Michael Coren and guest Bob Carter on why Canada stands above the rest when it comes to being honest about climate change.
See the full interview here:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1662151109001
See also Bob Carter’s essay: Policymakers have quietly given up trying to cut carbon dioxide emissions
In related news ICSC’s Tom Harris ( http://www.climatescienceinternational.org ) discusses how social and cultural worldview has more impact on the public’s position on controversial science issues than the science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is an excellent video overview of global warming by Bob Carter, from a few years ago:
http://www.blip.tv/file/791876/
Thanks
JK
According to the US Department of Energy burning fossil fuels produces 3% of the annual global CO2 budget. If CO2 did drive climate then changing our energy use and production methods would do nothing to change the route climate is taking ie the natural route.
Climates always change.
Anthony:
Thankyou for bringing attention to these two ‘stars’ of the ‘climate realism’ firmament.
I draw attention to the link you provide to the presentation at the recent Heartland Conference by Tom Harris. It is brilliant and is required learning for all with any interest (of any kind) in the AGW issue. He explains how ‘world views’ affect acceptance of ideas on e.g. AGW and nuclear power.
The link is not direct but is well worth the trouble of following the route needed to see it.
As an aside to provide background, Tom clearly acts on the information he presents in his superb Heartland presentation. For example, he (a ‘libertarian’ right-winger) and I (a left-wing socialist) have co-authored articles on climate change.
Richard
In support to what Dr Carter is saying and why perhaps the Canadian government has acted the way it has , Canada’s annual temperature departures from 1961-1990 averages have been fluctuating but the trend is completely flat since 1998. On a seasonal basis the summer trend is also completely flat , the spring trend is cooling or down , the falls have a slight rise and the winters show a warming trend based mostly on the trend of the last few years . On a regional annual basis 9 of the 11 major regions show flat or declining trends .Only the Arctic Tundra , Mountains and Fiords which represent about 25 % of Canada’s total area are showing a warming trend . So based on this kind of a trend, the need to fight global warming in Canada would be a complete waste of taxpayer’s money when there are so many other pressing problems in the world where the money is much more needed.
No wonder the likes of Prat Principle exponent Tim Flannery has been trying to beat up some more scares.
Alarmists appear to be cherry pickers. There are many causes for climate’s constant change, but alarmists consider only human causes. Even more, they pick only human produced CO2 to zoom in on. It seems they further ignore CO2 produced by normal human respiration (and food animals such as cows) to concentrate only on fossil fuel CO2.
I did some back of the envelope calculations, and human respiration since 1950 is way up.
First some data:
The EPA estimates that every human on the planet exhales about 1KG per day.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7
The number of people on earth has grown from about 2.5 Billion in 1950 to 7 Billion to today. That’s an extra 4.5 Billion people on the planet.
http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm
CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel in 2007 were 8365 million metric tons.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
I’ve done the math, and I find that the extra 4.5 Billion people alive today, compared to 1950, breathe out about 1642 million metric tons of CO2 a year, or almost 20% as much as the CO2 from fossil fuels in 2007. (Yes today’s number is higher than the 2007 number, but I also didn’t add in the CO2 from the extra livestock to feed the extra 4.5 Billion people.)
The EPA also says, “However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.”
My question is, why isn’t 20% extra CO2 from people who wouldn’t be alive except for fossil fuels not important enough to count? Alternatively, if plants can equilibrate for the 1642 from people breathing, then why can’t it handle the 8365 million metric tons from fossil fuels?
Oh they also advocate reducing the human population, one way or another. Some openly, others unknowingly by the policies they support.
Bob Shapiro:
At May 30, 2012 at 5:29 am you ask
Your questions are addressed in several threads of WUWT.
To assist your search, I point you to the recent thread where the discussion continues (but is petering out).
It is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/24/bob-carters-essay-in-fp-policymakers-have-quietly-given-up-trying-to-cut-%C2%ADcarbon-dioxide-emissions/
As demonstration that your questions are directly addressed by discussionat that link, I cite this extract from a post (at May 25, 2012 at 8:19 am) I made in that discussion.
I hope this helps you in your considerations and avoids this thread also becoming dominated by the important – but aside – issue which you raise.
Richard
Much as I enjoy listening to him, his stance on the issue as being “an agnostic” and “having no axe to grind” about whether or not there is dangerous global warming caused by man doesn’t make much sense. Is he saying he has no opinion one way or the other, based on the evidence he’s seen? Because it sure seems that he does.
I also disagree with his portrayal of the spectrum of belief versus non-belief. He says that on the one extreme, you have the IPCC’s stance, and on the other you have a tiny group claiming that climate never changes, with most scientists in the middle. First of all, I’m not aware of any people who claim that climate doesn’t change, but even if there are, why would he even mention them? Secondly, are most scientists really “in the middle”? If their grant money and their livelihoods depend on kowtowing to some extent to the CAGW ideology, and they do so, are they really in the middle?
