The second goal was far more devastating. It came with a book just published by Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun Climate Research at the National Space Centre in Copenhagen. He calls it The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change.Like Patterson and the Russians, Svensmark contends the sun is a major factor in climate change, but he has been working for eight years to back this up with experimental proof. He has established a laboratory in which the sun's rays and Earth's atmosphere have been set up in model, and the cosmic effects on the Earth thereby observed.
The results, detailed in the current issue of Discovery, the highly respected magazine of science, are startling. They show solar activity affects cloud formations on Earth, which in turn determine the Earth's climate. Paradoxically, it seems meteorological conditions do not determine the cloud formations; rather, cloud formations determine meteorological conditions.
Commentary on the Harper Connection @ Cjunk
why should I think the sun heats the earth when Al Gore tells me that CO2 does and Dr. Bono Suzuki says that if we drive donkeys and use night soil for fertilizer we can have a wonderful substandart economy like Cuba and sustain it.
So if somebody just performed a similar experiment in a gas chamber demonstrating the insulating effects of C02 you'd believe him too right?
admit it moonbat, you moron's are wrong...dr fruit fly was right in the 70's, another cooling period is coming, and it has jack squat to do with human activity.....you and your brethern just cannot admit to being wrong.....as I sit here wearing a sweatshirt on the third day of summer, no idiot will ever convince me that it is getting warmer, at least not in the world I live in
"So if somebody just performed a similar experiment in a gas chamber demonstrating the insulating effects of C02 you'd believe him too right?"
Hmmmmmmmmm, I guess that would depend on WHO that somebody was!
Actually Jose I would like to see an experiment that indeed indicates that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". I've seen the mathmatics behind the theory but I have yet to see an actual experiment that indicating CO2 is having the effect we are led to believe. I've seen math to prove bumble bees can't fly, I've seen math that proves it is impossible for an airplane to travel faster than the speed of sound. I've also seen bumble bees fly and heard the sonic booms of airplanes going faster than the speed of sound. Is there actually documented quantified evidence that proves the greenhouse effect of CO2?
hey hose-a wouldn't that big hole in the ozone that was going to kill us a few years back, be letting all that nasty co2 out. Or was that before the ice age of 1975, maybe it was after swine flu in 1976 or possibly before acid rain of I think 81, could've been around the time of sars, no it was just after freon killed all the ozone. In short hose-a quit believing people whose pant size and IQ are the same number, namely the media, they are 3 times divorced alcholic drug abusers for the most part to stupid to go out and make real money so they like to scare fools like you, useful idiot.
The saddest part of all of this is that Harper couldn't hang onto his principles long enough for the tide to turn against the global warming zealots. Now he is going to look stupid no matter what he does.
If he tries to turn back to his original and correct stance that his whole thing is nothing but a money grabbing scam perpetrated by the anti capitalist elitists of the world, he will show his political opportunism.
If he hangs tough in his new position of buying into the scam, he will look like a man trapped in his own political opportunism.
He lost my vote and I suspect much support from others who counted on him to be at least true to his politics. He started out nicely, but I guess that Ottawa disease is more powerful than even a man of integrity and principle. Harper has failed the litmus test in less than one year.
Too bad. This leads me to believe that there is no hope for the meaningful change this county desperately needs.
It will be up to public opinion and public resistance to ward off this looming tax grab and the continued diminishing of our freedoms and way of life.
We have already traded off most our freedoms for elusive rights that are actually only as good as our ability to afford lawyers to secure for us.
We are fools, led by fools, and we must smarten ourselves up and turf our politicians out in every single election until we get some who will actually do the right things. I am probably dreaming on this last point. We sell out far too cheaply to ever win the game.
Okanagan Geology; by Murray Roed & John Greenough. (excerps)
The glacial maximum of the last ice age occurred approximately 16000 BC, after which melting began.
The most recent glacier at Kelowna may have been 3000 meters thick at the centre of the valley of Okanagan Lake. (Three friggin' kilometers !!)
It took about six thousand years to finally melt the Fraser Glacier.(Why did the Earth warm up ?)
The cold and dry conditions delayed the establishment of forests, but summer temperatures increased rapidly ca, 10,000 BC, at the beginning of our current interlacial warm period, the Holocene. (good thing !!)
Heinricks showed that the warm temperatures brought drought. Grasslands were more extensive, and at higher elevations the forests were more open than today. Frequent fires helped to maintain this open landscape. (The way the media and global warming calamity types tell it, the fires of 2003 at Kelowna were the first and worse. Ever.)
