, 12:23 PM
Thank you Rex, for not ignoring the BBC article.
Some here may have read Simon Winchester's 'Krakatoa'. There, he talks about efforts to explain and prove continental drift. The 'consensus' science community made all efforts to shut down this debate, and succeeded, for several decades. Finally, overwhelming new evidence won the day in the 1960's.
So you see the 'consensus' and vested interests howling to high heaven in this comment section, using insults and belittlement to shut down the debate. Nothing new. They even have a new marketing term, "climate change", because "global warming" was too easy to prove false.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 12:25 PM
Here we have Rex Murphy, criticizing Michael Ignatieff - Murphy is not only sitting on the wagon, he's part of the parade.
He's chosen a "side", obviously. Still waiting for the Senate appointment.
Whether there's global warming or there isn't -- the fact is that we are polluting the earth on an unprecedented scale, we are wiping out entire species at a frightening rate; there are millions starving because the earth is no longer effective at producing food -- and we waste too much energy.
Call it what you want to, Rex, I am all in favour of Canada learning how to use energy more effectively, how to make our cities green, and food-producing instead of depending on having it trucked and flown in - and in whatever other technologies and ideas that Ignatieff might have.
Why don't you do something positive for a change? The constant criticizing is a pain in the butt - always has been.
Art Vandelay Oct. 17, 12:26 PM
An article that doesn;t hint at any kind of "facts" nor seek to be objective whatsoever.
I've seen the exact same B.S. from many in the uninformed right-wing blogosphere that preach mass consumption as a core value.
Go ahead, Rex. Ignore the scientific data. While it may be true that another unforseen factor has temporarily overwhelmed the effects of AGW, does it still make sense to continue to add CO2 and other pollutants to our atmosphere forever at an ever-increasing rate? Just where do we draw the line, Rex? 800 PPM? 1,000 PPM?
Our children's future rests on your decision. So do you choose to join the green "religion", or do you prefer to worship your consumerism and your money?
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 12:27 PM
Remember that journalists like Murphy make money by trying to stir up controversy.
But what I wonder is why it is that the deniers who are so concerned that dealing with climate change is going to take money out of their pockets are the same people that are eager to waste billions on military spending?
Bill Jackson Jr Oct. 17, 12:30 PM
I sit in the middle on this issue. Clearly, sea ice data suggests pronounced warming in parts of the arctic, on at least a seasonal basis. Unusual drought in east Africa also could be testament to regional warming.
However, every time I see the likes of gzap urging a reporter be banished from the stage owing to unpopular views, or Alan Burke's condescending attitude, referring to people as 'denialists', I say, let's open the forum to further scrutiny. Science proceeds when different hypotheses are tested and rejected. The more complex the issue, the more careful we must be in our approach. Science has no place for name callers.
Dr Strangelove Oct. 17, 12:32 PM
It is impossible to calculate a valid warming or cooling "trend" either way from a single decade. However, the temperatures are currently tracking well below even the most conservative of Hansen's model. In experimental science, this would be considered a falsification.
The climate modelers, however, don't follow the same rules as experimental scientists. Instead of conceding defeat, they just tweak a couple of parameters here and there, and voila, the models are "valid" again. They can keep playing this game forever, like Jehovah's witnesses, who never fail to set a new date for Armageddon after the previous one fell through.
If they enjoy what they do, they should by all means continue; however, they should stop pretending that this is "science" and thereby giving real scientists a bad name.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 12:32 PM
Eyes Wide Open stated at 12:12 "More lies from you Burke. If you sum YTD ice extent (to Oct. 16) the 2009 total is greater than that of 2008!"
You're right - I've just done a year-to-date sum comparing 2008 and 2009; 2009 comes out at 0.5065% higher than 2008, approximately a difference of about 1 in 200. That's not a huge difference given the hype coming from most denialists who have been claiming that it's a major recovery!
I had based my earlier statement on an eyeball assessment from one of my graphs so we can see that eyeball assessments can be wrong. Sorry; I assure you, however, that there was no intention to lie about it. Why should I when the difference between this year and last is only 1/200th?
2008 3,040,808,942
2009 3,056,210,347 100.5065%
Anilegna Oct. 17, 12:35 PM
A. Burke wrote
"Rex's caption states "Following the global-warming herd doesn't show courage – quite the opposite, in fact"
The real cowardice comes in not facing up to the reality and in advocating maintaining business as usual. It goes hand in hand with intellectual laziness of the kind shown in the article, which is loaded with mythological tripe about climate change."
* * *
Well said.
Small minds who write articles that will please their political buddies.
But - Rex as a stallion in a herd . . . that really made me laugh. Stallions generally have the well-being of the herd at the core of their being.
A.Sh. Oct. 17, 12:38 PM
Rex Murphy should think outside the brown box.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 12:38 PM
Bill Jackson - science has no place for journalists who promote a political point of view over responsible, scientific journalism.
As long as Murphy is going to continue to write like this - obviously attacking a politician for his view (don't forget what the journalist is doing here), then he won't get the respect he would get if he were a serious, responsible journalist without a political bias. To get respect, you have to deserve it.
okanaganpakman Oct. 17, 12:38 PM
Rex the Harperist lecturing Ignatieff on the environment....next we'll have Mike Duffy discussing nutrition and diabetes at a CMA convention.
ratel Oct. 17, 12:39 PM
wow rex, I always thought you were intelligent and usually gave you the benefit of the doubt when I dissagreed with you, you use such big words you see...
Well I'm done now, you've completely invalidated yourself. Its all very evocative to compare the Environmental movement to the Catholic church but a moment's look at that community and you'll know they don't have nearly that level of control and agreement. Its only in the last two years that climate scientists have been able to bring themselves to say for certain that global warming is caused by humans. This doesn't mean its new, it means saying you are 'sure' of anything in science is essentially heresy. Most things cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the overwhelming body of scientists are now as sure about global warming as physicists are about the 'theory' of gravity. Get over it, your own observations of a few years of flat temperatures does not invalidate a warming trend that stretches back decades. And unlike the debate with Galileo, getting this right actually makes a difference in the real world. If we hesitate again on reversing global warming we will upset the balance that we rely on and we won't be able to ever get it back. I hope if that happens there are some archives left of the cbc so people know you were one of the ones to blame.
Goodbye Rex.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 12:39 PM
Dr Strangelove, I suggest that you read the studies by Swanson, Tsonis et al., which shows two components of temperature rise - the decadal natural variability and the long-term monotonically increasing and accelerating anthropogenic component. You can find links on my website at:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
You might also like to listen to and follow slides from the WCC conference in Geneva late last month:
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=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.
Nadja Oct. 17, 12:40 PM
Rex, you finally showed us you are not as smart as you think you are. Falling for false science and feeding the denial. So the thinning of arctic ice and breaking up of Antarctica, and extreme weather are going to pass. whew and we don't have to worry about deforestation and the hunger from droughts across Africa and Australia. Climate change in the north... the permafrost melting, aboriginal communities at risk... the North West passage opening up for the first time in our known history... all denied by and befuddled by Rex. What has he bin smoking???
Anilegna Oct. 17, 12:46 PM
I never thought that Rex was smart - just mouthy, and above all, pretentious.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 12:47 PM
Bill Jackson Jr, I define the terms I use on my website and after several years of corresponding here and seeing the same people spouting the same nonsense for every article about climate change, I feel justified in useng the label "contrarian" and "Denialist". Here's how I define them:
* Skeptics are the few remaining scientists who are not convinced by the evidence or models, etc. Perhaps they are like those who disbelieve there is a slowdown of the North Atlantic overturning circulation, because the noise is still to great to tell. A skeptic would readily convert to a AGW believer once there was enough evidence. I’m always reading about climate scientists who didn’t believe AGW was upon us until 1998, 2001, or 2005, when such and such evidence came in and convinced them.
* Contrarians are like skeptics, but probably won’t convert easily to believers, even when mountains of evidence come pouring in. They aren’t being paid by the fossil fuel industries, don’t have stocks in oil, and don’t work for these companies. The main factor in their disbelief is a somewhat contrarian personality, or too close and gullible a following of the well-known contrarian streams in our Western (esp American) culture.
* 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.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 12:47 PM
That's quite the attack ad, Rex.
Come on, 'fess up. You're an alien, aren't you.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 12:51 PM
It isn't easy being Rex.
He does this on purpose, to get more hits at the G & M website, and to go down in history as the most read "journalist" of all time.
Sad really.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 12:52 PM
Anilegna, stallions might have the well-being of the herd at the core of their being but there's also an element of screwing the herd.
SheRoss Oct. 17, 12:59 PM
So what is your point, Rex??
Climate change is real. All you have to do is look at the world's glaciers, a finite and very visible water source for whole regions, like INDIA!! Like ALBERTA!! Why fix our attention on the impossibly complex web of fluxuations and factors, which make trend lines maddeningly difficult to discern, when we can look and see with out own eyes the simple fact that ice is disappearing. Take a look at this:
Time lapse photography of dissappearing glaciers around the world: "The extreme ice survey."
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
Dr Strangelove Oct. 17, 12:59 PM
Alan Burke,
I didn't expect you to get the point I was trying to make. Hansen's models are falsified by empirical data. Remember, science 101: If there is a discrepancy between theory and data, the theory is wrong, and the data are right.
Pointing out other, more recent models that have not yet have enough time to fail doesn't change the fact that the original models were false, just like an updated prediction for Armageddon doesn't change the fact that the previous one was false.
I have been doing research at the bench myself for 12 years and supervising my students who work at the bench for another 10. From my own failed predictions, I have learned that reality has a way to fool me. Some of my colleagues, whom I respect for their intellect, just happily model away, without ever putting any of their models to any kind of experimental test. I can observe first hand how this breeds a naive, non-scientific mindset, even with people who I consider more intellectually gifted than myself.
Dr Strangelove Oct. 17, 1:02 PM
@Alan Burke again:
"Skeptics are the few remaining scientists who are not convinced by the evidence or models, etc"
You just made my point for me - to you, models are on par with actual evidence. I'm certain you have no experience doing actual science to speak of; you don't really understand how it works. Get a real education before you try to educate others.
okanaganpakman Oct. 17, 1:04 PM
Sounds like Rex needs to spend a bit of time living next to a sour-gas flare stack sucking in all that clean CRAPer air.
James McDougal Oct. 17, 1:05 PM
Where are all those idiots who used to complain about "Liberal media bias?"
Spin Assassin Oct. 17, 1:05 PM
Great Article Rex!
Alan Burke: you're sounding desperate man.
"There is risk of reaching "tipping points" which could result in runaway devastating impact on the Earth's climate. "
That was one of my favorite alarmist myths that has fallen out of popular use. Consider that the Earths average temperature during the Eocene was so hot that no place was below freezing. Consider that several times in the deep past have had CO2 level 20 times higher than they were today. Never mind the AGW hoopla, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THE EARTH COULD HAVE A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, because it would have happened already.
I've also seen you claim that Fermi's Paradox about the lack of visible alien activity, was due to AGW "boiling out" all the alien civilizations. LOL Besides being a very laughable idea, you've appropriated that meme from the anti-nuclear arms movement. When a religion tries to take over from an earlier one it often steals the myths and holidays from the former.
G. Veneta Oct. 17, 1:07 PM
DENY DENY DENY all you like Rex. These baby boomer men do a great disservice to future generations with this reckless disregard for the planet that sustains us.
Bravo to Ignatieff for taking a position of principle even if it isn't wonderbread politics that Harper is so good at. If people don't wake up from their sleepwalking soon they'll be right over the cliff.
The planet is dying and is our most urgent issue of our lifetimes. When people like Rex like to trivialize it they only trivialize themselves.
What an anachronism you are Rex.
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 1:08 PM
SheRoss wrote: "Climate change is real. All you have to do is look at the world's glaciers, a finite and very visible water source for whole regions, like INDIA!! Like ALBERTA!! "
Oh yeah. Last week I was up at Bow Hut, just below Bow Glacier, the chunk of ice that helps to keep Calgary watered. After coming out of the backcountry, I drove the Icefields Parkway and stopped briefly at the Columbia Icefields. I've been looking at the Athabasca Glacier since I was a kid, almost half a century ago, and it's a LOT smaller than it used to be. And I remember being there with my parents when I was a kid, and my Mom saying that it was a lot smaller than when SHE was a kid.
So yeah, I've watched Canadian glaciers shrink - with my own eyes.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 1:08 PM
Let's be perfectly clear.
Clearly the Reform Party of Canada is not paying Rex Murphy nearly enough for this kind of attack ad.
Clearly.
dr.destructo Oct. 17, 1:15 PM
For whatever it's worth, in the future, when our children's children's children look back at this time in society and marvel over the spectacle of strange science and stranger policy that is 'global warming', I would like it to be known that at NO POINT did I believe the hype.
northbridge Oct. 17, 1:15 PM
I've missed you Rex. I kept looking for you and finally there you are.
Thanks. I always look forward to your articles.
As a side benefit I always pick up some more descriptive words. Although if I use them at the coffee shop I get some puzzled looks and a seemingly desire to move to another seat or go to the washroom.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 1:16 PM
Rex Murphy works for the Ministry of Truth.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 1:18 PM
"Ignorance is strength"---George Orwell
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 1:23 PM
Hugh Wood, there's a Glacial erratic (BIG Rock) just outside of Okatokes Ab. It came from the high North and was left there by a huge glacier that covered most of the Prairies. Here's a bit of news - that glacier has melted away too, as are almost all glaciers that carved our lands from the last Ice age.
BC Voice of Reason Oct. 17, 1:25 PM
Moderator's Note: BC Voice of Reason's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
CON/Reform/Alliance supporter Oct. 17, 1:27 PM
greatgodfrey
I think you should spend more time at the Star, they like to do the opposite, slam Harper every chance they get and kiss Iggy's butt the rest of the time. That's where the Liberal Party of Toronto hangs out these days.
That way you can get only the info that you want to hear.
DonnW Oct. 17, 1:28 PM
Rex - it is always a treat to see someone of your insight taking a swing at the "man-made global warming sheep". The sheep base their views on the same science that is unable to accurately predict tomorrow's weather.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 1:33 PM
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.
Rex knows the false propaganda like the back of his hand. He is the High Priest of Brainwashing at the Ministry of Truth.
James McDougal Oct. 17, 1:35 PM
This article doesn't really provide any new insight into the war between global warming believers and global warming deniers. It simply illuminates how much much Rex Murphy dislikes Ignatieff, for whatever his reason may be. This is just one more volley in his sustained attack on Iggy. Lets not get too crazy debating global warming in this comment section since this article hardly facilitates any kind of reasonable discussion.
SheRoss Oct. 17, 1:37 PM
Im just wondering about the seeming correlation between conservative-leaning posters and anti-environment attitudes?? why would these positions necessarily go together?
Hypothesis: cons are have made self-interestedness into an ideology, and taking care of the environment is contrary to that. An externality.
Jack1059 Oct. 17, 1:38 PM
Am I the only one who finds Rex completely irrelevant? Not only this mass of wasted words but almost everything he writes. The Globe should stop wasting a wage on this guy. I really only read once in a while to see how outlandish he'll be now. He's a dinosaur on the media scene.
the wonder of it all Oct. 17, 1:38 PM
I thought I should read the article that Rex was referring to and did so. While it's true that the article did include what Rex mentioned, a significant portion of it was devoted to rebuttals from other individuals and organizations. It seems that Mr. Murphy was practicing selective journalism at best.
BC Voice of Reason Oct. 17, 1:38 PM
@James Mcdougall "Where are all those idiots who used to complain about "Liberal media bias?" "
------------------------------------------
And providing advice for Mr. Ignatieff to follow his first position on Carbon tax/ Global warming is anti Liberal in what way?
Mr. Ignatieff did not actively support Mr. Dion's Green shift last election and strongly rejected it immediately after he ran his coup and seized power.
Mr. Murphy is providing sound advise that if the Global warming scam sank Dion when there was still a lot of Gore inspired hysteria then think how invalid it would be as policy proposal when AGW is being debunked.
I wouldn't be surprise if the Green party (other than Ms. May) shifts over to fighting pollution rather than green house gasses. Me suggesting that does not make me anti-Green (in the political sense) , in fact it would make their platform and chances for election far more tenable.
A good friend does not support you when you make bad decisions....
CON/Reform/Alliance supporter Oct. 17, 1:38 PM
Funny thing happened a few weeks back that didn't get a lot of attention in the media, but it should have...Obama's hand picked environmental team was gagged by the great one himself. It seems they came up with some information that didn't sit too well with the messiah, so he shut them up. Info that disputed his "green" agenda.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 1:39 PM
Dr Strangelove, yes, you are right that Hansen's 1981 model(s) have been falsified. I'm sure that you are also aware that almost all of the hard science disciplines are built upon mathematical models, most of which are now solved numerically on computers either because they have no analytic solution or because they are too computationally expensive to do by hand.
Modern atmospheric-ocean-carbon cycle coupled models are computationally very complex and require exorbitant amounts of computer time. That is the primary reason why they can be easily falsified - they are necessarily approximations. However, as more and more computational power becomes available, more accurate and comprehensive models can be developed, tested, validated through hindcasting and projected forward. Where individual models fail, ensemble means tend to track measurements very well.
I suhggest, again, that you listen to and follow the slides for the WCC3 Geneva conference which I cited earlier. You might be surprised at how good current models really are. The speakers at the conference do acknowledge the limitations - they are painfully aware of them - but there is constant improvement. Not all science falls into a "Eureka!" moment - some of it is necessarily slow and onerous.
I do have a science degree (math & physics) and have decades of experience in doing modeling, although not in the realm of climate. I have no conflict of interest in commenting here. But I do have a lot of experience in translating complex technical and scientific issues into a frame which can be understood by those who do not have a background suited to diving right in.
You're welcome to offer critiques of what I say here and what I say on my website but please do not make assumptions about what I do or do not know or have experienced. Deal with the issues, please, avoiding unjustified personal attack.
Gord Lewis Oct. 17, 1:41 PM
Ever wonder what happened to Your Morning Smile? It has been unofficially replaced by Rex's Rants. I got a few good laughs over this one.
Green box; how clever. While Harper cannot think outside of his black box. Both should be placed together inside a padded box.
Rex is so far behind the actual science in his dumbed-down populist screeds that I wonder why folks get so excited. He appears to get his information from the junk news posted at sites like yahoo, as well as US hate radio and fox news (oops, oxymoron, couldn't help it though).
Being clever and literate with a large vocabulary is not enough to impress me, Rex.
Mike McFae Oct. 17, 1:46 PM
Brave words Rex. Keep your doors locked as these AGW extremists don't appreciate opposing debate. However , I seriously believe that the AGW fad will have tremendous positive spinoffs since people are now more cognizant of environmental issues and the world will be much better off when the masses and the media move on to the next great global "threat".
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 1:47 PM
BC Voice of Reason - now there's an oxymoronic handle given what you post!
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 1:48 PM
BC Voice of Reason wrote: "A good friend does not support you when you make bad decisions...."
Good point. I've always wondered how the Conservatives could call themselves good friends of the Americans when they supported the American invasion of Iraq.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 1:50 PM
Ten years ago the global warming models did not predict what has happened in the past decade. Yes, with some creative "back-casting" folks have been able to tweak models to now pretend to account for recent history. There really is no objective way to determine whether the current models are actually better.
What the global warming folks have now is a credibility problem. If you tell the folks that the sky is falling and warn them of an imminent crisis of unimaniginable consequences, when it doesn't happen, people will take notice.
The fact that climate change is dropping like a rock as an issue of concern by the Canadian public is directly attributable to the actions of the "we gotta scare the crap out of them to get attention and funding" crowd. That ruse is effective for only so long because one has to be alarmist about an imminent problem, but the downside is that you better be right.
The sky didn't fall, but the chickens are coming home to roost, to combine chicken metaphors.
BC Voice of Reason Oct. 17, 1:50 PM
@SheRoss "Im just wondering about the seeming correlation between conservative-leaning posters and anti-environment attitudes?? why would these positions necessarily go together?"
-------------------------------------------
Perhaps it is because the Global warming support and actions are all based on social engineering and wealth redistribution.
Conservative posters want cleaner air, less pollution , less acid rain, more parks and clean abundant water. These goals have all been made secondary with the Global warming. All solutions to this nebulous problem involve transferring wealth (through carbon robber barrons that will take their 85% management fee)) to developing nations.
The chances of this wealth even making it to the propagandized targets it is the same chance of the billions going into Africa as direct aid actually doing the targeted audience any good and not buying weapons and palaces.
Khawaja Khawaja Oct. 17, 1:51 PM
I am not the expert on climate change that may of the G&M readers seem to be, but I have spent some time in the high Arctic (north of 80 deg) where I have seen much warmer temperatures and what used to be "permafrost" runways turn to mud which they had never done until about 5 years ago. So while some data may say that the earth as a whole is not getting warmer, the polar regions certainly are. Are melting polar icecaps caused by human activity? Is this a harbinger of more more serious changes to come? Can we take action to change this? I don't know. Will leave that for the experts.
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 1:51 PM
"I was BLINDED...by SCIENCE!" apologies to Magnus Pike!
antidisestablishmentarianist Oct. 17, 1:52 PM
Rex, did you choose the picture of a 'herd' accompanying this piece, or did some unwitting G&M editor select it for witty graphical reinforcement of the headline?
For if you know something about how the phony energy/corn/beef/ economy works, you could not fail to notice the irony (I know you know what irony is). These steaks are just one more item that is threatened as we deplete the ocean of oil our western economies have been floating on for the past century. (Beef should be marketed as oil-fed rather than corn-fed. But that would be truthful advertising.)
Sy Borg Oct. 17, 1:53 PM
I think a lot of posters are missing (if not making) Mr. Murphy's point. He is comparing the fanatical DOGMA of GW to that of the Christian church in medieval times - an institution that did NOT allow dissenting views (note his use of "heresy").
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind & won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill
antidisestablishmentarianist Oct. 17, 1:55 PM
Yes, Political Junkie, while politicians are running around like chickens with their heads cut off . . .
Dr Strangelove Oct. 17, 1:58 PM
Alan Burke,
"Dr Strangelove, yes, you are right that Hansen's 1981 model(s) have been falsified."
Good.
"I'm sure that you are also aware that almost all of the hard science disciplines are built upon mathematical models,..."
This is completely wrong. It may look this way to you for the point of view of your professed area of expertise, but it is still wrong. I myself work in biochemistry, and I can tell you that, as of yet, only the most trivial and isolated problems in biochemistry have been addressed by meaningful mathematical models, such as the behaviour of isolated protein molecules. People are trying to model entire cells, but nothing useful or enlightening has come out of these efforts, and I dare say few people would expect this to change anytime soon.
Compared to the climate of the globe, a single cell would seem like a trivial problem, right?
As to your longstanding experience in modeling, well I'm pretty sure it's not in science. I'm going to say it again, you don't think like a scientist.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 1:59 PM
IndigoHawk said "The IPCC report was rewitten to support conclusions that were determined in advance."
That may be true of the "Summary for Policymakers" - it was watered down primarily at the insistence of the Bush administration and China to make the conclusions sound less certain.
The primary reports themselves, from the 3 working groups, had significantly less interference and provide citations to reputable scientific studies, which can be verified; they are essentially a summarization of almost all of the climate science known leading up to their publishing in 2007.
Experience since 2007 has shown that many of the IPCC projections, for example the decay of Arctic sea ice, were too conservative - the reality is that the climate has degraded faster than projected by those reports.
But don't take my word for it. Download and read the full reports rather than just the Summary for Policymakers, and check out the references. They are good and readable summaries of the science known at the time.
http://www.ipcc.ch
Jim Cohoon Oct. 17, 2:00 PM
"There are intellectual bubbles ..." Yes, that may be true, but I am surprised that Mr. Murphy misses the 'bigger picture' so badly. In the year 2009 A.D., the main issue should not be 'whose beliefs should we subscribe to?' -- based on cherrypicked 'facts' that may seem (this week) to support our position. I agree there are those who have come to see the 'global warming' issue in dogmatic terms -- on both sides. Thus the 'big debate' isn't even essentially a debate at all -- it's become an adolescent tug-of-war. 'My beliefs are better then your beliefs! So there!' The 'bigger picture' that Mr. Murphy seems to miss so badly (and dare I say irresponsibly) has two main components, neither of which are based directly in the particular 'facts' of the moment: 1) is humanity (and its power elites) to proceed further into the 21st century primarily on the basis of reason or belief? Mr. Murphy's position on that key question is far less clear in the article than his apparently prejudged position on global warming. True reason cannot co-exist with prejudice. 2) is humanity (and its power elites) to proceed further into the 21st century primarily on the basis of self-interests or global responsibility to this planet (and its future human generations)? Again Mr. Murphy is (at best) unclear on that fundamental issue. Based on this article, I am very disappointed in Mr. Murphy. He is obviously a very intelligent and learned man, but it seems he has forgotten the vital virtue of wisdom. Wisdom may be what will allow humans to survive and thrive on this planet past the ruins of the Second-Wave civilization we are still egocentrically addicted to as a species. This planet needs persons such as yourself to raise your game Mr. Murphy. Use your whole God-given mind -- for wisdom-- not just the part that can cleverly rationalize humanity's egocentric myopias.
Harriot Oct. 17, 2:01 PM
Politicians count on the naive left wingers to buy into all this bunk,so that profiteers can make bundles,and people will accept higher taxation.
What would they do without these naive sheep?
James McDougal Oct. 17, 2:01 PM
BC Voice of Reason:
I was simply trying to say that there is usually a large group of people who complain about a "Liberal media bias" that results in articles against the Conservatives. However, when the news of the day is against the Liberals, they are nowhere to be found. It really just goes to show that people will make up excuses for anything/anyone, regardless of how baseless they may be. The reality is there never was a liberal media bias; just a media that reports the news and a variety of opinions.
Oh and Iggy is not proposing anything like what Dion proposed.
Vitriolic Centre-Leftist Oct. 17, 2:03 PM
What is the deal with this onslaught against the climate change consensus by apparent stalwarts of lucid (albeit often misguided) political commentary like Rex and Maggie Wente? They are simply embarrassing themselves in the eyes of thoughtful and informed readers when they claim that the science behind the climate change thesis is "questionable", "incomplete" or whatever other dressed up denial term they deploy, or when they invoke the likes of Ian Plimer, a hack whose book has been widely debunked and whose denial of climate change is clearly motivated by the fact that he has major stakes in several mining companies. I guess we can attribute this to the fact that Maggie and Rex will be long dead before the real effects of the coming climatic mess are felt - so why should they care?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:03 PM
Mr. Murphy believes in the Bible.
He cares not about science or scientific research.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 2:04 PM
Dr Strangelove, I think like a physicist, an experimental physicist, and I try to ensure that my work is done in accordance with the principles of scientific method. I think that you might find that most of climatology is a bit less complex than biochemistry. I also read very widely, include "Nature Methods", so although I'm not a practicing scientist, I'm comfortable interpreting scientific studies.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:06 PM
Jim Cohoon---Well said. Thank you.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 2:07 PM
Vitriolic, are you also aware that M. Wente is a director of Energy Probe? You might say that she's somewhat biased. In my opinion she should have disclosed that fact when writing her recent piece about climate.
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 2:07 PM
Building an Ark observed: "Hugh Wood, there's a Glacial erratic (BIG Rock) just outside of Okatokes Ab. It came from the high North and was left there by a huge glacier that covered most of the Prairies. Here's a bit of news - that glacier has melted away too, as are almost all glaciers that carved our lands from the last Ice age."
Sure, and when did it get left there Ark, when you were a kid?
The point is, the glaciers are melting rapidly because of human-caused climate change. We can:
1. Do nothing, accept the consequences and pay the price.
2. Act now to try to minimize the damage and reduce the costs of climate change.
3. Accept that the changes required are politically impossible and invest now to prepare for the coming catastrophes.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:11 PM
"Beware of the baloney syndrome.."--Carl Sagan
theglowpt2 Oct. 17, 2:13 PM
Love Rex Murphy articles.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 2:13 PM
Whoop de doo!
Alan Burke, by a strange coincidence, I also have a Maths and Physics degree from a leading Canadian University and earned a good living for many years as an environmental consultant.
Based on that you may wish to re-evaluate your apparent position that people who disagree with you are scientifically less literate. I know at least one exception!
As you also know very well, several hundred scientists have come forward in opposition to the orthodoxy you espouse. Many of them have impeccable relevant credentials and quite few were former believers in your faith.
Another theme that is in common with many of these scientists is that they have just retired. "Now that I'm no longer active and don't need to toe the line to get grants, I can speak my mind freely" is a comment made by several prominent scientists who have come forward in opposition to the "consensus theology."
