It’s not often one gets a chance to pack this much uncontested hyperbole into a news item;
Laval University’s Warwick Vincent, who studies Arctic conditions, travelled to the new ice island and couldn’t believe what he saw. “It was extraordinary,” Vincent said Thursday. “This is a piece of Canadian geography that no longer exists.”
Ice is geography now?
Vincent said in 10 years of working in the region, he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice.
And in 15 years of working in this region, I’ve never shovelled so much snow this early in the year. So what?
Scientists said it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years. They point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.
And there they go again. Maybe they meant to say “3,000” years. Or maybe 300? In other words – what is the significance about any event of this type being the “largest” in 30 years and how does that legitimize the assertion that it’s an indication of global climate change? Are we to deduce that an even larger chunk broke free in 1976? Or that – more likely – data is insufficient prior to the mid-1970’s to make any meaningful comparisons.
Despite the article’s mention that this chunk of ice “travelled west for 50 kilometres until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter”, Mr. Vincent seems nearly inconsolable;
“We’re seeing the tragic loss of unique features of the Canadian landscape,” Vincent said, adding the global climate is crossing an unprecedented threshold.
“There are microscopic organisms and entire ecosystems associated with this ice, so we’re losing a part of Canada’s natural richness.”
It’s a good thing Dr. Vincent wasn’t around to witness the effects of the North American megadrought of the 1600’s. He’d have positively had a bird. In the comments, Cal2 makes this wry observation;
11000 football fields sounds way worse than 20 square miles […] just for comparison the area of Calgary is 300 square miles.the area of Red Deer Alberta 25 square miles or 14000 football fields.
Arctic weather map (It’s -36C in Alert this morning).
Back to our article. Just how did they learn of the momentous event? No one was on hand to observe it. Scientists “reconstructed” it “using high tech monitoring devices, including satellite images”. Presumably, the same ones that were in place prior to 1906, to enable widely quoted scientists like Dr. Vincent to place his “10 years” of regional observation in the broader climatological context.
With all due respect to the climate cultists – while it ensures the media attention you crave, the use of alarmist terminology like “tragic” and “unprecedented” to describe an ice cube floating in the arctic ocean isn’t likely to sway skeptics already desensitized to sensational overkill.
Related – Residents of Nunavut don’t seem as concerned about the polar bear population decline as the armchair activists are. In fact, they’d like to keep shooting them, thankyou very much.
Also related – The FCPP is hosting a lecture with historical climatologist, Tim Ball on January 27th in Winnipeg.
cal 2
Distance doesn’t matter if you’re an ice island moving with the pack ice and have lots of time. As I mentioned in my initial post, T-3 made it all the way to Wainright, Alaska. In 1954 it was close to Alert after having been somewhere north of Greenland in 1951, and in 1962 it was grounded just off of the Alaska coast, southwest of Point Barrow ! In 1979 it was near Greenland again.
it would have to make its way down a channel , between islands and through what CBCpravda had everyone convinced is open sea for 6 months of the year.
anyway, the ice shelf would have to travel by Axel Rose Heiberg island. Ellef Ringes,Borden, prince patrick, bonks etc etc etc. it just aint that big. 20 square miles of ice will be ground into ice cube over 1000 miles. and if its stuck in pack ice then that negates the other argument.
in my research I came across this bit that shows our buddies of $240000/yr grants dont even look up stuff before blathering.there have been several large ice calves(?) in the last century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island
humans have a big ego to think they can change things one bit on the pale blue dot. we are small potatoes.
Newborn babies consist of 78% water; we share much with icebergs, more than has been acknowledged. Icebergs have rights too; after all, they’re almost human. The breaking off of an iceberg is akin to infanticide. When will the slaughter end? — r.k. ball, president, PETI.
There are a bunch of screwed up people posting on this site. Global warming is a reality folks. -36 in Alert? So what? It’s the end of December, the shortest daylight hours of the year. What did you expect? In my lifetime in northern Manitoba, -40c was normal for this time of year. Now, it’s unheard of. But go ahead and deny the truth if it makes you feel better. So long, suckers…
Banana:
You have me convinced. Just tell me what to do about it, and ill get right on it.
thebanana,
OK, I’ll bite. What should the temperature be at the winter solstice in northern Manitoba to be considered normal? What is the closest town?
banana
here is the climate record of the northernmost weather station in manitoba , since the record there is -43 one would have to surmise that averages of -40 are imagined or through a drunken fog.
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=MAN%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=3467&
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=MAN%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=3467&
find the -40 average here.
“In my lifetime in northern Manitoba, -40c was normal for this time of year. Now, it’s unheard of.”
And you’re full of crap. It was about 10 years ago I drove from Delisle to Brandon, Manitoba – meeting a friend from Thompson when I got there for the dog show.
I stopped for gas in Whitewood and my van wouldn’t start. That’s because the battery had frozen – it was -56F.
Without the wind chill.
You can bs your way through these comments if you yackity yack about rainfall in the Amazon. But don’t ever presume to bs about the temperatures on the northern plains. I live here, I drive here – and I’ll call you on it.
