sda2.jpg

December 30, 2006

Birth Of An Ice Cube

It's not often one gets a chance to pack this much uncontested hyperbole into a news item;

Laval University's Warwick Vincent, who studies Arctic conditions, travelled to the new ice island and couldn't believe what he saw. "It was extraordinary," Vincent said Thursday. "This is a piece of Canadian geography that no longer exists."

Ice is geography now?
Vincent said in 10 years of working in the region, he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice.

And in 15 years of working in this region, I've never shovelled so much snow this early in the year. So what?
Scientists said it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years. They point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.

And there they go again. Maybe they meant to say "3,000" years. Or maybe 300? In other words - what is the significance about any event of this type being the "largest" in 30 years and how does that legitimize the assertion that it's an indication of global climate change? Are we to deduce that an even larger chunk broke free in 1976? Or that - more likely - data is insufficient prior to the mid-1970's to make any meaningful comparisons.

Despite the article's mention that this chunk of ice "travelled west for 50 kilometres until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter", Mr. Vincent seems nearly inconsolable;

"We're seeing the tragic loss of unique features of the Canadian landscape," Vincent said, adding the global climate is crossing an unprecedented threshold.

"There are microscopic organisms and entire ecosystems associated with this ice, so we're losing a part of Canada's natural richness."


It's a good thing Dr. Vincent wasn't around to witness the effects of the North American megadrought of the 1600's. He'd have positively had a bird. In the comments, Cal2 makes this wry observation;
11000 football fields sounds way worse than 20 square miles [...] just for comparison the area of Calgary is 300 square miles.the area of Red Deer Alberta 25 square miles or 14000 football fields.

Arctic weather map (It's -36C in Alert this morning).

Back to our article. Just how did they learn of the momentous event? No one was on hand to observe it. Scientists "reconstructed" it "using high tech monitoring devices, including satellite images". Presumably, the same ones that were in place prior to 1906, to enable widely quoted scientists like Dr. Vincent to place his "10 years" of regional observation in the broader climatological context.

With all due respect to the climate cultists - while it ensures the media attention you crave, the use of alarmist terminology like "tragic" and "unprecedented" to describe an ice cube floating in the arctic ocean isn't likely to sway skeptics already desensitized to sensational overkill.



Related - Residents of Nunavut don't seem as concerned about the polar bear population decline as the armchair activists are. In fact, they'd like to keep shooting them, thankyou very much.

Also related - The FCPP is hosting a lecture with historical climatologist, Tim Ball on January 27th in Winnipeg.

Posted by Kate at December 30, 2006 11:25 AM
Comments

Tragic was the iceberg that the Titanic hit--this incident was just the normal evolution of the earth. Dr. Vincent worries about a hunk of ice causing the Canadian landscape to be destroyed because of microscopic organisms being lost, but has no concerns about the polluted water and air that just keeps getting worse in Canada. It is this kind of rhetoric that makes many thinking people understand that these cultists are just looking for more funding, not that they have anything meaningful to contribute. If he was so concerned why wasn't he up there caring for this icecube--maybe duct tape it to the rest of the ice? This is the mentality that is teaching our children at Laval and other Universities?

Posted by: George at December 30, 2006 11:55 AM

Leftists really need to get that the lifespan of the average demo-troll is NOT the cosmic benchmark for time...

Posted by: Skip at December 30, 2006 12:01 PM

"... to the climate cultists .." That is EXACTLY what they are, cultists.

And this whole scam is so stupid, so obvious, so pathetic, so democracy destroying, and so easy to see through.

Just google two words, Maurice Strong.

If the Leftstream Media had half a brain and would have asked just a few questions, the Kyoto Hoax would have been dead in the 'naturally changing climatic water'. But oh-no, not our beloved waco-journos.

The media has got a lot of milage and tree harvest out of Oak Lake, Manitoba,

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 30, 2006 12:04 PM

The end result of the “Global Warming Consensus” should be pretty interesting …

I have heard several times that the good science (which has far more modest predictions) is being ignored in favour of bad science; bad science meaning where they take unrealistic mathematical models, fill it with faulty data and flawed assumptions in order to get more dramatic results.

A question I have is what is going to happen over the next 10-20 years? If the scientists who are using bad science are discredited is global climate change going to become the punch line in a joke? When their predictions don’t come true are people going to claim that it was because they were wrong or that Kyoto was successful (even though Greenhouse gas emissions will probably skyrocket)?

Posted by: NoOne at December 30, 2006 12:06 PM

Climate change ?? Bring it on.

Thank goodness the last 15,000 years have been getting warmer, the ice sheets have been receding and thousands of "record warmest years" have been set.

It would be very uncomfortable for all the champagne socialists in Toronto who scream global warming chaos bullshit if they were still living under 10,000 feet of ice sheet.

They should be kissing the butt end of the great global warming god, because the inverse is the next advance of the ice sheets.

Which we are due for any time now !!


Posted by: Fred at December 30, 2006 12:22 PM

Don't these Kyoto clowns ever get tired of running around in little circles in a panic? This type of propaganda is now so predictable that it isn't even funny any more. But, of course, brain-challenged left wingers join the lemmings in going over the cliff. I guess this is what happens when they take critical thinking out of the school curriculum.

Posted by: John Luft at December 30, 2006 12:28 PM

The leftist "Climate Injustice" types are truly suffering from a chronic brain disorder, nobody in their right mind could be taken by such B.S. Woof.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at December 30, 2006 12:34 PM

"The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse.

But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry." - Andrew Kenny, The Sunday Mail

That's probably why the slogan has switched from "global warming" to "climate change" - this way they can cover whatever event or "geography" they want and measure whatever period of time that supports whatever they want to say.

'The world's about to end' - always gets an audience.

But what about the accelerating magnetic pole shift? That couldn't have anything to do with changes in the Canadian arctic, could it? Nah.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 30, 2006 12:38 PM

Climate change/globalwarming -- I read that Mars is also warming. Little trickles of water/ice five years ago are now much larger streams. So what is casing Mars to warm? Is it all those SUV's or is it all Stephen Harper's fault anyway? Let's just give our heads a shake.

Posted by: Shirley at December 30, 2006 12:40 PM

PM Stephen Harper tips his toes into the Arctic Ocean, and a chunk of the ice drops off. Do you think there's a connection? I'll bet there is, and I'll bet that Stephane Dion uses this "fact" in his election campaign....."See how evil dis Stephen Harper is....he poots his foot in da Arctic Ocean, and a hooge chunk of the land drops off....if we don't get him out of office, Canada will be nuthing but chunks of land. He will break up dis beautiful country, where you can have French citizenship and still be Prime Minister."

Look for that story in the MSM, because it's sure to come.

Posted by: anonymous at December 30, 2006 12:40 PM

Wasn't it David Suzuki that gave a speech at an eastern university about the disastrous effects of global COOLING in the 80’s?

Posted by: Western Canadian at December 30, 2006 12:46 PM

From the CBC article on polar bear hunting:

"...But the environmental groups behind the proposal say they are not targeting the sports hunt but rather hoping to encourage the U.S. government to take action to reduce climate change.

"It is possible that a species listed under the Endangered Species Act, that the Fish and Wildlife Service would still allow importation of sport-hunted trophies if they found that the hunting was consistent with the conservation of the species," said Kassie Siegel, who is with the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity."..."

How, exactly, is sport hunting consistent with conservation of a species?

Posted by: Candace at December 30, 2006 12:48 PM

The false god of leftism is the diety of Victimization. Without a victim, there can be no rationale for leftist socialist causes - no reason to go the extra mile for someone else, to build an economic model on the plight of someone else. It is only natural for the true believers to move to the Nirvana of World Victimization. Like any religion, you have to elevate hopelessness to the level of the unknowable in order to obtain mass appeal for your catechism. The left are not cultists, they are the new islamofascists.

Posted by: Skip at December 30, 2006 12:49 PM

I have a running debate on canadian content about this catastrophe. The Kyoto Klowns refuse to understand that this is simply an iceberg. It will happen again and again.

Posted by: wallyj at December 30, 2006 12:50 PM

Candace, many ways. Go get yourself a degree in population biology and wildlife management, and come back to talk. All will be revealed.

Posted by: Skip at December 30, 2006 12:55 PM

Skip, that is a totally ungracious and rude remark. There are many people in the country who, through no fault of their own, dont understand the relationship between hunters and hunted, fishermen and fish.
I have always felt that blogs were a place to go to get information, not gratuitous remarks like that.
I wonder if you wanted Candace to get those degrees so she could come back and educate you.
In the meantime, go and take a few courses in civility.

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2006 1:23 PM

If you want to get the truth on all this crying about human's effect on global warming go and visit
w3.friendsofscience.org. You will get the real skinny there.

Don

Posted by: Don at December 30, 2006 1:24 PM

Long live climate change. Perhaps the ecoconspiracytheorists will be among the spiecies failing to adapt to new evolutionary realities and die out just like the dinosaurs did oh so long ago.

Posted by: Zip at December 30, 2006 1:29 PM

skip, you nailed it !!

"The left are not cultists, they are the new islamofascists". (They have transformed.)

And as Patric Moore, Canadian, Greenspirit.com said; 'Global Warming(Climate Change, Climate Justice or what ever one wants to call it), is perfect Cultist-material. The ingredients.

1) a so-called subject that is hard to prove, either way. (although man-made-warming is now being disproved; solar forcing, climate has always changed, was warmer a 1000 years ago, we are still warming out of the last ice age, Mars is also warming, CO2 is the least impotant of the GH gases ect.

2) a so-called victim. Us.

3) a so-called villian. Oil companies.

4) a so-called bad boy. Mankind.

5) a cult leader. Maurice Strong.

6) an enabler. Our beloved media. Their job is to foster and promote and perpetuate the myth in order to sell in their dead tree business. Just as they did with; Y2K, DDT scare, Population Explosion, Malthus Food Shortages, Mirabelle Airport, Crop Circles, Martians, Oil For Food, Franken Foods, Global Cooling, Lost City of Atlantis, SARS Panic, West Nile Panic, Roswell NM Spaceship, Shroud of Turin, One World Governance, Earth Charter, Bermuda Triangle, UN/Mann's hockey stick graph ...

Hoaxes/scams all. So funny, if not for the hardship it imposed on those that fell for them.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 30, 2006 1:34 PM

So whats with this high level 'crat in the environment Department who just got handed his walking papers?

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2006 1:54 PM

As a patriotic Canadian, I must protest the conversion of the size of this ice mass to "football fields", that's more an (gasp) American thing.

Oh, and is that NFL or CFL football fields, there's a big difference, especially in the end zone.

For a Montreal based prof to convert to "football fields" is particularly insulting, what with his residence in the home of Les Canadiens.

So, how many damned hockey rinks is this ice mass? And I mean NHL, not those European ice dancing rinks! Give it to us in language we Canadian masses can comprehend! (mutter, mutter)

Let's see, um, knought into knought is knought.....why, it's a whole bunch of hockey rinks, and they haven't vanished from the Canadian landscape, only relocated 50 km away!

Hmm, about the size of half a dozen good Manitoba farms, or a fortieth of the Gang Ranch, doesn't seem so big, or catastrophic.

As for the polar bears, there is one regular poster here at SDA, whose RCAF buddy worked on the DEW line in the 60's, his comments regarding the Natives respect for this form of wildlife, are rather startling. Hope he posts in on this thread.

