Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk. Because virtually anything “could” happen. Just try to get a scientist to say something is strictly and absolutely impossible. Go on. Try it. So if a scientist says “could”, he is not telling you anything. Jupiter “could” suddenly start going round the sun in a square orbit. It “could”. It’s so unlikely it certainly won’t happen in the entire universe ever, but it “could” happen. All the alarmism that “could” occur? Worthless verbiage.
And we could be hit by giant asteroids, the ice age could come sooner than we thought, a super bug virus could wipe us all out, nanotechnology could doom us all, nuclear war, or finally ; geoengineering because of your stupid belief that CO2 is a pollutant Mr. Mosher.
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
ANY
TIME
Note that it is not qualified. Note the lack of specificity.
I would have no problem whatsoever if the poster made a reasoned case how the “could” in the case in volcanos was different from the coulds we routinely see in ALL science.
In fact, every time we make a prediction we are saying something could happen.
When we argue that raising taxes could cause a resssion is this too junk?
When we argue that regulation could harm business is this junk too?
Here is the problem I have. The knee jerk reaction to particular words — could, anomaly, model. Without thinking people just react and dont take time to be skeptical about their own views. See the word model? Must be wrong! See the word “could” be used. Must be wrong.
Then again maybe I am wrong. It was famous Dick Feynman who argued
“The way to evaluate science is look for the word could!”
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
ANY
TIME
Note that it is not qualified. Note the lack of specificity.
That’s right. ANY. TIME!
If you have a valid scientific point to make, then say something like “with probability 0.2” etc. “Could” is worthless. Statements that only allege “could” are useless verbiage unless some other more specific claim is added, in which case any value comes from that added claim, not from the “could”.
And BTW, you have make the elementary logical error of assuming that ‘”Could” does not imply likeliness’ implies ‘Likeliness implies non-“could”.’ Then you have found an example of likeliness with “could” and foolishly concluded that you have disproved ‘”Could” does not imply likeliness’.
“… CO2 could be responsible for an exponential growth in sodomy. There are almost no end to the dangers of having cheap and affordable electricity from burning coal. … “
I’m getting really fed up with these attacks on Mosher based on a complete lack of reading comprehension. Steve make a perfectly clear and devastating response to the blanket generalization of Ron House.
You doofuses then branch off in to a dozen strawman arguments with zero ability to follow a logical point. In fact, most of you are just agreeing with Steve while thinking you don’t.
“A could happen” is meaningless verbiage because anything “could” happen (except squaring the circle and other logical impossibilities). Anything adverted to as merely being possible (as in it “could”) tells us precisely nothing. Mosher’s discovery of a case where a could-qualified statement is actually likely is nothing more than a logical fallacy:
“A does not imply B” does not imply “B implies not-A”. Therefore Mosher’s discovery of a case of “B and A” is far from a devastating response, it is in fact embarrassing that he imagines he has a point to make.
That is, a “could”-qualified statement is effectively meaningless, regardless of the truth of likelihood of the outcome being referred to.
Ron, implications are the workhorses for charlatans because most people have difficulties to comprehend what { ¬A v B } means let alone { ¬ { ¬A v B } } = { A ^ ¬B }. People think the constructs tell something about B.
Now, I didn’t like to check whether your implication of two implications { ¬ { ¬ { ¬A v B } } v ¬ { ¬B v ¬A } } is always false (or did you mean true?).
“Could”. Lots of things “could” happen but never will.
Ron House (I think) was addressing the hype/pr that this particular post was presenting.
(Man’s CO2 COULD, and therefore HAS caused all the stuff “The Storm Channel” keeps railing about.)
Man’s CO2 activating volcanoes in Canada? Only in Hollywood.
But, in science, “could” implies an hypothesis. And then an experiment to disprove it or see if there is another hypotheses to look at.
CAGW has existed and flourished on stopped after the word “Could”.
Both Mosh and Ron House are more right than wrong. Context. (IMHO)
Steven,
A Carrington event, it happened before, it can happen again. But nobody blamed it on climate change, did they? And the scientist in the video didn’t actually attribute the volcanism to climate change. It was the CBC embelishing things with the “Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes” title.
“Steven,
A Carrington event, it happened before, it can happen again. But nobody blamed it on climate change, did they? And the scientist in the video didn’t actually attribute the volcanism to climate change. It was the CBC embelishing things with the “Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes” title.”
Thanks for agreeing with me.
1. The scientist said nothing about climate change.
2. The COMMENT I was referencing made a silly argument about the word “could” used
in science.
3. The press is horrible. Dont get your science from the MSM.
I think people are merely pissed that I pointed out a stupid comment by one of their pals.
Look, it is the job of commenters to “peer review” each others comments. Not pal review them, but peer review them.
Do you have a real name? or do you just hide behind initials?
“Mosher if scientists from Simon Fraser University feel they have been misrepresented by CBC they should contact them.”
Of course the scientists can contact them
My comment is not directed at the CBC article, or the science. My comment is direct at Ron.
Simple question Lbd: Did feynman tell us we could reject any science that used the word ‘could”?
I suspect you will run away from this debate or try to make it something personal.
Instead of debating the actual subject. The use of ‘could’ in Science
I suspect you will run away because you cant even use your real name to begin with.
I was at Eidetics when Mr. Mosher was trying to direct the simulation software developers and engineers there. I can certainly attest to the fact that he knows nothing of software and knows nothing about flight science. After he was let go Mr. Mosher tried to sue Eidetics and lost. Following that, Eidetics was in a bigger lawsuit with a large firm that I won’t mention but during depositions Mr. Mosher was bad-mouthing the whole technical staff at Eidetics which I highly detest. The technical staff at Eidetics consisted of extremely competent and talented engineers and software developers. I believe his bad-mouthing comments were highly driven by the fact that he lost his own lawsuit against Eidetics. He’s a back-stabbing bastard as far as I’m concerned when all of the team under him very worked hard and long hours to win a program that much larger companies were competing for. He’s not a scientist or engineer, he knows nothing of software and is not a real team player.
He failed miserably when trying to make it in the engineering world and got flushed down the crapper. So now, he’s been reduced down to self-promoted himself in the climate change world. I find it pathetic. He couldn’t solve a physics problem, a calculus problem or write a line of code to save his soul.
It’s not that I think he shouldn’t work. It’s just that I think he should be cleaning toilets instead.
5/18/2017 2:44 PM
I will add that with no qualifications whatsoever I wound up as Sales and Marketing Director of a small software company which almost snagged a £250M roll out of 3G for a major UK mobile phone organisation. We were too small so enlisted the support of Perot Systems (and were considered more than capable partners) and we were in pole position for the deal until 9/11 hit when our German backer pulled out because their market in the US took a nose dive.
All of this was achieved through guile, several influential contacts, blood, sweat and tears; a small team of brilliant software engineers, a slice of luck, and a lot of BS. My job was to promote the expertise of my colleagues; my success, or failure, was judged on that ability alone. I made no pretence to anyone, ever, that I knew anything about the nuts and bolts of the business. My colleagues knew that, and my clients knew that. At best I could be described as a business facilitator, but salesman suits me fine.
I have never written a line of code in my life, but I’m sure I could if necessary, indeed, thinking about it, I lie, I wrote code on a Sinclair Spectrum many years ago which took me five minutes to learn, but I’m not a coding expert by any stretch of the imagination. Had I persisted I could doubtless have had it doing the Cha, Cha, Cha, but I didn’t bother because the process didn’t engage me.
If what I have read is correct, I have no idea why Stephen Mosher is almost revered by some in climate circles. His professional employment seems no more academic than mine and I’m not convinced his sales and marketing endeavours are much to write home about.
I’m happy to concede anyone can gain expertise in an area not related to their specialist field but it seems Stephen has done, as many sales and marketing employees naturally do, switch allegiance when gainfully employed by an organisation, currently Berkeley Earth. It seems he’s an expert in English (demonstrably), flight simulation, consumer electronic goods and now climate science; and a marketing expert to boot.
Forgive me for saying Stephen, but I took 11 years to become a reasonable police officer. It took me two years to grasp and become good at sales. Marketing took a bit longer, but it took me only a week to learn that I would never be an expert in the subjects I sold or marketed. I can’t imagine you being an expert in all those skills as well as an expert in sales and marketing, yet you would have us all believe you know climate science.
I understand the individual skill-sets required of marketing, I don’t pretend to be an expert in any. I have run my own business, I was a sales manager of an engineering company, I worked with JWT and Saatchi’s advertising companies; I was the director of UK customer relationship management for the largest animal pharmaceutical company in the world and I ended up in the previously mentioned job for an IT company.
I now realise I have a reasonable grasp of sales and marketing, but I still have no idea about animal pharmaceuticals or engineering.
I have little doubt your book on Climategate is a literary masterpiece, as it should be considering your BA in English, it doesn’t mean you know the first thing about the climate. No more than say, well….me as neither of us have qualifications in the subject. Seriously, neither of us are even close.
I have met innumerable, perceptibly successful people in sales and marketing. I didn’t like them much and considered most social climbing narcissists. I have, of course, yet to meet you.
Steve initiated and led the Free The Code movement which ended up with NASA GISS opening up the source code of the their climate model.
Steve outed Peter Gleick’s fraud against Heartland.
Steve did major work for BEST and probably knows more about global temperature fields than most published authors on the subject.
Steve wrote one of the definitive books on Climategate.
When I gave the Climategate files to Steve to analyze it was for multiple reasons.
1. Proximity.
2. It was my belief that his eidetic memory as related to years of Climate Audit threads gave him a unique ability to assess and put the emails in context.
3. I knew him to be monomaniacal when working on such a project and he worked day and night for weeks putting together the book and writing posts about the subject.
4. So not only was he convenient to hand the files to, I believed at the time that he was literally the best person to do the first assessment.