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:16 PM
"Baloney Detection" requires strong use of the scientific method when discussing scientific issues, and discounting its misuse or lack of use as unscientific, pointless and dangerous.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 2:17 PM
Hugh Wood;1. Do nothing, accept the consequences and pay the price.
We will do "nothing".
This is not only the governments fault/doing, but rather the average Canadian who will viciously turn on any government or group, should the "answer/solution" be $1.00 in new taxes and/or a change of lifestyle.
Its called the "human being syndrome";
ie...a selfish hypocrite....
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:18 PM
Rex just loves to mix up religion and science.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:19 PM
So strange that he didn't throw a few Biblical quotations into this baloney article.
Jest Oct. 17, 2:21 PM
Bravo Rex!It is quite a relief to see that the media and the CBC in particular are coming to the realization that we have been punkd by the church of global-warming.Of course this is a great embarrassment to the true believers and they will continue to assuage their discomfort with more lies.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:23 PM
"The church of global warming"---Rex is the Propaganda Baloney King!!!!
The Work Farce Oct. 17, 2:24 PM
The formerly funny columnist turned high priest of corporate humour (Oxymoron!) hath spoken and the people are broken.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:26 PM
Rex and the Reformers would rather we follow the religious herd, and turn our backs on science.
Science? Who needs it? The Bible is all we need.
Harriot Oct. 17, 2:27 PM
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.
* "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.
* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 2:28 PM
Canada1: I fear you are correct. So maybe we take the third option, accept that the government is (at best) useless, and get on with making the changes necessary to prepare ourselves and our communities for what is to come.
B G Oct. 17, 2:31 PM
I'm confused. Are we having a "global warming crisis", a "global cooling crisis", a "global not changing all that much crisis", a "global we changed our minds crisis" or a global "we don't really know what the heck is going on crisis"?
All the journalists and politicians should get together, make up their minds and give us one answer. And leave the scientists out of it.
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 2:33 PM
I wrote:
BC Voice of Reason wrote: "A good friend does not support you when you make bad decisions...."
'Good point. I've always wondered how the Conservatives could call themselves good friends of the Americans when they supported the American invasion of Iraq.'
And got an astounding 15 'thumbs downs' in less than 45 minutes! Gee, I must've touched a nerve! Sorry about that Conservatives, I know it's a sensitive subject... Ha!
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:33 PM
Rex, get your story straight.
It was the religious who opposed and persecuted Galileo.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:36 PM
Count the number of religious words and references in Mr. Murphy's fairytale.
This is Propaganda from the Ministry of Truth.
Jimi Jones Oct. 17, 2:38 PM
Finally, the world is seeing Global Warming for the nonsense it is. Now Al Gore can cool his 5000 sq ft house without feelings of remorse and we can give grants to professional academics to solve more threatening issues like global overpopulation.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:39 PM
Following the religious herd doesn't show courage.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 2:41 PM
Hugh Wood;'Good point. I've always wondered how the Conservatives could call themselves good friends of the Americans when they supported the American invasion of Iraq.'
Thank God for computers.....the information one can "save......
"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win."
- Stephen Harper supporting the US-lead war on Iraq, Montreal Gazette, April 2nd 2003. Harper also called then-Defence Minister John McCallum an "idiot."
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 2:42 PM
Hey, Rex, here's a suggestion for you to read:
"The Varieties of Scientific Experience, A Personal View of the Search for God"--Carl Sagan
Harriot Oct. 17, 2:47 PM
This ones for shadow of the bear and Canada1:
Michael Ignatieff from Prospect Magazine, April 2006:
I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded. We must at least entertain the possibility that the operatives working on Sheikh Mohammed in our name are engaging not in gratuitous sadism but in the genuine belief that this form of torture—and it does qualify as such—makes all the difference.
“To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil.” — Michael Ignatieff
Jest Oct. 17, 2:51 PM
Bear wrote,"Following the religious herd doesnt show courage .Quite the opposite in fact".You are correct Bear.And Iwould suggest you review your devotion to the false prophet Al Gore.And the Church of Global -Warming.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 2:54 PM
HarriotMichael Ignatieff from Prospect Magazine, April 2006:
Good point Harriot.....thank God someone got it right.....:
Jean Chrétien;
The diplomatic process was bringing positive results. That was the view of the Canadian government. It was not, obviously, the view of the American government. We can have a disagreement there. I still feel given a few more weeks disarmament would have been achieved," he said.
Chrétien also said that forcing a regime change is not desirable. Many leaders in the world are not his friends, but, he adds, only the local people have the right to change government. "If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?
Hermesacat Oct. 17, 2:56 PM
The "Thumbs Up"/"Thumbs Down" ratios in comments to this article have changed in some cases & become rather suspicious looking as the day progresses.
A number of reasoned posts questioning Rex (and questioning deniers in general) by people who acknowledge the reality of climate change/global warming, have received a rather "fishy" number of "Thumbs Down" vs. "Up" votes.
"Fishy" because opinion polls show a large majority of Canadians disagree with Rex. Most Canadians believe climate scientists are not liars, and they acknowledge climate change IS a real and pressing danger.
So, when I see intelligent, rational posts from readers questioning Rex's inexplicable, unscientific denial stance getting 4or5-to-1 Thumbs Down vs. Up, I know this does NOT reflect Canadians' (or Globe readers') actual opinions on the topic. The Up/Down ratios show an obvious and improbable skewing to the deniers side. The minority view (denial) is distorted into an apparent majority view - if one is to believe some of the suspicious Up/Down votes here.
Applying "Occams Razor", the simplest & most likely explanation is not that Globe readers (or Canadians) have suddenly switched in droves to Rex's deniers camp. No! The obvious explanation is
a bunch of unscrupulous, unethical deniers are deliberately distorting reality by voting "pro-denial" multiple times.
Such dishonest, shameful tactics are just further illustration deniers are willing to lie, distort, obfuscate, and spread disinformation in order to further their nihilistic creed,
a creed where the greed of short-term profits of an obsolescent oil industry trump the long term health & survival of life as we know it on this planet.
sanctimonious Oct. 17, 2:57 PM
It is a matter of trust. As bright and well intentioned as the global warming constituency is, there are many other people, including other equally bright and well intentioned folks, who remain skeptical. The case for and against GW has moved from the scientific realm to the political realm. It is in the political realm that the outcome of this issue will be decided. The decision to trust or to not trust what is being presented as evidence of the danger arising from GW will be made at the polls. The case will not be made arbitrarily by either side. Rex Murphy is commenting on the political aspects of the issue and is certainly entitled to do so.
Jest Oct. 17, 2:59 PM
Nice try Canada1.But you are not going to change the channel on this one.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 3:01 PM
Hermesacat;Such dishonest, shameful tactics are just further illustration deniers are willing to lie, distort, obfuscate, and spread disinformation in order to further their nihilistic creed,
Accepting the "word" of thousands of scientist on global warming is not good for business....
Remember.....it is all about the "markets"...
Right..........
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 3:03 PM
Rex Murphy is a False Prophet.
The Work Farce Oct. 17, 3:06 PM
B G writes:
All the journalists and politicians should get together, make up their minds and give us one answer. And leave the scientists out of it.
-----------------------------------------------------
Notice that journalists are now in the business of infoscarytainment, creating crises of the week faster than the mind can comprehend them.And almost every issue has the people divided 50-50.
The military divides and conquers. Politicians divide and conquer.Scientists divide and obtain funding. The journalists divide and sell newspapers. So it goes.
If one day there was peace, harmony, unity and universal agreement, the first casualty of peace would be the military, the second casualty of peace would be the newspapers.
Dylan said it best in 1964: It's all phony propaganda.
LaColombe Oct. 17, 3:06 PM
Is Rex getting high from the flatulence of his own petards?
Methinks, Rex needs to think outside the green outhouse?
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:09 PM
Global warming might(even though there is no proof it exists) be real, but if it is real, it is not man-made.
Back in the 1970's, an Ice age by the year 2000 was all the rage.
Trillian Rand Oct. 17, 3:09 PM
What is most disturbing about this article is that it, like so many others, uses the mocked theory of AGW to forgive pollution in general. Because scientists have not absolutely proven that pumping toxins or outrageous amounts of gases into the air is raising the earth's temperature there is no need to stop doing so.
Let's forget (as the government has recently suggested - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-quietly-asks-epa-to-weaken-anti-pollution-measures/article1327805/#article - that spewing vast amounts of chemicals into the air is just plain bad for human health. Let's continue to foul our own nests until some egghead proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we are doing is harmful.
Let's just continue on and let the earth cleanse itself, let God look after the environment or whatever else passes for logic these days. Business and trade is more important than human lives or our health. So forget about global warming, climate change and all the other things that might suggest we are trying to destroy the only planet we have. Pollute away. It's the sensible thing to do.
uncledavid Oct. 17, 3:11 PM
Mr. Murphy's rant against the idea of global warming continues to go unabated. Concerns about global warming that is a a phenomena that is supported by scientists with the knowledge of the subject, is high on the electorates minds. It may have slipped in priority due to the economic down turn but any politician who ignores it will be in trouble with their electorate. Mr. Murphy has been known to quote questionable sources in his arguments against the idea of global warming but how does he explain the melting glaciers and the melting polar ice? Perhaps Mr. Murphy should be asked whether he is also a member of the Flat Earth Society or whether he supports the creation theorists.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 3:14 PM
Blade Runner: You show your scientific ignorance.
The climate has always changed.
What is dangerously different now is the rate and speed of change, given the presence of seven billion busy little humans, who are at risk, along with every other species.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:17 PM
Shadow of the Bear, where is the proof that even through the ice is melting in parts of the world, and thickening in other parts is even Man-made?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 3:19 PM
Read some science, Blade Runner.
Or the Bible.
The Work Farce Oct. 17, 3:19 PM
Keep in mind folks: One of the things that really bothers the high and mighty rich and powerful is that green is the colour of Jews, Arabs, Africans, immigrants and the impoverished.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:20 PM
Shadow of the Bear, your taking a huge leap from lack of proof that global warming exists, it could be as simple a natural weather cycle.
Then your taking even a bigger leap of faith that this is even being caused by humans.
Where is the hard core proof? You have none, its all based on speculation, in other words fluff.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 3:24 PM
The Work Farce;Keep in mind folks: One of the things that really bothers the high and mighty rich and powerful is that green is the colour of Jews, Arabs, Africans, immigrants and the impoverished.
?????!!!!!! Come again??????
Israel is the 21st largest economy in the world....the Arab oil states are swimming in oil $$$, the Jewish community in Canada/US is disproportionately wealthier than other communities.....and all these entities are afraid of the "green color".....?
Oh boy......
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 3:26 PM
Blade Runner, I see you cowering in fear at the back of that dark cave.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:28 PM
Shadow of the Bear, sorry, but those comments do not support your position that human's caused global warming or that it exists.
Jest Oct. 17, 3:28 PM
uncledavid,At the present epoch we are in what is known as the interglacial period.That means glaciers will recede.We are now beginning to enter a coolng cycle that will continue for an unknown period of time.Man has no influence on these cycles.That enormous weather machine known a the Sun is the driver for all climatic conditions on planet earth.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:32 PM
Jest wrote:
That enormous weather machine known a the Sun is the driver for all climatic conditions on planet earth. Man has no influence on these cycles.
--------------------------------
It is funny how Al Gore conveniently left that out of his sci-fi thiller movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:38 PM
To put into perspective the size of our planet to the sun, and how puny we are: You can fit 1 million earths into the sun. That is 1,000,000 earths to 1 sun.
How can one leave sun out of the equation when it comes to it's effect on the earth?
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 3:44 PM
Interesting that "Hermesacat" believes that there MUST be an organized "denialist" cabal manipulating the thumbs up - thumbs down ratios here. Could it just be that people disagree with your point of view???
Trillian Rand writes: "What is most disturbing about this article is that it, like so many others, uses the mocked theory of AGW to forgive pollution in general. Because scientists have not absolutely proven that pumping toxins or outrageous amounts of gases into the air is raising the earth's temperature there is no need to stop doing so."
Trillian, I bet you just don't know this:
"Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.
But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%."
Tremendous progress has been made on pollution issues. Canada's results are similar.
So called "environmentalists," Suzuki and his ilk, don't get funding and donations based on telling people about progress. The money comes from scaring the crap out of people and the more apocalyptic the predictions, the better.
Trillian, can you explain to me why all the health indicators, life expectancy, etc., have gone up dramatically at the same time as the use of these awful chemicals has increased?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 3:45 PM
Blade Runner--You can't, obviously.
Our biosphere is marvellously skilled in handling the Sun.
Best not to throw a "monkey" wrench into the system.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 3:47 PM
Hermesacat said "The "Thumbs Up"/"Thumbs Down" ratios in comments to this article have changed in some cases & become rather suspicious looking as the day progresses.".
This happening quite frequently in any article having to do with climate change. I have no smoking gun, of course, because I don't have access to the G&M Internet logs but I have noticed that "Eyes Wide Open" coincidentally appears to be very active during those times when the anomalous votes are cast, and they are always in favour of the contrarian/denialist advocates.
I can think of several technical means which could be used to subvert the process but I have abstained from counterattacking because it would be irresponsible in my view to do so. However, I intend to raise the issue with the commentary moderator staff and request that they do an audit of the logs.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 3:48 PM
Shadow of the Bear? I think you have it reversed.
Geoffrey May Oct. 17, 3:50 PM
Rex, like all his denial buddies ignores the real hard evidence Ice Caps, Arctic and Antarctic are melting .All the worlds glaciers are melting.Tundra is melting .Unprecedented events in modern history.If it is true, that the global average temperature is decreesing , all that shows is that global average temperatures are not a reliable indicator of climate change.Only a genuine fool would place theory against uncontravertable, empirical evidence. Melting ice caps, tundra and glaciers,each make up essential parts of the climate change nightmare.Melting icecaps "turn off" the Atlantic conveyor, and golf streams, rendering the climate of Northern Europe significantly colder, the climate of the southern US , Mexico,and Central America significantly hotter, while subjecting all coatal areas to rising sealevel.Melting glaciers, lead to major water shortages.Melting tundra releases methane placing further burdon on climate systems.
It is also worth remembering the huge losses of timber due to successive warmer than usual winters.
Climat change is real, to pretend otherwise is anyones right , but to encourage others to act irresponsibly is always reprehensible.
Adanacian Oct. 17, 3:51 PM
The Conservative Party in Australia is imploding due to the very fact they've ignored the global climate change issue. They can't decide if they should acknowledge they were wrong about climate change and try to survive as a party, or keep to their party line of denying climate change while they go down in flames.
The same will happen to the Conservatives in Canada.
Adanacian Oct. 17, 4:00 PM
The BBC article demonstrates concensus on the fact that CO2 levels are rising in both the atmosphere and the oceans. Regardless of the climate change issue, this should be enough to reduce our CO2 emmissions. Higher CO2 in the oceans is leading to acidifcation, triggering increasing die-offs of coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems. Rex, if you deny the climate science, do you also deny the ocean science?
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 4:08 PM
Alan Burke:
Hermesacat said "The "Thumbs Up"/"Thumbs Down" ratios in comments to this article have changed in some cases & become rather suspicious looking as the day progresses.".
This happening quite frequently in any article having to do with climate change. I have no smoking gun, of course, because I don't have access to the G&M Internet logs but I have noticed that "Eyes Wide Open" coincidentally appears to be very active during those times when the anomalous votes are cast, and they are always in favour of the contrarian/denialist advocates.
I can think of several technical means which could be used to subvert the process but I have abstained from counterattacking because it would be irresponsible in my view to do so. However, I intend to raise the issue with the commentary moderator staff and request that they do an audit of the logs.
---------------------------------------------------
Actually, I hope someone in the G&M fixes this glitch...but here is how easy it is to do....
In the Firefox browser, go to Tools, click on clear recent history or ctrl/shift/del, clear history. Now you can cast another vote....then Repeat as many times as you want, click on reload the screen and see the new votes you added. Haven't tried it in explorer, but clear history, and see it has the same effect to re-cast a new vote on the thumbs up or down.
G&M please stop this loop hole, it is an easy fix to stop the re-casting of votes.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 4:08 PM
Alan - this is true, about stallions. But the mares are the dominant ones in a herd when it comes right down to it.
If a stallion doesn't demonstrate that he has what it takes to keep the herd alive, he might find himself living on the outskirts, thumped out by those who do know what the dangers are.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 4:09 PM
Ah - so that explains why I've got 30 thumbs down within about 10 minutes on most of my posts.
Michael Sharp Oct. 17, 4:13 PM
Here's some lovely science...
The political left are less likely to have children than the political right.
Darwin and Natural Selection tell us that over time the political left will become extinct.
I love science.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 4:14 PM
Jest wrote:
" Oct. 17, 2:21 PM
Bravo Rex!It is quite a relief to see that the media and the CBC in particular are coming to the realization that we have been punkd by the church of global-warming.Of course this is a great embarrassment to the true believers and they will continue to assuage their discomfort with more lies."
* * * *
How do you know that the CBC have "come to the realization"? Do you have a source for this - some story or other that would support your assertion?
Rex Murphy is not the CBC. He only gets paid to voice *his* opinions, and that's all.
CBC will tell you I that the opinions of whatever journalist do not reflect the views of CBC.
Michael Sharp Oct. 17, 4:15 PM
Seriously?
Do people really put stock in thumbs up/down thingy?
personally?
I think it's a bore.
Anilegna Oct. 17, 4:15 PM
And, Michael Sharp - Conservative-run countries are poorer than Liberal-run countries.
Lots of kids and no money to spend on them? Great. Just what Harper wants I suppose. He has no interest in educating these kids either.
So go ahead. Go to Bountiful BC if you want to - go forth and procreate.
PrairiePunter Oct. 17, 4:17 PM
I question the value of the forum at all as most of the comments sink quite quickly to partisanship. Read the sports comments and you will see quite a difference! In the same vein, the votes mean nothing except to confirm that group think is always alive and well.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 4:18 PM
Anilegna, yep....which raises the question how many thumbs up do you want on the message your post or another post to get it to "most thumbs up" ?
isandhlwana Oct. 17, 4:20 PM
If you actually check the met office webpage that is the basis for the BBC article you will find their explanation and the warning of how this information will probably be misused by the skeptics, such as Rex Murphy. It also notes that 2008 was the 10th warmest year on record - which stretches back to the 1880s, which makes it not much of a cooling. The question is why, if the heating has just been a variation, has it not gone back down to the average for all those years. Rex Murphy also seems to think that thinking in terms of 20 years is enough long term thinking, which, geologically, is absurd. Even if the warming takes a bit longer than anticipated, such as a century or two, then that would still be incredibly fast in terms of the history of the earth. Carbon is a known insulator, it's just a matter of time and getting enough into the atmosphere. You may doubt the timelines, but if you keep pumping it into the atmosphere in increasing amounts, it will inevitably happen. What does he think will happen to all that carbon anyway?
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 4:22 PM
Anilegna, yep....which raises the question how many thumbs up do you want on the message your post or another post to get it to "most thumbs up" ?
----------------------------------------------
I would like to see a way where you have a minute or two to go back and re-edit your post before it becomes permanent due to my grammar errors that I catch after I hit the "post a comment" button.
I can see in this post of mine an error that should be you and not your.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 4:24 PM
Blade Runner;In the Firefox browser, go to Tools, click on clear recent history or ctrl/shift/del, clear history. Now you can cast another vote.
No kidding.......
And here I am in my own little "champagne socialist" world, having the time of my life imagining how many conservatives I managed to annoy considering the thumbs down.......and all of this "negative" response can be attributed to.....Joey Bloggins , Guilaume Affleck , Harriott...??
Oh well, back to the drawing board.....
AJR79 Oct. 17, 4:24 PM
Wow who would have thought this would have brought out Alan Burke to flog his blog, and call every skeptic a denier? (sarcasm off)
Well Alan: as decades of cooling commence (due mostly to decreased solar activity), and the world starts to wake up to the fact that the science is not as settled as many would like to claim, I will refrain from comparing you to a holocaust denier, even as you howl in frustration at the rest of us who will by then realize that the end of the world is not upon us.
Climate science is a complicated, and young field. There are many factors which can have influence.
I have a feeling that in 30 years we will look back on the "CO2 AGM Theory" as a quaint little speed bump on the road to greater understanding of the planet.
Oh and your "thumbs down conspiracy" is weak-sauce. Canadians are waking up to the fact that they have been misled by the church of AGW's dogmatic denial of reality.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 4:25 PM
Michael Sharp wrote:
Seriously?
Do people really put stock in thumbs up/down thingy?
personally?
I think it's a bore.
------------------------------------------
If it doesn't matter go back and take a look at your thumbs... :)
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 4:26 PM
Michael Sharp wrote: "Here's some lovely science..."
"The political left are less likely to have children than the political right.
Darwin and Natural Selection tell us that over time the political left will become extinct."
It's true, those hillbillies and rednecks breed like bunnies.
SassieLassie Oct. 17, 4:29 PM
Everyone should take the time to read what Climate Change is really about, Global Governance by the elite leftwingers.
Here's some interesting reading: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/action-alert-obama-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-december.html
Snippet: How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
End snippet:=======================
The Work Farce Oct. 17, 4:31 PM
Michael Sharp writes:
Seriously?
Do people really put stock in thumbs up/down thingy?
personally?
I think it's a bore.
-----------------------------------------------------
If everybody disapproves of all your comments, you must be doing something right - but so far to date nobody knows what that could be.
You might want to give yourself up and join the human race.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 4:31 PM
Blade Runner;If it doesn't matter go back and take a look at your thumbs... :)
COOL.........
Can you give me 300 thumbs down? That would have to be a record.....
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 4:33 PM
If the G&M continues to allow sorts by "Most thumbs-up" then it seems to me that they really should correct the defect or remove the voting mechanism altogether.
BCFORME Oct. 17, 4:35 PM
Climate change deniers and sceptics who cite Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer as a credible source may wish to see what George Monbiot has to say about the matter. It seems the famous geologist wasn't too keen to debate global warming with someone who is fully informed about the subject.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/answers-come-there-none/
Link Hogbrow Oct. 17, 4:36 PM
So not following the global warming "herd", by extension, shows courage ?
At any rate the human race seems bent on snuffing itself out, and that's certainly possible way before we hit one or more environmental tipping point.
The political will does not exist to avoid extinction.
Its like the old Fram commercial ... pay me now, or pay me later.
Hermesacat Oct. 17, 4:40 PM
Thumbs Up/Down Reality Check--
Before any readers start believing some of the improbable Thumbs Up/Down votes here, especially those Up/Down votes running 4or5-to-1 for the "pro-denial" camp, consider a few opinion polls:
-An '07 Angus Reid poll for CBC "found that almost four in five Canadians — 77 per cent — are convinced global warming is real.
'This is the biggest study that has been done on Canadians and their opinions and attitudes towards global warming,'...researcher Ellie Sykes [said].
In Alberta [province with most deniers per capita] 69 per cent of respondents said they believed in global warming, while in Quebec, the number soared to 83 per cent...Canadians ranked global warming at the top of their concerns along with health care."
-And a national '08 Pembina poll found 83% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement that "Canada should commit to strong action on global warming without waiting for other countries."
-So polls prove the vast majority of Canadians believe global warming is real, and it's important
Canada takes serious steps to address the problem.
-I wish Alan Burke success in having Globe web masters address apparent illegitimate multiple-voting activity by certain dishonest readers.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 4:42 PM
Isandhlwan writes "thinking in terms of 20 years is enough long term thinking, which, geologically, is absurd. Even if the warming takes a bit longer than anticipated, such as a century or two, then that would still be incredibly fast in terms of the history of the earth."
There's a problem with your suggestion that the Earth's climate changes at a leisurely pace, give a century here, take a century there.
While this may be true, your friends in the environmental movement want action NOW. We need to give them hundreds of billions of dollars because, gosh, we're really, really certain that the "tipping point" is IMMINENT. TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.
THis is the "if we tell people the truth, (or that we just don't know) they won't give us the money" principle.
Hugh Wood Oct. 17, 4:46 PM
So, Rex Murphy and a lot of the other deniers on this board seem to be Conservatives. But is denying the science behind climate change actually Conservative policy? It seems to very hard to get an answer one way or the other on where the Conservative Party actually stands on climate change.
They want to play it both ways because they know that if they actually came out and said that they think climate change is bunk they'd be murdered in the polls.
I find this duplicitous, but not untypical of the way the Conservative Party operates.
AEK1 Oct. 17, 4:46 PM
The purpose of the incredible hoax that a miniscule amount of man-made CO2 is going to wreck havoc on the planet is to advance the socialist’s never-ending mission for wealth redistribution and increasing power over people through government control.
To help precipitate this fraud, the socialists want us to forget that CO2 is essential for plant life, and that plants produce the oxygen necessary for all life on this planet. Instead, we are scolded that (despite their increasing population) the polar bears are in jeopardy and we are to blame. Shame, shame on us!
That there has been no global warming for years won't stop them. Patrick Buchanan reported in Townhall Magazine (Oct 16/09):
"The mounting evidence that global warming has halted and man is not responsible for climate change has thrown the Kyoto II lobby into something of a panic. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are re-branding the Senate cap-and-trade bill as a national security measure."
Yet, Obama and the Democrat-majority Congress won’t allow access to untapped off shore US oil reserves to secure more of its energy needs. After all, there’s plenty of money to be made and power to be wielded by restricting energy supplies, doling out government subsidies for “pet projects” and raising energy prices in the name of “saving the planet” from this bogus crisis.
Unfortunately, Canada will likely be forced to go along with the proposed US economy-killing cap-and-trade regulations to avoid being punished with massive job-killing tariffs on our exports. There is some consolation that the Conservative government, even while having officially swallowed the ‘Climate Change Kool Aid’, is trying to mitigate the damage from this farce through ongoing discussions and negotiations with the US government.
The last thing Canada needs is Michael Ignatieff taking more of our money to finance his big ‘nation-building’ visions by raising the price of energy and all goods and services that use it in their production.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 4:53 PM
AEK1, it's possible that you aren't familiar with the legitimate science behing anthropogenic climate change, in which case I suggest that you do some background reading. You could start on my "Introduction" page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Climate101.aspx
However, given what you have already said, I think you more likely fit into the category of those who are either intentionally distorting the truth or are willfully ignorant as in:
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Mike Keith Oct. 17, 4:56 PM
Does anyone else here feel that Rex Murphy has gone the way of Don Cherry. 10 years ago he was at the top of his game, now he's senile? Anyways, Rex, I think its best you have a cross country check up on the science of climate change. Then, compare and contrast it with peoples beliefs on economics and god and see which has the most legitimate supporting data. Maybe its time for you to think out of the box.
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 4:57 PM
Blade Runner;If it doesn't matter go back and take a look at your thumbs... :)
COOL.........
Can you give me 300 thumbs down? That would have to be a record.....
------------------------------------
Not sure if it would be a record, I have suspicions on other posters that it appears they took the time to thumbs up or down other posts way over 300 to try make it appear the majority agrees or disagrees with that particular comment.
But personally, even though you and I are usually 180 degrees opposite on viewpoints on many of the issues that the G&M writes about. I don't have the desire, patience, the zeal or crazy ambition to sit there and thumb's up or down a post into triple digits let alone into the high double digits. Aren't you lucky. lol.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 5:04 PM
Alan Burke: "I have no smoking gun, of course, because I don't have access to the G&M Internet logs but I have noticed that "Eyes Wide Open" coincidentally appears to be very active during those times when the anomalous votes are cast, and they are always in favour of the contrarian/denialist advocates."
=========================================
Oh darn Alan you caught me out! Yes, in fact I am the lord of the G&M blog realm! But take heed! Stop spewing your Alarmist nonsense or I will assure you get even more thumbs down!
IndigoHawk Oct. 17, 5:10 PM
Political Junkie,
The claims are "tipping points" are junk science and deserve no more consideration that the weekly horoscope in the paper since the planet was much warmer 8000-10000 years ago. If there were any temperature-triggered "tipping points" we would have already seen them.
Canada1 Oct. 17, 5:11 PM
Blade Runner;But personally, even though you and I are usually 180 degrees opposite on viewpoints on many of the issues that the G&M writes about.
Well.....perhaps 179 degrees......
Which I really don't mind, as long as you present a solid case for discussion,(which you have done) and avoid making remarks about my mental health. (which you do not)
Thus, job well done, keep it up.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 5:18 PM
Eyes Wide Open confessed:
"Oh darn Alan you caught me out! Yes, in fact I am the lord of the G&M blog realm! But take heed! Stop spewing your Alarmist nonsense or I will assure you get even more thumbs down!"
EWO you are malicious scum.
Gary Wilson Oct. 17, 5:19 PM
But Rex, Harper is already doing nothing about global warming, why would Ignatieff want to mimick that same approach? An opposition leader needs to offer a contrasting alternative.
