In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That’s why the climate-change computer models look scary. That’s how “solid” the science is: It’s predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.
Friday update – Cosh explains.
A personal Kyoto
I caught a report on CBC news by M. McDermid(sp) where she discussed something along the lines of personal carbon credits. She interviewed some person in Toronto who spends approx. $150 per year because she flies for her job and there is a calculator that determines what she pays. A professor in Regina has been doing much of this study.
It then was the representative from the Suzuki Foundations turn to weigh in, he didn’t think it would work because it doesn’t actually do anything to reduce GHG. Do these high priests of Kyoto actually listen to themselves. It won’t work for one but take the same application for 30 Million and we’re on our way.
Unbeleivable
… “the science” never predicted this. There were magazines that published articles to this effect, but it was never published in a scientific journal. …
So a scientist can only be held accountable if what he’s claimed has been published in a scientific journal? Otherwise he’s just shooting the breeze, pulling our legs?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm
Anyone seen Dion’s press conference with Buzz?
Dion has no political forsight at all, does he?
He muses about inviting a Liberal bagman back into the party. He brings Garth Turner into the fold. Now he’s seen with a guy whose remarks NUKED the Liberals, obliterating what was already a rusted out hulk, ready to come crashing down.
The message I got from seeing Dion next to Buzz what that this is the old Liberal party, reinforcing the “let’s not go back” message in the Tory ads.
No political forsight whatsoever.
Can’t wait for the election. Fun times ahead.
“Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we’d all be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole’s classic recording: ”Unsustainable, that’s what you are.”
🙂 LMAO
Yoop wrote:
“Now I have that melody stuck in a loop running through my mind: “Where have all the glaciers gone, long time ago…”
You can complain about that all you want, but thanks to Steyn I have Natalie Cole’s “Unforgettable” tune with the words:
“Unsustainable, that’s what we are” stuck in mine. Hmm I wonder how it would sound it Dion sung it?
Cherenkov, that’s the best you’ve got? A two lines of semi-humourous throw-aways?
I did read Steyns column,I note he doesn’t back up his statements with background,I still am in agreement with his flow (til proven wrong).
As I understand Kyoto,if we cannot make our quota then we can buy the equivalent from a signatory from the minus side(china ,India…etc.)
These countries can then use this money to build more power plants (china -550 coal plants) for one or is the money even earmarked?Think not(could be wrong).
So where does that leave us in the warming picture?
It seems ,just so they can catch up to our pollution levels.Duh.
I don’t have the solution to a problem that is percieved .But when I am presented with a problem and asked to respond I try to come up with a possible solution(to be discussed)when the problem is agreed upon.
I don’t see this from any of the parties on the climate change side.(nice terminology change,can’t be wrong ,rite?)
I invite answers from the other side of the debate.have seen none to date .Lotsa name callin and innuendo,no answers.Later
I remember hearing about hydrocarbon production by plants decades ago.
Planting trees in cities was all the rage. However, the more trees were planted, the higher the hydrocarbon levels rose. Then the shocker: Trees were releasing hydrocarbons.
Never heard anything else about it until now.
It has been recently found that plants release methane,(a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2),into the atmosphere.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0111-mpg.html
does anyone remember the sprung greenhouse fiasco in Newfoundland.
the main culprit there was ethane release by the tomatoes. true grin ‘ouse gazzes released in da grin’ouse.
Mssr. Dion , you know not what of you speak.
Chenkov, Mark Steyn was not attempting to write a scientific journal so he did not provide information as to how he came up with his information. To be fair though, whenever we hear from the experts on Global Warming we never learn much about the “science” behind their claims either. We just hear “The evidence is overwhelming” and “The science is solid.”
I am reasonably sure Mark Steyn knows it wasn’t a glacier that fell on the Viking settlements in Greenland that caused their demise. He knows it was a cooling climate that made their crops fail and that forced them to settle elsewhere. He wrote what he did for literary effect. He was trying for a laugh; I guess your funny bone is environmentally impaired.
You said ” Oh really? Do all of the 1000+ peer-reviewed studies on climate change have this as a necessary condition?” This has been a well reported failing of the Al Gore movie, Steyn is repeating it. So I presume you are requiring Steyn to research this and determine if this fact is true? Are you going to study the report of the 1000’s of climatologist’s projections to see if they are in fact including N. Korea as economically developed as the USA? Or are you going to take the word of those that have to see if it is true. My point is that you are being a bit harsh on Steyn when it is likely you do the same as he does, and that is you rely on researchers you trust to distill the information you use.