Bullshit criticism from some anonymous guy who knew Steve in a competitive environment 30 years ago and someone else pettily generalizing about people in Marketing, (I’ve done lots of marketing work myself), is really reaching the point of me starting to censor it.
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
That is what I am referring to.
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
twice so you can be clear.
Questions:
1. Was this news article a piece of science?
2. Did the scientist make a link to climate change?
3. Do you think the word COULD automatically allows you to reject the science peice
that uses the word could/
That’s the actual claim the commenter made.
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
is that you opinion mark? is that your practice? look for the word ‘could’ and If “could”, then reject the science?
Now here is the great thing. All of you read this
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk””
None of you engineers and scientists and whatever saw that it was silly.
I point out that its silly and what is your response?
Could you agree this statement is silly/
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
No of course not. Now you have to agree with it because I pointed out that its silly.
Weird way you guys do science. if Mosher points out that soemthing is silly,
You cant evaluate it on its merits.
jeez you all make a stupid english major look brilliant
wait wait, wasnt it Einstein or Popper who said this
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
One clarification: when I said “the whole lot” I meant EVERYTHING qualified by the “could”, not everything in the article or whatever. I have explained elsewhere why your rebuttal to this is logically faulty. Perhaps you thought I meant anything in the same article as the word “could”. That is, if you see “Blah blah could happen”, redact it and see what remains. Usually you’ll find that something you removed was a necessary step in further conclusions of the article.
To forestall another objection, sometimes one sees things like “A could happen because B”. In this case, form your own opinion of how likely A is, based upon B. You might think A is very likely, but the likelihood comes from B, not from the “could”. Like it or not, stating that something could happen is virtually content-free in science, and it is definitely content-free in all the warming-related claims we discuss on this site. Bending over backwards to find a case where you are correct, perhaps a claim like “Genuine miracles such as raising the dead could happen” might make your case, but not anything we discuss here. “Could” means “not impossible”, and no serious skeptic thinks scary climate change is actually literally impossible, just extremely unlikely, which “could” does nothing to contradict.
This is not the case in mathematics, of course, because mathematicians deal in a realm in which some things really are impossible (squaring the circle), and for them, saying “could” is a positive claim with information content.
What Scientists really mean when they say things.
Authoritative statements in scientific journals should not always be taken literally. I.J.Good has made a collection of them.
“It has long been known that…”
I haven’t bothered to look up the original reference.
“While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions…”
The experiment didn’t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it.
“High purity …”, “Very high purity…”, “Extremely high purity…”, “Super high purity…”
Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claim of the suppliers.
“…accidentally strained during mounting”
…dropped on the floor.
“It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding…”
I don’t understand it.
“Unfortunately a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated…”
Neither does anybody else.
“It is hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field.”
This isn’t very good, but neither is any of the others on this miserable subject.
“The agreement with the predicted curve is excellent” …good” …satisfactory” …fair.”
Fair. Poor. Doubtful. Imaginary.
“As good as could be expected considering the approximations made in the analysis.”
Non-existent.
“Of great theoretical and practical importance.”
Interesting to me.
“Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study.”
The results on the others didn’t make sense and were ignored.
“These results will be reported at a later date.”
I might possibly get around to this some time.
“Typical results are shown.”
The best results are shown.
“Although some detail has been lost in the reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that…”
It is impossible to tell from the micrograph.
“It is suggested…”, “It may be believed…”, “It may be that…”
I think.
“The most reliable values are those of Jones.”
He was a student of mine.
“It is generally believed that…”
A couple of other guys think so too.
“It might be argued that…”
I have such a good answer to this question that I’ll raise it.
“Correct within an order of magnitude.”
Wrong.
“Well known.”
(i) I happen to know it, or (ii) well known to some of us.
“The reason is, of course, obvious.”
(i)Not in the least, or if it really is: (ii)I was not the first to think of it, but I think I got it independently.
From Eureka: A book of scientific anecdotes, by Adrian Berry.
“One clarification: when I said “the whole lot” I meant EVERYTHING qualified by the “could”, not everything in the article or whatever.”
You could have meant that but that is not what you wrote. I would also question your ability to demark in a methodical repeatable way where “everything qualified” starts and stops. The point is you made a gross overgeneralization and are now playing a version of no true scotsman.
The bottom line is most readers here instantaeously reject any science related to climate and they look for reasons after their rejection. In this case you picked an easy rule: look for the word could.
Anyway, I think the cold temperatures in the LIA could be explained by Solar changes.
oh wait, reject that I used the word could.
“Anyway, I think the cold temperatures in the LIA could be explained by Solar changes.
oh wait, reject that I used the word could.”
Still committing the logical fallacy I explained earlier. You think that finding an example of “X and Y” refutes the claim that X does not imply Y. Revise your logic courses.
The thing that really concerns me is that “X could happen”, where X is any claim concerning the real world, is virtually always true, regardless of the nature of the claim X. Therefore a scientist saying “X could happen” tells us NOTHING. But normal (non-scientist) people always read some degree of reasonable probability into “could”. A scientist, pressed, will answer “yes” to virtually any “could” question, regardless of its improbability, but an ordinary person thinks a scientist saying “X could happen” is saying that at minimum, a non-negligible amount of probability is attached to X happening. It is one of the sneaky ways warmists mislead the public. “The seas could rise 60 metres!!!” Yes, they could, if the entire antarctic icecap melted. Challenge me to deny it, of course I cannot. But how likely is that?
The difference is Ice ages, Nuclear wars, meteorite strikes, deadly viruses etc are all possible, Climate Change changing anything to do Volcanic activity is about as likely as an someone with an English Degree being able to understand basic physics … so silly 🙂
Hey! I have an English degree AND I studied post-secondary physics for three years prior to that…with passing grades, even. And a geology degree, for what it’s worth.
That’s cool. my director in English also had a geology degree. I entered college as a math physics major. In grad school my topic was applying information theory to the measurement of stylistic change. Basically stats with texts. Imagine having both a right and left hemisphere.
Then use your English degree and learn something, Earth crust and magma stresses are measured and modelled by every particle accelerator lab on the planet. So pick up the phone or email one and talk to them.
Here if it helps a guide to the LHC calibration (section 4.2 covers the orbital stress)
The only temperature correction needed is that for the tunnel directly (section 4.3) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36417038.pdf
You might also then look up heat conductivity rates of the crust and the calculate how long it will take to permeate any surface temperature change down any depth.
Crust stress changes with surface temperature are so minor, I and any scientists would need proof you could pick them out of background.
So here we have an example of climate Pseudoscience in direct conflict with actual hard sciences.
You odds of this stupidity being right are probably a lot lower than unicorns or aliens from out of space causing volcanoes to destabilize but then you do like your unicorns don’t you.
“So the question is what is the predictive length of your data past today … ask them to do the calculation 🙂”
There are two types of predictions. Predictions into the future and spatial predictions.
For Future predictions we generally do not do those for weather data. Sometime we will
make statitical predictions about year end starting in June or so. Not our area of interest.
On the other hand Spatial predictions is 99.99% of our work.
Given data at 40000+ locations we predict the temperature at unmeasured locations.
The accuracy of those predictions is covered in our papers.
Not sure what ANY of you comment has to do with use of the “could” in science.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong about using “could” when discussing possible future events, however like many everyday layman’s terms, it is abused frequently. The problem is that “could” is not quantitative, it tells us nothing about the real likelihood of an even occurring. It’s OK to say something like, “a blizzard could occur this year in the Northeast” because it happens often enough that the average person (at least in the US) understands that it is likely to be true for any particular year. However the abuse comes in when the likelihood is very high (or unknown) and this information is not presented to the reader. So in the particular case of this headline, I agree with you Ron that the use of “could” is “worthless verbiage”. I just don’t agree that is always the case.
Sometimes the use of the word “could” is effectively used in stand-up comedy. Perhaps it is not meant to be funny when “could’ is used in climate change stories, but I cannot help but laugh! The way it is used is soooo similar!
I’m wondering why CBC has not yet done a piece on the clear correlation between the rise in CO2 and the apparent increase in sodomy in society, and thoroughly investigated and reported on these alarming trends?
ctm – I think perhaps there’s something wrong with your source link. In my old version of Firefox the Title is in Blue and looks like it should be a link, but it’s not. The date below it “2 hours ago December 9, 2018” IS a link, but it seems to be a link to the current page? The page source doesn’t seem to have a link to an article, but once one enters the bizarre world of Javascript all things seem to be possible. I may just be too dumb to recognize the link.
Ah found the link “From the CBC” Pretty sure that wasn’t there half an hour ago? Unless you changed something, I reckon that it just failed to render for some unknown reason.
Yeah, upon further reflection I think I must somehow have missed if although I really did look pretty hard for links. Either that, or it somehow didn’t render until I refreshed the image.
What’s the link, Charles? CBC only gives a 3-line caption with near zero information content. But the picture is nice. Is there a link for Simon Fraser Uni output?
The CBC headline was clickbait and at 5:30
into the video the narrator said the chance of an eruption was remote. I had to watch two commercials to get to the part of the video where the narrator said that
The scientists were warning about landslides not eruptions. I wrote to CBC to complain about the misleading alarmist headline.
Yep. The scientists explanations were quite reasonable and didn’t link the eruption to climate change. It was the Fake News CBC that took a perfectly reasonable story and turned it into well, ‘Fake News’.
As usual, the state-funded Crapulent Broadcorping Castration can always be relied upon to burp up the government’s preferred propaganda-of-the-week. Do you think this is accidental when it appears during a First Ministers’ meeting where Ontario and Alberta are trying to discuss the lack-of-pipelines-crippled oil industry and Justin’s job-murdering carbon tax? ‘The West Coast is doomed to fiery cataclysm in the bowels of the Earth because the Evil Ford Government in Ontario refuses to commit economic seppuku via Justin’s Tax On Everything(tm).’ This reminds me of past CBC panics along the lines of ‘Oh no, climate change is going to lead to a 0.04% increase in the incidence of hermaphroditic hermit crabs in Bedford Basin.’ Really? Well, then, by all means, jack up the price of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING by 40%. Can’t have those 0.04% of crabs wandering around sideways wondering what pronoun to use.