Here in The Yukon, (note the definitive article is capitalized – the Klondikers were a nation long before Quebec! We have our own flag – “No Boundaries Here” USA/British Empire/Canada Those of us who still think Gold is King still call ourselves Yukoners…I digress) we had the coldest ever recorded temperatures in Nov. We have been recording temperatures since 1898. Can you explain that banana? Dec. has been average or above average.
The driest summer was 1899, no fires broke out to burn down the forests although there were 10 times more people living here. The Klondike was staked by gold miners who had a ‘stake’ in the property they had ‘claimed’.
In 2000 we had a very dry June and hot temperatures; 3/4 of the forest vanished in uncontrolled wild fires. Minimal attempts were made to put out the fires. Talk about second hand smoke!! A few acres are now owned by people who actually have a ‘stake’ in the land. It is all uninhabited by man except for Whitehorse and Dawson City.
One of the few remaining independent miners, in the Dawson City area burned a firewall around his claim – against the orders of the gument – and saved his property. The tourists left in droves.
The answer to the climate problem is simple IMO – Private Property ownership. Landowners are the best stewards of land. All crown land should be sold to private individuals so we can ‘save the planet’.
cal 2,
Drifting ice islands don’t shoulder their way through the Arctic Archipelago. There’s nothing but open sea north of Ellesmere. They move northeast in the general direction of Greenland, then rotate counterclockwise towards Sibera, swing back towards Alaska and eventually move north again, always in open ocean. There would be nothing to impede a visit to the North Slope along the way.
Before people started paying attention to ice islands about 60 years ago (and there have been quite a few of them) the speed and distance of ice pack movement was only vaguely understood.
BTW, this isn’t relevant, but I worked at the Alert weather station in 1951-52. The first U.S. Airforce DC-3 to land on T-3 stopped at our humble abode enroute. Thus my inordinate interest in the subject.
banana,
There are no “daylight hours” at Alert at this time of year. Noon twilight will begin in about the third week of February and the sun will make an appearance on about March 3rd.
Your certainty that the climate is changing is well placed. Of course it is changing – always has and always will. Thus prairie winters in the 19th century were much colder than today (sorry Kate). Climate change also accounts for the ability of the Norsemen to farm in southern Greenland prior to the Little Ice Age and for the fact that part of the North African desert was temperate and well watered a millenium ago. The dispute centres around whether human activity has anything to do with climate change. Computer models prove nothing; they make predictions based on questionable data which, with slight tweaking, can produce radically different results. Moonshine in – moonshine out. To my way of thinking, that is closer to astrology than to science.
Banana, it is human nature to want explanations for phenomena which aren’t readily explainable. If a villain can be found – in this case energy hogging modern man, so much the better. In the Middle Ages, cold weather and crop blight were often attributed to witchcraft, and a lot of old ladies with low likeability indices paid the price. Weather changes (small scale), and we write songs about it. Climate changes (large scale) and panic sets in. When this panic subsides, people will surely find something else to worry about. Like climate change, that is also a certainty.
Zog,
Thanks for your summary. A month or two ago I downloaded the all the recorded data from all the stations in the west … current until about 2003. I couldn’t find Whitewood (Kate’s reference) as a station but I picked the longest time range Brandon station 1893-2003. Again a few months ago, I was poking around looking at BC … I could only find very late 19th century data. I don’t know where you are getting 19th century data for Canada.
The December data for Brandon doesn’t support thebanana (or Kate … but I really need a year and a month and a station close to Whitewood) … but I don’t know what the distance, date etc difference is.
The data came with a very crude DOS program … I think I could (did) export the data into a spreadsheet.
If you would like a link to the data (both east and west) let me know and I’ll see if I can find it again.
BTW: thebanana – Brandon in Dec 1893-2003
Mean Max -8.8C
Mean Min -19.5
Mean Temp -14.2
Highest temp for all 3 was 1939
Lowest temp Mean Min and Mean 2000
thebanana – how many cats do you have?
“..it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years..”
In other words, bigger things happened 30 years ago.
See also:
“warmest in 1000 years” read it was warmer 1000 years ago.
“But what about the accelerating magnetic pole shift? That couldn’t have anything to do with changes in the Canadian arctic, could it? Nah.”
Absolutely nah. It’s caused by man’s harnessing of … ELECTRICITY!!!!!!!!
Down with the pylons. Up the sustainable magnetic pole.
Posted by: A
Dr. Tim Ball,…..according to Queen Mary College at the University of London, his doctorate was in geography. He has claimed to be a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg.” In fact, his professorship was with the Department of Geography.
From Wikipedia:
Physical geography focuses on geography as an Earth science. It aims to understand the physical features of the Earth, its lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, pedosphere and global flora and fauna patterns (biosphere). Physical Geography can be divided into several broad categories, one of which is climatology.
Gee, that puts “Climatology” into the Department of Geography.
…..literature searches on Scopus and Scholars Portal find a total of only four peer-reviewed articles attributable to Dr. Ball in his entire academic career……
It doesn’t show the various books and text books (used in many universities, one of which I have) he has written. Out of curiosity, how many “peer-reviewed articles” did Albert Einstein write.
…..all focused on climate change in the Hudson Bay area during the 18th and 19th centuries……
Which is what his Doctoral thesis was on.