I am no scientist, but I value science. When scientists suggest there is Global Warming I am inclined to listen. But when the issue is so completely politicized and when its supporters are nuts then I am leery.
I am a subscriber to the “New Scientist” magazine. In one issue there was a report on global warming and how man has impacted it, in another there was a report on how the Sun’s energy output roughly corresponds with the cycle of glaciations. For a science enthusiast I am a bit confused. If the Sun’s energy output declines and we get regular cycles of global cooling, then how do we not get periods of global warming when the Sun’s energy output regains strength?
It seems there are some startling flaws in the global warming arguments. I am not sure what to make of it, but I suspect that global warming movement may have more to do with attempts to socially engineer the world at the expense of the free market system. This seems more likely to be true when so many of the proponents of global warming are from the far left of the political spectrum.
I agree with you that there is much to learn about this topic and a healthy debate is needed. Steyn uses humor and wit to make his points. You and others may not like that, but it does force us to confront our opinions and question their merit. He encourages discussion, that is Steyn’s job as a journalist, and in my opinion he is damned good at it.
There are more 4 cylinder vehicles, and lower rpm V-8’s out now running the roads than there were the last time the US tried the lower speeds crap. All that did was piss us off, besides; once we banded together and stopped giving to the State Patrol’s Christmas Funds we soon had our 70 MPH Limit back, Nuff Said.
,
testing, testing
Just a poll, I was wondering how many people (left, right and centre) remember how it was that Canada came to the position that it would cut its GHG’s to 6% below 1990 levels? Does anyone remember how the 6% target was chosen?
This is by far the largest reduction of any of the countries that ratified Kyoto. In fact, most signatories didn’t have to do much (or anything at all.)
Of those that did not ratify, one Bubba Clinton was promising a 5% reduction from 1990 levels. Then along came Chretien who did not want to be seen to be doing less than the great satan so, pulling a number out of his ass for no other reason that one-upping the yanks, he used the American number plus one.
So, Chretien and his liberals pulled a number out of thin air for no other reason than to out-green the US (who didn’t ratify their unrealistic promise anyway,) and we did it without thought or regard to the actual costs/difficulties/pain/suffering it was going to cost our country.
We also didn’t worry about what Kyoto was going to accomplish as even those who pushed haredest in the Green movement admitted that Kyoto would not solve the “problem” as it was outlined. If the “scientists” were correct in their assessments, Kyoto was supposed to be only step one in solving the problems with step 2 and so on being negotiated in further rounds.
None of the signatories have done a damn thing to move toward meeting their targets and both the liberals (pre-Dion) and Tony Blair have admitted that Kyoto targets won’t be met.
Global Warming Update:
Just after 3pm I can’t see out the window squalls & winds up to 60, Now they are reporting that over a meter of snow has fallen in Grey/Bruce since saturday. For those in the centre of the universe were 2hrs north of you. Reports that Wiarton Willie is now in the Proctective Custody Program & will remain there until next year, others are saying give him a break as it is his first year & 1month ago they were laying off workers at the Blue Mountain ski hills, at this rate they will be working into july.
But that’s Global Warming for you, i think i will write the PM & complain
bryanr,
It’s not global warming any more. It’s climate change.
The wonderful thing about “climate change” is that no matter what the weather does, climate change can be blamed. A few weeks ago it was unseasonably warm. Climate change. Now it’s colder than a liberal’s feeling for a dollar left in the hands of someone else. Climate change.
It’s a catch-all that can be brought out no matter what happens. It’s a very convenient boogie man…
Warwick: Your right climate change, I was just looking at the Enviroment Canada Radar’s(london,sudbury&to)I have come to the conclusion also that since these squalls are originating on the American side of lake Huron i will blame them also.
Now iam trying to decide whether to hang in or close the store early.
BTW Warwick: Now it’s Colder then a liberals feeling for a dollar left in hands of someone else.
that’s good, Total agreement
With many people saying the Bible is not correct because of this or that, and that people written about were word of mouth legends handed down generations ago, why do these same people take as Gospel something someone said re the environment many centuries ago. There was that explorer who went back east and said Southern Alberta was a wasteland and could never be cultivated. People in the east believed him, and still think Alberta is a wasteland. How many of you have ever enhanced history re an event, school marks, family event or story told by a great grandfather, secure in the knowledge no one could prove otherwise. How many of you have ever lied to a pollster about anything, especially when the survey is for people in a certain age group. If you tell the truth re age,how many in your family at home, you never know what the questions are.
