sda2.jpg

August 25, 2006

Is Anyone Else Keeping Track?

Drought, floods, severe winters, warm winters, more frequent storm activity, less frequent storm activity, early frost, early thaw, receding glaciers.

All have, to the best of my recollection as a news consumer, been cited by one climate research expert or another as evidence of "global warming".

The same experts will also quickly caution that even in the midst of dramatic climate change, one should expect periods of "average" rainfall, temperature, storm activity.

With today's addition of expanding glaciers, the list is finally complete. It's therefore, official - climate change proponants have taken ownership of virtually every local and global weather phenomenon worthy of newspaper ink, including "average".

One would think that more people would have noticed.

Posted by Kate at August 25, 2006 11:45 PM
Comments

"Researchers at Newcastle University looked at temperature trends in the western Himalaya over the past century.

They found warmer winters and cooler summers, combined with more snow and rainfall, could be causing some mountain glaciers to increase in size. "

Well, good for the Himalayas. What about our Rockies, or the winters on the plains where we are though? I've seen a remarkable difference in the winters here from when I was a kid in the 1980's to the ones we have today. And there's no reasonable way to deny that greenhouse gasses need to be reduced, because in some imprecisely quantified way they are causing global warming.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 12:43 AM

Yes and this site http://www.ecoenquirer.com/ explains it all ;)

Posted by: JD at August 26, 2006 12:47 AM

Well, without revealing my age, the past few years here in Saskatchewan have been more akin to those of my childhood, which predates yours. And I would highly recommend the book on the depression years on the prairies, "The Winter Years". The accounts of prairie weather during that time are enlightening when placed against alarmist claims of today.

In fact, around 600 years ago, there was a 60 year period of drought on what is now the Canadian prairies that makes anything we have recorded since European settlement look postively damp.

Posted by: Kate at August 26, 2006 12:49 AM

We're all gonna die! Agggghhh! The glaciers are getting bigger because of global warming.

Just like we were all gonna die when I was a kid in the 70s and global cooling was going to overcome the world.

Or so my school told me.

I can't believe I ever survived acid rain. Thankfully, the loggers protected me from all the tree pollution.

Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at August 26, 2006 12:58 AM

Chris,

Acid rain is less of a problem now because Mulroney and Bush Snr signed an agreement creating a sulphur dioxide agreement. The Great Lakes are cleaner now because of government action. Gasoline does not contain lead now and car engines now have catalytic converters.

What would our world be like if these changes had not occurred?

Kate, it is good to be a sceptic but it is better to be an intelligent sceptic.

I was raised to leave a campsite and a guest bedroom as good or better than the way I found it. That seems to me good advice for our environment too.

Posted by: August1991 at August 26, 2006 1:20 AM

I have noticed, Kate.

The Man-Made-Global-Warming thing is such a, well, .. HOAX, that it is hardly worth commenting on anymore. However, the likes of the Suzukis and Gores just won't quit. It is such a joke, but I guess if they have to go down, they will go down swinging.

In my life time I have seen the Earth drying-up AND ice-ageing-up AND flooding-up AND heating-up. And this in just 60 years. And as Dr.TIM BALL, Canadian, would ask; "How old is the Earth ? oh, a few Billion years old. Case closed.

IN MY OPINION, all this Kyoto fiasco was started by our own, Manitoban, Maurice Strong. Was it not he who mused that the best way to thwart countries democracy was by USING the environmental movement ? A step to a UN ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE ? I believe it would have worked had it not been for the Internet and Blogs. After all, the Western MSM, and even Pravda, was/were blindly supporting it all the way.

BTW, I drive a 49cc scooter. Conserve hydo-carbons AND bring down gas prices AND save money all at the same time.

Posted by: B. HOAX AWARE at August 26, 2006 1:27 AM

August 1991, you are right. Those measures, acid rain, ect were excellent. Polution is not good. The Kyooto Protocol was/is not about polution. CO2 is esential for life on earth. Carbon Credits is just a wealth transfer scheme. Our money to scams away from home. Sort of like an ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST'S ADSCAM. Another UN One World Governance enactment method. Thats all.

Posted by: b. HOAX AWARE at August 26, 2006 1:38 AM

And who establishes what "as good" or "better" is? Fewer forest fires? More forest fires? Draining a swamp or allowing it to flood habitat required for native species?

No-till farming with chemical herbicides, or so-called "organic" methods that open the land to erosion and result in decreased yield and financial sustainability? Decreased yield = more farmland under tillage = more erosion - more dust particles in the air.

The fact is this: there is virtually no "postiive" action one can exert on the environment that does not extract a cost - often an unforseen one. Your good intentions have no sway in the eventual outcome.

The primary error made by those on the left of the environmental divide is to premise the debate on the notion that human activity is somehow "unnatural". We are part of this planet, and as do other species, we have an effect on it. Certainly, we can mitigate damage when it becomes obvious that its in the best interest of the whole to do so.

But change due to human activity is no less "natural" than change due to any other planetary force. It is far better to target one's resources - which are finite - to the proven methodology of adaptation, than to throw them at, as Saskboy describes it, a phenomenon that has been proven to exist in "some imprecisely quantified way".


Posted by: Kate at August 26, 2006 1:43 AM

The high priests of global warming will smite you all!!!

Suzuki can tell you what the temperature will be a hundred years from now! Your local weatherman? - the fifth day of a five day forecast is accurate only 20% of the time!

So you better belive! All hail the doomsayers!

Posted by: philanthropist at August 26, 2006 1:46 AM

David Suzuki very recently praised Castro's Cuban Farmers. a la 1910s on the Canadian Prairies. hmmm So all the food our Canadian Farmers grew, through inovation, was not good ?? How did that saying go ? An Environmental Activist "should not protest with his mouth full".

Posted by: B. HOAX AWARE at August 26, 2006 1:51 AM

The article you've linked to contains the assertion that the climate is changing. That's the point of the story - unexpected weather changes are happening more rapidly than they can be predicted through lots of research. Climate change isn't something we should be contributing to when it's possible to avoid much of the pollution driving it in some way.

"highly recommend the book on the depression years on the prairies, "The Winter Years". The accounts of prairie weather during that time are enlightening when placed against alarmist claims of today."
There was a Depression back then. It would be nice to avoid bringing one about by hastening a climate shift. The claims are alarming, but they are founded on the straight forward reality that pollution levels are nothing like they were in the 1930s, or any other time in human history, and we don't know the type of shifts putting so much extra C02 into the air is going to cause.

Hoaxaware writes that C02 is required for life. Well yeah, if you're a plant - to humans its a poison, and to the earth a gas to trap heat against the surface.

"But change due to human activity is no less "natural" than change due to any other planetary force."
I've never seen a fission nuclear reaction on earth caused without human intervention. And it's plain to see the changes on the environemnt from only one bomb.