Posted by: dmorris at December 30, 2006 2:00 PM

Chill out, Lee (pun intended). I'm sure Candace was sharpening a rhetorical knife to puncture Lee's (assumed) pomposity. Now you ruined her opportunity to say (oh, so sweetly): "please explain, mr expert."

Actually, Skip's largely correct - this needs a long conversation: simple predetor-prey models (which is where one has to introduce the subject) are misleading.

Sport hunting (my crude definition) - "the deliberate culling of a species that is having a deleterious impact on its environment as a consequence of unstable interactions with other population sub-groups"

Does NOT apply to humans...

Posted by: Tenebris at December 30, 2006 2:12 PM

Question; Which ariel photo do you think the media made a story of, on the front page, c/w reprinted photo ?? #1 or #2

#1) a log boom in an almost perfect shape of a heart in a tranquil seting with sun-glistening waters.

#2) a poorly done crop circle, constructed in a farmers field by someone(s) with too much time on their hands.

You got it. Apparently many media outlets clamored for the hoaxy crop-circle. Why ??

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 30, 2006 2:23 PM

And i,ll bet already AL GORE and the wackos in GREENPEACE are blaming it on GLOBAL WARMING i mean the chicken littles are always blaming such things on global warming like when they tried to blame the dec 26th 2004 tsunami on global warming and everybody knows what happend when the RMS TITANIC met with a iceburg

Posted by: spurwing plover at December 30, 2006 2:56 PM

The story illustrates that the Kyoto crowd and the media have pretty much taken the whole debate over anthropogenic CO2 emission as a cause of global warming/climate change out of the realm of scientific debate and plopped it squarely into the realm of pseudo-religious cultism. At present there is virtually no meteorological or geophysical event that isn't cited as "proof" of global warming. It's rather akin to the "end of the world" cults whose gurus see signs of imminent demise everywhere and anywhere. Each and every revelation is in turn seen by the acolytes as proof of the inspired wisdom of the guru -- all quite pathetic really, and so very human.

Posted by: DrD at December 30, 2006 3:23 PM

Candace, through groups like Ducks Unlimited and The Wild Turkey federation, just to name a couple.

Hunters are totally responsible for repopulating the Wild Turkey into Southern Ontario.
Also sport fishing groups like Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters voluntarily staff and funding fish hatcheries, and habitat regeneration.
Our licence fees go toward enforcement of poaching laws and restocking costs.

Posted by: richfisher at December 30, 2006 3:36 PM

Well done Richfisher!
Its really not all that complicated.

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2006 3:41 PM

When reading through the Alaskan Report on Polar Bears, I noticed that the information on ice coverage in he Arctic Basin was based on satellite images dating back to 1996. So it's probably true that this event is unprecedented and shocking because it hasn't happened in the past ten years. Which apparently is the extent Mr Vincent's Arctic expertise as well.

BCL: I read your explanation but you stopped before the bit about iceshelves and national territory.

Cheers

Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at December 30, 2006 4:11 PM

SO the ice was 3,000 years old....only....guess this happened before, say about 3,000 years ago.

Why is this such a shock and surprise?

Posted by: Stephen at December 30, 2006 4:17 PM

Is he saying that the industrial revolution put an end to the ice age? Gee, I don't remember learning THAT in history/geography class. Maybe it was dino dung gas. I thought cows were the cause of climate change? The answer is blowing in the wind, no doubt. We don't need to ask how this Laval professor votes, do we?

Posted by: Iron Lady at December 30, 2006 4:21 PM

If you want to get the truth on all this crying about human's effect on global warming go and visit
w3.friendsofscience.org. You will get the real skinny there.

And the real skinny on the Friends of Science Society is this: FoS receives funding from, among other sources, oil and petroleum companies, funnelled through the Science Education Fund. At least one of its founding members, Albert Jacobs, is a former oil explorations manager. At least one of their registered lobbyists, Morten Paulsen, is also a registered lobbyist for ConocoPhillips and Kinder Morgan Canada. This alone doesn't prove that the FoS is merely a puppet mouthpiece for the oil industry, but it does raise some serious questions about their impartiality and credibility.

Incidentally, their most well-known spokesperson is Dr. Tim Ball, whom Kate notes is giving a lecture sponsored by the FCPP in Winnipeg next month, and who bills himself as "Canada's first PhD in climatology." In fact, according to Queen Mary College at the University of London, his doctorate was in geography. He has claimed to be a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." In fact, his professorship was with the Department of Geography.

In any case, his academic research agenda was indeed focused on "historical climatology." His FoS biography describes Dr. Ball as having "an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition." In fact, literature searches on Scopus and Scholars Portal find a total of only four peer-reviewed articles attributable to Dr. Ball in his entire academic career (spanning anywhere from 8 to 14 to 28 to 32 years, depending on who you ask), all focused on climate change in the Hudson Bay area during the 18th and 19th centuries, all published prior to 1994 (and three of the four published in the 1980s). Again, this alone does not necessary indicate that Dr. Ball is a poor scientist, though it does suggest that he may not be as qualified a technical expert on the science of long-term global climate change as his backers would like you to believe.

It seems to be a point of pride among SDA readers that they are especially critical with respect to self-styled punditry, adept at examining the backgrounds of (usually "left-wing") "experts" in order to expose cracks in their legitimacy. I encourage you to apply those same high standards to FoS and its membership.

Posted by: A at December 30, 2006 4:23 PM

No problem, Skip! I didn't realize a formal education was required to ask a question. Never having hunted, I haven't a clue & was looking for information.

richfisher - thanks for the info, I'd forgotten about Ducks Unlimited & others.

Posted by: Candace at December 30, 2006 4:37 PM

bigcitylib, you made a typo. BCLSB should and does read BCLBS.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 30, 2006 4:42 PM

Would the author of the story (its impossible to call this drivel journalism or scientific reporting) please point out the broken ice shelf on the satellite photo provided by CTV. We will then be able to determine how significant this is to the arctic ice cap.

Then again, don't bother its insignificant! it would not even be visible on the satellite photo.

The tragedy here is that taxpayers fund fluff programs in universities so that this professor and many of his ilk may "earn" a living.

Posted by: Cascadian at December 30, 2006 4:45 PM

I want all Chinooks reported as climatic disasters.

average chinook covers 100,000 sq. kilometers or in laymans terms 17 million football fields. they melt up to a foot of snow easily making them worse than any moving ice shelf.

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 4:47 PM

Go cast your vote on Climate Change:

http://rm.angusreidforum.com/?cid=178&rs=GgEnGW

Posted by: JamesHalifax at December 30, 2006 4:51 PM

I have known Dr. Tim Ball for a long time. He is very, very qualified in his field of Climatology.

Tim's work in researching the Hudson Bay Company's weather and climate data was, and still is, unprecedented. A man of impeccable integrity. He is absolutely NOT, I repeat, NOT in the back pocket of energy companies.

David Suzuki watched fruit flies for a while. Then he so-called 'taught' at a university. Then he voiced over for the CBC, whose funding comes from a political organization bent on imposing social engineering 'ideas'.

INTEGRITY ?? Choose your weapon.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 30, 2006 4:56 PM

The big ice cube much a do about nothing. But to the alarmist nut bars the world is in dire straights. Yes more money to be had for giant ice cube studies. Like it appears to be, or more than likley might be, it seems to be; so it must be true. Hey every day people flush down whole ecosystems in their toilets and no howdey do about that.

Posted by: Ken E. at December 30, 2006 5:49 PM

Huge ice shelf breaks free in Canada's far north
Reuters AlertNet - 29 Dec 2006
By Jeffrey Jones. CALGARY, Alberta, Dec 29 (Reuters) - A chunk of ice bigger than the area of Manhattan broke from an ice shelf in Canada's far north and could wreak havoc if it starts to float westward toward ...-


Reuters Alert!! Clear out of Alberta, CBC, and parts of Yukon. CWB-Sask exempted. Newfies can stay; they are used to living on icebergs, like those seals Bardot wanted to have ... All else run for the hills. ...-
(The MSM/Jones are idiots.)

Posted by: maz2 at December 30, 2006 6:05 PM

Tree huggers should take note of the Denver area weather for the last week, which gave them from 3 to 6 feet of snow. If you want to build up glaciers and snowcaps in the mountains, then the Denver snowstorms are an example of what you are hoping for. Along with long cold winters (now what snowdrift is my Smart car under?) and short cool summers usually with crop failures.
But hey, the world has way too many people anyway, right?

Posted by: rockyt at December 30, 2006 6:16 PM

In about 1975 flew one of two helicopters supporting eight or ten geologists working for Atlantic Richfield Petroleum (ARCO) on a two month project on Ellesmere Island. They had set up camp on Canon Fjord. (Canon is pronounced Canyon, I am missing one of those ` marks over the n). There was an intermittent stream running by the camp but the water in it was too mineralized to be used for anything but washing. The drinking and cooking water supply was solved by rigging up a 45 gallon drum to be slung under the helicopter. There was an iceberg conveniently just off shore completely immobile because it was locked into the completely frozen bay. With the summer warmth it was melting slowly and had formed a beautiful aquamarine small pond accessible by our helicopters. My question then, and still is, how the iceberg reached that resting spot unless the fjord or bay had at one time consisted of open water. Was this open water caused by some hitherto unknown industrial age with high production of anthropomorphic carbon-dioxide or was a previous warm period caused by natural forces responsible? Do you think I could get a straight answer to that question from Dion, Layton, Gore or that eminent butterfly and climate expert, Suzuki?

Posted by: BobWood at December 30, 2006 6:37 PM

B. Hoax Aware writes: I have known Dr. Tim Ball for a long time. He is very, very qualified in his field of Climatology.

I don't doubt that, as long as we understand "his field of climatology" is be limited to changes in climate patterns in the Hudson Bay area in the 19th century, since that's apparently all he researched during his time at UW. Climatology is a big field. I'm not so sure that, from his limited sphere of academic knowledge, Dr. Ball's range of technical expertise can be credibly extended to authoratitive commentary on the effects of CO2 and other gases on global climate change patterns.

Of course, the same could be said for Dr. Suzuki, but then I wouldn't take Dr. Suzuki's pronouncements on global warning as gospel. The collective expertise of the IPCC and every legitimate scientific academy on the planet, on the other hand...

A man of impeccable integrity.

Integrity is defined by Merriam-Webster as the "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values"; impeccable, "free from fault or blame." In the 28 May 2006 issue of the online news website Orato, Dr. Ball lamented that "few listen [to the message that global warming is a myth], despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology...Few listen, even though...for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." An odd statement from this man of impeccable integrity, given that he's likely quite aware that he was awarded a PhD in Geography for a thesis on a topic in historical climatology and not a PhD in Climatology (and even if it had been, he wouldn't have been the first in Canada to obtain one), and that his professorship with UW's Department of Geography lasted for 14 years rather than 32. He would know this because his PhD was awarded in 1983, previous to which he had been working at UW as a lecturer. He retired as a full Professor of Geography in 1996.

He is absolutely NOT, I repeat, NOT in the back pocket of energy companies.

Maybe not consciously, maybe not willfully. Maybe he's just being used. In a 17 May 2006 meeting with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, he stated that the role of the scientist was to "challenge and to question and to test," yet when asked whether he ever received funding from oil and gas companies, Dr. Ball replied, "I made a point of not trying to find out who's paying me."