From Wikipedia:
The principal task of the doctoral candidate is writing and defending a major, original contribution to his or her academic discipline
His “academic discipline”: “Climatology”, a specialty of “Geography”.
……it does suggest that he may not be as qualified a technical expert on the science of long-term global climate change as his backers would like you to believe.
From Wikipedia:
Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. It is generally accepted that climate is governed by differential equations based on physical laws, but what, exactly, are these equations, and what can be concluded from them, is still subject to debate.
There is no single expert in all of the various sub-categories of climatology.
Dr. David Suzuki PhD in Zoology, specialty “Genetics”
Dr. Timothy Ball PhD in Geography, specialty “Climatology”
I think that alone would make Dr. Ball more of an expert on climate change than Dr. Suzuki.
From Wikipedia:
Climate change refers to the variation in the Earth’s global climate or in regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years.
Why did the IPCC feel the need to change the definition of “Climate change” from the proper scientific definition of “changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years” to their own definition referring only to “climate change brought about human activity”? Comparing “climate change over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years (sci)” to “climate change brought about human activity(including agricultural and other activities, not just GHG emissions) over the last 1000 years (IPCC)” is like comparing apples to oranges. The last 1000 years is a nano-second compared to the age of the earth, and the impact of human activities on climate change (Sci.) is miniscule and barely measurable.
Zog
you have me on ice experience there at Alert
mine was limited to watching way more than 20 square miles crash past the islands in Norman Wells and out through the delta.
It was a process as natural as ice floating on water.
thought Id post this link for everyones interest-note the forests are waterlogged not petrified.and it predates man by a long long time.
Axel Heiburg is next door to Ellesmere.They would be one and the same in the geographic lastscape of the the last iceage a glacier completely filling the channel between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Heiberg_Island
Now we know: Canada melt down
At the recent Geophysical Union conference, one report said most Arctic ice will be gone by 2040.
Don’t buy any real estate near sea level.
Posted by Harry Fuller.
http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-6146317.html
What’s the trouble with Harry? Is Harry brain-dead?
Has Harry never read Archimedes?
Is the sea level rising, Harry?
‘thebanana’ and others like him enjoy accusing people with a difference of opinion from say Al Gore, of being “screwed up” and that, “global warming is a reality folks.”
Warming, cooling – in other words, climate change are constantly a reality. I don’t think anybody is arguing against that. However, there’s more to it than fossil fuels being burned by evil man.
There are cycles, sunspots, solar flares, radiation belts, an accelerating (magnetic) pole movement (all things obviously not in our control). And then there’s data that is being ignored, data that is being trivialized, data that’s not understood, and data that is being lied about.
This should be far more scary to anybody that is concerned about climate change.
And if it were not so – why did the UN recently downgrade man’s contribution to global warming to 25%?
I would like to think most on this site are interested in the development of alternative, non-polluting fuel sources for the benefit of the environment. And as an added bonus, the end of funding Islamofascism. But, what do I know.
In response to a similar type of article by Margaret Munroe of Canwest News Service, Dr. Ball responded:
Dr. Ball writes in Victoria’s Times Colonist yesterday:
Ice calving not unusual
Re: “Arctic ice shelf breaks off” Dec 28.
This is another typical out-of-context, unbalanced report. The aerial photographs are enhanced with heavy black lines, which would likely be interpreted as breaks in the ice to the casual unknowing reader.
Why aren’t they labeled? Ice calves from ice shelves all the time as attested by the statement “the biggest event since the “80s in terms office shelf loss”.
The article implies what is happening is unusual. It isn’t. Source of the ice shelves are glaciers advancing on Ellesmere Island. Advances are partly a function of temperature but also changing snowfalls and other major factors not mentioned din the article. Why?
Every summer, nine million square kilometers of Arctic ice melts as it goes from about 15 million square kilometres in winter to about six million square kilometres each summer.
Claims of a nine-per-cent decrease in total since 1954 are almost all explained by a change in the measuring techniques.
Where is the balance in the story? Why aren’t the facts placed in context by people familiar with the Arctic situation? This is not responsible journalism, but pure sensationalism.
Timothy F. Ball,
Consultant chairman,
Natural Resources Stewardship Project,
Victoria
In response to “A”, who is too gutless to give his name, and to LBS, in my opinion the allegation that Dr. Ball is funded by the oil industry is a blatent lie and an attempt to discredit. It amazing that the advocates of Kyoto would use such tactics because if “the science is sound” (on the Kyoto Protocol etc)as they calim, then they would allow it to be put up against any and all srutiny, but such is not the case. It is a frequent practise used by the Kyoto followers.
Erwin Noyes
Posted by: A at December 30, 2006 04:23 PM
Okay Mr. “A”, you talk a lot but you do not give us your credentials, personally I don’t think you have any or you would give us your true identity. Are you afraid of litigation?
In any case, I challenge you and “Big city lib” to give rationale answers to few simple little questions:
Is the world’s climate continually evolving? Answer-
What brought about the end of every ice age to date? Answer-
Is it true that if global warming had not occurred in the past that our lands would be covered with a thousand + feet of ice? A-
Did humans cause the global warming that brought about the end of the previous ice ages?
To what extent are we able to effect the world’s climate? Would compliance by all of the signature countries to the Kyoto Agreement reduce global warming?