About 5700 BC, a colossal eruption shook Oregon, destroying Mount Mazama and creating Crater Lake. The tephra(Volcanic ash) from this eruption blanketed much of western North America, including the Okanagan Valley. In Okanagan Valley lakes, layers of this ash are up to 60cm (2 feet) thick, and thin traces occur as far away as the Greenland ice sheet.
This marked the onset of the middle Holocene in southern British Columbia, and the transition from hot dry summer environment to our modern climate.(Marked by, not because of, the volcano.)
Since 2000 BC the climate and vegetation of the Okanagan Valley has changed little.In the alpine areas there are signs of renewed glacial activity. Several glacial sdvances in the Coastal range have been dated between 1000 BC and 100 AD.
Between 1100 and 1900 AD, the Little Ice Age, many glaciers advanced in BC and throughout the northern hemisphere.
Cold temperatures are evident through much of the 17th and 19th centuries Little Ice Age, as compared to the 18th and 20th centuries. A prolonged drought occurred from about 1770 to 1810 AD as well as the historically recorded drought of the 1930s.
Historical records portray recent climate variability. The trends indicate that the Okanagan Valley has warmed by about 1 degree C since 1900 AD.
Factors contributing to the temperature variations and warming trend likely included natural changes in ocean circulation, El Nino, volcanic activity and solar output, in addition to land use changes, urbanization and greenhouse gas emmissions.
On a global basis, one recent(1995) assessment attributed about half the temperature increase over the past 140 years to GH gases. A natural increase in solar activity explaines much of the remaining increase.(Russian and Danish assessments now(2007) say most, if not all, of the increase is caused by solar and cosmic ray changes.
Graph by Rosenburg et al.,2004 and Walker & Pellatt 2003 show the southern BC climate was as much as 3 degrees C colder than now, about 11,000 BC.
At about 8000 BC the Okanagan Valley was about 4 degrees WARMER than the present time.(A 7C swing !! Caveman days)
And to think that an academy award was presented to Albert Gore because he says that the climate changed lately. Like it never did before. And he knows what is coming. Like a Mesiah. What a joke.
And to think there are "higher learning" professors parroting him.
"detailed in the current issue of Discovery, the highly respected magazine of science"
ROFL! LMFAO!
to all the GWA,
I just saw a flash of light, very bright it was , then there was a loud rumbling and the earth shook, for sure the sky is falling, Oh big Al what will we do ????( I'm sure nothing like this has never happened before)
The saddest part of all of this is that Harper couldn't hang onto his principles long enough for the tide to turn against the global warming zealots. Now he is going to look stupid...
Yep. And it's a pity.
Considering that Byfield thinks Patterson's article "conclusively demonstrat[es] climate change is a permanent condition," one might wonder why he neglected to mention the publication title. One might also think that such an important finding would surely find a place in a highly respected, peer-reviewed publication. Alas, it was merely an opinion piece from last Wednesday's National Post.
From the 20 June edition of the Financial Post, written by Tim Patterson: Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
From the 24 June edition of the Calgary Sun, written by Ted Byfield: Many times in the past the Earth's climate has been far higher than it is today and, occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it averaged two degrees warmer than it does now. Ten thousand years ago, mean temperatures rose as much as four degrees in a decade. That's 100 times faster than the warming over the past century, which has so alarmed scientists who triggered the current hysteria.
Byfield is an old pro. He knew that revealing Patterson's "article" as an op-ed piece would undermine the claim that Patterson has presented "conclusive" evidence. Better to leave that bit out, cite it as an unnamed "article," and hope that gullible readers won't question it.
So much for Cjunk's "fresh and brisk" upper-cut number one...
As for the "fresh and brisk upper-cut" number two, one might begin by asking what precisely is "Discovery," which Byfield describes as a "highly respected magazine of science." No such journal exists. No, he's referring to an interview of Dr. Svensmark published in the July issue of Discover, the popular but non-peer-reviewed magazine aimed at a general audience. Let us be kind and attribute Byfield's dropped "-y" to innocent human error rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate his source.
In any case, this is all a small point, as Svensmark's work has been published in actual highly respected journals of science. As for his alternate theory of climate change, it may very well have merit. Indeed, it warrants further study, and wholesale dismissals of Svensmark by environmentalist critics are unfair (though scientific critiques of his work, which also exist, are both fair and required). But to claim that an interview in Discover, let alone the (nascent and as-yet-verified) theory outlined in The Chilling Stars, is itself a "devastating" blow to the AGW thesis is equally overzealous and premature.
