National Post Cancels Climate Change (Very Temporarily)
"... the Alberta government's assumption that humans are responsible for global warming might be on the verge of being downgraded, revised or even discredited."
Equally, we might be on the verge of discovering evidence of an intelligent underground dinosaur culture living on Mars - but I don't think so.
There was a time - apparently past - when newspapers would endeavour to fact check a reasonable portion of what they present in their pages. There was a time, for example, when a reporter canvassing a "range" of opinion would identify the consensus presented by best experts - the most reliable sources - and then, if liberally inclined, cover off all the goofy fringe opinions just for good measure.
Milke, a "senior analyst" for the right-wingy Frontier Centre for Public Policy, instead offers this:
"...the world's top scientists have a plethora of informed opinion on the subject: They range from the possibility that humans caused a modest and beneficial rise in temperatures to the possibility that the Earth may have already entered a significant cooling phase similar to the last Little Ice Age."
So, "the world's top scientists," (as carefully selected by Lawrence Solomon) believe that climate change is either a good thing, or it's not happening at all.
You could dismiss this as rampant stupidity or ideological madness if it weren't being presented as reasonable opinion on the pages of a national flyer. But there is, perhaps, a greater shame. Buried in this nonsense is some quite reasonable analysis of the Alberta government's plan to dump $2 billion into an oil industry subsidy called carbon capture and storage. Milke, it turns out, is actually capable of making sense out of a complicated issue.
It's a shame he doesn't make it a habit.
I think we're also on the brink of debunking evolution after seeing this video by Kirk Cameron (yes, THE Kirk Cameron) on intelligent design: http://tinyurl.com/6f5s2q
I love how one fringe religious group always needs to belittle some other fringe religious group, in order to make themselves feel somehow superior and smug.
Look closer to home; we have an aboveground dinosaur culture living in rightwing fantasyland, but intelligence is too much to expect. They are like the people in Dante's vision of Hell who had lost the good of the intellect.
Since James Hansen is now saying that the recommendation he and his peers were making not that long ago, i.e. limit global warming to 2 degrees C or keep the CO2 content of the atmosphere below 450 ppm is a recipe for global disaster one may well ask how can the "best experts" be described as having some kind of consensus?
Or if there is consensus around Hansen's position, its time for those supposedly speaking for them to reflect that. I'm still seeing "we've got to avoid "dangerous" climate change by doing this or that" when it may be that the scientific consensus everyone thinks they are describing is actually that "dangerous" territory has been entered some time ago. We might be on the verge of realizing that we have to aim for zero emissions in all areas where this is remotely possible, as soon as possible, as a matter of survival. We might be on the verge of realizing that the planetary system soon will be or it has already been committed to no ice at the poles and the target for action must be adjusted to aim for removing some greenhouse gases from the atmosphere after its composition has been stabilized, so that the end result is 350 ppm or less.
I predict, if the consensus becomes what Hansen is calling for, that the deniers as they wake up are going to seize on Paul Crutzen's discussion of changing the planetary albedo artificially, i.e. geoengineering, and people should also prepare to take public positions on that.
That was an interesting post, thanks for putting that up.
I don't know of any serious effort to get a sense for how many of the world's climatologists and scientists in relevant, global change disciplines think we're already in the "dangerous" part of climate change. I know a lot of people who say that sort of thing privately, sotto voce. "Dangerous" is sort of subjective, though, and these scientists seem to prefer to keep strictly to the things about which they feel confident.
Hansen, however, has a very good case for his position.
There are others who have pointed out some glaring lines of evidence we ought to think about when deciding whether we're already in "dangerous" territory. In my own work, I often cite Patz (2005: Nature, one of the November issues), who pointed out that the human contribution to climate change claims, CONSERVATIVELY, an average of 150,000 people per year and has done so for perhaps 30 years. If a lot of people are dying of it, how can we morally argue it's not already dangerous? At least, that's the position I use when giving talks on the subject.
You're right too that it may soon be necessary to think more about geoengineering. Nothing has really come up yet on that front (that I know of, this part of CC is well outside the bit I pay close attention to) that would do the trick without having potentially awful consequences in other areas. Best thing would certainly be to use an intensive combination of other solutions. But geo-engineering may be on the menu and is already being discussed openly and often in the scientific literature.