Also, let’s give another three quarters of a billion taxpayer dollars to the legacy media so they can keep coming up with this sort of quality journalism.
Haven’t you heard? Hermaphroditic hermit crabs in the Bedford Basin is the latest addition to the list of “identities” added to the “must include in special needs programmes in Ontario”. How very “Toronto”.
Absolutely the best belly-laugh this month! Thanks…
Notanist
December 9, 2018 6:32 am
“…could…would…may…might…devastation…disaster…” All likely very true at some point in the near or distant future. But why is the solution never, “We know this area is likely to get wiped out at some point by natural forces way beyond our control, so if you want to build neighborhoods here understand that you’re doing so at your own risk.”
Dave O.
December 9, 2018 6:36 am
Are volcanoes responsible for cooling or warming? Both?
Good heavens, they say volcanoes sometimes misbehave? That’s terrible! Everybody must work to calm them down, and in the meantime, please send money.
Alasdair
December 9, 2018 6:51 am
The term “Climate Change” has now been so distorted by the Greenblob that most people tend to conflate it with CO2 derived warming.
This video has absolutely no connection with that; so why was it mentioned in the Title?
An interesting clip; but this is no more than what is going on in Iceland on a day to day basis. The ground beneath our feet is far more threatening than the atmosphere, of you insist on being worried about the future.
Jon Scott
December 9, 2018 6:54 am
If this was not so perversely serious it would be funny. Notice there is NO verbal link in the video to the hyperbole in the headline. Second all the vulcanologists want is funding to monitor what interests them. The I suppise engineering geologist cares about slope stability as the volcano builds and mives. It is the geoligically challenged he narrator who wants to link somehow gasses emerging from the volcano to glacial retreat. She or who ever wrote the sript is simply a moron who should avoid subjects she patently is unqualified to comment on without supervision. Notice everything is a worry to her. U was syrprised that CO2 nit made by man git a mention! She conflates gas emission and slope stability. Does she not realise these are incobsequential parasitic vents. She has the scientific grasp of a 7 year old suggesting a bit of ice will stop a volcano. This really is what worries me because like the IPCC all the talking is done by unqualified people hyping the situation ( or discredited self awarded Nobel Prize winers and we all know which jokers that refers to). Why are real scientists never standing up to pronounce instead of self appointed journos with an agenda?
It is highly uncertain when any dormant volcano may explode, but it looks highly certain that some dormant AGW brains are already exploding left right and centre. Just keep your distance else you may get sprayed with lot or useless sticky blubber.
It does appear that some long-dormant French volcanoes are erupting right now, and it’s because of Climate Change.
Garland Lowe
December 9, 2018 7:07 am
We have ice melting around a volcano emitting steam.
Whodathunkthat.
tom0mason
December 9, 2018 7:36 am
The searing heat of ‘climate change’ (aka cAGW) supposition and stupidity has sealed Canada’s elite minds, sealing them into a consensus of endless irrational echoes of reverberant illogicality.
Climate Change (CC) has been known by many names. Predictably, the catastrophic, disruptive, anthropogenic, and warming (as cooling previously) qualifiers were dropped when they were no longer Politically Congruent (PC) (i.e. profit, leverage), and are now considered verboten, even taboo, by the consensus. It’s a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic world.
Rob
December 9, 2018 7:37 am
They wanted to shake down the taxpayer for more money, and the government wouldn’t give it to them, so they brought in the CBC to try and embarrass the government on national TV. That’s what that’s all about.
It may be that they are justified in wanting to be able to monitor the volcanic activity in this area but the money is all going to ‘climate change’ projects: if you can’t beat them, join them!
Btw, if you take the lid off a pressure cooker the pressure drops.
The pressure drops, as well as the temperature. The resolution of Global Warming is then to remove the Earth’s atmosphere which is a first-order forcing of the “greenhouse effect”. No more atmosphere, no more warming, no more change. Drastic, yes, but the risk posed by Climate Change (including seasonal and decadal variations) can no longer be denied, and thus justifies catastrophic measures to mitigate what is predicted to be a monotonic catastrophe. A… another “wicked solution” to an albeit hard problem, similar to spontaneous human conception, which threatened to unwind democratic leverage and retard social progress.
Is there anything—anything at all—that cannot now be attributed to “climate change”?
It appears that that “climate change” is the new phraseology for “Hey, look at this!”
Kevin A
December 9, 2018 7:38 am
Might, Could, Possibly, Potential, May, Forecast, Predicted, Thought to be, Suggested, and many others then there is the use of model data instead of observations, cherry picking data, made up proxy data, buddy peer review, lack of data to duplicate and finally the relentless publishing of speculative ‘research’ most of which is biased toward AWG as they troll for dollars or strokes.
This is what our tax payer money pays for, a piece that promotes the concerns a volcano doing what volcanos do once in a while. More money needed to study the vulcano.
The geologist is looking for funds to do what he likes best, professionally.
Without stating the percentages, he notes that the gases emitted are water vapour, carbon dioxide and SO2.
And there are hundreds of thousands of active volcanoes, venting these gases. Many under the oceans.
But the USGS states that volcanoes issue very little CO2. But humans do!
Mount Meager is a warm spot with at lower elevations some hot springs that hikers like to visit.
Some 30 years ago metal prices were depressed and the Vancouver Stock Exchange was dull. No exploration, no work for consulting geologists.
Some guys I knew got a contract to oversee a drilling program at Meager, testing for geothermal potential. Which they kept going as long as possible. There was no other work.
Not feasible, but a few years ago a new set of government dreamers were going on about it.
Wait climate change must be changing particle accelerators .. please it is beyond stupid.
u.k.(us)
December 9, 2018 8:43 am
Looks like we need to build another wall.
Never did quite trust the Canadians.
Bruce Cobb
December 9, 2018 9:02 am
“We’re taking the top off of a pressure cooker”.
Mmmm…. First, WE aren’t doing anything, nature is. And second, pardon my ignorance of such things, and don’t call me Shirley, but surely, if you take the top off a pressure cooker, slowly, you relieve, er pressure, making it that much less likely to blow?
Al Miller
December 9, 2018 9:07 am
Yet another great reason to de-fund the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation!
In the USA it’s called the Public Brainwashing System: PBS
C Dandy
December 9, 2018 9:17 am
CBC is a national disgrace. Hopefully Canada can get a government that gets rid of this left wing propaganda machine before government really starts educating our media.
The headline is, of course, totally spurious, and typical of the way mainstream media make these unbreakable links: “climate change only causes bad things” and “bad things must be caused by climate change” and “climate changed is human-caused”.
It’s an interesting video about a dormant volcano. Dr. Williams-Jones complains that he can’t get funding to put monitoring equipment on the mountain to get warning of pending eruptions, or of a landslide brought about by fumarolic gases weakening what are clearly unstable slopes. Both of which are real hazards, and getting warnings could save lives.
If he was able to link it to climate change, funding might not be a problem for his team.
He started off on the right foot, by talking about the melting glacier reducing the load on top of the volcano, but it was a bit too factual and low-key to get serious attention from bureaucrats. He needs to ramp it up with a bit of hyperbole in his next grant application, using keywords like “climate change”, “human-caused”, “carbon pollution” and “catastrophic” and the funds should start rolling in for a very worthwhile project.
Just another example of a real threat being ignored while hunting chimeras.
Michael Anderson
December 9, 2018 9:44 am
Well, you know: it’s the CBC. Being journalists, like almost all journalists, they have two agendas, the former being far more central to their work than the latter:
1) generate ad revenue through incessant despair-mongering, which the gullible try to cure with retail therapy.
2) promote the dismantling of western civilization, because it’s evil. Herr Marx taught them that in journalism school.
I’ve actually come up with a new conspiracy theory, which I invite all to disseminate any way and anywhere they want; here goes:
What the left really hopes to achieve through climate hysteria is the utter destruction of the Arab oil states and the return of millions of prosperous human beings to crushing poverty, because to them the only good Arab is a destitute one. Arabs as victims are marketable, but rich, successful Arabs are inherently a bad thing even though they may be both Muslim and have enhanced melanin, which would normally trump everything else.
Hmm, now I put it in print it doesn’t really look like a conspiracy theory, does it? Because that’s exactly what WILL happen if they achieve their aims. Funny how that never, ever gets mentioned…
Jon Scott
December 9, 2018 9:47 am
Exactly what form of “science” needs to be invoke to link vulcanism and climate change and especially climate change associated with a nonsense averaged level of 2-3 degrees C? Social science perhaps because the narrator does a lot of “worrying”. Pathetic!
Toto
December 9, 2018 10:13 am
For those who would rather have links to papers or at least texts, I have found these.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/mount-meager-eruption-risk
Warning signs emerge from the shrinking glacier atop B.C.’s Mount Meager
“Mount Meager, he believes, is cracking, collapsing and potentially threatening the safety of people who live in the region.”
“The team is researching not only the gases and the expansion of the fumaroles, it is also measuring the speed of the glacier’s retreat and the potential for a landslide, which could trigger an eruption.”
Less ice means more landslides, which then could trigger an eruption.
“”It is very likely this slope will fail very soon”
https://www.vancourier.com/news/receding-glaciers-make-pemberton-area-mount-meager-volcano-less-stable-than-ever-before-1.23432759
Receding glaciers make Pemberton-area Mount Meager volcano less stable than ever before
Hazards from landslides are higher than hazards from eruption as steam and gas emerge
“”The (glaciers) are melting. The trend is retreating … When you remove the ice (from a slope), you’re removing a protective layer. You see an increase of landslide and rockfall. For the 2010 landslide, the glacier was retreating. The slope failed during the hot summer. Water was coming from the melting ice, it was entering the slope through the cracks, (and) fracturing the rock. You can imagine a sandcastle on the beach and the sand is too wet—the castle won’t stay up. When you add water, the castle goes down, collapses,” Roberti says.”
