Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Of course, little matters like data are irrelevant to the larger picture – for as the true believers frequently remind us: cold winters, warm winters, hot summers, cold summers, average summers, more tornados, fewer thunderstorms, heavy snowfall, cold snaps, chinooks, drought and heavy rainfall are all signs of the coming global climate apocollapse. It’s a point the Telegraph also notes;
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming.
Indeed.
I’m reminded of this every time the local (or national) news breathlessly reports “breaking a record set in 1913” – often with added commentary that global climate specialists have warned that we “will see more of this”.
If global warming is truly a recent and accelerating phenomenon – why are these hottest/coldest/dryest/wettest records so old? Shouldn’t the majority of records broken be recent ones?
Remember, global warming represents a shift in the mean temperature. When you shift the mean temperature, you also change the range in which extreme weather can happen. A shift in the mean temperature by 2-5 degrees C, which is predicted by almost every climate model for the next 100 years due to increased CO2 and CH4 forcing, would change the likelyhood of extreme weather events. For instance, a 1 in 500 year flood event might happen every 100 years. The 1 in 100 year warm winter that most of Canada experienced this year could happen every 20 years. Although the true effects of climate change will not be extremely noticeable on the lifespan of the average person, human induced climate change is a reality. I suggest anyone who does not believe it to read the scientific literature, such as this paper:
http://www.gac.ca/JOURNALS/ClimateChangev30no03.pdf
Is the sensationalism in the media worth believing? Of course not. Climate change is not something that can be perceived, as it is a slow change. And just so you know, I believe ideas like Kyoto are flawed and unachievable. We need long term solutions to remove our dependance on fuels that emit CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Bob Carter has been pumping this story since 2004. Of course, 1998 was the big El Nino year and so spikes above the trend line. So the trend line is up until 1998, 1998 spikes way up, and the trend-line continues up from the pre 1998 level. It only trends down if you start in 1998. Mr. Carter is just lying with statistics.
You have to check out this new Blog. There is a great Picture of Carol James and Harry Lalli doing the “Titanic”.
http://bcpolyblog.blogspot.com/
Every time I remember that our own Maurice Strong was instrumental in the forming of the Kyoto Protocol I know it is all hot air–and must be some place the veteran of the Oil for Food program can make another financial killing on the backs of the hungry of the world. Having Stron associated with anything is the kiss of death for those involved. Kyoto is nothing more and nothing less than a wealth transfer plan–and, as usual, we lose.
“which is predicted by almost every climate model”
Therein lies the problem. A “climate Model” is a computer program that takes your ASSUMPTIONS and spits out what you want to hear.
Just like in economics, they have models that try to guestimate variables, then they guestimate the mathematical relationships between those variables (which are in reality far more complex than the model) then they try to project these relationships out to the future. If they can’t model the economy with any accuracy, how do you figure you’re gonna model the entire natural environment? For that matter, they can’t tell you what the weather will be in two weeks, how do you figure they’ll be able to do it in 2 decades? Climate science isn’t science, it’s a cult.
Models are crap. I’ve used them. They suck. They’re guesses disguised as fact. It’s simple: crap in, crap out. To get a model to give you reality, you first must have a realistic model. Good luck with that. Until then it’s just a way for hacks with their agenda trying to illustrate their opinions. Nothing more.
George W. Bush’s America is the worst offender in the world to bring about global warming.
Maybe The Right Brothers could add another verse to their piece of crap song.
Bush loves money more than the future of our children.
Bush is full of baloney on matters concerning the environment.
Bush is a phoney lying cheat
Bush was right
I disagree that climate change cannot be percieved. Ask the Inuit who suddenly learning what “sunburn” and “skin cancer” are.
bcl said: “Mr. Carter is just lying with statistics.” bcl is lying.
The MSM and the Ottawa Citizen are lying with these scare-mongering headlines. Why? Just to sell newspapers?
“Global warming” is a hoax/fraud perpetrated by frauds such as Maurice Strong, Suzuki, the UN, Stephane Dion, & their ilk. +
Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, 09 April, 2006:
Headline: “If scientific circles agree on the fundamentals of global warming, why isn’t the environment one of the Conservative’s top priorities?”
There is no consensus.
Headline: “There’s no longer any disagreement among serious scientists that climate change is real”.
