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.
Mr. or Ms “A” Gutless,
You said: “I am sorry, but you’re calling me ‘gutless’ because I choose not to provide my full name? I suppose you must think the same of…”?
No I don’t because I consider your comments to be very blatant, the others not so.
You said: “I have no technical knowledge, so you can easily dismiss my credibility if you wish. It’s odd though…”
What I find odd is for an individual who by his/her own confession has no technical knowledge, to be arguing so vociferously on a subject much of which is technical. You have a rather large mouth for someone void of knowledge on the subject we are discussing.
You say you have no technical knowledge, do you have any legal knowledge particular as it applies to libel?
You said:.. “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?”
Wherein did I indicate that I do not have any technical knowledge? You are again incorrect. Who are those real experts that I dismiss, where and whom do you speak of?
“A”, my guess is that you are an attention starved little boy, who is below legal age and who likes to argue whether or not you have any knowledge on the subject. Whether or not you are a minor you a least speak as an individual who is very immature. You have offered nothing of value to the debate and my opinion of you has not changed, I still think that you are a coward.
Erwin
For those who are interested, here are the original questions that I authored and my answers to them:
Questions that the Proponents of the Kyoto Accord do not like to answer, or cannot give rational answers to..
Is the world’s climate continually evolving? Answer- YES, it always has and always will.
What brought about the end of every ice age to date? Answer- Global warming.
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- Yes, absolutely.
Did humans cause the global warming that brought about the end of the previous ice ages? A- NO, as for the most part there were no humans inhabiting the planet at the time.
To what extent are we able to effect the world’s climate? A- we do not know with any degree of certainty We have no prior experience in attempting, let alone succeeding in making changes to global climatic conditions.
Would compliance by all of the signature countries to the Kyoto Agreement reduce global warming? A- YES it would, however it is most doubtful that it could reverse global warming, only slow down the rate of increase to some small and unknown amount. In any case to stop global warming would most likely be to advance the next ice age.
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? A-Yes it is true. These scientific researchers installed temperature and ocean current measurement devices across the Atlantic, from early data, they believe that it may be, that such ocean current changes, EG ‘the Gulf Stream’, may in time cause and may have in past history, been the cause of Europe’s ice ages. This suggests that it may just be too early for the world to be jumping on the Kyoto band wagon and that we as a world society should do more due-diligence (scientific study) before renegotiating then implementing this extremely out of balanced agreement on world action against climate change.
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?- Yes it is true, EG Russia. Note: See article in Dec 30/06 publication of the National Post which reveals the carbon trading scheme to already to be corrupt and to be a scam.
If Canada were to purchase “carbon credits”, would it result in lower emissions of green house gases or pollutants in Canada? Absolutely NOT.
Would it result in a reduction of global green house gas or pollution? Absolutely NOT In fact thus far, it has actually caused an increase in GHGs..
Would the purchase of “carbon credits” have an impact on Canada’s economy? YES, the effects would be very negative.
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- YES it is true.
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- it appears not as if it is true, then global warming could shut down the N. Atlantic circulation and precipitate the next ice age. Of course then Europe might just be wanting global warming. But this is only one of many hypotheses out there.
Has the IPCC panel considered the evidence that there is some correlation of global temperatures to sun spot activity? No they have not, in fact they, including the likes of CBC’s Fifth Estate and Dr. Andrew Weaver from U Vic, have gone out of their way in attempting to discredit those who have studied the sun spots or every other possible rationale for climate change. ”If the “science is sound” as they attempt to claim, then they should be happy to put it up to all scrutiny.
As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.
Is it true that the only scientific group to study and track climate change for more than recent history is the geological community? A-YES
Do geologists agree with the Kyoto protocol? A-NO, most say that it is premature to take such action when the start of another ice age may be just around the corner
The vast majority of so called “climatologists’, do they have a BSc in “climatology”? No they do not, they are a mish-mash of mostly well meaning engineers, mathematicians, geneticists (like D. Suzuki), horticulturists, biologists, environmentalists, meteorologists and countless other ‘ists’. Very few are truly qualified to the extent that they should be considered experts on climate change, including David Suzuki, Al Gore, Arnold Shwartzeneger, David Anderson, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin, Jack Layton, Stephan Dion, Garth Turner and many others who talk a lot about it.
