Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Over at Celestial Junk, Paul E. Marek takes a look at Quacks, Cranks and Junk Science:
Let’s examine who some of the “deniers” are; you know, the “junk scientists”, the “quacks” and “cranks”, who dare oppose the Global Warming consensus. After all, there couldn't be too many of them if 2500 scientists (or is it 51) back the IPCC report:Read the list here...
In The 'Hockeystick' - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade author Michael R. Fox Ph.D. says:
This global warming lobby is large, it is organized, it is international, heavily funded, and it is mean. Whatever else the agenda may be, it is not science.Fox examines the willingness to suppress skeptics and the socialist nature of the movement:
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN organization formed within the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). This should sound alarms for those familiar with the politics of some of the power brokers within the UN itself. Many are decidedly anti-capitalist and anti-American. For example, consider the statement of Maurice Strong made at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:Read more...
"Isn't the ONLY hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
via the Hawaii Reporter.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Last week Eddie Goldenberg, former prime minister Jean Chretien's top aide told a London audience the Liberals knew they couldn't implement Kyoto when they signed it in 1998 and ratified in 2002.
A little bit of truth that Al Gore would likely prefer that you didn't know.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).via the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Update: watch this video The Truth is Inconvenient
Sunday, February 25, 2007
From today's Toronto Sun by Lorrie Goldstein:
Today, let's attack the real global warming "deniers."read more
The affluent, First World, Kyoto crackheads, who condemn anyone who questions their hysterical "apocalypse now" rhetoric as being no better than a Holocaust denier.
Their rhetoric is morally repugnant and disgusting. Plus, they're fools.
ROME -- Imagine a world where Scandinavia produces wines to rival Italy's fabled Chianti region. It could come to just that by the end of the century, experts in Italy warn, if global warming continues unchecked.Seems that the same should apply to Canadian wines - which are already pretty good!
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
That's the title of a News Release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:
Oh, and even though Citizen Dion lives in Montreal, during the Kyoto meetings he chose to stay at a $300 per night hotel and racked up $700 in room service - all at taxpayer expense.
“Mr. Dion is quick to lecture Canadians on the need to cut greenhouse gases yet as environment minister he opted to drive to Montreal, keep his chauffeur in the city and bilk taxpayers $14,225,” stated CTF federal director John Williamson.
- $14,200 in hotel expenses in Montreal for Stéphane Dion’s chauffeur
- $5,550 spent on hotel/hospitality during Kyoto Conference in Montreal
“Canadians have had enough of politicians instructing us to change our driving habits when the same elites, like Mr. Dion, refuse to heed their own advice. Mr. Dion should practice what he preaches, take the Ottawa–Montreal train and hail a cab when in Montreal.”
“Under the Liberals, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions drove upwards, while Mr. Dion was driven back and forth in a taxpayer-funded government car,” noted Williamson.
Diane Francis in today's National Post:
Canadians, like Americans and others living in developed countries, always tell pollsters they are concerned about protecting the environment. But this is like being asked if you are in favour of apple pie and motherhood. Of course you are.
The point of this is that the polls are incomplete, which is leading, in the case of Canada, to potentially ruinous political action and attitudes.
There's also a lot of misinformation about the Kyoto Protocol itself and Canada's responsibilities.
Doug Patton explains why the Global Warming cultists are now on a par with the Flat Earth Society:
It was once conventional wisdom that the earth was a flat disk around which the rest of the universe revolved, and off of which any vessel would tumble if it sailed too far in any one direction. Likewise, today's GWC has so successfully dominated the debate on the issue of global warming that it is now conventional wisdom to believe that it is the greatest threat facing humanity. If all rational people believe it, the argument goes, then anyone who doubts it must be a heretic.Read all of The New Flat Earth Society by Doug Patton
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Did Suzuki lose his global cool because global warming guru Al Gore was due in Toronto within the week of the Oakley-Suzuki interview?Judi quotes extensively from an article (which I also posted about a couple of days ago) by Joseph C Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values.. Worth repeating:
Are Suzuki, Gore and Company trying to ensure man-made global warming as a fait accompli so that Kyoto Protocol architect Maurice Strong will be able to see his life's achievement up in neon lights, among persistent rumours that the elderly Strong is in failing health?
Why would Suzuki fly into a rage if he were only telling the truth?
The jury may still be out when it comes to assessing climate change and global warming; it’s not out when it comes to assessing David Suzuki and the reliability of his testimony though. Suzuki is a charlatan, a shameless self-promoter who foments fear in his audience before promising them salvation – but only if they buy his miracle cure. The only difference is that in his case, Suzuki’s miracle cure is deadly to those who take it.Emphasis added.
The media went ga-ga over Al Gore's presence in the Center of the Universe, a.k.a. "Toronto" where the "great one" gave a presentation of Inconvenient Truth at the U of T last night.
There was no shortage of moonbats on hand either:
There were vegans seeking new recruits, people calling for the closing of Ontario's coal-fired power plants, a Greenpeace mascot dressed as a polar bear -- even the UFO believers showed up.A group called ecoSanity displayed a large banner outside the hall reading "Heed the Goracle."