Is it true that recent discoveries by some British scientific researchers regarding the changes which may be occurring in the ocean currents, in the Atlantic Ocean in particular, are caused by water temperature changes occurring?
Is it true that the Liberals plan for Canada to comply with the Kyoto targets involved the purchase of perhaps several billion dollars worth of “carbon credits” from some under developed Asian and European countries?-
If Canada were to purchase “carbon credits”, would it result in lower emissions of green house gases or pollutants in Canada?
Would it result in a reduction of global green house gas or pollution?
Would the purchase of “carbon credits” have an impact on Canada’s economy?
Is it true that many third world countries will profit financially from the Kyoto agreement whether or not there are any positive effects on climate change? A-
Has the IPCC panel considered the suggestion (hypothesis) that an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap could put a cover of fresh low density water over the adjacent northern ocean thereby shutting down the gulf stream, as the present salty dense cold water would not be able to drop down to bottom of the ocean, which presently allows the warm gulf to extend to the north? A-
Is it true that the only scientific group to study and track climate change for more than recent history is the geological community?
Do geologists agree with the Kyoto protocol?
The vast majority of so called “climatologists’, do they have a BSc in “climatology”?
Is there a university in the world that has a graduate program leading to a BSc in “Climatology”?-
How many of the Kyoto fear mongers were also in panic mode with the Y2K bug?
How many Kyoto advocates can truly answer these questions, and how many can refute them with plausible , rational answers? None thus far have.
The revelation in an article in yesterdays National Post regarding that the carbon purchase scheme, that it has already become a huge scam and has actually caused an increse in GHG emissions shoud be a wake up call to the Kyoto believers but unfortunately thus far it has not had any affect thanks in part to the MSMs refusal to give it any copy.
Erwin
What does “leftism” have to do with ice breaking off? I happen to know plenty of “conservatives” who believe in climate change.
That’s about as stupid as saying that only “right wingers” are against abortion.
This is fun to read. On all sides. One comment is problematic, however. It is the logic, not the premis that is troublesome.
“Was human activity present on the planet in a significant degree to
> have even a remote chance of causing any of these changes? Of
> course not. Is it therefore fair to assume that any current climate
> change on our planet can be attributed to human activity? OF COURSE
> NOT.
The gist of the point is that because eons of warming events have occurred without human influence, it is wrong to think that human activity may be a factor now. Not so.
That millions have died over the thousands of years of human history prior to the development of guns does not allow us to say “OF COURSE NOT” to the question: Have guns contributed to human deaths?
Go back the your freshman logic, chapter one.
LJ: Gee, that puts “Climatology” into the Department of Geography.
True, but that still makes him a Professor of Geography, not a Professor of Climatology. You may dismiss this as semantics–fair enough. How about his claim of being the “first Canadian PhD in Climatology”? How about his disingenuity about the length of his UW tenure? A 32-year career as Professor of Climatology is quite impressive, given that in 1964 (32 years before he retired from UW), he had yet to earn a bachelor’s degree.
It doesn’t show the various books and text books (used in many universities, one of which I have) he has written.
WorldCat lists “Timothy F Ball” and “T F Ball” as having authored or co-authored two books (not including his masters and doctoral dissertations). The UW Library catalogue lists four more, two of which are academic texts, one of which–“Fundamentals of Physical Geography”–is a textbook originally written in 1985 by Briggs and Smithson, with Dr. Ball joining along for the first Canadian edition in 1989. Perhaps there are others–care to share some titles?
Out of curiosity, how many “peer-reviewed articles” did Albert Einstein write.
Yeah, Albert Einstein is the same as Tim Bell because he didn’t publish in peer-reviewed journals either. I’d hold that fact against him too if it weren’t for his groundbreaking advances in multiple subfields of physics, and that Nobel Prize he won (for work done when he was only 26).
For better or for worse, peer-reviewed publications are the modern standard by which academic researchers are judged. High numbers alone may not signify intellectual worth, but an output greater than 1 article every 3.5 years is generally needed to qualify as an expert in one’s field. At the other end, low numbers alone may not signify incompetence, but then your work had better be at least somewhat trailblazing. It takes a special kind of genius to eschew the traditional academic track; Dr. Ball may be a lovely person with the noblest of intentions, but with due respect, he’s no such genius.
The principal task of the doctoral candidate is writing and defending a major, original contribution to his or her academic discipline
And the principal task of the research scientist is to continue to produce original work in one’s academic discipline. If you’re average–most are; nothing to be ashamed about–your work is largely derivative of one’s doctoral topic. Dr. Ball may not be a bad scientist, but judging by his professional research output, he’s no more than an average one.
There is no single expert in all of the various sub-categories of climatology…I think that alone would make Dr. Ball more of an expert on climate change than Dr. Suzuki.
Dr. Suzuki is an advocate and a populist, not an expert. Dr. Ball is also an advocate, wishes he were a populist, and is not–but positions himself to be, partly through falsified credentials–an expert either.
The general public gravitates towards populists because their language is accessible, and elevates them to the status of “expert” only in comparison to themselves. Real climate change experts do not line up to listen to Dr. Suzuki lecture; Dr. Suzuki and his team listen to the real experts, and distill that knowledge down into terms that laypersons can understand.
