CBC reports that researchers from Trent and Laval universities have recorded the break up of hundreds of square kilometres of Arctic ice shelves - some as old as 4,500 years
“These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present,” said Trent University professor Derek Mueller.
Hat tip to Peter M for the spot.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
The manmade economy is destroying Earth's ecology, stupid!
Perhaps now is the time to shed some light on a need for economic changes, with the hope of assuring a substantial, sustainable global economy and a good enough future for our children.
How is adequate, sustained attention to be drawn to the greedy kings and self-proclaimed masters of the universe who are responsible for the perpetration of such a colossal, fraudulent and patently unsustainable scheme as we see in the rampant process of seemingly endless economic globalization?
At least to me, it appears that the huge scale of unbridled global economic growth is a canker threatening to overspread and eventually ruin Earth as a fit place for human habitation.
Changing from an unsustainable world economy {the one constructed as a perpetual motion machine and managed as a pyramid scheme} to a sustainable one has got to be made the goal, does it not?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
If they are 4500 years old,
If they are 4500 years old, then what catastrophic even created them that the earth is now being repaired from?
Characterizing it as a
Characterizing it as a "repair" is interesting. I'd call it a glimpse at our ever changing Earth that we are incapable of fully understanding and certainly incapable of controlling.
Rick, You're confusing what
Rick,
You're confusing what *you* understand with what the world's best scientists understand. They are not the same thing.
As for controlling the climate? Humanity has already increased atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels of ~280ppm to nearly 400 today. The science of CO2 as a GHG is incontrovertible. This increase fits perfectly with recent global warming and therefore humanity has clearly 'controlled' the climate. The only question is whether science has the time and ingenuity to control it in the other direction.
incontrovertible is a strong
incontrovertible is a strong word - plausible is better. How much warming can be and is caused by CO2 is debated everywhere.
"best scientists" implies a level of celebrity that always comes with pride. Pride is a killer. comes before a fall they say.
If you mean by "everywhere",
If you mean by "everywhere", blog comment threads then, yes, you'd be right. Where it's not debated is amongst climate scientists and hasn't been for several decades, at least.
Of course, if you know something different, please submit a paper to one of the many journals that will peer review your findings. If you demonstrate that every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet has got it wrong and recent climate change is not due to human activity, then you will be the biggest celebrity scientist on the planet. You will be showered with Nobel prizes and honorary professorships in every major university on the planet.
What you waiting for?
Al's science expertise was
Al's science expertise was the deciding factor in getting the nobel prize right? It wasn't anything to do with Media, politics, hype and hollywood. Nope - pure science always wins the Nobel prize - yeah right.
Rick, Rick, Rick . . .
Check the small print. Gore's Nobel was the PEACE Prize, and it was ALL about media, politics, hype and hollywood. That's the point. He got it for bringing the threat of AGW to the attention of the world, and forcing governments to take it seriously.
Fern Mackenzie
Ah, you deniers...
Ah, you deniers... predictable if nothing else. When faced with a question or argument you have no response to, you deflect to your homo-erotic obsession with some politician who has nothing to do with the science.
I'll bite.
Lovely Al and the IPCC *shared* the Nobel prize for:
"their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Which part d' ya think Al did and which the IPCC? One of them built the knowledge, the other disseminated it.
OK, you're probably still struggling. Lovely Al got his share for *disseminating* the knowledge - that means 'spreading the knowledge around'.
Get it now? OK. You won't need mention it again, will you?
So when are you going to submit your paper that disproves the global scientific consensus regarding AGW? We're waiting for your answer, Rick.
"The Ellesmere ice shelves
"The Ellesmere ice shelves are made up of ancient sea ice and snow and are up to 4,500 years old."
thats a pretty vague description. how much leeway is there in the phrase "up to" 4500. How much guess work are we talking about here?
Yeah, so we should keep on
Yeah, so we should keep on living the way we are, because it doesn't really matter and it isn't a big deal. Who really cares, no use in even trying.
We can make a difference with hardly even any inconvenience to our current way of living, but really, why should we? I mean, heck, they could be wrong and maybe nothing will even happen so who cares.
thats not my argument. I say
thats not my argument. I say lets conserve, lets develop new technology, lets be clean.
But that doesn't mean we should say the sky is falling in order to scare people into change.