"I know you won't believe this," one of them, a man named Victor Viggiani, said with a practised tongue, "but the extraterrestrial technology involved in this . . . it's free energy, man. Absolute free energy, and it'll be the end of fossil fuels."
"It was not our intention to have a religious approach," ecoSanity group founder Glenn MacIntosh said, "but it was our understanding that it was that kind of movement that people were craving; that kind of spiritual connection in their gut."Does sound a lot like religion though, doesn't it?
"From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall.Read more about environmentalism as pseudo-religion.
"The religion for this group is doing something for the environment."
Al Gore is the darling of the mainstream media for his crusade to "save the planet", but many disagree with his representation of science as it relates to climate change. Like this editorial from L. Brent Bozell called Gore Follows Well-Trod Path Of Bad Science
Ever since the whole planet-panic kicked in around Earth Day 1970, there have been repeated predictions of impending doom, which didn't exactly work out.Not likely when it comes to the main stream media who are too hooked on sensationalism and raft with left-wing bias. Gore is just the latest in a long line of Chicken Littles when it comes to climate change. As Bozell says:
When will someone in the media ever admit this?
In May 1989, Ehrlich claimed, global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps, causing a flood in which "we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington, D.C., and the Los Angeles basin . . . We'll be in rising waters with no ark in sight."But it didn't happen.
But the media are still handing over their microphones and their accolades to panicky predictions, with no apparent expectation that anyone will ever question their accuracy in a decade or two. How many decades do we wait to question these predictions?While some in the print media and in talk radio are recently showing a willingness to express dissenting opinions, it is still very uncommon in the mainstream televised news.
Despite this, too many media outlets approach global warming with a surprising arrogance, insisting that all the facts are in and that anyone who seeks to confuse the public with dissent is too harmful to be heard.
An editorial from Investors Business Daily looks at the modern environmental movement:
The media tend to portray the green movement as having the purest of motives. But the more its leaders talk, the more they expose their real intent.The editorial is called The Real Agenda and according to the IBD, the agenda is more political than scientific. IBD takes a look at an organization called EarthSave International, which recently reported:
"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products."Egad! Now eating meat causes global warming! We had better all become Vegans to stop those flatulating cows!
In the same story we're informed that "the average American diet — including all food-processing steps — results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet."
Back to reality: the IBD editorial reaches as astonishingly rational conclusion:
So this week it's our consumption of meat and dairy products that they want to police — just like it is the cars we drive, the trips we take, the homes we live in and the goods we manufacture.Exactly. Marx would have loved Kyoto.
Their real agenda is not to save the planet, but to install an economic system more to their liking. They call themselves environmentalists, but they act more like totalitarians all the time.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Liberals want you to believe that they are the greenest of the green. They have the green-scarfed "leader", they're the best political party, nay the only party able to protect our environment. Right?
Well, Steve Janke shows that it ain't necessarily so in his post Bromines, Ozone and the Greenhouse Effect, Lobbyists, and Liberals.
Seems that some prominent Liberals have been up to something rather un-green.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was interviewed on Mike Duffy Live on February 20th, 2007. Harper speaks about new AIDS research funding, the new Strategic Council poll, the current political climate, having Parliament's agenda hijacked by the opposition, and the Liberals about-face on their own anti-terror legislation.
Hamilton Radio host Roy Green commends the federal Conservatives for not buckling under the pressure to adopt the Kyoto protocol.
Roy says, "you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em" and suggests that PM Harper should call the opposition's bluff on Kyoto.
Listen to Roy Green's comment here.
From Brian at Home in Hespeler:
I have been looking over a report from the International Council for Capital Formation in the costs to Germany of the Kyoto protocol. The report, Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: The Economic Cost to Germany, concludes that home heating oil prices will rise by nearly 30%; gasoline and diesel prices 9 - 12%; industry would pay 30% more for natural gas and electricity; GDP would shrink 1.4-1.7 by 2025 (60 - 73 Billion Canadian Dollars); and Job losses would be 318,000 by 2010 and between 519,000 and 622,000 by 2025.The report was actually released in 2005, but it's worth reading. The full report is here (pdf).
All these conclusions are based on the assumption that Germany's nuclear capacity remains unchanged. However, Germany has made a commitment to retire it's nuclear capacity by 2020, meaning the "economic implications of the proposed policies to limit CO2 emissions would be more severe."
And here's a more recent presentation (Jan 2006) from the ICCF on the Costs of Kyoto for Europe and Alternative Courses After 2012 (ppt) by Dr. Margo Thorning who also authored A Marshall Plan for Global Warming.
comes from the Minnesota Daily:
Former Vice President Al Gore could pay a visit to the University in the near future to receive an honorary degree for his work in climatology.Didn't he already get one for inventing the internet?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A review by Jay Lehr published in Environment News March 2007 issue:
With their new book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery skewer all the misinformation that has been used for so long in an attempt to convince society that mankind is the root cause of all global climate change.
The book is truly amazing! It meticulously supports, with hundreds of detailed, published references, the clear facts and conclusions that the Earth's climate has been traveling a well-defined rollercoaster path of temperature change for at least 900,000 years.