Why did the IPCC feel the need to change the definition of “Climate change” from the proper scientific definition of “changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years” to their own definition referring only to “climate change brought about human activity”?
Would you prefer “anthropogenic global warming (AGW)”? IPCC didn’t “change” anything. The focus of the “climate change” debate on possible anthropogenic causes is the result of a worldwide scientific shift towards doing so.
…the impact of human activities on climate change (Sci.) is miniscule and barely measurable.
Your opinion. Many others with fancier degrees and a few thousand years of collective experience in studying the intricacies of global climate dynamics may disagree with your pithy assessment of the state of the field.
You can listen to whomever you’d like. Just think deeply, and be honest with yourself, about why you’re choosing to dismiss the basic position of an overwhelming scientific majority in favour of the claims of a guy who lies about his resume and works for a climate advocacy organization backed by oil company money?
Posted by: Pointer at December 31, 2006 12:38 PM
“Pointer”,
You of all people “miss the point”, which is:
That all ice ages ended with global warming (at least in the area of the glacier that subsequently melted), not just the most recent one, and that all of the glaciers that did melt, did so without any affects of humans. Thus the point- that climate has always being evolving and always will with or withour mans influences. Yes we will affect the rate of change of the climate but to an unknown extent. Considering that we cannot predict with even a scintilla of accuracy what our, let alone the rest of the planst’s climate will be within 12 months, how can you give credibility to prediction of what will occur in 50 years?
How do you suppose that Greenland got it’s name?
When you look at the proposed methods of “fighting climate change” and you see the ridiculous “carbon credits/trading scheme” and how corrupt it already has become, how can you blindly support such a view point?
BTW where have your big spokesmen “Mr. A” and “big city liberal” gone?
Please do not pick and chose, answer all of the questions or are they too tough for you?
Mr. “A” Gutless,
Your assertion that because the majority have a particular viewpoint makes it the correct one is nonsense. A classic example was the view held by 99+ % of the worlds medical community( in the latter part of the last century), having the view that stomach ulcers were caused by excessive acid in the stomach When two Australian researchers first discovered that the cause was bacteria and that they could be cured with antibiotics they were harshly criticized. It wasn’t until approx 30 years later that they received their just recognition by was of a Nobel prize in medicine. So much for your ‘vast majority’ concept. The sad fact is, that people such as your self and the many politicians who are only interested for the political benefit they may derive, are not interested in taking a close look and inviting discussion and debate on all possible dissenting theories.
Much more study is needed in my opinion.
A
Andrew Weaver, one of the leading computer diddlers, is an oceanographer but prefers to be identified as a climatologist. He subsists on taxpayers money in the publish or perish world of grants. I doubt that there are a whole bunch of independently wealthy scientists on either side of the contraversy although many of the non-believers (eg. the 50 or so scientists in the FoS organization) work for free.
Someday, when I hear the term “overwhelming scientific majority” bandied about, I’m going to explode. Most of my friends and associates are scientists (geologists, geophysicists and a smattering from other disciplines). I’ve only met a couple – a physicist and and oceanographer, who take AGM seriously. A more honest statement would be, “Many highly VOCAL scientists believe that human activity is probably causing significant change to global climate.”
Anyway, even if the “overwhelming majority” canard was valid, scientific truth is determined by the testing of hypotheses – not by a show of hands.
Re: comment by Erwin.
My “spokesmen”? I have never commented on anything on this site before. You confuse me withn someone else.
Support what? I made no statement in support of or in opposition to anything save the faulty logic in another comment.
My opinions were not the subject of my comment. You have no information of any kind that I even have an opinion, let alone what it might be.
I did not question the premis that man has never been a factor in the past. Yet who knows – for certain?
The faulty logic alone was my subject. To induce a negative from other negatives cannot be done. To refute the possibility of new factors in a dynamic by there having never been such factors previously is false. It simply does not follow.
I said nothing else. I say nothing else.
Mr. A,
After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the “Friends of Science” organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie. I can understand why you hide behind a pseudo name and are too lacking in courage to “take off your mask”.
If you are typical of the Kyoto advocates and those “overwhelming majority” then I think that your caase is very weak.
Erwin
Mr. A,
After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the “Friends of Science” organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie. I can understand why you hide behind a pseudo name and are too lacking in courage to “take off your mask”.
If you are typical of the Kyoto advocates and those “overwhelming majority” then I think that your case is very weak.
Erwin
It seems ‘A’ is resorting to the same tired old lefty tactics of calumny and avoidance to cover his ignoble retreat.
A: I suggest you answer Erwin’s questions, or at least be man enough to admit defeat.
All are watching.
Pointer,
Your logical observation is quite right.