Bruce:
re, your comment at May 30, 2012 at 6:26 am.
Please view the video of Bob Carter’s interview again. He covers all your points.
It seems you may have been so startled at Bob’s statements which you cite that you missed much else of what he said. But his comments were aimed at the ‘uncommitted’ and not you or me.
I think he did a good job.
Richard
Bob Carter is a breath of fresh air. It is about time, that some windows are opened, in the suffocating room of alarmist CAGW. Canada… You are greatly admired by the realists of the world. Do not change your pragmatic stance. GK
Credit to Sun News who may be the only news network in the world who will give time to the “rational” debate on this topic.
Imagine how awful it would be if Canada’s grain output tripled. Why, food prices might be low enough that poor people could eat without government subsidies. We can’t have that.
I can’t view the video at the Sun’s web site (from Germany)
Who has another link?
One point Harris makes about spending $95 billion on Green energy while not helping the people of Sudan (or elsewhere) who need help today: the Suzuki Green philosophy is that people are viruses on a benign Earth. There are too many people; they don’t want to help the current numbers prosper and grow, they want to reduce the population.
Stalin said the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million, a statistic. The Suzuki show you a pelican covered in oil from a tanker spill: there is the tragedy. The Suzuki ignore all the eagles and bats killed by wind turbines all over the world: there is the statistic.
Green energy is just a part of the anti-humanist, pro-Gaia Rousseau-est philosophy of the Suzuki crowd.
In the Edmonton Journal for May 28, the following appeared:
“Times a-changin’, but Tories aren’t
Federal action on climate change has never been so stalled
By Thomas Pedersen, Edmonton Journal”
For the rest of the article, see
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Times+changin+Tories+aren/6688694/story.html
@richard, I did re-play what he said several times, and did so again just now, and I stand by my comment. He obviously isn’t agnostic about the issue of dangerous manmade warming, so I don’t understand why he said he was. Just the one fact of no further warming the last 15 years despite the fact that man has pumped enormous quantities of C02 – amounting to 1/3 the total quantity emitted since the start of the industrial revolution pretty much blows it out of the water. It’s pure poppycock.
There is no middle ground. That’s a copout, and an appeasement strategy. And I’m sorry, but any “scientist” who kowtows to CAGW ideology in order to keep their job doesn’t deserve to be called a scientist.
Tom Harris, always worth listening to. He tends to hit every nail on the head.
Pointman
Bruce Cobb:
Thankyou for your reply to me at May 30, 2012 at 7:57 am.
It seems we have to differ. Bob says that AS A SCIENTIST he is ‘agnostic’, and explains what he means by that, He goes on to say that the evidence – which you cite – causes him to personally conclude the AGW-hypothesis is unfounded.
Call it “an appeasement strategy” if you like. But I call it a way to enter dialogue with those who would reject him as an ‘extremist’ if he were to only make unequivocal statements.
Bob is retired so he is not a ““scientist” who kowtows to CAGW ideology in order to keep [his] job”. He is putting himself on the line to tell people that he concludes the AGW-hypothesis is unfounded.
As I said. It seems you and I have to differ.
Richard
richardscourtney says: “…For example, [Tom Harris] (a ‘libertarian’ right-winger) and I (a left-wing socialist) have co-authored articles on climate change.”
Good. That’s the way it should be. Reality demands that people of different political viewpoints work together at times toward common goals. Bill Donovan’s OSS was a hotbed of Republicans, anti-Fascists, liberals, and veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
The Bob Carter video above http://www.blip.tv/file/791876/, is what started me on the road to climate scepticism 3 years ago. Brilliant man…
`”Canada stands above the rest when it comes to being honest about climate change.”
_______________________________
Well, my home province of Quebec certainly doesn’t. The CAGW meme has never been questioned. It’s an immutable fact. Since 2008, there’s a 3.5% carbon tax that applies to all energy consumption, that nobody objected to. In January 2013, a cap-and-trade cabon exchange is to be introduced. There was no debate.
Doug Proctor, Suzuki who says people are a virus has five kids, most likely grandkids by now, but no idea. He also has a good material accumulation. All this he says he struggles with.
For those who don’t know Canada’s Sun TV News (1 year old and nation wide) is a 24 hour news/ commentary organization that goes where the LAME STREAM MEDIA won’t go for ideological and political reasons. the Segments are detailed and informative. Climate issues from a skeptical standpoint are covered on a daily basis, most things covered here at WUWT come up for exploration and discussion (although not as technical) . In combination with my PVR It’s a breath of fresh air!
Only in Canada a recovering socialist nation – Yes there is hope and It’s beautiful.
François GM said:
May 30, 2012 at 9:35 am
…..
Hmmmmm, sounds like Laurentia……or Quebec.
:<)
BAC