Dr. Ball may truly believe that the climate change theory is wrong. Still, the fact remains that the FoS is funded in large part by the oil and gas industries, and the FoS funds Dr. Ball's advocacy activities. Doesn't it strike you as just a little suspicious that one of the most high-profile organizations specifically created to oppose the climate change theory is supported financially by the same industries who stand to lose the most if that theory is used as the basis for future environmental policies?

Posted by: A at December 30, 2006 7:10 PM

B. Hoax Aware

15 years ago, people who followed the global warmers were cultists, but the mania has since mushroomed into a full-blown apopolyptic religion.
According to a recent Globe & Mail poll, 65% of Canadians believe that human activity is causing global warming. God help us all, we're reaping the fruit from dumbing down the public education system.

It gets worse. About a month ago, a poll (I don't remember whose) indicated that an astonishing 25% of Canadians believe that global warming is going to make the earth uninhabitable.

With regard to the new ice island - it does pose a practical threat, as it could conceivably drift into the Beaufort Sea where all the offshore oil wells are. There have been several new ice islands produced since people started to pay attention to them 60 years ago, but most of them were long gone before the offshore oil fields were developed.

One of the best know ice island,T-3 was calved from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in the 1940s and had an initial area of about 40 square miles. It wandered all over the Arctic Ocean for decades. It was grounded for a couple of years near Wainright, Alaska and eventually drifted with the pack ice between Greenland and Iceland and disappeared in the North Atlantic.

The U.S. maintained a weather station and bio-research station on T-3 off and on from 1952 until 1979 and even landed C-130 Hercules aircraft on it to bring in modular housing.

Nothing new under the sun. Nothing new about the object of the current "big story" either, as it actually broke off of the Ayles Ice Shelf in 2005. Dec. 28, 2006 was clearly a slow news day.

Posted by: Zog at December 30, 2006 7:22 PM

offshore oilwells in the Beaufort?

cant think of any?
there is oil well at Bent Horn but its on land.

The Beaufort has abandoned wells. Plugged way below surface. the Mackenzie delta a few gas wells but they are all on land as well.

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 7:45 PM

A:

I've met a few FoS members, and they are decent thoughtful people. About half of them are, like me, scientists (mostly retired). They work for free because they care about the public interest.
Most of them have children and grandchildren, but the Suzukians would have us believe that they are driven by a burning (no pun intended) desire to see the planet made uninhabitable. That is plain silly. For that matter, it's silly to think that oil company executives (most of whom are also scientists and family men) are so profit-driven that they want to see an end to civilization. A small minority of execs have even "gone over to the dark side" and taken the view that AGM may be a genuine problem, but they want to work for ""solutions"" without bringing the economy of the developed world crashing down around our ears.

Posted by: Zog at December 30, 2006 7:56 PM

I feel so humbled. I had missed the idea that iceshelves should be converted to hockey rinks not football fields. so 35000 hockey rinks. It was only when we shipped the story to the yanks should we have converted it to football fields- 11000 football fields.

and for vegas types , blackjack tables - 30 million blackjack tables.

and for CBCpravda types- 13 billion of Peter Mansbridges skin toupes.

which has higher albedo -mansbridges head or the iceshelf?

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 8:15 PM

This is an interesting item about predicted global cooling.

Here is a copy of comments I recently posted on an 'enviro-fear' blog:

I have a Bachelor of Science Degree and am working towards
> my Bachelor of Education Degree in order to teach High School
> Biology by the fall of 2008.
>
> As a future teacher I am concerned about the intellectual honesty
> and balance of the Canadian education system regarding global
> warming and climate change. After reading several messages
> generated from within this group, I have the same concern about this
> group.
>
> Climate change as a result of human activity is presented as being a
> fact when it clearly is not even close to being proven. Look at the
> history of our planet. In the last million, 100,000, 10,000, and
> even 1000 years ther is irrefutable evidence that the climate of our
> planet has changed dramatically several times. More minor climactic
> changes have been documented from the middle ages. Heres the rub.
> Was human activity present on the planet in a significant degree to
> have even a remote chance of causing any of these changes? Of
> course not. Is it therefore fair to assume that any current climate
> change on our planet can be attributed to human activity? OF COURSE
> NOT.
>
> Why is every natural disaster on the planet used as fodder for
> the 'enviro-fear' industry? If the Antartic ice sheets are shown be
> starting to melt has any honest reporter or scientist ever thought
> of asking the question: Would this be happening on our planet
> whether or not humans were on it? A partial answer to these two
> questions is that the scientists whom research these areas and the
> reporters who report on them would be out of work and research
> dollars if they were intellectually honest.
>
> I think that is is very 'humano-centric' for us to think that we
> really have a significant influence on the climate of this huge
> planet. We are missing the point about environmentalism by being so
> concerned about C02 emissions, when C02 is NOT a toxin. It
> encourages plant growth and development throughout the world. We
> SHOULD be raising awareness about real toxins and pollutants and
> developing ways to reduce their introduction to and remove them from
> our ecosystems. It is poor stewardship on the part of the human
> race to be wasting our time and money on the mitigation of C02
> emissions.

Posted by: Eric at December 30, 2006 8:27 PM

cal 2:

BP has offshore production in the Prudhoe Bay area - not being an oil guy, I can't tell you the names of the fields, but it's been going on for nearly 20 years. It's fairly shallow water stuff, but I understand that offshore drilling has been moving further out lately. I'm guessing that you ARE an oil guy and that you are therefore thinking only of the Canadian sector. BTW, I seem to recall that somebody drilled a $50 million hole on the Canadian side this year and hasn't released any results. What can you tell me about it?

Posted by: Zog at December 30, 2006 9:23 PM

I've long noticed that ice tends to melt in August and water freezes in November. I still get a kick out of comments the CEO of IPSCO made at the annual general meeting in Regina years ago concerning global warming. To paraphrase..."So let me get this straight, global warming means that in 50 years the weather in Regina will be what it currently is in Estevan?"

Poor Melfort will have to change its motto from "The Land of Rape and Honey" (which the odd tourist takes the wrong way), to "Soybean Capital of the World".

Posted by: marshall at December 30, 2006 9:31 PM

yes thinking of Canadian side only. but the iceshelf broke of Ellesmere island a mere 1000 miles or 1600 km and about 10 sets of rock islands from the US side of the Beaufort. The US production islands are about 10 miles north of the coast at maximum.

the well you ask about is tight even to me, a notorius info hound in the patch.

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 9:38 PM

cal 2

Distance doesn't matter if you're an ice island moving with the pack ice and have lots of time. As I mentioned in my initial post, T-3 made it all the way to Wainright, Alaska. In 1954 it was close to Alert after having been somewhere north of Greenland in 1951, and in 1962 it was grounded just off of the Alaska coast, southwest of Point Barrow ! In 1979 it was near Greenland again.

Posted by: Zog at December 30, 2006 10:00 PM

it would have to make its way down a channel , between islands and through what CBCpravda had everyone convinced is open sea for 6 months of the year.

anyway, the ice shelf would have to travel by Axel Rose Heiberg island. Ellef Ringes,Borden, prince patrick, bonks etc etc etc. it just aint that big. 20 square miles of ice will be ground into ice cube over 1000 miles. and if its stuck in pack ice then that negates the other argument.


in my research I came across this bit that shows our buddies of $240000/yr grants dont even look up stuff before blathering.there have been several large ice calves(?) in the last century.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island


humans have a big ego to think they can change things one bit on the pale blue dot. we are small potatoes.

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 10:16 PM

Newborn babies consist of 78% water; we share much with icebergs, more than has been acknowledged. Icebergs have rights too; after all, they're almost human. The breaking off of an iceberg is akin to infanticide. When will the slaughter end? -- r.k. ball, president, PETI.

Posted by: Richard Ball at December 30, 2006 10:23 PM

There are a bunch of screwed up people posting on this site. Global warming is a reality folks. -36 in Alert? So what? It's the end of December, the shortest daylight hours of the year. What did you expect? In my lifetime in northern Manitoba, -40c was normal for this time of year. Now, it's unheard of. But go ahead and deny the truth if it makes you feel better. So long, suckers...

Posted by: thebanana at December 30, 2006 10:48 PM

Banana:
You have me convinced. Just tell me what to do about it, and ill get right on it.

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2006 11:02 PM

thebanana,

OK, I'll bite. What should the temperature be at the winter solstice in northern Manitoba to be considered normal? What is the closest town?

Posted by: ural at December 30, 2006 11:13 PM

banana

here is the climate record of the northernmost weather station in manitoba , since the record there is -43 one would have to surmise that averages of -40 are imagined or through a drunken fog.


http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=MAN%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=3467&

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 11:29 PM

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=MAN%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=3467&


find the -40 average here.

Posted by: cal2 at December 30, 2006 11:31 PM

"In my lifetime in northern Manitoba, -40c was normal for this time of year. Now, it's unheard of."

And you're full of crap. It was about 10 years ago I drove from Delisle to Brandon, Manitoba - meeting a friend from Thompson when I got there for the dog show.

I stopped for gas in Whitewood and my van wouldn't start. That's because the battery had frozen - it was -56F.

Without the wind chill.

You can bs your way through these comments if you yackity yack about rainfall in the Amazon. But don't ever presume to bs about the temperatures on the northern plains. I live here, I drive here - and I'll call you on it.

Posted by: Kate at December 30, 2006 11:56 PM

Here in The Yukon, (note the definitive article is capitalized - the Klondikers were a nation long before Quebec! We have our own flag - "No Boundaries Here" USA/British Empire/Canada Those of us who still think Gold is King still call ourselves Yukoners...I digress) we had the coldest ever recorded temperatures in Nov. We have been recording temperatures since 1898. Can you explain that banana? Dec. has been average or above average.
The driest summer was 1899, no fires broke out to burn down the forests although there were 10 times more people living here. The Klondike was staked by gold miners who had a 'stake' in the property they had 'claimed'.
In 2000 we had a very dry June and hot temperatures; 3/4 of the forest vanished in uncontrolled wild fires. Minimal attempts were made to put out the fires. Talk about second hand smoke!! A few acres are now owned by people who actually have a 'stake' in the land. It is all uninhabited by man except for Whitehorse and Dawson City.
One of the few remaining independent miners, in the Dawson City area burned a firewall around his claim - against the orders of the gument - and saved his property. The tourists left in droves.
The answer to the climate problem is simple IMO - Private Property ownership. Landowners are the best stewards of land. All crown land should be sold to private individuals so we can 'save the planet'.

Posted by: Jema54 at December 31, 2006 12:52 AM

cal 2,

Drifting ice islands don't shoulder their way through the Arctic Archipelago. There's nothing but open sea north of Ellesmere. They move northeast in the general direction of Greenland, then rotate counterclockwise towards Sibera, swing back towards Alaska and eventually move north again, always in open ocean. There would be nothing to impede a visit to the North Slope along the way.

Before people started paying attention to ice islands about 60 years ago (and there have been quite a few of them) the speed and distance of ice pack movement was only vaguely understood.

BTW, this isn't relevant, but I worked at the Alert weather station in 1951-52. The first U.S. Airforce DC-3 to land on T-3 stopped at our humble abode enroute. Thus my inordinate interest in the subject.

banana,

There are no "daylight hours" at Alert at this time of year. Noon twilight will begin in about the third week of February and the sun will make an appearance on about March 3rd.

