April 10, 2006

Nevermind The Data


Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Of course, little matters like data are irrelevant to the larger picture - for as the true believers frequently remind us: cold winters, warm winters, hot summers, cold summers, average summers, more tornados, fewer thunderstorms, heavy snowfall, cold snaps, chinooks, drought and heavy rainfall are all signs of the coming global climate apocollapse. It's a point the Telegraph also notes;
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming.


I'm reminded of this every time the local (or national) news breathlessly reports "breaking a record set in 1913" - often with added commentary that global climate specialists have warned that we "will see more of this".

If global warming is truly a recent and accelerating phenomenon - why are these hottest/coldest/dryest/wettest records so old? Shouldn't the majority of records broken be recent ones?

Posted by Kate at April 10, 2006 1:57 PM

Backwards thinking? from Flaming The Bear
I picked this topic up from the post ‘A “Made In France” Solution’ on small dead animals and I have to take a different slant on this than most commenters. From what I can understand of the French labour law, the stated goal wa... [Read More]

Tracked on April 10, 2006 3:18 PM


Remember, global warming represents a shift in the mean temperature. When you shift the mean temperature, you also change the range in which extreme weather can happen. A shift in the mean temperature by 2-5 degrees C, which is predicted by almost every climate model for the next 100 years due to increased CO2 and CH4 forcing, would change the likelyhood of extreme weather events. For instance, a 1 in 500 year flood event might happen every 100 years. The 1 in 100 year warm winter that most of Canada experienced this year could happen every 20 years. Although the true effects of climate change will not be extremely noticeable on the lifespan of the average person, human induced climate change is a reality. I suggest anyone who does not believe it to read the scientific literature, such as this paper:

Is the sensationalism in the media worth believing? Of course not. Climate change is not something that can be perceived, as it is a slow change. And just so you know, I believe ideas like Kyoto are flawed and unachievable. We need long term solutions to remove our dependance on fuels that emit CO2 and CH4 emissions.

Posted by: yeah at April 10, 2006 2:17 PM

Bob Carter has been pumping this story since 2004. Of course, 1998 was the big El Nino year and so spikes above the trend line. So the trend line is up until 1998, 1998 spikes way up, and the trend-line continues up from the pre 1998 level. It only trends down if you start in 1998. Mr. Carter is just lying with statistics.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 2:24 PM

You have to check out this new Blog. There is a great Picture of Carol James and Harry Lalli doing the "Titanic".

Posted by: Frank Howitz at April 10, 2006 2:24 PM

Every time I remember that our own Maurice Strong was instrumental in the forming of the Kyoto Protocol I know it is all hot air--and must be some place the veteran of the Oil for Food program can make another financial killing on the backs of the hungry of the world. Having Stron associated with anything is the kiss of death for those involved. Kyoto is nothing more and nothing less than a wealth transfer plan--and, as usual, we lose.

Posted by: George at April 10, 2006 2:30 PM

"which is predicted by almost every climate model"

Therein lies the problem. A "climate Model" is a computer program that takes your ASSUMPTIONS and spits out what you want to hear.

Just like in economics, they have models that try to guestimate variables, then they guestimate the mathematical relationships between those variables (which are in reality far more complex than the model) then they try to project these relationships out to the future. If they can't model the economy with any accuracy, how do you figure you're gonna model the entire natural environment? For that matter, they can't tell you what the weather will be in two weeks, how do you figure they'll be able to do it in 2 decades? Climate science isn't science, it's a cult.

Models are crap. I've used them. They suck. They're guesses disguised as fact. It's simple: crap in, crap out. To get a model to give you reality, you first must have a realistic model. Good luck with that. Until then it's just a way for hacks with their agenda trying to illustrate their opinions. Nothing more.

Posted by: Warwick at April 10, 2006 2:30 PM

George W. Bush's America is the worst offender in the world to bring about global warming.

Maybe The Right Brothers could add another verse to their piece of crap song.

Bush loves money more than the future of our children.
Bush is full of baloney on matters concerning the environment.
Bush is a phoney lying cheat
Bush was right

Posted by: Stockwell Day at April 10, 2006 2:34 PM

I disagree that climate change cannot be percieved. Ask the Inuit who suddenly learning what "sunburn" and "skin cancer" are.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 2:44 PM

bcl said: "Mr. Carter is just lying with statistics." bcl is lying.

The MSM and the Ottawa Citizen are lying with these scare-mongering headlines. Why? Just to sell newspapers?

"Global warming" is a hoax/fraud perpetrated by frauds such as Maurice Strong, Suzuki, the UN, Stephane Dion, & their ilk. +

Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, 09 April, 2006:

Headline: "If scientific circles agree on the fundamentals of global warming, why isn't the environment one of the Conservative's top priorities?"

There is no consensus.

Headline: "There's no longer any disagreement among serious scientists that climate change is real".

"Climate change" is a fraud. +

Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:


We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa. + more

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 2:47 PM


That was such a convincing argument, SD.

In the next US election, I think I'll vote for Rudy Giuliani instead of Howard "Dr. Demento" Dean.

Oh, wait...

Posted by: Doug at April 10, 2006 2:56 PM

I already commented on your sixty scientists thing. You had go bring in Polish people and Australians and search the whole wide globe to dig up sixty people. Thats's reallly pretty pathetic, espcially since (if you look at the whole list), alot of the names on it are not from the relevant fields (and, according to the website from which the release came, most are retired and therefore not familiar with the relevant research). Note that the "think tank" which distributed the list is Calgary based. Probably funded with Petro dollars.

The fact is that the vast majority of scientists, and the vast vast majority of scientists who have expertise in the relevant fields, have reached a concensus on the issue.

Deal with it.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 2:59 PM

I remember coming across a great comment - it may have been here: "a Yuppie thinks history started the day they were born."

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at April 10, 2006 3:04 PM


It was no argument and I have no facts to back it up. Just a good old fashioned baseless rant.

Except for this:

Global Warming is Now A Weapon of Mass Destruction

"It kills more people than terrorism, yet Blair and Bush do nothing.",9236,1007302,00.html

Posted by: Stockwell Day at April 10, 2006 3:11 PM

'Stockwell Day' - You are lying; you are using the name of a public figure, a name which is not your own. Therefore, you are lying to us, about your identity.

Please note that the US REDUCED its emissions, despite refusing to sign the Kyoto, while Canada, which signed it, INCREASED its emissions.
As pointed out, Kyoto has essentially nothing to do with climate control and a great deal to do with economic control - it would mean that the most polluting countries would receive great financial benefits, both in their increased industrial production and in their being beneficiaries of 'guilt-payments' from the developed countries.

As for global warming/cooling fluctuations, there is no question that such fluctuations occur. But, to assume that there is a single cause is reductionist. Like the economy, weather is far too complex to be reduced to a single cause. And, to consider that that a multiple causality is fully controllable, is even more naive.

Causes of global weather fluctuations are related to the relation of the sun to the earth's tilt, to the size of the global population of, not merely humans, but animals, vegetation, water supplies. Warming has happened before; followed by cooling. The fact that industrial pollution has results which are harmful to soil, water, weather is real, and we can and must attend to that. But, we cannot assume that as complex a system as the temperature of the earth, is controllable by man.