Is there a university in the world that has a graduate program leading to a BSc in “Climatology”?- Yes The first, and I believe still the only university in the world to offer a degree in climatology is the University of South Queensland in Australia.
Is Australia a member of the Kyoto Agreement? A- NO
How many of the Kyoto fear mongers were also in panic mode with the Y2K bug? Likely most of them.
How many Kyoto advocates can truly answer these questions, and how many can refute them with plausible , rational answers? None have thus far.
BTW This was sent to the Suzuki Foundation, they did not answer them, just referred me to other sites for information.
Erwin
Zog wrote: “Wha’ hoppen to bigcitylib’s post.”
Bigcitylib was banned from here some weeks ago. When he returned I let it go for a while – until he gave in to the temptation to insult me, yet again.
You don’t get three chances around here. Apparently, he’s unaware that I can call up every post he’s ever made in one function and delete them with a two clicks of the mouse.
So, don’t be surprised if the comment you respond to goes *poof*. I’m doing a bit of enforcing, to get the point across.
Since y’all are having a whale of good time up above, I’ll only address the stuffo that’s pertinent to me…
Candace:
My comment wasn’t a smart remark (Lee’s response was simply over the top).
Your question:”How, exactly, is sport hunting consistent with conservation of a species?”, cannot be simply answered, not in a few lines of a blog, nor in many pages of text.
Tenebris understood what I meant, and its germaine to the entire thread about climate change (and a whole range of issues about things biological – especially evolution vs. creationism).
The problem for many of us from science is how to explain very complex material to people with little or no understanding – on the short side of things you can’t, until those with whom you discuss come up to a level of basic understanding from which a more advanced discussion can be held. Your actual understanding of the answer to your specific question (you did say “exactly”) requires a level of knowledge of biology, that, assuming you don’t have a degree in it, that you ordinarily cannot have from the rest of life’s courses. I know that sounds presumptious, but its not. I’d like to answer your question for you, but I can’t. You wouldn’t understand the answer. And, if your background was deep enough in biology, you wouldn’t ask that question, that way. Make sense? This is not a putdown – it just means the topic is way more complex that can be conveyed in a simple dialogue. Richfisher gave a short, meaningless answer. It apparently satisfied you. It shouldn’t have.
Yes, Lee, its a lot more complicated than that. Richfisher didn’t explain anything (Richfisher, I’m not taking a shot at you… LOL!)
The topic is very similar to the argument between “evolutionists (ie, biologists) and “creationists”. If creationists actually understood anything about biology there would be no discussion. Evolution is virtually self-evident to a learned, experienced biologist.
The entire climate change/global warming controversy is all about ignorance, ignorance by scientists with no depth of background, ignorance by politicians (about most things, it appears), ignorance by ordinary people who can’t even tell you, in the most simplistic scientific terms what “temperature” or “warming” even is.
So my advice, short and to the point, was, that if you really want to know the answer to questions like that, you don’t ask them on a blog, you go get an education. All will be revealed, and what is not, will provide you with challenges for a lifetime.
The inflammatory rhetoric is bad enough as descriptions are aimed at emotions and the religion of global warming rather than reason. However the galling part is that the misrepresenting of this event is obvious and insulting to intelligence.
There is a loss of sea ice in certain areas of the Arctic Ocean but the culprit is current not air temperature; sea ice is composed of fresh water ice crystals rising to form a crust and salty water sinking. The ice shelf was the leading edge of a glacier floating out to sea which ultimately had to break off and float away as do all icebergs. It is seen all the time on Alaska cruises. To suggest that this was a loss of sea ice is a deliberate falsification.
