If you are looking for a more informative view of the UN’s latest batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles on global warming hype, check out this response by Lord Monckton. The whole thing is worth reading for those following this issue, but here are a few excerpts:
FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
Sources at the center of the drafting say that, though the now-traditional efforts are being made to sound alarmist and scientific at the same time, key projections are being quietly cut.
Computer models heavily relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003 – a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to “global warming”.
The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998.
What the UN says: Paleoclimate suggests recent warming is unusual. Past warming has shrunk ice sheets and raised sea level. Recent studies show more variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures than the 2001 report.
Monckton’s response: The UN casts doubt upon the integrity of its climate change reports by failing to apologize for the defective and now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph of world temperatures since 1000 AD.
Update: And for more background on Lord Monckton’s work, his 40-page paper titled Apocalypse cancelled is also worth reading for a detailed debunking of the so-called “consensus” on global warming.
“Consensus is not a science word. Consensus is a political word or at least it’s a social word”.
Quote by Patrick Moore on the Penn Radio show.
http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/The.Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.06.08/
If just a few of Monctons points are valid (and I’d be interested to see if any of them are proven to be wrong),
there’s going to be a few red faces after the “sky is falling” round the clock reporting today.
Talk about shades of Katrina coverage.
I get so depressed watching any TV news – why I even bother is beyond me. The UN’s latest report is presented as fact with zero rebutal or attempts to place it in context. Every day I get into useless debates with people about the so-called man-made global warming but how do you compete with the constant one-sided media tsunami of doomsday garbage. I have gotten a few people to read Crichton’s State of Fear (fiction) with mixed results.
The thing that most depresses me is that as a result of the total media irresponsibility on covering this issue the government will be forced to spend many billions of our tax dollars reducing clean gases from entering the atmosphere without reducing real air and water pollution one bit. What a waste of time, money and effort.
Resistance is futile… or, the best CTV push-poll yet…
The question here isn’t, “Do you believe in Global Warming”,
because, of course… only an idiot doesn’t get it… but,
“When did you become convinced global warming is caused
by human activity?”
I want to see a poll done asking this question:
If your government only had 1 Billion to spend on either global warming or health care, where should they spend the money?
Global Warming
Health Care
But, you never see unbiased polls in the media. They are always biased towards what they want you to think.
No rise in the earth’s temp in the last five years???????
Yeah, I’m sure we’ll hear this from the press soon.
It reminds me of that reporter who was covering a flood, from a canoe, and someone walked by, revealing the water was ankle deep.
I finally found a copy of the Kyoto Protocol.
Google kyoto protocol, it is at the bottom of the first page that comes up. 16 pages of Articles.
All it does is send one to a following article or a previous one. The one thing that sticks out is this sentence
All countries signing the protocol will take action to reduce emmissions, IF THEIR NEIGHBORS PROMISE TO DO THE SAME. (paraphrased)
History of Kyoto
Montreal Protocol 1987 have you heard of this.
Meeting to discuss 1990
Acceptence 1992
Signed 1993
ratified 1997
proclaimed 2005 Feb
to be implemented 2008
to end 2012
That explains why liberals are so desperate to get back into power by Feb 2008, so they can benefit from all the scams re Carbon Credits that Strong has set up in China.
Feb 2005 all countries were to have plans in place about what they would do to meet kyoto.
Dion must have read at least one page of this, as the word SUSTAINABLE is mentioned.
Google kyoto accord and read the Kyoto Scam, written in 1993, after Harpers letter re the same.
Reading and trying to understand this has kept me busy while Kate was down. Impossible to make sense of it and understand it in less than a month, if one had nothing else to do.
One main theme of the protocol is to encourage all signing countries to become a market economy.
There is no mention that to do that it means making all industrialized countries into banana republics.
Its all about the money and control:
National Energy Program: Part Deux
Mark Holland has accidentally let slip Stephane Dion’s hidden agenda
Perhaps Kyoto began as an honest, if misguided, attempt to deal with the effects of climate change.
Now it’s become the trojan horse of the economic dirigistes and the transnational progressive elites.