Question: Folks here at SDA insist that, contrary to the claims of environmental advocates like Dr. Suzuki, the global warming science is far from settled. Fine. But much of the commentary then insists that the AGW theory is a complete scam, a position that also presumes that the science is settled, only in the other direction. Which would make one as much a zealot (albeit a diametrically opposed one) as the environmentalists one criticizes and mocks.
So, which is it: the science isn't settled, which means AGW could very well be true (or false), or the science is settled, and SDA'ers have more in common with "Dr. Fruitfly" than they'd perhaps like to admit?
As for the "fresh and brisk upper-cut" number two, one might begin by pointing out that Byfield is referring to an interview of Dr. Svensmark published in the July issue of Discover. The non-peer-reviewed, general interest Discover is indeed a "magazine of science"; whether it's "highly respected" is another matter entirely. Let us be kind and attribute Byfield's dropped "-y" to innocent human error rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate his source.
In any case, this is all a small point, as Svensmark's work has been published in actual highly respected journals of science. As for his alternate theory of climate change, it indeed warrants further study, and wholesale dismissals of Svensmark by environmentalist critics are unfair (though scientific critiques of his work, which also exist, are both fair and required). But to claim that an interview in Discover, let alone the (nascent and as-yet-uncorroborated) theory outlined in The Chilling Stars, is itself a "devastating" blow to the AGW thesis is equally overzealous and premature.
Question: Folks here at SDA insist that, contrary to the claims of environmental advocates like Dr. Suzuki, the global warming science is far from settled. Fine. But much of the commentary then insists that the AGW theory is a complete scam, a position that also presumes that the science is settled, only in the other direction. Which would make one as much a zealot (albeit a diametrically opposed one) as the environmentalists one criticizes and mocks.
So, which is it: the science isn't settled, which means AGW could very well be true (or false), or the science is settled, and SDA'ers have more in common with "Dr. Fruitfly" than they'd perhaps like to admit?
Its settled then. Im glad I got air conditioning installed this weekend. here in soon to be tropical Calgary, Im not making this up.
Fire up the coal plant at Wabamun , I'm turning it on.
Harper has joined the Global Warming chanting masses in a timid and calculated manner. He could never go far enough to please the wing nut zealots.
Refusing to follow Kyoto to the letter by not sending credits to big polluters so they could pollute more is accepted by any thinking person.
When the doubters and deniers among the scientific experts come up with the facts, Harper will have less egg on his face. The others will be relegated to farts in a windstorm.
A'dam, yes it is a complete scam. People are selling snake oil to further their governement science project funding requests and charitable donations.
It has nothing to dso with settled science or not.
Also, Suzuki is an enviromental "advocate". What does that mean, that he advocates environment???
Ow, this one bites.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
Anyone that believes Mr. Harper has joined the Global Warming kool-aid drinkers hasn't been paying attention.
Anyone that believes Mr. Harper has joined the Global Warming kool-aid drinkers hasn't been paying attention.
GHG/GW/sustainability chasing is political science...not precise pure science.
Any "science" which does not allow debate, differing opinion and theoretical peer review from a sceptical perspective is not science.
GHG/GW moonbat are prostrating at the alter of unreasoning political orthodoxy...not science...the more I hear from these indoctrinated creatures the more I'm convinced man made control of the climate is impossible.
WImpy Canadian: It has nothing to dso with settled science or not.
Care to elaborate? Given that this post is entitled "More Settled Science," and SDA has featured a series of posts entitled "The Sound of Settled Science," and all of these draw attention to research findings that purportedly poke holes in the AGW theory, I would think it all very much has to do with "settled science or not."
Suzuki is an enviromental "advocate". What does that mean, that he advocates environment???
No, it means that his statements about the GW debate being over are entirely understandable--even if you disagree with them--if you see him primarily not as an impartial scientist (which he was once) but as an activist and advocate for an environmental organization (which is what he does now, and has been doing for at least the past two decades). Folks here miss that rather obvious distinction when they complain that, as a "scientist", Suzuki ought to know better than to claim that the science is settled. Judge his words and actions using the criteria of "activist" rather than "scientist," and you'll find that he's actually rather effective and successful at what he does. That, I suspect, is the real reason why SDA'ers loath him so much.
That's a great summary of recent geological history in the Okanagan, Ron in Kelowna. Given that scientists are unable to explain the causes of natural climate change (including ice ages!), how is it that they are able to rule out these natural causes as the driver of recent climate change?
Al Gore claims that ice ages are caused by fluctuations in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch Cycles), but this is only one theory among many and it remains controversial. Today we are still in an ice age (currently experiencing a warming interlude). For the vast majority of earth's history, it was much, much warmer than it is today.