A lot of the world’s problems can be traced to too many of us being “educated” by Wako-Professors. Yep, nut cases who have no idea how the real world works. They do not necessarily have smarts, just job security.
Satellite image of the “ice island” taken on Oct 1 2005 (no typo, 14 months ago). The area is the North tip of Ellesmere island, the Northest part of Canada.
About the risk to the Hibernia oil platform, it is 4,500 km away from it (straigth line). That’s the distance between Montreal and Calgary.
Can everyone please relax?
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/content_contenu/images/msid_iceisland.jpg
Manny,
That’s the distance between Montreal and Calgary.
Don’t panic? The last time I looked at a map the distance is about 5 inches.
Hey Manny, I think I’ve been there. fifteen years or so ago, if memory serves me correctly. Our mission there was to position and supply the “beakers” on the ice from Alert. also spent more than a few hours looking for some idiot who was suppose to ski to the pole but turned around and wasn’t reporting in as planned. The amount of garbage these “explorers” left up there was pathetic.
Thanks, Manny. I’ll use that in a new post tomorrow.
Right now, I’m counting down the hours to 2007. Typing is hard.
Erwin writes: You said:.. “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?”
Wherein did I indicate that I do not have any technical knowledge? You are again incorrect. Who are those real experts that I dismiss, where and whom do you speak of?
Actually, I was addressing a post (a goad, really) by Irwin Daisy, not yourself. Unless, of course, “Erwin Noyes” and “Irwin Daisy” are one and the same person. Seems a little strange how insistent Irwin was that I attempt to answer questions ostensibly posed by someone else…
Anyway, I admit it was an assumption rather than a statement of fact. I’ll happily retract it should Irwin come up with evidence that he has an advanced degree in climatology research and/or has published widely on the subject.
As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.
Leaving all else aside, now you’re just being stubborn. Did you even read that Globe and Mail article I linked above? By his own admission, Prof. Cooper is affiliated with the FoS. By his own admission, he set up the Science Education Fund to help attract funding for the FoS. By his own admission, these funding sources included oil and gas companies.
To my knowledge, subsequent statements by the FoS and their defenders have deployed much smoke and mirrors, but have not actually denied this fact.
Dr. Ball, for his part, has had his travel expense paid for by the FoS through the SEF. He has gone on record as stating that he makes it a point to never inquire about who’s paying his bills.
You can dismiss everything else I posted, you can call me silly names. But at least read the public record and stop clinging to beliefs that are demonstrably not true.
“A”
You confess that you know nothing technical on a very technical subject. You are so typical of many of the supporters of the Kyoto protocol, rather than point out where your beliefs are derived you attempt by any and all means possible, to discredit those with differing views albeit that they are from solid technical positions. You fail to take this into account because as you admit, you are technically ignorant on the subject. I ask myself why I am wasting time on such as you who have so much to say but so little of substance to offer.
I will point out a few facts for you:
As to Irwin and Erwin being one and the same person, read again the spelling, is it the same?, I might add that you are also stupid.
As to anyone having “an advanced degree in climatology research”, how is it possible when there is not such a degree available… Again for someone who has little or no knowledge on the subject, you have far too much to say.
As to your vague assertions about funding for the FOS I say that you do not know what you are talking about and I reiterate, it is a lie. For those who repeat lies, they are known as liars add that to your other quality of being a coward.
Here is some news for you that are of real importance.
1. A report form China that was printed in the National Post just a few days ago, reveals that the revenues obtained form the purchase of carbon credits by some European companies, is being used by Chinese industries to build new coal fired power plants. Rather than using the funding to retrofit existing high GHG and pollution emitting plants as is the intention of the carbon trading scheme, they are building even more of the sub standard technology ones making a mockery and a sham. This is the same “carbon trading scheme” that is the scheme that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion had as part of their environment platforms.
2. In today’s Online Times from the UK is the story of the huge clouds of pollutants from China’s extremely high pollution/GHG emitting coal fired power plants that are being tracked across the Pacific Ocean to California.