I completely agree that simply following the overwhelming scientific evidence and thousands of climate scientists around the world whose expertise and research have all come to the same conclusion is not showing "courage." It's showing intelligence. Basic judgement.
You are irresponsibly misleading when you attempt to perversely cite the Y2K computer hysteria, the short-lived "global cooling" anxiety, and Galileo's theories of the centre of the universe, as examples not to buy into the scientific evidence of global warming. Y2K and global cooling were failures as theories because they were NOT based on solid, peerr-reviewed science. Galileo was courageous and correct because his research WAS based on science. His critics were based on ideology. Global warming IS based on science. Your examples give more reason support the scientifically based consensus on global warming, and nothing in the way of denying it--except by your perversion of accounts.
You also do an injustice by automatically linking the armagedon alarmists to the solid science of global warming. There is some cross over between the two because the science shows high likelihood that global warming will cause extreme changes. But just because some alarmists--who do not base their claims on solid peer-reveiewed science--go overboard in their fear monguering doens't automatically mean the basic science on global warming is suddenly in question.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 5:20 PM
We see excellent examples of the type of thinking that has no place in a discussion about science:
If people disagree with me, there must be a conspiracy to give me the "thumbs down."
If someone has reservations about man-made Global warming, ergo, he is a Conservative.
Geeez! Really.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 5:20 PM
K Fear-A-Day: "Drought in the western States and provinces, Africa, southern Europe and elsewhere in part caused by climate change have left 1 billion people without food."
============================================
Actually the fact that more people are starving today is more related to the econuts forcing the burning of food in our fuel tanks than anything else! I guess they want to add millions more dead from starvation to the 40 million+ they killed through the ban on DDT that they fostered!
CourtGQuinn Oct. 17, 5:23 PM
Looking at the wikipedia article regarding "ogallala aquifer"...it seems more areas have shown a decrease in ground water saturation rather then an increase from the period 1980-1995. So if there's been global cooling the last decade...does that mean aquifers around the globe have been replenished? Same with glaciers. According to the research i've done....almost all glaciers have been retreating in the last few decades, except for a few glaciers in Alaska that have increased in size. Political leaders should almost forget about combatting Carbon dioxide emissions and instead focus on fresh water availablity. New technologies will decrease the need for fossil fuels in coming years without putting a dollar figure on CO2. Perhaps that why some coal/oil/gas companies actually WANT cap and trade and credit schemes to come into place..they want to be paid if solar/wind/tidal/biofuels start eating into their profits...as in: "pay us to stop putting CO2 into atmosphere!". It will be the economics of "green" tech that causes carbon fuels to not be as needed in the future.
Focus on fresh water "capture and storage" plans. Irrigate more. Create infrastucture so that crops never need to go without water in the dry/arid of western Canada that is prone to drought.
And why is it that the conservatives who hardly believe in AGW aren't putting the Alberta/Canada govs to task for funding billions pumping CO2 underground? At least liberals/left are honest about their desire to "do something" regarding global warming (even if that "something" isn't fully known). But the "right"- who don't believe in the problem- are spending billions pumping CO2 underground. If those monies were instead used to buy/install wind/solar techonologies...at least said investment would actually produce green power. Pumping CO2 underground to "sequester" is politically and environmentally suspect.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 5:24 PM
No "tipping points" IndigoHawk. Wrong. Here's one (not as dramatic as losing the Atlantic conveyor to be sure):
2009-06-17
PNAS: Contingencies and compounded rare perturbations dictate sudden distributional shifts during periods of gradual climate change: doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904946106
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/16/0904946106.abstract?etoc
Ecological responses to climate change may occur gradually with changing conditions, or they may occur rapidly once some threshold or “tipping point” has been reached. Here, we use a high-resolution, 30-year data set on the upper vertical limit of a high intertidal alga to demonstrate that distributional shifts in this species do not keep pace with gradual trends in air temperature or sea level, but rather occur in sudden, discrete steps. ...
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 5:29 PM
Burke:
Eyes Wide Open confessed:
"Oh darn Alan you caught me out! Yes, in fact I am the lord of the G&M blog realm! But take heed! Stop spewing your Alarmist nonsense or I will assure you get even more thumbs down!"
EWO you are malicious scum.
====================================
Well one thing's for sure Alan - you are very gullible! No wonder you've fallen for the Alarmist nonsense!
CourtGQuinn Oct. 17, 5:37 PM
Since Google put all those Life magazines on their books website....i've gone through a few dozen cover to cover reading stories and looking at pitctures from the 1930's onwards. Thanks Google! Thanks Life/PopSci/PopMech magazines! (Why isn't there Canadian based magazines archived for people to view?) The Feb 20, 1939 issue is interesting. Did you know there was a hurricane that swept far north during Sept 1938? A vast stretch of land from New England to Canada saw millions of trees felled...4 billion board feet! It being the depression and all...and seeing as how millions weren't working...many were put to work harvesting all those downed trees. Time was of the essence. Bark beetles would have started decomposing all those trees within months if they weren't harvested. Right away all that wood was cut and put into ponds where they could stay for years in water without worry of decomposition. And it was alot of wood..enough lumber to build 250 000 houses!
Reading old articles like that make me question the science behind CO2 in the atmosphere even more so. Hurricanes and forest fires are natural events that have downed/burned trees since they have been on this earth. It would seem that humans- by stopping fires and harvesting trees before they rot- have unnnaturally altered the amount of carbon that should be in the atmosphere...
Blade Runner Oct. 17, 5:39 PM
Canada1:
Well.....perhaps 179 degrees......
------------------------------------
This is rare, since this time I agree with you only being 1 degree out of being 100% in agreement with you, because I still believe its 180.
But it's fine with me also, to be challenged and read opposite polarities of thoughts and opinions. Especially if the other poster can power drive a point home that I had not considered before and it actually gets me re-thinking my viewpoint on a current issue or topic.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 5:39 PM
Gary Wilson, I don't know how old you are but you should not under-rate the "scientific consensus" around the "coming ice-age" and Y2K in their day.
It's also clear that the hero of the environmentalists around the first Earth Day was Paul Erlich. His theories were very broadly shared at the time and his acolytes were so gosh darn sincerely convinced that the "populatin bomb" was going to do us in, SOON. We had already passed the "tipping point."
His predictions of mass starvation of billions (Including folks in North America)and critical scarcity of key resources before the end of the last century of course proved to be ridiculously wrong.
Strangely, despite the fact that his batting average is zero, he's still a great draw at environmental conferences. As long as you have apocalyptic predictions, you can count on having masses of adoring fans from among the many chronically misanthropic tree huggers. Nothing sells better here than doomsday theories!
MCBellecourt Oct. 17, 5:51 PM
Putting aside the arguments concurring or denying climate change, the other nagging factor is, is that other countries (read:Potential Trading Partners) are leaving Canada in the dust when it comes to working on the technology for alternate energy sources, even though we have the know-how and the expertise to move ahead with them!
Progressive times call for progressive measures and I have yet to see any of those come with this government!
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 5:51 PM
The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic.
SGB Oct. 17, 5:57 PM
Does Rex actually read any of the mainstream science on global warming (i.e. what nearly all the climatologists say) or the many authoritative summaries thereof, or is his "intellectual boldness" on the subject confined to confronting the subject through the filters of dissenters? For Rex and others with the "intellectual hardihood" to think outside the box of climate change denial, the BBC story that he bases his rant on is critically dissected here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/13/the-bbc-hudson-what-happened-to-global-warming-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history/
And here is a general critique of the argument that "global warming has stopped":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 17, 5:59 PM
Shocking how quickly the climate change supporters stalled out. Why is that? If what they say is true, why is the tide turning against them? Interesting questions because usually when you have a fact it stands up to scrutiny. Wait a minute its not a fact but a theory...never mind. The church of AGW has started to crumble.
postnboom Oct. 17, 6:03 PM
If the global warming experts didn't see this cooling period coming, how can we trust them to know what will follow?
mememine69 Oct. 17, 6:04 PM
A herd of angry 3rd world dictators and tyrants yelling “GIVE US THE MONEY” at the upcoming IPCC Flat Earth meeting in Copenhagen should graphically illustrate why Kyoto is more like Y2Kyoto, a mistake, a media freak show and a liberal WMD scam that history will laugh at, cry at, and curse us all for. Draft language for the agreement reveals that the UN will demand developed nations commit a minimum of 0.7% of GDP as compensation to underdeveloped countries on top of any existing foreign aid programs. In Canada's case, that would be another $10 billion or so, in addition to the $4 billion already committed. No longer a covert "Socialist scheme to suck money out of the wealth-producing nations," as Stephen Harper once described it, this UN larceny requires that the new money be remitted directly to the UN for disbursement and effectively usurps the autonomy of sovereign nations to manage their own foreign aid programs. The UN has allowed Carbon Trading to trump 3rd World Education, clean water and starvation rescue. Nice job UN. Nice jog liberals. Surely, this is the 1939 of Greenzism.
If you climate cowards still believe in this 23 year old CO2 mistake, can you look a little more alarmed at least? You say “SAVE THE PLANET”. So get out there. Goosestep like a good committed Greenzi with your sign that says THE END IS NEAR.
Stop scaring my kids and be responsible enviros.
Doris wrench eisler Oct. 17, 6:11 PM
So it's not just that CFCs, HFCs and CO2 emissions generally do not cause global warming, Rex Murphy denies there is global warming. So the melting of polar ice caps and the fact that arctic seas and ocean will soon have no summer ice is perhaps just an illusion, mirage or outright deception. And Australians who are presently fined and ostracized for watering gardens and trees are being put upon by government. I can buy that if he can also sell it to the polar bears.
Earl the Pearl 2 Oct. 17, 6:11 PM
Sorry to inform you but the retreat of glaciers is not evidence for human induced global warming. The last ice age ended some 10,000 to 12,000 years. Many glaciers such as those comprising the Columbia Icefields are a remnant of that ice age. They have been retreating long before our industrial society came into being.
There have been at least 4 ice ages in the last 100,000 years. Human activity certainly was not the cause of their retreat. There is indeed evidence in rocks 2.5 billion years old for glaciation (Gowganda Formation, Southern Province of the Canadian Shield).
Glaciers also retreat because ablation (ice loss)at the glacial front exceeds precipitation in the snow fields above the glacier.
Citizen Joe Oct. 17, 6:15 PM
I don't know why Iggy has not caught on to the fact that Canadians have become a dumbed down, backwards looking people that prize materialism over all other values.
Why the very fact that Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister is more than adequate evidence of this fact.
We like to pride ourselves as intelligent, progressive people but the evidence does not support this view. We think that because we have gay marraige that we must be an advanced people. While gay marraige may be a progressive act .... is one of the very few in our inventory.
I really don't know what exactly has caused this embarrassing backwards slide in Canada .... but it would probably be safe to say that materialism has a great deal to do with it.
We are but a shadow of the nation that we used to be. Why a report was released a couple of weeks ago suggesting that our the government of Stephen Harper had knowledge of torture tainting Canada's hands ..... all that he had to do was sing a carefully staged Beatles' diddy at the National Arts Centre the next day in order to get the story off the front page .... and worse yet .... his popularity numbers went up.
This does not speak well for our nation.
We should hang our heads in shame .... and so should Rex Murphy.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 6:21 PM
Talk about torture.
The Canadian government refuses to ban the import of unlabelled dog and cat fur into Canada.
We are fur traders, eh?
And by the way, Canadians could boycott shark finning for shark fin soup if they are at all concerned about prediction of ocean collapse by 2048.
Sy Borg Oct. 17, 6:23 PM
Rex Murphy,
You have been forewarned! The Church of GW is issuing a Papal bull stating you are an obstinate heretic & will be excommunicated forthwith. Punishments will include banishment, public shaming, a lot of finger wagging, etc.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 6:27 PM
According to the Bible, we have little choice in our future.
According to science, we have the knowledge upon which to base wise decisions and to make positive changes.
Chris in Ottawa Oct. 17, 6:31 PM
Rex Murphy, like many Newfoundlanders, is a great talker but that doesn't mean he's right, however authoritatively he streams out his story. Rex is so full of it, in fact, that he has his own parody - Max Pointy - on Air Farce I believe.
I certainly don't believe that there has been no increase in global temperatures in the last eleven years (cleverly the length of the sunspot cycle which also affects global temperatures and weather). There has certainly been no cooling, in the winters at least. Here in Ottawa, we've been getting lots of rain in the winter (screwing up the ski season) for about ten years now apart from the winter before last where it was just enough colder that we got buried in snow. When I first arrived here in 1974, the snow would arrive in the fourth week of November and wouldn't be gone until towards middle or end of April; the canal would be open for skating on New Year's Eve. Christmas Eve of 74 or 75 was -30. We almost never see -30 these years at all, let alone that early.
Another problem with Murohy's diatribe is that it ignores the fact that there are two reasons to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. One is to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases (even if you're not an AWG believer, it's hard to accept that it's a good idea to keep increasing CO2 and methane levels, for example). The second reason is to ration the fossil fuels that we have left and to take advantage of alternative energy sources and the fact that development of some of these sources are real economic drivers - why should we be dependent on big oil, gas and coal producers? These guys dig it up and ship it out with negligible value-added to our economy.
Rex is another wing-nut ready to thrust his sword into the side of any political party remotely central or, God forbid, left of centre.
Brian J. Oct. 17, 6:35 PM
Why is the proof and cause of global warming so important anyways? Isn't the idea of keeping the air we breath, breathable and the water we drink, drinkable enough?
Chris in Ottawa Oct. 17, 6:41 PM
Alan Burke
Thanks for the presentation of the scientific facts. It is a sad testimony to the state of denial around these days that so many people are hitting the thumbs down on your reasonable posts. "Don't tell me that bad stuff, I'm in a happy place from the right-wing KoolAid."
Rob_thought Oct. 17, 6:47 PM
To me, all credibility is lost when someone writes an article that claims Y2K was a myth. Rex and the rest of the media never forgave all of the thousands of people who worked to change an incredible amount of software so as to avoid a real problem from occurring.
When Y2K didn't cause a calamity and sell lots of newspapers, people like Rex got upset and said the whole thing was a hoax.
If Climate change is real, and a lot of hard work avoids a catastrophe (as DID happen with Y2K), then when the media goes nuts and calls it a hoax as well, at least we will all still have somewhere to live.
If we all end up with LED light bulbs and windmills, but it supports 7 billion people at a decent standard of living on the planet, then I say, "so what?". The worst that happens is that we make the world more livable for everyone and create a lot of new spin off technologies in the process.
Gee, that would also be technological progress for something other than warfare? What a concept.
J.P Oct. 17, 6:49 PM
I'm sure that next week Rex will cover the important debate about the 'Spaghetti Monster' theory of creation, seeing how there have been a couple of scientists that have spoken in favour of this theory, it has been reported on the BBC, and if you look back 11 years the world has not been evolving but devolving. This is certain proof that those of the church of evolution are quacks and that only an enlightened individual such as Rex Murphy is capable of researching all statements concerning such a debate and come to a sensible conclusion that the theory of the Spaghetti Monster is the correct one, and that the day of reckoning also known as the day of slurping will be soon upon us. Please Rex you must continue to shine a light on all these debates that only the pious consider complete.
MillbrookDan Oct. 17, 6:50 PM
The denialists here remind me of Ontario's premier Mike Harris. They probably agreed with him when he downloaded public health completely to the municipalities on the basis that the days of massive public health crisis are over. Only a few years later Ontario became the only jurisdiction in the western world to be shut down due to SARS.
Cyrus of Persia Oct. 17, 7:03 PM
MillbrookDan (6:50), I deplored what Mike Harris did in Ontario, and I didn't much care for the guy himself, from what I could gather of his personality. And, I don't buy for a moment the groupthink nonsense about global warming. Your use of the word "denialist"--I think you mean deniers, but you may have a technical intention of some kind in mind--is reactionary claptrap. Rex's analogy between the consensus of religious deniers of Galileo's discovery and the Al Gore herd that denies compelling evidence which will, in time, overwhelm the prevailing consensus of nonsense today, is sound.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 7:12 PM
Cyrus of Persia: It was the religious herd which denounced Galileo and his science.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 7:17 PM
"The consensus multitude who tormented him are now a byword for folly and ignorance." Rex Murphy
Trevor Kay Oct. 17, 7:23 PM
Rex only talks about this issue when there's a small shred of doubt that gets some press. The thousands of other scientific articles seem to clam him up.
Chris in Ottawa Oct. 17, 7:27 PM
MPowers
"Michael Ignatieff standing in the wrong field complaining that the project slated for that field and scheduled to start next year, has not been started yet."
The field that Ignatieff was standing in was supposed to have been turned into a park by that time. John Baird was standing a construction site of a new building. Ignatieff wasn't "standing in the wrong field", he was standing in a different one.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the site where Baird was had anything to do with budget infrastructure funds. Now, were Ignatieff's field and Baird's field in different ridings?
garlicktoast Oct. 17, 7:40 PM
Our government is lobbying against clean air legislation in the U.S. and the DFO is issuing permits to mining companies so they can legally use fresh water lakes as tailings ponds.The Liberals should make pollution abatement their issue.Everyone understands pollution.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 7:47 PM
garlicktoast: Our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not have an undergraduate degree in science.
A.Sh. Oct. 17, 7:50 PM
Poor Rex: caught in the brown box of his own filling, he can no longer contain his anger, but giving voice to it only succours those sharing the box with him.
Chris in Ottawa Oct. 17, 7:51 PM
Bob Dylan's Voice
"hocking how quickly the climate change supporters stalled out. Why is that? If what they say is true, why is the tide turning against them?"
We haven't stalled out and neither has the science go read the article referenced by SGB, link provided below for your convenience. The facts that scientists that support AGW outnumber those that don't by a huge margin.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/13/the-bbc-hudson-what-happened-to-global-warming-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history/
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 7:51 PM
She did work at the local Legion in her community, however.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 7:54 PM
Alan lies again, saying: " Mathematical models of climate change... also track measurements very well, within the bounds of uncertainty in measurement."
Were that the case we would not see the models showing warming at just over half the rate of the actual observations from 1910-1940; something not in the models was causing warming back then, and in all likelihood contributed to the 1970-2000 warming as well. The only reason the models match even that timeframe is that they were carefully selected and tuned to match, as the modellers own methodology reveals.
The uncertainty in the models lavishly exceeds that of the observations. 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
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 7:55 PM
And Alan, if you dislike being called a liar, the obvious solution is to stop lying.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 7:59 PM
kferaday writes: "You just need to look at what's going on in the world right now to know that climate change is real."
Look at the way temperatures have been changing as CO2 concentrations continue to rise inexorably:
pretty graph of annual temperature averages updated monthly:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa observatory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:03 PM
Oh, boy. GlynnMhor has arrived.
The Guru from the Friends of Science Institute of Alberta, a right-wing think-tank funded by Big Oil.
And he is a cheap bugger, who was not willing to pay for his own way to a Viking celebration.
I told him I would pay on his behalf.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:03 PM
gzap writes: "You can listen to the consensus of the scientific community represented by the IPCC or you can listen to the occasional skeptic."
Or you can look at the models and the observations yourself and see if the models really make sense or not. It's abunbdantly clear that the models are missing some important factor(s) and it's also pathetically clear that the modellers are busy denying the obvious instead of modifying their hypotheses.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:04 PM
GlynnMhor, get your Viking helmet on!!!!
The Vikings were able to sail the seas without oil, no matter how you spin it.
A.Sh. Oct. 17, 8:05 PM
Glynnmhor, you can deny all you want, but the more you deny the more people realize you're getting paid for it.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 17, 8:09 PM
Another great climate change article. All this common sense is like fresh air.
Mr. Grieves Oct. 17, 8:12 PM
I wonder does Rex consider the National Academy of Sciences part of this ignorant Herd?
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:13 PM
It was only a matter of time, I guess, before GlynnMhor showed up with his usual Poor-Johnny-One-Note song. He has posted the same drivel almost word for word for at least two years, totally ignoring what's actually happening in scientific modelling of climate, like the advances described at the WCC3 Geneva conference last month:
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
He's the epitome of the expression "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it think".
GlynnMhor's technique of trend analysis is what I call the crayon and ruler approach - pick a low resolution graph, identify two points and draw a line between them, calling that the trend. Oh, and by the way, be sure to pick the points so that the trend says what you want it to say.
Frequent commentators on climate issues will know that he has been rebutted and refuted continually but he keeps coming back with the same old story because this forum has amnesia.
GlynnMhor, like it or not, the ensemble mean of current climate models does track measurements - you just refuse to recognize the fact.
Your accusation that I lie is false and offensive, falling well outside the G&M posting guidelines but the moderators appear to tolerate it to encourage your usual Gish Gallop that follows.
How are things at the "Friends of Science" GlynnMhor? Are you still doing seismic analysis for the fossil fuel companies in Calgary?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:14 PM
Hugh Wood writes: "The point is, the glaciers are melting rapidly because of human-caused climate change."
No, the only point is that the glaciers are melting because it's warmer now than it was at the nadir of the last little ice age in 1860, caused by the variance in solar activity levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:16 PM
Alan writes: "Experience since 2007 has shown that many of the IPCC projections, for example the decay of Arctic sea ice, were too conservative..."
And that merely highlights the ineffectiveness of their modelling and predicting abilities.
Meanwhile their temperature projections have failed spectacularly as the globe stubbornly refuses to return to the 1970-2000 warming rate.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:17 PM
GlynnMhor-Get your Viking helmet on!!
It's party time!! :)
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:20 PM
Rex Murphy would look awfully good in a Viking helmet, too!!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:23 PM
Geoffrey May writes: "If it is true, that the global average temperature is decreesing , all that shows is that global average temperatures are not a reliable indicator of climate change"
If the rate of global warming is not an indicator of global warming, the heart of the issue, then there's more than just a few problems lurking.
One can expect delays or lag times to see responses of some phenomena to changes in temperature. It is still warmer now than it was, say, twenty years ago, and will still be warmer than that for some time as temperatures fall.
So since it's warmer, ice melts more than it used to. It may take a century for the ongoing solar Grand Minimum to bring us back to temperatures of the 1860s, though we can hope that our GHG efforts will slow down this process to some extent.
kferaday Oct. 17, 8:24 PM
Eyes Wide Shut,
You're the one lying about Arctic Ice here's a link to Science News that shows the ice is thinning significantly. There is significantly less 2 year or older ice in 2009 than the 1981 to 2000 median. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/42511/name/sp-ice-map.jpg
As for your thoughts on the cause of hunger it shows just how out of touch you are. You want to bring DDT back? How dumb are you?
Also, given the evidence you have not provided any proof that man made climate change is not happening. Where is your 100% proof that we shouldn't be worried? We're all waiting. Or is the fact that you just spew the same couple of facts evidence that you're full it.
And Political Junkie. You state that now that you're retired you're free to state whatever opinion you want. If that's the case why are you afraid to reveal yourself? How do we know you have any real credentials.
Where's the evidence? Anyone? Anyone?
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:24 PM
Here's a case of GlynnMhor's distortion of reality:
"Meanwhile their temperature projections have failed spectacularly as the globe stubbornly refuses to return to the 1970-2000 warming rate."
I have pointed him repeatedly to studies which show quite clearly what has been happening in the past 10 years or so, yet he continues with his fiction. Read the papers of Swanson, Tsonis et al., and listen to the WCC3 state of the art discussion about variability.
Your deceptions are plainly transparent, GlynnMhor, to anyone who bothers to follow the links to legitimate science rather than your industry-inspired propaganda.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:27 PM
GlynnMhor: Do you have a sense of humour, or not?
Or are you a robot or an automaton, ala 1984?
Just wondering.
Thanks.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 8:28 PM
I am thinking that GlynnMhor works for the Ministry of Truth, just like Rex Murphy.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:30 PM
GlynnMhor said "And that merely highlights the ineffectiveness of their modelling and predicting abilities.".
What he fails to acknowledge is that there was a "Republican War on Science" during the Bush years, interfering with what was done and what was reported, including at the IPCC where political pressure forced pablum wording into what had been clear warnings about the level of confidence of the science being reported on.
Don't believe me? Check out my "Politics" page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Politics.aspx
E.g., Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science (Union of Concerned Scientists 2004)
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/UCSINTEGRITY.PDF
T Burke TO Oct. 17, 8:31 PM
"In the name of bicycle paths, twisty bulbs, windmills and slow-flush toilets, carbon offsets and compost heaps, I declare the BBC heretical."
Hits the nail on the head describing the commonents from some clowns in here. Like the half of the country doesn't believe in AGW is all on some corporate payoff plan.
Looks like this will be the new job boom to bring us the States and Britain out of the recession.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:32 PM
Alan writers: "GlynnMhor, like it or not, the ensemble mean of current climate models does track measurements - you just refuse to recognize the fact."
Hansen claimed that before, when it was obviously not the case. So what new factors have they introduced to fix the problems, Alan?
I have heard of no great new insights from any of them, (and you have linked to none), and making short term models that they start up at a known temperature hardly counts, since they can't go far off in just a few years.
Not the Green Taliban Oct. 17, 8:35 PM
It's about time the BBC actually acted like a journalistic service.
Rex is right of course. And hopefully our government will realize this and NOT sign the Copenhagen treaty which will take away our sovreignity.
Al Gore's snake-oil has too many converts that are too proud to admit his 'inconvenient truth' was a bunch of lies and hysteria.
The Climate Change bandwagon is now trying to extort money from developed countries to bankrupt them to pour into the hands of dictators of third world countries for doing nothing to change their policies. Ever seen the smoke filled atmosphere of Nairobi where everyone burns their garbage daily? And Kenya's plains are being denuded by elephants at an alarming rate. How will Canada bankrupting itself help that?
Wake up folks and smell the coffee. The UN wants to run the world by counting on our gullibility. And the most gullible are academics and lefty loons who believe anything another lefty tells them.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:36 PM
More on the "Republican War on Science":
2008-11-17
SciAm: Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water
The natural gas industry refuses to reveal what is in the mixture of chemicals used to drill for the fossil fuel.
In July a hydrologist dropped a plastic sampling pipe 300 feet down a water well in rural Sublette County, Wy. and pulled up a load of brown oily water with a foul smell. Tests showed it contained benzene, a chemical believed to cause aplastic anemia and leukemia, in a concentration 1,500 times the level safe for people.
The results sent shockwaves through the energy industry and state and federal regulatory agencies. Sublette County is the home of one of the nation's largest natural gas fields, and many of its 6,000 wells have undergone a process pioneered by Halliburton called hydraulic fracturing, which shoots vast amounts of water, sand and chemicals several miles underground to break apart rock and release the gas. The process has been considered safe since a 2004 study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that it posed no risk to drinking water. After that study, Congress even exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Today fracturing is used in 9 out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States.
Over the last few years, however, a series of contamination incidents have raised questions about that EPA study and ignited a debate over whether the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing may threaten the nation’s increasingly precious drinking water supply. ...
1/2
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:36 PM
More on the "Republican War on Science" (cont'd):
Remember Halliburton? Vice-President Dick Cheney was its CEO until he resigned just before the 2000 election. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that:
In recent years the company has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President. Some commentators have speculated on a possible conflict of interest from Cheney receiving deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton.
2/2
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:37 PM
Alan writes: "I have pointed him repeatedly to studies which show quite clearly what has been happening in the past 10 years or so..."
Oh? Where then? (and no, I'm not going to plow through all of your precious website looking for any of it).
Meanwhile the IPCC Fourth Report confidently declares that temperatures will continue to rise at the same 1970-2000 rate under even the more optimistic GHG concentration scenarios, and yet temperatures have not done so.
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
"... there was a "Republican War on Science"..."
No, Alan, the Republicans didn't force the IPCC to exagerate the warming in their models; they did that all on their own.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:39 PM
Alan, for all that you decry my 'one note' pointing out the continuing failures of the modelling and the underlying assumptions, you're going well in the other direction with stuff totally unconnected to climatology, and not even connected with the Republican Party (though why you've such a 'down' on them is beyond me).
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:42 PM
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air
How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
From the Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2007
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine by: Sharon Begley - 6 August 2007
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=102958862007
... If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion. ...
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 8:45 PM
Moderator's Note: Building an Ark's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Geoffrey May Oct. 17, 8:46 PM
Glynn Mhor, the forcing of atmospheric carbon is the heart of the issue, not the name put on it. "Global Warming" seems to be what the mainstream media chose to call the consequences of increasing atmospheric carbon above pre-industrial levels. I have always regarded "Climate Change" as a more accurate description.The degrees of ice melt occuring today greatly exceed any recorded historical shifts.You are always criticizing models and GW theory, yet we have Incontrovertable , empiricle evidence for unreferrenced changes in modern times, of essential ecosystem function .Neither icecap melt, glacier melt, tundra melt,drought, or storm activity on their own are proof of major systemic problems, but the combination of all these events should not be lightly dismissed.The doublng of atmospheric carbon should likewise not be dismissed out of hand.There are myriad consequences and reactions to any shift in ecosystem activity, and rarely is there a direct line from A to B.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:46 PM
Gee, Alan, are you an ex-smoker bitter at being deprived of your health and youth and resentful of the tobacco industry or something?