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/77920/1/2012_HuggelCH_clague_cc_high_mountains_rev_argentina12_Kopie_.pdf
Climate change and hazardous processes in high mountains
This one is a real paper instead of a news report. It’s by a different group. The lead author is from SFU.
“Loss of ice cover in heavily glacierized areas, especially northwest North America, Iceland, Greenland, and Antarctica, may induce seismicity or volcanic eruptions.”
Conclusion: The scientists do make a case that it could possibly happen and are not just alarmists. Unlike the journalists.
I think that those SFU scientists need to devote a little more of their time to finding a better acronym. It would probably be a more productive use of it.
Actually the video is not about climate change at all. Somebody back in the studio couldn’t resist trying for more clicks. I expect the videographers got a free chopper ride as long as they put in a plea for more geo-funding. Plus a stop at Whistler, a super ski resort about half way from Vancouver to Mt. Meager, for lunch. As CBC goes, this is pretty good stuff.
ScienceABC123
December 9, 2018 10:14 am
At some point someone is going to claim climate change is causing people to become dumber. Now that one I might believe…
Trust me some sections of science have contracted the disease from Climate Science. I would like to say this is the dumbest thing I have seen in science this week but you would be hard pressed to beat Sabine Hossenfelder effort this week on LHC discussion on next generation collider which saw her inducted into the advanced physics forum crackpot list.
tty
December 9, 2018 10:22 am
This has actually been studied in Iceland and it seems pretty definite that volcanic activity increases significantly at the end of an ice-age. Not surprising really. Removing a couple of kilometers of ice on top seems quite likely to make it easier for magma to emerge.
But things are never as simple as they might seem. There are also volcanoes in Iceland that only seem to erupt during ice ages and become dormant during interglacials.
TomRude
December 9, 2018 10:45 am
As usual when a threat is real -landslide-, there is little money available… But when sea level would have to climb hundred times the last 100 years rate to come close to the alarmist prediction pushed by SFU, UBC, there is plenty of agitprop money for those from green mongering fake charity based outfits, thanks to complicit levels of government.
nc
December 9, 2018 11:25 am
The CBC is taxpayer funded and very pro liberal. The prime minister Trudeau 2.0 is pushing a carbon tax so the CBC has ramped up to daily reporting some “climate change” related subject. When the conservatives had government they cut some funding to CBC so during the election CBC went all in against the conservative government and the then conservative Prime Minister, Harper.
Here is the fix now, along with pushing a carbon tax to make himself look good to the useless UN and with an election coming up in about a year the elitist Trudeau is giving 500 million to a struggling MSM. A supposedly neutral collection of individuals will dole out the money, now what could go wrong with that!
The CBC got another big pay-off. I think you can expect to see a lot more global warming doom and gloom in the Canadian news, to support the Liberal government’s climate policies.
——————————————
Hephaestus, the fatherless Olympian God, should be advised to get his un-burnable self back down in the volcanoes to take advantage of this developing situation.
John F. Hultquist
December 9, 2018 12:23 pm
I live in the great Left State of Washington and do not understand why global warming can’t wake up our own Cascadian volcanoes, like Mount St. Helens.
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 9, 2018 12:29 pm
Perhaps we should have a posting on which is more deceitful or pathetic – CBC or the BBC?
I suspect it would be a close run thing, but the BBC played a real ace on radio yesterday when it claimed rising CO2 levels were making people more stupid!
Perhaps it is from all those volcanoes? Or is it just human produced CO2 that could possibly have this effect?
I’m just waiting for the follow up study to feminist glaciology that tells us that volcanology is permeated by masculine colonialist distortion and we need to understand the feminist nature of volcanic and tectonic activity. Oh wait…
John G
December 9, 2018 12:49 pm
Vulcanism causes climate change. Re. Pangea, the volcanoes on the Russian steps that changed the climate from something similar to todays climate into something deadly to most life. It’s hard to imagine that climate change of the sort we experience causes volcanoes.
Centrsl Siberia where the volcanoes were is forest, not steppe.
ResourceGuy
December 9, 2018 1:06 pm
But it will not wake up liberals on a policy mission of power and wealth (slush fund).
Rex Malott
December 9, 2018 1:11 pm
I agree the CBC piece is mere froth, particularly the comment about gases “weakening the rock overlay.” But I raise timber not far from this area and perhaps should include volcanic eruption probability in my harvest scheduling calculations.
One thing I would add from my own personal experience is the eruption pattern of a proximate volcano, Mt St Helens. I climbed it many times in the 70’s and loved to go up the Forsyth Glacier route on the NW side, as it had magnificent seracs and crevasses. There was no question that the glacier ice, unlike the gases, had indeed weakened the mountain. In fact, when St Helens exploded the fracture path perfectly followed the Forsyth route.
One other thing is that almost all of these big NW volcanoes have fumaroles and gas vents. That’s what they do because they are, ahem, volcanoes. So as a modest suggestion I would propose you all send me money so I can convert these mountains into all electric mountains.
There has not been a volcanic eruption in Australia for about six thousand years. The last eruption in Australia was at Mount Gambier, a shield volcano in the ‘Newer Volcanic Province’ in Victoria Australia, which is made up of four shield volcanoes and associated vents: Red Rock, Mt. Napier, Mount Schank, and Mount Gambier. They last erupted between about 5850 and 2900 B.C. The eruptions were explosive and some generated lava flows. The Folks in Mount Gambier will obviously have to be on the alert if any Global Warming – Climate Change is ever noticed there.
Weirder by the minute.
Well I doubt that Climate Change will wake up volcanoes,the reverse might be possible.
However it is possible that the imposition of a carbon tax,will wake up Canadians..
Even my eastern comrades do not seems so stupid to accept “a tax on pollution” from the lisping nitwit..
Time will tell.
But Chem-trails will overwhelm HAARP.
Usually in a jiffy.
Scott W Bennett
December 10, 2018 3:09 am
Could have, should have, would have.
Hang on! So climate change could cause volcanic eruptions that could cause climate change? That could be a real problem if volcanoes could warm the earth but they could only do that in the past, now all they could do is cool the atmosphere; apparently!
E.S.
December 10, 2018 10:05 am
Newly discovered cave in B.C. might be largest ever found in Canada.
“We’re finding these types of caves — we call it a striped karst.Caves have “great scientific value,” Yonge added, in dateable deposits that contain glacial climate information.” They’re natural underground laboratories,” he said. “The problem with the glacial scenery is that the glaciers tend to scrape away any information, so you get lots of information about the last glaciation, but then the prior, say four global glaciations, that information is very hard to determine. But caves actually protect those earlier glacial sediments.”
And yet the most recent confirmed eruptions of Canadian volcanoes occurred during the LIA Cool Period.
Never underestimate Climate Change. Could it have brought us President Obama and then President Trump?
Of course! There’s nothing the magic gas can’t do!
Nothing at all, remember the TV interviewer who asked a astronomer if climate change was responsible for an approaching asteroid.
OMG. Now would be the perfect time for an alien race to invade earth. We’d blame climate change for their invasion.
Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk. Because virtually anything “could” happen. Just try to get a scientist to say something is strictly and absolutely impossible. Go on. Try it. So if a scientist says “could”, he is not telling you anything. Jupiter “could” suddenly start going round the sun in a square orbit. It “could”. It’s so unlikely it certainly won’t happen in the entire universe ever, but it “could” happen. All the alarmism that “could” occur? Worthless verbiage.
Ya like those guys who say we could have another one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
so silly
And we could be hit by giant asteroids, the ice age could come sooner than we thought, a super bug virus could wipe us all out, nanotechnology could doom us all, nuclear war, or finally ; geoengineering because of your stupid belief that CO2 is a pollutant Mr. Mosher.
He knows there no C in AGW he just wants to be curmudgeon.
Agreed, Alan.
Mosher leaves another fly by dumb comment where ie ignores or twists context to fit his desire.
Somehow, the word “could” and Canada’s dormant volcanoes have morphed into a Mosher belief that we ignore/disbelieve Carrington events.
It’s called a red herring straw man. Mosher is atrocious at them. Then defend his meme forever.
Here is the posters comment
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
ANY
TIME
Note that it is not qualified. Note the lack of specificity.
I would have no problem whatsoever if the poster made a reasoned case how the “could” in the case in volcanos was different from the coulds we routinely see in ALL science.
In fact, every time we make a prediction we are saying something could happen.
When we argue that raising taxes could cause a resssion is this too junk?
When we argue that regulation could harm business is this junk too?
Here is the problem I have. The knee jerk reaction to particular words — could, anomaly, model. Without thinking people just react and dont take time to be skeptical about their own views. See the word model? Must be wrong! See the word “could” be used. Must be wrong.
Then again maybe I am wrong. It was famous Dick Feynman who argued
“The way to evaluate science is look for the word could!”
ya he said that.
not
Here is the posters comment
Mosher:
That’s right. ANY. TIME!
If you have a valid scientific point to make, then say something like “with probability 0.2” etc. “Could” is worthless. Statements that only allege “could” are useless verbiage unless some other more specific claim is added, in which case any value comes from that added claim, not from the “could”.
And BTW, you have make the elementary logical error of assuming that ‘”Could” does not imply likeliness’ implies ‘Likeliness implies non-“could”.’ Then you have found an example of likeliness with “could” and foolishly concluded that you have disproved ‘”Could” does not imply likeliness’.
For example:
“… CO2 could be responsible for an exponential growth in sodomy. There are almost no end to the dangers of having cheap and affordable electricity from burning coal. … “
Which is every bit as ‘sensible’ and ‘offensive’ to my inner geologist, than some alarmist crackpot asserting greenhouse-effect triggers volcanism.
