Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[jdobbin]

No but some of the data he uses is there. That suggests his data has been peer reviewed.

Smear tactics by people who are acting more like religious zealots than scientists.

Does it suggest that?

Carter is full of smears himself as we read through his material. Most scientists don't even know who he is because he doesn't publish his claims on the present warming situation.

From the link you gave:

he rise of carbon dioxide gas in our atmosphere has been measured continuously since 1958 and follows an oscillating line known as the "Keeling Curve," named after Dr. Charles David Keeling, professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. A renowned expert on the way carbon cycles itself on our planet, Keeling was the first to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He demonstrated its annual fluctuations (the little squiggles in the curve) and was the first to report that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were rising. The concentration of carbon dioxide is given in units of parts per million by volume, also abbreviated ppmv. (For the more scientifically inclined: ppmv is the same as what chemists call the �mixing ratio� of a mixed gas, in this case the ratio of carbon dioxide molecules with all other air molecules, because equal volumes of gas at equal pressure hold equal numbers of molecules) Before the industrial era, circa 1800, atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 280 ppmv for several thousand of years (that is, between 275 and 280 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); this we know from the composition of ancient air trapped in polar ice. Carbon dioxide has risen continuously since then, and the average value when Dr. Keeling ted his measurements in 1958 was near 315 ppmv. By the year 2000 it has risen to about 367 ppmv (that is 367 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Thus, it is higher than pre-industrial values by one third of the pre-industrial era. (You can check the math on your calculator.)

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

Harper is not the rep of the people- he reps - the big boys that will eat till they vomit and eat again.

Maybe there is too much CO2 in the air and not enough oxygen.

[Riverwind]

From the link you gave:

By the year 2000 it has risen to about 367 ppmv (that is 367 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Thus, it is higher than pre-industrial values by one third of the pre-industrial era. (You can check the math on your calculator.)

Which is still much lower than it was 100-200 million years ago.

[noahbody]

Carter is just not taken seriously on the subject. Perhaps if he published his theories rather than lectured for money, he might actually have a point worth analyzing.

Graeme Pearman and others I guess are saying he hasn't paid his dues, so why should we consider what he is saying. Either that or they're in denial.

It would be embarrassing if some nobody like Carter came along, looked at the problem a different way and made their accomplished career look like a wild goose chase. Damn him all to hell!

Carter's statistics are pretty much blown up here.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

This doesn't use the corrected data. I believe Carter has the corrected version in his lecture. You should watch it again. This time with popcorn.

[jdobbin]

Which is still much lower than it was 100-200 million years ago.

And rising all the time.

[jdobbin]

Graeme Pearman and others I guess are saying he hasn't paid his dues, so why should we consider what he is saying. Either that or they're in denial.

It would be embarrassing if some nobody like Carter came along, looked at the problem a different way and made their accomplished career look like a wild goose chase. Damn him all to hell!

This doesn't use the corrected data. I believe Carter has the corrected version in his lecture. You should watch it again. This time with popcorn.

If he has something to say, publish it and defend it in in a journal on current climate science. He hasn't. As I said, most scientists don't even know who he is because he doesn't publish his findings or his claims in current today's journals.

The right wing has latched on to his though to refute the majority of scientists on climate change. Too bad he doesn't go to IPCC and confront them with his work. Instead, he makes money on the lecture circuit.

[noahbody]

He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

I can't speak for him since he's not in my living room, but he might mean that the peer review process can give some scientific theories false validity. If the paper is on CO2 in its role in the dramatic increases in global temperatures since industrialization, there is statistical and circumstantial evidence that can be used to create a convincing argument and get peer approval.

Enter the knowledge that the dramatic rise is not an unprecedented event but what appears to be part of a natural pattern and what the peers approved as good science might a theory that requires further study or debate.

[jdobbin]

I can't speak for him since he's not in my living room, but he might mean that the peer review process can give some scientific theories false validity. If the paper is on CO2 in its role in the dramatic increases in global temperatures since industrialization, there is statistical and circumstantial evidence that can be used to create a convincing argument and get peer approval.

Enter the knowledge that the dramatic rise is not an unprecedented event but what appears to be part of a natural pattern and what the peers approved as good science might a theory that requires further study or debate.

I see. Well, I guess it's settled then.

I say collect the links and send them off to Harper because it is obvious he has not heard this news because he keeps saying the only thing holding him back from going whole hog on moving on global warming is getting the world on board.