" It is far better to target one's resources - which are finite - to the proven methodology of adaptation, than to throw them at, as Saskboy describes it, a phenomenon that has been proven to exist in "some imprecisely quantified way"."
It's good to hear you speaking of adaptation. That's what environmentalists want from people - adaptation. Continuing to pour trillions a year into getting more oil when technology is known to us that would make the oil we have already enough for more than twice as long, is not adaptation, for example. Humans have to work harder at adaptation, not throw up our hands and say things are going to change so let's wait until we're screwed before we fix anything.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 2:02 AM

THIS year has been one of the coolest on record here in the Yukon. Have a look at circumpolar tilt Sask boy. My Grandma's diary from 1918 to 1959 has EVERY daily temperature in Sask. It would curl your fingernails to learn about the drastic temperature swings. You would shreek in alarm.

Posted by: Jema54 at August 26, 2006 2:28 AM

Yes, the globe has been warming since the Ice Age. All of Canada and a good portion of the US used to be under glacial ice. Yet Socialist scientists, funded by Socialist governments and cheered on by Socialist media, isolate data from the last 30 years in order to tax Socialist people.

I remember the impending new "Ice Age" scare of the 70s and 80s. Wonder how much taxpayer money was invested in the efforts to address that impending disaster. The ancient southern pine forests of the US have been killed -- tens of thousand of acres. Not by acid rain, CO2, or pollution, but by SCIENTISTS who introduced an insect, now commonly known as the Pine Beetle to try "eco-friendly" counteraction of something or other that was not nearly as big a problem as they caused. I want to cry every time I drive through my native Smoky Mountains.

These freaking geniuses need to stay out of my pocket and focus on reliably telling me if it's going to rain or shine tomorrow. This hurricane season was supposed to be devastating. It hasn't been. Last season WAS devastating. They didn't predict that.

Scientists, like journalists, have abandoned any notion of ethics, and need to stop speculating, dabbling in politics, and work to regain their integrity. The climate of planet Earth changes. Always has. Always will. DUH!

Posted by: Tom Penn at August 26, 2006 2:32 AM

Jema "You would shreek in alarm."
I don't shriek over temperature changes unless someone flushes while I'm showering. Being concerned and advocating adaptation in many industries is not shrieking.

It just happens that modernizing technologies that make the most [and most preventable] greenhouse gasses, also repairs some other problems such as smog, acid rain, CO poisonings, and traffic noise to name a few. We have to stop "adapting to climate change shreekers" by weasling out of environmental agreements, and instead make real changes to our economy so we improve our health and our environment which both directly impact our quality of living.

If Kyoto wasn't the answer, where is the Canadian government's answer? I don't think we should have to wait until the Fall when they were only the government in waiting for more than a decade, and other parties have ideas they could steal.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 2:39 AM

"All of Canada and a good portion of the US used to be under glacial ice."

Tom, the last ice age missed some parts fortunately, giving Saskatchewan some nice hills, just as a bit more triva to know...

"The climate of planet Earth changes. Always has. Always will. DUH!"
That climate changes naturally, isn't a topic of contention for scientists. The "debate" which shouldn't even exist after so many years, is the extent human pollution changes or accelerates global warming/cooling. If it weren't for people with a lot of money to lose if they had to adapt, the scientific community would be unified [as much as scientists can ever agree].

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 2:49 AM

I am a big fan of global warming.

None of us would be here without it.

Posted by: Lew at August 26, 2006 2:53 AM

Without revealing my age [...]In fact, around 600 years ago, there was a 60 year period of drought on what is now the Canadian prairies that makes anything we have recorded since European settlement look postively damp.[...]

I'm just a backyard vegetable head- but speaking to UofS type gardeners, over the past few millennium, a 100+ year drought, far greater than anything in living memory, is the norm in Saskatoon area.
You can't go. All the plants are gonna die.
That's a fact, Jack.

Posted by: Barnstormer at August 26, 2006 2:54 AM

One of the reasons that Saskatoon is the hub-city in Saskatchewan is that the early explorers deemed the "triangle" uninhabital due to lack of water.

Saskatoon was considered the farthest point south capable of supporting human infrastructure.

Posted by: lance at August 26, 2006 3:20 AM

It's so freaking stupid how these leftist tree huggers don't understand any of the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics.

The Earth is not getting hotter or colder. It is just moving the energy around.

Posted by: trustonlymulder at August 26, 2006 4:22 AM

What??? No hurricanes so far this year when last year at this time everyone was getting ready for Katrina and I believe the number of hurricanes was in the double digits.

All this inactivity must be due to Global Warming.

Posted by: Johnny Canuck at August 26, 2006 4:36 AM

In 5 years time world oil prices will be above $250.00 a barrel. Gasoline will be priced above $3.50 a litre in Canada and heating oil and NG will be priced so high that most Canadian’s will chose to freeze in winter then heat their homes. Everyone begins to ride a bike to work or take a bus. CO2 emissions fall so much that they are well below 1990 targets and Kyoto targets were reached without any help from government.

…and the band played on…

Between the years 2021 and 2040 global temperatures fall so much that all the world scientist are predicting a new ice age is at hand. They recommend that we burn as much carbon base fuels as possible to up global CO2 emissions to try to prevent the next Ice Age. We must do this because it is after all humans fault that we lowered CO2 emissions in the first place which cause a major cooling of global temperatures and all hell will break out if we don’t.

…and the band played on…

By the year 2080 global temperatures begin to rise again and all the world scientists are saying that global warming is here and something must be done to curb CO2 emissions before all hell breaks out breaks out if we don’t. After all global warming must be prevented at all cost because we humans are the cause of this warming trend.

…and the band played on….

Deno

Posted by: Deno at August 26, 2006 5:34 AM

From UPI: Russian scientist predicts global cooling
MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."

Posted by: Nemo2 at August 26, 2006 8:11 AM

4 million years ago the north was a block of ice and CoCo levels were 10 times greater than they are today. Something weird here!

Posted by: pauli at August 26, 2006 8:25 AM

There is a theory/spin for everyone: Social equality and justice fer all. ...-


The Day The Earth Fell Over

Live Science.com ^ | August 25, 2006 | By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer
Earth might have spun on its side to keep its balance in the distant past, and could do so again, scientists reported today. Alaska was suddenly at the equator, the thinking goes. .........

free republic

Posted by: maz2 at August 26, 2006 8:29 AM

Kate wrote:

"But change due to human activity is no less "natural" than change due to any other planetary force. It is far better to target one's resources - which are finite - to the proven methodology of adaptation, than to throw them at, as Saskboy describes it, a phenomenon that has been proven to exist in "some imprecisely quantified way"."

Ahhhh! [HUGE WARM SMILE icon] Finally I have met a lay individual who actually understands... Kudos, girl, you rock! Its not at all clear that man's activity is the principal driver of what are currently being described as "changes". The universe is NOT measured in 75-year cycles...