Your certainty that the climate is changing is well placed. Of course it is changing - always has and always will. Thus prairie winters in the 19th century were much colder than today (sorry Kate). Climate change also accounts for the ability of the Norsemen to farm in southern Greenland prior to the Little Ice Age and for the fact that part of the North African desert was temperate and well watered a millenium ago. The dispute centres around whether human activity has anything to do with climate change. Computer models prove nothing; they make predictions based on questionable data which, with slight tweaking, can produce radically different results. Moonshine in - moonshine out. To my way of thinking, that is closer to astrology than to science.

Banana, it is human nature to want explanations for phenomena which aren't readily explainable. If a villain can be found - in this case energy hogging modern man, so much the better. In the Middle Ages, cold weather and crop blight were often attributed to witchcraft, and a lot of old ladies with low likeability indices paid the price. Weather changes (small scale), and we write songs about it. Climate changes (large scale) and panic sets in. When this panic subsides, people will surely find something else to worry about. Like climate change, that is also a certainty.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 1:11 AM

Zog,

Thanks for your summary. A month or two ago I downloaded the all the recorded data from all the stations in the west ... current until about 2003. I couldn't find Whitewood (Kate's reference) as a station but I picked the longest time range Brandon station 1893-2003. Again a few months ago, I was poking around looking at BC ... I could only find very late 19th century data. I don't know where you are getting 19th century data for Canada.

The December data for Brandon doesn't support thebanana (or Kate ... but I really need a year and a month and a station close to Whitewood) ... but I don't know what the distance, date etc difference is.

The data came with a very crude DOS program ... I think I could (did) export the data into a spreadsheet.

If you would like a link to the data (both east and west) let me know and I'll see if I can find it again.

BTW: thebanana - Brandon in Dec 1893-2003

Mean Max -8.8C
Mean Min -19.5
Mean Temp -14.2

Highest temp for all 3 was 1939
Lowest temp Mean Min and Mean 2000

thebanana - how many cats do you have?

Posted by: ural at December 31, 2006 2:11 AM


"..it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years.."

In other words, bigger things happened 30 years ago.

See also:

"warmest in 1000 years" read it was warmer 1000 years ago.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at December 31, 2006 2:54 AM

"But what about the accelerating magnetic pole shift? That couldn't have anything to do with changes in the Canadian arctic, could it? Nah."

Absolutely nah. It's caused by man's harnessing of ... ELECTRICITY!!!!!!!!

Down with the pylons. Up the sustainable magnetic pole.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at December 31, 2006 3:00 AM

Posted by: A

Dr. Tim Ball,.....according to Queen Mary College at the University of London, his doctorate was in geography. He has claimed to be a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." In fact, his professorship was with the Department of Geography.

From Wikipedia:

Physical geography focuses on geography as an Earth science. It aims to understand the physical features of the Earth, its lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, pedosphere and global flora and fauna patterns (biosphere). Physical Geography can be divided into several broad categories, one of which is climatology.

Gee, that puts “Climatology” into the Department of Geography.

…..literature searches on Scopus and Scholars Portal find a total of only four peer-reviewed articles attributable to Dr. Ball in his entire academic career……

It doesn’t show the various books and text books (used in many universities, one of which I have) he has written. Out of curiosity, how many “peer-reviewed articles” did Albert Einstein write.

…..all focused on climate change in the Hudson Bay area during the 18th and 19th centuries……

Which is what his Doctoral thesis was on.

From Wikipedia:

The principal task of the doctoral candidate is writing and defending a major, original contribution to his or her academic discipline

His “academic discipline”: “Climatology”, a specialty of “Geography”.

……it does suggest that he may not be as qualified a technical expert on the science of long-term global climate change as his backers would like you to believe.

From Wikipedia:

Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. It is generally accepted that climate is governed by differential equations based on physical laws, but what, exactly, are these equations, and what can be concluded from them, is still subject to debate.

There is no single expert in all of the various sub-categories of climatology.

Dr. David Suzuki PhD in Zoology, specialty “Genetics”
Dr. Timothy Ball PhD in Geography, specialty “Climatology”

I think that alone would make Dr. Ball more of an expert on climate change than Dr. Suzuki.

From Wikipedia:

Climate change refers to the variation in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years.

Why did the IPCC feel the need to change the definition of “Climate change” from the proper scientific definition of “changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years” to their own definition referring only to “climate change brought about human activity”? Comparing “climate change over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years (sci)” to “climate change brought about human activity(including agricultural and other activities, not just GHG emissions) over the last 1000 years (IPCC)” is like comparing apples to oranges. The last 1000 years is a nano-second compared to the age of the earth, and the impact of human activities on climate change (Sci.) is miniscule and barely measurable.

Posted by: LJ at December 31, 2006 7:38 AM

Zog
you have me on ice experience there at Alert

mine was limited to watching way more than 20 square miles crash past the islands in Norman Wells and out through the delta.

It was a process as natural as ice floating on water.


thought Id post this link for everyones interest-note the forests are waterlogged not petrified.and it predates man by a long long time.
Axel Heiburg is next door to Ellesmere.They would be one and the same in the geographic lastscape of the the last iceage a glacier completely filling the channel between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Heiberg_Island

Posted by: cal2 at December 31, 2006 9:47 AM

Now we know: Canada melt down


At the recent Geophysical Union conference, one report said most Arctic ice will be gone by 2040.

Don't buy any real estate near sea level.

Posted by Harry Fuller.
http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-6146317.html

What's the trouble with Harry? Is Harry brain-dead?
Has Harry never read Archimedes?

Is the sea level rising, Harry?

Posted by: maz2 at December 31, 2006 9:51 AM

'thebanana' and others like him enjoy accusing people with a difference of opinion from say Al Gore, of being "screwed up" and that, "global warming is a reality folks."

Warming, cooling - in other words, climate change are constantly a reality. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. However, there's more to it than fossil fuels being burned by evil man.

There are cycles, sunspots, solar flares, radiation belts, an accelerating (magnetic) pole movement (all things obviously not in our control). And then there's data that is being ignored, data that is being trivialized, data that's not understood, and data that is being lied about.

This should be far more scary to anybody that is concerned about climate change.

And if it were not so - why did the UN recently downgrade man's contribution to global warming to 25%?

I would like to think most on this site are interested in the development of alternative, non-polluting fuel sources for the benefit of the environment. And as an added bonus, the end of funding Islamofascism. But, what do I know.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 31, 2006 10:58 AM

In response to a similar type of article by Margaret Munroe of Canwest News Service, Dr. Ball responded:

Dr. Ball writes in Victoria’s Times Colonist yesterday:

Ice calving not unusual

Re: “Arctic ice shelf breaks off” Dec 28.
This is another typical out-of-context, unbalanced report. The aerial photographs are enhanced with heavy black lines, which would likely be interpreted as breaks in the ice to the casual unknowing reader.
Why aren’t they labeled? Ice calves from ice shelves all the time as attested by the statement “the biggest event since the “80s in terms office shelf loss”.
The article implies what is happening is unusual. It isn’t. Source of the ice shelves are glaciers advancing on Ellesmere Island. Advances are partly a function of temperature but also changing snowfalls and other major factors not mentioned din the article. Why?
Every summer, nine million square kilometers of Arctic ice melts as it goes from about 15 million square kilometres in winter to about six million square kilometres each summer.
Claims of a nine-per-cent decrease in total since 1954 are almost all explained by a change in the measuring techniques.
Where is the balance in the story? Why aren’t the facts placed in context by people familiar with the Arctic situation? This is not responsible journalism, but pure sensationalism.
Timothy F. Ball,
Consultant chairman,
Natural Resources Stewardship Project,
Victoria

In response to "A", who is too gutless to give his name, and to LBS, in my opinion the allegation that Dr. Ball is funded by the oil industry is a blatent lie and an attempt to discredit. It amazing that the advocates of Kyoto would use such tactics because if "the science is sound" (on the Kyoto Protocol etc)as they calim, then they would allow it to be put up against any and all srutiny, but such is not the case. It is a frequent practise used by the Kyoto followers.

Erwin Noyes

Posted by: Erwin Noyes at December 31, 2006 11:23 AM

Posted by: A at December 30, 2006 04:23 PM
Okay Mr. "A", you talk a lot but you do not give us your credentials, personally I don't think you have any or you would give us your true identity. Are you afraid of litigation?
In any case, I challenge you and "Big city lib" to give rationale answers to few simple little questions:

Is the world’s climate continually evolving? Answer-
What brought about the end of every ice age to date? Answer-
Is it true that if global warming had not occurred in the past that our lands would be covered with a thousand + feet of ice? A-

Did humans cause the global warming that brought about the end of the previous ice ages?

To what extent are we able to effect the world’s climate? Would compliance by all of the signature countries to the Kyoto Agreement reduce global warming?
Is it true that recent discoveries by some British scientific researchers regarding the changes which may be occurring in the ocean currents, in the Atlantic Ocean in particular, are caused by water temperature changes occurring?
Is it true that the Liberals plan for Canada to comply with the Kyoto targets involved the purchase of perhaps several billion dollars worth of “carbon credits” from some under developed Asian and European countries?-

If Canada were to purchase “carbon credits”, would it result in lower emissions of green house gases or pollutants in Canada?
Would it result in a reduction of global green house gas or pollution?

Would the purchase of “carbon credits” have an impact on Canada’s economy?

Is it true that many third world countries will profit financially from the Kyoto agreement whether or not there are any positive effects on climate change? A-

Has the IPCC panel considered the suggestion (hypothesis) that an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap could put a cover of fresh low density water over the adjacent northern ocean thereby shutting down the gulf stream, as the present salty dense cold water would not be able to drop down to bottom of the ocean, which presently allows the warm gulf to extend to the north? A-

Is it true that the only scientific group to study and track climate change for more than recent history is the geological community?

Do geologists agree with the Kyoto protocol?

The vast majority of so called “climatologists’, do they have a BSc in “climatology”?

Is there a university in the world that has a graduate program leading to a BSc in “Climatology”?-

How many of the Kyoto fear mongers were also in panic mode with the Y2K bug?


How many Kyoto advocates can truly answer these questions, and how many can refute them with plausible , rational answers? None thus far have.

The revelation in an article in yesterdays National Post regarding that the carbon purchase scheme, that it has already become a huge scam and has actually caused an increse in GHG emissions shoud be a wake up call to the Kyoto believers but unfortunately thus far it has not had any affect thanks in part to the MSMs refusal to give it any copy.
Erwin

Posted by: Erwin at December 31, 2006 11:46 AM

What does "leftism" have to do with ice breaking off? I happen to know plenty of "conservatives" who believe in climate change.

That's about as stupid as saying that only "right wingers" are against abortion.

Posted by: Paul at December 31, 2006 12:23 PM

This is fun to read. On all sides. One comment is problematic, however. It is the logic, not the premis that is troublesome.

"Was human activity present on the planet in a significant degree to
> have even a remote chance of causing any of these changes? Of
> course not. Is it therefore fair to assume that any current climate
> change on our planet can be attributed to human activity? OF COURSE
> NOT.

The gist of the point is that because eons of warming events have occurred without human influence, it is wrong to think that human activity may be a factor now. Not so.

That millions have died over the thousands of years of human history prior to the development of guns does not allow us to say "OF COURSE NOT" to the question: Have guns contributed to human deaths?

Go back the your freshman logic, chapter one.


Posted by: Pointer at December 31, 2006 12:38 PM

LJ: Gee, that puts “Climatology” into the Department of Geography.

True, but that still makes him a Professor of Geography, not a Professor of Climatology. You may dismiss this as semantics--fair enough. How about his claim of being the "first Canadian PhD in Climatology"? How about his disingenuity about the length of his UW tenure? A 32-year career as Professor of Climatology is quite impressive, given that in 1964 (32 years before he retired from UW), he had yet to earn a bachelor's degree.