A'dam, you and all the warmeners are now screwed, the fraudulent game is up.
Ow, this one bites.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
Click on and read the original, it is devastating.
A'dam, you and all the warmeners are now screwed, the fraudulent game is up.
Ow, this one bites.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
Click on and read the original, it is devastating.
Adam: The whole point is that the science IS NOT settled. Theories regarding the sun as in the Cjunk piece are just that, theories. The problem comes when politicians and NGOs take over the "science" of global warming and turn it into an industry and political movement. They are persecuting skeptics, speaking about concensus (as if that is even a scientific possibility in this case), and enacting schemes that will enrich some while doing nothing to stop GW.
In the very least ... the very least ... GW theory as pushed by the IPCC is full of gaping holes and anomolies; yet the entire UN, EU, and others are mobilizing based on the IPCC. Worse yet, the garbage spewed by Dr. Gore, which is not even supported by IPCC research and predictions, has become "fact" in the PR battle to push ahead Kyoto and CO2 offset scams. There is nothing scientific about that.
So I repeat, the point isn't that the skeptics have the "right" science ... they just happen to be the ones doing the only science, in that they refuse to sign onto a half-baked theory for political reasons when serious doubts remain. GW via the IPCC has become a religion ... the skeptics are the heratics and increasingly the apostates in a GW movement that resembles more the "science" of 1500's Catholacism than actual science.
Paul: So I repeat, the point isn't that the skeptics have the "right" science ... they just happen to be the ones doing the only science, in that they refuse to sign onto a half-baked theory for political reasons when serious doubts remain.
My problem isn't with the skeptical scientists, it's with the folks here who, on the basis of reading/citing the work of those skeptics, jump to the conclusion that the AGW theory is utter and complete bung. If the science is not settled, then it's not settled for either side. If Gore and Suzuki are overzealous in claiming that the evidence in favour of AGW is controvertible, then commenters on SDA would be equally overzealous in claiming that the evidence AGAINST that theory is incontroverible too.
The Earth's climate has always changed.
Is changing.
Will always change.
We are going along for the ride at 107,218 km/h. It is a good ride. Deal with it.
Canadians are lucky. In the GWN(Great White North) land of ice and snow and poor sleding in the summer --- one degree warmer would be better than one cooler.
Besides, consensus is building that the climate will be 'cooler' in 10 to 20 years. Then we will bitch about it being too cold. And Albert and David will have long been run out of town :)
Definition time:
con·sen·sus (kən-sĕnsəs)
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
2. General agreement or accord
whole (hōl)
1. Containing all components; complete
2. Not divided or disjoined; in one unit
3. Constituting the full amount, extent, or duration
gen·er·al (jĕnər-əl)
1. Concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category
2. Affecting or characteristic of the majority of those involved; prevalent
3. Of or affecting the entire body
Remember those definitions as you peruse these excerpts from an article about, and recent comments by, Al Gore.
[http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2701314.ece]
Too little, too late: Gore blames scientists for climate crisis
US could have acted sooner if experts had reached consensus
By Jonathan Owen
Published: 24 June 2007
In an extraordinary outburst aimed at America's failure to tackle global warming, Al Gore says that if scientific agreement on the climate crisis had been reached sooner it would have been easier to "galvanise the public and persuade Congress to act".
snip
Mr Gore argues that if he had made it to the White House, he would have been able to use the office as a "bully pulpit" to achieve change.
snip
In a swipe at the scientific community, he says: "I wish that we could have had in the 1990s the deafening scientific consensus that has emerged in more recent years."
Mr Gore accuses his nemesis, President George Bush, of having taken "virtually no steps to address the problem. Worse, he and Vice President Cheney have led the nation in precisely the wrong direction."
snip
The point of no return will be reached within 10 years, the former vice president says, and we cannot wait any longer to solve the crisis.
snip
Mr Gore claims that concerns over the environment formed his "principal agenda for eight years in the White House". But he is light on details of what he did while in office, beyond a brief mention of his work with the Kyoto treaty (which was never ratified by Congress).
During his tenure as vice president, America's carbon dioxide emissions shot up far faster than at any time in modern history - by 15 per cent, compared to just 1.65 per cent during President Bush's first term.
Although Mr Gore is currently promoting the Live Earth concerts that will take place next month, speculation is increasing that he may exploit the surge in his popularity and run for president in 2008 - 20 years after first standing for the office.
He is one of a growing number of political figures who have embraced the green cause.
end of excerpts from article
According to Al Gore it is now a "deafening scientific consensus".