Everyone reading this review should buy two copies of the book, keeping one in plain view at their home or office while sending one to a friend or government official who may be called upon to make a decision regarding CO2 emissions into our atmosphere.
via The Heartland Institute
Roger Peilke Sr. comments on the major role of land cover / land use within the global climate system:
The lack of including an emphasis on this issue in the IPCC Statement for Policymakers is disappointing and shows their continued neglect of critically important issues in climate variability and change.Source.
David Suzuki is currently traveling across Canada on his much ballyhooed If you were Prime Minister tour. He's inviting comments from Canadians to the question, "What would you do for the environment if you were Prime Minister?"
Tom Harris sent him a response by video. Watch it here.
You can send your thoughts, in text or video, to David Suzuki here
Update: commentary on David Suzuki from Joseph C Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values:
Witnesses in a legal trial are sometimes compelled to answer questions that have little or nothing to do with the subject they are testifying on in order to determine whether or not their word can be trusted in the absence of incontrovertible, corroborating evidence. If it can be shown that the witness is a liar, then the veracity of their testimony can, and should, be called into question.You'll want to read it all.
Which brings me to the subject of David Suzuki.
Thanks to the mainstream media, we've all heard about the dire plight of polar bears because of global warming. Here's some statistics which might make you think otherwise:
Environmental activists have presented only one academic study that shows any negative effect of warming temperatures on polar bears, and only anecdotal evidence of bears drowning and eating each other, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.The above is from the National Center for Policy Analysis which also has an interesting comment on the Stern Report.
Other, more comprehensive research suggests the plight of that one population does not reflect the polar bear population trend as a whole:
- Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears -- a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.
- Scientists believe polar bears thrived in the past in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
- Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada says the polar bear population in Canada alone has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade, with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.
Groups such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have written on the threats allegedly posed to polar bears populations from global warming. But their analysis isn't supported by the data, says Burnett:
- Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.
- By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing, and they live in areas where air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.
- As for the rest, 10 populations representing about 45.4 percent of the total number of bears are stable, and the status of the remaining six populations is unknown.
See STERN WARNING SHOULD BE IGNORED
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Tom Harris, Executive Director of the National Resources Stewardship Project was on the Gary Doyle Show on AM570 on Friday, Feb 16th discussing global warming science, Kyoto, the IPCC report and debunking some of the disinformation coming from David Suzuki et al.
Update: Tom was on the Lowell Green Show on Friday too. Audio here.
The leader of the Liberal Party doesn't like the ads the conservatives are running in Quebec. Apparently, he doesn't like them one bit:
"Mr. Harper is sending on the TV's in Quebec very negative ads about me, and making people mixed up"Citizen Dion considers it OK to joke about Prime Minister Harper's weight, call him a "control freak" a "climate change denier" and a "far right" idealogue, but he thinks it unfair for the Tories to criticize him.
Dion said that if Stephen Harper had even a "minimum of decency," he would withdraw the ads during the provincial election.
"If Mr. Harper is a man of honour, he would change his mind, he would apologize," said Dion. "This is what he would say if he was a proud prime minister of Canada."
How dare the Conservatives make the voters "mixed up"!
From a commentary written by Roger Pielke Jr., Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner and Daniel Sarewitz for the February 7, 2007 edition of Nature "Climate change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation" (pdf)
Adaptation is again seen as an essential part of climate policy alongside greenhouse-gas mitigation. Both the recent Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change2 and the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change3 demonstrate that adaptation is firmly back on the agenda.Source.
In a previous post I brought to CBL readers' attention how the Suzuki Foundation's PR firm is running a blog (www.desmogblog.com) that is dedicated to smearing the reputations of scientists who disagree with the fantasy-based strategies of Suzuki and his ilk.Also from Canadian Blue Lemons: Who Finances David Suzuki?
This smear campaign is being run by Hoggan Public Relations...
and Kooky Suzuki's PR Firm Blog Financier Arrested
and what a surprise: Chairman Mo Strong on Suzuki Board
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Stephane Dion is making it impossible for Stephen Harper to keep the Tory guns holstered. The politics of the man who I think of as "Le Petit Green Machine" is baffling all the pros...h/t: SDA
When discussing politics with Liberals away from the tv cameras and radio microphones, it's hard not sense the frustration they have with the new leader. They knew that Paul Martin looked like a three dollar bill when he declared every single issue his top priority. Similarly they know that Stephane Dion cleaving to the Kyoto nipple makes him look like a one trick baby.
A reminder from journalist Claudia Rosett about "proposals of the hour":
As today’s prophets of global warming try to terrify us into re-engineering the economy of the planet, we can be glad that in a similar panic 30 years ago over — yes — global cooling, we did not in fear act upon such absurd proposals of the hour as trying to divert the arctic rivers, or melt the arctic ice cap by covering it in soot. I’m not making that up. A friend sent round an article from Newsweek, 1975; read all about the The Cooling World.Source: The Rosett Report.