Since we’re now talking logic, I’d like to add that the entire “increased CO2 emissions are significantly changing the climate” observation, is based on the logical fallacy that concurrence = causation.
bcl “…this particular evidence is caused by the activities of men andall of the evidence says it is…”
Great Scot! Give us just ONE piece of scientifically acceptable evidence to back that up – just one. Even dedicated global warmers like Hanson and Weaver readily admit that their projections are just that – projections, and by their very nature, unproveable. Just what is your scientific background anyway? Your confusion of reasoned conjecture with evidence suggests to me that you’re a lawyer.
bcl “…this particular evidence is caused by the activities of men and all of the evidence says it is…”
Great Scot! Give us just ONE piece of scientifically acceptable evidence to back that up – just one. Even dedicated global warmers like Hanson and Weaver readily admit that their projections are just that – projections, and by their very nature, unproveable. Just what is your scientific background anyway? Your confusion of reasoned conjecture with evidence suggests to me that you’re a lawyer.
Erwin Noyes: I’m sorry, but you’re calling me “gutless” because I choose not to provide my full name? I suppose you must think the same of George, Skip, B. Hoax Aware, NoOne, Fred, Shirley, anonymous, Western Canadian, Candace, wallyj, Lee, Don, Zip, dmorris, Tenebris, spurwing plover, DrD, richfisher, Stephen, Iron Lady, Cascadian, cal2, JamesHalifax, Ken E., maz2, rockyt, Zog, Eric, Marshall, thebanana, ural, Jema54, Wimpy Canadian, LJ, Paul, and Pointer. Or are only the ones who don’t provide full names and disagree with you “gutless”?
True, the rediscovery of H. pylori reversed decades of established medical opinion. Warren and Marshall rightly deserve their Nobel. But trotting this “classic example” out as if it somehow proves that scientific consensus means nothing is a poor argument. The case is a useful illustration of the pitfalls of consensus; it doesn’t demonstrate that consensus is in all cases without value.
In any case, policymaking–which is really what the climate change debate is about–doesn’t happen only after unanimity is reached among all experts, particularly as action delayed until that point will almost always be too late. Policy-makers base their actions on the best available information, relying on experts for their evidence base, and adjust subsequent decisions based on new knowledge and the effects of prior actions on future realities.
“Much more study is needed” is a common political tactic used to delay action and change. Big Tobacco employed it for several decades to avoid admitting that their products are addictive. The current fringe group of scientists who question whether HIV causes AIDS also invoke it. We shouldn’t close the book on research into AGW, but neither should we wait until the causal pathways are crystal clear and every last person is on side before we act in what we believe are the best long-term interests of the planet.
Kate,
Wha’ hoppen to bigcitylib’s post. I responded to it, and it was gone. The guy is sometimes irrational, but that’s not unusual for a Liberal, and he’s sometimes amusing.
Erwin Noyes writes: After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the “Friends of Science” organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie.
Go to http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html, where you’ll find an article by freelance journalist Charles Montgomery, published in the Globe and Mail this past summer. About halfway down, you’ll find a section discussing U of Calgary Prof. Barry Cooper, who set up the Science Education Fund in order to attract anonymous funders for the FoS. In the words of Prof. Cooper himself, “[FoS funding is] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry. It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals. [However], there were some oil companies.”
A
“We shouldn’t close the book on research into AGW, but neither should we wait until the causal pathways are crystal clear and every last person is on side before we act…”
Ah yes, the good old “precautionary principle”.
CONVERSATION FROM THE MIDDLE AGES:
The barley is blighted and my cow died last night!
That old hag is probably a witch and she’s to blame. “But Sir, we have no proof. What if she isn’t a witch?” Well, burn her anyway as a precaution. Can’t take chances with the supernatural you know.
IMO, one thing clear. Many Canadian Media orgs are liable, big-time. On the Kyoto file they have been untruthful, misleading, guilty by omission, guilty by inclussion, guilty by association…..
They may try a defence of ‘we didn’t know, we’re only reporting the news, it was all we knew’.
It won’t work. The Blogsphere is chock-full of provable, time-stamped information of the scandalous nature of Kyoto. The MSM’s day in the court of public opinion has come. Their day in court may also come.
Well, guys and gals, heres a number that is not disputed by anybody.
2 PERCENT!!!!!!
That is Canadas contribution to the total world production of greenhouse gasses.
The question then becomes, – How many billions are we willing to spend, how much misery and poverty are we willing to propagate, to reduce greenhouse gasses by, oh lets say 50%, which would still leave 99% of world production out of our control.
Zog: Andrew Weaver, one of the leading computer diddlers, is an oceanographer but prefers to be identified as a climatologist.
True, though to my knowledge, he doesn’t go around identifying himself as a Professor of Climatology, which is a different thing altogether. Semantics aside, given that he’s the Tier I Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, has published prolifically on atmospheric modelling, and is widely regarded as a leader in his field, I’m just a little more curious to hear what he has to say about climate change than the guy who wrote four papers 10 years ago based on historical written records and a map of the tree line from the 1700s. Does that make me a sheep?
…many of the non-believers (eg. the 50 or so scientists in the FoS organization) work for free.
Actually, Dr. Ball gets paid to deliver his lectures and speeches. He’s not getting rich of them, but he’s not working pro bono either.
Regardless, I never doubted the motives of the FoS scientists themselves (though I am suspicious of the motives of their funders). As you mentioned earlier, they’re likely decent and thoughtful people. I’ve heard Dr. Ball talk–he’s seems to truly believe in what he’s saying. Of course, the conviction with which the “non-believers” speak is entirely separate from the scientific value of what they say. They also do themselves no favours when they refuse to disclose where their funding comes from, and/or misrepresent the credentials that allow them to speak with authority.