Mosher anything that doesn’t come with data to back it up is an opinion which anyone can have and is not science.
(deleted as it was an ad hominem Mod)
I’m getting really fed up with these attacks on Mosher based on a complete lack of reading comprehension. Steve make a perfectly clear and devastating response to the blanket generalization of Ron House.
You doofuses then branch off in to a dozen strawman arguments with zero ability to follow a logical point. In fact, most of you are just agreeing with Steve while thinking you don’t.
Step it up guys. This is really sad.
Hi Charles.
“A could happen” is meaningless verbiage because anything “could” happen (except squaring the circle and other logical impossibilities). Anything adverted to as merely being possible (as in it “could”) tells us precisely nothing. Mosher’s discovery of a case where a could-qualified statement is actually likely is nothing more than a logical fallacy:
“A does not imply B” does not imply “B implies not-A”. Therefore Mosher’s discovery of a case of “B and A” is far from a devastating response, it is in fact embarrassing that he imagines he has a point to make.
That is, a “could”-qualified statement is effectively meaningless, regardless of the truth of likelihood of the outcome being referred to.
Ron, implications are the workhorses for charlatans because most people have difficulties to comprehend what { ¬A v B } means let alone { ¬ { ¬A v B } } = { A ^ ¬B }. People think the constructs tell something about B.
Now, I didn’t like to check whether your implication of two implications { ¬ { ¬ { ¬A v B } } v ¬ { ¬B v ¬A } } is always false (or did you mean true?).
“Could”. Lots of things “could” happen but never will.
Ron House (I think) was addressing the hype/pr that this particular post was presenting.
(Man’s CO2 COULD, and therefore HAS caused all the stuff “The Storm Channel” keeps railing about.)
Man’s CO2 activating volcanoes in Canada? Only in Hollywood.
But, in science, “could” implies an hypothesis. And then an experiment to disprove it or see if there is another hypotheses to look at.
CAGW has existed and flourished on stopped after the word “Could”.
Both Mosh and Ron House are more right than wrong. Context. (IMHO)
Huh?
C02 pollution?
never said that now did I?
Steven,
A Carrington event, it happened before, it can happen again. But nobody blamed it on climate change, did they? And the scientist in the video didn’t actually attribute the volcanism to climate change. It was the CBC embelishing things with the “Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes” title.
“Steven,
A Carrington event, it happened before, it can happen again. But nobody blamed it on climate change, did they? And the scientist in the video didn’t actually attribute the volcanism to climate change. It was the CBC embelishing things with the “Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes” title.”
Thanks for agreeing with me.
1. The scientist said nothing about climate change.
2. The COMMENT I was referencing made a silly argument about the word “could” used
in science.
3. The press is horrible. Dont get your science from the MSM.
I think people are merely pissed that I pointed out a stupid comment by one of their pals.
Look, it is the job of commenters to “peer review” each others comments. Not pal review them, but peer review them.
Mosher if scientists from Simon Fraser University feel they have been misrepresented by CBC they should contact them.
The interesting part is this is not the first of this stupid claim do a simple search … the pseudoscience runs strong 🙂
LdB
Do you have a real name? or do you just hide behind initials?
“Mosher if scientists from Simon Fraser University feel they have been misrepresented by CBC they should contact them.”
Of course the scientists can contact them
My comment is not directed at the CBC article, or the science. My comment is direct at Ron.
Simple question Lbd: Did feynman tell us we could reject any science that used the word ‘could”?
I suspect you will run away from this debate or try to make it something personal.
Instead of debating the actual subject. The use of ‘could’ in Science
I suspect you will run away because you cant even use your real name to begin with.
Ahem…
https://www.space.com/12584-worst-solar-storms-sun-flares-history.html
That .1 Gt guesstimate of annual volcanic CO2 c o u l d be looking worse and worse all the time.
You mean like this?
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm
Missed us by a week. The sun does let loose some very large bursts. Here’s hoping we keep dodging the bullet.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html
Raging Stallion said…
I was at Eidetics when Mr. Mosher was trying to direct the simulation software developers and engineers there. I can certainly attest to the fact that he knows nothing of software and knows nothing about flight science. After he was let go Mr. Mosher tried to sue Eidetics and lost. Following that, Eidetics was in a bigger lawsuit with a large firm that I won’t mention but during depositions Mr. Mosher was bad-mouthing the whole technical staff at Eidetics which I highly detest. The technical staff at Eidetics consisted of extremely competent and talented engineers and software developers. I believe his bad-mouthing comments were highly driven by the fact that he lost his own lawsuit against Eidetics. He’s a back-stabbing bastard as far as I’m concerned when all of the team under him very worked hard and long hours to win a program that much larger companies were competing for. He’s not a scientist or engineer, he knows nothing of software and is not a real team player.
He failed miserably when trying to make it in the engineering world and got flushed down the crapper. So now, he’s been reduced down to self-promoted himself in the climate change world. I find it pathetic. He couldn’t solve a physics problem, a calculus problem or write a line of code to save his soul.
It’s not that I think he shouldn’t work. It’s just that I think he should be cleaning toilets instead.
5/18/2017 2:44 PM
I will add that with no qualifications whatsoever I wound up as Sales and Marketing Director of a small software company which almost snagged a £250M roll out of 3G for a major UK mobile phone organisation. We were too small so enlisted the support of Perot Systems (and were considered more than capable partners) and we were in pole position for the deal until 9/11 hit when our German backer pulled out because their market in the US took a nose dive.
All of this was achieved through guile, several influential contacts, blood, sweat and tears; a small team of brilliant software engineers, a slice of luck, and a lot of BS. My job was to promote the expertise of my colleagues; my success, or failure, was judged on that ability alone. I made no pretence to anyone, ever, that I knew anything about the nuts and bolts of the business. My colleagues knew that, and my clients knew that. At best I could be described as a business facilitator, but salesman suits me fine.
I have never written a line of code in my life, but I’m sure I could if necessary, indeed, thinking about it, I lie, I wrote code on a Sinclair Spectrum many years ago which took me five minutes to learn, but I’m not a coding expert by any stretch of the imagination. Had I persisted I could doubtless have had it doing the Cha, Cha, Cha, but I didn’t bother because the process didn’t engage me.
If what I have read is correct, I have no idea why Stephen Mosher is almost revered by some in climate circles. His professional employment seems no more academic than mine and I’m not convinced his sales and marketing endeavours are much to write home about.
I’m happy to concede anyone can gain expertise in an area not related to their specialist field but it seems Stephen has done, as many sales and marketing employees naturally do, switch allegiance when gainfully employed by an organisation, currently Berkeley Earth. It seems he’s an expert in English (demonstrably), flight simulation, consumer electronic goods and now climate science; and a marketing expert to boot.
Forgive me for saying Stephen, but I took 11 years to become a reasonable police officer. It took me two years to grasp and become good at sales. Marketing took a bit longer, but it took me only a week to learn that I would never be an expert in the subjects I sold or marketed. I can’t imagine you being an expert in all those skills as well as an expert in sales and marketing, yet you would have us all believe you know climate science.
I understand the individual skill-sets required of marketing, I don’t pretend to be an expert in any. I have run my own business, I was a sales manager of an engineering company, I worked with JWT and Saatchi’s advertising companies; I was the director of UK customer relationship management for the largest animal pharmaceutical company in the world and I ended up in the previously mentioned job for an IT company.
I now realise I have a reasonable grasp of sales and marketing, but I still have no idea about animal pharmaceuticals or engineering.
I have little doubt your book on Climategate is a literary masterpiece, as it should be considering your BA in English, it doesn’t mean you know the first thing about the climate. No more than say, well….me as neither of us have qualifications in the subject. Seriously, neither of us are even close.
I have met innumerable, perceptibly successful people in sales and marketing. I didn’t like them much and considered most social climbing narcissists. I have, of course, yet to meet you.
Steve initiated and led the Free The Code movement which ended up with NASA GISS opening up the source code of the their climate model.
Steve outed Peter Gleick’s fraud against Heartland.
Steve did major work for BEST and probably knows more about global temperature fields than most published authors on the subject.
Steve wrote one of the definitive books on Climategate.
When I gave the Climategate files to Steve to analyze it was for multiple reasons.
1. Proximity.
2. It was my belief that his eidetic memory as related to years of Climate Audit threads gave him a unique ability to assess and put the emails in context.
3. I knew him to be monomaniacal when working on such a project and he worked day and night for weeks putting together the book and writing posts about the subject.
4. So not only was he convenient to hand the files to, I believed at the time that he was literally the best person to do the first assessment.
Bullshit criticism from some anonymous guy who knew Steve in a competitive environment 30 years ago and someone else pettily generalizing about people in Marketing, (I’ve done lots of marketing work myself), is really reaching the point of me starting to censor it.
Criticize the statements, not the man.
If it’s happened before, it will happen again. It’s only a matter of time.
Something every scientist knows.
Why didn’t you know it?
You mean like volcanos going off.
yes it could happen.
You are smart mark
What do you think of this
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
That is what I am referring to.
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
twice so you can be clear.
Questions:
1. Was this news article a piece of science?
2. Did the scientist make a link to climate change?
3. Do you think the word COULD automatically allows you to reject the science peice
that uses the word could/
That’s the actual claim the commenter made.
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
is that you opinion mark? is that your practice? look for the word ‘could’ and If “could”, then reject the science?
Now here is the great thing. All of you read this
““Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk””
None of you engineers and scientists and whatever saw that it was silly.
I point out that its silly and what is your response?
Could you agree this statement is silly/
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
No of course not. Now you have to agree with it because I pointed out that its silly.