Columnist Rory Leishman on Canada's under-performance in meeting "greenhouse gas" emissions targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol:
Liberal leader Stephane Dion cannot escape responsibility for this record inasmuch as he served as the environment minister of Canada between 2004 and 2006.and on the recently passed Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act:
Having failed for two years to devise a plan for complying with Kyoto, how can Dion expect the Harper government to pull off this feat within 60 days? Dion knows full well this deadline is preposterous. In a candid moment during last year's election campaign, he admitted that he did not think that a Liberal government led by him would be able to slash Canada's greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol within the next five years.Read the rest at the London Free Press.
Dion had good reason for skepticism. It's practically impossible for any government to have Canada comply with the Liberals' rash Kyoto commitment.
More on Bill C-288
From Juliet O'Neill And Peter O'Neil, CanWest News Service:
OTTAWA - A spokesman for Liberal leader Stephane Dion said yesterday the party will "absolutely not" revisit its opposition to extending two controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act despite a potential mutiny that appeared to be shaping up among Liberal MPs.Good solid leadership from Citizen Dion.
Update: Joel has more on this and Liberal hypocrisy at Proud to be Canadian.
CAW chief Buzz Hargrove was a guest on Adler On Line on February 14th:
Adler: Buzz, I've only got about 20 seconds here. Give me your best 20 seconds on the Clean Air Act and how that affects jobs.Listen to the audio here.
Hargrove: Well we're really worried. I appeared before a Parliamentary Committe and told them if we introduce the standards that California says they're introducing in 2009, because of the production system that we have with large vehicles and large engines in Canada, that could be the death knell to our industry.
Adler: Anyone paying attention to you, or are you whistling past the graveyard?
Hargrove: I got a pretty good hearing from John Baird. I think he understands it, uh, I got a lesser ear from Stephane Dion, he was pretty tough on the environmental...
Adler: So the guys you voted for last year, last time are kind of letting you down now? 2 seconds.
Hargrove: 2 seconds? That would be accurate, that would be quite accurate at this point.
Adler: Buzz Hargrove, thanks.
Charles Adler's blog.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Via the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
Climate alarmism is proving more unsustainable everyday. Increasing numbers of scientists and climate experts are growing more skeptical of predictions of a man-made catastrophe. For proof of the growing momentum, see previous EPW release: Climate Skeptics Vindicated as Growing Number of Scientists & Politicians Oppose Alarmism
Source: James M. Inhofe EPW Press Blog at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Today's climate roundup includes articles about scientists standing up for climate realism.
1) Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
From Crain's Cleveland publication on February 13, 2007:The Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mocked the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‘about 95%’ share his skepticism about global warming," the paper reported. Johnson dismissed the new UN IPCC summary, “Consensus does not mean fact. … Don’t drink the Kool-Aid."
Also See: From The Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 16, 2007 : TV Weathermen Downplay Global Warming Fears
2) Meteorologist Dismisses UN IPCC Report From Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allen blog on the 2007 UN IPCC global warming report:"But, just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association and is the chairman of the Kentucky Weather Preparedness Committee.The more the climate alarmists ratchet up their doomsday rhetoric, the more skeptical scientists and the public will become.
As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen, who is with WBKO in Bowling Green, added.
There will be much more forthcoming...
Chantel Hebert: Liberal leader will pay dearly if he wins next election and can't deliver on costly, divisive promises.
Over a period of little less than three months, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has turned his green armour into a straitjacket.Ottawa Citizen: Green Gimmick:
Now that he has led the opposition parties into passing a bill forcing the Conservatives to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the worst thing that could happen to him would be to win a snap election this spring and then be forced to live by the terms of Bill C-288.
As a political issue, the environment is the government's soft, vulnerable underbelly, but the Liberals' latest attempt to exploit it is gimmicky, cynical and in the end self-defeating.Global Warming Real, but not a priority:
Most Americans believe global warming is real but a moderate and distant risk. While they strongly support policies like investing in renewable energy, higher fuel economy standards and international treaties, they strongly oppose carbon taxes on energy sources that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
These results were reported by Anthony Leiserowitz, a courtesy professor of environmental studies at the University of Oregon, in a talk during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco. His conclusions, based on a national survey conducted in 2003 are detailed in a new book, "Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change – Facilitating Social Change," that he and other contributors discussed in an 8:30 a.m., PST, session devoted to communication strategies.
Plans are afoot to replace the Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012:
Leaders from 20 countries, crucially including China and the US, signed a resolution that paves the way for a replacement to the Kyoto protocol, set to expire in 2012.Also take note:
Although the resolution is non-binding, it is being seen as a "tipping point," that finally sees the US and China take full responsibility for helping to combat global warming.
The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt" - bringing it in line with the stance held in the scientific world.
The forum, organised by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (Globe), brought together rich countries from the G8 as well as developing countries such as Brazil and Mexico.
Today they agreed that all countries, rich and poor, should aim towards new targets for capping carbon dioxide emissions. Previously it has only been the most developed countries that have worked towards reductions.
The forum also agreed to work towards replacing the Kyoto protocol by 2009.