Can nationalization of the Alberta oil sands to prevent their development be far behind under a Dion government.
http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/
Senior Dion Libs are telling Bourque that the MP Mark Holland’s shocking comments about the Party’s secret plans to socialize Alberta’s oil sands industry have caused the Party significant negative impact in the West at a time when the Liberals are desperate to build support for their cause across the land. Indeed, Holland was said to have spent a significant part of the day today cobbling together some semblance of a rationale to soothe over the scar left by his iambic utterings emitted on an open-line radio show yesterday, the gist of which was re-hashed by Charles Adler in an exclusive text for Bourque last night. Add to that one Dion kool-aid drinker, who noted by email, “Pierre, it’s one thing for Stephane to unleash our pit bulls, it’s another for the mutt to tripod a squirt on Alberta”. According to another source inside OLO, there’s a small chance Holland may be demoted from his current critic’s gig. One wonders why … Summa poohbah Tracey Hubley was seen dancing a jig today for reasons best left to sidebars at Hy’s … The RCMP is considering an inquiry into competitive practices by the oil industy at the refinery level, rather than at the retail pumps level, the traditional red herring for government competition probes that tend to lead to benign findings … and an email from a top Liberal blogger tonight, a mea culpa of sorts, and an admission. Said the blogger, “dammit, Bourque, I spent the better part of last month condemning you, but I confess, I am hopelessly addicted to you. I crawl your site multiple times daily like ants at a picnic. God Bless you, Pierre, for all that you do. You really are the standard we all aspire to.” Amen, humbly.
http://www.bourque.org/
Thursday, February 1
A Bourque Exclusive
LIB MP HOLLAND GOES NUCLEAR ON KYOTO – by Charles Adler
After several hours of hot Kyoto air in the House of Commons this week, one is left to wonder what specifically a Liberal government under Stephane Dion would do if Canadians give him the keys to kingdom.
If Ajax Pickering MP Mark Holland was telling the truth today on Adler on Line, Canadians ought to be very frightened. When I pressed Holland to get beyond the plattitudes about how sincere Mr Dion is about his love of the environment, the Liberal MP blew my audience away. His rhetoric indicated that a Dion government would get into the face of Canada’s energy producers.
Little doubt was left in the mind of observers that the Holland/Dion strategy was to be as confrontational as possible with Alberta voters and their provincial government.
Holland said a Liberal government would manage Alberta resources responsibly. He said, “We need to stabilize the oils sands. We are not going to allow companies to exploit that resource, to pump it out as fast as you can and give it to the Americans and blow out our emissions targets.”
When I confronted Mr. Holland about serious job losses that would surely be the result of this kind of federal government policy, he talked about a British study that said short term pain was needed in the interests of dealing with climate change. This was necessary, said Mr. Holland, to prevent longer term economic pain.
Is this the real agenda of sustainable development that Stephane Dion has been talking about? The voters in the coming months leading up to an election campaign need to ask themselves four questions.
1) Do they want the federal government to impose its will on Canada’s energy producers and the provincial government of Alberta.
2) Do they think the capital markets in Alberta could survive an all out assault on them by the federal government, one which would dwarf the Liberal Natioanal Energy Program a generation ago.
3) Do they think the people of Alberta will take this sitting down. Or will many of them rise up and insist that their govenrment roll out a Quebec style referendum?
4) After years of listening to the Liberals talking about Tory hidden agendas, has Mr Holland given us an insight into the hidden Liberal agenda?
I expect Mr. Dion and his mouth pieces to say that Mark Holland was not speaking the Liberal opposition when he dropped the Liberal Kyoto bomb on Adler on Line. But that shoudn’t allow any of us who want this country to stay united to let our guard down. The Liberals have talked a good game on National Unity. But it seems every time there is a close call on this country being dismembered, a Liberal seems to be sitting in the prime minister’s office. Canada’s economy is a tower of strength right now. We can only hope that it continues to be sustainable if and when voters take a leap into the darkness with Dion.
Charles Adler is the host of Adler on Line on the Corus Radio Network
Listen to Adler’s interview with Mark Holland by logging on to http://www.charlesadler.com
Contact him through his website or email him at
PRESS RELEASES
Conservative games on oil sands dangerous – Holland
February 2, 2007
Ottawa – Conservative attempts to distort the Liberal position on the Alberta oil sands are unacceptable, said Liberal Natural Resources Critic Mark Holland.