Weird way you guys do science. if Mosher points out that soemthing is silly,
You cant evaluate it on its merits.
jeez you all make a stupid english major look brilliant
wait wait, wasnt it Einstein or Popper who said this
“Any time you see the word “could” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk”
One clarification: when I said “the whole lot” I meant EVERYTHING qualified by the “could”, not everything in the article or whatever. I have explained elsewhere why your rebuttal to this is logically faulty. Perhaps you thought I meant anything in the same article as the word “could”. That is, if you see “Blah blah could happen”, redact it and see what remains. Usually you’ll find that something you removed was a necessary step in further conclusions of the article.
To forestall another objection, sometimes one sees things like “A could happen because B”. In this case, form your own opinion of how likely A is, based upon B. You might think A is very likely, but the likelihood comes from B, not from the “could”. Like it or not, stating that something could happen is virtually content-free in science, and it is definitely content-free in all the warming-related claims we discuss on this site. Bending over backwards to find a case where you are correct, perhaps a claim like “Genuine miracles such as raising the dead could happen” might make your case, but not anything we discuss here. “Could” means “not impossible”, and no serious skeptic thinks scary climate change is actually literally impossible, just extremely unlikely, which “could” does nothing to contradict.
This is not the case in mathematics, of course, because mathematicians deal in a realm in which some things really are impossible (squaring the circle), and for them, saying “could” is a positive claim with information content.
Here’s a handy Science-to-English “dictionary”…
What Scientists really mean when they say things.
Authoritative statements in scientific journals should not always be taken literally. I.J.Good has made a collection of them.
“It has long been known that…”
I haven’t bothered to look up the original reference.
“While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions…”
The experiment didn’t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it.
“High purity …”, “Very high purity…”, “Extremely high purity…”, “Super high purity…”
Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claim of the suppliers.
“…accidentally strained during mounting”
…dropped on the floor.
“It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding…”
I don’t understand it.
“Unfortunately a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated…”
Neither does anybody else.
“It is hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field.”
This isn’t very good, but neither is any of the others on this miserable subject.
“The agreement with the predicted curve is excellent” …good” …satisfactory” …fair.”
Fair. Poor. Doubtful. Imaginary.
“As good as could be expected considering the approximations made in the analysis.”
Non-existent.
“Of great theoretical and practical importance.”
Interesting to me.
“Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study.”
The results on the others didn’t make sense and were ignored.
“These results will be reported at a later date.”
I might possibly get around to this some time.
“Typical results are shown.”
The best results are shown.
“Although some detail has been lost in the reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that…”
It is impossible to tell from the micrograph.
“It is suggested…”, “It may be believed…”, “It may be that…”
I think.
“The most reliable values are those of Jones.”
He was a student of mine.
“It is generally believed that…”
A couple of other guys think so too.
“It might be argued that…”
I have such a good answer to this question that I’ll raise it.
“Correct within an order of magnitude.”
Wrong.
“Well known.”
(i) I happen to know it, or (ii) well known to some of us.
“The reason is, of course, obvious.”
(i)Not in the least, or if it really is: (ii)I was not the first to think of it, but I think I got it independently.
From Eureka: A book of scientific anecdotes, by Adrian Berry.
http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~dinoj/scilies.html
“One clarification: when I said “the whole lot” I meant EVERYTHING qualified by the “could”, not everything in the article or whatever.”
You could have meant that but that is not what you wrote. I would also question your ability to demark in a methodical repeatable way where “everything qualified” starts and stops. The point is you made a gross overgeneralization and are now playing a version of no true scotsman.
The bottom line is most readers here instantaeously reject any science related to climate and they look for reasons after their rejection. In this case you picked an easy rule: look for the word could.
Anyway, I think the cold temperatures in the LIA could be explained by Solar changes.
oh wait, reject that I used the word could.
“Anyway, I think the cold temperatures in the LIA could be explained by Solar changes.
oh wait, reject that I used the word could.”
Still committing the logical fallacy I explained earlier. You think that finding an example of “X and Y” refutes the claim that X does not imply Y. Revise your logic courses.
The thing that really concerns me is that “X could happen”, where X is any claim concerning the real world, is virtually always true, regardless of the nature of the claim X. Therefore a scientist saying “X could happen” tells us NOTHING. But normal (non-scientist) people always read some degree of reasonable probability into “could”. A scientist, pressed, will answer “yes” to virtually any “could” question, regardless of its improbability, but an ordinary person thinks a scientist saying “X could happen” is saying that at minimum, a non-negligible amount of probability is attached to X happening. It is one of the sneaky ways warmists mislead the public. “The seas could rise 60 metres!!!” Yes, they could, if the entire antarctic icecap melted. Challenge me to deny it, of course I cannot. But how likely is that?
Ron, you’re right…..Mosh needs more coffee
The difference is Ice ages, Nuclear wars, meteorite strikes, deadly viruses etc are all possible, Climate Change changing anything to do Volcanic activity is about as likely as an someone with an English Degree being able to understand basic physics … so silly 🙂
Hey! I have an English degree AND I studied post-secondary physics for three years prior to that…with passing grades, even. And a geology degree, for what it’s worth.
Geology,
That’s cool. my director in English also had a geology degree. I entered college as a math physics major. In grad school my topic was applying information theory to the measurement of stylistic change. Basically stats with texts. Imagine having both a right and left hemisphere.
Then use your English degree and learn something, Earth crust and magma stresses are measured and modelled by every particle accelerator lab on the planet. So pick up the phone or email one and talk to them.
Here if it helps a guide to the LHC calibration (section 4.2 covers the orbital stress)
The only temperature correction needed is that for the tunnel directly (section 4.3)
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36417038.pdf
You might also then look up heat conductivity rates of the crust and the calculate how long it will take to permeate any surface temperature change down any depth.
Crust stress changes with surface temperature are so minor, I and any scientists would need proof you could pick them out of background.
So here we have an example of climate Pseudoscience in direct conflict with actual hard sciences.
You odds of this stupidity being right are probably a lot lower than unicorns or aliens from out of space causing volcanoes to destabilize but then you do like your unicorns don’t you.
I also know you won’t know this answer but it might be interesting to ask your actual physicists in your group.
So the question is what is the predictive length of your data past today … ask them to do the calculation 🙂
“So the question is what is the predictive length of your data past today … ask them to do the calculation 🙂”
There are two types of predictions. Predictions into the future and spatial predictions.
For Future predictions we generally do not do those for weather data. Sometime we will
make statitical predictions about year end starting in June or so. Not our area of interest.
On the other hand Spatial predictions is 99.99% of our work.
Given data at 40000+ locations we predict the temperature at unmeasured locations.
The accuracy of those predictions is covered in our papers.
Not sure what ANY of you comment has to do with use of the “could” in science.
I would add it’s another beyond stupid media publication trotted out because of COP24 .. that is basically how you interpret this junk.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong about using “could” when discussing possible future events, however like many everyday layman’s terms, it is abused frequently. The problem is that “could” is not quantitative, it tells us nothing about the real likelihood of an even occurring. It’s OK to say something like, “a blizzard could occur this year in the Northeast” because it happens often enough that the average person (at least in the US) understands that it is likely to be true for any particular year. However the abuse comes in when the likelihood is very high (or unknown) and this information is not presented to the reader. So in the particular case of this headline, I agree with you Ron that the use of “could” is “worthless verbiage”. I just don’t agree that is always the case.
Sometimes the use of the word “could” is effectively used in stand-up comedy. Perhaps it is not meant to be funny when “could’ is used in climate change stories, but I cannot help but laugh! The way it is used is soooo similar!
Any time you see the word “CBC” in anything scientific, just write the whole lot off as worthless junk.
CBC: Could Be Climate.
I’m wondering why CBC has not yet done a piece on the clear correlation between the rise in CO2 and the apparent increase in sodomy in society, and thoroughly investigated and reported on these alarming trends?
Probably because the people who practice sodomy are a protected species within society. So much so, I fear to name them.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/complete-blood-count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_binding_complex
Should CBC lose its license?
Was the headline yours or that of the CBC?
I looked at the video, and did not see any correlation between the content and the heading.
Tony.
If you would click on the source link I put at the top of the post, you could answer your question for yourself~ctm
ctm – I think perhaps there’s something wrong with your source link. In my old version of Firefox the Title is in Blue and looks like it should be a link, but it’s not. The date below it “2 hours ago December 9, 2018” IS a link, but it seems to be a link to the current page? The page source doesn’t seem to have a link to an article, but once one enters the bizarre world of Javascript all things seem to be possible. I may just be too dumb to recognize the link.
This is beyond my pay grade.
Ah found the link “From the CBC” Pretty sure that wasn’t there half an hour ago? Unless you changed something, I reckon that it just failed to render for some unknown reason.
Nothing changed.
Yeah, upon further reflection I think I must somehow have missed if although I really did look pretty hard for links. Either that, or it somehow didn’t render until I refreshed the image.
What’s the link, Charles? CBC only gives a 3-line caption with near zero information content. But the picture is nice. Is there a link for Simon Fraser Uni output?
You clicked on the link in order to see that 3 line caption.
The question I was answering was: Was the headline yours or that of the CBC?
I put a source link at the top of every single post that is sourced from an online article.
I do not understand why this is hard.
“If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. ” – Jimmy Dugan
The CBC headline was clickbait and at 5:30
into the video the narrator said the chance of an eruption was remote. I had to watch two commercials to get to the part of the video where the narrator said that
The scientists were warning about landslides not eruptions. I wrote to CBC to complain about the misleading alarmist headline.
Yep. The scientists explanations were quite reasonable and didn’t link the eruption to climate change. It was the Fake News CBC that took a perfectly reasonable story and turned it into well, ‘Fake News’.
Is that right handed or left handed volcanoes?
A local band, who couldn’t care less about climate change but had a hit about virgin sacrifice.
