Stephen Harper: the only leader in North America advocating inaction on climate change

After years in which North America was the leading international holdout against action on climate change, the continental tide appears to have turned – mostly. Only one leader still stands against the international consensus, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The coincidence of national election campaigns running in Canada and the U.S. has given us an unusual opportunity to actually compare our leaders. Beginning with U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain and following with the five major Canadian political leaders, everyone has presented a platform and four of the five include credible action on global warming.

Comparisons are, of course, subjective. Politicians have little to gain by presenting policies that are easy to measure or promises that are easy to test. What can we really conclude when Obama says he will cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050? Even if he wins and serves two terms, he’ll be long gone before anyone can confirm that pledge.

But Obama’s plan still shows that he takes climate change seriously. John McCain seems to, as well. He, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a leader in declaring that global warming is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but a critical issue for the planet.

In Canada, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton,  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe and Green Party leader Elizabeth May all agree. All have reasonable plans. All promise to reduce CO2 emissions by between 20 and 30 per cent by 2020 – from 1990 levels.

It’s annoying to have to add that qualifier: “from 1990 levels.” But it’s important. Because when Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper promises to cut CO2 emissions 20 per cent, he dodges the internationally accepted start date of 1990, using 2006 instead. But Canada’s emissions rose nearly one-third between 1990 and 2006, which means that Harper is really proposing to reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990 – and he has no reasonable plan to reach that inadequate target

Harper is out of touch with Canadians on this issue, and he is mistaken if he thinks – as he said recently – that voters have become more “conservative” during his tenure. As the economy has slowed, they may well have become more concerned. They’re certainly worried about the economy. But that doesn’t mean they no longer care about the environment. In pitting environment and economy against one another, Harper is resorting to old-style Conservative thinking. Research clearly shows that Canadians don’t buy it.

In fact, Canadians believe there’s economic opportunity in going green.

European countries are showing the way. Many are reducing CO2 and, at the same time, kick-starting the technological innovations that will lead them to greater prosperity. For example, Danish energy policy made possible the success of windmill maker Vestas, which enjoyed revenues of $8 billion in 2007, equal to the sales of all forest products from all companies in British Columbia. And major businesses like Wal-Mart, General Electric – even Toyota – are also increasing their profits by pursuing green strategies.

Canadians care about the environment, and they care about our international reputation. If, despite these concerns, many appear to be supporting the Harper Conservatives, it should not be mistaken as approval for his environmental disregard.

Leading climate scientists agree that climate change is the biggest environmental issue in human history. It’s not going away. Canadians will call on any government they send to Ottawa to provide strong leadership on this issue, and if it’s Harper, he’ll need to start following the lead of his current competitors.

James Hoggan is co-founder of Canada’s most popular climate change website,, and president of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates.



Stephen Harper will change his mind on global Climate Change when he changes his mind on same sex marriage. Never. Because his views are a matter of belief. Faith. In matters of belief, faith trumps fact and experience every time. We can not afford to give him the time to come around. We must interject fact back into the process now. Tar is the dirtiest energy hands down. We will get clean. The only issue remaining is will we be on the selling side of clean or the buying side?

He will change as soon as he realizes it’s politically correct to reject it due to the evidence that AGW is not happening. What is belief is the nonsensical predictions AGW will do in the future.

Shutting off the tar sands will not only put thousands out of work and drive the price of gasoline up many times current prices, which will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Imagine all the people we could have working if we mined by hand. And children milled cotton. It is also a “belief” that there will be no employment beyond dirty energy.

mining by hand - that sounds great - where do I sign up? Do I get a pick axe or is it a fingernails based mining technology?


Here is a question.
With real science is now showing that CO2 is not the main climate driver (like we didn’t know that) some deeper questions arise.
Clearly the world will switch to alternate energy sources in good time as a natural progression of technology. So why the panic to force the switch now when it is not necessary?
What groups stand to gain the most from perpetuating this myth.
Oil companies are powerful and are achieving record profits.
The UN has sought Global Socialist Government for years.
All the major environmental activist group have enjoyed the best funding gravy train in history.
Study Grants to rent seeking scientists have flowed like water to anyone with the words global warming and/or climate change in their applications.
Gore and Suzuki and many other band wagon parasites are rolling in it.
Or perhaps we just needed a little cause to believe in and the “save the world” wording of this one has such appeal.