“Climate change” is a fraud. +
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
Excerpt:
…
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa. + more
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
WOW!
That was such a convincing argument, SD.
In the next US election, I think I’ll vote for Rudy Giuliani instead of Howard “Dr. Demento” Dean.
Oh, wait…
I already commented on your sixty scientists thing. You had go bring in Polish people and Australians and search the whole wide globe to dig up sixty people. Thats’s reallly pretty pathetic, espcially since (if you look at the whole list), alot of the names on it are not from the relevant fields (and, according to the website from which the release came, most are retired and therefore not familiar with the relevant research). Note that the “think tank” which distributed the list is Calgary based. Probably funded with Petro dollars.
The fact is that the vast majority of scientists, and the vast vast majority of scientists who have expertise in the relevant fields, have reached a concensus on the issue.
Deal with it.
I remember coming across a great comment – it may have been here: “a Yuppie thinks history started the day they were born.”
Doug,
It was no argument and I have no facts to back it up. Just a good old fashioned baseless rant.
Except for this:
Global Warming is Now A Weapon of Mass Destruction
“It kills more people than terrorism, yet Blair and Bush do nothing.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,9236,1007302,00.html
‘Stockwell Day’ – You are lying; you are using the name of a public figure, a name which is not your own. Therefore, you are lying to us, about your identity.
Please note that the US REDUCED its emissions, despite refusing to sign the Kyoto, while Canada, which signed it, INCREASED its emissions.
As pointed out, Kyoto has essentially nothing to do with climate control and a great deal to do with economic control – it would mean that the most polluting countries would receive great financial benefits, both in their increased industrial production and in their being beneficiaries of ‘guilt-payments’ from the developed countries.
As for global warming/cooling fluctuations, there is no question that such fluctuations occur. But, to assume that there is a single cause is reductionist. Like the economy, weather is far too complex to be reduced to a single cause. And, to consider that that a multiple causality is fully controllable, is even more naive.
Causes of global weather fluctuations are related to the relation of the sun to the earth’s tilt, to the size of the global population of, not merely humans, but animals, vegetation, water supplies. Warming has happened before; followed by cooling. The fact that industrial pollution has results which are harmful to soil, water, weather is real, and we can and must attend to that. But, we cannot assume that as complex a system as the temperature of the earth, is controllable by man.
“The last major sea-level rise…lasted from 129,000 plus/minus 1,000 years ago to at least 118,000 years ago” (Science March 24, 2006, p. 1747). Hmm. That was before humans and industrialism.
What humans can do, is reduce all types of pollution (garbage, emissions, pollutions of soil and water, etc)..but..they cannot take full control of nature.
BTW – the use of a psuedonym is allowed here, but I won’t tolerate the habitual acquisition of other people’s identities. So, to whomever is using the “Stockwell Day” identity, you may stop now.
(The same goes to others who have done the same in past months.)
Backwards thinking?
I picked this topic up from the post ‘A “Made In France” Solution’ on small dead animals and I have to take a different slant on this than most commenters.
From what I can understand of the French labour law, the stated goal wa…
I know Stockwell Day, and let me tell you, you’re no Stockwell Day.
Now, where did that piece of skull go….?
Actually ET, the Yanks increased their CO2 emissions but at half the rate of Canada. 12% increase vs 24% increase.
They still beat us though. Canada is the worlds top per capita user of energy. Not even the yanks beat us per capita.
That said, I reiterate my comment: climate science isn’t science, it’s a cult. The journal Nature won’t print anything contradictory regardless of the merit of the research. It’s their version of heresy and they’ll send out the inquisitors on you if you cross them.
OK, here’s a lesson in the business of science. All the scientists who rant about global warming are interested in getting their science projects funded. Dr. Ian D. Clark, Dr. Tad Murty, Dr. R. Timothy Patterson want money. Friends of Science want funding. Wake up people!!! I have worked with scientists for years. These folks are as much interested in building their CV’s reputations and satisfying their egos as much as they want to save the world.
I agree that I have met some scientists that are genuinely concerned about environmental matters, but most just want funding for the sake of funding. If no problem existed, they would have to find other work! The means justify the ends.