Ignatief was quoted as saying recently that the Liberals environmental program would reduce carbon dioxide levels to half of 1990 levels by the year 2050. Someone should hand the ayatollah of Harvard a calulator and allow him to do some straw calulations based on population growth and climate regimes in the "frozen North" (unless he is assuming that global warming will reach the point that Canadian winters will be something we only tell our children about). With so many future promises, I'm surprised the Liberals haven't thrown nirvana and 72 virgins in too (oh, yeah, liberal moral values... well good luck with that...)

It's very important for people to understand that this whole "climate change" paranoia is all about US, not the planet. Should we accelerate the inevitable, it will take mother earth only a cosmic heartbeat to heal the wound. Enjoy your time in the sun, for as long as it lasts.

Mother Nature always compensates...

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 9:11 AM

I'll freely admit that I don't know anything about the science being tossed around, and quite frankly I find the subject of global warming/climate change about as interesting as the root causes of the softwood lumber debate.

But I draw the line at 2 things: the champions of Kyoto and other plans have an extermely poor track record of being right about anything, and the overly emotional way in which they try to sell their ideas is repulsive.

I don't think I need to say anything about the Jack Laytons, the David Suzukis of this world and what I think of their politics. They have been and continue to be wrong on just about every subject. Why would I buy into their ideas now?

And the scare tactics and the patent cooking of the books to make their point really bug me.

I had a whole collection of Canadian Geographics dating back to the early 90's that I finally got around to throwing out. Every last one of them had a review or two of a book that said the world would end by 2000 if we didn't change our ways.

Saying that "the weather was different when I was a kid" is not science, it's a rejection of science, it's emotion. Weather patterns must be studied by centuries and millenia.

I don't know where I read it, but somewhere along the way in the blogosphere I saw someone write that "a yuppie thinks history started the day he was born." I think of this everytime the climate debate comes up.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at August 26, 2006 9:13 AM

Oh come on Kate, everyone knows the science is solid and only oil company funded lackeys disagree that all the weather on the planet is caused by gloabl warming created by evil man.

But not to worry, when the Religion of Peace establishes its global caliphate, all will be corrected

Sigh. What a sorry state our intellectyuals are in. This is just a secular original sin myth.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at August 26, 2006 9:20 AM

Saskboy

"there's no reasonable way to deny that greenhouse gasses need to be reduced"

There is a perfectly reasonable way to argue the above position. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, human production is at best 10%.

How much should we reduce these gases - to zero? Then all life on the planet will die.


Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at August 26, 2006 9:29 AM

August1001,

The Great Lakes are also cleaner because of the zebra mussel.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at August 26, 2006 9:37 AM

most global warming statement (now climate change statements)end with a request for more money for more study.

climate had better change, otherwise we could just call it global temperature.

Posted by: cal2 at August 26, 2006 9:41 AM

It may be that the sociology of science (in global warming) has/is becoming more important than the science itself. Virtually all science in the last 75 years has been driven by an economic model, not an intellectual one.

Research is conducted by two broad groups of people, not completely independently. The industrial public/private sector group pays for research for the purpose of making a product or service for the purpose of making money, with the secondary objective that the product or service is actually useful enough to ensure a market.

The academic sector group demands payment for research for two broad purposes: self-actualization of egos, and production of information that may be of commercial benefit to the industrial group. Within the first group, the lines between private and public industrial research have been increasingly become blurred as more public sector operations corporatize their business models.

In the second group academic self-actualization occurs through either employment within the private sector group as direct wages, or indirectly in the public sector by a whole range of granting structures.

In the latter case, "proof of productivity" is contained in the so-called "dollar paper" - the continuous stream of short, small papers, usually written in concert, and on rotation with, colleagues in the same field. Often the research is incidental to the main project, and in universities, may in fact be the real work of graduates or undergrads, who may or may not benefit. This stream is what provides the fuel for grants. An interesting child of this process is the "academic seminar", wherein an individual in the field agrees to coordinate, on behalf of mostly political agencies charged with the responsibility to handle the problem, symposia to address and report on "progress". This sub-industry is very lucrative and engaging for academics who like to travel.

The global warming crisis/scheme/paranoia/science is tailor made for the economics of research. It has all of the requisite emotional, political, industrial and scientific checkpoints for significant and immediate funding, and across the entire range of scientific disciplines.

It should come as no surprise then, that it has become a major topic, even as the science itself remains largely anecdotal, questionable, and frequently, absent. However, it is lucrative and individuals in both broad research groups will benefit directly from the spin-offs that accrue. There may even be one or two useful gadgets come out of it.

Reasonably though, its appropriate to ask whether the science of global warming is about the study of the redistribution of energy, or the study of the redistribution of money.

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 10:21 AM

1) There is no proof that CO2 and temperature increases are linked. And in fact the corelation between increases in Co2 and temperature, the infamous Hockey Stick, is really not proven. It appears as if it is a statistical mistake produced by an algorithm designed to produce hockey sticks

chew through this site to www.climateaudit.com for some good technical discussions on this.

2) While conclusions from graphs arent scientific but a quick eyeball of these tells me there is a cycle going on, judge for yourself

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/Superior.gif

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/Michigan-Huron.gif

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/Erie.gif

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/St.Clair.gif

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/Ontario.gif

3) Sea Surface temperatures versus last year in the Atlantic have dropped 20%. For a cool view of this go to this site http://www.ssmi.com/sst/sst_data_daily.html

4) While Kate may be acerbic i dont think she is "sceptic"...although in some parts of Saskatchewan there are tanks like that ;->. I however am definitely a skeptic.

There are too many anomolies in data and too much lack of understanding, unlike the acid rain or CFC/Ozone things. Kyoto is a false cross, leaving out China and India even if there was a real problem.

Unfortunately this is a common human reaction. Blaming ouselves for something natural. It is the same thing that caused humans to create rain dances, kill goats or throw young women into volcanoes.

While I personally believe that variations in the suns energy output and our relation to it far outweighs any human effect it hasnt been totally proven yet either. To that end, more study, be as effecient as possible in energy use and try not to pollute.

Final thought comes from Robert Heinlen. If a beaver damn is natural why isnt one made by man?

Posted by: Stephen at August 26, 2006 10:25 AM

As I mentioned in a previous thread on the same topic, in the early part of this past winter, it was big news that North America was having "one of the mildest winters on record." Of course, the "global warming" nuts all came out to say, "See, we told you so."

However, my wife has relatives in Russia. During the same period, when talking to them, we would hear about the record low temperatures that they were suffering. The old Soviet-era power systems were failing all over the place because of the extreme cold and there were reports of people dying. This went on for some time without nary a word being mentioned in the media here.

Finally, I did see a news report (I think it was on ABC) that did mention both sides of the world and the phenomena that each was experiencing. In a true example of "fair and balanced reporting", they explained that this is quite normal.

Apparently "about every 20 years" the cold and warm air masses that normally chase each other around the Nothern Hemisphere just stop and park themselves for months over whatever region it is that they happen to be over at the time. It is not evidence of anything.