Anyone have any good incites?

That’s not how it works. The burdon of proof is on those who claim that CO2 IS the cause of our current warm trend. Well, at least the 1975-1998 warm trend as it has cooled since.


Another warmist who doesn’t understand the principles of logic or debate. You, VJ, are the one supporting the wonderous and as yet unproven “big idea.” The onus is on you and your fellow cultists to offer proof that you are right - not for us to prove that you are wrong.

For example, if I were to say that a little green man on the moon is directing beams of IR radiation at the earth, you would be fully justified in asking for proof. If I then said, “Well, prove that I’m wrong”, that would be just silly.

If that’s too deep for you, here’s another. If I accuse someone of setting fire to my house, the onus is on me to prove that he/she actually did so, not for the accused to prove innocence.

A few decades ago, elementary logic used to be taught in highschools. I guess there’s no longer any time for that, what with all the time needed to brainwash students about the evils of technology, human progress and resource development.

Zog, you made this claim, starting by quoting someone else:

“Imagine all the people we could have working if we mined by hand.”

Great balls of fire ! That is precisely the approach anti-technology envro-fascists have been advocating for a couple of decades.

Prove that this is true, or everyone will know you are a liar.

And explain who you are referring to as “anti-technology envro-fascists” and justify your use of that insulting term for each of them.

Recent article on: Sun Warms and Cools the Earth

New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for Carbon Dioxide
Roy Spencer, climate skeptic, speaks
New Study Confirms Strong Variation of CO2 in the Past Millennium and an Ocean Source of CO2

There is soooooo much more if you would only look.

But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists”[2] was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989).

Yep, damn the truth as long as the message is what we need to brainwash the public with!!

In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.” (Wood,1990) .

because the climate change we experience now is the effect of CO2 injected 30 years ago. The stuff we’ve burned since has yet to have its impact. And the stuff we burn here on in will impact after that….. sorry but nice try artful dodger

So you’re saying carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere thirty years ago is somehow different from carbon dioxide present last week?

No wonder you need to pay a PR company to sell your line of twaddle.

No, you are saying that you do not understand plain English. We are noticing effects now from the CO2 we emitted 30 years ago, and the CO2 we are emitting now will have noticeable effects 30 years down the road.

Sorry, but I haven’t noticed any effects. It still gets cold in the winter and warm in the summer, just like it always has. What “effects” am I supposed to be noticing?

Here in Alberta, it does not get as cold or snowy as it did forty years ago. Maybe you are not a noticing type of person.

This proves nothing. How do you know that this is not just normal variation? Check Environment Canada’s website for rainfall, snow and temp changes since 1900. Temps in the 20-30s was warmer in the winter than now. Though the over all trend since 1900 has been a 1.2C increase in the min temp, but only a .75C increase in average temp.

For the 1950’s Calgary:

1955 Snow fall: Oct: 3.0 , Nov: 9.1 , Dec: 38.1, Jan: 5.6, Feb: 29.5, Mar: 28.4, Apr: 63.5, May: 26.7 Total for the year: 203.9

2007 Snow fall: Oct: 6.2, Nov: 10.4, Dec: 8.0 , Jan: 12.2 , Feb: 29.4 , Mar: 31.7 , Apr: 43.2, May: 12.8 Total for the year: 153.9

Hardley a major change in snow fall. I suspect if you graph all the years from 1900 to now you will see little increase, just normal variation. I find it interesting that we now rely on memory for our evidence instead of the emperical evidence itself.

Your problem is you have no EVIDENCE linking what you are seeing to HUMAN caused CO2. You are just seeing a change. Means nothing without the emperical link.

Big spikes in warming with no possibility of cooling are a reasonable expectation if AGW theory is solid because human CO2 has increased so much in the last 10 years.

Any multi year cooling trend would seem to be an AGW killer.
Lets see what happens.

Hey, VJ, in light of the fact that I have PROVED you wrong on your assertion here, are you going to admit you are wrong and recant your statement or will you stick to the mantra “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”?

Just wondering.

Where did you get this quotation “…”Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”?…” I don’t thinbk I wrote it. How dishonest of you.