I think that many lies and enhancements are involved in this whole global warming crap. Maybe with the investigation of Strong, some truth will come out.
I do feel a little pity for all those auto workers who have taken dions advise and will no longer make the easy money that damages the environment.
And how often, in doing research, did a scientist not like the results and said, that can’t be right, and put in another figure. Politicians are not the only people that lie, and as most of those in the program today come thru an education system that said, there is no right and wrong, it is what you think, and things can be changed, are doing that with their work.
“Please find somebody with some credibility to quote if you want to counter the climate change advocates.”
How’s about some real scientists? Would that work for you Cherenkov?
http://no-libs.com/?p=1431
cherenkov,
How can there be intelligent debate when basically any debate is outlawed? Steyn isn’t writing to give anyone a detailed look into this hysteria … you have to do a little looking on your own.
“In the context of national accounts, there is a specific error in the
SRES which, though only incidental, shows that mere numbers
are no guarantee of representative status. On p. 115 of the Report
the concept of GNP — now more usually referred to as GNI — is wrongly defined. This basic error was not picked up by any
of the 53 authors, 4 review editors and 89 expert reviewers who
are listed as participants in the preparation of the SRES.”
http://www.res.org.uk/society/pdfs/newsletter/jan05.pdf – starts on Page 17
I have gone through the copy of the IPCC Summary for policy makers and there is nothing in it about economic matters. It is all about climate variables. So far as I can find the only time the IPCC did anything on economics was for the 2001 Report and that was a few possible scenarios, with a lot of warnings attached that this was very uncertain, and economics was limited to 10 years in the future, not hundreds. I could not find any detailed scenarios attached to the present SPM so perhaps they are going to do that for the actual report to be published in the Spring. I am sure this writer did not get his statements about economics out of the SPM that is on the Internet or even the scenarios prepared for the prior report.
Beyond that he does not write like someone to be relied on at all. He comes across like one of those characters on a TV show for kids where they assume the way to talk to kids is to dress up in a crazy costume and talk baby talk, as though the kids were retarded. I read the whole article from an American Newspaper, to see if there was any justification for his claim about economics in the report (there was none) but I found his writing is so childish only close members of a family could forgive it.
Global warming is very centralized , usually to the immediate vicinity of the left wing moronic jackass that has just lit his hair on fire to run screaming into the night about the 5billion year old planet tipping over and rolling into Pluto! But always remember Dr. Evil can save it by just making the slaves hand over more money, address China I’ll bet.
Premier Stelmach was on Politics, with Newman.
He mentioned co2 has been reduced 16% before 1990. He mentioned that Albertas ecomony is fuelling ont, que and the maritimes. Politicians should pay attention. He said, about carbon credits, alberta would not buy them as they are a licence to pollute. And I detected that he will not be a walk over for the libs should they try to take our resources. He stressed each premier is responsible for their own province. I was glad to see him mention that many jobs in ont and que could be at risk if holland and dion get their way. Resources are a provincial matter, and if the federal govt (lib) try another nep look out.
He also stressed that the feds get more money out of the oilsands than alberta does.
garhane,
You really have to learn to follow the bouncing ball. From the link above – the quote below.
“For another, projections of global warming are based on projected atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which in turn are based on the projections of CO2 and related emissions which emerge from the SRES; and the emissions figures themselves are linked to SRES projections of world output, world energy use, and the carbon-intensity of energy sources. In these latter projections economic factors are central. True, they act in conjunction with demographic and technical factors, but these are themselves subject to economic influences. If and in so far as the treatment of these latter influences is open to question, the basis for IPCC projections of global average temperature changes cannot be taken as assured.”
If they are projecting CO2 for a hundred years – what are they basing it on if not their faulty economics? … a guess? … any numbers that will support the conclusion they want?
Well, there’s certainly less talk about global warming when it’s colder than a witches tit in most of North America. Oh, and England, with it’s unprecedented 15cm of snow.
But just you wait, come summer, the news will be all over it.
That’s how propoganda works.
Climate change denier! Climate change denier! (Bronx cheer)
Who the hell is a climate change denier anyhow? The climate is always changing, as far as I know.
It’s sort of like getting your panties all tied in a knot about….
The water is wet! My God, the water is wet!
I think the real tragedy here is how really dumbed down a large part of the human race has become.
We need IQ points trading.
Oh, and now this:
Al Gore has another book set for release in late May, called The Assault on Reason.