Just 6 weeks ago, I was going through an old box that had been stored in my grandmother's attic for a very long time. I found an old newspaper (Halifax Herald) dated January 28, 1963. We are not sure why it had been kept. But, in it, I found an article about how North America was experiencing one of the coldest winters on record (400 people dead "so far" with record low temperatures as far south as Miami). Remember, according to the Al Gore types, we have been steadily warming since 1900. Meanwhile, Russia, was having one of the warmest winters on record. This tends to back up the claim that the phenomena is normal and occurs "about every 20 years".

Anyhoo, back to the more recent past...Towards the end of this past winter, I did see that some Canadian media outlets were talking about the Russian winter - because it was getting hard to ignore the mounting deaths. But, by this time, it was not being explained as "global warming." It was now evidence of "climate change."

Back last December, Rex Murphy, in one of his "Point of View" spiels on the National pointed out that, on the topic of global warming, a Greenpeace protester in Montreal said, "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean dryer; it can mean wetter."

They've got all the bases covered.

Posted by: bryceman at August 26, 2006 10:43 AM

The climate is always changing.

The fact that in twenty years, we went from global cooling killing us to global warming killing us should give serious pause to anyone to blindly accept the propaganda push of global warming hysteria.

The main reason for pushing the "man caused it" hysteria is that it provides the means for the extremists to corrupt and bypass democracy and give them more control over our lives.

Yes, they've corrupted the issue enough to claim that anything, in any direction supports their view and hence their agenda.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at August 26, 2006 11:07 AM

"If a beaver damn is natural why isnt one made by man"?

Dam those beavers! ;-)

Posted by: Nemo2 at August 26, 2006 11:11 AM

saskboy writrs...
Hoaxaware writes that C02 is required for life. Well yeah, if you're a plant - to humans its a poison, and to the earth a gas to trap heat against the surface.

to saskboy i say...
i would like to see how long you would survive without the plant. they produce the oxygen you breathe but i'm sure you know that.

Posted by: spike at August 26, 2006 11:20 AM

Nemo 2

ooops....I was thinking of Heston in planet of the apes.....:->

Almost made my way through a long post without a spelling mistake...almost....

Posted by: Stephen at August 26, 2006 11:25 AM

37 comments and nobody has blamed Bush yet. That has to be a record of some sort.

"Well, without revealing my age,..." that sounds like a challenge but then a real gentleman wouldn't reveal it even if he did know. All I can say is you are wise beyond your years.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at August 26, 2006 11:49 AM

BE PROWD KATE !! Your readers ARE keeping track. Most of them understand the Earth's climate BETTER than the Editors of major news orgs. Actually, the Eds don't understand climate at all, don't want to either. Do they just want a vehicle for implementing a United Nations "One World Governance" ?? Google OWG, you will be shocked. Add Maurice Strong, you may panic.

Posted by: B. HOAX AWARE at August 26, 2006 11:52 AM

" The ancient southern pine forests of the US have been killed -- tens of thousand of acres. Not by acid rain, CO2, or pollution, but by SCIENTISTS who introduced an insect, now commonly known as the Pine Beetle to try "eco-friendly" counteraction of something or other that was not nearly as big a problem as they caused. I want to cry every time I drive through my native Smoky Mountains."

Tom Penn, could you expand on this, please? I'm interested because I used to work in insect and disease control in the Forest Service, spent years cruising for Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Bark Beetle infestations.

Posted by: dmorris at August 26, 2006 11:56 AM

1. The Russian scientist's theory is notable as it typifies many who work in the longer timeline natural sciences fields - astronomy and geology for example. They are much more sanguine about human generation of C02 significantly impacting average global temperatures.

Astronomers know full well that solar flare activity and other changes in the sun's energy emissions have enormous impacts on our planet's climate - more than any other thing. And as the Russian cautions, he expects solar emissions to decline causing significant cooling. Hopefully not as bad as the mini-ice age caused a few hundred years ago when solar flare activity changed and caused severe cooling.

Geologists have only to look at their toluene soaked slides (do they still use toluene?) to see that the world has alternated between very hot and very cold over the millennia and that we are currently in a middle - the baby bear part - of the curve. Decade or century - long periods of increased or decreased temps are just so much noise on their eon timescale - caused by any number of things from increased solar emissions to volcanoes or earthquakes, to meteor strikes.

2. From an engineer's risk assessment standpoint I highly recommend reading Patrick Bedard's column in this month's Car and Driver (not online yet). He very deftly puts the insignificance of human caused C02 emissions into context.

3. As for August 1991's pointing to the Acid rain treaty and switching to unleaded as being representative of the good gov't can do and that they should do something about global warming: those measures were done to curb POLLUTION - quantifiable harm to the environment. C02 emissions are at extremely low (read non-existent)toxicity levels and are NOT POLLUTION.

4. The global-warming control-CO2 movement is essentially a left-wing effort to put big government back in control, like it was prior to 11-9 when the Berlin Wall fell and the bedrock-left ideas of socialism and communism were demonstrated for all to see as being failed ideological templates for governance. In short, Milton Freidman kicked the snot out of John Kenneth Galbraith. The world has been experiencing a global economic and democratic boom ever since.

But, if the left can "prove" CO2 emissions need to be controlled to "save the world" from capitalism - from globalization - from less big government, by bringing in Kyoto-like measures which are big government on a truly monolithic scale, then they can again get the upper hand. A position they haven't held since the New Deal and Keyne's salad days.

In essence, "Global Warming" is the left's Hail Mary pass. If we on the right can bat the ball away from the intended reciever or better yet, intercept it and run it back the length of the field, the left will truly come be seen as this era's Luddites.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at August 26, 2006 12:26 PM

10,000 years ago ,the home and native land was a block of ice. And even the great Dr. Suzuki couldn't have preached from his pulpit on Cortes Island.

Posted by: cal2 at August 26, 2006 12:40 PM

Dam Beavers!

http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.htm

Posted by: signaller222 at August 26, 2006 12:52 PM

While scouting the route across the prairies for the first transcontinental rail line in Canada (about 1850-60 or so), the surveyor commented that the entire prairie was an absolute bone-dry desert, devoid of life.

10 years later, a different surveyor went through the same area, and found lush vegetation, ponds of water everywhere, teeming with wildlife.

I believe I'm recalling this from one of Pierre Burton's books.

Posted by: tom at August 26, 2006 1:29 PM

Trustonlymulder "don't understand any of the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth is not getting hotter or colder. It is just moving the energy around."

Do you see the sun? It's the earth's primary source of energy and it's always adding more. To stay the same temperature we need to radiate away the same energy we get from it. Might I ask your "understanding" of where the energy is moved to? You make it sound like it stays on the surface, instead of radiating into space.
--

Matt "Saying that "the weather was different when I was a kid" is not science, it's a rejection of science, it's emotion. Weather patterns must be studied by centuries and millenia."
Unfortunately we don't have the benefit of living that long to see if we screwed up or not. But we do have the benefit of seeing the smog before our eyes, pump prices, and alternatives to our current pollution at our beckoning.

--

" The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, human production is at best 10%.How much should we reduce these gases - to zero? Then all life on the planet will die."