A more honest statement would be, “Many highly VOCAL scientists believe that human activity is probably causing significant change to global climate.”
Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. When the major national science academies of the world issue a joint statement endorsing the IPCC view that climate change is real and of sufficient concern to warrant coordinated public action, and when this general position is supported by the American Meterological Society, the GW Bush-commissioned Federal Climate Change Science Program, the American Geophysical Union, and the current Government of Canada, then maybe, just maybe, there might be something to it. Does that also make me a sheep?
Anyway, even if the “overwhelming majority” canard was valid, scientific truth is determined by the testing of hypotheses – not by a show of hands.
True enough, except that it’s hard to test hypothesis when the experimental field is the planet. Hence, computer models and high-tech analyses of historical records. These indirect methods are all we’ve got. Is it your implication that only “non-believers” are interested in testing hypotheses?
A:
Still waiting.
The barley is blighted and my cow died last night!
That old hag is probably a witch and she’s to blame. “But Sir, we have no proof. What if she isn’t a witch?” Well, burn her anyway as a precaution. Can’t take chances with the supernatural you know.
I believe this is what’s known as a “strawman argument.” Nevermind that there is, on balance, compelling if not incontrovertible evidence in favour of the AGW thesis (aside: you keep referring to it as ‘AGM’–is that a new acronym I’m not aware of?); that supporters of action on AGW are no less decent and thoughtful people, and have personal and professional intentions and motives no less noble, than those in your FoS circle; and that all serious proposed solutions have in common as their overriding long-term goals the reduction of air pollution, the lowering of our collective energy consumption, and the transitioning from nonrenewable to renewable sources of energy (actions that are all to the long-term common good), and not the forced immolation of human beings per se (or any other drastic action that’s wholly unwarranted given our current body of knowledge).
Nevermind all these things–believing that action on climate change is needed now, in the absence of complete knowledge, is the same as burning witches. Bravo, Zog, I think you’ve won the debate!
Re: Zog comment.
Okay. Logic it is. And when logic applies it should neither be neglected nor missused. Correct logic should not be put forward as proof of an incorrect premis.
Lack of a thing such as proof has nothing necessarily to do with a fact. That endless correlated phenomena suggest but not determine does not prove a fact of causality can not exist. It proves only that the fact may or may not exist and that if it does it hasn’t been found yet. Which is to say that it proves nothing. But which seems to be implied in your ” . . observation, is based on the logical fallacy that concurrence = causation.”
Your logic is correct. Is your implied premis correct? You imply, if I am not over reading, that since only correlation is demonstrated there not only is no proof found yet, but that there is no proof to be found. This does not follow. If you mean anyone to conclude anything such as this it is a mistake to do so. Placement and context in your construction suggest either that you may intend this or that you may not have noticed an unintended implication.
Logic serves where it serves. That it does not serve in all conditions does not leave us floundering with no guidance at all when that is so. In fact we, as is life at large, are probabalistic in our behavior. Rigor of logic in the mind determines very little of what we do in most aspect of our lives at all scales. We guess. We estimate. We predict from too little data and imperfect hypotheses. We do because it is all we can do when we do not have all the facts and perfect theory to allow logic. We do because to wait for all fact and perfect theory is likely to be too costly or fatal. Very little goes on that includes us that is based entirely on the ideal of perfect knowledge. Maybe nothing?
So how in this case can it found somehow short of correct to look to correlation and trending data and considered opinion of those among us whom we recognize as most likely to have the most correct predictions? Why here when in uncounted other areas of our long experience it has been not only proper but certainly the wisest thing to do?
Why? Because there is not the circumstance for logic and absolute knowledge but only strong possibility? Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. But neither yes nor no because of the demands of any logic.
There is no real or valid argument against anything in your seeminly pointed observation that correlation is not causality.
Irwin Daisy: Still waiting.
For what, Irwin? Half of that list of questions are empirical, and answerable only through (impossible) experimental designs. The other half are leading ones, to which you already know the answers. The whole exercise–which has been circulating around the blogs for some time now–is designed only to point out gaps in knowledge, which intellectually dishonest debaters then use as “evidence” that the entire AGW arguement is a myth.
I’ll save you the trouble. I’m happy to admit that I lack the technical expertise to answer those questions intelligibly. I’m also happy to admit that I don’t have any formal education with which to justify my support for the AGW thesis (just as you no doubt have no formal education either with which to justify your refutation of it). Now, in the absence of my own expertise in this area, I’m more likely to be swayed by the side that counts among its members 16 of the world’s major scientific academies, among others. You seem less impressed by this body of opinion. I’m not sure if that make you a fool, a contrarian, or a Truly Independent Man.
In any case, who cares? This is blog commentary! Were you under the impression that any of this debate actually mattered? That we need formal training before we could post valid comments? Were you under the impression that Nobel Prize scientists and senior policy-makers were visiting this thread looking for answers?
I have no technical knowledge, so you can easily dismiss my credibility if you wish. It’s odd, though, that you find it so equally easy to dismiss the credibility of a significant number of real experts, given your own similarly complete lack of technical knowledge.