What is it with AGW enthusiasts and cigarettes anyway?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:51 PM
May writes: "GlynnMhor, the forcing of atmospheric carbon is the heart of the issue, not the name put on it."
Exactly so, and none of the melting, warming, shrinking, or expanding about which you carry on tells us anything about WHY the climate used to be warming (1910-1940 & 1970-2000 or so), nor why it has stopped doing so in the 21st century.
While we can theorize a role for CO2 in particular, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere does not alone explain the total warming, nor the 30 year alternances between warming and cooling, nor the connections between climate and solar activity.
And the climate models based on exagerating CO2 effects via feedbacks can only be made to match part of the timeframe of the observations, so they're clearly inadequate.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 8:52 PM
GlynnMhor, I'm sure that you know the "Smoke Mirrors and Hot Air" techniques very well - they're demonstrably part of your play book in commenting on climate issues.
Joplin's Lou Oct. 17, 8:52 PM
Ever notice the more that people ask for a second look the louder and nastier the name calling and sky is falling crowd gets? Someone should write a computer model to illustrate it, or for how how many supporters they are going to lose next. Spot on, BBC!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:53 PM
May writes: "The doublng of atmospheric carbon should likewise not be dismissed out of hand."
Well, we're nowhere near that yet, and if the 'peak oil' pundits are correct we may never reach that point.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 8:55 PM
Alan, why is it you so resent my pointing people to the actual data and model results, as opposed to the 'talking heads' who write abstracts and summaries?
Is it that the actual observations still don't match the models? And are moving away from what the models projected? I'm sure this would be a source of distress to anyone who holds a dogmatic view of climate.
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 8:57 PM
Moderator's Note: Building an Ark's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 9:01 PM
After I stated that have pointed him repeatedly to studies which show quite clearly what has been happening in the past 10 years or so, GlynnMhor said:
"Oh? Where then? (and no, I'm not going to plow through all of your precious website looking for any of it)."
The links are right near the top of my page "The Cooling Myth" GlynnMhor and I have posted them many times for you but I'll do it once again:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
It is important to distinguish between short-term natural variability and long-term rise. There are fluctuations in global average temperature, driven in large part by the oceans, and the transition points around 1910, 1940 and 1970 are likely shifts in decadal natural variability; the flattening of temperatures since about 2000 may also be such a transition but it in no way negates the long-term monotonically increasing and accelerating rise in temperatures attributed to human causes, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. See the PNAS 2009-09-14 article cited below for details about decadal variability.
1) From "RealClimate", 18 Jul. 2009: Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability
A guest commentary by Kyle Swanson – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
2) PNAS: Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908699106; Swanson, Sugihara and Tsonis
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/09/09/0908699106.abstract?etoc
3) Has the climate recently shifted?, Swanson and Tsonis
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:04 PM
Building an Ark: You accuse me of bringing religion into this debate.
Look to Mr. Rex Murphy, the Enlightened One, and the Holy Annointed One at the Ministry of Truth.
Try to count the number of religious words and references in all of Mr. Rex Murphy's columns.
And then get back to me.
Thanks.
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 9:05 PM
Moderator's Note: Building an Ark's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
J.P Oct. 17, 9:08 PM
Rex Murphy should sell mutual funds, he would great at it. He could say things like, "Since March 2009, our funds have increased by 50%, clearly our funds are high performers." Of course, that statement only works if you ignore the 6 months prior to March 2009.
Just like the statement that the earth has been cooling for 11 years. Of course if you start your frame of reference with the hottest year on record, 1998, then everything afterwards will be cooler, including the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th hottest years on record that occurred during that time frame.
Rex would have to turn in his Global Cooling badge if he said the last 10 years, or used a longer frame of reference. And Rex really loves his Global Cooling badge. It allows him to confuse things like weather and climate, or wrap himself in truthiness.
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 9:08 PM
kferaday writes:
"And Political Junkie. You state that now that you're retired you're free to state whatever opinion you want. If that's the case why are you afraid to reveal yourself? How do we know you have any real credentials."
You may SPECULATE that I have no credentials or credibility.
However, I know for SURE that you can't read. I didn't say I was retired; I'm not.
P.S: May I assume that kferaday is your legal name?
T Burke TO Oct. 17, 9:09 PM
It's religion with some of these guys. If it was science they wouldn't go nuts because their models failed and everyone people figuring out that maybe predicting the future is going to take some work, not to mention an open mind.
HJ7 Oct. 17, 9:12 PM
An excellent article but I predict that those with a vested interest in global warming will continue to predict it no matter how cold we get. The CO2 increase may be the only thing keeping another ice age away.
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 9:13 PM
Shadow of the Bear, I accuse you not! I point out facts...you folks seem incapable of looking beyong the end of your nez, to see that! Check back on your own posts and get back to me if I miscalculated your religious references??? That is not accusatory, just factual...something you and others seem to a deal with abandon!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 9:13 PM
Building an Ark, I use bold case for study titles, italics for quotes and any capital letters are built in to quotes or URLs. Occasionally I also use bold for emphasis in a long statement to focus on a particular point.
I'm sorry that you don't like it but I'm not about to change.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:13 PM
We need a bigger brain.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:14 PM
Where is that fourth lobe?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:14 PM
Alan, as Swanson et al confess (line 176 ff of the paper) "The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links..."
So your link confirms what I've been saying for some time; namely that the 1970-2000 warming stalled after 2001 and that the climate modellers' understanding of it remains limited.
Swanson postulates some sort of internal variability as being a possibility, but pointedly does not go so far as to claim to have enough evidence for that.
This is an example of your extrapolating the conservative, limited, and nuanced language of actual science to claim that it supports your dogmatic view. It is similar to taking the solid consensus that GHGs provide some warming and then manufacturing a claim that there is a consensus around catastrophic warming.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:15 PM
Alan writes: "Building an Ark, I use bold case for study titles, italics for quotes..."
He IS consistent in his style, Ark. It's not just shouting.
Building an Ark Oct. 17, 9:19 PM
Moderator's Note: Building an Ark's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:19 PM
GlynnMhor: Where is the fourth lobe in the evolution of our "triune" brain?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:21 PM
No idea, Shadow, but maybe it will finally separate us from our ancient evolutionary holdover of lusting for religion and gods.
Harlequin Oct. 17, 9:22 PM
Thank you Rex. It is so refreshing to get a POV based upon reason and not hysteria.
This pre-Copenhagen period is bloated with so many fear-mongering global warmers and their doomsday studies. Global cooling, whodathunkit...just as the Ontario government is about to kick industry in the pills with its rush to tax the crap out of them with its global warming tax. Great cure for the recession McGuinty...tax industry more so they can pack up and leave.
If you work in a factory making $25-35/hour you should be afraid. Your factory is likely going to shut down in less than a decade, but perhaps you can get in on the green job bonanza and make $10-15/hour putting solar panels together.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:22 PM
Ark, I wish he wouldn't, too, but it's not the worst bad habit to encounter on the net.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:22 PM
Hmmmm........
Griffon1 Oct. 17, 9:23 PM
Alan,
Have a drink. Give yourself and others a rest.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:24 PM
Bear writes: "Hmmmm........"
GlynMhor replies: "?????"
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:25 PM
I shall take your advice, Griffon1, whether Alan does or not.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:27 PM
GlynnMhor: Do you think that intelligent life on other planets struggles with ancient mythology, or is planet Earth unique in this sort of thing?
Is our brain hardwired to accept the myths and discredit the science which opposes them?
Why are human beings perpetually "Waiting for Godot"?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:33 PM
Well, Bear, it's off the topic, but my hypothesis is that in ancient times having a religion would allow a tribe to get leadership input not just from whoever happens to be, as chief, 'the biggest and meanest SOB in the tribe', but also from the smart folks who could become shamans.
Thus a tribe or extended family group might hear from the shaman, reading the stars, that the time had come to go to the river mouth and take of the spawning salmon. And the shaman would be right, being a smart little early human. In contrast a tribe led solely by some big strong oaf might waste time and effort to go to the river at the wrong moment.
So early humans hard-wired to want a religion would have a tendency to make sure someone in the tribe became a shaman, and make sure that the chief listened to the shaman on some decisions. And as a result would have a slight evolutionary advantage, and a slight advantage is all that's necessary for genes to spread.
M Maxwell Oct. 17, 9:35 PM
No one cares what Rex Murphy thinks. He justy a washed up media hack that cannot find the centre even if someone walked him there.
M Maxwell Oct. 17, 9:37 PM
Al Gore: "BEWARE OF PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS!"
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 9:39 PM
The fundamental problem for the alarmists is that predictions, provided with supreme confidence, have not come to pass.
http/www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/COP9.pdf
What actually has happened is that the models have been tweaked after the fact by "back-casting" to prepare a phony alibi for the errors.
If ten years is not an adequate period to account for "natural variability," how long does it take?
At what point do the "believers" become as credible as the folks who have punted Armageddon forward another few years each time the deadline passed?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:44 PM
Thanks, GlynnMhor.
Much to think about.
You know, one of the most powerful influences in our old brain is tribal instinct. It has been there, sitting in our old hippocampus for centuries, and it will not go away.
Now we have the Liberals vs. the Reformers.
The Deniers vs. the non-deniers.
Religion vs. Science.
You name it, the conflict is there.
And I am not so sure about an evolutionary advantage anymore.
Just my opinion.
Have you ever read Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence"?
If not, I highly recommend it.
Thanks, again for your reply.
garlicktoast Oct. 17, 9:44 PM
Building an Ark
Oct. 17, 9:33 PM
Geoffery May, one last question, are you and Lizzy still US citizens???
------------------------------------
Oh no, a Birther.
Argyle Jean Oct. 17, 9:46 PM
I might start reading the newspapers more often again. Excellent job, Rex.
M Maxwell : "Al Gore: "BEWARE OF PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS!"
Might wanna phrase that: "Beware of Prophets like all Gore and their profits!"
I hear Gore is making millions of all this. The worse it goes with the the science the louder they cry they need our money to fix things.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 9:48 PM
Bear writes: "And I am not so sure about an evolutionary advantage anymore."
Given that high intelligence is now the way to become the chief as well as the shaman, there's no longer much value in our connection to religion. But it's an evolutionary holdover like maybe our fourth molars, appendix, and doubtless a few other organs.
Jest Oct. 17, 9:49 PM
How utterly absurd.Carbon dioxide exhaling ,carbon based creatures demonizing CO2 and carbon.Hilarious.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 9:57 PM
GlynnMhor: How do you measure "high intelligence"?
Our primeval brain tells us that tribal instinct is of utmost importance.
My team is better than your team.
My god is better than your god.
Where is that fourth lobe?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 10:04 PM
Bear, I can sometimes be tempted to wander from topic, but 'intelligence' is a little too far even for me.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 10:06 PM
GlynnMhor: Please do not tell me that you are giving up on human intelligence.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 10:07 PM
We have come so far!!
Don't give up now!!
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 10:08 PM
Come on.
The Cosmos is counting on us.
Joplin's Lou Oct. 17, 10:09 PM
Michael Crichton wrote a good article on Environmentalism as Religion that really reminds me of what Rex said about Gore and the BBC.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
It's a great read, I really miss his mix of imagination and common sense. I think he would have appreciated seeing us wake up and maybe give the global warming movement some second thought. He predicted they would fail to predict the future.
Observant Oct. 17, 10:10 PM
YES!!!.... Canada must lead the way in reducing our GHGs or at least mitigating it with Billion$$$$ of Chinese Kyoto Carbon Credits, annually too.
Canada produces 2.5% of the world's GHGs ... and currently we are about 32% in excess of our Kyoto treaty 2012 target obligations.
If we could eliminate our GHG excess, that would reduce the world's GHG by 0.8% .... which, if we believed Suzuki, could constitute a "tipping point" volume of gas that would plunge the planet into a hideous and hellishly hot existence. Oh... how we Canadians must live in anguish ... and now our children have been inculcated against our gov't who refuses to plunge us into a situation conceived by the previous Liberal gov'ts of Chretien-Martin-Dion.
Interestingly, China is now the largest emitter of GHGs, accounting for 25% of the planet's total ... and they are forecast to increase their GHGs by 10% per year based on their increased use of high-sulfur brown coal-fired power station popping up at one per day!!!!
If the Chinese are increasing their 25% of total GHGs by 10% ... that increases their GHGs by an additional 2.5% ... which coincidentally is the TOTAL GHGs emitted by Canada.
But Suzuki tells us our meager 0.8% "tipping point" GHG excess is the amount that will precipitate a global holocaust that will destroy future generations of children ... as Canadian women wail and weep.
Another way of looking at these GHGs is to compare the Chinese 2.5% annual increase to the Canadian 0.8% excess over our 2012 Kyoto target. The projected Chinese GHG annual increase is 300% greater than the Canadian Kyoto GHG excess... !!!
Suzuki has succeeded at putting many Canadians on a horrendous guilt trip over Canada's meager GHG emissions ... particularly women and children. Perhaps Canadians could contribute to sent Suzuki to China to spout his apocalyptic message to their population and attack the Chinese gov't on their intransigence to join the Kyoto mind-frame.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 10:18 PM
Alan, I read again the abstract of Swanson, Tsonis, and Sugihara, and it appears that they've identified a natural variability, estimated its magnitude, and arbitrarily assigned all of the residual warming to GHGs, with no better justification than that they can find no other forcing factor that fits within the AGW paradigm.
Observant Oct. 17, 10:20 PM
BTW ... what would be the cost to the Canadian taxpayer to mitigate our 32% GHG excess by way of purchasing Kyoto Carbon Credits???
This is difficult to assess, but we had a hint of how much money a Dion gov't intended to collect with it's Green Shift Carbon Tax over a 4 year period from 2008 to 2012 .. which coincidentally matches the date Canada was obligated to meet it's 2012 Kyoto targets ...???
$50 BILLION .... remember .. or have you forgotten..???!!!!
The entire raison d'etre of the Liberal party under their "carbon tax" leader Ignatieff is to return to power before 2012 so as to sandbag Canadian taxpayers with Billion$$$ of Chinese Kyoto Carbon Credits, thus fulfilling our Kyoto treaty obligations.
Of course you are all aware of the Liberal business interests heavily invested in the Chinese dirty coal-fired power stations .... and if you don't, just google it ...!!!!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 10:20 PM
You're somewhat selective with your quote, GlynnMhor. The next sentence in the 2009-01-26 paper states:
"Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al. 2008]."
From the later paper:
"These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability."
The essay in RealClimate goes further:
"We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020."
At the WCC3 conference in Sep., which I also cited, Latif outlines reasons for decadal variability, including decadal variability in ocean currents like the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The understanding of variability is much better than you state.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 10:27 PM
Observant: Why are you so preoccupied with money?
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 10:28 PM
Observant, you are partly correct.
Suzuki has also managed to convince many Canadians that changing a couple of light bulbs and turning off your TV for an hour on a pleasant summer evening for one hour will save the world!!!
As an added bonus, making this supreme sacrifice gives you the moral authority to hector your neighbours.
No wonder the donations are pouring in at the Suzuki Foundation and the former scientist (a showbiz personality for several decades) can afford to enjoy a carbon footprint that rivals Al Gore's!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 10:31 PM
GlynnMhor, the residual after removal of the natural variability correlates very well with anthropogenic factors like the rising CO2. There is no reason to believe that any alternate mechanism must be introduced. Yes, cosmic rays might have some effect but they've been shown to fall below a 10% threshhold.
While models do still have some failings, as identified in the WCC3 presentations, their ability to predict and track the past are much better than you pretend with your usual cut-and-paste about jow the IPCC models did not track the past.
bdw60 Oct. 17, 10:32 PM
One would think the Green huggers would welcome news / facts that the world wasn't / isn't heading "pedal to the medal" for apocalypse but NO! they just seem to want to be MAD about being wrong.
I guess Ignatieff and his troop of Liberal backstabbers can still hold out hope that there is an H1N1 Epidemic.
T Burke TO Oct. 17, 10:35 PM
Glynn 'Swanson, Tsonis, and Sugihara... identified a natural variability, estimated its magnitude, and arbitrarily assigned all of the residual warming to GHGs, with no better justification than that they can find no other forcing factor that fits within the AGW paradigm. '
That seems like it was always the way with the models, find the data to tell you what you want and stick it in there.
Shadow of the Bear 'Observant: Why are you so preoccupied with money?'
It's the global warming business that are looking to make billions off of this.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 10:37 PM
Fresh water is worth far more than gold @ $1000/oz
Observant Oct. 17, 10:38 PM
Alan Burke - 10:20 PM
I haven't read all of your many postings over the 37 pages of comments, but you seem to be a proponent of AGW.
A while back, I read a statement(for which I cannot produce a source) that natural source GHGs outnumbered manmade GHGs by 50 to one .. and the margin of error in predicting the natural source GHGs was greater than manmade GHGs. If this was true, it would make manmade GHGs statistically irrelevant. However, it can be argued that manmade GHGs are not insignificant.
Perhaps you can comment on that position.
Also, do you believe that Canada's minute contribution to total global GHGs is significant enough to stress the economy and force Canadians to pay additional taxation to mitigate our Kyoto 2012 targets. I recently heard Suzuki on CBC stating that Canada is obliged by international treaty to meet or mitigate our GHGs. Do you agree with Suzuki?
Thanks ....
Canada's conscience Oct. 17, 10:45 PM
Someone needs to get out of the journalistic box and take a step outside into the reality box. Stephen McIntyre, the retired mining stock promoter and amateur statitian and Ross McKitrick the associate professor economist at University of Guelph who received money from Exxon Mobil with the George C Marshall Institute and the Fraser Institute??? Pllllease Rex. If you're going to question science, refer to scientists at least! Completely lacks any validity and credibility. Truly shameful.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 10:48 PM
Observant, the annual carbon cycle sees about 3% human contribution to the atmosphere of GHGs, primarily CO2. However isotopic analysis shows that the 38% rise in atmospheric GHGs from the base of 280 ppm to over 385 ppm is of human origin, from fossil fuel burning. There are also other means of determining that fact. From my page "Greenhouse Gas":
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 [now over 385] parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this. ... we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.
Yes, Canada does have a treaty obligation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
See my "Politics" page. Here's a link to the UNFCCC:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 10:54 PM
Alan writes: "Yes, cosmic rays might have some effect but they've been shown to fall below a 10% threshhold."
You've once more confused 'showed' with 'claimed'.
Until the actual experiment is done (CERNs CLOUD) which really will 'show' what their effect is, there are only claims.
So fond that you are of citations, here's a comprehensive one detailing the foundations of the CLOUD experiment and the various indicators that lead to the ineluctable conclusion that there is a strong solar activity driver of climate:
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 10:59 PM
"Alan Burke - i'm surprised that someone of your skills still doesn't know THAT CAPS LOCK AND BOLDING IS INTERNET SHOUTING!!!
Then again perhaps you've self medicated too much, or realized no one pays attention to you? Which is it? "
======================================
Ark, you have to realize the shouting thing is genetic. Here's a video clip of some of his relatives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA
Political Junkie Oct. 17, 10:59 PM
Observant, your comments are unbelievably naive.
Just because Canadian greenhouse emissions amount to diddly squat in a global context, we have a moral obligation to show leadership by making a supreme sacrifice on the altar of global warming.
The leaderships in China, India and other leading emerging nations are watching our every move and will radically alter their policies based on what we do. If we cut our emissions, they will be pleased as punch to remain at their current lower living standards.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 11:00 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, the residual after removal of the natural variability correlates very well with anthropogenic factors like the rising CO2."
Here we are with the 'correlation proves causation fallacy' again. Besides, the temperatures also correlate well with solar activity changes too.
"There is no reason to believe that any alternate mechanism must be introduced."
There is also no justification therein for believing so dogmatically that no important additional mechanisms could exist.
Observant Oct. 17, 11:06 PM
Alan Burke -- 10:48 PM
Observant, the annual carbon cycle sees about 3% human contribution to the atmosphere of GHGs, primarily CO2. However isotopic analysis shows that the 38% rise in atmospheric GHGs from the base of 280 ppm to over 385 ppm is of human origin, from fossil fuel burning. There are also other means of determining that fact. From my page "Greenhouse Gas":
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
.......................................................................
Thank you for that clarification, and correcting my faulty recollection ... of 2% manmade to 3% manmade GHGs. The article that I recalled, stated that natural source GHG volumes was only a gross estimation and subject to a large statistical error ... 10 to 20%, I think, thus making 3% manmade GHGs irrelevant.
Could you tell us the margin of error in the "isotopic analysis shows that the 38% rise in atmospheric GHGs from the base of 280 ppm to over 385 ppm is of human origin." ..? Surely, there is an element of predictive error in CO2 values from the past to the present.
Also, could you indicate for those of us only frequenting this forum how you believe Canada should mitigate it's GHGs to met Kyoto ... certainly you don't believe the AB oilsands should be shut down..??
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 11:07 PM
Now now EWO, that was just a bit rude.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:10 PM
Eyes Wide Open, did you hear that the Monty Python cast were recently given a lifetime achievement award?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/16/entertainment/main5389314.shtml
Now why is it that every time I enter conversation here looking for an argument I end up with abuse? ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppK6sxz6epk
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 11:11 PM
Alan writes: "While models do still have some failings... their ability to predict and track the past are much better than you pretend..."
Show me some successes, then; all I've seen are failures. They're not abject failures, but they do not reach the standard necessary to say with confidence that they contain all the important influences, much less all the minor ones, that determine global average temperatures.
Observant Oct. 17, 11:11 PM
Political Junkie -- 10:59 PM
"Observant, your comments are unbelievably naive."
........................................................................
Ouch!!!! ... How can I defend myself from such overwhelming evidence of obvious personal 'naivety' ... and on top of that you are such a cunning linguist-observationist too ... ;-)
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:14 PM
Observant, concerning CO2, check the RealClimate article and its references:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
BC Voice of Reason Oct. 17, 11:15 PM
The G&M really has to put a limit on the number of posts allowed from one user / IP address.
Is there anyway to see the number of posts by say Allan Burke and how many thumbs down he has been awarded?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 11:15 PM
"And next, my gold!"
Volpone, Ben Jonson
OxamsRazor Oct. 17, 11:19 PM
Mr. Murphy, and by extension The Globe and Mail, have once again embarrassed themselves by publishing another "opinion" piece devoid of any kind of scientific merit.
The very notion that ONE study overrules DECADES of conventional wisdom and DOZENS of other studies -include the kind you can see with your own eyes when you see the polar ice caps melting- is beyond irresponsible.
There are MULTIPLE independent sources that PROVE that global warming is indeed real. These include temperatures taken by satellites, on Earth, and in the ocean.
This nonsense about cycles have also been disproved, as we have no other explanation for temperature increases OTHER than man made green house gases.
This includes a very famous super computer model that is able to factor in and then factor out human impact on the planet, and the increase in global temperature coincided EXACTLY with the human factor.
I'm sorry if the reality of global warming effects some people's world view. But given that many people seem to think that the world is still 6000 years old, their world view doesn't count for much.
Global warming is real, and it is urgent. It causes erratic weather patterns that will only get worse and worse.
In the end, is it not better to act than to not act?
Hopefully, when the seas rise, Mr. Murphy's opinions and reputation will be the first to be washed away.
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:19 PM
Observant, it would be very difficult to respond to your request here about Canadian mitigation strategies - it's a highly complex subject. No, I do not propose shutting down the oil sands but I do have some doubts about carbon capture and storage technologies. In the "Technology" section of my website I cite a number of studies concerning sustainable energy production (e.g., wind, solar):
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Technology.aspx
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 11:19 PM
Alan writes: "... looking for an argument I end up with abuse?"
One of my favourites, to be sure!
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:23 PM
BC Voice of Reason, you don't have to read my postings if you don't like them. Am I right in assuming that you'd prefer to censor opinions and facts which don't fit your biases?
As to thumbs down, the current mechanism is broken and has been subverted so it's not a true measure of opinion.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 17, 11:23 PM
OxamsRazor writes: "There are MULTIPLE independent sources that PROVE that global warming is indeed real."
Actually at the moment they all demonstrate that global warming stalled after 2001. Here are the main two temperature databases:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
One can clearly see that the rapid warming of the 1970-2000 era has stalled, even as the 1910-1940 warming stalled.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 11:26 PM
Of course, all of these people pretending that the man made global warming theory is still alive reminds me of the "Dead Parrot" sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
Leo Geiger Oct. 17, 11:27 PM
Rex Murphy writes "There are many warning that the great rush to fix the planet..."
Great rush? Since the first attempts were made in the 1980s to address the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, through the 1990s and Kyoto, through to today, essentially nothing has changed. That is especially true in Canada. Negotiations revolve around plans that aim to merely stop the global *increase* of emissions in the next decade, and decrease them in the next half century. In what sense does any of this qualify as a great rush?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 11:28 PM
"Good morning to the Sun.
And next, my gold."
Volpone, Ben Jonson
White Hills Oct. 17, 11:29 PM
I look forward to Newfoundland regaining it's Vinland status and Greenland becoming Green again.
As to Alan Burke. Yawn.
Observant Oct. 17, 11:38 PM
OxamsRazor -- 11:19 PM
"Global warming is real, and it is urgent. It causes erratic weather patterns that will only get worse and worse.
In the end, is it not better to act than to not act?"
....................................................................................
Your appeal is certainly sincere, but do you believe that Canada's GHGs are significant, or that Canadian's feelings on global warming are significant in the larger context?
Do you believe if Canadians fell on the Kyoto sword and purchased Billion$$$ of Chinese Kyoto Carbon Credits, that the Chinese would actually reduce their GHGs by the 0.8% that I defined on page 38 of the comments? I don't .. and I believe Canada's GHGs are totally insignificant in relation to the planet's natural source GHGs ... the CO2 that is naturally produced from the earth itself.
For your feelings to be salved, it requires a political will and solution in Canada ... and presently there is no credible political leader to carry your message of concern. I don't believe Canadians can be convinced that it's worth being taxed Billion$$$ to salve your feelings of apprehension over global warming ... particularly since we in Canada are experiencing a rather unseasonable cold downturn.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 17, 11:38 PM
Then there's my favourite sketch on global warming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SuHg0NFTTM
Alan Burke Oct. 17, 11:39 PM
I've just updated the daily IJIS AMSR-E satellite Arctic sea ice spreadsheet and graphs on my page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SeaLevelAndIce.aspx
The current extent is at 92% of the value for the same date in 2008 and at 95% of the average since 2002. With a daily change of about 66,000 sq.km. additional per day (running 7-day average), the rate is the lowest since the measurements began.
T Burke TO Oct. 17, 11:45 PM
Ox 'Global warming is real, and it is urgent'-ly needs billions of dollars our money before we figure out their models can't predict the future? Too late.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 11:46 PM
Observant: Too bad Mr. Harper has spent billions on campaigning for a majority govt.
We could have used those billions in so many other more positive ways.
Oh, well. Too late now.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 11:48 PM
Endgame, Stevie.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 17, 11:53 PM
Moderator's Note: Shadow of the Bear's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Argyle Jean Oct. 17, 11:56 PM
Just reading back. Who is supposedly paid to write messages here? Saw someone accusing someone.
Sask Resident Oct. 17, 11:59 PM
Sure the climate is changing, Mother Nature has been doing it for thousands or millions of years. And man is burning carbon based materials, some of which have been in storage for millions of years (under a different climate, I presume but can;t prove beyond a reasonable doubt). If the increase in concentration of CO2 affects the climate, is it accelerating or decelerating the climate changes that Mom Nature is doing? Also, why would the near future climate changes negatively affect the world's environment or man kind's life style? Who and why would anyone think the changes would be more catastrophic than say the cutting of world forests or ploughed the plains of the Americas, Asia and Africa?
I am more worried that the proposed cure is much worse if not fatal than the disease of climate change. The re-engineering of our economy may put millions of people out of work, making Canada like Angola, since our taxes would be transferred to developing countries so they can buy more guns and nuclear technology. Costs will rise, much like but much worse that the 1973 oil shock, which many people seem to forget. Last years run-up in oil price bubble killed the world's economies, at an equivalent to $40 a tonne carbon cost.
Why don't we try to solve problems that kill people at much lower costs, like reducing deaths to malaria (simple nets will help), clean drinking water, reducing real pollution to soil, water and air, etc. We could also improve our data collection and monitoring so we could have a better idea of what is really happening and not rely on assumptions or models.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 18, 12:02 AM
Now that we know that Emperor Gore isn't wearing any clothes, how can he expect us to fill his pockets with all that money he wants?