It doesn’t show the various books and text books (used in many universities, one of which I have) he has written.

WorldCat lists "Timothy F Ball" and "T F Ball" as having authored or co-authored two books (not including his masters and doctoral dissertations). The UW Library catalogue lists four more, two of which are academic texts, one of which--"Fundamentals of Physical Geography"--is a textbook originally written in 1985 by Briggs and Smithson, with Dr. Ball joining along for the first Canadian edition in 1989. Perhaps there are others--care to share some titles?

Out of curiosity, how many “peer-reviewed articles” did Albert Einstein write.

Yeah, Albert Einstein is the same as Tim Bell because he didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals either. I'd hold that fact against him too if it weren't for his groundbreaking advances in multiple subfields of physics, and that Nobel Prize he won (for work done when he was only 26).

For better or for worse, peer-reviewed publications are the modern standard by which academic researchers are judged. High numbers alone may not signify intellectual worth, but an output greater than 1 article every 3.5 years is generally needed to qualify as an expert in one's field. At the other end, low numbers alone may not signify incompetence, but then your work had better be at least somewhat trailblazing. It takes a special kind of genius to eschew the traditional academic track; Dr. Ball may be a lovely person with the noblest of intentions, but with due respect, he's no such genius.

The principal task of the doctoral candidate is writing and defending a major, original contribution to his or her academic discipline

And the principal task of the research scientist is to continue to produce original work in one's academic discipline. If you're average--most are; nothing to be ashamed about--your work is largely derivative of one's doctoral topic. Dr. Ball may not be a bad scientist, but judging by his professional research output, he's no more than an average one.

There is no single expert in all of the various sub-categories of climatology...I think that alone would make Dr. Ball more of an expert on climate change than Dr. Suzuki.

Dr. Suzuki is an advocate and a populist, not an expert. Dr. Ball is also an advocate, wishes he were a populist, and is not--but positions himself to be, partly through falsified credentials--an expert either.

The general public gravitates towards populists because their language is accessible, and elevates them to the status of "expert" only in comparison to themselves. Real climate change experts do not line up to listen to Dr. Suzuki lecture; Dr. Suzuki and his team listen to the real experts, and distill that knowledge down into terms that laypersons can understand.

Why did the IPCC feel the need to change the definition of “Climate change” from the proper scientific definition of “changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years” to their own definition referring only to “climate change brought about human activity”?

Would you prefer "anthropogenic global warming (AGW)"? IPCC didn't "change" anything. The focus of the "climate change" debate on possible anthropogenic causes is the result of a worldwide scientific shift towards doing so.

...the impact of human activities on climate change (Sci.) is miniscule and barely measurable.

Your opinion. Many others with fancier degrees and a few thousand years of collective experience in studying the intricacies of global climate dynamics may disagree with your pithy assessment of the state of the field.

You can listen to whomever you'd like. Just think deeply, and be honest with yourself, about why you're choosing to dismiss the basic position of an overwhelming scientific majority in favour of the claims of a guy who lies about his resume and works for a climate advocacy organization backed by oil company money?

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 12:52 PM

Posted by: Pointer at December 31, 2006 12:38 PM

"Pointer",
You of all people "miss the point", which is:
That all ice ages ended with global warming (at least in the area of the glacier that subsequently melted), not just the most recent one, and that all of the glaciers that did melt, did so without any affects of humans. Thus the point- that climate has always being evolving and always will with or withour mans influences. Yes we will affect the rate of change of the climate but to an unknown extent. Considering that we cannot predict with even a scintilla of accuracy what our, let alone the rest of the planst's climate will be within 12 months, how can you give credibility to prediction of what will occur in 50 years?
How do you suppose that Greenland got it's name?

When you look at the proposed methods of "fighting climate change" and you see the ridiculous "carbon credits/trading scheme" and how corrupt it already has become, how can you blindly support such a view point?
BTW where have your big spokesmen "Mr. A" and "big city liberal" gone?
Please do not pick and chose, answer all of the questions or are they too tough for you?

Posted by: Erwin at December 31, 2006 1:08 PM

Mr. "A" Gutless,
Your assertion that because the majority have a particular viewpoint makes it the correct one is nonsense. A classic example was the view held by 99+ % of the worlds medical community( in the latter part of the last century), having the view that stomach ulcers were caused by excessive acid in the stomach When two Australian researchers first discovered that the cause was bacteria and that they could be cured with antibiotics they were harshly criticized. It wasn’t until approx 30 years later that they received their just recognition by was of a Nobel prize in medicine. So much for your ‘vast majority’ concept. The sad fact is, that people such as your self and the many politicians who are only interested for the political benefit they may derive, are not interested in taking a close look and inviting discussion and debate on all possible dissenting theories.
Much more study is needed in my opinion.

Posted by: Erwin Noyes at December 31, 2006 1:33 PM

A

Andrew Weaver, one of the leading computer diddlers, is an oceanographer but prefers to be identified as a climatologist. He subsists on taxpayers money in the publish or perish world of grants. I doubt that there are a whole bunch of independently wealthy scientists on either side of the contraversy although many of the non-believers (eg. the 50 or so scientists in the FoS organization) work for free.

Someday, when I hear the term "overwhelming scientific majority" bandied about, I'm going to explode. Most of my friends and associates are scientists (geologists, geophysicists and a smattering from other disciplines). I've only met a couple - a physicist and and oceanographer, who take AGM seriously. A more honest statement would be, "Many highly VOCAL scientists believe that human activity is probably causing significant change to global climate."

Anyway, even if the "overwhelming majority" canard was valid, scientific truth is determined by the testing of hypotheses - not by a show of hands.


Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 1:33 PM

Re: comment by Erwin.

My "spokesmen"? I have never commented on anything on this site before. You confuse me withn someone else.

Support what? I made no statement in support of or in opposition to anything save the faulty logic in another comment.

My opinions were not the subject of my comment. You have no information of any kind that I even have an opinion, let alone what it might be.

I did not question the premis that man has never been a factor in the past. Yet who knows - for certain?

The faulty logic alone was my subject. To induce a negative from other negatives cannot be done. To refute the possibility of new factors in a dynamic by there having never been such factors previously is false. It simply does not follow.

I said nothing else. I say nothing else.

Posted by: Pointer at December 31, 2006 2:01 PM

Mr. A,
After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the "Friends of Science" organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie. I can understand why you hide behind a pseudo name and are too lacking in courage to "take off your mask".
If you are typical of the Kyoto advocates and those "overwhelming majority" then I think that your caase is very weak.
Erwin

Posted by: Erwin Noyes at December 31, 2006 2:01 PM

Mr. A,
After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the "Friends of Science" organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie. I can understand why you hide behind a pseudo name and are too lacking in courage to "take off your mask".
If you are typical of the Kyoto advocates and those "overwhelming majority" then I think that your case is very weak.
Erwin

Posted by: Erwin Noyes at December 31, 2006 2:02 PM

It seems 'A' is resorting to the same tired old lefty tactics of calumny and avoidance to cover his ignoble retreat.

A: I suggest you answer Erwin's questions, or at least be man enough to admit defeat.

All are watching.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 31, 2006 2:02 PM

Pointer,

Your logical observation is quite right.

Since we're now talking logic, I'd like to add that the entire "increased CO2 emissions are significantly changing the climate" observation, is based on the logical fallacy that concurrence = causation.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 2:28 PM

bcl "...this particular evidence is caused by the activities of men andall of the evidence says it is..."

Great Scot! Give us just ONE piece of scientifically acceptable evidence to back that up - just one. Even dedicated global warmers like Hanson and Weaver readily admit that their projections are just that - projections, and by their very nature, unproveable. Just what is your scientific background anyway? Your confusion of reasoned conjecture with evidence suggests to me that you're a lawyer.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 2:41 PM

bcl "...this particular evidence is caused by the activities of men and all of the evidence says it is..."

Great Scot! Give us just ONE piece of scientifically acceptable evidence to back that up - just one. Even dedicated global warmers like Hanson and Weaver readily admit that their projections are just that - projections, and by their very nature, unproveable. Just what is your scientific background anyway? Your confusion of reasoned conjecture with evidence suggests to me that you're a lawyer.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 2:42 PM

Erwin Noyes: I'm sorry, but you're calling me "gutless" because I choose not to provide my full name? I suppose you must think the same of George, Skip, B. Hoax Aware, NoOne, Fred, Shirley, anonymous, Western Canadian, Candace, wallyj, Lee, Don, Zip, dmorris, Tenebris, spurwing plover, DrD, richfisher, Stephen, Iron Lady, Cascadian, cal2, JamesHalifax, Ken E., maz2, rockyt, Zog, Eric, Marshall, thebanana, ural, Jema54, Wimpy Canadian, LJ, Paul, and Pointer. Or are only the ones who don't provide full names and disagree with you "gutless"?

True, the rediscovery of H. pylori reversed decades of established medical opinion. Warren and Marshall rightly deserve their Nobel. But trotting this "classic example" out as if it somehow proves that scientific consensus means nothing is a poor argument. The case is a useful illustration of the pitfalls of consensus; it doesn't demonstrate that consensus is in all cases without value.

In any case, policymaking--which is really what the climate change debate is about--doesn't happen only after unanimity is reached among all experts, particularly as action delayed until that point will almost always be too late. Policy-makers base their actions on the best available information, relying on experts for their evidence base, and adjust subsequent decisions based on new knowledge and the effects of prior actions on future realities.

"Much more study is needed" is a common political tactic used to delay action and change. Big Tobacco employed it for several decades to avoid admitting that their products are addictive. The current fringe group of scientists who question whether HIV causes AIDS also invoke it. We shouldn't close the book on research into AGW, but neither should we wait until the causal pathways are crystal clear and every last person is on side before we act in what we believe are the best long-term interests of the planet.

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 2:46 PM

Kate,

Wha' hoppen to bigcitylib's post. I responded to it, and it was gone. The guy is sometimes irrational, but that's not unusual for a Liberal, and he's sometimes amusing.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 2:49 PM

Erwin Noyes writes: After reading all of your posts on this thread, I would encourage the "Friends of Science" organization and Mr. Tim Ball to consider taking legal action against you for the lies that you are attempting to perpetuate, particularly the one that they are funded by oil companies which of course has absolutely no truth to it, is a total lie.

Go to www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html, where you'll find an article by freelance journalist Charles Montgomery, published in the Globe and Mail this past summer. About halfway down, you'll find a section discussing U of Calgary Prof. Barry Cooper, who set up the Science Education Fund in order to attract anonymous funders for the FoS. In the words of Prof. Cooper himself, "[FoS funding is] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry. It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals. [However], there were some oil companies."

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 2:57 PM

A

"We shouldn't close the book on research into AGW, but neither should we wait until the causal pathways are crystal clear and every last person is on side before we act..."

Ah yes, the good old "precautionary principle".

CONVERSATION FROM THE MIDDLE AGES:
The barley is blighted and my cow died last night!
That old hag is probably a witch and she's to blame. "But Sir, we have no proof. What if she isn't a witch?" Well, burn her anyway as a precaution. Can't take chances with the supernatural you know.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 3:07 PM

IMO, one thing clear. Many Canadian Media orgs are liable, big-time. On the Kyoto file they have been untruthful, misleading, guilty by omission, guilty by inclussion, guilty by association.....