The ironic side of the story is that many of the healthy skeptics of global warming are lambasted by left wing tainted/biased scientists. Good science is supported by healthy skepticism. I know of many scientists who draw conclusions before the experiment and then spend their time trying to prove them right! Notice how the skeptics are pg.34 news but the ranters are front page?
On the other side, the media creates sensational stories about how global warming is causing the sky to fall because it sells newspapers. It also supports their liberal left leaning bias. They drank the same kool aid as many of their scientist friends.
For the last few years, there’s been a warming trend in western and northwestern Canada. Not in the east though. (Glee, glee, hehehe) However, global warming in supposed to be just that – GLOBAL. I haven’t seen any dispute of Bob Carter’s numbers. They are, as bcl says, a statistical anomaly but, so what? The entire global warming hypothesis is based on statisical anomalies. Anyway, if you eliminate the 1998 spike, there is still no significant global trend in either direction.
Besides the anomalous recent changes in mean temperatures in parts of Canada and northern Alaska, there have also been changes in the north coastal region of Antarctica and at low elevations in Greenland. Ice is shrinking in those three regions but thickening on the Greenland high plateau and the Antarctic interior. In other words, weather is a complicated system? What else is new?
Notwithstanding their increasing powerful computers and increasing complex models, the global warmers haven’t come up with a scintilla of new data for years; they just keep massaging what they have. Warwick, who I suspect is either a scientist or an engineer (right Warwick?) has posted an excellent analysis of the situation.
As far as human-induced climate forcing goes – this is massive conjecture based solely on the one solid fact in the global warmers’ arsenal – atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing. Back when they used to teach the fundamentals of logic and the scientific method of investigation in high schools, any grade 12 student could tell you that correlation doesn’t mean causation. Now we have people with Phds who apparently don’t know any better.
I’m pleased that nobody has thrown in the canard that “the VAST MAJORITY of scientists” accept anthropogenic climate change as fact. The MSM is hooked on that bullshit, but anyone in the scientific community knows that, not only is a fierce debate going on but that most of the recent literature is opposed to the GW hypothesis. (Not that that is relevant to the debate but to the public and the politicians, numbers matter.)
Kate,
I recently started using Stockwell Day as my “nom de’ blog” but will drop it after this post.
Yours respectfuly,
The blogger formerly known as Stockwell Day
Jeez, I try present facts and I am met with vague generalities about how scientists are dishonest and just out for funding. I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research.
Once again BCL quotes newspaper headlines or whack jobs and calls them facts.
Those damn Poles and Australian, what do they know?
Numbers on those Eskimos with skin cancer? Thought not.
Canada could use global warming frankly. More useable land for us, northwest passage, less rain in Vancouver.
Always an upside.
BCL, you are getting more and more shrill everyday. How’s the blog going?
enough
As soon as the term of art went from “global warming” to “climate change” i was convinced it was crap.
I took my firest environmental course int he summer of 1988, blistering hot as I remember. For weeks we learned the environment was incredibly complex, and nobody could predict what would result from any one manmade change. That seemed logical to me, but then next week we started talking about global warming and suddenly all the uncertainty went out the window. Suddenly, it was absolute, carved in stone, tattoed on our butt that any incremental change in CO2 would cause global warming. End of story. No discussion.
DAMN – while I was typing my post, bigcitylib threw in the “vast majority of scientists” line. Why are people who self-identify as liberals so susceptible to media brainwashing? I have a theory that, in the case of GM it’s symptomatic of their “humanity stinks” attitude towards the human race.
bigcitylib,
You should know by now that conservatives only do selective research. As long as their findings support their views that is what the truth is that particular day.
Authors many years ago gave it a name, “faction”.
1. The climate is always changing.
2. In less than 20 years we went from the scare of global cooling kiling us all to global warming killing us all. That alone should stop people from embracing the hysteria of global warming.
3. It might be close to ten years now, I was listening to Saturday Report on CBC radio, they were talking to a computer programmer about computer models that showed global warming was a problem.
We probably wouldn’t get such an honest answer now, but the programmer admitted the only way they could get their apocalyptic results was by deliberately lying to the computer.
I’d say that basic philosophy have continued. The “hockey stick” is a lie. The real aspects of climate change get buried by the lies to create the hysteria.
Not GM – GW as in global warming. Sorry.
