Heating up the Northeast
A new report released by 50 top university and government researchers including one of the leading authors of the IPCC's report on impact and mitigation of global warming, has warned that the Northeastern United States could face severe weather changes if initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not acted on.
Lengthy spells of over 100 degree heat, frequent and intense flooding, the disappearance of most ski resorts in the area as well as spruce and hemlock trees are some of the devastating effects that the forecasted temperature increase would produce.
The report suggests that it's not too late to avoid such a scenario but that richer nations would have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2000 levels. Already, several states in the region have joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multi-state effort to reduce harmful emissions from power plants.
"Could", "may", "might", "projected" all characterize these alarmist reports about future climate calamities. People recognize the process at work here -- guesswork built on assumptions to create scare stories and scarier headlines. You warmists cry wolf far too often to be taken seriously.
By the way, one of the people in Desmog's Denieralist Rogues Gallery, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, just recently shot holes in one of the Goracle's hysterical assertions-- the one predicting coastal inundations from rising sea levels. Dr. Morner says there is no evidence that sea levels are rising, not even at Vanuatu and the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear beneath the rising waters from melting ice. If you go around the globe, said Dr. Morner, you find no evidence of rise anywhere.
Funny how facts keep getting in the way of alarmist b.s. No wonder Desmoggers want so desperately to convince people that the "the science is settled".
So I've been prodding around in the scientific literature for a recent study by Axel-Morner that "shoots holes" in the projected sea level rise.
All I've found is a bunch of chat forums and right-wing blogs pointing to a June 2007 interview (pdf) published by the Larouche Political Action Committee. The interview begins by incorrectly describing Axel-Morner as the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University.
The department closed down when Axel-Morner retired 2 years ago!
Again, stop with the rhetoric and please just send along the science John.
Here's the source and yes, it was an interview. So what? Scientists are not supposed to give interviews on contentious issues that involve their areas of expertise? Your boy Suzuki certainly doesn't operate under any such constraints. He frequently gives interviews on climate science issues even though it is NOT his area of exerptise.
The Morner interview can be found at:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
Its title was "Claim That Sea Level is Rising is a Total Fraud" Not much subtlety there. Enjoy.
BTW, another Desmog bete noir, Tom Harris, was in the media again yesterday, July 12. The Ottawa Sun ran op-ed pieces on the pros and cons of a carbon tax and had Elizabeth May on the pro side and Tom Harris against it. That's what we should see more of -- balance on this issue. That way the public can see that the science is not settled despite the efforts of Desmog and Suzuki to sustain this myth.
NRSP seems to be scoring a lot of runs lately while Desmog preaches mostly to the converted.
Nice try John, go hype Harris over at Canada Free Press . If "preaching to the converted" means 50,000 unique visitors a month, I'm fine with that.
Back to the real conversation. When someone offers an opinion on science it is usually grounded in evidence found in peer-reviewed literature. For example, there is no connection between current warming trends and solar activity, based on previous lines of evidence (published in the peer-reviewed literature) and a new study published in Proceedings A of the Royal Society by Lockwood and Frohlich. Go here for a copy of the study. (pdf)
See, it's not hard.
John, you deride David Suzuki and his "lack of expertise" on the climate issue while trotting out Tom Harris as a primary source of yours regarding this issue. This illustrates perfectly your lack of reason.
David Suzuki, while not having all the credentials on the climate file (i.e. not studying it exclusively in a graduate school setting), sure has a ton more knowledge than Tom Harris about the issue from Suzuki's inquisitive mind and breadth and depth of reading on the issue. Also, Suzuki is a natural scientist (a geneticist originally), while Harris is not (he's an engineer).
Trusting Tom Harris on climate change shows terrible judgment, John.
Also,
"NRSP seems to be scoring a lot of runs lately while Desmog preaches mostly to the converted."
This makes you sound as preposterous as the Iraqi Information Minister while American tanks were just outside Saddam's compound in Baghdad.