Whoops
As usual, the state-funded Crapulent Broadcorping Castration can always be relied upon to burp up the government’s preferred propaganda-of-the-week. Do you think this is accidental when it appears during a First Ministers’ meeting where Ontario and Alberta are trying to discuss the lack-of-pipelines-crippled oil industry and Justin’s job-murdering carbon tax? ‘The West Coast is doomed to fiery cataclysm in the bowels of the Earth because the Evil Ford Government in Ontario refuses to commit economic seppuku via Justin’s Tax On Everything(tm).’ This reminds me of past CBC panics along the lines of ‘Oh no, climate change is going to lead to a 0.04% increase in the incidence of hermaphroditic hermit crabs in Bedford Basin.’ Really? Well, then, by all means, jack up the price of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING by 40%. Can’t have those 0.04% of crabs wandering around sideways wondering what pronoun to use.
Also, let’s give another three quarters of a billion taxpayer dollars to the legacy media so they can keep coming up with this sort of quality journalism.
DN
Haven’t you heard? Hermaphroditic hermit crabs in the Bedford Basin is the latest addition to the list of “identities” added to the “must include in special needs programmes in Ontario”. How very “Toronto”.
/Unfortunate truth
Absolutely the best belly-laugh this month! Thanks…
“…could…would…may…might…devastation…disaster…” All likely very true at some point in the near or distant future. But why is the solution never, “We know this area is likely to get wiped out at some point by natural forces way beyond our control, so if you want to build neighborhoods here understand that you’re doing so at your own risk.”
Are volcanoes responsible for cooling or warming? Both?
Dave O:
“Are volcanoes responsible for cooling or warming? Both?”
Almost exclusively, for both.
Depends how close you stand
Good heavens, they say volcanoes sometimes misbehave? That’s terrible! Everybody must work to calm them down, and in the meantime, please send money.
The term “Climate Change” has now been so distorted by the Greenblob that most people tend to conflate it with CO2 derived warming.
This video has absolutely no connection with that; so why was it mentioned in the Title?
An interesting clip; but this is no more than what is going on in Iceland on a day to day basis. The ground beneath our feet is far more threatening than the atmosphere, of you insist on being worried about the future.
If this was not so perversely serious it would be funny. Notice there is NO verbal link in the video to the hyperbole in the headline. Second all the vulcanologists want is funding to monitor what interests them. The I suppise engineering geologist cares about slope stability as the volcano builds and mives. It is the geoligically challenged he narrator who wants to link somehow gasses emerging from the volcano to glacial retreat. She or who ever wrote the sript is simply a moron who should avoid subjects she patently is unqualified to comment on without supervision. Notice everything is a worry to her. U was syrprised that CO2 nit made by man git a mention! She conflates gas emission and slope stability. Does she not realise these are incobsequential parasitic vents. She has the scientific grasp of a 7 year old suggesting a bit of ice will stop a volcano. This really is what worries me because like the IPCC all the talking is done by unqualified people hyping the situation ( or discredited self awarded Nobel Prize winers and we all know which jokers that refers to). Why are real scientists never standing up to pronounce instead of self appointed journos with an agenda?
“Because of climate change, the CBC and the Canadian government are full of imbeciles.”
Hey, wait a second! That could actually be TRUE!
Only a 97 % chance of being true.
Is that the warmunist’s version of 97% arithmetic?
You know, the one where 75 answers out of 13500 replies are said to be 97%?
Sorry guys I have absolutely no idea what went on with the text. It looked fine before I pressed send. Many apologies!
[It is a bit much to guess at what you want to re-edit. Resubmit the text in a separate reply, and we can delete this one. .mod]
I got the gist of it, Jon Scott. I figured you were typing in your sleep. so I translated the gibberish. It works for me.
It is highly uncertain when any dormant volcano may explode, but it looks highly certain that some dormant AGW brains are already exploding left right and centre. Just keep your distance else you may get sprayed with lot or useless sticky blubber.
It does appear that some long-dormant French volcanoes are erupting right now, and it’s because of Climate Change.
We have ice melting around a volcano emitting steam.
Whodathunkthat.
The searing heat of ‘climate change’ (aka cAGW) supposition and stupidity has sealed Canada’s elite minds, sealing them into a consensus of endless irrational echoes of reverberant illogicality.
Climate Change (CC) has been known by many names. Predictably, the catastrophic, disruptive, anthropogenic, and warming (as cooling previously) qualifiers were dropped when they were no longer Politically Congruent (PC) (i.e. profit, leverage), and are now considered verboten, even taboo, by the consensus. It’s a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic world.
They wanted to shake down the taxpayer for more money, and the government wouldn’t give it to them, so they brought in the CBC to try and embarrass the government on national TV. That’s what that’s all about.
It may be that they are justified in wanting to be able to monitor the volcanic activity in this area but the money is all going to ‘climate change’ projects: if you can’t beat them, join them!
Btw, if you take the lid off a pressure cooker the pressure drops.
The pressure drops, as well as the temperature. The resolution of Global Warming is then to remove the Earth’s atmosphere which is a first-order forcing of the “greenhouse effect”. No more atmosphere, no more warming, no more change. Drastic, yes, but the risk posed by Climate Change (including seasonal and decadal variations) can no longer be denied, and thus justifies catastrophic measures to mitigate what is predicted to be a monotonic catastrophe. A… another “wicked solution” to an albeit hard problem, similar to spontaneous human conception, which threatened to unwind democratic leverage and retard social progress.
Is there anything—anything at all—that cannot now be attributed to “climate change”?
It appears that that “climate change” is the new phraseology for “Hey, look at this!”
Might, Could, Possibly, Potential, May, Forecast, Predicted, Thought to be, Suggested, and many others then there is the use of model data instead of observations, cherry picking data, made up proxy data, buddy peer review, lack of data to duplicate and finally the relentless publishing of speculative ‘research’ most of which is biased toward AWG as they troll for dollars or strokes.
You left out projected.
I got nuthin. I can’t stop laughing.
This is what our tax payer money pays for, a piece that promotes the concerns a volcano doing what volcanos do once in a while. More money needed to study the vulcano.
The geologist is looking for funds to do what he likes best, professionally.
Without stating the percentages, he notes that the gases emitted are water vapour, carbon dioxide and SO2.
And there are hundreds of thousands of active volcanoes, venting these gases. Many under the oceans.
But the USGS states that volcanoes issue very little CO2. But humans do!
Mount Meager is a warm spot with at lower elevations some hot springs that hikers like to visit.
Some 30 years ago metal prices were depressed and the Vancouver Stock Exchange was dull. No exploration, no work for consulting geologists.
Some guys I knew got a contract to oversee a drilling program at Meager, testing for geothermal potential. Which they kept going as long as possible. There was no other work.
Not feasible, but a few years ago a new set of government dreamers were going on about it.
Lets be serious if you were a real scientist you would simply measure the actual stresses and not surprising that is what real scientists do.
This is the measured stresses from the orbital movements as it is required when you operate large scale particle accelerators
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0802113/papers/001.pdf
Wait climate change must be changing particle accelerators .. please it is beyond stupid.
Looks like we need to build another wall.
Never did quite trust the Canadians.
“We’re taking the top off of a pressure cooker”.
Mmmm…. First, WE aren’t doing anything, nature is. And second, pardon my ignorance of such things, and don’t call me Shirley, but surely, if you take the top off a pressure cooker, slowly, you relieve, er pressure, making it that much less likely to blow?
Yet another great reason to de-fund the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation!
In the USA it’s called the Public Brainwashing System: PBS
CBC is a national disgrace. Hopefully Canada can get a government that gets rid of this left wing propaganda machine before government really starts educating our media.
The headline is, of course, totally spurious, and typical of the way mainstream media make these unbreakable links: “climate change only causes bad things” and “bad things must be caused by climate change” and “climate changed is human-caused”.
It’s an interesting video about a dormant volcano. Dr. Williams-Jones complains that he can’t get funding to put monitoring equipment on the mountain to get warning of pending eruptions, or of a landslide brought about by fumarolic gases weakening what are clearly unstable slopes. Both of which are real hazards, and getting warnings could save lives.
If he was able to link it to climate change, funding might not be a problem for his team.
He started off on the right foot, by talking about the melting glacier reducing the load on top of the volcano, but it was a bit too factual and low-key to get serious attention from bureaucrats. He needs to ramp it up with a bit of hyperbole in his next grant application, using keywords like “climate change”, “human-caused”, “carbon pollution” and “catastrophic” and the funds should start rolling in for a very worthwhile project.
I hadn’t bothered watching the clip when it first appeared, put off by the idiotic title, but this time I watched it and read several earlier articles. It seems the caption writer cribbed the climate change idea from earlier articles without referencing them. The other articles seem to assume that since the glaciers are melting climate change must be the cause and not the verified measurable volcanic activity.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjP7M6jo5PfAhWNTN8KHYh-C8kQqQIILSgAMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vancourier.com%2Fnews%2Freceding-glaciers-make-pemberton-area-mount-meager-volcano-less-stable-than-ever-before-1.23432759&usg=AOvVaw2wxsoRwr48ko6gYSkPljO4
Just another example of a real threat being ignored while hunting chimeras.
Well, you know: it’s the CBC. Being journalists, like almost all journalists, they have two agendas, the former being far more central to their work than the latter:
1) generate ad revenue through incessant despair-mongering, which the gullible try to cure with retail therapy.
2) promote the dismantling of western civilization, because it’s evil. Herr Marx taught them that in journalism school.
I’ve actually come up with a new conspiracy theory, which I invite all to disseminate any way and anywhere they want; here goes:
What the left really hopes to achieve through climate hysteria is the utter destruction of the Arab oil states and the return of millions of prosperous human beings to crushing poverty, because to them the only good Arab is a destitute one. Arabs as victims are marketable, but rich, successful Arabs are inherently a bad thing even though they may be both Muslim and have enhanced melanin, which would normally trump everything else.