Thirty-five industrial nations who endorsed the Kyoto pact agreed to cut their global-warming gases by 5pc on average below 1990 levels by 2012. Almost all countries are missing the target.h/t: Jack
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Benny Peiser offers his perspective on climate politics at Prometheus. Here's a snippet:
On Monday, the US Administration pre-empted a preparatory G8/climate meeting between Angela Merkel and Tony Blair by announcing, in Berlin no less, an energetic, new approach to international climate policy: 'We're doing better in recent years on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than you folks - so why don't you join our technology-driven path to success instead of sending Chinese communists billions of Euros for worthless carbon credits? ' (excuse my rather rough translation of diplomatic niceties)Read all of Benny Peiser Handicaps Climate Politics.
More on Kurt Volker's Berlin speech so nicely translated above.
"Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions" from David Bromwich at Ohio State University:
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.Read more.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Taking a hard look at the IPCC Report:
If Franciscan friar William of Ockham were alive today, he would reject the IPCC report and instead point to the work of Dr. Henrik Svensmark, who presents hard data showing variations in solar activity control nearly all global warming and cooling.Could it be that the sun warms the globe?
Ockham argued that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. (Hence, Ockham’s Razon, which shaves away the unnecessary assumptions.) As applied to the IPCC Global Warming report, Ockham would shave away pretty much everything between the two covers dealing with anthropomorphic (human caused) sources of global warming. Why? Because Dr. Svensmark’s research does not require models, assumptions and other hand waving. His research shows that the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere controls the amount of low level cloud cover (which the IPCC says controls global warming), and the amount of solar radiation controls the amount of cosmic radiation that gets into our atmosphere.
h/t: Amy Ridenour
The Opposition Parties ganged up today to force a new Kyoto Bill through the House of Commons:
Opposition parties pushed through legislation on Wednesday that requires the Conservative government to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord.Something that the Liberals couldn't do within 13 years when they were in office; something Liberal leader Citizen Dion stated that he could not do, but now expects Stephen Harper's Conservatives to accomplish in 60 days.
Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act, passed in the House by a 161 to 113 vote with the backing of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.
The bill also calls on the government to outline, within 60 days, how it intends to meet the Kyoto targets.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes contributes another guest weblog today to Climate Science:
Seventeen years ago, I wrote a column for Weather magazine, expressing my concerns about the lack of honesty, integrity and humility of many climate scientists. “I worry about the arrogance of scientists who claim they can help solve the climate problem, provided their research receives massive increases in funding”, reads one line from my text. Unknown to me, my friend Richard Lindzen was working on his famous paper “Some Cooling Concerning Global Warming”, which appeared in the Bulletin of the AMS at the same time. This was early 1990. It is 2007 now, and I want to ring the alarm bell again. There is a difference, though: then I was worried, now I am angry. I am angry about the Climate Doomsday hype that politicians and scientists engage in. I am angry at Al Gore, I am angry at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for resetting its Doomsday clock, I am angry at Lord Martin Rees for using the full weight of the Royal Society in support of the Doomsday hype, I am angry at Paul Crutzen for his speculations about yet another technological fix, I am angry at the staff of IPCC for their preoccupation with carbon dioxide emissions, and I am angry at Jim Hansen for his efforts to sell a Greenland Ice Sheet Meltdown Catastrophe...h/t: SDA
I am more than a little bit worried about IPCC’s preoccupation with CO2.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Here's another report which calls into question the conclusions of the IPCC's consensus of climate change.
Gerald Stanhill of the Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences at the Volcani Center in Bet Dagan, Israel, raises some questions of real concern... which questions are intended, in his words, "to draw attention to the challenge that recently reported changes in solar radiation at the earth's surface, Eg↓, pose to the consensus explanation of climate change."Read the rest at CO2 Science
Stanhill begins his short treatise by noting there was "a widespread reduction in solar radiation at the earth's surface, often referred to as global dimming," which "lasted from the mid-1950s until the mid-1980s when a recovery, referred to as global brightening, started." This dimming over the land surface of the globe led to a 20 W/m2 reduction in Eg↓, between 1958 and 1992, which negative shortwave forcing, in his words, was "far greater than the 2.4 W/m2 increase in the positive longwave radiative forcing estimated to have occurred since the industrial era as a result of fossil and biofuel combustion," which latter forcing, he notes, is "what provides the consensus explanation of global warming."
Reporting that "the cause of these large changes in Eg↓, is not known," but that they totally dwarf the change in longwave radiative forcing claimed to be responsible for 20th-century global warming, Stanhill goes on to further report that "no reference to these findings has appeared in the three massive IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] assessment reports published during the past 15 years...
There are 9,575 glaciers in India. Research has been conducted on about 50.
Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.via Hindustan Times.
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed.
From a speech yesterday by Kurt Volker, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs in Berlin, Germany
Now, I know there is a deeply held view among many in Europe that the U.S. Government doesn't get it. That we don't care about climate change, that we are doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that Europe, while perhaps not perfect, is doing a far better job of tackling the issue than the United States. This proposition--no matter how simple, no matter how widely held, and no matter how much it fits a pop-culture "blame-the-United States" paradigm--is completely wrong, on every point.h/t Prometheus
Monday, February 12, 2007
So those attack ads against Liberal leader Citizen Dion aren't working, eh?