GM makes fine cars, or at least it used to.
Well, I went and checked out the Climate Research Unit site and read their December press release.
“The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record.”
I can’t claim to fully understand the information, but that quotation is from the source that Bob Carter cites and it seems to say the opposite of what he claims.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2005-12-WMO.pdf
“Jeez, I try present facts and I am met with vague generalities about how scientists are dishonest and just out for funding. I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research.”
Generalities? Like Inuits suddenly learning what sunburn and skin cancer are?
But of course scientists aren’t dishonest and are never out for funding. You’d have to be human to be dishonest or out for money, wouldn’t you?
And you don’t need research to figure that out.
Inuit with sun burn? Too funny. Inuit with diabetes and lung cancer is far more likely to occur than three instances of sunburn! A nice anecdote though.
Bigcitylib, present facts and we can debate. Present crap and you will get schooled. Being a conservative means doing your home work and not blindly buying into theories with no proof.
Being a Liberal means looking at an opinion poll and going with what the majority of sheep think. Their opinions are based upon what they see in our Liberal/NDP biased media!
Well if we want to stop global warming tropical rain forests generate latent heat and thus heat the earth more than does the same surface area of the sahara desert.
The solution is obvious to kill the entire brazilian rainforest. Get out the agent orange!!!
Oh and since Kyoto wants to cut back co2 emissions and Whales seals and peregrin falcons all exhale co2 they should all be made extinct.
they are mad but what do i know i’m a right winger.
A billion years ago Alberta was a lush tropical rainforest, so was the middle east except for Israel. That’s where all that oil comes from.
The earths weather is constantly shifting and always will. It’s just now we have people helping out.
The Inuit stuff is true and well known. To well-known, I thought, to require anything beyond straight assertion. But once again I underestimated the ability of Conservatives to cleanse their heads of annoying facts.
From ABC news:
“Sheila Watt-Cloutier…head of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference…who lives in northern Canada, said climate change meant that Inuit hunters could no longer easily track prey such as polar bears, seals or walrus, were sometimes falling through ice and were sometimes even suffering sunburn.”
The whole “global cooling” thing I dealt with in an earlier post. It was put forward as a hypothesis during the late 70s, and abandoned pretty quickly. Most of those who put it forward now admit they were wrong and support the global warming thesis. That’s how science works.
John, dear, what school did you go to? How long before you dropped out?
bcl said: “I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research.” +
S’more research needed. Yesiree. Tha’s the ticket. S’more gov’t $$$$$ for s’more :research: As Thomas Edison said, Menlo, let thar be light; after 125 &1/2 hexperiments by the best scientific method(s): trial and error.
Today, trial & error is a “model”, generated on a cloned computer.
Air trends ‘amplifying’ warming (Oh crap…cleaner air causes global warming)
BBC News ^ | 04/07/06 | Richard Black
…
The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.
One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.
The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen. +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612552/posts
Dr. Wayne, a Billion years ago the first plant had yet to colonize dry land. Anything alive tended to be small and floating. You’ve reach a new low in Conservative science.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the same one who links global warming as human rights abuses by the developed nations.
More whack job quotes, quote more of them. How about a Maurice Strong quote?
enough
She is the same one, but just an example. So you feel that all the stories about Inuit with sunburn are lies, and that they’ve gotten into bed with all those commie scientists who are just trying to fund their projets. God man they’re everywhere!
“Sheila Watt-Cloutier”
So ONE person at a conference says SOME eskimoes “were sometimes even suffering sunburn” and that’s “true and well known … To (sic) well-known, I thought, to require anything beyond straight assertion”
BCL … you’re an idiot.
Right, Warwick, about the US/Canada increases of CO2. My error. But, the point remains, that signing an agreement means – zilch, other than a photo-op for Martin. The Kyoto has nothing to do with the climate and a great deal to do with weakening the developed countries of the West.
Causes of global warming/cooling are complex and can’t be reduced. It’s a fact that the climate has gone through both both modes (cooling, warming).
Records haven’t been kept through the millenia of the earth’s existence, therefore, we can’t use our recent human records as proof of a linear, one directional (up!!) warming.