"The last major sea-level rise...lasted from 129,000 plus/minus 1,000 years ago to at least 118,000 years ago" (Science March 24, 2006, p. 1747). Hmm. That was before humans and industrialism.

What humans can do, is reduce all types of pollution (garbage, emissions, pollutions of soil and water, etc)..but..they cannot take full control of nature.

Posted by: ET at April 10, 2006 3:13 PM

BTW - the use of a psuedonym is allowed here, but I won't tolerate the habitual acquisition of other people's identities. So, to whomever is using the "Stockwell Day" identity, you may stop now.

(The same goes to others who have done the same in past months.)

Posted by: Kate at April 10, 2006 3:17 PM

I know Stockwell Day, and let me tell you, you're no Stockwell Day.

Now, where did that piece of skull go....?

Posted by: Jack Layton at April 10, 2006 3:18 PM

Actually ET, the Yanks increased their CO2 emissions but at half the rate of Canada. 12% increase vs 24% increase.

They still beat us though. Canada is the worlds top per capita user of energy. Not even the yanks beat us per capita.

That said, I reiterate my comment: climate science isn't science, it's a cult. The journal Nature won't print anything contradictory regardless of the merit of the research. It's their version of heresy and they'll send out the inquisitors on you if you cross them.

Posted by: Warwick at April 10, 2006 3:19 PM

OK, here's a lesson in the business of science. All the scientists who rant about global warming are interested in getting their science projects funded. Dr. Ian D. Clark, Dr. Tad Murty, Dr. R. Timothy Patterson want money. Friends of Science want funding. Wake up people!!! I have worked with scientists for years. These folks are as much interested in building their CV's reputations and satisfying their egos as much as they want to save the world.

I agree that I have met some scientists that are genuinely concerned about environmental matters, but most just want funding for the sake of funding. If no problem existed, they would have to find other work! The means justify the ends.

The ironic side of the story is that many of the healthy skeptics of global warming are lambasted by left wing tainted/biased scientists. Good science is supported by healthy skepticism. I know of many scientists who draw conclusions before the experiment and then spend their time trying to prove them right! Notice how the skeptics are pg.34 news but the ranters are front page?

On the other side, the media creates sensational stories about how global warming is causing the sky to fall because it sells newspapers. It also supports their liberal left leaning bias. They drank the same kool aid as many of their scientist friends.

Posted by: John at April 10, 2006 3:20 PM

For the last few years, there's been a warming trend in western and northwestern Canada. Not in the east though. (Glee, glee, hehehe) However, global warming in supposed to be just that - GLOBAL. I haven't seen any dispute of Bob Carter's numbers. They are, as bcl says, a statistical anomaly but, so what? The entire global warming hypothesis is based on statisical anomalies. Anyway, if you eliminate the 1998 spike, there is still no significant global trend in either direction.

Besides the anomalous recent changes in mean temperatures in parts of Canada and northern Alaska, there have also been changes in the north coastal region of Antarctica and at low elevations in Greenland. Ice is shrinking in those three regions but thickening on the Greenland high plateau and the Antarctic interior. In other words, weather is a complicated system? What else is new?

Notwithstanding their increasing powerful computers and increasing complex models, the global warmers haven't come up with a scintilla of new data for years; they just keep massaging what they have. Warwick, who I suspect is either a scientist or an engineer (right Warwick?) has posted an excellent analysis of the situation.

As far as human-induced climate forcing goes - this is massive conjecture based solely on the one solid fact in the global warmers' arsenal - atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing. Back when they used to teach the fundamentals of logic and the scientific method of investigation in high schools, any grade 12 student could tell you that correlation doesn't mean causation. Now we have people with Phds who apparently don't know any better.

I'm pleased that nobody has thrown in the canard that "the VAST MAJORITY of scientists" accept anthropogenic climate change as fact. The MSM is hooked on that bullshit, but anyone in the scientific community knows that, not only is a fierce debate going on but that most of the recent literature is opposed to the GW hypothesis. (Not that that is relevant to the debate but to the public and the politicians, numbers matter.)

Posted by: Zog at April 10, 2006 3:25 PM


I recently started using Stockwell Day as my "nom de' blog" but will drop it after this post.

Yours respectfuly,

The blogger formerly known as Stockwell Day

Posted by: Stockwell Day at April 10, 2006 3:26 PM

Jeez, I try present facts and I am met with vague generalities about how scientists are dishonest and just out for funding. I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 3:26 PM

Once again BCL quotes newspaper headlines or whack jobs and calls them facts.

Those damn Poles and Australian, what do they know?

Numbers on those Eskimos with skin cancer? Thought not.

Canada could use global warming frankly. More useable land for us, northwest passage, less rain in Vancouver.

Always an upside.

BCL, you are getting more and more shrill everyday. How's the blog going?

Posted by: enough at April 10, 2006 3:33 PM

As soon as the term of art went from "global warming" to "climate change" i was convinced it was crap.
I took my firest environmental course int he summer of 1988, blistering hot as I remember. For weeks we learned the environment was incredibly complex, and nobody could predict what would result from any one manmade change. That seemed logical to me, but then next week we started talking about global warming and suddenly all the uncertainty went out the window. Suddenly, it was absolute, carved in stone, tattoed on our butt that any incremental change in CO2 would cause global warming. End of story. No discussion.

Posted by: blues rune at April 10, 2006 3:37 PM

DAMN - while I was typing my post, bigcitylib threw in the "vast majority of scientists" line. Why are people who self-identify as liberals so susceptible to media brainwashing? I have a theory that, in the case of GM it's symptomatic of their "humanity stinks" attitude towards the human race.

Posted by: Zog at April 10, 2006 3:40 PM


You should know by now that conservatives only do selective research. As long as their findings support their views that is what the truth is that particular day.

Authors many years ago gave it a name, "faction".

Posted by: Dr. Wayne at April 10, 2006 3:40 PM

1. The climate is always changing.

2. In less than 20 years we went from the scare of global cooling kiling us all to global warming killing us all. That alone should stop people from embracing the hysteria of global warming.

3. It might be close to ten years now, I was listening to Saturday Report on CBC radio, they were talking to a computer programmer about computer models that showed global warming was a problem.

We probably wouldn't get such an honest answer now, but the programmer admitted the only way they could get their apocalyptic results was by deliberately lying to the computer.

I'd say that basic philosophy have continued. The "hockey stick" is a lie. The real aspects of climate change get buried by the lies to create the hysteria.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at April 10, 2006 3:42 PM

Not GM - GW as in global warming. Sorry.
GM makes fine cars, or at least it used to.

Posted by: Zog at April 10, 2006 3:43 PM

Well, I went and checked out the Climate Research Unit site and read their December press release.

"The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record."

I can't claim to fully understand the information, but that quotation is from the source that Bob Carter cites and it seems to say the opposite of what he claims.

Posted by: meshon at April 10, 2006 3:44 PM

"Jeez, I try present facts and I am met with vague generalities about how scientists are dishonest and just out for funding. I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research."