ICE SHEETES
WELL I HAVE I DEFFERENT APROCH TOO WE CAN FIX THE ICE SHEETS WITH SNOW MAKERS LIKE THE ONE I GOT FOR CHRISTMAX WELL MAY BE GIVE SNOW MAKERS A CHANCE TOO MAKE MORE ICE SHEETS
RE: ICE SHEETS
So your plan is to use Zamboni technology to fix the ice sheets? ;) Sorry but I guess there's somethings you just can't make up.
Andrew
"We can make a difference with hardly even any inconvenience to our current way of living"
Really:
Can you quantify that for us?
Every analysis I have ever seen says that if Canada Cut its Carbon emmissions to 0 tomorrow, it would make no measurable difference to anything.
And it would indeed destroy our way of life.
Please explain how we can make a difference and not hurt from it.
Dion and His Green Shaft would like to know as well.
Gary
I said not to worry about it, albeit a bit sarcastically. As you say "Every analysis I have ever seen says that if Canada Cut its Carbon emmissions to 0 tomorrow, it would make no measurable difference to anything.", so don't do anything. Keep living the way you live. No need to worry about a thing.
As for me. As my incandescent bulbs have died off I replaced with LED. No harm to me. Instead of using my dryer, I hang my clothes out to dry. No harm once again. Maybe it will make no difference in the big picture, but I am happy trying.
By the way, none of these things have destroyed my way of life. They have actually enhanced it. Now, maybe the power company is seeing a decline in quality of life since I am giving them less money......
Andrew
I am impressed. LED bulbs?
Not CF bulbs? You are ahead of the curve.
LED bulbs actually make sense. The dumb curley bulbs only help the bottom line of sylvania and GE and add yet another hazord to the environment.
Good on you.
Won't affect the cliamte any but like you say, it makes you feel better.
Kind of sums up a whole lot about this topic really.
hi, Andrew
Don't let Gary get to you. He's probably irredeemable -- but he has his uses.
I agree whole-heartedly that some of the changes that we need to make have actually enhanced my life. All of them, really, but then I'm an aging hippie, so I guess that follows.
I save money by composting, water conservation, walking to market, buying meat from the local butcher, hanging out the laundry, growing my own, etc etc etc. But more than that, I started to feel reconnected with the cyclic nature of things. Small changes in the weather register. Shifts in the growing season, how much it rains, whether the ground freezes properly in winter -- these things matter. Just as when I go out to do battle with the potato beetles every morning, it's a case of "them or me" -- my food supply is at risk.
People used to be sensitive to these things because their lives depended on it, but lately, we buy crops brought in from everywhere, kids think that meat comes from styrofoam trays & milk from plastic bags (what's a cow?) and don't really have any sense of how it all works, let alone how small changes in the atmosphere might throw the whole thing out of balance.
I feel sorry for Gary and Zog and Rick and all of our other resident trolls who have lost this connection and can only relate to the country by driving over it in something with a V8 engine. I rely on my tiny plot of earth for a great deal, and all of the things that affect it are a concern to me. I am acutely aware of how little it would take to bring it all crashing down around my head.
That's my little bit of philosophizing for this evening. Now I have to finish a report . . .
Oh how touching Fern
Aging hippie?
No surpirse there.
Your touching tale of earth wind and fire is amusing and I am sure it makes you feel good.
It has absoultely nothing to do with AGW however.
It simply illistrates your political view.
If you like living like a hippie, go for it.
I wish you well.
I have no intention of living like that however. Ever!
And I will not ever be bullied into it by pseudo Scientific nonsense spread by those who long to control my life.
You go your way and I will go mine. In my tiny little 4 cylinder car by the way.
And neither of us will have any affect on the climate.
Ever!
Hope your report comes out well Fern!
Gary, please
I have never spoken to you in that tone. Of everyone who has responded to you here, I think I have been respectful and tried to engage you in a meaningful dialogue. So why do you feel you have to make fun of me? What is "amusing" about my commitment to a simple way of life? I don't ask anyone to do anything I am not willing to do myself. But I don't insist on it, either. I offer an example of what is possible. That's all.
And as for whether it has anything to do with AGW, I must disagree. Keeping my footprint small and trying to influence by example are cornerstones. We all have a duty to leave the planet a better place than we found it. That is a basic premise.
When you say, I have no intention of living like that however. Ever!, what do you imagine? That I have no amenities? No running water? No highspeed internet? No satellite tv? Think again. I'm no Luddite.