VJ, I don’t read JR’s post as an attribution of the quote to you. It was a statement by one of your gurus, Dr. S. Schneider and is therefor, I presume, holy warmist doctrine.

I did a little search on how long CO2 remains in the Atmosphere and found some fascinating claims.
50 to 200 years was most popular but some alarmists from the Gore/Hansen school of exaggeration claim at least 1000 years.
Then I remembered this paper derived from more recent (up to date) studies.
See in this brief paper, how the changes year-to-year relate to ENSO and volcanic eruptions rather dramatically which suggests the carbon dioixde in the atmosphere reacts rapidly to changes in the oceans and as Segalstad and others have speculated likely has a far shorter residence time in our atmosphere (5-7 years) than claimed by the IPCC (150-200 years).This could have a significant effect on the ability of climate models to forecast future levels of carbon dioxide and temperatures.

Since the science is settled and the dabate is over, this data will simple be sweeped under the carpet and forgotten.

The science is clear. CO2 is bad

see without CO2 - there are no plants, without plants, there are no animals and humans, without humans and animals, there is no cancer, heart disease, HIV, poverty, crime, violence and rap music.

Clearly CO2 is the cause of all these bad things. We must ban it.

A fairly simple explanation and a series of supporting references can be found here.

And please, before anyone starts whining on about the reliability of (which, by the way, is credited as the most influential climate♦ science blog on the internet ), you asked for a supportive source - including peer-reviewed literature - to back up a specific statement. I have given it. If you want to challenge to challenge the point, deal with the science, not the spear carrier. 

I find your reply very interesting. Interesting because when anyone asks me for a reference, I actually go and get it even though I may have already posted it several times previously. I have everything nicely sorted in folders so I can get to them quickly.

Yet, you prefered not to do this, but sluff off asking me to sift through this site looking for references. Hardley fair.

If you have a reference post it!

Now I know chemistry and CO2 is CO2. The atmosphere does no know, nor care, where it comes from. So there is no mechanism that would disinguish human caused CO2 vs natural CO2 that would affect the climate.

Second, RealClimate is a farce. They routinely delete posts from people they do not want their followers to hear. Including many of my own. They are owned and funded by the Environment Media Services which is a radical left wing political lobby group with deep pockets. Gore routinely funds them too. Gavin’s boss is James Hansen. They are in no way impartial and in no way influential. If you want influence you need to see and as they present peer reviewed papers that do not support AGW (and deal with your CO2 issue). Don’t even think of claiming they are unreliable because of funding. RealClimate gets funded by those who have a political bent too.

BTW, they did not like the paper that came out about the limit to sea level rise can be no more than 2 meters by 2100. They didn’t like that paper because it killed all radical outlandish claims of sea level rise.

“If you want to challenge to challenge the point, deal with the science, not the spear carrier. ”

I’ll make sure I quote you the next time one of your followers tries to go after me for posting evidence against AGW. Goes both ways right?

It’s been widely known for ages that industrially produced carbon carries a signature and can be traced. It’s not something that needs a peer-reviewed paper on the subject.

And respecting RealClimate and their tendency to delete your posts, has it occurred to you that they just might have higher standards? Take a look at the threads at DeSmog lately, and you will notice that almost all of the comment comes from you, Zog, Gary and the rest of the trolling fraternity, and most of it has strayed wildly from the point after the first few remarks. If RealClimate allowed all of your irrelevent and insupportable comments to be posted, nobody would be able to follow the informed discussion through the dross.

I am looking forward to the application of DeSmog’s new criteria. Then we can get back to the subject at hand.

Fern Mackenzie

And what is that signature? What physical property of CO2 has that signature?

“And respecting RealClimate and their tendency to delete your posts, has it occurred to you that they just might have higher standards? Take a look at the threads at DeSmog lately, and you will notice that almost all of the comment comes from you, Zog, Gary and the rest of the trolling fraternity, and most of it has strayed wildly from the point after the first few remarks. If RealClimate allowed all of your irrelevent and insupportable comments to be posted, nobody would be able to follow the informed discussion through the dross. ”

And how do you know the content of the items that were deleted since you could not have seen them? They were ON TOPIC and very relevant questions they refuse to answer, just like here. And I’m not the only one who’s been deleted, many others who challenge RC.