“The Liberal Party will continue to support the development and expansion of the oil sands in a reasonable and sustainable manner,” said Mr. Holland. “Any other characterization of our position is nothing more than an attempt to fear-monger. If this is the reaction that we can expect to calls for sustainable development of the oil sands, the Conservatives must be willing to develop them no matter what the environmental or social costs.”
Mr. Holland was reacting to comments by Conservative MP Brian Storseth in the House of Commons today where he claimed that the Liberal Party would shut down the oil sands completely. Specifically, Mr. Storseth referred to Mr. Holland’s interview with Charles Adler of the Corus Radio Network yesterday where the topic of the oil sands was discussed.
“In the interview, I made it clear that unlimited expansion of the oil sands at the fastest speed possible is unsustainable,” said Mr. Holland. “That does not mean shut them down. Oil production from Northern Alberta is Canada’s largest source of greenhouse gases, and to rapidly expand operations there would not be consistent with our attempts to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn have each suggested a four to five-fold increase in production is feasible by 2015.
“A five-fold increase would generate greenhouse gas emissions on a scale never seen before in this country,” said Holland. “However, if expansion is done gradually and at the same rate that infrastructure and other support can be brought in to Northern Alberta, it has the potential to be the best thing that has ever happened to Alberta’s economy.”
Mr. Holland’s statements echo those that have been made by many leaders in Alberta, including former premier Peter Lougheed, who has warned about the dangers of quick overexpansion of the oil sands.
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=12225
Were these studies paid for by
exxon?
The Fraser Institute is issuing their report on Monday:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=781
It would be interesting to see who paid for what studies. If someone gave me 183,000., like one scientist got, I could produce a great paper pro kyoto. Are people so stupid they don’t realize all the pro kyoto crap was paid for by someone also. Slowly there is starting to be some press on the fact that every individual in canada will have to make changes to meet targets, not just the oil companies.
And, co2 is breathed in by plant life, and it expels oxygen. Humans and animals breath in oxygen and expel co2. So, is dion really trying to kill all plant life by eliminating co2.
“The ice is falling, the ice is falling”
CTV’s broadcast of the PMSH press conference had footage of glaciers crumbling in the background while he answered the questions about climte change (just to remind us I guess)..so subtle …
It really was spectacular…I would like to see it under other circumstances.
So the UN relied heavily on computer models. We were told years ago that the hockey stick graph was bunk and scientists that requested the source code for the program were denied.
Who wrote the modeling code for these programs?
Has anyone other than the participants reviewed them?
How do these programs work?
What data was used and what wasn’t?
Computers only do what humans tell them to. In this case it’s garbage in – garbage out. You can make them tell you anything you want. In my opinion the UN report is BULL$&!T!
Many of the things in Lord Monckton’s response I’ve read before in several places so I tend to believe what he has to say.
Were these studies paid for by exxon?
Davie, Gas prices go up -> oils make more money (check out their record profits last year). Can you tell me what Exxon has to gain by studies that are skeptical to “the world is going to end”?
BTW: Although you might find it difficult to believe, scientists have been researching in a lot of fields related to climate for hundreds of years … and they continue their research. I suspect not all of them were funded by Exxon … and surprisingly, not all of them agree with a faulty computer model with cherry-picked data. Go figure.
From CTV’s website on Jan. 30th:
“They say ‘think globally, act locally’, so we’re hoping that it will convince people … that climate change is real and that we have a responsibility for much of it, and that we really do have to make changes in how we live,” Kenneth Denman told reporters in Paris.
He’s co-author of the report and a senior scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis.
Scientists have been tightlipped about the contents of the report.
However, they say it is both more specific and more sweeping than the organization’s previous efforts.
A final review of the draft began on Monday. IPCC officials will issue a policy-maker’s summary of the full report after they finish days of secret word-by-word editing.
“secret word-by-word editing.” I love that. Makes you wonder what they’re leaving out of the policy maker’s summary!
VF the glaciers are not crumbling on CTV they are calving. Calving is a sign of a growing glacier not a melting glacier. The ice shelf that broke off in the artic did not break off because of warming temperatures it broke off because it could no longer stand the strain of its increasing weight. Growing glaciers give off ice bergs warming glaciers give off water.