Hmm, now I put it in print it doesn’t really look like a conspiracy theory, does it? Because that’s exactly what WILL happen if they achieve their aims. Funny how that never, ever gets mentioned…
Exactly what form of “science” needs to be invoke to link vulcanism and climate change and especially climate change associated with a nonsense averaged level of 2-3 degrees C? Social science perhaps because the narrator does a lot of “worrying”. Pathetic!
For those who would rather have links to papers or at least texts, I have found these.
https://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/stories/2018/11/sfu-scientists-study-links-between-climate–landslides-and-volca.html
SFU scientists study links between climate, landslides and volcanic eruptions
“global warming is increasing the chances of a major landslide and a possible eruption at Mount Meager volcano”
They are obliged to mention global warming, but their real concern is landslides.
“This big massive mountain is rotten”
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/mount-meager-eruption-risk
Warning signs emerge from the shrinking glacier atop B.C.’s Mount Meager
“Mount Meager, he believes, is cracking, collapsing and potentially threatening the safety of people who live in the region.”
“The team is researching not only the gases and the expansion of the fumaroles, it is also measuring the speed of the glacier’s retreat and the potential for a landslide, which could trigger an eruption.”
Less ice means more landslides, which then could trigger an eruption.
“”It is very likely this slope will fail very soon”
https://www.vancourier.com/news/receding-glaciers-make-pemberton-area-mount-meager-volcano-less-stable-than-ever-before-1.23432759
Receding glaciers make Pemberton-area Mount Meager volcano less stable than ever before
Hazards from landslides are higher than hazards from eruption as steam and gas emerge
“”The (glaciers) are melting. The trend is retreating … When you remove the ice (from a slope), you’re removing a protective layer. You see an increase of landslide and rockfall. For the 2010 landslide, the glacier was retreating. The slope failed during the hot summer. Water was coming from the melting ice, it was entering the slope through the cracks, (and) fracturing the rock. You can imagine a sandcastle on the beach and the sand is too wet—the castle won’t stay up. When you add water, the castle goes down, collapses,” Roberti says.”
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/77920/1/2012_HuggelCH_clague_cc_high_mountains_rev_argentina12_Kopie_.pdf
Climate change and hazardous processes in high mountains
This one is a real paper instead of a news report. It’s by a different group. The lead author is from SFU.
“Loss of ice cover in heavily glacierized areas, especially northwest North America, Iceland, Greenland, and Antarctica, may induce seismicity or volcanic eruptions.”
Conclusion: The scientists do make a case that it could possibly happen and are not just alarmists. Unlike the journalists.
I think that those SFU scientists need to devote a little more of their time to finding a better acronym. It would probably be a more productive use of it.
Actually the video is not about climate change at all. Somebody back in the studio couldn’t resist trying for more clicks. I expect the videographers got a free chopper ride as long as they put in a plea for more geo-funding. Plus a stop at Whistler, a super ski resort about half way from Vancouver to Mt. Meager, for lunch. As CBC goes, this is pretty good stuff.
At some point someone is going to claim climate change is causing people to become dumber. Now that one I might believe…
I would say it’s more likely corrupt left wing outfits like the CBC that have caused that.
Trust me some sections of science have contracted the disease from Climate Science. I would like to say this is the dumbest thing I have seen in science this week but you would be hard pressed to beat Sabine Hossenfelder effort this week on LHC discussion on next generation collider which saw her inducted into the advanced physics forum crackpot list.
This has actually been studied in Iceland and it seems pretty definite that volcanic activity increases significantly at the end of an ice-age. Not surprising really. Removing a couple of kilometers of ice on top seems quite likely to make it easier for magma to emerge.
But things are never as simple as they might seem. There are also volcanoes in Iceland that only seem to erupt during ice ages and become dormant during interglacials.
As usual when a threat is real -landslide-, there is little money available… But when sea level would have to climb hundred times the last 100 years rate to come close to the alarmist prediction pushed by SFU, UBC, there is plenty of agitprop money for those from green mongering fake charity based outfits, thanks to complicit levels of government.
The CBC is taxpayer funded and very pro liberal. The prime minister Trudeau 2.0 is pushing a carbon tax so the CBC has ramped up to daily reporting some “climate change” related subject. When the conservatives had government they cut some funding to CBC so during the election CBC went all in against the conservative government and the then conservative Prime Minister, Harper.
Here is the fix now, along with pushing a carbon tax to make himself look good to the useless UN and with an election coming up in about a year the elitist Trudeau is giving 500 million to a struggling MSM. A supposedly neutral collection of individuals will dole out the money, now what could go wrong with that!
The CBC got another big pay-off. I think you can expect to see a lot more global warming doom and gloom in the Canadian news, to support the Liberal government’s climate policies.
——————————————
Liberals’ $600M aid package for news media will irrevocably politicize the press
I don’t actually think the government will appoint a group of card-carrying Liberal hacks to this ‘independent panel.’ They won’t need to
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-600m-aid-package-for-news-media-will-irrevocably-politicize-the-press
The Liberal government’s meddling in media independence has just begun
Arm’s-length and independent of the government? Hardly. In fact, the proposals are a step backward for Canadian journalism
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-liberal-governments-meddling-in-media-independence-has-just-begun
Hephaestus, the fatherless Olympian God, should be advised to get his un-burnable self back down in the volcanoes to take advantage of this developing situation.
I live in the great Left State of Washington and do not understand why global warming can’t wake up our own Cascadian volcanoes, like Mount St. Helens.
Perhaps we should have a posting on which is more deceitful or pathetic – CBC or the BBC?
I suspect it would be a close run thing, but the BBC played a real ace on radio yesterday when it claimed rising CO2 levels were making people more stupid!
Perhaps it is from all those volcanoes? Or is it just human produced CO2 that could possibly have this effect?
I’m just waiting for the follow up study to feminist glaciology that tells us that volcanology is permeated by masculine colonialist distortion and we need to understand the feminist nature of volcanic and tectonic activity. Oh wait…
Vulcanism causes climate change. Re. Pangea, the volcanoes on the Russian steps that changed the climate from something similar to todays climate into something deadly to most life. It’s hard to imagine that climate change of the sort we experience causes volcanoes.
Steppes
Centrsl Siberia where the volcanoes were is forest, not steppe.
But it will not wake up liberals on a policy mission of power and wealth (slush fund).
I agree the CBC piece is mere froth, particularly the comment about gases “weakening the rock overlay.” But I raise timber not far from this area and perhaps should include volcanic eruption probability in my harvest scheduling calculations.
One thing I would add from my own personal experience is the eruption pattern of a proximate volcano, Mt St Helens. I climbed it many times in the 70’s and loved to go up the Forsyth Glacier route on the NW side, as it had magnificent seracs and crevasses. There was no question that the glacier ice, unlike the gases, had indeed weakened the mountain. In fact, when St Helens exploded the fracture path perfectly followed the Forsyth route.
One other thing is that almost all of these big NW volcanoes have fumaroles and gas vents. That’s what they do because they are, ahem, volcanoes. So as a modest suggestion I would propose you all send me money so I can convert these mountains into all electric mountains.
There has not been a volcanic eruption in Australia for about six thousand years. The last eruption in Australia was at Mount Gambier, a shield volcano in the ‘Newer Volcanic Province’ in Victoria Australia, which is made up of four shield volcanoes and associated vents: Red Rock, Mt. Napier, Mount Schank, and Mount Gambier. They last erupted between about 5850 and 2900 B.C. The eruptions were explosive and some generated lava flows. The Folks in Mount Gambier will obviously have to be on the alert if any Global Warming – Climate Change is ever noticed there.
Here in Australia, the governed owned, but left controlled broadcaster, the ABC is close behind the BBC and the CBC too.
So why does the left wing support the concept of climate change, is it just the cover r for their goal of “World Government via the UN” ?
MJE.
I see that thousands of climate scientists concur that climate change is what is causing the lack of sunspots.
Like it did the Eyjafjallajoekull back in 2010?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/21/global-warming-causes-volcanic-eruption-2010/
Weirder by the minute.
Well I doubt that Climate Change will wake up volcanoes,the reverse might be possible.
However it is possible that the imposition of a carbon tax,will wake up Canadians..
Even my eastern comrades do not seems so stupid to accept “a tax on pollution” from the lisping nitwit..
Time will tell.
PM Trudeau is the Golden Boy of globalism and the climate change fraud. Many more manufactured dramas ahead.. fires and volcanoes and floods, oh my…
http://presscore.ca/haarp-electromagnetic-waves-can-be-used-to-stimulate-geophysical-events-such-as-earthquakes-climate-change-volcanic-eruptions-and-the-like
HAARP electromagnetic waves can be used to stimulate geophysical events such as earthquakes, climate change, volcanic eruptions and the like.
Buy a freaking drone.
But Chem-trails will overwhelm HAARP.
Usually in a jiffy.
Could have, should have, would have.
Hang on! So climate change could cause volcanic eruptions that could cause climate change? That could be a real problem if volcanoes could warm the earth but they could only do that in the past, now all they could do is cool the atmosphere; apparently!
Newly discovered cave in B.C. might be largest ever found in Canada.
“We’re finding these types of caves — we call it a striped karst.Caves have “great scientific value,” Yonge added, in dateable deposits that contain glacial climate information.” They’re natural underground laboratories,” he said. “The problem with the glacial scenery is that the glaciers tend to scrape away any information, so you get lots of information about the last glaciation, but then the prior, say four global glaciations, that information is very hard to determine. But caves actually protect those earlier glacial sediments.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-cave-bc-canadas-biggest-cave-1.4929918
https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/local-geologist-among-experts-studying-massive-b-c-cave/wcm/ea612a7d-4d2c-4cdf-a91d-cd53962f5e1d
“Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes”
There is no scientific evidence therefore this is an assumption, but that has all climate change has become.
Equally inept:-
Climate change could cause the universe to expand.
The one thing blamed on everything always eventually becomes the cause of nothing.