But I am commited to reassessing how our technological advances (read: Industrial Revolution) might be having a severe impact on the environment. That perhaps the implications of what we have been doing for the past 250 years might not have registered immediately, and maybe we should take a breather and think about it for a minute before sending India, China and Indonesia down the same path . . .
Fern Mackenzie
Sorry Fern
I re-read my comment and it did seem less than respectful.
I meant it to come across a bit more light hearted than that.
I am not one to judge anyone on how they live.
Only on how they want me to live.
Sorry.
They charge you more
By the way, none of these things have destroyed my way of life. They have actually enhanced it. Now, maybe the power company is seeing a decline in quality of life since I am giving them less money......
And what is the city of Toronto doing because people are using less? They have upped the rates!!! Thus you make the scarafice to use less and the city charges you more because of that! Nice! And expect to see that in other places.
BTW
My prediction seems to have been correct.
My posts are now being blocked from my main computers.
Like I said:
Censorship is admitting defeat.
The Panic has officially set in.
well if they decide to ban
well if they decide to ban people in order to keep their blog fully on message, I can understand that. They own the blog. However I agree that shutting down dissent is a sign of weakness and fear, so hopefully the people who run this thing are above that.
Censorship
Give your head a shake, boys.
Read back through the comments on this post alone (I recommend you get a strong cup of coffee first, because they are boring and repetitive as hell), and you'll see an overwhelming number signed Gary and Rick.
Our policy is to delete or ban posts that are libelous or obscene and periodicially to warn people who are being pointlessly abusive. (Ian, cut it out.) We DON'T ban people for stupidity or for disagreeing with us.
Now, maybe the server has summoned up some form of artificial intelligence and, judging your posts to be too tedious for words, has started to accept every other one, but I think it's pretty clear that we at the DSBlog have - and barring a change of policy - will continue to let you put out your key messages and earn your troll payments for interfering in a useful conversation.
ok but that coffee is
ok but that coffee is getting transported half way around the world and the transport CO2 alone is probably gonna cause another global warming hurricane which will destroy Florida. I'll drink it though. I don't like Florida much anyway.
RE: ok but that coffee is
The people of Florida do like their state, just like I like Texas, and what you think of their state is irrelevant.
Censorship
Richard:
If I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize.
Here is why I assumed it.
From my home pc last evening I received several "your post is being held to review by the moderator" messages and was unable to post anything at all.
Today at work I was similarly unable to post from my PC at the office.
I then used a remote computer (different IP) and had no problem.
I tried several times with no success from my pc and no problem from the remote. This continued throughout the day.
Again, if I was wrong, I apologize and express my gratitude for being able incur the wrath and abuse of your readers.
Gary
Apology accepted
Now you can apologize to Femack for the inexcusably snide and entirely irrelevant bit of invective you hurled a couple of comments back about her assumed age and her assumed status as a hippy.
I say this as a commenter, not as a moderator or a censor: Get on topic, or get off the blog.
Gary, I go for days getting
Gary, I go for days getting the "Service unavailable" message all the time on this site.
Interesting
Wonder why it affects one computer and not others.
Hmmmm.
Yeah, same here. Irritating
Yeah, same here. Irritating to the point of deterring contribution....
Sorry you guys
We are aware that this platform is getting rickety and we are in the process of relaunching with an updated software that I hope will add functions and improve usability. You should see a minor design change and a major operational improvement sometime in the next few weeks.
Cheers,
r
Reality check
Over the last little while several of our regular posters to whom we affectionately refer as Trolls have complained of censorship etc. To their credit, the administrators/owners of this blog have sought to correct the problems and allow the trolls to get through. In my book this counts as "promoting free speech". If they draw the line at obscenity and libelous (sp?) remarks, isn't that their right? It's their site, after all.
Admit it, guys. You get away with far more crap here than you would elsewhere.
Fern Mackenzie
Amen to that. Let the
Amen to that. Let the spammers stop whining and start their own websites.
Ah...Gary...
speaking of fear, although you no doubt have set aside your silliness of a few days back in the service of accomplishing yet more folly, may I direct you to my critique of your thought processes (such as they be) in the feebly held hope that you can profit from the rather thorough debunking I've given them? http://www.desmogblog.com/arctic-melt-now-second-worst?page=1
TIA, monsieur.
