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.
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
nc:
Sounds lik Suzuki is a good candidate for inclusion in the next edition of Peter Schweizer’s “Do As I Say” …
Werner Brozek, I notice that Edmonton Journal article doesn’t allow comments. Of course, the trend today in every climate change article is that all of their lame arguments are countered and debunked in comments by realists… er, skeptics… so they just don’t allow comments.
Dylan? Really? Why not just have readings from the Marx and Lenin? One of the problems I’ve noticed for my entire GenX lifetime is that Boomers are under the illusion that their anti-war heroes are smart and, you know, heroic.
For those who don’t know, most Canadian cities have two newspapers: The Sun, and the left. Our own Calgary Herald used to be a fairly objective and reliable source of news, but over the last 20 years has taken a hard left turn to Utopia. Where the Sun used to be something like a tabloid it has now become pretty much the voice of sanity and reason. If you’d like to be entertained by a thoroughly left-wing rant-rag, take a look at the Toronto (Red) Star…
@Bob Shapiro
>>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.)
It seems to me that anthropocentrism is part and parcel of what has gotten us into this muddled thinking about anthropogenic global warming to begin with. Why must everything always come down to what humans do? I believe I read somewhere that the total mass of microbial and insect life in the soils and elsewhere, all of which exhales CO2 and releases methane, far and away exceeds the mass of human beings upon the Earth’s surface. That’s another source of CO2 that hasn’t been considered, to say nothing about champagne effect from the oceans, out-gassing from the 70 to 80 percent of the volcanoes and lava flows beneath the oceans’ surface, etc., etc.
Here in Waterloo the Warmists reign unchallenged in the local press. As a legitimately water conservation-conscious city (80% of city water is from boreholes) there is a long history of environmental protection of the local mental space was ripe for AGW infection. The advantage Waterloo has is an above average education and a highly connected community (baseline cable is T10). Once the bias tips it will go the other way quickly.
Once the academics are again preaching balance instead of GW ideology the public will surely follow. I do worry that people will reject the whole environmental movement in the inevitable backlash.
Crispin in Waterloo says: @ May 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm
….Once the academics are again preaching balance instead of GW ideology the public will surely follow. I do worry that people will reject the whole environmental movement in the inevitable backlash.
_______________________________________
It is the distrust and rejection of science as a backlash that bothers me. We already see lots of signs of it in the Luddites already with homopathy…
@Bob Shapiro and others,
According to Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Murray Salby, even the so called “human fingerprint” of CO2 is likely false.
Natural seasonal Biological and Geo-chemical sources and sinks for CO2 dwarf human contributions making them pretty much irrelevant.
Watch the VId and learn something interesting !
BioBob:
In response to your post at May 30, 2012 at 9:51 pm, I draw your attention to my above post at May 30, 2012 at 6:18 am which is addressed to Bob Shapiro.
Many prefer to read information instead of watching vids., so following debates of the subject on WUWT may benefit them.
Importantly, as I said to Bob Shapiro in my above post to him;
“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
Bruce Cobb says: May 30, 2012 at 7:57 am
Just the one fact of no further warming the last 15 years…
Hi Bruce. Please review Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html). Natural variation (ENSO etc) sits upon a consistent global temperature up trend of ~+0.16C/decade. The “no warming” assertion will not prove a good predictor of future temperature evolution as it measures to a period dominated by La Nina.
Ammonite
At May 31, 2012 at 3:54 am you respond to Bruce Cobb having said (at May 30, 2012 at 7:57 am)
By saying
I write to respond to your substantive point, but I have no intention of reading anything at SkS (I don’t have time for the needed additional bath afterwards).
The anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the last 15 years but global temperature has not risen. Therefore, it is observed that “natural variation” has overwhelmed any warming effect of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. An analysis or crystal ball may suggest what will happen in the future, but reality shows that global temperature has not risen over the last 15 years.
The important point is that any effect on global warming of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is observed to be trivial because it is overwhelmed by “natural variation”.
Of course, there has been recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and this is observed as being “a consistent global temperature up trend” which has existed for centuries. But – although “consistent” – this “up trend” includes repeated periods of lack of warming (e.g. 1880 to 1910, and 1910 to 1970). This “up trend” with periods of stasis is not an effect of the anthropogenic emissions.
Therefore, resumption of the “up trend” would not overcome the observation that any effect of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global warming is observed to be trivial because it is overwhelmed by “natural variation”. And there is no possibility of an increase to the rate of the emissions with sufficient magnitude to negate the observation.
Richard
Ammonite says:
May 31, 2012 at 3:54 am
The “no warming” assertion will not prove a good predictor of future temperature evolution as it measures to a period dominated by La Nina.
The RSS plot from November, 1996 to April, 2012 is a straight line and starts and ends with a La Nina. This period is 15 years and 6 months. I have also plotted two other points that start and end with an El Nino. Both start in December 1997, but one ends in November of 2010 and the other ends in July of 2007. See all three trend lines below. Starting and ending with an El Nino does NOT seem to help your argument.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.8/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/to:2010.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/to:2007.6/trend
Richard and Werner, consider the following series:
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) has a regression slope of 1.000
(10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) has a regression slope of 0.018
So, outliers near the ends of a series can have a marked impact. To further the example, consider:
(0,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,0,10) has a regression slope of 0.127 (well short of 1.000)
Note how the first “10” and second “0” outliers still strongly influence the series even though the series does not start or finish on them. The strong El Nino of 1988 acts like that first 10.