The most telling figure in this CPAC-SES poll is that Citizen Dion scored 6 points lower than his predecessor Paul (Mr. Dithers) Martin in the "most competent leader" column.
Despite all of Dion's recent huffing and puffing about greenhouse gases, Stephen Harper leads as the "most trusted leader" at 35% compared to Dion's 20%
In the "most competent leader" category, score Harper 41% vs Dion's 22%
Harper is the "leader with the best vision for Canada" at 39% compared to Dion's 21%
Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.via the Washington Times
"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change
From German Press Agency via the Raw Story:
Prague- Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday. Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."See also Václav Klaus about the IPCC panel
"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.
According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, writes in today's Times Online: An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.A new book, The Chilling Stars co-authored by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder is due to be published this month.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
A report from Christopher C. Horner, Esq. called Kyoto’s Future, Post-Nairobi and Going Forward in 2007 is subtitled: How a post-2012 Kyoto pact is impeded not by U.S. Actions, but the failure of Europe and other Kyoto Parties to reduce emissions, and continued rejection of rationing by the vast majority of the world.
An exerpt from the report's conclusions:
...since Kyoto the U.S. has outperformed the pact’s major parties – both covered and exempt – in terms of CO2 emissions. The disparity is even more exaggerated over the past five years for which data are available (2000-2004). As such, any claim that, now, it is the U.S.’s turn to do what the rest of the world is purportedly doing can only be a call to abandon our embarrassing position as a world leader in favor of a failed scheme.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Regarding allegations that the American Enterprise Institute sought to "buy scientists" to challenge the IPCC report:
On February 2, 2007, London’s Guardian newspaper published an article about the work of two AEI scholars, Steven F. Hayward and Kenneth P. Green on global warming. The article, laced with inaccuracies, circulated widely. Four senators wrote to AEI on February 6 asking for a response to the allegations.AEI president Christopher DeMuth's response is here. Also see this.
h/t: Volokh via Instapundit
That's the question asked by Joseph Brean in this article called the Green Fervour in today's National Post:
In his new book Apollo’s Arrow, ambitiously subtitled The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything, Vancouver-based author and mathematician David Orrell set out to explain why the mathematical models scientists use to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty.h/t: PTBC
What he discovered, in trying to sketch the first principles of prophecy, was the religious nature of modern environmentalism.
This from John Tierney at TierneyLab at the New York Times, of all places:
It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland’s ice — and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.”Read the full article.
I asked the lead author of the paper, Ian Howat of the University of Washington, for some perspective. (...)
Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these 10, I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among the 10 welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly.Read the full article.
Although most of the 10 deniers see little or no evidence from their own work that humans harm the climate, most nevertheless blame humans for global warming, on the basis of research conducted by others. In effect, most of these scientists are saying: "Don't call me a denier --I'm sure the research by others is sound. It's just that, in my own area of research, I have found nothing of concern."
So what science might these 10 endorse, based strictly on their own research, rather than the research that they accept from the IPCC consensus?
h/t: Just Right and Kitchener Conservative
The National Post takes Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez to task over his private member's bill the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act that would require Canada to meet emissions targets in the next five years:
Mr. Rodriguez, his Liberal caucus mates and environmentalists are reassuring Canadians that the emissions targets imposed by the new bill could be achieved with very little pain for ordinary Canadians. But that is a pipe dream. There is no magic new technology on the horizon that would enable a nation of 32 million to cut hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide output in five short years -- no hydrogen cars, no emissions-free smelters, no solar-powered 18- wheelers. In order to reach our Kyoto targets at this late date, Canada would have to shutter all its coal-fired power plants, plus all its auto plants and Alberta's oilsands. In the late 1990s, the Liberals' own economic forecasts projected 450,000 lost jobs from such reductions.This is just more hypocrisy from the opposition, especially the Liberals who did nothing to reduce emissions during the 12 years they were in power and the 4 years after they adopted Kyoto.
Yet, the Globe and Mail opines today that the government would be attempting a quasi "coup d'etat" if it ignores the bill after it passes - and it appears that it will. That would be a first, a sitting government staging a coup! Too bad the Liberals didn't have legislation when they were in power requiring them to keep their own promises, let alone someone else's foolish one.
Despite all the rhetoric, in the end the polls may dictate that nobody really wants an election at this time. This is politics after all.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Gerry Nicholls asks, Are you or Have you Ever Been a Climate Change Denier?
Posted by A Dog Named Kyoto at 6:44 PM
Airline tycoon Richard Branson announced on Friday a $25 million prize for the first person to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming.
Environment Minister John Baird described the previous Liberal government's programs on climate change as "phantom" in this exchange between Baird and Liberal environment critic David McGuinty:
“At the end of this fiscal year, we will have spent more (on climate change) than the previous year,” Baird said. “None of that $5.6 billion - very little of that was ever spent. When you have a program in name and no money is spent, yeah, I call that a phantom program.”All this Liberal hypocrisy could lead to a spring election.