3. A similar story was on last nights National Geographic television channel.
Now “A”, if you are truly concerned about our environment and the health of our nation, and the world as a whole, I expect that you will spend your spare time working on this huge issue, to bring it to the attention of the political party and the organization that you support. You will help bring awareness to Canadians how this is such a threat to the health of the world and how it is causing an increase in GHG emissions. Most alarming is that the carbon credit funds in this instance are actually causing an increase in GHG emissions rather than a decrease, this is of particular concern inasmuch as China thus far have received 50 % of the carbon credit purchase revenues. If you are a true environmentalist rather than just a paid shill, you will work to stop this corrupt scheme and you will cease making meaningless annoying posts trying to discredit some who are genuinely interested in improving our environment.
As an immediate improvement to our environment “A”, I suggest that you ‘put a cork in it’.
ERwin
“As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.”
Ball is a well known hack… but yes, it may be true. FoS may not funded directly by the oil industry. It has, however received funding through a groups setup by Prof Barry Cooper at the University of Calgary. The money is from by the oil industry. Ball is exercising plausible denialability.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
CO2 is gathering in our atmosphere at a rate of 60+ times anything we’ve seen in the climatic record going back hundreds of thousands of years, and the concentration is headed for highly unprecedented levels in just a few years. CO2 concentrations are already above what they were during the other warming periods.
And yes, solar phenomemnon have been looked at and ruled out.
Carbon trading needs work, but then, it took how long for our current economic system to get us here? We didn’t let little events like The Great Depression and stagflation get in our way, or scandals like Enron and BreX break our resolve, did we?
Global warming makes icebergs. Duh.
Mark,
I see you continue the “global warmingists” practise of attempting to discredit all who have differing views.
Here are some excerpts from a member of FOS with comments regarding Dr Ball.
“Wherever you meet one of his former pupils, you’ll find they speak of him glowingly and fondly. As you know a professorial appointment covers more than “research” in narrow specialized fields. There are few if any people in this country that are as familiar with all the sub-disciplines that serve climatology as he is and that are expert in the task of seeing all the pieces of the puzzle come together.
Finally, the line that says “FoS is funded in large part by the oil and gas industries, and the FoS funds Dr. Ball’s advocacy activities” is totally in error. Neither statement is true. As we are often blamed for being funded by “big oil”, we sometimes wish it were true: it would at least solve our perennial lack of funds to mount any sort of substantial counter-action to the verbal diarrhoea of misinformation.
I see that you too Mark are continuing the tradition of attempting to discredit any and all who have differing views, we have to conclude that your views are ones of weakness.
If you were well informed on the subject you would discuss how the carbon system can be strengthened. It appears however that it is doomed to failure, can you expect the UN under the auspices of people such as Kofi Anan to administer such a plan effectively and efficiently , you would have to be delusional to think so. The Liberals had planned to spend billions in buying credits, what a great idea. My god what other great plans do Dion and the Libs have? Or are you the Mark Francis, the Green Party advocate with the failed blog? It will be interesting to watch the Libs, Dippers and Greens how they spin the bad news on carbon credits.
Erwin
I cant get my head around this carbon trading business.
Does this plan actually result in a reduction of greenhouse gasses?
Er, Erwin:
I’m a friend of the Friends of Science, and I’m aware that they get part of their funding from oil companies. So do dozens of NGOs and charities. After all, FoS doesn’t have access to the brimming government pig trough that the apostles of AGW slurp from, and it’s hardly fair to expect that, besides working pro-bono, they should have to dip into their own pockets for things like making a video.
What annoys me isn’t FoS getting a few crumbs from the oil companies, but various corporations making donations to their sworn enemies at the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Now that is sick.
Erwin writes: As to your vague assertions about funding for the FOS I say that you do not know what you are talking about and I reiterate, it is a lie. For those who repeat lies, they are known as liars add that to your other quality of being a coward.