They may try a defence of 'we didn't know, we're only reporting the news, it was all we knew'.

It won't work. The Blogsphere is chock-full of provable, time-stamped information of the scandalous nature of Kyoto. The MSM's day in the court of public opinion has come. Their day in court may also come.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 31, 2006 3:16 PM

Well, guys and gals, heres a number that is not disputed by anybody.
2 PERCENT!!!!!!
That is Canadas contribution to the total world production of greenhouse gasses.
The question then becomes, - How many billions are we willing to spend, how much misery and poverty are we willing to propagate, to reduce greenhouse gasses by, oh lets say 50%, which would still leave 99% of world production out of our control.

Posted by: Lee at December 31, 2006 3:24 PM

Zog: Andrew Weaver, one of the leading computer diddlers, is an oceanographer but prefers to be identified as a climatologist.

True, though to my knowledge, he doesn't go around identifying himself as a Professor of Climatology, which is a different thing altogether. Semantics aside, given that he's the Tier I Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, has published prolifically on atmospheric modelling, and is widely regarded as a leader in his field, I'm just a little more curious to hear what he has to say about climate change than the guy who wrote four papers 10 years ago based on historical written records and a map of the tree line from the 1700s. Does that make me a sheep?

...many of the non-believers (eg. the 50 or so scientists in the FoS organization) work for free.

Actually, Dr. Ball gets paid to deliver his lectures and speeches. He's not getting rich of them, but he's not working pro bono either.

Regardless, I never doubted the motives of the FoS scientists themselves (though I am suspicious of the motives of their funders). As you mentioned earlier, they're likely decent and thoughtful people. I've heard Dr. Ball talk--he's seems to truly believe in what he's saying. Of course, the conviction with which the "non-believers" speak is entirely separate from the scientific value of what they say. They also do themselves no favours when they refuse to disclose where their funding comes from, and/or misrepresent the credentials that allow them to speak with authority.

A more honest statement would be, "Many highly VOCAL scientists believe that human activity is probably causing significant change to global climate."

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. When the major national science academies of the world issue a joint statement endorsing the IPCC view that climate change is real and of sufficient concern to warrant coordinated public action, and when this general position is supported by the American Meterological Society, the GW Bush-commissioned Federal Climate Change Science Program, the American Geophysical Union, and the current Government of Canada, then maybe, just maybe, there might be something to it. Does that also make me a sheep?

Anyway, even if the "overwhelming majority" canard was valid, scientific truth is determined by the testing of hypotheses - not by a show of hands.

True enough, except that it's hard to test hypothesis when the experimental field is the planet. Hence, computer models and high-tech analyses of historical records. These indirect methods are all we've got. Is it your implication that only "non-believers" are interested in testing hypotheses?

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 3:36 PM

A:

Still waiting.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 31, 2006 3:39 PM

The barley is blighted and my cow died last night!
That old hag is probably a witch and she's to blame. "But Sir, we have no proof. What if she isn't a witch?" Well, burn her anyway as a precaution. Can't take chances with the supernatural you know.

I believe this is what's known as a "strawman argument." Nevermind that there is, on balance, compelling if not incontrovertible evidence in favour of the AGW thesis (aside: you keep referring to it as 'AGM'--is that a new acronym I'm not aware of?); that supporters of action on AGW are no less decent and thoughtful people, and have personal and professional intentions and motives no less noble, than those in your FoS circle; and that all serious proposed solutions have in common as their overriding long-term goals the reduction of air pollution, the lowering of our collective energy consumption, and the transitioning from nonrenewable to renewable sources of energy (actions that are all to the long-term common good), and not the forced immolation of human beings per se (or any other drastic action that's wholly unwarranted given our current body of knowledge).

Nevermind all these things--believing that action on climate change is needed now, in the absence of complete knowledge, is the same as burning witches. Bravo, Zog, I think you've won the debate!

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 3:54 PM

Re: Zog comment.

Okay. Logic it is. And when logic applies it should neither be neglected nor missused. Correct logic should not be put forward as proof of an incorrect premis.

Lack of a thing such as proof has nothing necessarily to do with a fact. That endless correlated phenomena suggest but not determine does not prove a fact of causality can not exist. It proves only that the fact may or may not exist and that if it does it hasn't been found yet. Which is to say that it proves nothing. But which seems to be implied in your " . . observation, is based on the logical fallacy that concurrence = causation."

Your logic is correct. Is your implied premis correct? You imply, if I am not over reading, that since only correlation is demonstrated there not only is no proof found yet, but that there is no proof to be found. This does not follow. If you mean anyone to conclude anything such as this it is a mistake to do so. Placement and context in your construction suggest either that you may intend this or that you may not have noticed an unintended implication.

Logic serves where it serves. That it does not serve in all conditions does not leave us floundering with no guidance at all when that is so. In fact we, as is life at large, are probabalistic in our behavior. Rigor of logic in the mind determines very little of what we do in most aspect of our lives at all scales. We guess. We estimate. We predict from too little data and imperfect hypotheses. We do because it is all we can do when we do not have all the facts and perfect theory to allow logic. We do because to wait for all fact and perfect theory is likely to be too costly or fatal. Very little goes on that includes us that is based entirely on the ideal of perfect knowledge. Maybe nothing?

So how in this case can it found somehow short of correct to look to correlation and trending data and considered opinion of those among us whom we recognize as most likely to have the most correct predictions? Why here when in uncounted other areas of our long experience it has been not only proper but certainly the wisest thing to do?

Why? Because there is not the circumstance for logic and absolute knowledge but only strong possibility? Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. But neither yes nor no because of the demands of any logic.

There is no real or valid argument against anything in your seeminly pointed observation that correlation is not causality.

Posted by: Pointer at December 31, 2006 4:14 PM

Irwin Daisy: Still waiting.

For what, Irwin? Half of that list of questions are empirical, and answerable only through (impossible) experimental designs. The other half are leading ones, to which you already know the answers. The whole exercise--which has been circulating around the blogs for some time now--is designed only to point out gaps in knowledge, which intellectually dishonest debaters then use as "evidence" that the entire AGW arguement is a myth.

I'll save you the trouble. I'm happy to admit that I lack the technical expertise to answer those questions intelligibly. I'm also happy to admit that I don't have any formal education with which to justify my support for the AGW thesis (just as you no doubt have no formal education either with which to justify your refutation of it). Now, in the absence of my own expertise in this area, I'm more likely to be swayed by the side that counts among its members 16 of the world's major scientific academies, among others. You seem less impressed by this body of opinion. I'm not sure if that make you a fool, a contrarian, or a Truly Independent Man.

In any case, who cares? This is blog commentary! Were you under the impression that any of this debate actually mattered? That we need formal training before we could post valid comments? Were you under the impression that Nobel Prize scientists and senior policy-makers were visiting this thread looking for answers?

I have no technical knowledge, so you can easily dismiss my credibility if you wish. It's odd, though, that you find it so equally easy to dismiss the credibility of a significant number of real experts, given your own similarly complete lack of technical knowledge.

Posted by: A at December 31, 2006 4:22 PM

I am truly saddened that A didn't mention me with all the others with "handles".

Seriously, aren't ice shelves and glaciers supposed to "calve" or whatever they call break off? If they don't then I thought it was the start of an ice age.

Frikkin' humans haven't been on this earth long enough to figure out what is normal for this third rock from the sun. Who here has seen Haley's Comet more than once?

Posted by: Texas Canuck at December 31, 2006 4:24 PM

A

AGW it is. Dyslexia?

Conserving energy and lowering pollution levels are, as you point out, worthy goals in themselves. They don't have to be promoted with irrational public appeals to "save the planet" by cutting CO2 emissions. The only relation of CO2 to air pollution, that I can think of, is that producing more of it, through more efficient and complete combustion, would lower the level of lung-blasting pollutants to which we are exposed.

Sure, there are people of good will among the apostles of AGW, but there are also charlatans like Mann and high profile con-artists like Suzuki. Without the likes of them, the debate would be reduced to the level of honest science and appeals to public hysteria would vanish.

And yes, I stick to my analogy that the burning of witches was an application of the precautionary principal. The same principal behind the Kyoto humbug which, if rigorously applied, would wreck the economy of the developed world "just in case" and cause terrible global hardship.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 4:41 PM

A

AGW it is. Dyslexia?

Conserving energy and lowering pollution levels are, as you point out, worthy goals in themselves. They don't have to be promoted with irrational public appeals to "save the planet" by cutting CO2 emissions. The only relation of CO2 to air pollution, that I can think of, is that producing more of it, through more efficient and complete combustion, would lower the level of lung-blasting pollutants to which we are exposed.

Sure, there are people of good will among the apostles of AGW, but there are also charlatans like Mann and high profile con-artists like Suzuki. Without the likes of them, the debate would be reduced to the level of honest science and appeals to public hysteria would vanish.

And yes, I stick to my analogy that the burning of witches was an application of the precautionary principal. The same principal behind the Kyoto humbug which, if rigorously applied, would wreck the economy of the developed world "just in case" and cause terrible global hardship.

Posted by: Zog at December 31, 2006 4:43 PM

A

Hell no, but I'm impressed with your calumny, obfuscation and outright avoidance.

You've answered the questions. Your answer is that your argument is incomplete, yet closed.

Few here are arguing that there is no climate change, or that global warming to some extent is a myth. However, they are arguing against the inconclusive and misleading solution. Namely Kyoto.

As for "who cares?" I imagine everybody who has commented on this thread cares. As will the public when it comes time to vote. As do the scientists looking at all data in order to find the right answers, rather than the politically expedient one.

Furthermore, your argument gains no wind, when you run in the opposite direction, hurling insults.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 31, 2006 4:45 PM

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SLAM DUNK
The key problem for global warming theories is that the sea level has not risen much in the last 150 years. A small rise may have occurred, but this may be attributable to the “tail end” of the last ice age. If sea level rises much more, we may be able to ascertain what, exactly, is going on. If sea level declines, then theories of human-caused global warming will probably be relegated to the dust-bin of history.

If a long trend of global warming is occurring, there are two ways it could be related to humans. First, humans might be causing the warming. Second, global warming might be causing the humans. That is, most land mass is in the Northern hemisphere, where warming would increase and improve arable land, growing seasons, crop yields, and available water supplies. We know that global warming was beneficial to humans when the last ice age began retreating, but we do not know if these benefits have stopped. World population is increasing, but GDP per capita is also increasing rapidly, which probably causes more energy use per person. In this way, global warming could CAUSE the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, instead of CO2 causing global warming. CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas–water vapour is. CO2 levels may or may not be causing global warming, and global warming may have stopped in 1998.

The entire warming debate is based upon conjecture until any sea level changes can be clearly attributed to human activity. Science has not yet clarified this key issue.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Each of these references are based on careful scientific studies:
Sea Level and Climate
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:FwSRiWPbW5kJ:pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/+sea+levels&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a

Greenland icecap thickens despite warming
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm

Global warming can make sea level plunge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467928.stm

Polar Bears on Thin Ice? Not Really!
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

Global warming?
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552

The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years.
“The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml

Environmentalists Versus Fusion Power.
http://biggierection.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-evidence-that-environmentalists.html

“Uphold Free Speech About Climate Change Or Resign.”
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

EU vs. USA on CO2:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_12_17-2006_12_23.shtml#1166449696

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

The Sceptical Environmentalist
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm___

Posted by: DemocracyRules at December 31, 2006 5:05 PM

'A' 4:22 PM It is clear that A has lost the discussion BIG-TIME. It is clear he is a Myth, Hoax, Scam believer, not to mention, worshipper. It is brcause of people like A that the Media is able to "sell" the Y2Ks, Crop Circles, DDT Scams to the world. All to collapse in the end at great cost to all, but especially to the suckers.