JTK
The sotto voce thing you refer to I first noticed in 1988 at the Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto. A lot of the distinguished delegates were not used to talking openly about these deeply felt concerns. After 4 days of passionately hammering out the conference statement http://www.greenparty.ca/files/1988OCAIGS-Conference-Statement-EN.pdf the last few plenary sessions were unbelieveable. No more sotto voce. I remember one guy standing up describing a terawatt coal field opening up then in China with a note in his voice I've never forgotten, as if he were informing the delegates that King Kong was at that moment destroying the building next door. The Dutch Environment Minister stood at the podium like he was standing on one of his country's dams looking out at the rising sea. We can handle it, we will handle it, he was saying, confidently, like a captain of a ship might say when facing a storm of a size he's never seen before. Kenneth Hare (Canadian climatologist) who attended, wrote afterward that he felt a new consciousness was "born" there. I've often wished the entire population of the world could share in that awareness, that all the people speaking with the sotto voce you mention could loosen up a bit and bring that awareness into every situation they are in. We wouldn't have any problem solving climate change then.
I wasn't aware of the Patz paper. Along that line, Crutzen (http://www.cogci.dk/news/Crutzen_albedo%20enhancement_sulfur%20injections.pdf) says the WHO attributes 500,000 premature deaths per year just to the particulate matter emitted to the atmosphere as fossil fuels are burned, although those particulate emissions are now in decline due to regulation.
This geoengineering is a very creepy thing to think about. Crutzen is an ozone guy too. The sulphur idea doesn't do anything good to the ozone layer.
Hansen is taking the lead for all the really knowledgeable people who talk privately, sotto voce, as you say.
I encourage anyone if they have expertise in any area related to this issue to find a way to get more public, not about the bit of the field they are very confident about so much, but about how the whole thing looks, is it really worth going any further down this road, what is at stake here, that kind of thing.
Another good post.
It would be great if scientists let their hair down a little more. This issue is the subject of very active and ongoing debate in my field, with general recognition that you can't hide behind the ivory tower's walls and still expect to improve problems. The obvious flip side is that communicating complicated science concepts without misrepresenting key aspects can be very hard in 30 seconds or less. Too many scary statements makes listeners tune out or numb out. And public statements effectively paint targets on you: just look at the random drive-by nonsense that gets pasted on Hansen by the usual media suspects (I include the lobby group fronting scientists/contrarians in that list).
The lobbyists have stolen the day when it comes to climate change. If scientists routinely commented that they were actually frightened by their own results and that decisive action was required immediately to avert really awful consequences, perhaps things would get better. I don't know. It is also possible that lobbyists would point out that the next 12 months likely would not see a lot of deaths in wealthy areas, so why worry? Perhaps nothing would happen. I don't know if the fault is at the political level, where lobbyists influence is disproportionate, or among society more broadly. I do think, however, that Canadians often don't notice their own hypocrisy in wishing that the problem would get better but failing to really seize the moment and make improvements.
This is an interesting, perhaps a classic, example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. One standard solution to that game theory problem is that everyone takes a small hit simultaneously to reap a significant reward. Can't have cheaters or it falls apart. We hear comments about Kyoto in this vein all the time.
JTK
thank you. I find it hard to think about all this. My wife called and I was happy as I described I was writing which I do as a way of developing the ability to deliver an effective 30 second sound bite as you mentioned. So I started to describe what I had learned in the last number of weeks or so, how I had surveyed the local people I live near, the provincial national and international political scene and how I had started to try to understand where todays scientists are by reading some of the journal papers, and tears came to my eyes and I was unable to continue. I'm sure I didn't make her feel very good . So that wasn't that great of a successful call.
I see what you mean about the lobbyists have stolen the day... The only ones I faced in my day were the types Hansen wants to testify against I mean a few levels down, maybe their briefcase carriers or something. I haven't been involved in this debate for some time as I was saying what Hansen is saying now twenty years ago, not the details, but the general statement, we have to stop putting any more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as soon as possible and we may find it necessary to take some out. I took this position into politics and debated people face to face. And I never ran into the kind of gibberish I see plastered all over the internet. People have no idea what logic is. They can't speak English. They can't read. Why they would choose a position at all is incomprehensible to me. This random drive by nonsense, as you say, I wouldn't have believed it was possible that it would happen this way. It is like a swarm of insects.