SW
Oops, meant for the possibly
less civil twin, known as Rick. Gary, my apology is offered. Thank you for your apology to Fern...although I confess that I too read it as you had intended it, apparently, to come across as: lighthearted and really not seriously belittling. Classy to soothe feelings instead of taking her remarks as a cue for "pouring it on". Obviously there's a history of personality strife amongst quite a number in this forum, and as a practical matter it goes with the territory, making discussion difficult but still feasible, as the barbed questions, not entirely howlers, keep the AGW 'consensus' promulgators on their toes. However--Rick, we need to talk.
Seems not
BTW: This is exactly how the hoax of the "Overwhelming Concensus" was created and maintained up until it recent complete demise.
I am assuming the panic now showing up is in part because of the comming election and not just the death of AGW n general.
They are terrified that Dion and his little band of idiots won't get in so they can destroy our economy.
NEP 2! Milk the Rich West and pay off Quebec and Ontario. The Green Shaft. Its the Liberal way.
And once again
Gary reminds us that for him and his ilk it's all about politics and ideology and not at all about the science.
Yawn.
certainly there are no
certainly there are no politics at all on the AGW side. They are above such things. Angels they are. selfless. beyond reproach. In fact if we could just place Al Gore in charge of the planet, everything would be just peachy. Ice would resume it's rightful place choking the arctic 12 months per year, rain would fall in Australia and Polar Bears would return from the dead. Peace would break out everywhere and everyone would get to drive a fuel cell vehicle powered by wind generated hydrogen. But wait theres more. We would put big pictures of Al everywhere out of gratitude and everybody could worship him together.
yeah i know it's over the top - I'm just fooling around
Actually..... you are correct
Since there is no valid science to support the AGW claims, it does all come down to politics and idology.
I have said this many times.
It is no secret.
Another sensational headline
Ecokayakers stuck in ice trying to navigate to the north pole. "The sea is almost entirely congested with ice floes - I would estimate 80% plus of the sea is covered by them. There is a real risk that we could get stuck up here".
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/adventures-in-arctic-kayaking/#comments
"Global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist were found frozen to death only 90 miles from their destination"
"Mr. Dolittle related how some people do not realize that, even if there has been warming in Antarctica, the average temperature at the South Pole in July still runs about 70 degrees F below zero. "Some people think that July is warm everywhere on Earth."
http://www.desmogblog.com/4-500-year-old-arctic-ice-shelves-break-up#comment
Do I really need to point out
that July is mid-winter in Antarctica?
Fern Mackenzie
no, there's no need to
no, there's no need to explain the obvious. How about commenting on the amount of summer ice up north instead
SFB's
Ya a midwinter -70F should just about do it, demonstrate to the world you are one dumb SOB.
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
And a small piece of it broke off...so?
"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions.(2008) The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany."
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#340331
The AGW folks will
The AGW folks will completely dismiss that article as irrelevant because it doesn't fit their world view. Everything is pre decided on both sides. It's never about science. It's about confirming personal world views. every time.
No, Rick, it gets dismissed
No, Rick, it gets dismissed because it's complete bullshit written by a deluded and dishonest hack who has a blatant agenda to deny any and all evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Michael Asher of Daily Tech is some combination of liar and idiot. He produces a steady stream of articles that bear no relation to scientific reality. His analysis of the science relies on his readers not being intelligent enough to spot the idiocy. It works a lot of the time.
Asher has convinced himself, like so many deniers, that he, without scientific qualifications, is capable of demonstrating that decades of scientific research is wrong. It's almost funny.
Rick..
You have it correct. For AGW folks the following are unequivocal articles of faith:
Credibility is defined by adherence to doctrine.
Heresy against doctrine defines crack pots, liars, and skeptics.
And the most amusing part is when they whine about us insulting poor honest scientists who are just trying to spread the gospel, I mean spread the truth.
Such breathtaking hypocrisy.
Credibility ...
comes from consistently saying things that are accurate and correct. DailyTech fails that test on this occasion (and so often), publishing the bogus and outdated analysis on Sept 3., even though new, more accurate and contradictory information was available from Aug. 26.
Accusing the folks at DailyTech of lying is unquestionably rude, and also stumbles over the fact that they may just be incredibly incompetent. But it's so difficult to come up with a polite synonym when the substance of what they report is so demonstrably incorrect - and when they appear, really, not to mind.