Generalities? Like Inuits suddenly learning what sunburn and skin cancer are?

But of course scientists aren't dishonest and are never out for funding. You'd have to be human to be dishonest or out for money, wouldn't you?

And you don't need research to figure that out.

Posted by: Surecure at April 10, 2006 3:46 PM

Inuit with sun burn? Too funny. Inuit with diabetes and lung cancer is far more likely to occur than three instances of sunburn! A nice anecdote though.

Bigcitylib, present facts and we can debate. Present crap and you will get schooled. Being a conservative means doing your home work and not blindly buying into theories with no proof.

Being a Liberal means looking at an opinion poll and going with what the majority of sheep think. Their opinions are based upon what they see in our Liberal/NDP biased media!

Posted by: John at April 10, 2006 3:47 PM

Well if we want to stop global warming tropical rain forests generate latent heat and thus heat the earth more than does the same surface area of the sahara desert.

The solution is obvious to kill the entire brazilian rainforest. Get out the agent orange!!!

Oh and since Kyoto wants to cut back co2 emissions and Whales seals and peregrin falcons all exhale co2 they should all be made extinct.

they are mad but what do i know i'm a right winger.

Posted by: DrWright at April 10, 2006 3:48 PM

A billion years ago Alberta was a lush tropical rainforest, so was the middle east except for Israel. That's where all that oil comes from.

The earths weather is constantly shifting and always will. It's just now we have people helping out.

Posted by: Dr. Wayne at April 10, 2006 3:51 PM

The Inuit stuff is true and well known. To well-known, I thought, to require anything beyond straight assertion. But once again I underestimated the ability of Conservatives to cleanse their heads of annoying facts.

From ABC news:

"Sheila Watt-Cloutier...head of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference...who lives in northern Canada, said climate change meant that Inuit hunters could no longer easily track prey such as polar bears, seals or walrus, were sometimes falling through ice and were sometimes even suffering sunburn."

The whole "global cooling" thing I dealt with in an earlier post. It was put forward as a hypothesis during the late 70s, and abandoned pretty quickly. Most of those who put it forward now admit they were wrong and support the global warming thesis. That's how science works.

John, dear, what school did you go to? How long before you dropped out?

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 3:55 PM

bcl said: "I guess being a conservative means never having to do any research." +

S'more research needed. Yesiree. Tha's the ticket. S'more gov't $$$$$ for s'more :research: As Thomas Edison said, Menlo, let thar be light; after 125 &1/2 hexperiments by the best scientific method(s): trial and error.

Today, trial & error is a "model", generated on a cloned computer.

Air trends 'amplifying' warming (Oh crap...cleaner air causes global warming)
BBC News ^ | 04/07/06 | Richard Black


The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.

One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.

The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen. +

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 4:02 PM

Dr. Wayne, a Billion years ago the first plant had yet to colonize dry land. Anything alive tended to be small and floating. You've reach a new low in Conservative science.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 4:05 PM

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the same one who links global warming as human rights abuses by the developed nations.

More whack job quotes, quote more of them. How about a Maurice Strong quote?

Posted by: enough at April 10, 2006 4:23 PM

She is the same one, but just an example. So you feel that all the stories about Inuit with sunburn are lies, and that they've gotten into bed with all those commie scientists who are just trying to fund their projets. God man they're everywhere!

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 4:26 PM

"Sheila Watt-Cloutier"

So ONE person at a conference says SOME eskimoes "were sometimes even suffering sunburn" and that's "true and well known ... To (sic) well-known, I thought, to require anything beyond straight assertion"

BCL ... you're an idiot.

Posted by: Jack Kerouac at April 10, 2006 4:27 PM

Right, Warwick, about the US/Canada increases of CO2. My error. But, the point remains, that signing an agreement means - zilch, other than a photo-op for Martin. The Kyoto has nothing to do with the climate and a great deal to do with weakening the developed countries of the West.

Causes of global warming/cooling are complex and can't be reduced. It's a fact that the climate has gone through both both modes (cooling, warming).
Records haven't been kept through the millenia of the earth's existence, therefore, we can't use our recent human records as proof of a linear, one directional (up!!) warming.

The 'vast majority of scientists' is, on the surface, a good but not a fully reliable, basis for the validity of a conclusion. That's why it is best not to use this phrase to support your opinion. Science changes its conclusions as scientists gather data, and climate is a 'tentative and new science'. There simply isn't, yet, the data base, or the tools of analysis, that are sophisticated enough to come up with firm and reliable conclusions. Computer simulations can make predictions that are invalid, because they don't include all variables.

Why did, 129,000 years ago, the earth undergo such a sea level rise, and such a melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and ocean warming - all of which are again predicted, but now, only due to CO2 emissions? And why did it then, cool?

Certainly, pollution of all types must be decreased, but the apocalyptic scenario of doom, all due to one variable, humans and particularly, capitalist humans, is pure fiction.

A minor point - warming of Canada's north may have some positive agricultural and settlement results, but, a key problem with our north is its thin soil. Warming won't change that; you need a lot more vegetation to deal with a thin soil (that's what a rainforest is all about).

Posted by: ET at April 10, 2006 4:28 PM

I personally have gone skiing and received a sunburn, WHILE SKIING!!!

Global warming, yet hmm.. that was 15-20 years ago. What is a conspiracy theorist to do?

The point is, you quote people and headlines as if they were facts. Just because it is said, does not mean it is true. The same goes with statistics and raw data. Much too often the data is out of context or blatant lies.

What do the global warming crackpots have to fear about rational discussion and examination of this data?

You and your pals have decided and are trying to make the facts fit. This does not sound like a scientific method.

Posted by: enough at April 10, 2006 4:33 PM

I have a bachelors of science degree in engineering, and a masters of science degree in computing. My current position is principal architect for a software program that models complex dynamic systems to ensure they are safe enough for humans to be around them.

I think the "climate change" phenomenon is a scam that has been deliberately perpetrated on well-meaning but gullible citizens, via fraud with malice aforethought, by select greedy individuals who have sacrificed their integrity on the altar of avarice.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 10, 2006 4:36 PM

When I was in elementary school (the early 80's), we had teachers who were big on making sure that (even though we were young), we had an understanding of what was going on with respect to "current events." To that end, our teachers would often "assign" us tasks like watching certain news programs or reading the newspaper for discussion the next day.

I distinctly remember one occassion in the fifth grade (1984-1985) where we had to watch "The Nature of Things". It was a special about global cooling...about how we evil humans and our evil poluting ways were fast-tracking the Earth to its next Ice Age. (That's right...even Suzuki has endorsed at least one incorrect position... although I'm sure he has a good explanation).

Anyhoo. I don't pretend to be an expert on the climate. But, until the "real experts" can...

1) Admit they've been wrong before.
2) Explain why they were so wrong and how they know they've got it right this time and...
3) Convince me that this is not part of the Earth's natural cycle (like the depletion/regeneration of ozone)

...I'm not buying any of it.