A description on amazon.com calls it: “A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism and blind faith has combined with the degradation of the public sphere to create a (political) environment dangerously hostile to reason.”
REASON! REASON?
IQ points trading. The next big thing, I’m telling you.
Well, there’s certainly less talk about global warming when it’s colder than a witches tit in most of North America. Oh, and England, with it’s unprecedented 15cm of snow.
But just you wait, come summer, the news will be all over it.
That’s how propoganda works.
Climate change denier! Climate change denier! (Bronx cheer)
Who the hell is a climate change denier anyhow? The climate is always changing, as far as I know.
It’s sort of like getting your panties all tied in a knot about….
The water is wet! My God, the water is wet!
I think the real tragedy here is how really dumbed down a large part of the human race has become.
We need IQ points trading.
Oh, and now this:
Al Gore has another book set for release in late May, called The Assault on Reason.
A description on amazon.com calls it: “A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism and blind faith has combined with the degradation of the public sphere to create a (political) environment dangerously hostile to reason.”
REASON! REASON?
IQ points trading. The next big thing, I’m telling you.
I have found a trail for the very odd Steyne and it starts, I think, with a couple of scientists who contributed their effort to the previous IPCC report, published back in 2001. They are Castles and Henderson, and they have been shopping their dispute around ever since and now appear as part of the troupe of Deniers, fewer and shriller every year. It turns out that their complaint is one of those that even if it were true, which is contested, would make no difference.
The Australian economist (yes, economist, we have to move from climate science to economics here) John Quiggan writes:
“Having said all this I agree with McKibben that the IPCC models were not done in the way an economist would like, and didn’t add a lot to our understanding of the economic issues involved in climate change. But this is no justification for endorsing the clearly erroneous claims made by Castles and Henderson.” If you like, you can follow the reasoning in this old debate on the Quiggan blog. He writes quite plainly.
I thank polster ural (really?) for the quote posted, but we have one more instance of a really boring pattern here, the persistence of debaters when the debate is over. It is about the last report, there is 0 on it in the new one so far, and it does appear that it does not matter if it did.
Still out here in central Sask….(temp -27 c)…for someone to offer me a 6-pack for my 2000 acres worth of carbon off-sets…..and yes there is a hint of Chinese in my family tree….honest!
sorry…please insert waiting,,,,,and waiting….and waiting
garhane,
Please show me where, anywhere, that the IPCC said that they were not basing their report on the old flawed SRES.
It really doesn’t matter how many times you use the same garbage methods – you still get garbage results.
Yes, for you the debate is over. The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!
Man am I ever sorry. You are all cleary correct. Clearly global warming is not being cause by humans. Geez I’m stupid. It must be all those pinko-commy librano/ndp’ers that are somehow doing it. They’re clearly ruining the rest of the world for all the hard working people like us, so this must be their fault too, right? I mean they’re not even human anyway. Can you believe they actually want to take some of the moeny we don’t need and give it to somehow who could actually use to it survive!? I for one am outraged. Besides GW isn’t being caused by humans, and they’re not humans, yet another reason why it must be them. Damn you Lorne!
still waiting with my Sask. farm
in tow to help cure “climate change”…..I’m curious as to why people want to send money to China to cure “climate change” here when they could send money here to cure “climate change” here?……any ideas?…wilco??….anyone?…..or is that common sense thought too right wing?
I forgot to add, I’ll be the first in line to buy big Al’s new book. Afterall, he’s the guy who informed us that what we’re doing on earth is “unbalancing the universe.” Martian ice cap melt and all.
Al Gore has a big mouth alway open and flapping and a big fat chip on his shoulder namely that block of wood on top of his neck
valster, you’re right. I have no idea why they would do that either to be honest with you. It really doesn’t make that much sense to me. Can anyone explain to me, in a resptecful manner I hope, what the conservatives are doing about all this?
Again the big question about climate change in Canada is: is climate change BAD for Canada? I’d say no. Increased warming is a GOOD thing for Canada. Longer growing seasons, more moderate temperatures, etc. Plus the bonus of economically hampering more equatorial countries.
For Canada, the benefits of a warmer world outweigh the negatives.
Why are we fighting to keep Canada cold?
Hey WILKO, You spelled COMMIE incorrectly.
Fer God’s sake, If you are one,the least you could do
is get it right. It’s COMMIE.not COMMY!
Ya don’t get out much, do ya? And please italicize Pinko, will ya?
Sheesh! Some people!