So, I'll get up to speed after a while I guess. I looked up the Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't like game theory applied to this situation although I certainly see where it is useful. I don't like the idea that one day if civilization were to wake up like the people of England did during the Blitz to face a threat they thought might overwhelm them, but they wanted to stand unified in resistance no matter what happened, at that point I don't see where game theory fits in. The idea that people would be playing games like how to drive up the cost of credits in a cap and trade system, which I heard a lecture on how to beat by a professor using game theory, and obviously the flaws he discovered should be fixed, when others are trying to find new ways to give everything they have I find somewhat revolting.
WGGWCC08 Announces the 3rd Global Warming and Climate Change International Conference & Exposition. (WGGWCC 08)
On the behalf of the Organizing and Scientific Committees, the Working Group on Global Warming and Climate Change (WGGWCC) announces that the 3rd International Global Warming and Climate Change Conference & Industry Exposition (WGGWCC 08) will be held at the Hyde Park Hotel, London on September 26-30, 2008. We also would like to extend a special invitation to you and all your colleagues to participate in WGGWCC 08 events.
This meeting represents a conference that is dedicated to the exchange of scientific data, governmental assessments, and public policies concerning global climate change, including global warming and extreme climate events. Attendees at the 2008 Conference will be delegates from around the world, representing academic institutions, the corporate sector, non-governmental organizations, and national, state and local governments. Private and Public participation is highly encouraged.
Scholars who wish to learn of recent developments in global warming and climate change scientific research will be exposed to invited plenary lectures and concurrent sessions followed by open workshop discussions with outstanding speakers and multi-disciplinary scientists. Open discussions are planned to consider the broad implications of global warming and climate change upon oceans, forests, coastal zones, urban settings, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, human health, and economic infrastructures at local, national, regional and global scales.
Part A-Conference/Exposition Registration.
Your delegation is expected to complete and return the online registration/exposition forms for conference registration. Registration is free of charge. If your delegation is eligible, the events secretary will issues your group participation code.
130 East End Road, London, N2 OS
LONDON, UK.
Phone: +44 70 24-07-39-12
Fax: +44 086 558 3877
E-mail: conference08ATwallaDOTcom
Press Contact
Mrs. Osman
Important Dates
Paper Submission September, 15 2008
Notification of Acceptance September, 20 2008
Conference Dates September, 26-30 2008
WGGWCC08 Announces the 3rd Global Warming and Climate Change International Conference & Exposition. (WGGWCC 08)
On the behalf of the Organizing and Scientific Committees, the Working Group on Global Warming and Climate Change (WGGWCC) announces that the 3rd International Global Warming and Climate Change Conference & Industry Exposition (WGGWCC 08) will be held at the Hyde Park Hotel, London on September 26-30, 2008. We also would like to extend a special invitation to you and all your colleagues to participate in WGGWCC 08 events.
This meeting represents a conference that is dedicated to the exchange of scientific data, governmental assessments, and public policies concerning global climate change, including global warming and extreme climate events. Attendees at the 2008 Conference will be delegates from around the world, representing academic institutions, the corporate sector, non-governmental organizations, and national, state and local governments. Private and Public participation is highly encouraged.
Scholars who wish to learn of recent developments in global warming and climate change scientific research will be exposed to invited plenary lectures and concurrent sessions followed by open workshop discussions with outstanding speakers and multi-disciplinary scientists. Open discussions are planned to consider the broad implications of global warming and climate change upon oceans, forests, coastal zones, urban settings, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, human health, and economic infrastructures at local, national, regional and global scales.
Part A-Conference/Exposition Registration.
Your delegation is expected to complete and return the online registration/exposition forms for conference registration. Registration is free of charge. If your delegation is eligible, the events secretary will issues your group participation code.
130 East End Road, London, N2 OS
LONDON, UK.