I guess you just want an audience where desmog preaches to the orthodoxy. What a bore.

They can tell the difference between CO2 that’s produced naturally & what’s come from fossil fuels. Google “isotopes” & CO2, or look at this site, for a start:

As for RealClimate, I have seen the quality of your posts here, and unless you have been dumbing down for our benefit, I’m not optimistic that your posts at RealClimate would be up to their standards of basic knowledge.

Fern Mackenzie

Where does it say anything that FF CO2 is a different set of isotopes than “natural” CO2?

The two isotopes of carbon dioxide tell us two different stories of the carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air. The C13 of carbon dioxide can distinguish between biogenic uptake and release of CO2 (plant photosynthesis and respiration) or oceanic uptake and release. The O18 of carbon dioxide is a developing story, and one we don’t yet completely understand. In theory, this isotope can help us distinguish between changes in the rates of plant photosynthesis versus plant respiration.

As for RealClimate

Read it yourself instead of assuming what I wrote. Again, what youo will not see are the questions I asked that they deleted.

I suspect you will not reply, so let me clear this “signature” nonsense up.

Only the Carbon in CO2 is from fossil fuels. The oxygen is from the atmosphere during the burning process. Burning, oxidation, cannot alter the isotope of any atom.

Thus the only atom in CO2 that is from the FF is the Carbon atom. Carbon has 2 stable isotopes. C12 and C13 (1.1%). There is no difference in these two ratios in fossil fuels, hence there is no way to know a CO2 molecule came from burning wood, coal, natural gas, or any of the liquid fuels. They all produce the same ratio of C12:C13.

C14 does not exist in FF except in very very very small amounts, and only then as a contamination of the orginal deposit. C14 is created in the upper atmosphere due to ions emitted from the sun.

Hence there is no “signature” from human emitted CO2. This is basic chemistry that any highschool chemist will tell you.

RealClimate explains
You ignore the biological preference for lighter isotopes.

Real Climate is not a reference one can trust. For example, the RC article is wrong about where fossil fuels come from and hence where the ratios come from. They said:

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere.

Only coal comes from plants. Oil does not come from plants. But marine animals. This includes the methane and propane that we burn that is disolved in the oil. Note the date.

Carbon isotopic evidence for the role of lipids in petroleum formation
Journal Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society
Issue Volume 44, Number 12 / December, 1967
Pages 691-695

S. R. Silverman

Abstract Data available on stable carbon isotope ratios (C13/C12) are reviewed. It is concluded that data for modern and ancient natural carbonaceous materials reveal consistently low C13/C12 ratios for substances of biologic origin as opposed to the ratios for inorganic carbonate minerals deposited in the oceans. Ratios, of modern marine organisms are about 1% higher than those of terrestrial organisms. The average C13/C12 ratio of modern marine organisms is also about 1% higher than that of ancient organic matter in marine sediments. A similar relation exists between the ratios of terrestrial organisms and those of petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter genetically related to nonmarine sediments. Coals of all ranks have the same range of isotope ratios as those noted for terrestrial plants.
Lipid fractions of organisms have consistently lower C13/C12 ratios than do the whole organisms. The average difference between nonlipid and lipid materials for all organisms studied is about 0.5% and ranges in individual species from as little as several hundredths to more than 1.5%. This suggests that petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter in ancient sediments are derived from lipids, or at least from certain components of the lipid fraction. In contrast, coal deposits apparently are derived from whole plants or from the cellulosic fraction of land plants, which is the major nonlipid constituent, of plant tissues.
The isotopic compositions of narrow distillation fractions of petroleums suggest that the lowmolecular-weight hydrocarbon components of the gas and gasoline fractions are formed by decomposition of higher-molecular-weight compounds during the post-depositional history of petroleum. Concurrently with the formation of low-boiling compounds, these transformation processes initiate the polymerization reactions responsible for the formation of some of the most complex petroleum components, such as the asphaltenes. New data obtained from distillates of Colombian crude oil are reported in this paper. The fraction with an average boiling point of 450C and average molecular weight of 420 had the lowest C13/C12 ratio. This suggests that the fraction, which includes the boiling range of typical triterpenoids, contains a major proportion of the primary components from which the light and heavy ends of petroleum are derived. This implication is supported by other geochemical information, including the distribution of optical activity in petroleum fractions and the identification of specific petroleum components which are structurally related to lipid components of modern organisms.