Sask Resident Oct. 18, 12:03 AM
Alan Burke: The AMSR-E satellite isn't working right now, so I doubt that you have updated the images.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 12:04 AM
Sask, it doesn't really matter much anyway, since tracking responses to warming does not help in ascertaining the causes of warming.
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 18, 12:06 AM
Did anyone actually read Mr. Ignatieff's speech?
Shadow of the Bear Oct. 18, 12:11 AM
Let us all genuflect to Mr. Murphy.
He who knows the truth of the Ministry of Truth.
Gord Lewis Oct. 18, 12:16 AM
Jim Cohoon: well stated.
Judging by the negative thumb ratio, wisdom is not welcome (or at least it is not recognized) by the majority of posters. But we can reassure ourselves (and think wishfully) that these threads are not representative of the overall population. If so, we are in real trouble.
Sandra Lubsya Oct. 18, 12:19 AM
I don't get all the sour-faced personal attacks on Rex Murphy for stating what the BBC and lots of other people have since the climate change fraud has been exposed. Nothing is certain about what we do or don't know about climate change.
Joplin's Lou Oct. 18, 12:27 AM
The most that were ever sure that global warming for certain and that it caused was caused by co2 and that people were responsible was about 54% in canada. That was before the models went wrong and the new news about the warming stopping in 1998 came out. Lost support since then from scientists and the public though. So maybe the thread do speak for most canadians.
Anilegna Oct. 18, 12:46 AM
I always thought Rex Murphy was a serious journalist, if not all that appealing - but now that I've been paying more attention to what he actually writes; his 'schtick' appears to be just BS and a coverup for someone who really isn't all that well informed.
I think CBC keeps him on because he's funny looking.
Tnarg Oct. 18, 12:46 AM
Rex Murphy, Scientist.... NOT!!
Bet you were a smoker in denial too, huh Rex?
Disgusting that someone of your intellect would write tripe like this
Blade Runner Oct. 18, 12:50 AM
I've just updated the daily IJIS AMSR-E satellite Alan Burke:
Arctic sea ice spreadsheet and graphs on my page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SeaLevelAndIce.aspx
---------------------------------------
Interesting trend tracking data, but how does it fit in the big picture of what is going on, is this just a natural cycle or not?
NadezhdaKrupskaya Oct. 18, 12:55 AM
Of course 'following the global-warming herd doesn't show courage..'! It shows stupidity. The AGW theory of climate change is being exposed for what it truly is - one of the biggest hoaxes since the pet rock. The unproven theory is losing support quickly, resulting in great agony for its most die-hard proponents. If they aren't successful in foisting their faulty theory upon an increasingly sceptical public, the AGW alarmists run the risk of losing countless millions in government funding (tax dollars stolen from the rest of us who aren't adherents of the one true faith), not to mention the lucrative speakers' fees and other perks enjoyed by the high priests of their religion.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 12:59 AM
To think that humankind can radically alter the chemical makeup of the atmosphere without having any effect on the climate is so dumb it is hard to believe it is considered an arguable position.
Granted, it is difficult to predict exactly what will happen once the dominos start to fall. It could be a fluctuating climate that spins out into a greenhouse overheating catastrophe, or go the other way and precipitate another ice age.
But these things take decades to become utterly irreversible, i.e. probably no environmental catastrophe before the next election, but that is so cynical and irresponsible it is simply shocking.
My only point of vague agreement would be that the issue should be called Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGCC), rather than Anthropogenic Global Warming.
No doubt the Neanderthals scoffed at the idea of an impending Ice Age. Climate Change denial is like that, Neanderthalic thinking.
David85 Oct. 18, 1:45 AM
Rex, you sure are a gluten for punishment when it comes to global warming. Please keep up the good work. We need more in the media who are willing to read science instead of just talk about it.
Any chance we will see climate skeptic sentiments like this on the National? Somehow I doubt CBC would ever let that happen, but I'd still like to see it.
Cheers
robpatrick Oct. 18, 2:33 AM
Oh Yea! Another one of Rex's brave expositions of the climate change hoax. Going against the herd? - don't flatter yourself, Rex. There are still people out there claiming that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer or that there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. Following up every crackpot theorist or paid lobbiest who disputes the work of the multitude of scientists who take climate change seriously is neither brave nor particularly astute. Perhaps pumping 9 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year will have no effect. Perhaps in your home province of Newfoundland harvesting millions of cod each year won't affect cod stocks - Oh wait! we already know how that turned out. You need to take your position as a national commentator a little more seriously and think about this - and do a little more research - don't only read the detractors.
beaches Oct. 18, 2:42 AM
Regardless of one's position on global warming buildig an election campaign around the issue suggests the Liberals are out of ideas. Instead of debate they are playing to the Al Gore/Bono/Geldof shouty constituency - dissenters will be subjected to an ear bashing from a self righteous fat bloke and a brace of Irish dwarves. Prepare for more moralising, finger wagging and tedious hot air from the Hill. Big Government has the answers, you'd better shut up and listen. But if winning elections is on Iggy's ponderous mind perhaps he should look to recent elections in Europe for guidance. Centre right coalitions there have been carrying the day, not the green left. I expect we'll see the same in Canada.
Nathan W Oct. 18, 2:53 AM
Does sustainable energy not also look towards future energy security and economic growth?
Craig Cooper Oct. 18, 2:55 AM
Swine flu. Global warming. SARS.
All hoaxes designed to make money for somebody.
I lived in "SARS-ridden" Toronto.
What the global media reported and what the reality was were two entirely different things.
Don't believe the hype.
CF. Oct. 18, 3:22 AM
This really is an appalling article. Rex, do you actually get paid to restate BBC web content as opinion? How about interviewing even a single working climate scientist for a comment on what the BBC reports.
Rex claims:
"Galileo didn't work from consensus. Those who opposed and persecuted him worked on the consensus of centuries – that the Earth was the centre of the universe. The consensus multitude who tormented him are now a byword for folly and ignorance."
Galileo had a better model. It fit the observed facts better - that`s why he was believed. Do the AGW deniers have a better model? No. Should we believe the people whose model works pretty well (and they acknowledge the failings), or those who simply claim things will either always stay the same, or will change regardless of anything humans do.
Here`s a news flash for Rex: Galileo was wrong. Planets orbit in ellipses not circles. By Rex`s logic, Galileo should have been ridiculed and the Ptolemaic Earth-centred view held since it didn`t agree perfectly with measurements.
Does the Globe and Mail have any journalistic integrity at all or just like to pander to the masses to sell newsprint?
Alan Burke. Don`t let them get you down. You are absolutely correct, you`re just unpopular.
Bert Russell Oct. 18, 4:54 AM
One little laugh at the Liberals and they say it is hurtful. Iggys litter box is actually large and deep ..... referring to it as the "tip of an old iceberg" might be more appropriate.
Face it Liberal fans ... Iggy is the Liberal message and he fumbled it.
AvgCanadian Oct. 18, 5:38 AM
Bravo, Mr. Murphy. You continue to deliver that potent combination of smarts and sassy. By now, Mr. Ignatieff has suprisingly become one of the most disappointing party leaders in decades. His timing regarding an election push is simply bad politics and obviously obscenely self focused. The mess he created with Denis Coderre in Quebec demonstrates a profound lack of "connection" with that province. And the "Green" strategy actually leaves stupidity as a goal to move up to.
This brand new Canadian resident doesn't even see his obvious challenges with respect to becoming our next PM. Who is advising him....Shiela Copps?!
Mr. Ignatieff has about an hour and a half to present something new, innovative realistic and relativant or he will see green alright. But it'll be the green light at U.S. Customs saying; Welcome back, Mike"
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 5:56 AM
Glynn Mhor.I don't believe that Science completely understands the all factors effecting our climate.If a set of data indicates global temperatures are cooling, then why are the icecaps,glaciers and tundras melting ? The role of greenhouse gasses is easily demonstrated in a labratory, so should not be ignored. Increased atmospheric carbon and wide spread melting does not prove causation, but it would be absurd to assume no connection between the two.
Climate change denial stems from ideology, which is why deniers frequently accuse acceptance of greenhouse gas theory of being "leftists", claim all kinds of paranoid conspiracies, wealth transfer nonsense and the like , and great contempt for the United Nations.
Insisting on an imaginary standrd of complete and total proof before taking action is irresponsible,
What we have is empiricle and uncontrovertible proof of significant melting of ice caps and glaciers, and empiricle and uncontravertible evidence of increased levels of atmospheric carbon.
Joe Wallach Oct. 18, 6:31 AM
YES!!! The BBC gets it, but the panic-sayers around the world continue the myth, led by the dim-witted Al Gore and his Canadian side kick, Suzuki. But, then, why not, at least for Gore. He won a Nobel Peace Prize (isn't that nice?), therein paving the way or at least easing it for another undeserving individual (name escapes me now, but the word is he is still the president of the US) to get one, and an academy award. Pretty soon both should be available in the mall at Eaton Center, and other fine establishments across North America. That way the rest of us in North America who are deserving of neither can get one, too. Suzuki should be furious because he has not yet gotten his.
Freefroggy Oct. 18, 7:09 AM
He has shown such poor judgment in threatening to bring down the Gov't at this particular time that I could never trust him to run the country!
Harper may not be perfect but he shines alongside the likes of Iggy and Dion!
The polls seem to verify this!
Harlequin Oct. 18, 7:14 AM
Well said Joe Wallach and CF, don't swallow Allan Burke's propoganda--that is unless you want more of your hard-earned money going to government to be redistributed to Lord knows what.
Make no mistake. Global warming is an massive wealth redistributtion campaign designed to take money from those who work hard, know how to invest it to create real value for our society by creating goods, services that we need and jobs so we can keep paying government imposed taxes.
The Democrats in the US and the Liberls here in Canada are drooling over the TRILLIONS of dollars they intend to extort from industry and ultimately the taxpayer from cap and trade. Thank goodness some are fighting back against this madness. I would rather keep my money than pay more for sky-rocketign gas, electric and food prices that global warming proponents are keen to impose on us.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 7:48 AM
Sask Resident said " Alan Burke: The AMSR-E satellite isn't working right now, so I doubt that you have updated the images.
"
Wrong. The IJIS AMSR-E data has not been affected; I did see a report that an older DoD satellite had failed but the IJIS IARC-JAXA ANSR-E system has no problem. If you're going to make an accusation of lying you really should check the facts before putting your foot in your mouth.
Don Adams, the Centrist :-) Oct. 18, 7:50 AM
Moderator's Note: Don Adams, the Centrist :-)'s comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
WMDL Oct. 18, 7:57 AM
Another story about Michael Ignatieff. How original! The saga just keeps rolling on while the Country is drowning in red ink.
suecee Oct. 18, 8:10 AM
Lately, a lot of well known and highly regarded people in the science community have been debunking both "global warming" and "climate change. Good! It's about time some level, trained, heads looked at this realistically. After the histrionics of Suzuki and Gore, this is a welcome addition to the issue. It was "global warming" until it became obvious to the doom-sayers that the globe was not warming. Then it became climate change. Climate change is a natural phenomena. The eco-terrorists and eco-morons will have to find a new bandwagon to jump on. I'm sure they already have one in the staging area.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 8:19 AM
Harlequin makes my point for me.He gnores all the empiricle eveidence, and creates a parnoid delusion about some huge taxgrab.Neither the Democrats or the Liberals have anyplans tomeet the chalenge .The Green Party does, but not with a tax grab, but a tax shift , off of income adnonto pollution.
Ric_hard Oct. 18, 8:23 AM
"on the basis of incomplete science and vastly overblown advocacy from the world's swarm of environmental lobbyists, NGOs, foundations, action groups, Greenpeace acrobats and UN politicians, may be terribly ill-advised."
?
I found this statement the most troubling. The advocacy from the other side is better financed. It even had the resources of the US government under the Bush II administration. Wow these climate change guys have the power! Really?
This column is not a nuanced argument. Note the "may be", so in effect may be not. This column leaves the basic question unanswered. It is a diatribe which attempts to discredit and belittle the advocates who in the end may be wrong (but then again may be right). If you look through the provocative wording this column actually says very little.
It will do a disservice if it reassures those who can not be bothered to look into what is happening; who are satisfied by simple answers to complex questions.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 8:25 AM
suecee claims that the globe is not warming, and then that climate change is a natural phenomena.He/she then declares that those who accept the sciences are terrorists and morons.The real terrorists and morons are holding onto their ideology and ignoring the evidence.
Twizzle Oct. 18, 8:27 AM
People who have read behind the scenes of the mass media and who did some real research will not be surprised by this article. There are many people,scientists, books, and research papers which have disagreed profoundly woth the theory of global warmimg. Some scientists following declining sun spot activity on the moon have concludes that we are entering a period of global cooling, not warming, as Murphy has eluded to. There are many, myself included, who believe the concept of global warming was invented to transfer wealth from the developed, supposedly rich oil producing nations to others. Intellectual bubbles do indeed appear from time to time and I think global warming will go down in history as one of the greatest bubbles ever produced and one that will burst in our lifetime. The world is cooling not warming. But what has me most concerned are comments from posters who have been so conditioned by what they have read in the papers for so long, that articles like this are perceived to be heresy. When challenged by thought provoking people like Murphy they remain trapped by their idealogy and cling even more tenaciously to it frightend by the thought that they might have to change and branding all others who diagree with them as ill-informed self -serving Conservatives. This is the frightening part of the global warming theorists, the crowd of groupies and hangers on who believe everyone else is wrong or biased. This indeed is scary
Eric Martin Oct. 18, 8:27 AM
I agree with this article only in the fact that Ignatieff will be better off not making a green policy the centre of his platform. Not only is it too close to Dion but also, deep down, most Canadian don't care enough.
Our winters are getting milder, which is great, and the ice caps melting will open-up a very lucrative northern passageway. Our oils sands are making us all very rich. So most of us do not care much if some cities elsewhere get flooded.
As for referring to the "brave men" who have "minds outside the herd", it is too easy to see contrarians as heroes. The company of Georges W. Bush in this select group should be of concern. Let's face it, most contrarians are actually idiots.
Science is never exact or complete. The fact that Natural Selection fails to explain some phenomenons does not make Creationism right.
Partisan politics is the art of distortion. An article that combines partisan politics with science is suspicious - at best.
WMDL Oct. 18, 8:41 AM
If there is no global warming, why are the polar ice caps melting at such an alarming rate - for all to see. Why, in 10 years one may be able to boat round or about the North Pole. Isn't that a reason for alarm?
Is there something I am missing here? If its not global warming causing this phenomenon, what is it?
bdw60 Oct. 18, 8:52 AM
"WDML said... If there is no global warming, why are the polar ice caps melting at such an alarming rate - for all to see. Why, in 10 years one may be able to boat round or about the North Pole. Isn't that a reason for alarm?
Is there something I am missing here? If its not global warming causing this phenomenon, what is it?"
----------------------------------------------------------
If it's out of our control (nothing we can do about it anyway) and not caused by what "man" is doing on the planet then getting your knickers in a not and transferring all your money to Gore, Suzuki and other "doomer's" probably isn't the way to go.
There wasn't a lot the dinosaurs could do when the ice age came along either. Maybe the Goreasauras and Susukirex tried to transfer Dino wealth then too but it didn't stop the iceage.
Ric_hard Oct. 18, 8:54 AM
Rex wants to help Michael? The 'left' is badly splintered. The Greens are taking votes from the Liberals. The splintered left means that the CONS can win a majority with 40%; something 60% of the electorate does't want! So Rex you appeal to the Green vote by telling them they are idiots. What a great strategy! I see you even have helpfully provided some verbiage that Michael can use! I am sure Michael appreciates the help (unfortunately he needs it).
Hipnosis Oct. 18, 8:55 AM
For those of you who keep talking about ice melting (The truth deniers)... read this and start reading more about the GW scam. You actually might learn something.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3360/Pure-journalistic-drivel-How-does-Reuters-spin-GROWING-Arctic-ice-By-reporting-on-predictions-of-an-ice-free-Arctic
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:05 AM
Political Junkie, your link to the UK Met Office at 9:39 yesterday fails because of a syntax error. Here's a corrected link:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/COP9.pdf
However, please note that the document you cited is from 2003. They provide more recent documents here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/climate-change.html
E.g., from 2008 and 2009:
Evidence of continuing climate change
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/cop14.pdf
Safe keeping - Protect your world with our climate science and services.
(PDF, 5.2 MB)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/Wcc3.pdf
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:17 AM
Hipnosis, thanks for the link - I've started to read it but I have some doubts that it will be an objective study. Here's some of what "SourceWatch" has to say about Marc Morano:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics. ...
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:30 AM
Twizzle said, in part: "There are many people,scientists, books, and research papers which have disagreed profoundly woth the theory of global warmimg. ... The world is cooling not warming." and characterized "conditioned" and unthinking readers.
It's true, Twizzle, that there are knee-jerk reactions from both extremes of the climate change spectrum, often seen to be aligned with the political spectrum, but there are many who continue to look for verifiable, objective, independent and reputable science that has gone through the ringer of scientific method and been published in reputable scientific journals.
I try to point to such on my website and I'd like to see some links from you supporting your point of view. As it is, all I've seen is typical opinion coming from the contrarian/denialist camp with the same kind of unthinking and willful ignorance of reality that you ascribe to those who are proponents of taking action to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change.
Please visit my site and look at the citations to the science; I'd welcome appropriate citations or specific critiques from you in support of your view. But absent substantiation for your opinions, I suggest that your characterization applies equally well to you yourself.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com
Have a look in particular at:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
D... Oct. 18, 9:39 AM
The global elite have put a spin on some statistics to create a situation that gives them more control.
Gore is slated to make a lot of money.
Could you imagine, they plan on taxing farms for the CO2 produced by the animals.
Yikes, what will be next ??
cold air Oct. 18, 9:43 AM
Ric_hard: "The advocacy from the other side is better financed."
What other side?
Cap-and-trade monetizes the atmosphere. It will be owned by the other side.
As an example, recently, Canadian Hydro Developers sold to TransAlta - rumour being TransAlta is buying up offsets to continue with its coal operations well into the future. BP tried rebranding as Beyond Petroleum.
It's complicated, whereas Mr. Ignatieff's speech in Vancouver was not. Lamenting the low penetration of wind and solar making Canada an international embarrassment, in a province that gets the vast majority of its electricity from hydro, was neither intelligent nor responsible for one aspiring to lead the country.
Winston Churchill1 Oct. 18, 10:13 AM
AL GORE: BEWARE OF PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS!
Diamonds are forever Oct. 18, 10:16 AM
This is great, finally the media is waking up to global warming sham. Looks like the end was near at least the end of pretending we can predict the future based on fuzzy models where people pick and choose what data to put into them and ignore others. I read somewhere that the more the science falls out from under the 'church of global warming' hates people who believe in global warming but question the whole people and co2 aspect more than anyone. Now that sounds scientific. No wonder people are getting fed up with this pap.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 10:55 AM
From Peter Sinclair's "Climate Denial Crock of the Week":
"Birth of a Climate Crock" - distortion in the popular press of comments by Mojib Latif at the WCC3 conference
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-crock-weekbirth-crock
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
"Party like it's 1998" - cherry picking temperature statistics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=related
"1998 Revisited"
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610#p/u/3/QwnrpwctIh4
One of the enduring myths of climate denialism is that global warming
stopped sometime in the last decade. I see it in the blaring headlines of pseudoscience websites, in comments on my videos, even some of our most distinguished journalists have been taken in.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 11:03 AM
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&NR=1
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 11:08 AM
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
The "Hockey Stick" mythology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&NR=1
change for a time Oct. 18, 11:17 AM
I especially like,
"It is not a headline that will please the pious. “Rank heresy,” I hear some of them sniff. Nor will they be pleased with the body of the story, which proceeds to offer, in this the Advent period of the great Copenhagen global warming conventicle."
Same with all the tv 'psychics', if they were so good how come they never saw the police coming? We can better use all the money these guys wants fixing real problems not making more.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 11:59 AM
bdw60 highlights an aspect of the deniers default position, "there is nothing you can do,it's out of our control.Maybe, but you don't know for a certainty .And here is the real pathology of the deniers, the refusal to even consider that they might be wrong.They cheer the half witted cleverness of the most extreme anti-environmentalist in mainstream media, while imagining that without Al Gore and David Suzuki no one whould have ever heard of climate change.
For the last twnty years the media all but ignored the issue,but as a result of the IPCC reports claimng that the effects of climate change were already with us.Since then The media has reported on the ocassional missing iceshelf or startling new discovery,and less often on international actions or conferences on climate change,never critisizes politicians for not doing anything about it, an dhas made no effort to provide the public with any objective background.But still, It aint all David and Al.
Jehan Khoorshed Oct. 18, 12:00 PM
The quote that immediately followed the climate scientist's comments on the global cooling period of "15-20 years":
"But he makes it clear that he has not become a skeptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself."
I truly wish Rex Murphy was half as clever and ethical as he thinks he is, but this is an irresponsible and completely misleading article.
Murphy points to a single BBC news piece to refute the entire case for global warming, and then completely misrepresents the context and intent of that article, by leaving out the second part of the statement.
This makes him, essentially, a liar.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 12:14 PM
Alan Burke: Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
==============================
Alan continues to aid and abet the fraud. He's just making himself look even more out of touch with reality on this one!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 12:17 PM
We gave the U.S. Celine Dion, they gave us Geoff and Lizzie May - payback I guess!
iPhone Oct. 18, 12:19 PM
:-- Allen Burke
Please give it man... no one is reading your comments... they just skip over them.
Bruce V Oct. 18, 12:35 PM
Who is the real Rex Murphy? There is the very thoughtful and civil gentleman who handles Cross Country Check-up with such grace. And then there is this strange, and acidic figure who is angry and dismissive of every figure who wishes to make the world a better place. Those who are attracted to such people are dismissed as trend-followers. One could list literally thousands of writers who have charted the evidence for global warming and the appalling consequences of ignoring it. And even if it turns out to have been exaggerated, the changes in the way we live on this planet are pretty much the same ones that are needed in order to allow the planet to survive us. The depletion of the ocean, the destruction of biodiversity, the sustainability of this planet: these are the same desperately important issues in essence as global warming. Has Rex Murphy read the review in this same issue of the Globe of Jane Goodall's latest book? Or perhaps he will want to sneer at her words as well? We can look forward to this in his next column perhaps? A very sad use of a good mind.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 12:45 PM
About iPhone I'll only say that there are none so blind as those that will not see. You're welcome to your opinion; this is, after all, an opinion form. It's my opinion that you are wrong because I frequently receive contact emails and comments from readers who thank me for bring some objective scientific light to the subject of climate change. Go back and stick your head in the sand.
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 18, 1:10 PM
Oct. 18, 12:19 PM
:-- Allen Burke
Please give it man... no one is reading your comments... they just skip over them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not true. While I don't read them anymore, I always stop to hit the thumbs down button. Alan, quantity of posts does nothing to help your cause. 2 quality posts would be much better. I wish there were limits on posts per article.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 1:31 PM
I'm not surprised that you have a "thumb-jerk" reaction, Bob Dylan's Voice. It's pretty characteristic of those contrarians and denialists who refuse to recognize reality. If you examine what I've said here, it's usually in response to other commentators and I try to provide answers that can stand objective scrutiny. Clearly you would prefer inaction on the issue of climate change and so wanting to stifle comments comes as no surprise to me.
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 18, 1:36 PM
Geoffrey May writes
Oct. 18, 8:25 AM
suecee claims that the globe is not warming, and then that climate change is a natural phenomena.He/she then declares that those who accept the sciences are terrorists and morons.The real terrorists and morons are holding onto their ideology and ignoring the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the problem. CC supporters will not recognize that there position is based on a theory. The recent evidence is showing problems in the theory and yet the CC supporters continue to maintain their position. True scientists would be intrigued by the evidence gaps and would be rethinking the theory to make sense of it. Some scientists are doing that but not the CC supporters, they are blindly sticking to their guns and losing their credibility in the process.
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 18, 1:38 PM
Alan Burke, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say, I disagree with the blitzkrieg posting method hence the thumbs down. Less would be more in the case of your posts.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 1:39 PM
It is certainly obvious that Kyoto and future Kyoto-like schemes are, in fact, wealth distribution plans that will have zero effect on GHG emissions.
Summary:
No Kyoto: Humankind screwz the planet, and ultimately itself.
With Kyoto: Humankind screwz the planet, and ultimately itself, while the capitalist world gets tricked into sending money to third world regimes run by tyrants and/or Marxists.
What I've learned from reading this discussion is this: behind the billboard of smiling hockey-dad politicians of the CPC lurk grunting hordes of knuckle-dragging slopeheads who are their primary support base.
It's sad, because I'm conservative in so many ways, and despise much of what evolved/devolved from Trudeau-era Liberal policies, but I have no choice but to continue supporting the fed Liberals because the environment is more important than the other issues.
I'd switch if the Cons cut immigration levels in half, thus slowing suburban sprawl and our skyrocketing GHG-emissions.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 1:52 PM
Boppa writes: "To think that humankind can radically alter the chemical makeup of the atmosphere..."
Increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by .01% is hardly 'radical'.
"... without having any effect on the climate is so dumb..."
The question is whether there is a modest effect or the much-touted catastrophic effect. If the atmosphere were so unstable that a tiny change in CO2 concentration could trigger some sort of runaway warming then it would already have happened in the past and humans wouldn't be around to argue about it.
TCinTO Oct. 18, 1:53 PM
If I may. I don't think the correlation between CO2 and Global Warming is that important a link to establish. Whether we determine causality or not, CO2 levels are rising (this is undisputed). We have NO IDEA what these increases will do to either us, or the environment. Whether or not it causes Global Warming is a moot point. It should still be a concern to us period.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 1:56 PM
May writes: GlynnMhor: If a set of data indicates global temperatures are cooling, then why are the icecaps, glaciers and tundras melting?"
Because it used to be warming, and is still warmer than decades ago. It will take some time before cooling brings the temperature down again, even as it took some time for the temperatures to rise to their current levels.
"The role of greenhouse gasses is easily demonstrated in a labratory, so should not be ignored."
It also should not be exaggerated for short-sighted political or ideological reasons either. GHGs can be directly responsible for less than half of the observed warming, yet little effort is being made to identify other factors.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 1:57 PM
May writes: "Climate change denial stems from ideology..."
Climate change hysteria stems from a host of different motives, many of which are ideological:
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, 1:57 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.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:03 PM
WMDL writes: "If there is no global warming, why are the polar ice caps melting at such an alarming rate..."
There WAS global warming, from 1910-1940, and again from 1970-2000 or so. That means the climate is now warmer than it used to be, even though the warming stalled after 2001.
The real question is to what degree human efforts contributed to those past warming periods as opposed to natural effects.
Note that the AGW paradigm holds anthropogenic CO2 to be the major culprit, but it's still rising even as temperatures are not.
WMDL Oct. 18, 2:04 PM
bdv60:
"WDML said... If there is no global warming, why are the polar ice caps melting at such an alarming rate - for all to see. Why, in 10 years one may be able to boat round or about the North Pole. Isn't that a reason for alarm?
Is there something I am missing here? If its not global warming causing this phenomenon, what is it?"
----------------------------------------------------------
If it's out of our control (nothing we can do about it anyway) and not caused by what "man" is doing on the planet then getting your knickers in a not and transferring all your money to Gore, Suzuki and other "doomer's" probably isn't the way to go.
There wasn't a lot the dinosaurs could do when the ice age came along either. Maybe the Goreasauras and Susukirex tried to transfer Dino wealth then too but it didn't stop the iceage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aw gee that explains it! what a wonderful explanation.....gee I'm all convinced of the opposite now! Er ....thanks I will sleep well now!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:04 PM
Alan writes boldly: "Safe keeping - Protect your world with our climate science and services."
I would say protect us all FROM the so-called 'climate science'.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:06 PM
GlynnMhor is back with his usual cut-and-paste unsubstantiated drivel, I see. Bob Dylan's Voice, do you do a "thumb-jerk" approval of his Gish Gallop postings?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:07 PM
Alan writes: "...there are many who continue to look for verifiable, objective, independent and reputable science..."
And are you among them, Alan, or are you as your website portrays you; a biased, blinkered propagandist?
You've even made mention at least once that you thought it was 'important to get the message out' about how humans cause warming.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:09 PM
There is still global warming and GlynnMhor just refuses to recognize legitimate science. See:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
If you like video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610#p/u/3/QwnrpwctIh4
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:10 PM
Here you are, Alan, posting at 11:03 and 11:08 something to do with 'climate crock of the week', which has no science at all within it; only propagandizing.
That's not the 'science' you claim to seek and uphold, but ideology.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:13 PM
GlynnMhor stated "Increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by .01% is hardly 'radical'."