Funny thing is I cannot identify a consensus within the scientific community. There is not "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". There is not "general agreement or accord" within the scientific community.
For anyone to claim a that a *scientific consensus* exist regarding this subject it requires either a complete misunderstanding of the definition of the word *consensus* or a willingness to use lies and misrepresentations to further one's cause.
A scientific consensus on AGW does not exist. To say otherwise is a lie. This lie is being perpetuated to further one's political, economic and ego goals.
Science, AS A WHOLE, does not support the claims of AGW, therefore there cannot exist a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
How utterly LIBERAL of Al Gore: it's the scientist's fault.
But IF he had been elected President things would have been *different*.
As far as THIS scientist is concerned Al Gore can take his "deafening scientific consensus", and 'do not fold, spindle or mutilate', but just simply shove it up his ass.
Adam, well said. It's OK to be skeptical on either side of question. The two extremes - doing nothing because one doesn't believe AGW, or going headlong into the Gore Suzuki Kyoto "the earth has a fever" scaremongering, along with carbon credits and development crushing policies - are not acceptable approaches.
We all agree (don't we?) that getting off fossil fuels is the right approach, so let's get on with it and stop the bickering.
A'dam/Shamrock;
Not well said;
A'dam - "My problem isn't with the skeptical scientists, it's with the folks here who, on the basis of reading/citing the work of those skeptics, jump to the conclusion that the AGW theory is utter and complete bung. If the science is not settled, then it's not settled for either side. If Gore and Suzuki are overzealous in claiming that the evidence in favour of AGW is controvertible, then commenters on SDA would be equally overzealous in claiming that the evidence AGAINST that theory is incontroverible too."
You just are not getting it, we never said "our" science was incontrovertible we said that no science was incontrovertible or it wasn't science, which is now pretty well proven isn't it. AGW was never science, it was a religion/believe system and as such could not be challenged....
What Paul said was true and you did not digest it - if you even read it. The AGW supporters are now the ones that are scrambling to say the science shouldn't be considered settled after their "theories" have been debunked. You have to admit that if it is science then it cannot be settled or the world would still be flat and we would all be falling off the edge. Science progresses or dies, the AGW supporters are dead from the neck up, yes their minds are made up, "their flat world science" is settled. Too bad history is going to show that they were dupes.
The folks here at SDA, as you put it, were raising a caution flag saying that we cannot accept anything the UN, IPCC etc say as gospel since they are a corrupt, self serving organisation. As soon as Billions of dollars of hot air credits to third world dictators became the solution you knew it was bogus - especially when their next move was to stifle debate and disallow any dissent amongst "their" scientist and expel the ones who challenged them. At least if you were not dead from the neck up you knew that, unfortunately many people were dead from the neck up and they all seemed to be from the left side of the political sprectrum, that is not SDA fault, we merely pointed it out but as you know, the truth hurts even while it sets you free!!
@Adam and Shamrock:
The "scam" part of the arguments you've read here is not inconsistent with the unsettled state of the underlying science, but the reason explaining why involves a subtle point that's not easy to parse, including by me.
So, I've chosen to make the point through analogy. We all know that it's possible for any of our homes to be ransacked; a categorical statement denying even the possibility can't be true. So, it is possible for any one of us - as a set, all of us - to have a theoretical need for home-security services.
Now try this: take a typical AGW supporter's lobby effort and, through only changing the appropriate particulars, change it into a sales pitch for a home security system. Then ask yourself, "Is this a scammer's script?"
I'm not going to forecast what either of your answers will be. I only suggest that this kind of comparison is behind the insistence behind the claims that the 'AGM grant machine' is a scam, which you've seen here.
Of course, whether or not it is, is really a judgement call.
There's a great article in this weekend's National Post in the FP Comments section by a math prof from UWO outlining why the term "mean global temperature" is essentially meaningless and about as useful as talking about the average telephone number in Calgary. There are two other good articles on the page about junk science including the genocidal impact of the DDT ban in Africa. The math prof is not being funded by "big oil" as far as I can tell, (though admittedly he might be funded by one of those mom-and-pop offshore drilling outfits that we all reminisce about).
Daniel M. Ryan: "Of course, whether or not it is, is really a judgement call."
Really? So the physical sciences are "judgement calls" now? or do we take science out of it and work purely on MSM fueled emotion?
If some of the "home-security services" providers, via the UN, claimed that they could stop "home ransacking" globally if half (or all) of the world used their services, would you believe them?
Was the DDT script a scammer's script? Maybe not, but it was junk science ... millions died.