The ‘vast majority of scientists’ is, on the surface, a good but not a fully reliable, basis for the validity of a conclusion. That’s why it is best not to use this phrase to support your opinion. Science changes its conclusions as scientists gather data, and climate is a ‘tentative and new science’. There simply isn’t, yet, the data base, or the tools of analysis, that are sophisticated enough to come up with firm and reliable conclusions. Computer simulations can make predictions that are invalid, because they don’t include all variables.
Why did, 129,000 years ago, the earth undergo such a sea level rise, and such a melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and ocean warming – all of which are again predicted, but now, only due to CO2 emissions? And why did it then, cool?
Certainly, pollution of all types must be decreased, but the apocalyptic scenario of doom, all due to one variable, humans and particularly, capitalist humans, is pure fiction.
A minor point – warming of Canada’s north may have some positive agricultural and settlement results, but, a key problem with our north is its thin soil. Warming won’t change that; you need a lot more vegetation to deal with a thin soil (that’s what a rainforest is all about).
I personally have gone skiing and received a sunburn, WHILE SKIING!!!
Global warming, yet hmm.. that was 15-20 years ago. What is a conspiracy theorist to do?
The point is, you quote people and headlines as if they were facts. Just because it is said, does not mean it is true. The same goes with statistics and raw data. Much too often the data is out of context or blatant lies.
What do the global warming crackpots have to fear about rational discussion and examination of this data?
You and your pals have decided and are trying to make the facts fit. This does not sound like a scientific method.
enough
I have a bachelors of science degree in engineering, and a masters of science degree in computing. My current position is principal architect for a software program that models complex dynamic systems to ensure they are safe enough for humans to be around them.
I think the “climate change” phenomenon is a scam that has been deliberately perpetrated on well-meaning but gullible citizens, via fraud with malice aforethought, by select greedy individuals who have sacrificed their integrity on the altar of avarice.
Your mileage may vary.
When I was in elementary school (the early 80’s), we had teachers who were big on making sure that (even though we were young), we had an understanding of what was going on with respect to “current events.” To that end, our teachers would often “assign” us tasks like watching certain news programs or reading the newspaper for discussion the next day.
I distinctly remember one occassion in the fifth grade (1984-1985) where we had to watch “The Nature of Things”. It was a special about global cooling…about how we evil humans and our evil poluting ways were fast-tracking the Earth to its next Ice Age. (That’s right…even Suzuki has endorsed at least one incorrect position… although I’m sure he has a good explanation).
Anyhoo. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the climate. But, until the “real experts” can…
1) Admit they’ve been wrong before.
2) Explain why they were so wrong and how they know they’ve got it right this time and…
3) Convince me that this is not part of the Earth’s natural cycle (like the depletion/regeneration of ozone)
…I’m not buying any of it.
As far as people of the north having an increase in skin cancer…well, I don’t know the stats. But, I would be interested in knowing for exactly how long have they been tracking such rates…and have they ensured that any apparent rise does not have another potential source or contributing factor (like change in diet, habits, etc…).
In response to an earlier post:
�The fact is that the vast majority of scientists, and the vast vast majority of scientists who have expertise in the relevant fields, have reached a concensus on the issue.�
The Oregon Petition which urges caution in accepting the theory of global warming due to man�s production of carbon dioxide has in excess of 19,700 signatures of scientists who object to the unscientific headlong panic created by proponents of the idea.
Science does not require consensus. It requires only accurate measurement of reality. When so-called scientists invoke �consensus� or the Precautionary Principle, it means they do not have evidence and data to support their theory.
Such is the case with global warming. While one expects that the Earth should be warming � we are entering that part of the ~1000-year cycle that is driven by the energy out-put of the Sun � there are several things to keep in mind:
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. It can contribute little more to the green house effect because the present concentration in the atmosphere is trapping almost all of the heat energy available in the two narrow bandwidths that are not completely transparent to infra red radiation.
A warmer Earth does not promote more and fiercer storms. Storm intensity depends on temperature contrast. Since the GW theory proposes that the northern and southern regions of the Earth will warm more than the equatorial region, contrast is reduced and the driving force weakened.
Historically, warm periods have been kind to life on the planet. The cool periods brought crop-failure, plagues, and consequent civil unrest.
So why the furore?