Misleading and wrong, several independent measurements including isotopic analysis shows that the rise from the base of 280 ppm to over 385 ppm (37.5%) is of human origin.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:14 PM
I've watched those videos, GlynnMhor, and the science being discussed is legitimate.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:14 PM
Alan, you know as well as I do that the warming has not continued. Trying to deny the reality is unbecoming.
Even your own graphs show that warming no longer holds sway.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:18 PM
Alan writes: "Misleading and wrong..."
Going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm is indeed an increase of 100 ppm or 0.01%, so it's hardly 'wrong' at all, and in no sense misleading. CO2 remains a trace gas in an atmosphere that at times (eg Ordovician and Permian eras) has had concentrations of more like 0.5% without triggering catastrophes.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:20 PM
Alan writes about videos wherein science is 'discussed' (to use his term), but the videos are not science at all; only propagandizing.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:24 PM
Bob Dylan's Voice said "Isn't that the problem. CC supporters will not recognize that there position is based on a theory. The recent evidence is showing problems in the theory and yet the CC supporters continue to maintain their position. True scientists would be intrigued by the evidence gaps and would be rethinking the theory to make sense of it. Some scientists are doing that but not the CC supporters, they are blindly sticking to their guns and losing their credibility in the process.".
Would you mind documenting some of those gaps, please? Have you listened to the WCC3 presentations to see what the current state of climate modelling is, complete with descriptions of the warts? Are you one of those who hearing an honest assessment of that state of the art would throw the baby out with the bathwater, as happened with denialist propaganda about what Mojib Latif had to say?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) held a conference at the end of September 2009 in Geneva, the WCC3. One of the sessions at the conference looked at Advancing climate prediction science
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3
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.
The popular press latched onto the presentation by Mojib Latif, with serious distortion of what he said. For some background, watch Birth of a Climate Crock
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-crock-weekbirth-crock
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 2:30 PM
GlynnMhor, if your car acceleraqtes from 28 kph to 38 kph, is that 0.01% speed increase?
What's important in the greenhouse effect is the relative change, with an increase of about 1.5 Celius degrees for each doubling which is magnified by feedback mechanisms like that of water vapour to somewhere between 2 and 4 Celsius degrees.
Your comments remain grossly misleading, as usual.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 2:36 PM
Burke: "with an increase of about 1.5 Celius degrees for each doubling which is magnified by feedback mechanisms like that of water vapour to somewhere between 2 and 4 Celsius degrees."
===========================================
Well at least according to Alarmist THEORY. Real world observations show that feedback is NEGATIVE hence at most climate sensitivity is at most 0.3 to 0.5 degrees C. Hardly the catastophe pushed by the warming zealot no-minds!
Bob Dylan's Voice Oct. 18, 2:38 PM
TC in TO
Oct. 18, 1:53 PM
If I may. I don't think the correlation between CO2 and Global Warming is that important a link to establish. Whether we determine causality or not, CO2 levels are rising (this is undisputed). We have NO IDEA what these increases will do to either us, or the environment. Whether or not it causes Global Warming is a moot point. It should still be a concern to us period.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plenty to be concerned about in this world. The questions is where should this item be put on the list of priorities and how much of the economic wealth needs to be put to this vs other worries like water pollution, health care, education, poverty etc. Right now with the uncertainty about this issue, I see it as less dire than many of the others.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:46 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, if your car acceleraqtes from 28 kph to 38 kph..."
That does not change the reality that 280 parts per million is only 0.028%. If there's anything misleading, it's trying to exaggerate the quantities by taking percentages of similarly tiny quantities.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 2:50 PM
Alan writes: "... 1.5 Celius degrees for each doubling which is magnified by feedback mechanisms like that of water vapour to somewhere between 2 and 4 Celsius degrees."
Or maybe not, as the magnitude of the GHG effect is precisely what lies in doubt. The estimates of 2-4 degrees have been arrived at by assuming ALL of the warming due to unknown causes must be attributed somehow to CO2.
If that assumption is invalid, and indirect solar effects (for example) much stronger than realized, then the assumed effects will be substantially less.
And there seems to be an assumption that water vapour provides only a positive feedback, for nowhere in the studies you've cited have I ever seen any consideration of the negative feedback albedo effect.
Harriot Oct. 18, 3:05 PM
OMG
Alan Burke is still at it??
What is it,2 solid days now,day and night?
Now,if that's not considered a religion,I don't know what is.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 3:09 PM
No Harriott, it's not religion but it is dedication to countering the severe programme of disinformation which is being pushed here by the likes of you, GlynnMhor, Eyes Wide Open and several others.
I think it would be ethically cowardly for me to back away from presenting the science as it is known to rebut and refute that intentional disinformation camppaign and give legitimate skeptics the option of investigating reality instead of denialist propaganda, which is extremely rarely substantiated by legitimate science.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:25 PM
Alan, for someone who can't bring himself to admit that the 1970-2000 warming period has ended it's a bit hypocritical to speak of disinformation.
Everything I point out, every failure and deficiency of the AGW paradigm, is backed by the data and the very models that the IPCC promotes so heavily.
There are serious problems with 'climate science', not only as it has developed, but even moreso as it is portrayed. If there is 'disinformation' it stems from the alarmism, exaggeration, and hyperbole that is vomitted forth out of the AGW paradigm at irregular but all too frequent intervals.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 3:32 PM
GlynnMhor, why do you continue to fail to distinguish between demonstrated natural decadal variability and the underlying monotonically increasing and accelerating anthropogenic temperature rise? I'v pointed you to the backing science but you continue to flog your mythology. In my opinion that makes you a charlatan.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:41 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, why do you continue to fail to distinguish between demonstrated natural decadal variability and the underlying monotonically increasing and accelerating anthropogenic temperature rise?"
Heh heh heh heh... many moons ago, well before the G&M adopted this new format, I tried to convince you that there was a thirty year alternance of cooling and warming (you denied being able even to see it in the temperature record), and that the estimates of CO2 sensitivity were exaggerated by the assumption that all warming of the 1970-2000 era was GHG related.
Now you come back claiming that variance as your own, or at least you've decided it must real now that some researcher has claimed it exists. Yet you still haven't owned up to the fact that recognizing a multidecadal cycle necessarily requires a downward reassessment of the assumed climate sensitivity to GHGs.
Do you have to wait for researchers do do you thinking for you? Is that your problem? You won't accept the obvious until you see it in some journal or other?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:47 PM
To be clearer, it is obvious that the cooling amplitude of the (approximately) thirty year alternance is at least equal to the effect of increasing GHGs, as shown by the cooling periods of 1940-1970 and the present.
So if the warming amplitude is also equal to the net change GHG effect, half of the 1970-2000 warming is *** NOT DUE TO CO2 ***.
Which reality must, a priori, require halving the estimates of overall climate sensitivity to CO2, since those estimates are predicated on the later warming period being entirely due to CO2 increases.
So some day you're going to have to see the '2-4 degrees' drop down to '1-2 degrees' per doubling, a level which is not up to the hype and alarmism.
But apparently you're not going to believe me until somebody more credentialled works out that thinking process for you.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 3:51 PM
Glynn Mhor , I'm not going to believe you until the icecaps,gaciers and tundra stop melting,
can ayd e an Oct. 18, 3:52 PM
Just read this article and I have to say -
Who the hell does Rex Murphy think he is?
Just because the BBC writes an article about something doesn't mean we should immediately reverse our national policy on an issue that the countries of the world have agreed is incredibly important.
This is why we have international scientific and political processes set up - to appropriately discuss the full body of evidence presented on the issue and pragmatically determine a reasonable course of action. We don't need arm-chair critics using their public stage to say we should go in the opposite direction that we've been heading in for the past 20 or 30 years because one news article came out.
Come on Rex. I thought you were better than that.
PS - I'm not normally this angry, but you hit a nerve with this one. I'm looking forward to better stuff in the future.
PPS - And for all those climate science hobbyist on the list, notice that I haven't taken a position on the science (mainly because I don't have any training or professional experience in the area), and prefer to leave the debate up to those best qualified, no matter what evidence they present. I wish you would do the same. The widely expected consequences of this issue are far too serious to play around with it as a hobby.
Respectfully yours,
A born and bred Albertan.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:53 PM
And then we get to the question of what is driving that thirty year alternance. Solar cycle lengths are the only forcing that has been demonstrated to be comparable, and indirect solar effects may be driving the ocean cycles like the moon drives the huge Fundy tides near the resonance frequency.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:55 PM
May writes: "GlynnMhor , I'm not going to believe you until the icecaps,gaciers and tundra stop melting."
And you'll find some excuse even then, I don't doubt, in order to promote the AGW hype for ulterior reasons.
After all, if you can't bring yourself to believe the data, there must be something blocking your thinking.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 3:56 PM
GlynnMhor, the driver of the decadal variability is ocean currents, powered by ocean absorption of heat, the primary heat sink of the Earth. Read the papers which I've cited - ENSO figures prominently. You're grasping at straws.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 3:57 PM
cvan ayd writes: "This is why we have international scientific and political processes set up - to appropriately discuss the full body of evidence..."
The purpose of the IPCC is to manipulate the appearance of the science in order to justify the political policies.
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, 3:58 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.
Not all of these people have evil intentions. Some are just misled idealists, but that doesn't make lies turn into truths.
SassieLassie Oct. 18, 3:59 PM
I will not be a member of the New World Order also refered to as Global Governance. The Climate Change warm-mongers are nothing more than zealots, many really believe the lies and fake science but hopefully sanity shall be restored to our Politicians who shall not sign any agreement that basically forces Canada to take orders from the Euro Leftwing zealots.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:03 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, the driver of the decadal variability is ocean currents, powered by ocean absorption of heat..."
And from whence do you suppose that heat arises if not from the Sun? Whatever heat manages to penetrate the cloud cover to reach the surface, more exactly.
And there are at least a dozen loci in atmospheric chemistry and physics where cosmic rays have an influence, and their flux is driven by changes in the Sun's magnetosphere and solar wind.
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf
BTW, the solar wind doubled in strength since Queen and Empress Victoria died, but has declined nearly 20% over the last decade.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:03 PM
GlynnMhor, what part of "monotonically increasing and accelerating" don't you understand? Earlier decadal variability did show some global cooling; the current case is at most a levelling off. That's what happens when the underlying rate of change increases (accelerates).
Show us scientific studies which support your claim that it's solar variability that is the primary driver. That's true of Milankovitch cycles, of course, but there is no scientific literature which supports your hypothesis, at least that I'm aware of. If there is, please cite it instead of just shouting from your podium.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 4:09 PM
@Alan Burke:
Thanks for posting the excellent links, and don't let the "thumbs down" get to you. With some of those people, having an opposable thumb is still a novelty so they over-use it.
@GlynnMhor of Skywall:
You stand out from most of the CC deniers in that you are presenting rational arguments for your case. I agree with what you say about socialists, because they have muddied the waters too much on this debate. They support mass human migration northward (i.e. to countries like Canada that have long cold winters in which survival requires huge per capita GHG emissions), which is the main reason Canada's GHG emissions cannot help but skyrocket. Socialists are phonies re the environment. People who say Canada is underpopulated are like an intellectual cancer.
The precautionary principle is being forgotten. "When in doubt, don't!" If GHGs are not a problem, lowering them does no harm. If they are a problem, failure to lower them is an ecological crime, a collective suicide.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:11 PM
GlynnMhor asked "And from whence do you suppose that heat arises if not from the Sun? "
Yes, of course, the sun. But the greenhouse effect is resulting in more retention of heat that would previously have been reradiated out into space and the oceans have been absorbing that extra heat. But they have thermal inertia - it takes time for that extra heat to have an impact on the atmosphere and therefore the land. The oceans have a heat capacity measured in the thousands higher than the atmosphere. We have "banked" a lot of heat that is eventually going to redistribute and that's inevitable. We are now committed to further temperature rise, which is one of the reasons why we should act now to minimize it in the future (mitigate it) and adapt to the inevitable consequences.
Winston Churchill1 Oct. 18, 4:15 PM
It's common knowledge now that this environmental crisis has only been made up by Liberals to allow them to tax the conservative oil with so-called carbon tax. Almost every scientist on the planet agrees that the planet goes through hot and cold stages every few decades, but Liberals don't want people knowing the truth. Its all about money, always has been and always will be.
Beware of PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS! Do you hear me Al Gore. You've got alot of money invested in your trickery dont you!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:18 PM
Alan writes, cryptically: "GlynnMhor, what part of "monotonically increasing and accelerating" don't you understand?"
What part of amplitude do you fail to comprehend? Remove the multidecadal variation and the remaining component has a slope that is half that of the total warming over the 1970-2000 era.
And if the real warming rate is half that of the previously assumed warming rate, the forcings that were modelled to drive that higher rate must be half the assumed strength as well.
So the next step in the intellectual process is to halve the estimated climate sensitivity.
And that brings the risk of catastrophe down so low that there is no possible way the alarmism can be justified.
Worse, the assumption that there is no long term solar component ignores the very real possibility that the upcoming Grand Minimum will result in serious and worrisome global cooling. And the modelling of the Sun has at least the advantage that it successfully predicts the past, unlike current climate modelling.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:20 PM
Boppa writes: "The precautionary principle is being forgotten. "When in doubt, don't!" If GHGs are not a problem, lowering them does no harm."
Well, that's flat-out wrong, given that the only way to lower GHGs is going to be ruinous for the economy, and in particular making transportation prohibitively expensive for most goods.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:24 PM
Alan writes: "But the greenhouse effect is resulting in more retention of heat that would previously have been reradiated out into space and the oceans have been absorbing that extra heat."
And both the GHG effect and the arrival of the heat varies considerably depending on cloud cover, which may well be strongly influenced by solar changes.
"We have "banked" a lot of heat that is eventually going to redistribute ..."
Or maybe we haven't been 'banking' any heat. Once more that's an unsubstantiated assumption intended to fit the observations into the theory rather than fit the theory to the observations.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:25 PM
GlynnMhor has tried to attribute solar cycle lengths as the responsible forcing behind temperature change. That hypothesis was refuted at least a year ago ago, as I noted on my page "Sun and Solar System"
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/SunAndSolar.aspx
He has provided links to some papers which he claims support this theory (for example, see: "Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate" by K. Lassen) but dismisses a paper by Lockwood & Frölich which determines that there is no such relationship. That paper uses a novel technique to determine cycle lengths and I have used a similar technique here, using least-squares slopes rather than running averages.You'll see that there is a clear demarcation of the cycles, allowing determination of the cycle length. I have included three graphs showing this technique and an additional graph which plots the recent cycle lengths and temperature anomalies (rescaled for graphical comparison graphical). I see no correlation between the cycle lengths and temperature anomalies as proposed by GlynnMhor.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 4:26 PM
Ecology is so complicated.
As the Arctic Ice Cap melts, the fresh water generated forces the northward Atlantic current, the Gulf current that warms the ocean west of Europe, to flow deeper, and so the air blowing to the east across the North Atlantic across Europe is cooler, which counteracts global warming in that locale.
The diminishing area of white snow and ice, due to melting, reduces direct reflection of light back into space, and so this heats the earth and is not radiated back to space because it is in the infrared, which is blocked by GHGs.
The heating of the northern tundra will cause increased release of methane currently frozen into the permafrost. Methane is a far worse GHG than CO2.
With so many interacting variables, the climate is a chaotic system that tends to self-correct, but sometimes spins down into Ice Ages. Human activity increases the wildness of the climate swings, amplifying the chaotic effect, and any thinking person should be concerned about this.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:26 PM
Alan:
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:27 PM
GlynnMhor said "Or maybe we haven't been 'banking' any heat. Once more that's an unsubstantiated assumption intended to fit the observations into the theory rather than fit the theory to the observations."
How then do you account for the steric sea level rise, resulting from thermal expansion? Geothermal just doesn't cut it.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:28 PM
Alan writes: "... dismisses a paper by Lockwood & Frölich which determines that there is no such relationship."
L&F used a methodology that found no relationship, but their paper was not in the position to 'determine' that there was no relationship.
Once more you've claimed refutation where only rebuttal exists.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:30 PM
Yes GlynnMhor, I know about the CERN Cloud experiment. It hasn't been done yet. Studies which have been done show that cosmic rays contribute at most 10% to the warming effect.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:32 PM
Alan writes: "How then do you account for the steric sea level rise, resulting from thermal expansion?"
Given that the sea level rise rate does not correlate at all with temperatures rising and falling, thermal expansion seems an unlikely hypothesis.
Near-monotonic sea level rise rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
compared to wildly varying temperature change rates:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
Face it, Alan, sea levels and even ice extents are affected by so much more than simplistic processes that it is naive to ascribe any one cause to the effects that can be discerned.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 4:34 PM
GlynnMhor "the only way to lower GHGs is going to be ruinous for the economy".
Wrong. See my page on "Economics"
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:35 PM
Alan writes: "Studies which have been done show that cosmic rays contribute at most 10% to the warming effect."
I've looked at the ones you've linked, and none of them are more than attempts to tease out conclusions from statistical methods applied to data affected by far more variables than can be modelled. They do not actually SHOW anything, but rather can only claim not to have found stronger effects.
CLOUD will actually SHOW what the effects are of cosmic rays, a very different concept.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:38 PM
Alan, your economics page is not going to be able to reduce GHGs to the levels demanded by the eco-alarmists without actually ruining our economy.
Just because you've managed to find some propaganda minimizing the costs does not mean we can embark on economic foolishness with impunity.
In order to arrive at even the 'constant composition' scenario, the most optimistic offered by the IPCC, Canada would need to reduce emissions to zero and in addition devise some way to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 4:54 PM
Alan, I looked again at your economic page to see if there had arisen anything recently that might provide a way for Canada to signifigantly reduce CO2 production without brutalizing the economy.
There's nothing there but alarmist exaggerations by the likes of Stern and rosy predictions of economic models from the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute... hardly reliable sources given their hidebound stance.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 4:54 PM
@GlynnMhor of Skywall: "Boppa writes: 'The precautionary principle is being forgotten. When in doubt, don't! If GHGs are not a problem, lowering them does no harm.'
"Well, that's flat-out wrong, given that the only way to lower GHGs is going to be ruinous for the economy, and in particular making transportation prohibitively expensive for most goods."
No, I meant that reducing human GHG emissions can do no harm to the environment, whereas failure to reduce them might be catastrophic. Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking only about the environment.
Yes, reducing human GHG emissions would involve a huge short-term cost to the economy, with the possible long-term benefit of preventing total destruction of the economy and the biosphere itself.
Let me make it clear that I oppose any plan that exempts any country, and any plan to buy carbon credits in a way that allows for profiteering with no actual GHG reductions.
A serious plan? Tax meat and reduce northward migration.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 5:06 PM
Boppa writes: "Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking only about the environment."
Oh, it was clear enough, but the environment is not the only, nor even the most important, variable here.
"... reducing human GHG emissions would involve a huge short-term cost to the economy..."
Plus a huge long-term cost to the economy, and no return on those losses. If we are to invest billions of dollars and years of time and effort into something, we have to make sure it's going to pay off somehow, some time.
BTW, no carbon market or tax scheme is going to be able to exclude profiteers, rent-seekers, nepotists and the more generally corrupt from raping the unfortunate populace.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 5:07 PM
Boppa, at least you, unlike Alan, recognize how damaging it will be to the economy.
He's still in denial.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 5:12 PM
Glynn Mhor not only denies the greenhouse effect, he insists that only the destruction of our economy can produce the reductions called for, demonstrating that his view of climate change is thoroughly contaminated by his economic ideology.The Green Party's , Vision Green actually adds to GDP.Shifting the tax base from thigns we want(income) , to things we want to avoid ( pollution), is a great idea. Replacing wastful fossil fuels with renewables and improved efficiency, would create jobs all across the country, not just Alberta , and create benefits for all , not just the fossil fuel industry.Only a fool would accept that leaving our global economy dependent on finite oil supplies, under the jurisdiction of "the marketplace" is good for the economy.Three digit oil prices last yaer lead directly to the recession.The recovery started when the price of oil plummetted, and the recovery is hostage to high oil prices.Action on climate change is good for the economy.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 5:25 PM
May writes: "Three digit oil prices last yaer lead directly to the recession."
And so by taxing oil even more than it is now (already suppressed by federal and provincial excise taxes) you would keep us in recession for the forseeable future.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 5:26 PM
May writes: "GlynnMhor not only denies the greenhouse effect..."
Not at all; I merely point out that it's not nearly as large as claimed, and that the resultant hype and panic-mongery are unjustified.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 5:29 PM
BTW, May, efficiency is a great thing, but every factor that you try to optimize for efficiency results in a cost for the other input factors.
So if it's man-hour efficiency being optimized, then there may be higher wage and capital investment costs. Or if it's fuel efficiency being optimized, there are higher direct costs and probably poorer performances of other variables like man-hours or surface area, or opportunity costs.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 5:58 PM
Glynn, carbon taxes do raise the price of using fossil fuels, with the entent of creating a financial incentive not to pollute.A $ 50 per tonne tax does not come close to triple digit oil , and will undoubtedly limit the industries ability to gouge the consumer. A carbon tariff on imports ensures that exporting countries will be financially penalized for not reducing, creating another economic advantage for local production.The economic and social benfits from a green econmy lead to sustainable communities.
Achieving some efficiencies do have a cost. This is why we need to act sooner rather than later on their creation, such as a national rail tranportation system for goods,(getting trucks off the road,which in turn lengthens the life of the roadway, reduces traffic,creating even further benefits) would entail a great deal of construction, forging of steele, construction of trains , engines, rail cars etc, which in turn will produce increased atmospheric carbon, but once the sytem is built and operating,efficiencies will pay for themslves.
mememine69 Oct. 18, 6:02 PM
We don't see this climate crisis. We don't experience this crisis so why do you keep expecting us to hang on to this threat for another 23 years?
This theory is not sustainable and history will view global warming as science's disco years.
I say we jail Suzuki for leading us to war against a false enemy. Kinda like the WMD scam?
The CO2 theory is as political science and it's funny watching you fools fall for it.
THE END IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 6:05 PM
@GlynnMorh: “If we are to invest billions of dollars and years of time and effort into something, we have to make sure it's going to pay off somehow, some time.”
I support the Precautionary Principle, e.g., I'm safety-conscious and have smoke alarms, etc., in my home. The probability of a fire is about zero, yet I buy fire insurance. Why? Because a fire is not impossible.
Sadly, with our planet, if the climate changes catastrophically, there's no place to run and hide. We, or our descendants, will be toast. So I believe that humans should stop disrupting the chemical balance of the atmosphere, i.e. just in case.
We need, first off, Zero Net Population Growth, both globally and locally. With so many socialists involved, I’m not holding my breath.
Your only valid position is this: with the huge emitters in Asia being exempted from hard caps, the planet will go to hell in a handbasket no matter what the rest of us do. So we might as well maintain the status quo until the end times.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 6:05 PM
Alan Burke: Wrong. See my page on "Economics"
================================
Sure go ahead and look but Alan has no training in economics so why would he even begin to have a clue?
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 6:06 PM
May writes: "A carbon tariff on imports... creating another economic advantage for local production."
Barriers to trade like this one and the simple increases in transportation costs leave consumers unable to take advantage of less expensive choices, and in the medium and long term this has a terriblly stiffling effect on all the world's economies.
Ulterior motives 7, 8, and 9 from my previous post correspond to these economic fallacies.
GreenPheonix Oct. 18, 6:07 PM
I applaud Rex Murphy for having the courage to speak up for a reality check on Anthropomorphic Global Warming - the crux of the "Climate Change" debate. This has never been a true, healthy scientific debate because any voice raised in question of the AGW hypothesis has been vigorously and often, viciously, squelched.
GREENEGGSNOHAM - is a good example of fervent believers who will automatically attempt to discredit any suggestion that the age-old cycles of changing climate can be due to natural causes over which earths' inhabitants have no real control. GREENEGGSNOHAM claims that Ian Plimers' book, HEAVEN AND EARTH: GLOBAL WARMING THE MISSING SCIENCE, has been "debunked page by page, showing his shoddy research, his selective and sometimes inventive quotes, and his omission of data."
Published in 2009, the book only recently became available in Canada. I pre-ordered and received my copy in late August. I immediately read all 493, very well documented pages. Here is my Reader Comment: "I have finished Heaven and Earth by Plimer. I still think it is the definitive book about climate change reality – BUT – I don’t think it will enjoy mass readership. It is simply too difficult a read for mass public consumption. Even I lack the education to understand some of his concepts, especially about the interaction of CO2 in the atmosphere and the many natural CO2 sources and carbon sinks. Because he has divided his work into categories of History (very good), Earth, Ice, Water and Air he duplicates many of his points far too often – can’t be helped because they are all involved – but – perhaps a more time linear format would have been better. Perhaps someone (maybe he) should write a synopsis for lazy readers. If you can, at least read the Introduction, History section and Conclusion, called Et moi."
How this excellent piece of work could be debunked page by page in such a short time amazes me - and I challenge GreenEggsNoHam to tell me where Plimer is wrong!
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 6:08 PM
Boppa writes: "Sadly, with our planet, if the climate changes catastrophically..."
Which is why so many people are trying to convince you that the climate will change catastrophically if you don't give them money and at the same time force me to give them money, too.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 6:10 PM
May writes: "A $50 per tonne tax does not come close to triple digit oil, and will undoubtedly limit the industries ability to gouge the consumer."
Given that such a tax constitutes governments gouging the consumer, and the fact that it is irrelevant to the ability of industries to charge whatever the market will bear, it's just a dead loss to the economy with no commensurate returns.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 6:21 PM
BTW, Boppa, I have smoke and CO detectors in my house too, but I have never retrofitted a sprinkler system because I see the likleihood of fire as too low to warrant the expense.
Also, I drive a 1996 Volkswagen Golf, when I drive. Commuting downtown is via transit or bicycling. I recycle steel cans, all drink containers, paper, cardboard, and milk bottles. I compost all non-meat organics, including grass clippings. I use a set-back thermostat in winter and have no A/C. On purchasing my current house, I upgraded siding, and wall & attic insulation as well as replacing nearly all the windows and doors with better glazing and weather seals. I use the dishwasher only when I've run out of dishes and thus filled the thing. I do laundry once a week, using the cold/cold cycle, and after a brief few minutes in the dryer hang the clothes up to air dry. I have low-flow showerheads and 6/3 litre dual-flush toilets, as well as rainwater barrels for watering the vegetable garden. All regularly-used lights have been replaced with compact fluorescents, and the less-used remainder are being replaced as they burn out. My Christmas lights are being shifted to LEDs. I use cloth grocery bags. My computer screens are LCDs, and I turn them off when I'm not on the machine.
And with all that I still reject the Kyoto-ite panic-mongering.
BTW, you'd think that I'd be a great contributor to Canada's Kyoto obligations, but since I've been doing all the above (except for the CF and LCD stuff) since before 1990, my efforts count for squat.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 6:34 PM
Eyes Wide Open said "Sure go ahead and look but Alan has no training in economics so why would he even begin to have a clue? ".
Wrong. As usual making a personal attack in the absence of anything else to say. The foot in your mouth suits you.
Harriot Oct. 18, 6:40 PM
I think many people are mistaken by the belief,that those who are not GHG ,Global warming fanatics,do not care about our planet.
That's simply not true.
There's nothing I'd like better,than to see pollution of our air,land and waters addressed.
But that notion seems to have been hijacked,by the Global warming crowd,which has an agenda,only for higher taxation,carbon trading,etc.
Why can't we just tackle the simplicity of pollution,and leave alarmists theories,and political profiteering behind?
Such simple notions,seem to become complicated by agendas,many of those that involve alarmists,and their propaganda theorists,getting filthy rich from it...
at the expense of the little guys,the avg. tax payer.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 6:41 PM
Burke: "Wrong. As usual making a personal attack in the absence of anything else to say. The foot in your mouth suits you."
========================================
And your degree covering the field of economics is from where?
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 6:52 PM
Burke: "But they have thermal inertia - it takes time for that extra heat to have an impact on the atmosphere and therefore the land."
===========================================
As usual Alan gets it pathetically wrong! Inertia refers to the time required to actually raise the ocean temperature. Given that the additional heating of the ocean(which has been going on since the end of the ice age) occurs at the surface or near surface, any effect on atmospheric temperatures will be essentially immediate. There is no further atmospheric heating effect "in the pipeline" particularly since ocean heat content has been decreasing since 2003.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 7:04 PM
@GlynnMohr, re your recycling efforts, etc., and fire insurance.
I'm not trying to play "greener-than-thou" at all, but I do think there is a problem. Astronauts report a brown cloud over Asia that is visible from space. This cloud disperses around the world. The "Air Quality Advisories" we get here in Canada are partly due to Asian emissions. It isn't just traffic gridlock in the GTA.