Phone: +44 70 24-07-39-12
Fax: +44 086 558 3877
E-mail: conference08ATwallaDOTcom
Press Contact
Mrs. Osman
Important Dates
Paper Submission September, 15 2008
Notification of Acceptance September, 20 2008
Conference Dates September, 26-30 2008
Is just reporting on the real concensus.
You can ridicule and name call all you want, it does not alter the facts.
Peer reivewed recent papers and an "overwhelming Concensus" of scientists all say AGW is a myth.
Sorry, It's just the facts. Get over it.
Can you produce ONE of these peer-reviewed articles saying that AGW is a myth?
Imhofe minority page, has tons, least thats the last thing Gary linked before when pressed
Please explain what special property of Imhome's web page renders PEER REVIEWED papers magically invalid.
I am sure that the truly naive believes out there simply take these silly pronouncements as gospel, but Please explain it for us realists.
BTW: Stupid nonsense like that is exactly why many of us don’t bother to link perfectly good papers on propaganda/smear sites.
And thank you for making my case for me.
On several threads that mysteriously dissapear shortly after I post them.
Hmmmmmmm.
Kinda like Wikipedia altering the truth within miinutes of it appearing.
Put up or shut up.
Gary is a liar. He can't back up his lies.
Wow. That felt sooooo good.
I have posted several peer reviewed papers in the last week.
You guys simply ignore them and pretend they don't exist.
Or you claim some made up crap about the author makes that perticular peer reviewed paper invalid because it does not agree with you.
You guys are simply in denial.
It dosn't matter however since your acceptance has not effect on truth.
The cult will defend its dogma to the end and beyond. It's what defines cults.
When people say that ‘the science of climate change is settled’ they are often being problematically imprecise. Elements of the science are certainly settled beyond a doubt - for instance, the simple fact that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere raises global temperatures. Other elements are certain but less precise: overall warming of the planet will alter air and water currents, though we do not know exactly how. Still higher order questions have answers at lower levels of both precision and certainty.
This graphic sketches out a bit of what I mean:
http://www.sindark.com/2008/07/15/hierarchy-of-climate-change-uncertainty/
WGGWCC08 Announces the 3rd Global Warming and Climate Change International Conference & Exposition. (WGGWCC 08)
On the behalf of the Organizing and Scientific Committees, the Working Group on Global Warming and Climate Change (WGGWCC) announces that the 3rd International Global Warming and Climate Change Conference & Industry Exposition (WGGWCC 08) will be held at the Hyde Park Hotel, London on September 26-30, 2008. We also would like to extend a special invitation to you and all your colleagues to participate in WGGWCC 08 events.
This meeting represents a conference that is dedicated to the exchange of scientific data, governmental assessments, and public policies concerning global climate change, including global warming and extreme climate events. Attendees at the 2008 Conference will be delegates from around the world, representing academic institutions, the corporate sector, non-governmental organizations, and national, state and local governments. Private and Public participation is highly encouraged.
Scholars who wish to learn of recent developments in global warming and climate change scientific research will be exposed to invited plenary lectures and concurrent sessions followed by open workshop discussions with outstanding speakers and multi-disciplinary scientists. Open discussions are planned to consider the broad implications of global warming and climate change upon oceans, forests, coastal zones, urban settings, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, human health, and economic infrastructures at local, national, regional and global scales.
Part A-Conference/Exposition Registration.
Your delegation is expected to complete and return the online registration/exposition forms for conference registration. Registration is free of charge. If your delegation is eligible, the events secretary will issues your group participation code.
130 East End Road, London, N2 OS
LONDON, UK.
Phone: +44 70 24-07-39-12
Fax: +44 086 558 3877
E-mail: conference08ATwallaDOTcom
Press Contact
Mrs. Osman
Important Dates
Paper Submission September, 15 2008
Notification of Acceptance September, 20 2008
Conference Dates September, 26-30 2008
These people aren't your usual denialists, they are con artist trying to steal your credit card numbers. More info here:
http://inel.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/beware-sham-conference-in-phishing-comments-from-wggwcc-08/
I suggest the above conference notice be replaced with the link I've just given.
...that Gary is a jackass.
... we definitely do.