Another thing that is clear about A, is that he is probably a 'plant' of some well funded Scam Organization. He knows a lot of the Jargon coming out of the likes of the Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club, Pembina Insitute, Greenpeace, ect. All Orgs that rely mostly on taxpayer's money to "halt" the 'latest' calamity that is THE END OF THE WORLD. After all, one wouldn't think the likes of A would make fools of themselves unless they are getting paid. Sickos.

The End of the World has happenned many times in the past.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 31, 2006 5:55 PM

Mr. or Ms “A” Gutless,

You said: "I am sorry, but you're calling me 'gutless' because I choose not to provide my full name? I suppose you must think the same of..."?
No I don’t because I consider your comments to be very blatant, the others not so.

You said: "I have no technical knowledge, so you can easily dismiss my credibility if you wish. It's odd though…"
What I find odd is for an individual who by his/her own confession has no technical knowledge, to be arguing so vociferously on a subject much of which is technical. You have a rather large mouth for someone void of knowledge on the subject we are discussing.

You say you have no technical knowledge, do you have any legal knowledge particular as it applies to libel?

You said:.. "that you find it so equally easy to dismiss the credibility of a significant number of real experts, given your own similarly complete lack of technical knowledge?"

Wherein did I indicate that I do not have any technical knowledge? You are again incorrect. Who are those real experts that I dismiss, where and whom do you speak of?

“A”, my guess is that you are an attention starved little boy, who is below legal age and who likes to argue whether or not you have any knowledge on the subject. Whether or not you are a minor you a least speak as an individual who is very immature. You have offered nothing of value to the debate and my opinion of you has not changed, I still think that you are a coward.
Erwin

Posted by: erwin at December 31, 2006 5:56 PM

For those who are interested, here are the original questions that I authored and my answers to them:
Questions that the Proponents of the Kyoto Accord do not like to answer, or cannot give rational answers to..

Is the world’s climate continually evolving? Answer- YES, it always has and always will.

What brought about the end of every ice age to date? Answer- Global warming.

Is it true that if global warming had not occurred in the past that our lands would be covered with a thousand + feet of ice? A- Yes, absolutely.

Did humans cause the global warming that brought about the end of the previous ice ages? A- NO, as for the most part there were no humans inhabiting the planet at the time.

To what extent are we able to effect the world’s climate? A- we do not know with any degree of certainty We have no prior experience in attempting, let alone succeeding in making changes to global climatic conditions.

Would compliance by all of the signature countries to the Kyoto Agreement reduce global warming? A- YES it would, however it is most doubtful that it could reverse global warming, only slow down the rate of increase to some small and unknown amount. In any case to stop global warming would most likely be to advance the next ice age.

Is it true that recent discoveries by some British scientific researchers regarding the changes which may be occurring in the ocean currents, in the Atlantic Ocean in particular, are caused by water temperature changes occurring? A-Yes it is true. These scientific researchers installed temperature and ocean current measurement devices across the Atlantic, from early data, they believe that it may be, that such ocean current changes, EG ‘the Gulf Stream’, may in time cause and may have in past history, been the cause of Europe’s ice ages. This suggests that it may just be too early for the world to be jumping on the Kyoto band wagon and that we as a world society should do more due-diligence (scientific study) before renegotiating then implementing this extremely out of balanced agreement on world action against climate change.

Is it true that the Liberals plan for Canada to comply with the Kyoto targets involved the purchase of perhaps several billion dollars worth of “carbon credits” from some under developed Asian and European countries?- Yes it is true, EG Russia. Note: See article in Dec 30/06 publication of the National Post which reveals the carbon trading scheme to already to be corrupt and to be a scam.

If Canada were to purchase “carbon credits”, would it result in lower emissions of green house gases or pollutants in Canada? Absolutely NOT.
Would it result in a reduction of global green house gas or pollution? Absolutely NOT In fact thus far, it has actually caused an increase in GHGs..

Would the purchase of “carbon credits” have an impact on Canada’s economy? YES, the effects would be very negative.

Is it true that many third world countries will profit financially from the Kyoto agreement whether or not there are any positive effects on climate change? A- YES it is true.


Has the IPCC panel considered the suggestion (hypothesis) that an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap could put a cover of fresh low density water over the adjacent northern ocean thereby shutting down the gulf stream, as the present salty dense cold water would not be able to drop down to bottom of the ocean, which presently allows the warm gulf to extend to the north? A- it appears not as if it is true, then global warming could shut down the N. Atlantic circulation and precipitate the next ice age. Of course then Europe might just be wanting global warming. But this is only one of many hypotheses out there.

Has the IPCC panel considered the evidence that there is some correlation of global temperatures to sun spot activity? No they have not, in fact they, including the likes of CBC’s Fifth Estate and Dr. Andrew Weaver from U Vic, have gone out of their way in attempting to discredit those who have studied the sun spots or every other possible rationale for climate change. ”If the “science is sound” as they attempt to claim, then they should be happy to put it up to all scrutiny.
As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.

Is it true that the only scientific group to study and track climate change for more than recent history is the geological community? A-YES

Do geologists agree with the Kyoto protocol? A-NO, most say that it is premature to take such action when the start of another ice age may be just around the corner

The vast majority of so called “climatologists’, do they have a BSc in “climatology”? No they do not, they are a mish-mash of mostly well meaning engineers, mathematicians, geneticists (like D. Suzuki), horticulturists, biologists, environmentalists, meteorologists and countless other ‘ists’. Very few are truly qualified to the extent that they should be considered experts on climate change, including David Suzuki, Al Gore, Arnold Shwartzeneger, David Anderson, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin, Jack Layton, Stephan Dion, Garth Turner and many others who talk a lot about it.

Is there a university in the world that has a graduate program leading to a BSc in “Climatology”?- Yes The first, and I believe still the only university in the world to offer a degree in climatology is the University of South Queensland in Australia.

Is Australia a member of the Kyoto Agreement? A- NO

How many of the Kyoto fear mongers were also in panic mode with the Y2K bug? Likely most of them.

How many Kyoto advocates can truly answer these questions, and how many can refute them with plausible , rational answers? None have thus far.
BTW This was sent to the Suzuki Foundation, they did not answer them, just referred me to other sites for information.

Erwin

Posted by: Erwin at December 31, 2006 6:08 PM

Zog wrote: "Wha' hoppen to bigcitylib's post."

Bigcitylib was banned from here some weeks ago. When he returned I let it go for a while - until he gave in to the temptation to insult me, yet again.

You don't get three chances around here. Apparently, he's unaware that I can call up every post he's ever made in one function and delete them with a two clicks of the mouse.

So, don't be surprised if the comment you respond to goes *poof*. I'm doing a bit of enforcing, to get the point across.


Posted by: Kate at December 31, 2006 6:24 PM

Since y'all are having a whale of good time up above, I'll only address the stuffo that's pertinent to me...

No problem, Skip! I didn't realize a formal education was required to ask a question. Never having hunted, I haven't a clue & was looking for information.
richfisher - thanks for the info, I'd forgotten about Ducks Unlimited & others. Posted by: Candace at December 30, 2006 04:37 PM
Skip, that is a totally ungracious and rude remark.

Candace:

My comment wasn't a smart remark (Lee's response was simply over the top).

Your question:"How, exactly, is sport hunting consistent with conservation of a species?", cannot be simply answered, not in a few lines of a blog, nor in many pages of text.

Tenebris understood what I meant, and its germaine to the entire thread about climate change (and a whole range of issues about things biological - especially evolution vs. creationism).

The problem for many of us from science is how to explain very complex material to people with little or no understanding - on the short side of things you can't, until those with whom you discuss come up to a level of basic understanding from which a more advanced discussion can be held. Your actual understanding of the answer to your specific question (you did say "exactly") requires a level of knowledge of biology, that, assuming you don't have a degree in it, that you ordinarily cannot have from the rest of life's courses. I know that sounds presumptious, but its not. I'd like to answer your question for you, but I can't. You wouldn't understand the answer. And, if your background was deep enough in biology, you wouldn't ask that question, that way. Make sense? This is not a putdown - it just means the topic is way more complex that can be conveyed in a simple dialogue. Richfisher gave a short, meaningless answer. It apparently satisfied you. It shouldn't have.

Well done Richfisher!
Its really not all that complicated.
Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2006 03:41 PM

Yes, Lee, its a lot more complicated than that. Richfisher didn't explain anything (Richfisher, I'm not taking a shot at you... LOL!)

The topic is very similar to the argument between "evolutionists (ie, biologists) and "creationists". If creationists actually understood anything about biology there would be no discussion. Evolution is virtually self-evident to a learned, experienced biologist.

The entire climate change/global warming controversy is all about ignorance, ignorance by scientists with no depth of background, ignorance by politicians (about most things, it appears), ignorance by ordinary people who can't even tell you, in the most simplistic scientific terms what "temperature" or "warming" even is.

So my advice, short and to the point, was, that if you really want to know the answer to questions like that, you don't ask them on a blog, you go get an education. All will be revealed, and what is not, will provide you with challenges for a lifetime.


Posted by: Skip at December 31, 2006 6:35 PM

The inflammatory rhetoric is bad enough as descriptions are aimed at emotions and the religion of global warming rather than reason. However the galling part is that the misrepresenting of this event is obvious and insulting to intelligence.
There is a loss of sea ice in certain areas of the Arctic Ocean but the culprit is current not air temperature; sea ice is composed of fresh water ice crystals rising to form a crust and salty water sinking. The ice shelf was the leading edge of a glacier floating out to sea which ultimately had to break off and float away as do all icebergs. It is seen all the time on Alaska cruises. To suggest that this was a loss of sea ice is a deliberate falsification.

Posted by: Michael Page at December 31, 2006 6:38 PM

A lot of the world's problems can be traced to too many of us being "educated" by Wako-Professors. Yep, nut cases who have no idea how the real world works. They do not necessarily have smarts, just job security.

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at December 31, 2006 8:25 PM

Satellite image of the "ice island" taken on Oct 1 2005 (no typo, 14 months ago). The area is the North tip of Ellesmere island, the Northest part of Canada.

About the risk to the Hibernia oil platform, it is 4,500 km away from it (straigth line). That's the distance between Montreal and Calgary.

Can everyone please relax?

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/content_contenu/images/msid_iceisland.jpg

Posted by: Manny at December 31, 2006 9:11 PM

Manny,

That's the distance between Montreal and Calgary.

Don't panic? The last time I looked at a map the distance is about 5 inches.

Posted by: ural at December 31, 2006 9:47 PM

Hey Manny, I think I've been there. fifteen years or so ago, if memory serves me correctly. Our mission there was to position and supply the "beakers" on the ice from Alert. also spent more than a few hours looking for some idiot who was suppose to ski to the pole but turned around and wasn't reporting in as planned. The amount of garbage these "explorers" left up there was pathetic.

Posted by: texas canuck at December 31, 2006 10:31 PM

Thanks, Manny. I'll use that in a new post tomorrow.

Right now, I'm counting down the hours to 2007. Typing is hard.

Posted by: Kate at December 31, 2006 10:47 PM

Erwin writes: You said:.. "that you find it so equally easy to dismiss the credibility of a significant number of real experts, given your own similarly complete lack of technical knowledge?"