The planet is being destroyed by the unbridled net explosion in human numbers, and in the explosion in industry that accompanies it.
This idea that the Third World, the "developing world" should become totally industrialized like the G8 countries, with SUVs, etc., is nuts. It's being touted by socialists as being a good thing. Some kind of "justice", when in reality it will be a disaster. How many coal-fired power plants are being completed each week in China? Unbelievable.
Houston, we've got a problem.
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 7:06 PM
Glynn Mhor the days of a global economy based on cheap oil and free pollution has come to an end.New economic models based on sustainable communities, the re-emergence of an itegrated local economy is going to happen , one way or another, peak oil or climate change, its going to happen.Investing in creating these economies will be infinatley superior to just waiting for the day the trucks don't arrive.
When there is significant evidence of negative consequences to a course of action, altering course is always better than ending up on the rocks.And if that resticts my access to cheap junk from China, well that's a price I am willing to pay.
Joel R D Oct. 18, 7:12 PM
Tis to pity: Poor Rex is shilling for the Anti-Green movement aka the Conservative Party of Canada.
Rick Taves Oct. 18, 7:24 PM
Good work, Alan Burke. Old Rex has his contrarian posture and plays it to the hilt. Let him go to Inuvik,to the Malives, to Australia or to southern California to spout his views. I wonder how he would be received.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 7:25 PM
Re AGW.
Difficult to extract from the data.
We know it's getting colder in Canada because we're going from Fall to Winter. Could that trend be predicted from the weather over the last few days?
Same thing re global climate. How does one even measure it? Unless one has a zillion thermometers evenly spaced on a global grid, and takes the average, what does “global temperature” even mean?
As well as random fluctuations from the average – over days, months, years, centuries, millennia – ie random “weather”, there are cycles.
The 11-year cycle of Solar acitivity, which is not precise. The Sun is an erratic variable star.
Earth’s orbit is an ellipse, bringing it closer and farther from the Sun. Seasons are due to the axis tilting toward or away from the Sun. Currently, Northern summer happens when the Earth is farthest from the Sun (approx), which flattens out the temperatures somewhat. But the axis direction changes slowly, bringing greater seasonal extremes.
AGW? Hard to prove.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 7:27 PM
May writes: "GlynnMhor the days of a global economy based on cheap oil and free pollution has come to an end."
'Free pollution'??
Maybe in China, but not here. And don't start calling CO2 a pollutant; that doesn't have legs.
And whatever the disadvantages of 'peak oil', paying more than necessary for energy sooner than necessary is just going to cost more.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 7:28 PM
HeyBoppa, concerning your comment at 7:04, here's a citation from my "News" page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/News.aspx
2008-11-13
United Nations Environment Programme: Atmospheric Brown Clouds (pdf 1.45 MB)
http://www.unep.org/pdf/ABCSummaryFinal.pdf
After more than a century of scientific studies on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), we have today a fair understanding of the 'global warming' and 'ozone hole' issues. Many studies as well as policies are under implementation to better understand and address these issues.
Recent scientific studies have revealed a new atmospheric issue: Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABC). The brown haze is caused by air pollution, mainly the sub-micron size aerosol particles, emitted from a wide range of anthropogenic and natural sources. Through the studies initiated under ABC project, scientists now have an overall view of the major sources and the global scale nature of the brown cloud problem.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 7:29 PM
May writes: "... altering course is always better than ending up on the rocks..."
To avoid Scylla you would run us upon Charybdis. And we don't even know, in this case, that Scylla exists.
ThePope Oct. 18, 7:29 PM
And as the veil of darkness is removed from the vision of the blind masses, a new understanding emerges.
A darkness put in place by the governments & the elite who control them. The elite who have created large centers of power & influence outside any one countries control. The governments with their failing institutions of conformity known as education systems.
Within those failing institutions of ordered & controlled ideological doctrine a light is burning bright now. A light which has allowed those subjected to that failing doctrine to once again see & think for one's self. The awoken consciousness of millions are once again seeing for themselves, without that dark shroud obscuring their view.
They are doubting & questioning on mass, the illusionary & deceptive teachings of their former masters. Their understanding is great, they can once again distinguish between the truth & lies in the spoken words of those former masters. They can once again sense within themselves the rightness & the wrongness when it's presented to them by those who fool & deceive for their own twisted pleasure.
Others still, have seen through their own self-deception. They see that they were merely pawns in this giant of chess games & have themselves awoken. They are now helping to filter out the propaganda through their vast communication networks which encircle the world.
continued....
ThePope Oct. 18, 7:30 PM
One last mighty bastion of self-deception remains, it's ranks of scientists swaying on the edge of revolution. Like the renaissance which pushed the science's into the mainstream & created this new religion. A new renaissance approaches, one that will push the science's back down into the place it should occupy.
Pushed back to it's place along side other religions, where it's relevance like all other religions will remain. Only now it will lack the dominance over mankind it had commandeered for a time. A dominance which left unchallenged & unquestioned would take us to the brink & likely beyond.
The science's rise was swift & it's fall will be equally so. When you examine the science's, it's history mimics that of other religions. The incredible belief & faith the people have bestowed upon the science's, matches that of other religions, putting them on an equal footing of validity.
Thankfully science's rise & fall will encompass a vastly shorter time span & the damage quickly contained.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 7:35 PM
Yes, hard to prove AGW, but I still believe we should stop the rampant destruction of the planet, the leveling of the rain forests, extinction of wildlife species, etc., etc.
It starts right here in Canada with a reduction in the net rate of increase of our population, and thus a reduction in the runaway suburban sprawl that is destroying our natural environment.
If our net population growth is zero, our net increase in GHGs will be zero. Then we can use green tech to reduce the GHGs. With the population exploding out of control in Canada, however, and Asia doing zip, Canada and the rest of the planet will be a train wreck before the end of the century.
So it's easy to understand the nihilism. It is less easy to understand the orchestrated campaign to deny that a problem exists. Absolutely appalling.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 7:38 PM
Pope writes: "The science's rise was swift & it's fall will be equally so. When you examine the science's, it's history mimics that of other religions."
While the religious proselytizing that from time to time attaches itself to science may rise and fall (the AGW movement, for example) science itself stands outside the faith-based belief that has no foundations and which defines religions.
Science has somewhere to stand, a solid place of information that religions utterly lack.
Conservative Oct. 18, 7:42 PM
Unfortunately for mr. iggy the law of politics is that the incumbent automatically wins until he screws up. See harper despite my dislike for his policies, has not done anything to offend canadians enough to want him to go, and he is governing right of centre and often on the left so he cannot really lose an election because he forces iggy to say the same thing as him (which makes him seem more boring) or take on a silly position like green shift
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 7:44 PM
Oh God, let's please leave religion out of this debate.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 7:56 PM
Re Zero Net Population Growth, locally.
This means that the number of births plus the number of arrivals of migrants/refugees is equal to the number of deaths plus the number of emigrants.
I'm in favour of people being free to have as many children as they can afford to feed and provide for properly, and in favour of immigration to the extent that it is required to keep the net population from decreasing. ZNPG is neither anti-children nor anti-immigration, it is just a question of fine-tuning the immigration numbers to give a net population growth of zero.
This would require a major shift in how we understand economics. Simply paying people money to chop down trees and turn them into houses, and then bringing in immigrants to live in them and provide a growing base of customers and taxpayers, well, that is a 19th-century model that is not sustainable in the long term.
In Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", he noted that China was poor because it's population growth had maxed out.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 8:06 PM
The world's population has been growing exponentially. Exponential griwth with fixed resources is doomed to an eventual crash. From my "Economics" page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Economics.aspx
This report addresses very well the quandary of an economic system dependent upon growth when growth may no longer be possible and could be toxic to all of us. Our exponential growth will soon hit the barrier of limited resources, making the current financial crisis look like a tempest in a teapot in comparison, unless we take drastic measures to make economists and politicians realize just how damaging modern economic theory and practice really are.
New Scientist Special report: How our economy is killing the Earth
http://tinyurl.com/66yyzl
Editorial: Time to banish the god of growth
http://tinyurl.com/7whke6
Imagine an industry that runs out of raw materials. Companies go bust, workers are laid off, families suffer and associated organisations are thrown into turmoil. Eventually governments are forced to take drastic action. Welcome to global banking, brought to its knees by the interruption of its lifeblood - the flow of cash.
In this case we seem to have been fortunate. In the nick of time, governments released reserves that should with luck get cash circulating again. But what if they hadn't been there? There are no reserves of fish, tropical hardwoods, fresh water or metals such as indium, so what are we going to do when supplies of these vital materials dry up? We live on a planet with finite resources - that's no surprise to anyone - so why do we have an economic system in which all that matters is growth ... More growth means using more resources. ...If we are to leave any kind of planet to our children we need an economic system that lets us live within our means.
The facts about overconsumption
http://tinyurl.com/6lw9x3
mongoose000 Oct. 18, 8:17 PM
Rex certainly attracts the crank know-it-all in bulk. And why not, he's the frog-king of the curmudgeons! Long may he rant -- although he's tacky when it gets personal.
What amazes me is how the Globe can publish science stories providing "clear" substantiated evidence supporting climate change this last Wednesday (the Brit study pointing to the disappearing summer ice / declining rivers across the country etc.) and then follow that up with M. Wente and Rex Murphy trumpeting junk science as gospel within the space of a few days.
Obviously, neither of them actually reads their own newspaper let alone trust it as a source. And neither of them ever espouses a balanced view in their rantings. Crazy. The editors are asleep at the wheel...
Geoffrey May Oct. 18, 8:22 PM
Glynn Mhor, Webster definition of pollute ," to contaminate with man made waste". CO2 from burning fossil fuels is pollution.You consistantly ignore the negative impact atmospheric carbon is having on the Oceans, which became more acidic as they store carbon.
By investing in alternative energy now, we aren't as vulnerable to the effects of peak oil, so reducing CO2 reduces future energy costs, developing economies that aren't over a barrel, when oil prices rise.and it just might save the planet from runnaway climate change , a win/win situation.Your inaction is a lose/lose option.
Canadian Centralist Oct. 18, 8:42 PM
Hey all of you believers in man made global warming. I have an anti-man made global warming machine but it only runs on cash. Send me your cash and I will use it to run the machine. Not only will man made global warming not happen but you can tell all of your Liberal friends how you where part of the solution...just like when you invented the internet.
Leo Geiger Oct. 18, 8:49 PM
GlynnMhor writes "That does not change the reality that 280 parts per million is only 0.028%. If there's anything misleading, it's trying to exaggerate the quantities by taking percentages of similarly tiny quantities."
Do you really not understand why what you're saying is invalid? It's such a basic thing. You're attached to a concept that says changes in the amount of potassium cyanide in a glass of water couldn't possibly be significant because it's only a small percentage of the molecules in the glass!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 9:00 PM
"What amazes me is how the Globe can publish science stories providing "clear" substantiated evidence supporting climate change this last Wednesday (the Brit study pointing to the disappearing summer ice / declining rivers across the country etc.)"
=======================================
You clearly are deluded Mongoose - you need to read this!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 9:37 PM
May writes: "GlynnMhor: You consistantly ignore the negative impact atmospheric carbon is having on the Oceans..."
It has not yet been ascertained that there is a signifigant negative impact, nor even any at all.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 9:39 PM
May writes: "By investing in alternative energy now, we aren't as vulnerable to the effects of peak oil, so reducing CO2 reduces future energy costs..."
Increasing the costs of energy now will not reduce them in the future. We'll have paid too much today in order to pay just as much in the future as we would anyway.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:44 PM
GlynnMhor - get real!
Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric carbon dioxide doubles
Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are known to result in reduced coral calcification because carbon dioxide alters ocean chemistry and decreases aragonite saturation because it contributes to ocean acidification. As the aragonite saturation decreases, corals precipitate their skeletons (composed of calcium carbonate) at a slower rate. Silverman et al. predict the future rate of global decline in the calcification of coral reefs resulting from rising sea surface temperature and ocean acidification. Unlike previous studies, which used results of laboratory experiments, they use measurements made on natural coral reef located in the Red Sea to develop relationships between coral reef calcification, temperature, carbonate ion concentrations, and live coral cover. Using these relationships, they find that most coral reefs are already calcifying more slowly than during preindustrial times. Further, when atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches 560 parts per million (double the preindustrial level), the authors predict that all coral reefs are likely to stop growing and start dissolving.
Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2008GL036282, 2009;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036282.shtml
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:47 PM
GlynnMhor, please stop the charade!
Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 9:48 PM
Leo, 0.028% is still 0.028%, and an increase to 0.038% is still only 0.01% more.
It just makes it clear how tiny and insignifigant the amounts being discussed actually are.
In contrast, reporting 38% is arithmetically just as accurate, but is a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the amounts involved.
It is a common misuse of statistical information to make something appear far more signifigant than it really is by finding some comparably tiny amount against which to compare.
Consider the following thought experiment: A new diet is found that decreases the risk of pancreatic cancer by 50%, though as a side effect the risk of prostate cancer increases, but only by 10%. That sounds like a good deal.
Unless you realize that about a third of all men will eventually get prostate cancer if they live long enough, while pancreatic cancer is a few per thousand.
So though it sounds good, it means a reduction of perhaps one or two deaths per thousand in the one case in exchange for the acceptance of thirty more for the other.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 9:53 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor: Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric carbon dioxide doubles..."
Yeah, as usual it's 'may' or 'might' or 'is predicted'. Corals evolved under circumstances of CO2 concentrations lavishly higher than today, and no one has been able to identify a reef growth change due to acidification as distinct from changes due to real pollution, euthrophication, etc.
It's all hype and alarmism, Alan.
And a quote from your second post confirms the status: "...not well known...", or for much of it 'not known at all' would be a propos.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 9:55 PM
"eutrophication", of course.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 9:57 PM
GlynnMhor said "In contrast, reporting 38% is arithmetically just as accurate, but is a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the amounts involved.
".
The deliberate attempt here is you trying to downplay the impact of atmospheric CO2. What's important is that we understand that there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature; each doubling of CO2 results in the same change in temperature, currently evaluated at about 1.5 Celsius degrees for every doubling.
The fact that it is minute quantities measured in parts per million merely demonstrates how powerful the effect really is.
Methane is even worse.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 10:02 PM
And each time it takes another doubling to have the same effect. So 1 to 2, then 2 to 4, then it takes to 8, then to 16 times and then to 32 to have the same small effect.
We're nowhere near even one doubling, let alone the four times needed for the second one.
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 10:05 PM
There's really no "may" or "might" about it GlynnMhor. What a charlatan you are!
Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, The Royal Society 2005, ISBN 0 85403 617 2
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539
The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.
If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this rate of change is probably one hundred times greater than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of the biological effects.
... 68 page document
Alan Burke Oct. 18, 10:09 PM
That 1.5 degree change is the change without feedback effects. Water vapour doubles it. The current range expected for each doubling is at least 2 to 4 Delcius degrees.
Dangerous consequences kick in at 2 degrees. We're already about half-way there.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 10:11 PM
Alan, as usual you go from something that is clear to insisting that something else must follow from it. No one has established what effect a few tenths of a pH will have on coral or for that matter any other lifeforms.
So it's still 'may' and 'might'.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 18, 10:23 PM
Alan writes: "That 1.5 degree change is the change without feedback effects. Water vapour doubles it."
That's only when ignoring the negative feedbacks water vapour also brings into the mix, as the various papers you link make clear by the salient absence of any reference to albedo.
"Dangerous consequences kick in at 2 degrees."
Or maybe not, since again this is speculation by the same sort of folks whose models told us the temperatures should still be rising.
In any case, temperatures aren't heading that way any time soon, and maybe not within our lifetimes. The last series of Solar Grand Minima encompassed several little ice ages whose magnitude of temperature change exceeded your feared two degrees. And we're in a solar high at present not seen for at least a millenium, so as the Sun reverts to normal, the temperatures can be expected to slip further.
We may well find ourselves desperately looking for ways to pump GHGs into the atmosphere in a vain attempt to limit the cooling.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/spaceclimate/presentations/symposium/Friday_20.3/Session6/Richardson_03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
Leo Geiger Oct. 18, 11:27 PM
GlynnMhor - It is a common misuse of statistical information to presume something is far less significant than it really is by simply pointing out the number is small, while remaining ignorant of the physical processes going on.
Having a small quantity of potassium cyanide in the glass of water doesn't make it safe. A 30% increase might in that small amount make the difference between life and death.
This is a simple, uncontroversial, fundamental concept completely outside of climate science. If people can't even get this right, there's not much hope of understanding anything.
HeyBoppa Oct. 18, 11:36 PM
GlynnMhor: "0.028% is still 0.028%, and an increase to 0.038% is still only 0.01% more."
You're mixing up percentage points with actual percent increase as expressing a ratio.
Whatever the units are, e.g. thousandths of a percent, going from 28 to 38 of them represents an increase of 10 units over the original 28, so the percent increase is (10/28)x100% = 38% (rounded off). It's like Allan said, if you have some cyanide in your glass of water, even though the actual amount is small, a 38% increase is significant.
It means that the atmosphere blocks 38% more of the heat (infrared radiation) that would otherwise be escaping into space if we hadn't added that extra CO2. That's pretty scary, and doesn't even include other things like methane.
As the ice caps melt, and the temperature rises, more water evaporates. H20 is itself a GHG, compounding the problem.
The extra clouds do reflect away more incoming sunlight, which complicates the net effect, but it is a destabilizing influence.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 18, 11:45 PM
HeyBoppa: "It means that the atmosphere blocks 38% more of the heat (infrared radiation) that would otherwise be escaping into space if we hadn't added that extra CO2. That's pretty scary, and doesn't even include other things like methane."
=============================================
HeyBoppa has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. The bandwidths of outgoing long wave radiation affected by CO2 are very limited and are already highly saturated by the overlapping effect of water vapour or by already existing levels of CO2. Any further effect from additional CO2 will amount to SDA particularly when the proven negative feedback effects come into play!
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 12:11 AM
EyesWideOpen:
“HB: ‘It means that the atmosphere blocks 38% more of the heat (infrared radiation) that would otherwise be escaping into space if we hadn't added that extra CO2...'
==
HeyBoppa has...no idea what he is talking about. The bandwidths of outgoing long wave radiation affected by CO2 are very limited and are already highly saturated by the overlapping effect of water vapour or by already existing levels of CO2. Any further effect from additional CO2 will amount to SDA particularly when the proven negative feedback effects come into play!”
BZZZT! Doesn't matter that only a small bandwidth is blocked, nor that there are other gases. The radiant heat blocked before due to the CO2 component, that amount has increased by 38%.
I never said the total escaping heat was reduced by 38%, just the part affected by CO2. Air is nearly transparent to visible light, but foggy to infrared, so the sun’s energy comes in easier than it gets out. A small effect, but it builds up over time.
Leo Geiger Oct. 19, 12:11 AM
HeyBoppa -- It isn't as simple as 38% more CO2 equals 38% more heat retention. That's the point: it's a complex system. Attempts to downplay CO2 based on a small number argument like GlynnMhor has, or to assume a simple linear relationship, are completely inadequate.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 12:40 AM
Lou Geiger. You miss my point.
However complex the situation is, there is a certain amount of radiant energy being blocked by CO2. It doesn't matter what fraction that is of the total, or what other things are happening. If you isolate the component being blocked by the CO2, then increase the CO2 by 38%, then the blockage would go up correspondingly.
Yes, it probably isn't exactly linear, but likely roughly proportional. If you put a sheet of glass in front of a radiant heat source, and it's 20mm thick, then you replace that with a pane of the same glass that is 28mm thick (i.e. 38% thicker), one would expect a roughly linear relationship, i.e. that 38% less heat would get through. Could be 35% or 39%, but the basic idea holds.
I agree that it is complex, environmental processes usually are, and the 1000-character limit leads to simplified models.
Heat from the ground would emit a black-body spectrum (approx) peaking in the infrared,so my general argument is valid.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 12:54 AM
Lou Geigher. PS, as an analogy, if somebody drops a 2.0 kg brick on one foot, and a 2.8 kg brick on the other foot, there would be more damage with the heavier brick. Your point seems to be that the heavier brick would not necessarily cause exactly 38% more damage, and that's probably valid. But the heavier brick would definitely cause noticeably more damage, and in the same way I am saying that having 38% extra CO2 would cause noticeably more blockage of escaping infrared.
I don't think that escaping radiation in the AM radio frequencies is the issue here, so the rest of the spectrum is a red herring. Heat radiating at earth temperatures would be mostly in the infrared, and CO2 is not transparent to infrared.
The sun is a yellow dwarf, and it's brightness peaks in the visible spectrum, to which air is almost transparent. It heats the ground and is radiated back out in the infrared, which is largely blocked by CO2. It gets trapped, like the heat in a parked car with the windows up.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 1:00 AM
Have to sign off. I appreciate that the discussion has become mostly quite civil, despite the fundamental disagreements. Rather unusual to see that on these comment threads. Lots of thought-provoking comments from both sides of the issue.
droy50 Oct. 19, 1:04 AM
Lets come in for a landing shall we?? climate change or no climate change, pollution is bad for our collective health. A reliance on oil is both unsustainable and funding dictators. While the debate rages about "is it or isn't it happening" we are ignoring perfectly good reasons to take action on improving the air we breathe.
Leo Geiger Oct. 19, 1:23 AM
HeyBoppa writes -- "If you isolate the component being blocked by the CO2, then increase the CO2 by 38%, then the blockage would go up correspondingly. Yes, it probably isn't exactly linear, but likely roughly proportional."
Not necessarily. Here's a simple example: what if a gas is blocking essentially 100% of a certain wavelength. Even if you increase the quantity of gas, it can't increase the "blockage" at that wavelength. In your analogies, this is an opaque piece of glass, or both bricks taking your foot completely off.
You might find this interesting reading:
http://tinyurl.com/6y4h6v
Leo Geiger Oct. 19, 1:27 AM
By the way, I'm not suggesting that CO2 isn't important. There's plenty of evidence to say it is. I'm pointing out that you can't figure out whether it is or isn't using (over)simplified arguments.
Rod Smelser Oct. 19, 3:17 AM
I rather doubt that Rex Murphy want's his column to be seen as one on global warming as much as one on the party politics around the issue. That was certainly where he started out, at least.
Rex should remember that over the last two or so years, environmentalists and economists in academia pretty much aligned themselves with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift, and in B.C., home to David Suzuki and Mark Jaccard, to Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.
Numerous cheeky op-ed pieces were authored by the BC Govt's notorious Public Affairs Bureau and then signed by various academics, including a Canada Research Chair or two, all proclaiming the need to vote Liberal in support of carbon taxes. Politicians like Harper, Layton and James who favoured a cap and trade approach were denounced as "dishonest".
It even went so far that during the BC election last spring, one of the so-called Canada Research Chairs did robo calls on election day for a Victoria area BC Liberal candidate. It's a clever abuse of academic tenure and the status of "recognized intellectual" that goes with it for these Liberal professors to trade on their university positions while denying any partisan motivation.
But now Michael Ignatieff has officially and very firmly repudiated any kind of carbon tax approach. So, ... what's the response from the climate scientists and the university economists? Are they busy writing cheap and cheesy op-ed pieces denouncing Ignatieff as "dishonest" for not supporting a carbon tax, as they did with Conservative and NDP politicians?
Of course not. Their game all along was promoting the Liberal Party to urban environmental voters, and climate change/carbon tax rhetoric was the means to that end, nothing more.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 3:52 AM
From my "News" page - remarks by Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation: strengthening global energy security.
This is a must read speech by Rex W. Tillerson, given at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., January 8, 2009. Following comments about a "cap-and-trade" system, he spoke about a carbon tax, which he seems to prefer:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/news_speeches_20090108_RWT.aspx
There is another policy option that should be considered, and that is a carbon tax.
As a businessman it is hard to speak favorably about any new tax. But a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach. ...
A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions - from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers.
In addition, such a tax should be made revenue neutral. ... There should be reductions or changes to other taxes - such as income or excise taxes - to offset the impacts of the carbon tax on the economy.
Finally, there is another potential advantage to the direct-tax, market-cost approach. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important! Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.
This is a far cry and most encouraging statement coming from the "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air" company. Perhaps the end of the "Republican War on Science" coincides with a turnaround at Exxon.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Bert Russell Oct. 19, 5:17 AM
If your model isn't giving you the information you want .. tweak it!!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 7:01 AM
HeyBoppa: "I never said the total escaping heat was reduced by 38%, just the part affected by CO2. Air is nearly transparent to visible light, but foggy to infrared, so the sun’s energy comes in easier than it gets out. A small effect, but it builds up over time."
=====================================
Bzzzzttt! Wrong on oh so many fronts! You never specified only the component of heat blocked by CO2! You said " ‘It means that the atmosphere blocks 38% more of the heat (infrared radiation) that would otherwise be escaping into space if we hadn't added that extra CO2...'"
You also said "so the sun’s energy comes in easier than it gets out. A small effect, but it builds up over time." Well actually it doesn't. If the CO2 level increases then a very small amount of additional heat will theoretically be retained, temperatures will increase slightly and a new radiative balance will be established.
As to your notion that the heat retained by the CO2 will increase by 38% that is just plain wrong too! Using your window pane analogy, it's like adding a 100 additional coats of paint after already having 280. It's not going to trap any significantly more additional energy!
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 7:29 AM
For those who are somewhat mathematically inclined, visit the article noted below for a description of the CO2 greenhouse effect:
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.
Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.
Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated
Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
The article concludes with the observation that with current forcings, there would be a 1.2 Celsius degree rise above the pre-industrial base "at equilibrium" and that with an experienced 0.7 degree rise, there is still 0.5 degrees "in the pipe". It is probably retained by the oceans and yet to be released to the atmosphere.
Tor Hill Sask Oct. 19, 8:10 AM
Rex writes: 'Galileo didn't work from consensus. Those who opposed and persecuted him worked on the consensus of centuries...'
As far as I can tell, Rex only implicitly suggests that the global warming deniers are the Galileos of our time fighting the Church of our time (enormous capitalist structure built solely on the profit motive).
Truth is, the scientists who have reached consensus about behind global warming are the Galileos of our time and they are fighting the consensus built up by the Church of our time.
Davey vs. Goliath, Galileo vs. the Church forced into service to provide a comparison between science and the capitalist network today - we should be clear about who is who in these comparisons.
Rex is distorting the meaning of the consensus reached by scientists today. It does not refer to an immovable, monolithic structure that is imposing its will on the world. The terms 'immovable' and 'monolithic' are reserved for the world economic system that is opposed to the science. To give the consensus reached by the science such enormous power doesn't match the facts.
As for the BBC article, it started as a blog and was transformed into news. I don't know the full significance of this phenomenon, but opinions are masquerading more and more as news today.
Tor Hill Sask Oct. 19, 8:28 AM
Ai caramba, got one of those comparisons wrong. No trouble.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk Oct. 19, 10:07 AM
Rex, while climate change is not apparant in the temperate zones, it certainly is in the Arctic Antactic and Equatorial zones. But oh well, we don't live there, right?
alberta guy Oct. 19, 10:32 AM
Alan, I'd like to suggest you contact Roy Green at the Corus Radio network. For a long time he has been trying to get people on his radio show to debate global warming or climate change or whatever it's called now.
There are several folks that question the "science" willing to debate this on air, but NO ONE from the side that supports the IPCC's position has been willing to come forward to debate this. This speaks volumes.
Up for it?
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 10:35 AM
Eyes Wide Open: You're arguing dishonestly, cherry-picking statements out of context, making distracting noises, tossing in red herrings, etc.
Your analogy about putting on extra coats of paint is ridiculous, because no one ever said that 0.00001% CO2 was like a coat of black paint to infrared. Fact is, not that facts would concern you, is that CO2 makes the air somewhat "foggy" to infrared, and as the CO2 rises, the foggier it gets.
Let's try an analogy, since science is not your strength.
A person nets $36,500/yr (we probably agree about him being overtaxed), which is $100/day (ignoring leap years). He spends the same. Balanced budget.
Then he spends an extra $2/day, a deficit. After a year, he's $730 in debt; after a decade, $7300 in the hole. But you CC deniers would look at these numbers and say, "$2/day?? That's nothin'!!" But it isn't nothing, it's an imbalance that grows over time.
Rave all you want about irrelevant factors, but GHGs are a problem that only fools deny.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 10:56 AM
Alan writes: "Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated
Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2"
Here we see that step 4 and step 5 are in disjuncture, since the calculable radiative forcing effect in (4) yields a climate sensitivity (5) of about 1 degree rather than 3.
So one has to ask whay are they lying? And why is Alan repeating the lie?
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 11:38 AM
No thanks, alberta guy; I'd rathger not participate in a Gish Gallop in a biased milieu.