As far as people of the north having an increase in skin cancer...well, I don't know the stats. But, I would be interested in knowing for exactly how long have they been tracking such rates...and have they ensured that any apparent rise does not have another potential source or contributing factor (like change in diet, habits, etc...).

Posted by: bryceman at April 10, 2006 4:37 PM

In response to an earlier post:
“The fact is that the vast majority of scientists, and the vast vast majority of scientists who have expertise in the relevant fields, have reached a concensus on the issue.”

The Oregon Petition which urges caution in accepting the theory of global warming due to man’s production of carbon dioxide has in excess of 19,700 signatures of scientists who object to the unscientific headlong panic created by proponents of the idea.

Science does not require consensus. It requires only accurate measurement of reality. When so-called scientists invoke ‘consensus’ or the Precautionary Principle, it means they do not have evidence and data to support their theory.

Such is the case with global warming. While one expects that the Earth should be warming – we are entering that part of the ~1000-year cycle that is driven by the energy out-put of the Sun – there are several things to keep in mind:

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. It can contribute little more to the green house effect because the present concentration in the atmosphere is trapping almost all of the heat energy available in the two narrow bandwidths that are not completely transparent to infra red radiation.

A warmer Earth does not promote more and fiercer storms. Storm intensity depends on temperature contrast. Since the GW theory proposes that the northern and southern regions of the Earth will warm more than the equatorial region, contrast is reduced and the driving force weakened.

Historically, warm periods have been kind to life on the planet. The cool periods brought crop-failure, plagues, and consequent civil unrest.

So why the furore?

Global warming is the perfect phantom hazard. Climate is a complex system. It is not fully understood even by the ‘experts’. Speculation passes for fact. The threat can be religiofied. Any objection to the idea can be dismissed as the ravings of a heretic. The True Believers find self-importance in adhering to the dogma – and many find lucrative employment, which we see them defend with a greedy passion.

The press, not renowned for rigorous research or understanding of things scientific, almost invariably play the 'impending disaster; crisis must be averted' card and in the words of Stephen Schneider - an early proponent of GW – “We are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Schneider has opened a can of worms, for the bounds of scientific honesty are crossed when an excuse is made for not telling the truth.

In order to understand this complex system circulation models have been constructed. This is an approach which is useful in much scientific work. But it is only one tool, and modelling functions only as well as the chosen inputs reflect reality. They can give wrong results because the primary data are not representative of reality or are not accurate measurements. Choosing what weighting an input will have is often arbitrary. In fact, the outcome can be ‘tweaked’ by including or excluding certain data, changing the weighting on those data and ignoring inputs that are poorly understood or ‘inconvenient’.

Much of the sensational press originates with these models – but they are just models that give more or less the results the modeller desires.

The Earth is warming – the Sun’s energy out-put is increasing – (Solar energy output correlates well with sunspot frequency. In 1711 and 1712 - during the depths of the Little Ice Age - there were no sunspots. Since those years of no sunspot activity there have been eight years with sunspot frequency greater than 150: Seven of those eight years are since 1947). [By the way – the ice caps on Mars are also shrinking. Anthropogenic causes can be excluded in interpretation of this fact.]

We are entering the ‘Modern Warm Period’. There has been a (relative) warm period every 1000 years more or less for as far back as we have written or geological records. We are experiencing a natural cycle that has its prime cause external to the Earth. It is not to be feared but adapted to, and for Canadians and other northern-dwelling peoples, enjoyed – just as the Vikings enjoyed the mild climate at l’Anse aux Meadows on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland (Vineland) some 1000 years ago.

Posted by: Ceart on cearr at April 10, 2006 4:39 PM


That's Dr. John to you.

BSc. biology U of S 1988
MSc. microbiology U of T 1992
Phd. microbiology Stanford 1997

Member of Conservative Party of Canada since its inception and a PC member before that. Not a member of the Republican Party while in school!

Politics is an interest while science is my passion. So please, tell me more about your vast knowledge of climate change and I will be sure to write down your thoughts and pass them on to David Suzuki...

Posted by: John at April 10, 2006 4:42 PM

BCL says

Dr. Wayne, a Billion years ago the first plant had yet to colonize dry land. Anything alive tended to be small and floating.

BCL now at least we know your recent origins. many thanx for the enlightenment.

Posted by: spike at April 10, 2006 4:43 PM

One more thing:

I did take the time to read one of the "official" UN-sponsored reports. Sorry, I can remember the name right now...but it was released last year.

Anyway, their statistical "proof" of the global warming phenomenon was that the average temperature on Earth had risen 0.6-0.8 degrees centigrade between 1895 200?.

How many weather stations existed in 1895? What was their coverage of the Earth's surface as compared to today?

Is there anyone here who is willing to bet even 5 dollars on the accuracy of the thermometers of 1895?

0.6-0.8 celcius sounds like a reasonable margin or error for me.

Posted by: bryceman at April 10, 2006 4:44 PM

By the way, this Sheila Watt-Cloutier isn't a scientist; she's an activist. She lives in the north, has been active in various social agendas about maintaing the old lifestyle of the Inuit, etc - but - has no background in any science.

So- her statement that the Inuit are 'falling through the ice' and 'getting sunburns' is both anecdotal and unscientific. That means, it's totally, completely, unacceptable as any proof of anything - other than her zealous activism.

Posted by: ET at April 10, 2006 4:49 PM

Hey, Mars is heating up, too - obviously as a result of human polluting. Or maybe if two planets close together in a solar system are both experiencing a warming period, it has less to do with the planets themselves and more to do with the star they both circle.

Posted by: Ian H. at April 10, 2006 4:51 PM

I think you're on to something BCL. You see, when I was a boy growing up in NB the snowbanks were over my head. I was back visiting recently and after a big storm it was only at my waist!! In only 30 years!! (You can use that BCL - it's better than some of your other material)

As for the assertion the Inuit cannot hunt like they could 'back in the day', I say the snowmobiles and GPS' pick up the slack.

Posted by: Garry at April 10, 2006 4:56 PM

True believers in the religion of global warming will have to have the thermometers pried out of their cold dead hands once the ice age starts!

Unless they're using the other kind of thermometer, except that would be where their heads are.

Posted by: infidel at April 10, 2006 4:58 PM

BCL: If 999,999 scientists say the earth is flat and one says it is round, who is right?

Posted by: rebarbarian at April 10, 2006 4:59 PM

On the sun burn topic, I thought that the contributing factor re severity of sunburn was the ozone thickness or lack thereof.Last I heard the ozone hole above the artic was actually closing.On global warming I believe we can all do things to help linit global warming but we can not control nature and if our world is a set for another ice age us humans won't be able to do much about it.

Posted by: ian at April 10, 2006 5:01 PM

Ask the Inuit who suddenly learning what "sunburn" and "skin cancer" are.

Oh, please.

You've really reached the pinnacle of lame hyperbole and absolutely stunning stupidity.

That comment alone should disqualify you from any contact with rational adults.

Seriously. Give it up.

Posted by: penny at April 10, 2006 5:08 PM

I understand that if every major country signed on to kyoto, in 100 years the optimum results would be .06% decrease in greenhouse emissions.