You didn't very reasonably argue it. Who would argue that CO2 in the atmosphere should be reduced to 0, duh? Clearly the lower we can make human controlled contributions to the atmosphere, the more NATURAL the earth's climate will be. It's just straight forward reasoning.

--
"to saskboy i say...
i would like to see how long you would survive without the plant. they produce the oxygen you breathe but i'm sure you know that.
Posted by: spike"

Duh. Hoaxaware seemed to be implying though that more CO2 was good for everything. I'm of the opinion that the less we monkey with mother nature the less things will change rapidly. You know that old law about every action having an equal and opposite reaction could come into play...

--
Skip "Enjoy your time in the sun, for as long as it lasts. Mother Nature always compensates... "

That's the most optimistic viewpoint I've seen in a while. What makes you think though that Mother Nature won't compensate by killing humans and a lot of animals off in as quick a time as we are changing Mother Nature's balance? Or can you not be bothered enough by what your children and grandchildren will have to live through just to survive every day?

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 1:43 PM

Wilderness is the least natural part of this planet.

Posted by: Vitruvius at August 26, 2006 2:08 PM

Saskboy:

"Or can you not be bothered enough by what your children and grandchildren will have to live through just to survive every day?"

"There you go again" - R. Reagan

You and the rest on the left purporting to be the occupiers of the moral high ground - inferring that those who oppose you care less about our offspring's welfare. Well, we on the right care just as much you do - that's why we oppose your dogma. Because it will limit and control the opportunites of those who will inherit our legacy.

If you want to argue a case for man-made GW then do it without accusing us of a lack of compassion.

2. Check out this page at Limbaugh's site:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html

Posted by: Gord Tulk at August 26, 2006 2:24 PM

Saskboy,

"Do you see the sun? It's the earth's primary source of energy and it's always adding more. To stay the same temperature we need to radiate away the same energy we get from it."

you might be onto something there.....maybe the variations in the output of "the earth's primary source of energy.." are causes of the large warming and cooling trends.

Thats a great theory....might explain a few things, like Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, when they grew grapes in the South of England and wheat in Scotland. Maybe they even grew grapes in Newfoundland, which would explain Vinland in the Norse legends....(that last one is my speculation)

As for other evidence that it has been warmer before try this article

http://www.sitnews.us/0306news/031106/031106_ak_science.html

The glaciers in Southeast Alaska began melting about 400 years ago, this part of the world happens to be the fastest rising land in North America, an inch a year. The land rising has nothing to do with Global warming but it is interesting to talk to the locals about sealevels.

Posted by: Stephen at August 26, 2006 2:25 PM

theres more than meets the eye here.

for starters, I remain astounded at the fact the sun is annihilating millions of tonnes of mass every SECOND. and that the portion of energy from that fusion hitting the earth's surface is infinitessimal. but still enough to drive all the weather and biological systems since life began.

every mechanical, economic, biological, political, etc system varies thru time and has within it, mechanisms that counteract the variances to arrive at an equilibrium. trends are only apparent after time, and with the weather, that time lapse covers 1,000s of years.

we dont know if the current temp avgs are simply the umpteenth usual variation or a direct consequence of sudden dumping of huge quantities of additional greenhouse gases.

and by the way, with the systems mentioned above, sometime the introduction of a small variable can result in huge difference in outcome, so a mere 10% of human generated CO2 could conceivably trigger a snowball effect.

one of the issues here is what do do with the ego driven know-it-alls on both sides. firmly cemented in place, pathologically afraid to admit to error or shortfall in knowledge. always gotta be right; always gotta be the boss. if logic and debate dont cut it, pull out a weapon and MAKE them agree. such a typical huhmahn reaction.

dont wait for the scientists to fix it, theyre all for sale to the highest bidder. dont wait for the politishuns to fix it, theyve already sold out to the highest bidder.

me? I depend on myself to be truthful to myself and objectively anticipate outcomes good and bad and then have a plan already in place. no room for ego there.

proof of the above? can I have a toonie for every time Ive been ridiculed for predicting an outcome be those whose ego motive interprets my predictions as me being in FAVOUR of the outcome??? correctly predicting the huge cretien win was NOT an endorsement. and never has been.

but ego jammed huhmahns cant see that. even when you DO agree with them you have to agree *their* way.

etc etc

Posted by: RobertJ at August 26, 2006 3:03 PM

"This hurricane season was supposed to be devastating. It hasn't been. Last season WAS devastating. They didn't predict that."

uh well mr penn, actually they did.

a national geographic magazine article predated the nola disaster by a couple months or so. long after said scientists had repeatedly warned the peabrained white house authorities and got ignored each time. read up on fema lack of organization and planning.

dubya is just too tempting a target you see?

Posted by: RobertJ at August 26, 2006 4:04 PM

Saskboy: "Skip "Enjoy your time in the sun, for as long as it lasts. Mother Nature always compensates... "

That's the most optimistic viewpoint I've seen in a while. What makes you think though that Mother Nature won't compensate by killing humans and a lot of animals off in as quick a time as we are changing Mother Nature's balance? Or can you not be bothered enough by what your children and grandchildren will have to live through just to survive every day?"

We may be speaking the same dialect but we're not even in the same room. My inference originally to Kate "getting it" as a lay person (and Kate, I don't mean that pejoratively...I'm very much aware of the work you have going on, "on the side". Like to read about it some time - send me an email), has to do with her comprehension that nothing that man does can be "unnatural", in nature. It may offend the sensitivities of the day, but it remains immutably "natural".

"Mother Nature always compensates..." makes no statement about us, or rather, does not elevate us beyond the status of any other bag of semi-coherent molecules in the universe. Today, we are simply a very tiny part of a semi-entropic system whose level of homestasis is entirely relative to your point of view.

"Mother Nature always compensates..." You can tattoo that...wherever... It will do so by the most appropriate entropic or chaotic means. It don't care about your kids. It doesn't even care about you. It just is.

Whether or not we have had much or anything to do about it will be the reflection made in the cosmic instant before our species moves to oblivion. If you want a good future for your kids, within your frame of reference, you'd better get busy on the concept of zero population growth. The devil is indeed, us, and all the semi-science in the world isn't going to fix that train-wreck, as long as we embrace the biological imperative. We are a true conundrum.

Which all brings me back to where I was. Enjoy your time in the sun, while you can, because Mother Nature always compensates...


Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 4:07 PM

One of the more interesting observations/speculations about "global warming/cooling", has been the idea that the sun may in fact have a very small but perceptible periodicity in its energy output. Not enough to be a gross anomaly, but enough to cause cyclic energy perturbations on the earth. This was a recent observation; I have no idea whether this has gone any further than hypothesis or not.

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 4:13 PM

"It may offend the sensitivities of the day, but it remains immutably "natural"."