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3359
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 11:39 AM
RealClimate accepts comments GlynnMhor, why not take your beef up with them?
alberta guy Oct. 19, 11:44 AM
Alan, I'd like to suggest you contact Roy Green at the Corus Radio network. For a long time he has been trying to get people on his radio show to debate global warming or climate change or whatever it's called now.
There are several folks that question the "science" willing to debate this on air, but NO ONE from the side that supports the IPCC's position has been willing to come forward to debate this. This speaks volumes.
Up for it?
-------------
No thanks, alberta guy; I'd rathger not participate in a Gish Gallop in a biased milieu.
------------
Yeah thought not Alan. My question is that since the debate is NOT over, and there is NO concensus,
why do the alarmists not want to have an honest debate? It must be that the alarmist position is a house of cards. A fraud.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 11:51 AM
Alan, the link you provided....ROTFLMAO, trained by Al Gore?!?!
dear, dear,!
"Richard Littlemore has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 11:53 AM
HeyBoppa justly demonstrates the practice of Alarmists of yattering on about something they have absolutely no clue about! From a science and mathematics perspective they are completely inept!
HeyBoppa specifically states in an earlier post: "If you isolate the component being blocked by the CO2, then increase the CO2 by 38%, then the blockage would go up correspondingly."
Well it's obvious that HeyBoppa doesn't even understand the basics of how radiative forcing works in the atmosphere! If you go to this site which provides a tool to model radiative forcing levels based on different levels of CO2, one can check what actually happens. This model calculates the outward flux of infrared energy based on varying inputs such as CO2 levels. While the absolute change in outward flux is likely overestimated because negative feedbacks and the latest work by Miscolszki are not factored in, the relative change identified will represent an upper limit to any such changes and clearly demonstrates how out to lunch HeyBoppa is.
To check it out yourself go to:
http://geodoc.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
Outward infrared flux at different CO2 levels is as follows:
318.4 W/mxm at 0 ppm CO2
289.2 W/mxm at 280 ppm CO2
287.8 W/mxm at 385 ppm CO2
So the effect of 280 ppm CO2 is a reduction in outward flux by 318.4 - 289.2 = 29.2 W/mxm and the effect of 385 ppm CO2 is a reduction in outward flux by 318.4 - 287.8 = 30.6 W/mxm. So the %increase in the CO2 greenhouse effect from an increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 385 ppm is (30.6 - 29.2)/29.2 = 4.8%. This clearly demonstrates that your statement that a 38% increse in CO2 levels leads to a corresponding increase in the CO2 'blocking' effect is complete and utter nonsense with no basis in actual science!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 11:57 AM
"RealClimate accepts comments GlynnMhor, why not take your beef up with them?"
=================================
That would be a waste of time. Any comments disputing the Global Warming religion are routinely deleted there! Just part of the ecofascist approach to the truth.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 12:20 PM
"Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray.
For a long time, that approach worked. But after 11 years without record temperatures that had the seas spilling over the Statue of Liberty's toes, they are going to have to change tactics.
They're going to have to rely on real data, not failed models and scare stories, and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with them."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/ED7O1A4IQU.DTL
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 12:32 PM
Eyes Wide Open:
So you believe that if you are wearing a pair of sunglasses, and you put on an extra pair, that your view of the world would not get darker "correspondingly", as I suggested?
What do you believe then?
You either believe that wearing two pairs of sunglasses would give you exactly the same view of the world as wearing one pair.
Or perhaps you believe that wearing two pairs of sunglasses will give you a brighter view of the world?
Go ahead and explain how two pairs of sunglasses are more transparent than one due to reverse polarization and Lamonskian quantum refraction or whatever else you've copied.
The word "correspondingly" does not mean "in direct mathematically linear proportion". It means that if the CO2 concentration goes up, the blocking of infrared radiation goes up as well.
You misconstrue my statements, that you quoted out of context to begin with, and then reply with irrelevant technical details.
CO2 is rising, thus increasingly trapping heat. QED
poli-scist Oct. 19, 12:42 PM
good article .. I am particularly tired of hearing about "global warming" it exists to an extent but look at a climatology textbook sometime ... we are going through what's called a "millenial oscillation" our climate shifts every 100 thousand years ... a.k.a the overall cooling trend we've experienced the past few years.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 12:43 PM
CO2 is rising, thus increasingly trapping heat. QED
-------------
heyboppa, no correlation has been shown where rising co2 levels equates to increase in temperature.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 12:47 PM
Keep it up HeyBoppa. It just shows to all that are not AGW zealots how totally out to lunch those pushing the AGW religion are. Your statement "
You misconstrue my statements, that you quoted out of context to begin with, and then reply with irrelevant technical details." is ridiculous! You clearly stated that a 38% increase in CO2 levels leads to a 38% increase in forcing! I guess you don't like "technical details" because you obviously don't understand them and they blow your statements out of the water. The truth hurts don't it?!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 12:51 PM
HeyBoppa needs to look back at his posting at 11:45: ""It means that the atmosphere blocks 38% more of the heat (infrared radiation) that would otherwise be escaping into space if we hadn't added that extra CO2."
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 1:06 PM
Eat your words "alberta guy". I have modified my "Temperatures.xls" spreadsheet to correlate temperatures with atmospheric CO2. I have added a graph "Greenhouse Fig. 4 Correlation between Southern Ocean Temperature and Atmospheric CO2" to my "Greenhouse Gas" page:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Greenhouse.aspx
The logarithmic least squares fit trend on the graph shows the southern ocean temperature anomaly between 1880 and 2008 as a function of the atmospheric CO2 content in parts per million. The empirical equation derived from the measurements does indeed show a correlation:
y = 3.0711 * Ln(x) - 17.705 (y:temperature, x:CO2)
with a R^2 statistical goodness of fit of 0.8367 which, given the "noisy" aspect of the temperatures is an excellent correlation.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 1:16 PM
@EWO:
In my response to Lou Geiger, I corrected the impression that my statement created: "Yes, it probably isn't exactly linear, but likely roughly proportional. If you put a sheet of glass in front of a radiant heat source, and it's 20mm thick, then you replace that with a pane of the same glass that is 28mm thick (i.e. 38% thicker), one would expect a roughly linear relationship, i.e. that 38% less heat would get through. Could be 35% or 39%, but the basic idea holds."
Ok, no time to check your sources, but checked your calculations, assuming W/mxm means "watts per square metre". Yes, the decrease in out-going flow of I/R energy is indeed only 4.8% for a 38% increase in CO2 in ppm (parts per million). So instead of decreasing in linear proportion, it decreased by a value that is only about 13% of direct linear proportion.
You got me on the exact numbers, but my point is the FACT, which your data shows, that when the C02 INCREASES, the outward flow of infrared energy DECREASES.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 1:32 PM
Correlating the global average temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2, the fit is not quite as good but it's still there:
Global y = 2.9036Ln(x) - 16.729
R^2 = 0.7784
For all of you contrarians and denialists out there, please note that temperatures do correlate with atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is expected, of course, from the backing science.
Yes, GlynnMhor, I'll anticipate your knee-jerk response that "correlation does not prove causation" but there are clear a priori reasons to expect one. It's visible on my graph from measurements, not models.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 1:44 PM
HeyBoppa: "You got me on the exact numbers, but my point is the FACT, which your data shows, that when the C02 INCREASES, the outward flow of infrared energy DECREASES."
=============================
I don't think you'll find too many of us skeptics arguing that yes, added CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. But the issue is all around the numbers. I see that you finally admit the effect as you stated was off by a factor of EIGHT! Probably not far off the error factor applying to the forecasted CO2 effect that the more official Alarmist spokesman quote!
The reality is that mankinds ability to alter the planet's temperature through added CO2 emissions is likely to be a fraction of a degree - nothing to get strung out about and certainly nothing that justifies the ridiculous draconian measures proposed by the Alarmists that will destroy our economic well-being!
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 1:50 PM
FYI, a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm (the pre-industrial base) to 560 ppm using the relationship:
y = 3.0711 * Ln(x) - 17.705 (y:temperature, x:CO2)
shows a temperature rise of 2.1 degrees.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 1:51 PM
Alan, co2 has increased but temps have not the last 11 years. That's your problem. You modify your spreadshites and don't look at the real world data.
: />
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 1:53 PM
You're demonstrating willful ignorance, alberta guy, I have invited readers many times to visit my page "The Cooling Myth" to see the reality which refutes your fiction about cooling.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
If you can refute the science shown there, please do; I'd love to hear it.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 2:13 PM
FYI, a doubling of posts by Alan using the relationship:
S = P
where S = cumulative alarmist stupidity
where P = number of posts by Alan Burke
shows a doubling of cumulative alarmist stupidity!
alberta guy Oct. 19, 2:16 PM
Alan you are incredible. The world has ACKNOWLEDGED that the earth has been cooling the last 11 years, all the while Co2 has been increasing. Fiction about cooling you say? You are the denier of facts.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 2:16 PM
Eyes Wide Open, I suggest that your really do open your eyes and look at the postings on both sides of your 1:44 comment "The reality is that mankinds ability to alter the planet's temperature through added CO2 emissions is likely to be a fraction of a degree - nothing to get strung out about and certainly nothing that justifies the ridiculous draconian measures proposed by the Alarmists that will destroy our economic well-being!".
A doubling resulting in a 2.1 degree rise doesn't look like a fraction of a degree to me. A 37.5% rise has already resulted in a 0.7 degree rise - measured, not modelled.
Wake up EWO! Get your head out of the sand.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 2:19 PM
Alan, I'd like to suggest you contact Roy Green at the Corus Radio network. For a long time he has been trying to get people on his radio show to debate global warming or climate change or whatever it's called now.
There are several folks that question the "science" willing to debate this on air, but NO ONE from the side that supports the IPCC's position has been willing to come forward to debate this. This speaks volumes.
Up for it?
-------------
No thanks, alberta guy; I'd rathger not participate in a Gish Gallop in a biased milieu.
------------
Yeah thought not Alan. My question is that since the debate is NOT over, and there is NO concensus,
why do the alarmists not want to have an honest debate? It must be that the alarmist position is a house of cards. A fraud.
------------------
Go ahead Alan. Talk to the experts. They'd debunk you and your webpage in short order.
KM. Oct. 19, 2:22 PM
Iggy Cows Global Warming yawn ....hopeless
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 2:27 PM
The debate of science, alberta guy, has been taking place for a couple of hundred years in peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journals, many of which I cite on my web pages. You clearly don't seem to be up to the job of reading the science and responding to it with objectivity or offering a specific critique of the easy analysis of measurements which I have performed here today. Let your experts publish in a legitimate forum instead of launching irrelevant and personal attacks as so often happens here and also clearly happened on the Roy Green radio show betweeen Littlemore and Monckton.
Winston Churchill1 Oct. 19, 2:33 PM
Al Gore: 'Prophets making Profits'
alberta guy Oct. 19, 2:37 PM
Actually Alan the reverse is true. You and other alarmists have staked you position and cannot back out without losing credibility.
"Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray.
For a long time, that approach worked. But after 11 years without record temperatures that had the seas spilling over the Statue of Liberty's toes, they are going to have to change tactics.
They're going to have to rely on real data, not failed models and scare stories, and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with them."
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 2:37 PM
Refuted on the science Eyes Wide Open resorts to an asinine personal attack, as usual. I take it back - go put your head back into the sand EWO.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 2:40 PM
Burke: "A doubling resulting in a 2.1 degree rise doesn't look like a fraction of a degree to me. A 37.5% rise has already resulted in a 0.7 degree rise - measured, not modelled.
Wake up EWO! Get your head out of the sand.
========================================
Give it a rest Alan! The 2.1 degree number is your or some alarmist's with no supporting proof whatsoever! Assuming the 0.7 degree temperature rise is fully attributable to the rise in CO2 levels is just plain silly particularly since over half of that increase occurred before any notable increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Who pays you to be so obtuse?!
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 2:52 PM
Eyes Wide Open, I did not claim that the temperature rise is attributable only to increasing CO2 - stop trying to discredit me with a fiction of your making, a strawman argument.
The spreadsheet containing my analysis of today is available for download and critique. It's a very simple mathematical assessment of measurements, not some strange and exotic model. Instead of launching a personal attack, why don't your show us for a change that your claimed M.A.Sc. degree in mechanical engineering actually can be put to use. I'd welcome a review and critique of the spreadsheet. Verify that the data are legitimate, as downloaded from original sources and have a look at the very simple analysis which show the correlation which had been flatly denied earlier by "alberta guy".
You won't do it, will you. Your sole repertoire here seems to be ad hominem attack. Your scientific crediblility is zilch.
wilbertrobichaud Oct. 19, 3:20 PM
" - The oceans are becoming more acidic, confirmation of their absorption of CO2."
PH is from 1 to 14 above 7 it is alkaline below acidic. The Ocean is above 7 so it cannot be more acidic...Less alkaline yes. Until it reach below 7 and only then will it became acidic. Using the Scary word "ACID" is another typical behavior by the Science challenged alarmists.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 3:24 PM
Alan, given that solar activity is also at record high levels, and has been on the rise over the period from 1860 until just recently, simply correlating with rising CO2 does nothing to dissect the contribution of one effect from the other.
Anilegna Oct. 19, 3:26 PM
The moniker "eyes wide open" does you no good if you're blind as a bat and can't read directions.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 3:33 PM
Let me ask you wilbertrobichaud - if the outside temperature is a nice warm 24 degrees Celsius at noon and then drops down to 16 in the evening, would you say that it is:
1) cooler
2) less warm?
I'm betting on #1. To state that water is becoming more acidic does not imply that is is currently acidic. Similarly, someone better at playing golf is not necessarily a good gold player.
Your argument is artifical.
wilbertrobichaud Oct. 19, 3:39 PM
Rex good article and I see that J Hoggan got a hit piece against you on his smear blog.
So who is James Hoggan? He's a publicI relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.
One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.( Alan)
James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity. realclimate was born for the sole purpose to save face after M Mann's not so famous MBH98 was found to be not as accurate as it was advertised. Mann owns realclimate and Gavin S. runs it. Any dissenters are promptly censored ..Why Alan like them sites so much.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 3:48 PM
Alan writes: "... if the outside temperature is a nice warm 24 degrees Celsius at noon and then drops down to 16 in the evening, would you say that it is:
1) cooler
2) less warm?"
And if the global average temperature anomaly in 2002 was higher than in 2008, would you say that the globe was
1) cooling?
2) still warming?
And since you've consistently chosen the latter, how do you justify the distortion?
DLe5 Oct. 19, 3:48 PM
I really enjoy when one side upholds one article or study against a large body of work to trupet that their beliefs are 'correct'. As usual Rex has offered up his expert opinion on matters he has no expertise in.
If only everything in life was so simple to figure out.
wilbertrobichaud Oct. 19, 3:51 PM
Childish attempt ... PH above 7 is alkaline below 7 acidic. If one does a water test and the PH drop from 9 to 8 the water is 10 times less alkaline ...not more acidic. 7 being neutral. I know that the alarmist have a hard time with reality vs fiction. Give it up the oceans are not becoming more acidic. Another Myth ... Busted!
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 3:55 PM
Burke: "You won't do it, will you."
=============================
I did do it fool! You've made the totally unsubstantiated leap of faith in assuming all the temperature increase is due to CO2 when you have no proof of that whatsoever!
Like I said before, who pays you to be so obtuse!
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 3:59 PM
You're cherry picking GlynnMhor. Read my "The Cooling Myth" page to see why.
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/CoolingMyth.aspx
From NOAA: State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2008
Eight of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1880.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2008&month=13&submitted=Get+Report
EatingSharks Oct. 19, 4:04 PM
Rex is an entertaining dinosaur.
As for Ignatieff: he IS in a political green box, ready for incineration.
We can spread his ashes in his country, at the Carr Center for Human Rights - or at this hero's ranch [and your Rex] in Crawford, Tx.
Like, Rex, Ignatieff, too, is a dinosaur - but less entertaining.
Keep it up, Rex, you are Caanda's "Family Guy" and worthy of being cartooned or being a mascot for our Tar Sands disaster.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 4:04 PM
Eyes Wide Open, I repeat that I did not claim that CO2 is the only cause for the rise and I did acknowledge that correlation does not imply causation. I did, however, respond to the allegation by "alberta guy" that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2.
With a very simple spreadsheet I proved him wrong.
There are sound scientific reasons to expect that they are related and this does show that there is a relationship. It is not a comprehensive model, of course, but a correlation that high would lead any sane individual to explore the reason.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 4:04 PM
Alan, have you changed your tune then?
You've been arguing for many many moons that warming is still going on, despite the cooling that is obvious.
So what's your new story?
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 4:06 PM
GlynnMhor, my "story" is on my website.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 4:17 PM
Burke: "Eyes Wide Open, I repeat that I did not claim that CO2 is the only cause for the rise"
==========================================
Then what about your comment at 2:16? "A 37.5% rise has already resulted in a 0.7 degree rise - measured, not modelled." You are clearly attributing all the "modern-day" warming up to this point on CO2. Again it is evident that you lie at your convenience!
alberta guy Oct. 19, 4:29 PM
Burke:I did, however, respond to the allegation by "alberta guy" that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2.
Burke: "Eyes Wide Open, I repeat that I did not claim that CO2 is the only cause for the rise"
------------------
Ah, how can you say there's a correlation but not the only cause, when other causes are not fully understood? Meanwhile since co2 has been increasing, but the earth has been cooling it seems co2 isn't the big factor but something else.?
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 4:54 PM
Have you visited my page "The Cooling Myth", alberta guy? I doubt it because you'd have seen recent studies which demonstrate that there are two primary components to global average temperature rise - a natural decadal variability and a monotonically increasing and accelerating component attribute to anthropogenic (man-made) causes like greenhouse gasses, including CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, and interference with the carbon cycle thorugh deforestation.
That you refuse to acknowledge this tells me that you are willfully ignorant - you either don't wish to know the science or you already do and are engaged in a campaign of disinformation.
If you'd like to dispute the evidence, please do, but so far all that you and the other contrarians and denialists have done is to express opinion and make personal attacks. You're just not credible when it comes to discussing the science of climate change.
alberta guy Oct. 19, 5:40 PM
Alan I've not made any personal attacks as you claim unless you take it personally that someone does not agree with you.
The total collapse of scientific honesty, objectivity and the actual suppression of data as evidenced by the hockey stick graph is bad enough. What makes it worse is the IPCC still held onto this "data" as if it were truth.
The bottom line is there was indeed a medeval warm period that was warmer than today.
You are going to have to rely on real data, not failed models and scare stories, and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with you.
And as I said to you earlier, I'd like to suggest you contact Roy Green at the Corus Radio network. For a long time he has been trying to get people on his radio show to debate global warming or climate change or whatever it's called now.
There are several folks that question the "science" willing to debate this on air, but NO ONE from the side that supports the IPCC's position has been willing to come forward to debate this.
This speaks volumes, and stronger than any "data" on your website.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 5:42 PM
Another nail in the denialist coffin - released today from Queen's University:
Queen's scientists on international team discover 'ecologically unique' changes in Arctic lake
Queen's University biologists are part of an international research team whose discovery of a rare sediment core in a remote Arctic lake provides compelling evidence of unprecedented environmental changes occurring over the past few decades.
"Our findings show that the last several decades have been the most ecologically unique in 200,000 years," says Neal Michelutti ...
The sediment core, retrieved from a lake bottom on Baffin Island, predates by about 80,000 years the oldest cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet, capturing two ice ages as well as three interglacial periods. ... The research team used algae and aquatic insect fossils preserved in the sediment core to reconstruct past climatic and other environmental conditions. ...
"The 20th century is the only period during the past 200 millennia in which aquatic indicators reflect increased warming, despite the declining effect of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis which, under natural conditions, would lead to climatic cooling," notes the University of Colorado's Dr. Axford.
"Our results show that the 'human footprint' is overpowering long-standing natural processes, even in remote Arctic regions," says Dr. Smol, winner of the 2004 NSERC Herzberg Gold Medal as Canada's top scientist. "This historical record shows that we are dramatically affecting the ecosystems on which we depend. We have started uncontrolled experiments on this planet, and we have entered unchartered territory. The situation is far worse than we thought and this is only the beginning."
The study was published Oct. 19 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 5:45 PM
Moderator's Note: Eyes Wide Open's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 5:45 PM
Roy Green has already done that.
http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-vs-littlemore-to-think-i-could-have-been-doing-something-useful
As might have been anticipated, the radio "debate" today twixt me and the tireless Christopher Walter (Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) descended quickly into name calling and then further into pointlessness - an argument about science that neither of us is qualified to pursue.
In hindsight, I played perfectly into the hands of Monckton and his happy radio host, Roy Green, who share the same goal - not to win an argument about global warming science, but merely to show that there still IS an argument. Of course there's not. But while we danced angels around the head of a pin, I can imagine Green's listeners thinking, "Oh my. This is very confusing. No wonder the government says it's too early to take action."
alberta guy Oct. 19, 5:51 PM
Alan, Littlemore apparently was trained by Al Gore for heaven's sake. How about a credible guest?
Looks the debate is over in your mind.
EWO, nice! : />
enjaybee Oct. 19, 5:54 PM
This BBC piece has just been thoroughly de-bunked on the Guardia website.
Here is a pertinent quote:
"
The piece starts with a bold assertion: "For the last decade we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." To be correct, this should have read: "If we cherry-pick a particular data set which excludes the part of the globe that warmed most, and also cherry-pick a time interval that starts with the warmest year of the 20th century and ends with the coldest year of the 21st, then we just manage to find a nearly flat piece of temperature curve."
enjaybee Oct. 19, 5:57 PM
Rex Murphy has demonstrated once again he has no understanding of science.
He also shows no understanding of good journalism - he has an opinion and does not let the facts get int he way.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 6:03 PM
@EWO
I retract any concessions I granted to you, given that it's now clear that your methods are dishonest and deceitful.
At Oct. 19, 1 PM EDT, I wrote:
“However complex the situation is, there is a certain amount of radiant energy being blocked by CO2. It doesn't matter what fraction that is of the total, or what other things are happening. If you isolate the component being blocked by the CO2, then increase the CO2 by 38%, then the blockage would go up correspondingly.”
It is very clear here, and in other posts, that I am talking about “the component being blocked by the CO2”. The figures you presented involved changes in the total I/R radiation compared to changes in the fraction involving CO2. Obviously, when you fold the I/R blockage of other GHGs, e.g. water vapor, methane, etc., into the total, it will give a bogus result. To compare the percent change in the total to the percent change in the CO2 component is like comparing apples to oranges.
HeyBoppa Oct. 19, 6:12 PM
@EWO again.
Furthermore,
if I say that a certain stock in a portfolio isn’t doing well, you can’t look at the change in that one stock and compare it to the change in the whole portfolio, and directly infer something from it, but that is what you are trying to pull here.
You are being either deceitful or dumb in making such a nonsensical comparison.
Ironically, the model you gathered your figures from, that you misrepresented, looking at your link http://geodoc.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html was developed by AGW proponent David Archer: http://geodoc.uchicago.edu/
Re-reading your exchanges with Alan and others, it seems that you are an agenda-driven sophist with no concern for truth nor fact, and no respect for the concept of scientific debate.
You set up straw men from cherry-picked statements that you misconstrue, then use irrelevant numbers in a vain attempt to impress, and polish it off with ad hominem phrases about blowing things out of the water, etc.
Alan Burke Oct. 19, 6:30 PM
The real "The Cooling Myth" page, alberta guy, is here:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com/Coolingmyth.aspx
but you won't check it out most likely; we wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts.
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 19, 6:58 PM
Alan writes: "GlynnMhor, my "story" is on my website."
That's still your old story.
You haven't even stopped using the term 'cooling myth'
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 19, 9:10 PM
HeyBoppa; "It is very clear here, and in other posts, that I am talking about “the component being blocked by the CO2”. The figures you presented involved changes in the total I/R radiation compared to changes in the fraction involving CO2."
=============================
Just goes to show what a complete idiot you are and I'd be surprised if you even graduated from high school given the ineptness of your attempts to discredit me. Well go back to my analysis bozo and try again. I provided figures for the radiative forcing at 0 ppm CO2, 280 ppm amd 385 ppm. My analyis was based on the difference in the CO2 component only by subtracting the total forcing at 280 and 385 from the forcing at 0 ppm CO2 to isolate the CO2 component.
Your attempts to push AGW lies continue to fail miserably!
Tralfamadore Oct. 19, 11:20 PM
Most of my arguments have been taken and better expressed anyway by Alan Burke - it is clear who presents evidence and not just b.s. backed opinion. But Rex implied that the scientists are operating from consensus and also not basing their models on real observation. I recommend to your reading, James Lovelock's latest book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia" where he says that "consensus" has been forced on the IPCC scientists by their political masters. Scientists always admit to a level of uncertainty in theories and therefore have no consensus - but as Alan Burke says "consilience". Lovelock has no faith in the computer models but observations being made by scientists of the air, sea, soil, ice etc. indicate that the climate models are hopelessly out of date - the actual changes that Gaia (the Earth system of all living things and all the water, rocks and soil) is undergoing are much further along than the models predict. For instance the melting of the polar ice cap that occurred in 2007 wasn't predicted by the models to happen until 2050. As for Iggy wanting to be green - what's wrong with that Rex? Our kids are way ahead of you and Iggy. All four of mine are trying to live a greener life - one is refitting his house in Toronto to make it more energy efficient - using infrastructure money. His family shares a car for out of town trips with my wife and me, his father - we walk, use TTC and bicycle; another lives on an organic farm near Uxbridge and lives "simply". Another refuses to drive anything but a Toyota Echo and lives in a small house in Port Dover and works at trying to make Ontario Power Generation more energy efficient. Another cycles to work in Ottawa. Small things but they are way past you Rex. You and those who think like you really are irrelevant - Tyranosaurus Rex indeed!
Rod Smelser Oct. 20, 1:06 AM
Can we return for a moment to the party political angle with which Rex Murphy began his article?
What is the response of the DeSmogBlog.com principals, Littlemore and Grandia, to Michael Ignatieff's explicit repudiation of carbon taxes? Have they said anything at all about this?
What about such academics as Andrew Weaver, Mark Jacard, Nancy Olewiler and John Robinson? Have they said anything about Ignatieff's repudiation of the Green Shift approach?
Mike Kurz Oct. 20, 10:30 AM
If there was a consensus in favour of global warming, the Green Party would be in power.
DLe5 Oct. 20, 12:20 PM
Wow never thought I'd see so many conspiracy theorists on-line at the G&M...makes me wonder how many of these posters have actually read anything substantial on the issue or if they simply shoose not to believe b/c they dont want to (or their party of choice doesn't agree).
GlynnMhor of Skywall Oct. 20, 4:19 PM
DLe5, I choose to look at the results of the actual science, and the data are not cooperating with the models and the theories. Yet despite that fact, the theories are not (yet) being changed to adapt to the relaities.
RLamont Republic of Alberta Oct. 20, 10:16 PM
Al Gores Song. http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/gavinatkins/al-s-song.htm
Alan Burke Oct. 21, 6:58 AM
GlynnMhor may "look at the results of the actual science" but it's not what he states here. He routinely distorts, oversimplifies and misrepresents the science, all for the sake of protecting a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
His repetitive arguments have been both rebutted and refuted many times yet he contiunues to spew the same mythology for every story related to climate change.
Form your own opinions but please do so from the basis of verifiable, objective, independent and consilient studies reported in reputable scientific journal rather than buy into his mythology. You'll find scores of links to up-to-date science on my website:
http://climatechange.dynalias.com
Eyes Wide Open Oct. 21, 9:54 PM
Now go and be a good ecofreak would you Alan and go and eat your dog!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/sustainable-living-now-includes-edible-pets-to-curb-global-warming/
RLamont Republic of Alberta Oct. 23, 8:55 AM
Here is a list of each nations GDP. Each western nation will pay 1% of their GDP to the UN. Plus additional penalties on each industry do the math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
RLamont Republic of Alberta Oct. 23, 10:51 AM
If Harper is forced into signing the Copenhagen Treaty by the Liberals/NDP/Bloc/Green Commies. The only way Canada and her taxpayers will be able to afford to survive will be by ending many social programs. For example, no foreign aid, cut off of funding for Universities, no funds for gun control. Hopefully an end to all social program spending except strictly as mandated under the BNA. Cancel all immigration, yearly cost is about 8B to settle immigrants and refugees. etc. Under Copenhagen each western nation will have to pay 1% of gdp immediately and each year thereafter, these countries will also have to pay penalties for each industry be it manufacturing, resources etc. Canada will be bankrupted. What industry that is left will flee for China Read the Treaty. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/final_treaty_legal_text_with_cover.pdf
aen Oct. 24, 11:09 AM
"The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized." Barack Obama.