But then again, Paul Wells reports that, in the aftermath of the attack ads on Liberal leader Citizen Dion, support for the Tories is up:
• National horse race numbers give the Harper Tories their strongest score since a week before the 2006 election, 38% to 31% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP and 8% for the Bloc.
• Tory strength in Ontario too: 40% to 35% for Liberals.
• Quebec numbers are a very different story: while the Tories (24%) are only a point below their 2006 election score and have essentially erased their bad summer scores in Quebec, the Liberals are at 32%, which is three points higher than in another house's poll a week ago and that party's highest score in Quebec since the Adscam audit. The Bloc, at 31%, continues to slide. Remember when Chrétien took more popular vote and only two seats less than the Bloc in 2000? The bloc got 40% of the Quebec vote in that election. Me likey the 31%.
• Now. Do you like those Liberal numbers in Quebec? Enjoy 'em while they last. The Tories haven't run ads against Dion in French yet.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Minister of Environment John Baird says that while Canada will set short-term targets for air pollutants and greenhouse gases, regulate air pollution from industry and fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, it not try to meet Kyoto greenhouse gas targets.
"To achieve that kind of target through domestic reductions would require a rate of emissions decline unmatched by any modern nation in the history of the world,'' Baird said.Source.
"Except those who have suffered economic collapse, such as Russia.''
Baird also said Canada will not take part in emissions trading markets that have been started by some European countries to achieve pollution targets.
Scientists from the IPCC testified today to a House committee. Report by Molly Henneberg:
WASHINGTON — Not enough evidence exists that humans are responsible for global warming, so current laws should not be changed to limit greenhouse gas emissions, critics of a global climate change report told a House panel Thursday.Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was not satisfied with the answers he received to his questions from the authors of the IPCC report:
Scientists and lawmakers at the House Science and Technology Committee debated the findings of a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said the probability that humans are responsible for global warming is greater than 90 percent. That's an increase from its 2001 estimation that put the probability at 66 to 90 percent.
Rohrabacher asked the co-chairwoman of the IPCC what percentage of greenhouse gases are caused naturally rather than by human beings. Chairwoman Susan Solomon said carbon dioxide emissions, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, "is caused almost entirely by human beings."Also interviewed in the report is scientist Chris Landsea:
Pressed again, she said: "A fair number, regarding the increase since 1750, is that greater than 90 percent of the increase is caused by human activities."
"That wasn't the question, was it?" Rohrabacher retorted. "Listen, this is very dishonest, you're supposed to be a scientist."
But scientist Chris Landsea, who worked on other reports from the IPCC, a U.N. group, withdrew from participating in the project. An expert on hurricanes and typhoons, he said the report is being motivated by "preconceived agendas" and some of the conclusions are "scientifically unsound."Link to full story or the video: Hot Issue
An interesting article on the "godfather of Kyoto":
By Claudia Rosett and George Russell
NEW YORK — Before the United Nations can save the planet, it needs to clean up its own house. And as scandal after scandal has unfolded over the past decade, from Oil for Food to procurement fraud to peacekeeper rape, the size of that job has become stunningly clear.
But any understanding of the real efforts that job entails should begin with a look at the long and murky career of Maurice Strong, the man who may have had the most to do with what the U.N. has become today, and still sparks controversy even after he claims to have cut his ties to the world organization.
More at the Rosett Report
CFRA's John Counsel speaks with Tim Patterson and Tom Harris on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report and global warming in general.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
I couldn't help but think that by introducing his recent motion calling for Canada's new government to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, Citizen Dion has demonstrated that he has greater confidence in Stephen Harper to get the job done than he had in his own former Liberal government. Here's what he said just last year:
"In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. Everyone is saying target, target. But ... it is to be more than to reach a target. It's to change the economy. It's to have resource productivity, energy efficiency when we know that energy will be the next crisis for the economy of the world." (National Post, July 1, 2006)Why else would he call on the Conservatives to meet a challenge that he has openly admitted that he could not possibly do himself?
"It is to be more than to reach a target" indeed. Looks like he wasn't alone on that one...
The European Union was accused yesterday of failing its first test on climate change less than a week after UN scientists warned that urgent action was needed to fight global warming.h/t: Fred
The European Commission said it was watering down plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars in the face of intense pressure from car manufacturers.
They have claimed the move would damage Europe's economy and force car manufacture overseas.
Meanwhile, it looks like the Liberals are starting to get a bit worried about their one-trick-pony.
the Sanity Squad discusses the IPCC report in a podcast Chicken Little has Left the Barnyard:
Coming soon to an environmentally correct movie theater near you! The Sanity Squad at Pajamas Media takes on the chicken littles of the radical environmental movement and their latest imminent overreaction!Listen to the podcast.
Join Shrinkwrapped, Neo-neocon, Siggy , and me as we expose the hysteria and fearmongering; the blatant grab for power and the totalitarian agenda of the histrionic manipulators of the left.