Global warming is the perfect phantom hazard. Climate is a complex system. It is not fully understood even by the �experts�. Speculation passes for fact. The threat can be religiofied. Any objection to the idea can be dismissed as the ravings of a heretic. The True Believers find self-importance in adhering to the dogma � and many find lucrative employment, which we see them defend with a greedy passion.
The press, not renowned for rigorous research or understanding of things scientific, almost invariably play the ‘impending disaster; crisis must be averted’ card and in the words of Stephen Schneider – an early proponent of GW � �We are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but�On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we�d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public�s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This �double ethical bind� that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.�
Schneider has opened a can of worms, for the bounds of scientific honesty are crossed when an excuse is made for not telling the truth.
In order to understand this complex system circulation models have been constructed. This is an approach which is useful in much scientific work. But it is only one tool, and modelling functions only as well as the chosen inputs reflect reality. They can give wrong results because the primary data are not representative of reality or are not accurate measurements. Choosing what weighting an input will have is often arbitrary. In fact, the outcome can be �tweaked� by including or excluding certain data, changing the weighting on those data and ignoring inputs that are poorly understood or �inconvenient�.
Much of the sensational press originates with these models � but they are just models that give more or less the results the modeller desires.
The Earth is warming � the Sun�s energy out-put is increasing � (Solar energy output correlates well with sunspot frequency. In 1711 and 1712 – during the depths of the Little Ice Age – there were no sunspots. Since those years of no sunspot activity there have been eight years with sunspot frequency greater than 150: Seven of those eight years are since 1947). [By the way � the ice caps on Mars are also shrinking. Anthropogenic causes can be excluded in interpretation of this fact.]
We are entering the �Modern Warm Period�. There has been a (relative) warm period every 1000 years more or less for as far back as we have written or geological records. We are experiencing a natural cycle that has its prime cause external to the Earth. It is not to be feared but adapted to, and for Canadians and other northern-dwelling peoples, enjoyed � just as the Vikings enjoyed the mild climate at l�Anse aux Meadows on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland (Vineland) some 1000 years ago.
bigcitylib
That’s Dr. John to you.
BSc. biology U of S 1988
MSc. microbiology U of T 1992
Phd. microbiology Stanford 1997
Member of Conservative Party of Canada since its inception and a PC member before that. Not a member of the Republican Party while in school!
Politics is an interest while science is my passion. So please, tell me more about your vast knowledge of climate change and I will be sure to write down your thoughts and pass them on to David Suzuki…
BCL says
Dr. Wayne, a Billion years ago the first plant had yet to colonize dry land. Anything alive tended to be small and floating.
BCL now at least we know your recent origins. many thanx for the enlightenment.
One more thing:
I did take the time to read one of the “official” UN-sponsored reports. Sorry, I can remember the name right now…but it was released last year.
Anyway, their statistical “proof” of the global warming phenomenon was that the average temperature on Earth had risen 0.6-0.8 degrees centigrade between 1895 200?.
How many weather stations existed in 1895? What was their coverage of the Earth’s surface as compared to today?
Is there anyone here who is willing to bet even 5 dollars on the accuracy of the thermometers of 1895?
0.6-0.8 celcius sounds like a reasonable margin or error for me.
By the way, this Sheila Watt-Cloutier isn’t a scientist; she’s an activist. She lives in the north, has been active in various social agendas about maintaing the old lifestyle of the Inuit, etc – but – has no background in any science.
So- her statement that the Inuit are ‘falling through the ice’ and ‘getting sunburns’ is both anecdotal and unscientific. That means, it’s totally, completely, unacceptable as any proof of anything – other than her zealous activism.
Hey, Mars is heating up, too – obviously as a result of human polluting. Or maybe if two planets close together in a solar system are both experiencing a warming period, it has less to do with the planets themselves and more to do with the star they both circle.
I think you’re on to something BCL. You see, when I was a boy growing up in NB the snowbanks were over my head. I was back visiting recently and after a big storm it was only at my waist!! In only 30 years!! (You can use that BCL – it’s better than some of your other material)
As for the assertion the Inuit cannot hunt like they could ‘back in the day’, I say the snowmobiles and GPS’ pick up the slack.
True believers in the religion of global warming will have to have the thermometers pried out of their cold dead hands once the ice age starts!
Unless they’re using the other kind of thermometer, except that would be where their heads are.