Sounds like another lib/left pilfering of the public purse to me. Born criminals.

BCL - what was your cabal doing in Edmonton over the weekend? They look pathetic.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 10, 2006 5:08 PM

Here's my take. Here in White Rock, where I live and have since 1948, we used to have regular winters (snow for a couple of weeks every January sort of thing). I look at the weather report every day and you might try this. Look at what the record lows and highs were and when.

In the Vancouver area we appear to have had a couple of quite warm winters in the late 30's and early 40's. In the 1950's and 60's we had some quite cold winters. The first winter I came to White Rock I saw ICE on the salt water in the bay. I have also spoken first hand with folks who lived in this area at the turn of the 19th/20th century and have heard apocryphyl reports of driving a loaded wagon across the Fraser River at New Westminster. I cannot attest to the accuracy of that statement.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think there's been some global warming, at least. Possibly not as much as the scientists and politicians would like us to believe, but some at least.

I'd sugges that someone take a look at the weather record books for the past 100 years and see what they find.

Mike in White Rock

Posted by: Mike in White Rock at April 10, 2006 5:10 PM

man is a result of global warming not the cause.
the naked age would have not strayed too far from Olgalvai gorge with his current stray hair problem.

10000 years ago, 3km of ice right here in Canada!!!
Im not making this up.

Posted by: cal2 at April 10, 2006 5:21 PM

It is nice to see some experts in the area like Dr. John and Ceart on cearr. I too have huge doubts when these scientists claim disaster. Until they can create a true scientific model of the earth, it is purely theoretical. I do my part... quit using aerosol hairspray in the 80s and recycle now. But when they start using these THEORIES to move wealth around and destroy economies, I get furious.

FYI: According to the scientists in 1975, an ice age was forecasted as probable. The ground average temperature from 1945 to 1968 was reduced by half a degree in the northern hemisphere. Here is a copy of the newsweek article in 1975 proclaiming apocalypse

Posted by: Lanny at April 10, 2006 5:23 PM

White Rock warming does not imply global warming, Mike. New Delhi had their first summer frost in 75 years a few months ago; Japan had record snowfalls last winter. Does that imply global cooling?

A set of measurements taken over time is called a time series. Time series analysis attempts to extract the independent funamental frequencies from the series. Then, people try to model what affects the fundamentals, and how. To the degree their models are of predictive value, they then attempt to build control systems, according to their model, to amplify or suppress various fundamentals in order to achieve the goals of the system they are trying to build.

One of my favourite books on the topic is "Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control", by Box and Jenkins, 1976 (ISBN 0-8162-1104-3), especially chapter 12, "Design of Feedforward and Feedback Control Schemes."

With "climate change" we don't have a plethora of good measurements, we don't know what the fundamental frequencies are (though we have some guesses that look pretty good so far, such as "that star over there"), our models don't have predictive value, and so we can't design control systems.

The whole exercise is a house of cards.

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 10, 2006 5:28 PM

BCL and "Stockwell Day"
Here's some good news.
Hope it makes your day.


Posted by: DDT at April 10, 2006 6:16 PM

Say BCL,

perhaps you're not as well read as you think.

There have been numerous columns in the last year that have quoted the headlines the major newsmagazines used in their coverage of global cooling.

I also recall verbatim quotes along the lines of "consensus among scientists" and "the debate is over".

Your attempt to misrepresent the facts has failed. (yet again)
The climate is always changing. We have to adapt.

The hysteria from the zealots and their leftist agenda must be fought.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at April 10, 2006 6:18 PM

To all the Kyoto fans; having (presumably) read the IPCC report which is the scientific basis used to justify the Kyoto protocol, could you answer me one simple question: according to the report did the "little ice age" occur or not occur? Hint: the existence of the "little ice age" is used to validate one set of data in the report; the existence of the "little ice age" is flatly denied to validate another set of data in another part of the report.

Posted by: DrD at April 10, 2006 6:25 PM

The green, greedy, hands of Maurice Strong & his henchmen/women.

Strong: co-founder of the WWF & Kyoto.

Kyoto & WWF: scams, hoaxes perpetrated on the credulous,& the gullible. +

PEHI - Maurice F. Strong - extensive biography
Co-founder of the WWF in Canada and a trustee until at least the 1970s. ... Supposedly, in 1978, a mystic informed Hanne and Maurice Strong that "the Baca ... - 20k -
Global Warming
The planet is heating up at an alarming rate. Learn about the issues.

Global Warming
COP/MOP Conference

Begging Cup:
WWF-Canada Donation Form
bcl donates $$$$$$$

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 6:27 PM

The Oregon Petition is a fraud. Ginger Spice appeared on it. The "think tank" that produced it are also creationists and survivalists. The nutball trifecta, in other words. Give it up.

Posted by: bigcitylib at April 10, 2006 6:36 PM

Problems with theory of man-induced global warming and Kyoto Accord

1. Increase in termperatures was in first half of 20th century, not latter.

2. "Loading" of greenhouse gases from human activity miniscule part of overall gases. Human induced CO2 represents only 3% of overall greenhouse gases. Water vapour represents vast majority, CO2 only 5% of total. You do the math.

3. "Hockey Stick" is a fraud. Data was forced to give this picture. If believed, there was no warming period in the Middle Ages, despite evidence there was.

4. Anectodal pointing to this or that factor, without considering totality of evidence, presents distorted picture.

5. CO2 is not a pollutant, but CO is. That should be our emphasis. Instead, Kyoto proposes to "sell" credits to countries that are not subject to reductions (3rd world where growth of CO2 is greatest); this will increase pollution, which is the real foe we face.

6. Because of (5), we are taking our eye of the ball of pollution control, shifting resources into the global warming issue, where there is no consensus at all (Ask the entire climate science community, not David Suzuki, who is a geneticist, so no more qualified on this subject than your mailman).

IMHO Kyoto is political, not climate, science. It is doctrinare and very intolerant of dissenting views. This is not a good thing.

Posted by: Phil at April 10, 2006 6:36 PM

The sky is falling, the pie is rising, the sun is setting, the skin is Eskomoning, Maurice is counting......

all' well with werl.....
No fluid birds? Shucks.... Sir said so... must be sew... +

Bird flu unlikely to infect people, says leading scientist
Times Online - 9 Apr 2006
By Sean O'Neill and Shirley English. THE bird flu virus is very unlikely to change into a form that will infect human beings, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday. Sir David King said ... via googlenews

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 6:47 PM

On April 8, 2003, Matt Ridley wrote, in the Guardian, that:

"For the past century the world has got steadily better for most people. You do not believe that? I am not surprised. You are fed such a strong diet of news about how bad things are that it must be hard to believe they were once worse. But choose any statistic you like and it will show that the lot of even the poorest is better today than it was in 1903. [...] All this has been achieved primarily by that most hated of tricks, the technical fix. By invention, not legislation."

