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.
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: @ur momisugly 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.