I have also asked him to try to present something sounding like evidence on any topic at all. He (disrespectfully) declined. Usual troll/contrarian tactics.
Best to ignore the noise, I decided.
JTK
A few days ago the moderator warned everyone that "objectionable" posts would be allowed.
It would appear that sivility is only required of realists and AGW cultists can be rude children all they want.
Makes an interesting statement about the desperation of the failing AGW cult.
Again: read the papers at: http://climatesci.org/
They are peer reviewed and don't support AGW
and the PEER REVIEWED paper by Moncton.
Just because you don't like them does not make their PEER REVIEWED papers invalid.
Keep dreaming guys, your time short
Gary, be serious. We were talking about "scientific" peer-review, not a second reading by a "hereditary peer."
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley isn't a scientist. There is no evidence I know to suggest that he even KNOWS a scientist - and he certainly has published nothing I am aware of that would count as peer reviewed.
There you go again.
Peer Review is peer review is it not?
Or are you still saying that the Peer Review that was applied to the Fraud of Michael Mann was valid but real science is not.
Peddle your childish double standards elsewhere.
Its not peer reviewed unless it apears in a credible academic journal. Period. That is what scientific peer review is, because someone has their friends look over their work is not considered peer review. Thats not double standard thats how the system works
"For example, the dependence of the United States, Europe and other countries on oil from politically unstable regions of the world needs to be eliminated."
This sounds very much like (well, almost exactly like) what Gore said in his speech. No?
I assume, since you suggested I go to this site, that you must agree with this statement? If so, then perhaps there are ground for an actual discussion, rather than your constant stream of insults. Can we try that instead?
BTW, I checked out the papers on the climatesci.org web site. Yep, there are lots of legitimate, peer-reviewed papers there. I did not read them all. But I did read through a number of their abstracts. The several I read did NOT say that climate change was not caused by people, it's the web site moderator who puts that spin on them. I think it's important that you recognize that at least some of the papers that site puts up don't argue with consensus positions.
JTK
31000 strong in the US alone. And thousands more around the world.
Facinating how the AGW crowd has become deniers.
Desperation will do that to you though.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1
Now I know you won't bother to read it but here it is.
Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis”
Prove it wrong formula by formula.
"Cults are such tenacious little things."
See my previous comments on the actual truth about APS and the Forum on Physics and Society.
Claiming that Monckton's "paper" is peer-reviewed is just down right dishonest.
http://www.desmogblog.com/details-of-bushs-new-climate-control-plan-leaked#comment-410734
Ian Forrester
Prove it if you are up to it.
Just stating silly comments like that is dishonest.
In the mean time:
Vincent Gray has had enough of the BS and is doing exactly the right thing IMO:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=1
CONCLUSION
This Climate Change Statement is veritably an orchestrated litany of lies, to borrow a phrase. As a longstanding member of the Royal Society of New Zealand I am unable to tolerate such a departure as this from the supposed objectives of fair or responsible comment on scientific matters, so I have resigned in protest.
As I said just a couple of minutes ago in another thread, "Gary, your posts become stupider and stupider everyday".
Read what I posted about your link and if you have even two or three neurons to connect together, you should be able to see a number of the lies I refer to. If you were just a little bit smarter than that (finished elementary school) you will find even more. That bunch of New Zealand deniers are completely dishonest in what they have to say.
Ian Forrester
I find them to be far more credible than say ... Oh you for instance.
Just who are you to say they are liars.
I have never heard of you quite frankly.
The consensus grows
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
You are being completely dishonest by saying that.
Do some research and you will see just how dishonest you, and others who promote this lie, are.
Ian Forrester
I just posted a link to an article.
If you have a problem with it, talk to the source.
Or are just stating “again” that anything that doesn’t agree with AGW is by definition a lie?
Pretty narrow mind you got there Ian.
Gary, you are one stupid and dishonest person if you continue to say the ridiculous comments you have posted about this APS forum debate.
Monckton's paper is just junk science.
Don't believe me, go and see what physicists and climate scientists have to say about it.
Their comments will be reported in the FPS newsletter shortly.
Try reading real information for a change.
Ian Forrester
3dI'll thingk about it.5w I compleatly agree with last post. sfx
паркет и ламинат 9x