And when nuclear waste, PCBs, oil spills and such are concerned, that man-natural activity affects more than emotions. Organisms including humans die for needless reasons.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 4:25 PM

See, you don't get it. You're continuing to impose a morality on something that has none. You're entire concern centers around a period of time spanning some 150 years. The earth's cycles are measured in millenia, or longer. Kate's point was about doing what is rational to make the everyday palatable: adaptation. Again, its all about scale. Your everyday concerns result in adaptations for that 150 year cycle. Genetics and the B.I. being what they are, some of those adaptations may work their way through to be biological durable.

In any event, Mother Nature doesn't care, she has no morality; Mother Nature ALWAYS compensates...

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 4:32 PM

Gord "why we oppose your dogma. Because it will limit and control the opportunites of those who will inherit our legacy."

Politics can control, but so can environmental realities. You can't drink sludge, and you can't breathe smog, no matter what government you have in place. Quit assuming the only threat for life in the future is loss of the political liberty to burn 10MPG gasoline.

--
Stephen "you might be onto something there.....maybe the variations in the output of "the earth's primary source of energy.." are causes of the large warming and cooling trends."
Of course variations could happen and cause changes, since the sun is the primary source of energy on earth. But that doesn't mean man made pollution won't have a negative affect on climate changes.

In any case, churning out what we do today still harms us in obvious ways even if global warming isn't one of them.

--
Skip, thanks for the clarification on your statement. As long as you didn't mean it in a defeatist way, I'm alright with that summation of things.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 4:38 PM

Skip "See, you don't get it. "

Actually I think I do. You perhaps don't see that I do, because I don't agree that there's nothing we can do, and that everything humans do is the best thing.

Many people have the problem of assuming that because the earth changed temperatures naturally before, that only a natural cause can trigger one in the future. Industrialization happened long after the last ice age which is the most well known significant long-term temperature change. With all of the climate change deniers out there, it's amazing that more don't realize that if scientists are "wrong all of the time", that they could be very wrong about the safety of all our modern pollution levels.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 4:47 PM

Saskboy,

yes you are correct what we churn out may be harmful. All for pollution reduction/minimization or alterntively the full recognition of the costs of polluting.

But that is a very different problem from the alleged man made cause of climate change. Different problems...Kyoto isnt an anti pollution treaty its a anti man made global warming treaty (allegedly)

Point is we dont know so I wouldnt sign on to a treaty that solves a potentially non ecxistent or non solveable problem...i.e. if this is a natural cycle then go with the flow.

The amount of energy output washes out anything we do. Once again, the dispassionate scientist needs to study potential hypothses and when they have a decent prediction model that not only explains the past but indicates the future then we will have solved that problem.

Once again lets not through virgins in volcanoes because it seems to be the right thing to do....prove it, publish it and peer review it....that hasnt happened yet. Its all speculation and politics right now, on both sides.

Acid rain and CFC's show there are things we do to the earth that cause problems but the scientific method generates the needed consensus to drive action. Anything else leads to inaction or reaction.

So when they prove and can properly predict c02 temperature models then I will sign on.

As for reducing oil consumption....best reason right now is to stop funding Iran and Saudi, THAT is something I can buy into

Posted by: Stephen at August 26, 2006 4:58 PM

I've not been saying that Mother Nature's compensations might not be ugly, from our point of view. And the part of us committed to the biological imperative will attempt to ameliorate those effects, but in the end, to the extent the effects are a direct result of us, ultimately the only solution will revert to some form of population control, either voluntarily accepted by us, or imposed by Mother Nature. Whether we survive it is a craps shoot. Survival means adaptation, biologically as well as intraspecifically.
The population dynamics of most species follows generally the same basic developmental curve, and we're right on cue. Slow start developing critical reproductive mass, sometimes explosive variable geometric growth spurt [guess what phase we're in...], oscillatory plateau with dampening amplitude, as we achieve some level of steady-state with our local environment, followed by any combination of variable geometric declines or spurts as our necessary resources come and go. The bad news is that the first oscillation at the end of the initial spurt is frequently brutal. Pops tend to overshoot on the first hump. Along the way some of us get better at handling the local conditions, breed more efficiently and eureka, you're now not quite what you were.

What you are seeing beginning to happen today are the external factors starting to come into play that may be a consequence of our success, or, may be Mother Nature's compensation coming into play, or both, or neither. We don't know, and may never know. We also may not be able to stop it. The oscillatory plateau will come at some point, because eventually, "Mother Nature always compensates... LOL!

Who knows, Pluto may go postal as a result of being demoted and carom us off into a parallel universe, before we reach that point. Enjoy your time in the sun while you can...!

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 5:07 PM

Well, there is a solution for you Saskboy - move to a third world country, where a substantive amount of their daily grind involves drinking sludge (untreated water) and breathing smog (from burning of renewable fuels) and living as nature intended - with extremely high infant mortality rates and brief lifespans.

In short, living the way man did for millenia until those pcb's and nuclear powerplants and efficiency of movement, and commerce came along to extend life beyond anything humankind has seen before.

Now, to be sure - some of those "invisible" pollutants the environazis now concentrate on (what you can't see, you can't refute) may indeed be promoting growth of cancers in genetically predisposed individuals (in the way that cigarettes promote lung cancer), but that's the tradeoff.

Put it this way - in the grand scheme of things, the horrid ways of the western industrial world, with it's greed for energy and consumer goods, have made possible the ability of at least 1/3 of us to speak with each other on the net today.

Not because of the invention of computers - but because we survived infancy.

Posted by: Kate at August 26, 2006 5:07 PM
"...but because we survived infancy."


...and live to breed about it... :)

Posted by: Skip at August 26, 2006 5:16 PM

"Yes, the globe has been warming since the Ice Age. All of Canada and a good portion of the US used to be under glacial ice. Yet Socialist scientists, funded by Socialist governments and cheered on by Socialist media, isolate data from the last 30 years in order to tax Socialist people."

Mind you, those same 'socialist' scientists developed the networks and computers that this blog and the rest of the internet uses. The climate is extremely complex, and studying it is a new science. Scientists are too busy trying to come up with correct predictions to worry much about the politics of how they're used ... the media (both left and right) and politicians are the ones doing that. A lot of their predictions will be false - just as most of the early predictions about everything from material science to medicine were. But if you're sure they're purposefully obscuring obvious truths, I'd suggest you publish a paper on it ... Nobel Prize's are worth over a million now, it'd definitely be worth your time.

Posted by: george at August 26, 2006 5:43 PM

Stephen, not sure, but did you mean the sun's energy output affects temperature more than anything we can do? Even with a slight incline in our angle to the sun we get a different season, so I don't find it hard to believe that by changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere we'll affect both/either the level of sunlight we get, or trap against the earth. It's easy to see the change in a large city like Toronto with all of the smog, so why can't more people comprehend that the same thing can happen globally?

Anyway, I understand your point about Kyoto, and it doesn't focus on pollution control as much as carbon in the air. But what is the alternative plan? Where is the Made in Canada solution, and why are we waiting for it when alternative plans are already available around the world, and in fact in other parties like the Greens?