Zog writes: Er, Erwin: I’m a friend of the Friends of Science, and I’m aware that they get part of their funding from oil companies.
Oooh, this should be fun to watch. Does Erwin cannibalize one of his own in a desperate bid to preserve his bubble of self-delusion? Or is he gentleman enough to admit when he’s in error, and that sometimes a fact is indeed a fact even when it’s uttered by a–let me get this just right–lefty moonbat pinko commie terrorist sympathizer.
Zog, I apologize for pitting your post against Erwin’s, though perhaps you’ll understand my taking the low road just this once given all the mudslinging directed my way throughout this thread. If not, well, what else did you expect from a liar and a coward?
Nobody’s explained to my satisfaction why funding from governments to promote science that advances ideological/political goals is less dangerous than funding from corporations that promotes science that advances economic ones.
Indeed, if I’m forced to choose, I’ll sleep a lot more soundly with choice b.
Kate,
I’m with you on that one. Try getting a grant from the government that questions the “science” behind Kyoto.
Uh, no. Its an astute new application of an old business model. The China example should show you the path. The reason its been so warmly embraced by by much of the world is that it is a neat wealth re-distribution scheme, moving GNP level cash from the haves to the have-nots, brokered, of course, by a cartel of international businessmen always on the lookout for new ventures. There is a reason why the name is changing from “Global Warming” (so yesterday) to “Climate Change”. The latter promotes an endless business cycle, the former does not.
This is Stephane Dion’s great weakness – he does not understand that the real movers and shakers in the world do not have the word “altruism” in their vocabulary. It interferes with good business decisions, unless, of course, like most climate change entrepreneurs, you’ve figured out a business model to market it.
“A”,
You are a self admitted ignoramus on any subject concerning technology. Why should I waste anymore time communicating with someone who is void of knowledge, is too afraid to identify himself, and who does not have the courage of his convictions, You are not worthy of a response, you are a waste of time, now troll on back to your mommy.
Lee,
The purpose of the carbon trading program was for companies/countries that could not otherwise meet their targets, that they could purchase “carbon credits” from some underdeveloped nations. Those designated countries (poor countries) are exempt any emission level standards by the UNs IPCC. The underdeveloped nations then would use those funds to upgrade their industries or build new, modern, low emission-level plants and in doing so reduce the emission of world wide GHGs.
Understandably the scheme may have sounded good to the political enviros on paper, but if they had stopped to engage their brains they would have come to the realization that the administration of such a world wide program in terms of it being, efficient, effective and without it becoming corrupt is an impossibility.
How could the UN with its sordid history of corruption and gross inefficiently do such a job, it cannot and will not.
What has come to light is that European companies have already purchased several billion dollars worth of these carbon credits, about which 50 % were from the Chinese. Well instead of upgrading existing coal fired power plants to reduce substantially the extreme level of air pollutants and GHGs that they are pumping out, they used the funds to build even more of the old style hyper polluting coal fired power plants. Thank god that we do not have a Liberal government or we too would have already been exporting billions of dollars, also without one grain of difference to our GHG or air pollution emissions. In reality all we would be doing is exporting some of our taxpayers monies to help achieve a theoretical reduced level of GHGs in Canada, but we really would not be reducing anything in Canada except our standard of living.
Erwin
Thanks for the explanation, Erwin.
I have been trying to find out all i can about the issue, I guess since im kind of new at this, i havent been looking in the right places.
Just once, I would like to see a major news outlet present the facts in depth rather than opinions and sound bytes.
Im working on the Clean Air Act now, and from what i have seen so far, it is on exactly the right track. It is being carefully put together with lots of consultation.
What strikes me is that just from comments here, it is evident there is no clear-cut conclusion that all can grasp on to.
Its fair to say we should all play our part in reducing pollution.
Strangely enough, i read somewhere (wish i could find it) that the reason its getting warmer is because the air is cleaner now, and the suns rays are more direct.
Anyway, my conclusion is that Minister Ambrose is doing a good job, and i hope Mr. Harper lets her continue