I am truly saddened that A didn’t mention me with all the others with “handles”.
Seriously, aren’t ice shelves and glaciers supposed to “calve” or whatever they call break off? If they don’t then I thought it was the start of an ice age.
Frikkin’ humans haven’t been on this earth long enough to figure out what is normal for this third rock from the sun. Who here has seen Haley’s Comet more than once?
A
AGW it is. Dyslexia?
Conserving energy and lowering pollution levels are, as you point out, worthy goals in themselves. They don’t have to be promoted with irrational public appeals to “save the planet” by cutting CO2 emissions. The only relation of CO2 to air pollution, that I can think of, is that producing more of it, through more efficient and complete combustion, would lower the level of lung-blasting pollutants to which we are exposed.
Sure, there are people of good will among the apostles of AGW, but there are also charlatans like Mann and high profile con-artists like Suzuki. Without the likes of them, the debate would be reduced to the level of honest science and appeals to public hysteria would vanish.
And yes, I stick to my analogy that the burning of witches was an application of the precautionary principal. The same principal behind the Kyoto humbug which, if rigorously applied, would wreck the economy of the developed world “just in case” and cause terrible global hardship.
A
AGW it is. Dyslexia?
Conserving energy and lowering pollution levels are, as you point out, worthy goals in themselves. They don’t have to be promoted with irrational public appeals to “save the planet” by cutting CO2 emissions. The only relation of CO2 to air pollution, that I can think of, is that producing more of it, through more efficient and complete combustion, would lower the level of lung-blasting pollutants to which we are exposed.
Sure, there are people of good will among the apostles of AGW, but there are also charlatans like Mann and high profile con-artists like Suzuki. Without the likes of them, the debate would be reduced to the level of honest science and appeals to public hysteria would vanish.
And yes, I stick to my analogy that the burning of witches was an application of the precautionary principal. The same principal behind the Kyoto humbug which, if rigorously applied, would wreck the economy of the developed world “just in case” and cause terrible global hardship.
A
Hell no, but I’m impressed with your calumny, obfuscation and outright avoidance.
You’ve answered the questions. Your answer is that your argument is incomplete, yet closed.
Few here are arguing that there is no climate change, or that global warming to some extent is a myth. However, they are arguing against the inconclusive and misleading solution. Namely Kyoto.
As for “who cares?” I imagine everybody who has commented on this thread cares. As will the public when it comes time to vote. As do the scientists looking at all data in order to find the right answers, rather than the politically expedient one.
Furthermore, your argument gains no wind, when you run in the opposite direction, hurling insults.
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SLAM DUNK
The key problem for global warming theories is that the sea level has not risen much in the last 150 years. A small rise may have occurred, but this may be attributable to the “tail end” of the last ice age. If sea level rises much more, we may be able to ascertain what, exactly, is going on. If sea level declines, then theories of human-caused global warming will probably be relegated to the dust-bin of history.
If a long trend of global warming is occurring, there are two ways it could be related to humans. First, humans might be causing the warming. Second, global warming might be causing the humans. That is, most land mass is in the Northern hemisphere, where warming would increase and improve arable land, growing seasons, crop yields, and available water supplies. We know that global warming was beneficial to humans when the last ice age began retreating, but we do not know if these benefits have stopped. World population is increasing, but GDP per capita is also increasing rapidly, which probably causes more energy use per person. In this way, global warming could CAUSE the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, instead of CO2 causing global warming. CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas–water vapour is. CO2 levels may or may not be causing global warming, and global warming may have stopped in 1998.
The entire warming debate is based upon conjecture until any sea level changes can be clearly attributed to human activity. Science has not yet clarified this key issue.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Each of these references are based on careful scientific studies:
Sea Level and Climate
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:FwSRiWPbW5kJ:pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/+sea+levels&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a
Greenland icecap thickens despite warming
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm
Global warming can make sea level plunge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467928.stm
Polar Bears on Thin Ice? Not Really!
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/
UN downgrades man’s impact on the climate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml
Cow ’emissions’ more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Global warming?
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552
The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years.
“The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the ‘facts’ of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
Environmentalists Versus Fusion Power.
http://biggierection.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-evidence-that-environmentalists.html
“Uphold Free Speech About Climate Change Or Resign.”
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
EU vs. USA on CO2:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_12_17-2006_12_23.shtml#1166449696
There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
The Sceptical Environmentalist
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm___
‘A’ 4:22 PM It is clear that A has lost the discussion BIG-TIME. It is clear he is a Myth, Hoax, Scam believer, not to mention, worshipper. It is brcause of people like A that the Media is able to “sell” the Y2Ks, Crop Circles, DDT Scams to the world. All to collapse in the end at great cost to all, but especially to the suckers.
Another thing that is clear about A, is that he is probably a ‘plant’ of some well funded Scam Organization. He knows a lot of the Jargon coming out of the likes of the Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club, Pembina Insitute, Greenpeace, ect. All Orgs that rely mostly on taxpayer’s money to “halt” the ‘latest’ calamity that is THE END OF THE WORLD. After all, one wouldn’t think the likes of A would make fools of themselves unless they are getting paid. Sickos.
The End of the World has happenned many times in the past.