Wherein did I indicate that I do not have any technical knowledge? You are again incorrect. Who are those real experts that I dismiss, where and whom do you speak of?

Actually, I was addressing a post (a goad, really) by Irwin Daisy, not yourself. Unless, of course, "Erwin Noyes" and "Irwin Daisy" are one and the same person. Seems a little strange how insistent Irwin was that I attempt to answer questions ostensibly posed by someone else...

Anyway, I admit it was an assumption rather than a statement of fact. I'll happily retract it should Irwin come up with evidence that he has an advanced degree in climatology research and/or has published widely on the subject.

As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.

Leaving all else aside, now you're just being stubborn. Did you even read that Globe and Mail article I linked above? By his own admission, Prof. Cooper is affiliated with the FoS. By his own admission, he set up the Science Education Fund to help attract funding for the FoS. By his own admission, these funding sources included oil and gas companies.

To my knowledge, subsequent statements by the FoS and their defenders have deployed much smoke and mirrors, but have not actually denied this fact.

Dr. Ball, for his part, has had his travel expense paid for by the FoS through the SEF. He has gone on record as stating that he makes it a point to never inquire about who's paying his bills.

You can dismiss everything else I posted, you can call me silly names. But at least read the public record and stop clinging to beliefs that are demonstrably not true.

Posted by: A at January 1, 2007 12:01 PM

“A”
You confess that you know nothing technical on a very technical subject. You are so typical of many of the supporters of the Kyoto protocol, rather than point out where your beliefs are derived you attempt by any and all means possible, to discredit those with differing views albeit that they are from solid technical positions. You fail to take this into account because as you admit, you are technically ignorant on the subject. I ask myself why I am wasting time on such as you who have so much to say but so little of substance to offer.

I will point out a few facts for you:

As to Irwin and Erwin being one and the same person, read again the spelling, is it the same?, I might add that you are also stupid.

As to anyone having “an advanced degree in climatology research”, how is it possible when there is not such a degree available... Again for someone who has little or no knowledge on the subject, you have far too much to say.

As to your vague assertions about funding for the FOS I say that you do not know what you are talking about and I reiterate, it is a lie. For those who repeat lies, they are known as liars add that to your other quality of being a coward.

Here is some news for you that are of real importance.

1. A report form China that was printed in the National Post just a few days ago, reveals that the revenues obtained form the purchase of carbon credits by some European companies, is being used by Chinese industries to build new coal fired power plants. Rather than using the funding to retrofit existing high GHG and pollution emitting plants as is the intention of the carbon trading scheme, they are building even more of the sub standard technology ones making a mockery and a sham. This is the same “carbon trading scheme” that is the scheme that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion had as part of their environment platforms.
2. In today’s Online Times from the UK is the story of the huge clouds of pollutants from China’s extremely high pollution/GHG emitting coal fired power plants that are being tracked across the Pacific Ocean to California.

3. A similar story was on last nights National Geographic television channel.


Now “A”, if you are truly concerned about our environment and the health of our nation, and the world as a whole, I expect that you will spend your spare time working on this huge issue, to bring it to the attention of the political party and the organization that you support. You will help bring awareness to Canadians how this is such a threat to the health of the world and how it is causing an increase in GHG emissions. Most alarming is that the carbon credit funds in this instance are actually causing an increase in GHG emissions rather than a decrease, this is of particular concern inasmuch as China thus far have received 50 % of the carbon credit purchase revenues. If you are a true environmentalist rather than just a paid shill, you will work to stop this corrupt scheme and you will cease making meaningless annoying posts trying to discredit some who are genuinely interested in improving our environment.
As an immediate improvement to our environment “A”, I suggest that you ‘put a cork in it’.
ERwin

Posted by: Erwin at January 1, 2007 1:20 PM

"As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball and the FOS categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie."

Ball is a well known hack... but yes, it may be true. FoS may not funded directly by the oil industry. It has, however received funding through a groups setup by Prof Barry Cooper at the University of Calgary. The money is from by the oil industry. Ball is exercising plausible denialability.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

CO2 is gathering in our atmosphere at a rate of 60+ times anything we've seen in the climatic record going back hundreds of thousands of years, and the concentration is headed for highly unprecedented levels in just a few years. CO2 concentrations are already above what they were during the other warming periods.

And yes, solar phenomemnon have been looked at and ruled out.

Carbon trading needs work, but then, it took how long for our current economic system to get us here? We didn't let little events like The Great Depression and stagflation get in our way, or scandals like Enron and BreX break our resolve, did we?

Global warming makes icebergs. Duh.

Posted by: Mark Francis at January 1, 2007 3:38 PM

Mark,
I see you continue the "global warmingists" practise of attempting to discredit all who have differing views.
Here are some excerpts from a member of FOS with comments regarding Dr Ball.

"Wherever you meet one of his former pupils, you'll find they speak of him glowingly and fondly. As you know a professorial appointment covers more than "research" in narrow specialized fields. There are few if any people in this country that are as familiar with all the sub-disciplines that serve climatology as he is and that are expert in the task of seeing all the pieces of the puzzle come together.

Finally, the line that says "FoS is funded in large part by the oil and gas industries, and the FoS funds Dr. Ball's advocacy activities" is totally in error. Neither statement is true. As we are often blamed for being funded by "big oil", we sometimes wish it were true: it would at least solve our perennial lack of funds to mount any sort of substantial counter-action to the verbal diarrhoea of misinformation.

I see that you too Mark are continuing the tradition of attempting to discredit any and all who have differing views, we have to conclude that your views are ones of weakness.
If you were well informed on the subject you would discuss how the carbon system can be strengthened. It appears however that it is doomed to failure, can you expect the UN under the auspices of people such as Kofi Anan to administer such a plan effectively and efficiently , you would have to be delusional to think so. The Liberals had planned to spend billions in buying credits, what a great idea. My god what other great plans do Dion and the Libs have? Or are you the Mark Francis, the Green Party advocate with the failed blog? It will be interesting to watch the Libs, Dippers and Greens how they spin the bad news on carbon credits.

Erwin

Posted by: Erwin at January 1, 2007 4:49 PM

I cant get my head around this carbon trading business.
Does this plan actually result in a reduction of greenhouse gasses?

Posted by: Lee at January 1, 2007 5:21 PM

Er, Erwin:

I'm a friend of the Friends of Science, and I'm aware that they get part of their funding from oil companies. So do dozens of NGOs and charities. After all, FoS doesn't have access to the brimming government pig trough that the apostles of AGW slurp from, and it's hardly fair to expect that, besides working pro-bono, they should have to dip into their own pockets for things like making a video.

What annoys me isn't FoS getting a few crumbs from the oil companies, but various corporations making donations to their sworn enemies at the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Now that is sick.

Posted by: Zog at January 1, 2007 5:29 PM

Erwin writes: As to your vague assertions about funding for the FOS I say that you do not know what you are talking about and I reiterate, it is a lie. For those who repeat lies, they are known as liars add that to your other quality of being a coward.

Zog writes: Er, Erwin: I'm a friend of the Friends of Science, and I'm aware that they get part of their funding from oil companies.

Oooh, this should be fun to watch. Does Erwin cannibalize one of his own in a desperate bid to preserve his bubble of self-delusion? Or is he gentleman enough to admit when he's in error, and that sometimes a fact is indeed a fact even when it's uttered by a--let me get this just right--lefty moonbat pinko commie terrorist sympathizer.

Zog, I apologize for pitting your post against Erwin's, though perhaps you'll understand my taking the low road just this once given all the mudslinging directed my way throughout this thread. If not, well, what else did you expect from a liar and a coward?

Posted by: A at January 1, 2007 6:38 PM

Nobody's explained to my satisfaction why funding from governments to promote science that advances ideological/political goals is less dangerous than funding from corporations that promotes science that advances economic ones.

Indeed, if I'm forced to choose, I'll sleep a lot more soundly with choice b.

Posted by: Kate at January 1, 2007 8:07 PM

Kate,

I'm with you on that one. Try getting a grant from the government that questions the "science" behind Kyoto.

Posted by: Leda at January 2, 2007 4:15 AM
I cant get my head around this carbon trading business. Does this plan actually result in a reduction of greenhouse gasses? Posted by: Lee at January 1, 2007 05:21 PM

Uh, no. Its an astute new application of an old business model. The China example should show you the path. The reason its been so warmly embraced by by much of the world is that it is a neat wealth re-distribution scheme, moving GNP level cash from the haves to the have-nots, brokered, of course, by a cartel of international businessmen always on the lookout for new ventures. There is a reason why the name is changing from "Global Warming" (so yesterday) to "Climate Change". The latter promotes an endless business cycle, the former does not.

This is Stephane Dion's great weakness - he does not understand that the real movers and shakers in the world do not have the word "altruism" in their vocabulary. It interferes with good business decisions, unless, of course, like most climate change entrepreneurs, you've figured out a business model to market it.

Posted by: Skip at January 2, 2007 7:09 AM

"A",
You are a self admitted ignoramus on any subject concerning technology. Why should I waste anymore time communicating with someone who is void of knowledge, is too afraid to identify himself, and who does not have the courage of his convictions, You are not worthy of a response, you are a waste of time, now troll on back to your mommy.

Posted by: Erwin at January 2, 2007 8:02 AM

Lee,
The purpose of the carbon trading program was for companies/countries that could not otherwise meet their targets, that they could purchase "carbon credits" from some underdeveloped nations. Those designated countries (poor countries) are exempt any emission level standards by the UNs IPCC. The underdeveloped nations then would use those funds to upgrade their industries or build new, modern, low emission-level plants and in doing so reduce the emission of world wide GHGs.
Understandably the scheme may have sounded good to the political enviros on paper, but if they had stopped to engage their brains they would have come to the realization that the administration of such a world wide program in terms of it being, efficient, effective and without it becoming corrupt is an impossibility.
How could the UN with its sordid history of corruption and gross inefficiently do such a job, it cannot and will not.
What has come to light is that European companies have already purchased several billion dollars worth of these carbon credits, about which 50 % were from the Chinese. Well instead of upgrading existing coal fired power plants to reduce substantially the extreme level of air pollutants and GHGs that they are pumping out, they used the funds to build even more of the old style hyper polluting coal fired power plants. Thank god that we do not have a Liberal government or we too would have already been exporting billions of dollars, also without one grain of difference to our GHG or air pollution emissions. In reality all we would be doing is exporting some of our taxpayers monies to help achieve a theoretical reduced level of GHGs in Canada, but we really would not be reducing anything in Canada except our standard of living.
Erwin

Posted by: Erwin at January 2, 2007 8:26 AM

Thanks for the explanation, Erwin.
I have been trying to find out all i can about the issue, I guess since im kind of new at this, i havent been looking in the right places.
Just once, I would like to see a major news outlet present the facts in depth rather than opinions and sound bytes.
Im working on the Clean Air Act now, and from what i have seen so far, it is on exactly the right track. It is being carefully put together with lots of consultation.
What strikes me is that just from comments here, it is evident there is no clear-cut conclusion that all can grasp on to.
Its fair to say we should all play our part in reducing pollution.
Strangely enough, i read somewhere (wish i could find it) that the reason its getting warmer is because the air is cleaner now, and the suns rays are more direct.
Anyway, my conclusion is that Minister Ambrose is doing a good job, and i hope Mr. Harper lets her continue

Posted by: Lee at January 2, 2007 11:21 AM
Site
Meter