Part of the problem with the way we treat concepts like climate change is that we pay too much attention to scientists and politicians and other people who aren't actually responsible for building anything that actually works. When you want to build a better world, you need to talk to the master builders. Remember the words of Gary Numan, who sang in 1979:

All that we are
Is all that we need to be
All that we know
Is you and machinery
We're engineers

We are your heartbeat
We are your night life
We are your `low-line'
We keep you alive for now
We're engineers

We are your voice
We are your blood flow
We are your eyes
We're all you need to know
We're engineers

All that we are
Is all that you'd love to be
All that we know
Is you and machinery
We're engineers

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 10, 2006 6:50 PM

While I yet await an answer to my first question from the Kyoto fans, here's another one: can you tell me whether rises in atmospheric CO2 are causes of global warming or an effect of warming of the oceans? Hint: look up Henry's Law regarding the solubility of gases in liquids.

Posted by: DrD at April 10, 2006 7:04 PM

What pisses me off is that the Global Warming scare a lie that KILLS PEOPLE.


The money wasted could so easily be used on something that saves lives: police, fire, medical care, food, shipping, and many other possibilities.

Instead, it's squandered in COUNTERPRODUCTIVE activity that not only is pointless, it's harmful. And all that wasted time and money could be used for something good.

Posted by: Chris at April 10, 2006 7:11 PM

It is interesting to read through all these comments and see all the FUD going around. Let us first review the primary causes of climate change:

Order 1 - Solar and cosmic variability, tectonic activity (works on the order of millions of years)

Order 2 - orbital variability (works on the order of 10s to 100s of thousands of years)

Order 3 - atmospheric and hydrological forcing, ie CO2, CH4 forcings and ice cover (on the order of hundrdeds to thousands of years)

Order 4 - sunspot cycle, oceanic circulation, cloud cover, volcanic activity etc (months to decadal scale)

Now, what happens when you all the sudden quadruple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over a period of 150 years (which is what is predicted by 2100 at current emission projections)? You get global warming. Unless the sunspot cycle suddenly slows down, or there is a meteorite impact or supervolcano eruption, there is no way that the average mean temperature is going to stay at the current level. These climate models that the backwards sceptics like to dismiss have been extensively tested to ensure that they are sound. This means running them through the past 200 years that climate records have been kept. Sure there are uncertainties in all models, but it is difficult to model how the sun is going to behave in the future.

You know, I used to be sceptical of all this climate change business until I sat down and read a bunch of scientific papers on the subject. Although greenhouse gasses do not ultimately drive climate, they are a strong forcing mechanism that will enhance the effects of extreme events. Like I said in my first post, climate change will not be perceived by people because it works on a timescale that is greater than the lifespan of the average human. The largest worry about increasing the mean temperature by a degree or two is that it could be enough to cause rapid wasting of the permafrost in the Arctic, which holds a vast supply of methane. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and if the permafrost melts, it could be cataclysmic (one of the proposed ways that the Permian-Triassic extinction happened was that the permafrost was melted and caused extreme global warming from the release of methane, for instance).

The laissez-faire attitude of many people on climate change is unfortunate. Most do not have a grasp on the fundamental science behind the research, including those who created the Kyoto Accord. For example, Canada's attitude under the Liberal government was to make their goals by purchasing credits from former communist nations like Russia and Germany. The Kyoto Accord's failure to put restrictions on the emissions on developing nations also makes the whole idea hypocritical.

And you know, I have read some of the critism from scientists on CO2 forced climate change. The biggest sceptic will tell you that reducing CO2 emmissions is still a good thing as it is a pollutant. Like any field of science, there is always more work to be done, and theories must always be refined. The attacks of human induced climate change from non-scientists to me is completely political, and is no different in my eyes to the attacks on the Theory of Evolution from the Intelligent Design crew.

Posted by: yeah at April 10, 2006 7:16 PM

It took me a while to clamber my way to the computer to make a post. That's cuz I had to fight my way through the sixty or seventy billion or gazillion or whatever the number was of people that were predicted to be inhabiting the earth by now in all those Population Bomb type scare mongering, junk science books of the sixties and seventies. I thought we were all supposed to have starved to death by now, or was it froze to death? Or weren't some new chemicals supposed to have killed us all by now?
Maybe giant space badgers eating our brains?
Zombies mutant enviromentalists producing frightnening stories that would scare us all to death, perhaps?
Oh, wait.

Posted by: Virgil at April 10, 2006 7:28 PM

Yeah: No.

Agreed on Henry, DrD, but we don't even need to go that far. The Universal Gas Law, PV = nRT, says that if the temperature goes up, the atmosphere gets bigger (assuming constant gravity).

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. No, wait, I meant, smoke a bowl of good pipe tobacco and think about the implications of the Universal Gas Constant and Avogadro's number.

The atmosphere isn't a closed system (due to solar and cosmic radiation, and interplanetary and interstellar dust accumulation). Our job, as humans, is to react to external stimuli beyond our control by inventing what mechanisms we can to prosper while playing the hand we are dealt.

I don't see a valuable return on investment, for the citizens of the good ship Earth, in the currently fashionable climate change scare tactics.

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 10, 2006 7:33 PM

This is my theory on global warming.
CO2 is what plants live on. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants will grow and thrive, turning the CO2 into oxygen that we need to live. If the oceans are absorbing the extra CO2 right now (in algea), then they are also giving off more oxygen and that can't be a bad thing (with all the trees that we have cut) The oceans are then taking the place of the rainforests. I think this is the cycle everbody is missing. The more animals on earth (breathing out CO2), the more plants thrive (using the CO2), the more food for the animals and more oxygen for them to breath is produced. The earth also becomes more tropical, opening up more usable land for the extra animals to live in (global warming). What we are doing by releasing CO2 is turning the earth back more like it was in the time of the dinosaurs (artificialy) and making the earth a more hospitible place for plants and animals to thrive.

Posted by: TJ at April 10, 2006 7:51 PM

Vitruvius et al,
This might be my favorite blog topic of all, and bigcitylib and I traded comments on Saturday on this same blog. You've gone to the heart of the matter - human response to climate change has to be some combination of adapt, get out of the way or perish. At least, that's been our response since the dawn of man and it's worked OK so far.

The rest of the scientific debate - confidence in climate models and theories of causality - should be left to scientists, while politicians, activists and professional alarmists should shutTFup. Sadly, the world doesn't work that way. But a lot of money that should have gone to things like basic snowpack measurements and hydrography so that floods around Winnipeg can be predicted has been diverted to GW BS. What a negligent waste.

Posted by: Halfwise at April 10, 2006 8:05 PM

Halfwise, I agree with your comment. The "Chicken Little" approach is getting us nowhere other than diverting resources to politically inspired bogey men and away from legitimate environmental concerns.

Posted by: DrD at April 10, 2006 8:46 PM

"The graveyard is filled with missed El Niño forecasts,"
"There is no consensus," +

Scientist Forecasts 'super El Niño' (Wet SW winter 06-07)
The Albuquerque Journal ^ | April 8, 2006 | John Fleck

One of the country's leading climate scientists says there is "a good chance" for a "super El Niño" next winter, a powerful warming in the Pacific Ocean linked to wet winters in the Southwest.