Last night on the BBC site reading an article about the UN report to be released they had a comment posted which read something like:
Who is going to tell a Billion people they can’t have air-conditioning or an automobile anymore?
Good question.
Jaeger, after all that Kate has said about unnamed sources in news stories, I find it amusing to read this attribution in Monckton’s analysis:
“Sources at the center of the drafting say…”
As a centerpiece to his analysis, Monckton claims that the projected sea level rise has been lowered from previous reports. Do just a little bit of fact-checking on this, and you will find that the projected sea level rise has not been lowered; it has been split into two parts. The first part, which is the smaller projection that Monckton refers to, excludes any rise due to rapid changes in ice flow from the ice sheets. Instead it focuses on trends that are already well understood, such as thermal expansion. The second part of the projected sea level rise, dealing with rapid changes in ice flow from the ice sheets, is now being discussed separately. This is not because it has been ruled out as a possibility – far from it – but rather because there is so much uncertainty about how soon these rapid changes may come and how big they will be.
Thanks for prodding me to take a closer look at the summary report and the science. I hope you’ll do the same.
arcolaura: … summary report and the science.
Political science is not a “real” science.
Monckton’s comments are bang on.
However, I was depressed last night watching my wife and brother in law discuss this.
1) The bews reports are incorrect, the report says 90% sure that human activities are contributing to climate change, not 90% of the change is caused by humans….watch for that one
2) “we must be having some effect after cutting down all the trees” etc
The last one fits back to the very human response that this is the kill the goat or through the virgin in the volcano to appease the gods….we have been bad and unworthy…..
I am most curious about the drops in methane…methane is the nastier ghg, over 20 times more heat trapping than C02.
We are apparently going into a quieter sun period, 3 of the last 5 solar cycles have been in the top 5 ever recorded…to borrow the GHG crowds language, unprecendented levels of solar activity, higher than ever seen in 10,000 years!!!
But the models, which unlike GHG models yield proper predictions, indicate that we are headed for significantly lower solar activity in the next cycle. Which in the past has correlated very strongly to reduced temperature. SO friends we have a testable hypothesis on the table. Reduced solar activity yields lower or moderating of temperature in the next couple of years.
GHG testable hypothesis????? other than its bad and we will see “increasing change”….anyone….anyone….didnt think so.
Two headlines from the MSM
(national newswatch)
BICKERING WHILE THE WORLD BURNS
Forecast for Canada: Like nothing we’ve ever seen before
…-
Stephen said: “The last one fits back to the very human response that this is the kill the goat or through the virgin in the volcano to appease the gods….we have been bad and unworthy….”
Humans are the sinners; humans will burn to a crisp on/in this world of climate sinners. The message is clear from the Strongites; Where is my/our salvation? Who will lead us to confession?
Get on board the Ark; Maurice Strong has it prepared for you. It’s at the UN waiting for you.
Suzuki, the modern Tetzel*, is on his tour; Maurice Strong knows the way. Buy the indulgences* now. Buy cheap now; buy often. Keep on buying. It’s your future. Hallelujah.
Buy carbon-credits from China, India, etc. Then, you will be saved, your guilt assuaged; you will be saved for eternity.
Kyoto is a sub-set of the religion of socialism.
Kyoto is selling indulgences.
$ave your$elve$. Buy now or it’s bye-bye.
*Indulgences:Roman Catholic Church The remission of temporal punishment still due for a sin that has been sacramentally absolved.
*Tetzel: Grace for sale through indulgences. See the Reformation .
If i have it correct, we are being told that no matter what we do, GW will continue for centuries.
Reminds me of the weather forecaster who says it will be sunny tomorrow except for cloudy periods.
Arguing the science is a lot of fun, especially when we can pull up studies that show reforestation leads to warmer temperatures.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/12/12/additional-evidence-of-the-complex-role-of-vegetation-in-climate-change/
But why not ask about the value of the remedy? What climatological benefit will accrue by ceasing all emissions of CO2?
Turns out the answer is “too small to be measured”.
We’re being asked to make real sacrifices for purely symbolic purposes. Sounds like someone’s idea of a new religion. Count me amongst the non-believers.