Thus there is a difference in the isotope ratio between burning coal and oil/natural gas. Thus the ulitimate atmopsheric CO2 ratio of C13/C12 cannot be used to get how the CO2 got there. Realize that oil as a fuel was not common until after WWII. The vast majority of FF buring was coal prior to that. Hence the C13:C12 ratio would be affected by that trend.

Now we get this:

More CO2 Peculiarities - The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio

There is another problem with this assumption. Methane from animals. Since they have a lower C13:C12 ratio than the atmosphere, then when they fart or decay, that methane will have a lower ratio. The sun will decompose that methane into CO2, alterning the atmospheric content. Cattle farts is also attributed to so called global warming, but you do not see any call to eliminate all the cows on the planet.

Notice that RC are not only including FF but the burning of ANY carbonized biological substance. Including the wide spread burning of forests for farmland. Also the more we clear forests the less C12 is absorbed, which increases the C13 component in the atmosphere.

Bottom line? C13/C12 ratios is not a reliable “signature” that CO2 is from fossil fuel burning, but can come from a wide array of biological decomoposition.

JR said…
“Now I know chemistry and…”;

I hold a Chemistry BSc (Hons) awarded by the University of London, did you want me to congratulate you?

Then he said…
Carbon has 2 stable isotopes. C12 and C13 (1.1%). There is no difference in these two ratios in fossil fuels, hence there is no way to know a CO2 molecule came from burning wood, coal, natural gas, or any of the liquid fuels

He went on to say…
Thus there is a difference in the isotope ratio between burning coal and oil/natural gas.

I see a problem here!

We also have…
Only coal comes from plants. Oil does not come from plants. But marine animals. This includes the methane and propane that we burn that is disolved in the oil

Hmm, so marine plankton has nothing to do with it then?

The there is…
Also the more we clear forests the less C12 is absorbed, which increases the C13 component in the atmosphere.

Wouldn’t absorbing the 12C increase the proportion of the 13C?

And of course we have our information sources.
Real Climate is not a reference one can trust. (A blog by scientists studying the climate)

compared with
wattsupwiththat. (A blog by the weatherman from a local radio station)

Next time if I can be bothered, I will explain to JR why the changing ratio of 13C/12C in the atmosphere can be explained by the combustion of fossil fuels, (but I expect I wont be sufficiently bothered).

J R Wakefield- we know that denialist argument hasn’t progressed beyond accusing people of what they do themselves, but you don’t happen to have any evidence of you posting on Realclimate and then being deleted? Surely a genius like you can take screenshots?
Otherwise, I’m sure you’ll understand that I don’t take you seriously.

Yep, I kept everything. But I guess you think I’m lying.

Here is what was deleted:

#199 I asked “Provide peer reviewed evidence it did prior to 1980 and by how much.” Regarding CO2 raising sea levels. His reply: “[Response: Tyndall (1863). - gavin]” A theoretical discussion of CO2 and temperature from 1863 somehow have evidence that GMTP-A was caused by CO2! I had to reply to that.

In #225 Gavin omitted my comment about Gore being irresponsible in not providing a time line and asking when they planned to challenge Gore, or where they afraid of losing funding, replacing it with: “[edit - no Gore-bashing]”.
#237 I tried to clarify the logic of sea level and temperatures with “A” is not caused by AGW. “B” started with “A” and continues through to “C”. “C” is caused by AGW, but since “B” started and is unchanged since “A” then “B” cannot be from AGW.
Simple enough?
[Response: Yes. But wrong. You have no information on the cause of B, nor on its invariant continuation. You can do better than this. - gavin]”
“Do you? Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?
[Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). - gavin]

To which I replied in #239 with the actual abstract of said paper, and Gavin replied:
“[Response: You’re right, ocean warming must be due to some other mysterious energy force that is causing the planet to be out of energy equilibrium. - gavin]”

My reply to this, which was not posted was “Which it has in the past!!! No more faith bases suppositions. Give us your hard evidence that these changes from 1850-1945 were from AGW. If you cannot, science dictates that you cannot assume your position is the truth. Doing so does great disservice to science.”