--
"Well, there is a solution for you Saskboy - move to a third world country, where a substantive amount of their daily grind involves drinking sludge (untreated water) and breathing smog (from burning of renewable fuels) and living as nature intended - with extremely high infant mortality rates and brief lifespans."

Come on now Kate. I'm not talking about rejecting technology to regress, I'm talking about PROgress. Switching city dwellers driving 10km/day to electric engines is progress. Burning food or trees at a low temperature and high carbon output to heat our homes... regress.

It's undeniable that pollution like carbon oxides, lead, PCBs, and radiation will create a ceiling in our lifespan and quality of life that need not exist. They got us here, but that doesn't mean they can KEEP us here. That's why you hear environmentalists talking about "sustainability". We're not trying to take away things and leave people with nothing, we're trying to replace unsustainable activities and products with ones that will keep us all going and give room for the other 2/3rd to join the modern age of technology.

Infant mortality and birth defects will and I'd surmise ARE rising due to pollution. If anyone has stats to the contrary I welcome seeing them.

Posted by: saskboy at August 26, 2006 5:46 PM

Saskboy,

Yes you get local effects, always will. But we are allegedly discussing GLOBAL warming.

Point is, there has yet to be any decent proof put forward that there is man made global warming. There are all kinds of possibilities, once again we use to believe there was a rain god, a sun god etc etc...that didnt make it true.

All we know is that climate changes. The simplest explaination is that variations in energy inputs cause these long cyles, as opposed to potential chemical changes that we have yet to explain. There are other potential explainations but until there is a good model for them it would be folly to invest major dollars, especially in a flawed treaty, to attack what may be a non existent problem.

Shouldn't take action on things we dont understand. As discussed here before, Kyoto was essentially a wealth transfer protocol not a pollution reducing or greenhouse gas reducing protocol. Even if there was a problem caused by humanity Kyoto wouldnt solve it.

Just need GOOD science to keep at it so we can understand, then we can take action if it is necessary and appropriate. For the moment, I remain a skeptic but put the proof out there and I'll be on board.

Posted by: Stephen at August 26, 2006 6:12 PM

The "climate change" scam being perpetrated by the statist authoritarians is a ponzi-scheme protection racket. I'd tell you what I think of Mr. Strong & Mr. Suzuki, but I don't want to get Small Dead Animals into trouble.

Any chance, George, you could explain to us why you think that it is the case that, as you put it, "socialist scientists developed the networks and computers that this blog and the rest of the internet uses"? I don't think that conjecture holds water.

Posted by: Vitruvius at August 26, 2006 6:17 PM

Vitruvius,

Any chance, George, you could explain to us why you think that it is the case that, as you put it, "socialist scientists developed the networks and computers that this blog and the rest of the internet uses"? I don't think that conjecture holds water.

Never heard about Al Gore?

Posted by: ural at August 26, 2006 7:21 PM

Social Scientists developed the networks.....?

News flash......technologists like me developed the networks pal!

Get back on your meds......get professional help.....get a freekin life.

Posted by: OMMAG at August 26, 2006 7:39 PM

Well, in terms of who really brought us the computers and networks we are using, I was thinking more along the lines of James Clerk Maxwell, Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, John von Neumann, Calude Shannon, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, and Tim Berners-Lee.

There's some background information on them here - tinyurl.com/ozn46 - scroll down to 1931 and following. I don't see a lot of socialism going on there.

Posted by: Vitruvius at August 26, 2006 7:59 PM

Found poetry:

his reindeer now graze

on wild thyme

amid the purple blooms

of Niviarsiaq flowers. H/T Lauren Etter ...-

All Magnusson sees is the reindeers harnessing the hydro by the cusp where the boons grow amid the foot of the genesis brink reindeer a gripping story, eh, Eve? ...-

Where global warming's welcome Some Greenlanders see boon in milder temperatures
The Pittsburg Post-Gazette ^ | August 26, 2006 | Lauren Etter

Stefan Magnusson lives at the foot of a giant, melting glacier. Some think he's living on the brink of a cataclysm. He believes he's on the cusp of creation.

The 49-year-old reindeer rancher says a warming trend in Greenland over the past decade has caused the glacier on his farm to retreat 300 feet, revealing land that hasn't seen the light of day for hundreds of years, if not more. Where ice once gripped the earth, he says, his reindeer now graze on wild thyme amid the purple blooms of Niviarsiaq flowers.

The melting glacier near Mr. Magnusson's home is pouring more water into the river, which he hopes soon to harness for hydroelectricity.

"We are seeing genesis by the edge of the glacier," he says. ...-


free republic

Posted by: maz2 at August 26, 2006 8:31 PM

"Switching city dwellers driving 10km/day to electric engines is progress. "

Oh, yeah. Those spent batteries are sure to be great for the enviroment.
Wonderful progress.

Posted by: jay at August 26, 2006 8:43 PM

Is Anyone Else Keeping Track?

As a matter of fact, yes and with links to:

Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, Arctic bogs melt, Asthma, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased

and that's just the "A"s. There's hundreds of them.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Posted by: Kathryn at August 26, 2006 9:02 PM

Good News, Folks....just vote Liberal and the world is saved

Posted by: Zilla at August 26, 2006 9:09 PM

Antarctic grass flourishes? Mabel, round up the herd, we're goin' south!

Posted by: Vitruvius at August 26, 2006 9:10 PM

Vitruvius,

Thank you for the link - irrelevant. I think what George was saying is:

"in the future socialist scientists developed the networks and computers that this blog and the rest of the internet uses"

Deal with it.

Posted by: ural at August 26, 2006 10:06 PM

You're welcome, Ural. Yes I knew you were kidding in the AG post. Still, I don't think that tinyurl.com/ozn46 is irrelevant to the nature of who really brought us the computers and networks we are using.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic, so I'll leave it at that. The more important matter is surely that computer climate models are, to the best of our knowledge, completely untrustworthy.

Posted by: Vitruvius at August 26, 2006 10:19 PM

Forget about global warming - it's pretty smug to think that humans could be possible for such a huge alteration to the world. Mother Nature is much more powerful than the human race. What I worry about is water pollution and nobody seems to give a rat's ass about that. Untreated sewage goes into our oceans from Canadian cities and wasn't it reported somewhere that Paul Martin's own Steam Ship Lines was found dumping waste into the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes? He said it was ok because every other shipping line did it - great. I detest seeing our sources of water polluted. It aught to be a huge crime against nature and the rest of humanity and there should be consequences for those who do it.

Posted by: JR at August 26, 2006 11:14 PM

Saskboy,

It seems you haven't heard yet that it's acknowledged even by Kyoto proponents that full implementation of the Kyoto accord will have no effect on climate change.

So why bother?

And for a comprehensive analysis of CO2 and global warming, here's an excellent website:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Posted by: dirtman at August 27, 2006 12:08 AM

"Oh, yeah. Those spent batteries are sure to be great for the enviroment."

Then don't throw the batteries into the ground. You know we stopped doing that with spent motor oil? The chemicals in used batteries are the same as they ever were, they don't change nuclearly.