In a draft paper circulated to colleagues, NASA climate researcher James Hansen blames global warming for increasing the chance of extreme El Niños.

When they happen, such extreme El Niños can wreak weather havoc worldwide, from deep drought in Australia to flooding in California.

Hansen's new paper drew a flurry of attention among scientists because of his standing as one of the nation's most prominent climate scientists. But the most common reaction was caution.

"The graveyard is filled with missed El Niño forecasts," said Mickey Glantz at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Scientists also questioned Hansen's El Niño-global warming link, noting researchers' predictions on the subject vary widely. "There is no consensus," said University of New Mexico climate researcher Dave Gutzler. +

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 9:01 PM

and of course the Hillbilly neoCons in here who don't believe in global warming have nothing to do with the oil sands or the vast wealth generated (ah, whatever). You people are SO selfish and hypocritical. Screw the grandkids, let's all get dunebuggys!!GO CHUBBS McHARPER!!!

Posted by: Coach at April 10, 2006 9:42 PM

That's the spirit!

Better yet, innoculate them from falling prey to the religion of the enviroleft - buy a dunebuggy for the grandchildren!

Posted by: Kate at April 10, 2006 9:57 PM

I love the fact that because there are so many overlapping long term cycles, addition of greenhouse gases, esp CO2, automatically creates global warming. Oh, wait, that's a useless argument.

Could we be having anthropogenic global warming? Yeah. Could we simply be seeing the effects of one or many of the long term cycles? Yep. Could we simply be seeing statistical noise? Yep. Could we simply have bad data, thanks to heat island effects for reliable data sources and very unreliable and low coverage for most of the planet going back a few decades? Oh hell yes.

There are too many possible reasons to reach any given conclusion. Despite this, if the costs of a given path were so high and we could feasibly substantially reduce the likelihood of that outcome, action would be advisable. The problem is that it looks like the most effective remedies are actually mitigation, rather than prevention. Mitigation also looks to be much more cost effective, neglecting the large benefits in materials, technology, and producitivity that come from waiting, never mind the economic benefits of paying for things in the future rather than make current investments.

I'd like to see better data as well as appropriate arguments. Science isn't about consensus or democracy. Rather it's about proving your truth with good data. plate tectonics was very, very, very heretical when it first came out and is only recently accepted. Despite this, we rely on it completely and ignore the previous controversy because it predicts backwards and forwards so well. If we could have reasonably good backwards and forwards predictions coming from a climate model, I'd be more likely to trust its forward climate #s. Given what I know of our useful implementation of Chaos theory (and with an enginering degree and serious connections to the waterloo math faculty I know a bit), a functional model is a very, very long way off.

Posted by: hey at April 10, 2006 10:08 PM

Um, Coach, we're working on a 250 to 500 year hydrocarbon resource management plan here in Alberta, pursuant to your and your children's &c general well-being. Our being selfish is for the good of the nation, and the species. Your being greedy is not.

We've got robot coal miners in the R&D pipe, and clean coal technology coming that will warm your heart and head. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Do you want to spoil it for everyone by invoking the dead hand of government bureausclerocracy? They can't tell the difference between pressure safety systems engineering and farting.

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 10, 2006 10:08 PM

Environmentalism: A Mask of The Religion of Socialism. Maurice Strong knows. +

Environmentalism secrets ^ | April 1, 2006 | Fred Gielow

Posted on 04/10/2006 6:32:14 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

If you think environmentalism is all about saving the Earth, protecting the whales, stopping pollution, and the like, here's some news. It's not! Listen to what environmental advocates themselves have to say:

* "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

Judi Bari, Earth First! member.
[Environmentalism equals replacing capitalism with socialism.]

* "The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society, based on rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."

Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist and professor.
[Environmentalism equals making everybody equal; that is, it's communism.]

* "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister.
[Environmentalism equals changing the world.]

* "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists, and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."

David Foreman, EarthFirst! member.
[Environmentalism equals a return to primitive living.]

* "We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and one of a number of politicians (including Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Al Gore, John Kerry, Christopher Shays, and others) who were designated as "Green Leadership for the '90s."
[Environmentalism equals changing policy by claiming – even without substantiation – it's necessary to save the world's environment.]

* "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist.
[Environmentalism equals lies "if necessary."]

* "We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like "cancer," and "birth defects" to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces... Our press reports were more or less true... Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Jim Sibbison, former EPA press officer.
[Environmentalism equals government-sponsored deception.]

* "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say."

Ross Gelbspan, former editor of The Boston Globe.
[Environmentalism equals silencing debate, and stifling contrary opinions.]

* "I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."

Charles Alexander, Time magazine science editor.
[Environmentalism equals indoctrination.]

Writer John Meredith summarizes:

"The radical environmental movement is destroying America. It is turning our society, once based on individual freedom and responsibility, into little more than mindless followers of regulations established at the whim of unelected special-interest groups."

Walter Williams has the last word:

"While the Soviet Union has collapsed, communism is not dead. It has [been] repackaged under a new name: Environmentalism. Communism is about extensive government regulation and control by elites, and so is environmentalism." +

Liberals slush fund: TCP

Technology Partnerships Canada is a key element in the government's strategy to promote economic growth and job creation through innovation and by positioning Canada as a leader in the global knowledge economy of the 21 st century. The program represents an investment approach to technological development with sharing of real risks and rewards with the private sector. Investments are fully repayable and are intended to help ensure that products with high potential reach the marketplace. +

Posted by: maz2 at April 10, 2006 10:18 PM

Actually the global temperature increase from the 1880s to the 1930s was a far larger increase percentage wise than the increase from the 1880s to now. And many of the record high temps set in the 1930s still exist today, inspite of so-called global warming.
For the agriculturally ignorant global warming supporters out there, I'd like to point out that if we even went back to the average cold temperatures of the 1970s, there would be food shortages and world-wide starvation on a scale which would make your blood run cold.
Plants can still grow in warm or even hot temps, but they do not and will not grow in cold temps with frosts in June, July or August. Just ask the farmers in Sask.
So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Frankly, I still can't believe that grown scientists really think that human micromanagement of miniscule greenhouse gases is going to change the climate. We humans are a small, insignificant part of a much larger thermodynamic system than these learned and well-intentioned scientists want to believe.
They are still wrong.
Now when are we going to get to the real world problem of running out of oil in another 5 years?

Posted by: rockyt at April 10, 2006 10:26 PM

Can anyone spell pulitykul synce?

How do you tell when it's grant application time at the Canada Council? You need onlt count the news items on climate change. All those useless parasites sucking on the public tit are worried that the grant might not come through.

Posted by: Political Scientist at April 10, 2006 10:50 PM

yea, they conveniently forget to mention the fossilized remains of trees in the arctic / antarctic, and the presence of "drop rocks" in Kenya, indicating the one-time presence of ice. Also that these last 150 or so yrs have been the wettest in many, many millennia. Perhaps things are as normal as ever. Of course, that line of thinking doesn't raise any cash for the special-interest groups, eh? Bloody chicken little!

Posted by: Snookie at April 10, 2006 11:08 PM

Rumor has it Al Gore was spotted in Montana Park with a power generator and a hair dryer.

