I may just divert to Toronto from Chicago and pay this writer a visit so I can tell him to his face what an idiot he is, or have my two new Canadian friends, Guy and Stuart, do it for me. He deserves it. How do the publishers of this newspaper reconcile printing such blatant idiocy based on what the writer calls “weeks old” science? How does such a headline get published? At first I thought maybe it was just the copy editor at fault, making a dumb headline, but then I read this in the body of the story:
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates [sic] into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
6.7 billion people in the world today, and 4.5 billion will die in less than two years due to a temperature rise that will be less in magnitude than our regularly experienced variance? There’s a link at the end, feel free to sound off. We need to remind this newspaper of this in 2012 – Anthony
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm
Compiled by John Stokes
A recent scientific theory called the “hydrate hypothesis” says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as “hydrates”) spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.
In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.
The “hydrate hypothesis” (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.
By the way, the “hydrate hypothesis” is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.
There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.
The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.
…
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.
…
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
…
Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.
[DON’T VISIT – AV PROGRAMS REPORT AS “ATTACK PAGE”]
Full story here
Contact page for The Canadian here
==========================================
UPDATE: To further illustrate just how bad this newspaper is, they have what appears to be a current date for the story right above the headline:
Yet when you look at the footer:
The automatic current date inserter gives the false impression of fresh news. It certainly fooled me and other readers. It appears this is an old article from 2007, still no less stupid, and to be proven false within 18 months. Readers that are visiting the blog page link provided by The Canadian are reporting AV software saying it to be an “attack site”. I’ve verified this, Visiting not recommended. Just make a date in your appointment calendar to drop a line to the editors (assuming this paper is still in existence in 2012) to remind them you and 4.5 billion other people aren’t dead. – A
Mike says;
“Truly an idiotic piece. But don’t confuse this with what climate scientists are saying.”
Gee Mike, don’t forget what other of the climate scientists (Dr. Richard Lindzen) said: “We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer. This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2 only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts. This becomes clearer when we relate feedbacks to climate sensitivity (i.e. the warming associated with a doubling of CO2).”
Well, I know those climate scientists are a bit of an inconvenience to your faith.
The unintentional humor made my day! Psychic Larry prediction:
When the year 2013 rolls around, nobody with more than half a brain will be reading The Canadian.
@Steve Allen said (May 18, 2010 at 6:57 pm): “Gee Mike, don’t forget what other of the climate scientists (Dr. Richard Lindzen) said: …. Well, I know those climate scientists are a bit of an inconvenience to your faith.”
No, you do not know about my beliefs or faith. I think AWG is more likely than not to be real and serious. But, I make it a point to read Lindzen and other critics. I am not an expert in this field, but on balance the work done by the mainstream climatologists seems more persuasive. However, I am skeptical that we really can greatly reduce our GHG emissions. I’ll support cap-and-trade as something to try. I don’t think it will destroy the economy (I find conservative critics to be unduly alarmist), but it will hurt some sectors. I do not know if we will find economical replacements for coal and oil. We may have to learn to live in a warmer world; the scarifies we inflict on ourselves will likely be severe but I am sure we will survive. I am pro nuclear but against ethanol subsidies.
Your dismissive attitude toward those you disagree with might lead one to conjecture that you are a tad bit close minded. But, hopefully that is not true. Did you read the realclimate links I gave? I’ll repeat them:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/arctic-methane-on-the-move/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/
Wayne Delbeke says:
May 18, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Seems to me a lot of American readers should be forwarding a copy of this “military intelligence” to their congressman so they know what is going to happen in 2010 ….
__________________________________________________________________________
I loved this one. It really cracked me up
The CAGW forecast from 2004:
“By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers. “
The reality:
In 2004 we had seventeen days in May with temps above 90F, three at 98F, so far this year we have barely made it up to 91F a couple of times. Last week the low was 35F and currently it is a chilly 57F. I am in the sunny south (mid NC) for goodness sake, it snows here about for one day every five years. Of course this year it snowed 8 days including 3 days in March!
“Less in magnitude than our regularly experienced variance”? Anthony, you’re being too generous. Did you mean to say “AT LEAST TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LESS than our regularly experience variance”?
Not to mention that it’s obviously a crapshoot whether that will be a positive or negative “rise”.
4.5 Billion? Even Canadian publishers aren’t that stupid.
But I could be persuaded, that if there happen to occur severely anomalous disasters in a short span, 1.5 billion could die of disease, famine and/or natural disasters that could have been averted, ameliorated or more rapidly responded to had resources not been so prodigally allocated from humanitarian and disaster relief channels to “climate change research”.
> A recent scientific theory called the “hydrate hypothesis”
I think someone already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating. A hypothesis is NOT a theory. There’s a reason we have two words and not one. Of course in common use the word ‘theory’ has come to mean ‘wild-a$$ guess’, thus the typical refrain of ‘it’s only a theory’.
well mike let’s keep in mind one thing. Even those on the side of global warming admit that it won’t amount to a hill of beans what we do. It’s not really the main focus. The main focus is cap and trade and they want money for their greening America campaign. If you don’t believe me look at the video of the most recent gathering of the Apollo Project.
Also keep in mind that they say currently we are pushing 30billion metric tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere which is 2ppm of the atmospheric gases. So that’s roughly 15 bmt ppm.
Like Steve said without feedback which the IPCC warmist’s seem to want to push higher and higher all the time the base warming is 1 degree C.
So since they think we’ll be pushing about 485 ppm co2 footprint in the next 100 years which supposedly will raise our temperature 7 degrees C but in all reality it will only be 1. So for a 1 degree C change in temperature it would take 33 years or more at 0% CO2 footprint to lower the temperature 1 degree.
No pray tell, where would you like to live for 33 years since no humans or animals or trucks or tractors, or planes, factories will be allowed on Earth with a 0% CO2 footprint.
The warmist’s are always talking about how bad the greenhouse effect is. Perhaps you could move to Mars where there is no greenhouse effect and it’s 120 at high noon and -140 at midnight.
There is no Nobel prize for name calling.
One wonders to what Jbar is referring to?
Have you ever noticed how poeple come and attack, take a swipe with their great mighty paw of contextual ignorance, and don’t actually say anything of substance?
Sigh.
There is no Nobel Prize for name calling. Seriously? Seriously Mr. Mrs. or Ms. Jbar, that’s the best you can come up with?
Don’t hold your breath. They may seriously come up with a Nobel Prize for name calling, after all Al Gore got a NPP for lying before Congress and America, and we still don’t know what the hell Obama got his for. Anything is possible.
I find it curiously odd that proponents of Anna’s actions last week at Mr. Watts business have pointed to his comments at the top of this post as justification of harassment and violence on his part.
I also find it strange that the NAS put out a letter from about 200 scientists (supposedly) that was against Glen Beck and others for their supposed incitement of violence against alarmist scientists, and then this Anna thing happens and then I’m reading the CRU emails and I’m seeing several emails where high up scientists are making comments about wishing they could take skeptics like Watts and McIntyre into a dark alley.
What lengths of hypocrisy and deceit is the other side willing to go expand, in order to win the day?