And just to remind you, there are batteries in standard vehicles today.

Posted by: saskboy at August 27, 2006 2:32 AM

Social Scientists developed the networks.....?

I think the US military had a huge hand in it not some commie "scientists". How the left lies.

Posted by: FREE at August 27, 2006 10:53 AM

JR, I'm with you on your last point - Victoria, Halifax, and St. John's all dump sewage into the oceans without treatment. They did it during the Liberals, and are doing it now under the Conservatives. The Sierra Club is suing Victoria I believe to put treatment in place since it's a federal crime to pollute in that manner - it's just not being enforced.

You first point doesn't count though. Smugness is when we think we have no impact on the world around us, despite there being billions of humans. Look at your ocean example for in-your-face evidence of the affect a group of humans has on environment quality. There are other ways to affect biome changes too, including clear cutting/burning, tilling, mining, nuking, and the list goes on.

--
dirtman "So why bother?"
Because what other plan has the world or Canada's government come up with to deal with air pollution. Some of the solutions to reduce CO2 for Kyoto also reduce other air pollutants, like the windfarms can. Until there's something better, we should be doing something to reduce carbon emissions and increase natural carbon sinks we've previously removed. Maybe we shouldn't trade "credits", but nothing's stopping us from making other changes besides laziness and a lack of will from the Conservatives and Liberals to enact environmental changes that will benefit nearly everyone.

Posted by: saskboy at August 27, 2006 1:21 PM

saskboy said: "Look at your ocean example for in-your-face evidence of the affect (sic) a group of humans has on environment quality. There are other ways to affect biome changes too, including clear cutting/burning, tilling, mining, nuking, and the list goes on". Sure, humans can certainly make a mess, but I really don't think you can extrapolate that to 'credit' us with changing the planet's weather.

--

Posted by: Nemo2 at August 27, 2006 2:28 PM

So sorry Nemo2 - effect.

We change the environment in local regions, it's not so hard to fathom that we could have a global effect too. Forest fire smoke from hundreds of kilometers away is visible and smog creating in other parts of the planet. That's an easy to see example of pollution in one region affecting another. Anti-environmentalists routinely say that if a few volcanos erupt, they will change the weather, so why worry about climate change when it happens naturally. To that I say, "Why are we pushing down the path to mimic volcanoes when we know the damage they can do to life globally?"

Posted by: saskboy at August 27, 2006 3:02 PM

"Any chance, George, you could explain to us why you think that it is the case that, as you put it, "socialist scientists developed the networks and computers that this blog and the rest of the internet uses"? I don't think that conjecture holds water."

Well, the 'socialist' was ironic, a comment on another poster who said 'socialist scientists' were behind the environmentalist claims. As a group, scientists aren't socialist, despite that poster's claims. In fact, we tend to be fairly a-political, especially professionally. There are individual scientists who get involved in politics, but very few ... who has the time?

But if you're going to blame science for the concept of global warming (which is a scientific theory rather than a political agenda, and like all good science, makes testable predictions, many of which might turn out to be false and so lead to an improved theory), it seems only fair to give scientists credit for the good we do as well. There's a lot of science bashing out there ... more from the left than the right, but the right has its hobby horses too.

Whenever anyone dislikes a scientific theory, they attack scientists (left wingers call us nazi's, right wingers call us socialists ... funny that). Fine, everyone has a right to their own opinion. It's just particularly ironic to see people use high tech to complain about scientists. The universe is a very complex place, and probably every theory we have will later turn out to be mistaken. For instance, quantum mechanics and our current theory of gravity - general relativity - cannot both be true ... they are fundamentally contradictory so at least one of them will turn out to be false.

But the same people who complain about scientists drive cars, use computers, modern medicine etc. Its frustrating sometimes ... how can a society which enjoys so many benefits of science be so anti-science?

Posted by: george at August 27, 2006 6:09 PM

Saskboy said: dirtman "So why bother?"
Because what other plan has the world or Canada's government come up with to deal with air pollution. Some of the solutions to reduce CO2 for Kyoto also reduce other air pollutants, like the windfarms can. End quote.

There are many plans that have successfully reduced air pollution. Scrubbers, catalytic converters etc. Kyoto does nothing to reduce air pollution. Wind farms only reduce air pollution if they replace burner type generators. But they don't. Wind farms are just NEW generation, and the old burners keep on burning. Get it through your head that Kyoto is a wealth transfer from the capitalist west by leftists who are outraged that capitalism produces wealth, and socialism doesn't.

Posted by: dirtman at August 28, 2006 1:40 AM

Actually, Kyoto isn't about capitalism vs socialism at all. Its simply about buying your way out of a political problem for which you have neither the will nor the technology to fix, and for which the political solution will get you punched out of power.

Global warming isn't yet a scientific theory. It remains yet merely a hypothesis. Causation has not been determined, nor in fact has the event itself been confirmed. There are apparent energy shifts underway, but there is no concrete evidence that a net gain is taking place.

(Scientifc)Theories are a summation of provable facts leading to a repeatably demonstable cause and effect. Hyypotheses are a summation of (sometime) educated guesses that hint to a possible cause and effect.

The public doesn't understand what a "theory" is. Don't be careless with the terminology. People can learn to spell "hypothesis". Even say it. (hi- POTH-ess-iss) :)

Posted by: Skip at August 28, 2006 6:46 AM

Saskboy quoted me::

" The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, human production is at best 10%.How much should we reduce these gases - to zero? Then all life on the planet will die."

And you completely missed the point with:

"You didn't very reasonably argue it. Who would argue that CO2 in the atmosphere should be reduced to 0, duh? Clearly the lower we can make human controlled contributions to the atmosphere, the more NATURAL the earth's climate will be. It's just straight forward reasoning.
"

Of course I wouldn't argue zero CO2, but what would you argue? The whole point is the "correct" or "natural" level of CO2 is unknown, and it has varied immensely over the planet's history

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at August 28, 2006 11:06 AM

Stephen:

You were right about the quote the first time:

"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who 'love nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which 'Man has spoiled Nature'. The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of 'Nature" - but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his own race - i.e., his own self-hatred..."

-Robert A. Heinlein- (circa 1973)

Further, worrying about man-made climate change is a fools game, IMHO. Sure, lets not shit in our own sandbox, but climate is a huge and chaotic system, and thinking we can affect it, positively or negatively, is insufferably arrogant.
We don't know exactly how it works, it's way to big to model in any way, we don't know if we're affecting change or not, and we don't know whether the potential change is good or bad.

Tilting at windmills doesn't affect the windmill, it just gives you a sore neck.

So, what to do? Back to Kates' original post...
Adaptation is always the answer, it's really the only thing we humans KNOW we can successfully DO.

;)

.

Posted by: Mad Mike at August 28, 2006 12:14 PM

If adaptation is the answer, why is Kate ignoring the value of this research in helping 50 million people in Pakistan anticipate changes in their water supply? (More about this at my place.)

Posted by: Laura at August 28, 2006 2:51 PM
Site
Meter