As an alternative to Foster & Rahmstorf you could calculate the regression slope of only El Nino months, only La Nina months and only neutral months. The results are the same, an up-trend of ~0.16C/decade. The implications are clear. If the trend persists, a La Nina trough in 25 years will be the equivalent of an El Nino peak today.
Ammonite:
I have read your post at May 31, 2012 at 2:30 pm and I fail to see how it pertains in any way to the explanation in my post at May 31, 2012 at 4:31 am.
Please explain.
Richard
Hi Richard (May 31, 2012 3:09pm). My post relates to your point that: “anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the last 15 years but global temperature has not risen. Therefore, it is observed that “natural variation” has overwhelmed any warming effect of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions”… Therefore “any effect on global warming of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is observed to be trivial because it is overwhelmed by “natural variation”.”
For the sake of discussion, lets agree that global temperature has not risen for 15 years and therefore “natural variation” has overwhelmed any positive climate forcing (CO2 or otherwise) across this period. The key phrase is “across this period”. If the up-trend continues (as it has consistently across the satellite era) it will dominate across time. Suppose the world somehow became stuck in La Nina forever. Ten years later the La Nina temperature would be 0.16C higher. Twenty years later 0.32C higher and so forth.
Would you argue that natural variation within a single day (or a single year) overwhelms ENSO effects, therefore ENSO effects are trivial?
[Please note: I am not making the argument that the trend must persist indefinitely or that CO2 is the cause, just noting that it is a robust description of current behaviour.]
Ammonite says:
May 31, 2012 at 2:30 pm
The results are the same, an up-trend of ~0.16C/decade.
Just for discussion sake, let us assume this to be true and that all of the increase is due to anthropogenic CO2. Then to go up to the 2 C mark from 0.8 C now since 1750 would take another 75 years. What is so catastrophic about that?
Werner Brozek says: May 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm
… Then to go up to the 2 C mark … would take another 75 years. What is so catastrophic about that?
I suggest reading Mark Lynas “Six Degrees” for possible/probable changes associated with +1C, +2C, +3C global average temperature rises. It is a very readable text supported by copious references. (Feel free to ignore chapters +4C and beyond.) The main danger I perceive is significant disruption to global agriculture, especially if +2C is exceeded. Indications are for increased drought interspersed with infrequent but heavy deluges for much of the world’s grain belt – not a great recipe for farming.
Ammonite:
Your post at May 31, 2012 at 5:00 pm shows you have not understood my argument in my post at May 31, 2012 at 4:31 am.
I do not understand how I can explain it more simply than my saying that
* natural variation is observed to have overwhelmed any effect of the natural emission over the last 15 years.
and, therefore,
* any effect of the anthropogenic emission is insignificant because it is overwhelmed by natural variation.
Ideas and models are wrong when they do not show what is observed to happen in reality. What is observed to happen in reality is all that matters.
And your post at May 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm is silly.
A 2 deg.C rise in mean global temperature would have no significant effect on “agriculture” or anything else. Nearly double a 2 deg.C rise in mean global temperature happens each year and nobody notices. Mean global temperature rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January each year, and falls by 3.8 deg.C from January to June each year.
Also, 3.8 deg.C is trivially different from 4 deg.C so I fail to understand your fears about a 4 deg.C rise in mean global temperature.
However, and of course, I am considering reality and not the false scares promulgated by Lynas in his ridiculous book.
Richard
Ammonite says:
May 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Indications are for increased drought interspersed with infrequent but heavy deluges for much of the world’s grain belt – not a great recipe for farming.
Look at Australia over the last few years. They dealt with both droughts and floods. However these droughts and floods had everything to do with La Ninas and El Ninos and nothing to do with CO2. I think governments may be obsessed with CO2 and ignore much bigger things.
I think that if anything does happen in your area due to warming, then deal with the specific thing that happens.
Werner Brozek says: June 1, 2012 at 8:04 am
Look at Australia over the last few years. They dealt with both droughts and floods. However these droughts and floods had everything to do with La Ninas and El Ninos and nothing to do with CO2.
Queensland, Australia 2011 suffered flooding in all major flood basins, loss of life and a decline in productive activity across mining, agriculture and tourism. Housing insurance premiums have risen by 40% in many areas as a result. Australia has been able to deal successfully with such crises as a first world economy with a surplus. How well is Greece doing without one? The existence of surplus (full dams, oil reserves, financial reserves, stored food…) allows one to mitigate the effects of individual disasters. My concern re AGW is that a rolling series of haphazard problems will gradually eat into the surpluses of nations until they lose the ability to respond. Many envisage “catastrophe” as an armageddon of fire and brimstone and reject the notion. I see it more as a progressive degradation toward failure across much of the world.
richardscourtney says: June 1, 2012 at 4:51 am
A 2 deg.C rise in mean global temperature would have no significant effect on “agriculture” or anything else. Nearly double a 2 deg.C rise in mean global temperature happens each year and nobody notices.
And what will the peanut gallery throw if they can’t find anywhere to grow nuts?
Ammonite says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm
My concern re AGW is that a rolling series of haphazard problems will gradually eat into the surpluses of nations until they lose the ability to respond.
My concern is that nations will waste money such as spending a billion dollars on carbon capture to shave 1/10,000 of a degree off the warming in 100 years from now and then not have money for things that really matter.
Werner Brozek says: June 1, 2012 at 8:22 pm
My concern is that nations will waste money … and then not have money for things that really matter.
Fair enough. It is also true that many people are living with the fantasy that you can have an economy without an ecology.