I'm sure the glaciers will return after the 2008 election, won't they Kate?

Posted by: James Cogan at April 11, 2006 12:25 AM

Consensus is not Science.

Here a history of the Climate over the last 500,000 years.

Please Note: Co2 rises as the temperature rises.
We are at the height of the 100,000 year cycle.
It's all downhill from here.

Posted by: Otzi the Iceman at April 11, 2006 3:00 AM

Awfully quiet bigcitylib,
Duck and run.
Gotta like it. A true liberal.

Posted by: enough at April 11, 2006 9:55 AM

See the global data for yourselves. Debate angels on the head of a pin. Since 1880, temperatures globally are up .8 degrees C. Look at the anomalous temperature map on the right. Look at the North. Melting ice caps may not be new in an historical sense geologically, as one of your comments writers indicates. But the kind of drastic impacts that will have either in our lifetimes or those of our kids could mean upheaval and dislocation of entire populations of biblical proportions. Hysterical over reaction? Maybe. Worht considering? I htink so. We have the status quo more or less figured out and built into our economic, political and agricultural models. Are we capable of accommodating sudden, drastic change with wisdom, charity and peace? Doubt it.

A quote from this same site: Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

Posted by: Phred at April 11, 2006 10:55 AM

I'd be more inclined to believe a word the climate cultists had to say if the science journals such as Nature didn't deliberately as a matter of editorial policy refuse to print contrary data. When you politicize science and punish heretics who won't tow the party line, you aren't engaged in science anymore, but the cultish religion of environmentalism.

Ask yourself who would be motivated to go into climate science. If you didn't already believe in GW, why would you waste your career studying it? Only those who believe would chose a career in climate science. Then ask yourself if you believed that the world was going to end if "something is done" what you would do to make people see the "error of their ways." Wouldn't the ends justify the means? If you really thought that you could save the world, you'd have to do it, right?

Then think of the career suicide of being a contrarians in a dogmatic field filled with frauds who think that manipulating the data is justified and who think that you are a dangerous menace if you question the party line.

Is there GW? Maybe. Are we responsible for it? Maybe. Do I grant the climate cultists even a small amount of credibility? Not a chance in hell.

I believe in lowering pollution (real pollutions, not CO2. Effluents from industry, sulphur dioxide, pesticides, etc..) I would like to keep breathing. I don't want to die of nasty diseases from pollution. I would like to give my children a world at least as good as I had and preferably better. But that doesn't mean I'm going to buy every bit of some lying bastard's fraudulent snake oil just because they got a degree in bullshit from Cultist U and published a paper in a no-longer-credible "science" journal that won't publish anything that doesn't agree with the cult.

It would be nice if the "scientists" stopped being advocates and went back to being scientists.

In England in the early 1800's, there was a week of fog. The air was stagnant and everyone at that time heated their homes with high-sulphur charcoal. Many people suffocated to death in their homes. (I'd look up the date but the exact event isn't the point. The fact that the environment was terrible is the point.) The environment of the western democracies has improved dramatically from the filth of the early industrial revolution to now. It's not Canada that needs to clean up, it's China and the 3rd world. There are many countries that still use leaded gasoline. The west can do more, but through real scientific advances in technology - not shifting our wealth from the west to the 3rd world from socialist envirofraud. Technology yes. Free money, no.

Posted by: Warwick at April 11, 2006 11:37 AM


you're being unfair. BigCityGlib has retreated to his church (student union bar) to meet with the other faithful (hippies) and pray for your heretic soul. Global Warming is the new religion. I defend his right to practice his religion. I don't defend the right of junk scientists to take my taxes and produce shoddy reports based on "data_sort_by_preferred_answer"

Posted by: Dave at April 11, 2006 12:06 PM

DrD - the oceans are not releasing CO2 (net content), they are taking it up, with the result that the oceans are acidifying "a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years."

TJ - I wish it were so. Actually the oceans are absorbing the CO2 directly, not just having it taken up by 02-producing phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are threatened by the changes in ocean chemistry I just mentioned.

All those who are saying "CO2 is not a pollutant, it's a plant nutrient" - yes to the second part. As for the first part, I don't like the term pollutant, because it implies that something is universally bad. CO2 is necessary for plant growth, and it is the trigger for human breathing, so it's not all a bad thing. If you want another example of something that is good at some levels and not others, look at oxygen. The atmospheric concentration of oxygen has been very stable for millenia. A small drop in the level makes breathing difficult; a small increase creates a fire hazard, as materials that are ordinarily stable will burn more easily when more oxygen is present.

Bigcitylib - please do some more reading. Higher incidences of sunburn and skin cancer are caused by higher exposure to UV radiation, which has nothing to do with CO2-forced warming. Unless it's like this: higher CO2 --> warmer temperatures --> less clothing worn --> more skin exposed to UV?

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2006 2:03 PM

Oh, and Kate - you can still have warming without breaking recent records. The warming is in the averages, not the extremes. In fact that's what you see here in Western Canada - earlier spring thaws, earlier flowering of poplars at Edmonton (a full month earlier than when record keeping began). Is this a bad thing? Depends on your perspective. My background is in ecology. I suspect that agriculture and industry can adapt to (and even benefit from) warming much more easily than natural systems, which will tend to lose species and become simpler, less resilient systems under rapid change. At the same time these natural systems are dealing with habitat loss and fragmentation, invasion by introduced species, pollution, nitrogen enrichment - the list goes on. I recall saying at one time that climate change was "the big issue" for me. Now I tend to agree that it has been blown out of proportion. It is just one of many pressures on natural systems as our very effective free market system finds more and more ways to claim natural resources for immediate human use. The trouble is that it has no mechanism to make allowances for the long term. Such allowances require a choice, to limit what we use and leave the rest for other species and for the future. But how can we make that choice? If I choose to live frugally, have a small family, etc., I am doing my part. But others who champion economic growth will quickly take up whatever I have left and put it to use. They may also accuse me of laziness, or even say that I should work more and spend more so everyone can have more. This reasoning is probably correct - except that it neglects the issue: have more of what? Of the productive capacity of the biosphere, that's what.

I am not anti-human. I do not loathe myself. I just believe that if you look at longer time scales and overall systems, the good of humanity does not lie in growing the human enterprise bigger and bigger. It lies in finding balances, choosing positive directions, closing loops, doing things better not just bigger, finer not just faster.

Sorry for drifting OT.

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2006 2:38 PM

El nino shows how theoretical this is,

The same wizards now who claim to know how the universe works didn't know what el nino and el nina were a few years ago but they know everything except why you can't farm now in greenland.

Posted by: DrWright at April 11, 2006 2:47 PM

Sorry ... linking badly tonight.

I was saying I have done some research and it seems that Dr Bob Carter is the one who is the propagandist. A blogger called Skeptipundit also pulls apart Bob Carter's piece from a scientific point of view.

Posted by: Wadard at April 12, 2006 7:50 AM

I strongly reiterate my statement that global warming is a religious cult and not science.

Posted by: Warwick at April 12, 2006 11:58 AM