Licia Corbella compares the most recent report from the IPCC with the previous:
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.She asks
The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts world temperatures will possibly rise 1.8C to 4C (3.25 to 7.2F) from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise 28 to 43 cm (11 to 17 inches).
Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker.
Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong?Link to full article
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.Unfortunately, the Governor of Oregon wants to fire Taylor:
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.Full story
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Bumped to top of page.
Dr. Tim Patterson of Carleton University will be a guest on Ottawa's News Talk Radio 580 CFRA on Tuesday, February 6 at 10 pm eastern (2 hour program).
Originally posted Feb 3, 2007 1:05 pm
Key Feature of Negative Climate Feedback Phenomenon Confirmed
Dimethylsulfide or DMS, in the words of the authors of an important new paper (Vallina and Simo, 2007), "represents the largest natural source of atmospheric sulfur and [is] a major precursor of hygroscopic (i.e., cloud-forming) particles in clean air over the remote oceans, thereby acting to reduce the amount of solar radiation that crosses the atmosphere and is absorbed by the ocean." As such, it is widely acknowledged to be the primary player in a biologically-modulated negative climate feedback mechanism first described two decades ago in the classic paper of Charlson et al. (1987); and evidence continues to mount (see Dimethylsulfide in our Subject Index) that it may well prove the salvation of the planet by significantly muting anthropogenic-augmented CO2-induced global warming.via CO2 Science
Philip V. Brennan has an article today at Newsmax in which he quotes from a new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming":
...author Christopher C. Horner explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and U.N. globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
"Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life." As Horner explains, "if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government."
- Paul Jackson: Disastrous prospect. The nation will spin into chaos if Dion becomes PM
- Lorrie Goldstein: So much for media reports of our 'mild' winter being a sign of global warming
- Paul Driessen: Economic Suicide - Climate alarmism threatens intense pain, for no environmental gain
- Dennis T. Avery, Hudson Institute: Should We Believe the Latest UN Climate Report?
- Klaus Rohrich: Threat of climate change more about politics than science
- Calgary Sun: Opposition passes pro-Kyoto motion
- news.com.au: Canada '46 per cent above' Kyoto targets
- Bloomberg: Harper Says Balancing Environment, Jobs `Fundamental'
- Geoff Metcalf: Global Warming Is a Global Scare Tactic
Monday, February 5, 2007
- National Post: Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, is in full-fledged denial of the obvious.
- CBC: MPs to vote on motion that supports Kyoto
- Susan Riley: An irresistible force (NDP leader Jack Layton) is about to collide with an immovable object (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) and the result could be an early election over climate change, or a meaty and effective plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
- Randall Denley:Why Stephane Dion is unfit to lead this country
I've just met Liberal leader Stephane Dion for the first time and I have to say, it was a frightening experience. The thought that this fellow could become the prime minister of Canada ought to alarm us.
- Wall Street Journal: Climate of Opinion - The latest U.N. report shows the "warming" debate is far from settled.
Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.
- Breitbart: Bitter Cold Grips Northern States
- Breitbart: Below-Zero Temps Close Schools
- KHNL: Chilly cold spell sweeping Hawaii
Update: Dr. Tim Ball - Global Warming: the Cold, Hard Facts?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
The Fraser Institute has released its Independent Summary for Policymakers.
London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.
In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.
While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.
The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”
Read the Executive Summary or download the full Independent Summary for Policymakers.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Mark Steyn has some fun with climate change dogma in his column today:
If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.Mark's full article is here.
The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: "You only have to look outside your window to see that climate change is happening." Outside my window in northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very mild. Which was itself a sign of climate change.
A few years ago, the little old lady who served as my town's historian for many decades combed over the farmers' diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded that three were what we'd now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering or winter sports; eight had January thaws, and four had no snow at all. This was in the pre-industrial 18th century.
Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we'd all be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic recording: ''Unsustainable, that's what you are.''
Then there's this: A complete list of things caused by global warming
and finally, believe it or not, this fellow actually read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (released Friday to a frenzied, catastrophe-hungry media) and concludes that the IPCC Report Doesn't Prove Causality.
"What do you do or what you have done in your own life to reduce your footprint?"h/t: Blue Blogging Soapbox who comments:
The answer from Canada's self-proclaimed "Mr. Environment"? (paraphrased)
We wash our clothes in cold water, we buy the best products, we only have one car, I use public transit and so on and so on...
WARNING: Do not listen to this interview while operating machinery or driving a vehicle. WILL induce drowsiness and confusion. More than one dose may result in nausea and headaches.
So far the balanced story of basic science is not getting through to the public.Click image above to view a presentation* from Fran Manns, Artesian Geological Research, Toronto (right click to download)
There is at least one alternate hypothesis and a new theory.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
The real deal?
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. (...)The full article is here.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
National Post Series by Lawrence Solomon: "Global Warming: the Deniers"
- Statistics Needed
- Warming is Real - and Has Benefits
- The Hurricane expert who stood up to UN Junk Science
- Polar Scientists on Thin Ice
- The Original Denier - into the cold
- The Sun moves climate change
- Will the Sun cool us?
- The limits of predictability
- Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
- Limited role for CO2