Post #272 was completely edited out. It was a reply to someone else, #260. It read:

“”However, I very much doubt that the anthropogenic impact during the early 20th century was nothing at all. CO2 levels were notably higher than pre-industrial, and the radiative forcing of that CO2 is not zero.”

So how much? And why, after a 4 fold increase in CO2 emissions did the planet cool from 1945 - 1975 when Hansen was claiming we were heading to a new ice age? BTW, 1850-1945 accounted for only 14% of the current CO2 emissions, the majority of that during WWII. Recall that it’s a growth curve with a doubling time, so the first half of the period, 1850-1900 was very very small co2 emissions. The bulk of those emission was in the last 10-15 years of that period. The warming trend was well underway, and about to stop in 1945.”

It was all edited out.

To which Gavin replied “[Response: This isn’t a soapbox for you to repeat the same old thing over and again, when you have been given plenty of correct advice (and links to the forcings, and links to the model responses). If you are interested in the real answers to your questions, they lie there. If not, go play somewhere else. - gavin]

I sent the following in reply to Gavin’s post, but it was deleted:

“Interesting you deleted the whole text so no one knows what I actually said and asked. Hardly fair.

Besides, that data. I assume you are trying to convey the point that only W-M_GHGs rose since 1880 while the rest were essentially flat. Thus you claim that the increase in temp was because of W-M_GHGs from 1880 to 1945. But how does this data explain the drop in temp from 1945 to 1975?”

For example #240 where he included “But I have no confidence that the timescale is 1000 years, and I have no confidence that this implies that sea level rises of 1 meter or more can’t happen in a century.”

To which I replied, “Your no confidence is nothing more than faith. That is not science. If you disagree with these peer reviewed papers then publish a rebuttal. Until you do you are nothing more than preaching faith based suppositions.” Which was never posted.

They also do not want to make sure that wild speculative, faith based predictions, such as Gore’s, are corrected. In fact, one of my comments “Or is it OK to misrepresent the data as long as the message is correct” was deleted.

You revealed your dishonest agenda by Gore-bashing. Here’s a hint: scientists don’t rely on non-scientists for their scientific information. Whether Gore is correct or not does not affect the science of climate change.

Thus you did not understand the content I was refering to. I wasn’t saying that Gore is not a reliable scientific source, which he is not. No, what I DID say was that in regard to sea level rise Gore is showing New York City under 20 feet of water. A contemporary New York City. Thus giving the impression that such a rise would be soon. His lack of a time frame that would happen in is the dishonesty of his presentation. Had he mentioned that this would take a thousand years is deliberately omitted because it would not have the alarmist impact he wants to portray.

The fact that we now have a 2 meter maximum by 2100 makes Gore completely wrong. His continued use of his message without the timeframe qualification makes him a liar.

I also pointed out to RC that their continued silence on the issue, not publicly telling Gore to stop or qualify his statement is akin to lying too. Or, as they deleted when I said, is it OK to be dishonest as long as the message is important?

That was the thrust of my comments on RC.

Realclimate has dealt with that particular item, if you had ever bothered to look.

…Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today - and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously…

They also reviewed the movie:

The difference being that they looked at the whole thing and didn’t cherry-pick a teeny bit that they could misinterpret and attempt to inflate into a monstrous flaw, as you keep trying to do, Wakefield.

You were Gore-bashing, and you look pretty silly doing it on a blog where scientists are busy talking about science.

Interesting that they a) still do not give a time frame for that. Is it 100 years, 300 years, 1000 years or 125,000 years in the future? They can at least give a mininum, such as it is not physcially possible for Greenland to all melt in 1000 years. But no, they do not do that. That is irresponsible. And b) RC is unwilling to ask Gore to include a time frame. Thus RC is just as guilty at lying to the public as Gore is.

If it was YOUR pet theory, would you not want someone who was promiting it to promote it honestly? I would. But it seems RC is not willing to.

BTW, they are not talking science at RC, they are talking dogma.

No, you are the dogmatic one; you know nothing about science.

How soon will all the Greenland ice melt? That depends on how much the earth warms and how quickly - and THAT depends partly on how large a quantity of greenhouse gases we humans produce. Which is why realists say there is a problem and that we must act now, while denialists curl up under the piano with their fingers in their ears.