If he only heard Carter's work, he could go back to saying that the science is in dispute.

[noahbody]

I see. Well, I guess it's settled then.

I say collect the links and send them off to Harper because it is obvious he has not heard this news because he keeps saying the only thing holding him back from going whole hog on moving on global warming is getting the world on board.

If he only heard Carter's work, he could go back to saying that the science is in dispute.

I'll send him a message on Facebook.

[jdobbin]

I'll send him a message on Facebook.

Good. I'm sure that his people must have prevented him from seeing the last message sent by Carter along with 60 other scientists who were trying to tell him that global warming is not happening. He just needs to hear it from a friendly source and then he can cancel all activities regarding global warming.

[noahbody]

Good. I'm sure that his people must have prevented him from seeing the last message sent by Carter along with 60 other scientists who were trying to tell him that global warming is not happening. He just needs to hear it from a friendly source and then he can cancel all activities regarding global warming.

I believe that request was for further study. It would be nice if all parties took the better safe than sorry approach here too before sending billions to other countries for no reason.

[Wild Bill]

And to those who think it will be good for Canada, the thousands living along lowland coastal areas (where the majority of human populations tend to live) may not agree. Manhattan is not much like Venice, yet.

I didn't realize you cared so much for Americans!

[Wild Bill]

Does it suggest that?

Carter is full of smears himself as we read through his material. Most scientists don't even know who he is because he doesn't publish his claims on the present warming situation.

From the link you gave:

Your post contained a quote referring to carbon dioxide levels being measured from air bubbles trapped in polar ice. I believe I saw a report refuting this method some months ago. The initial report assumed that the CO2 level in such bubbles would be accurate as to the atmospheric levels of the time because the CO2 could not have migrated, or leaked, out through the ice.

Some researcher decided to test that assumption and found that CO2 DOES seep out through the ice! Very slowly, but we're talking thousands of years here. He came up with a number for the rate of "oozing" and when factored in to the reported CO2 levels it would seem that levels thousands of years ago were NOT appreciatively different from that of today!

I know that to true believers such challenges to GW claims are wrong, irrelevant or from biased non-objective sources but I thought I'd point this one out.

I'll spend some time to see if I can google up the original source later on...

[trex]

I didn't realize you cared so much for Americans!

Yes Wild Bill, you could say that I care about all of humanity in general. Don't you?

[jdobbin]

I believe that request was for further study. It would be nice if all parties took the better safe than sorry approach here too before sending billions to other countries for no reason.

I think what Harper and Baird have said is that global warming is happening and it is emissions that are responsible for the bulk of it. They just aren't prepared to do that much about it.

It looks like they haven't listened to Carter or they would say that neither of these things are happening and that Canada will no loner participate in any emissions restrictions.

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Your post contained a quote referring to carbon dioxide levels being measured from air bubbles trapped in polar ice. I believe I saw a report refuting this method some months ago. The initial report assumed that the CO2 level in such bubbles would be accurate as to the atmospheric levels of the time because the CO2 could not have migrated, or leaked, out through the ice.

Some researcher decided to test that assumption and found that CO2 DOES seep out through the ice! Very slowly, but we're talking thousands of years here. He came up with a number for the rate of "oozing" and when factored in to the reported CO2 levels it would seem that levels thousands of years ago were NOT appreciatively different from that of today!

I know that to true believers such challenges to GW claims are wrong, irrelevant or from biased non-objective sources but I thought I'd point this one out.

I'll spend some time to see if I can google up the original source later on...

I await the data.

I happen to believe the majority of the scientists on this. I know many on the right wing dispute global warming and emissions but then they trot out Carter or Tim Ball or others who are not actually publishing work on present climate change, I find it hard to take seriously. Moreover, when I see who pays for their speaking engagements and their paid message to the prime minister, I am left questioning if their opinion is for hire.

Next, I hear the contention that peer review is corrupt so there is no need for it to prove the point that global warming is not happening in published journals.

At any rate, it is not me you have to convince. It is Harper and Baird who have said they believe global warming is happening and that emissions cause it. They might not be doing a lot on the issue but they are not campaigning against doing nothing on emissions either. In fact, you can say their expensive ethanol program is their answer to global warming (even if it it makes food more expensive).

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

Yes Wild Bill, you could say that I care about all of humanity in general. Don't you?

Well, it was just that you seemed to single out Americans in general. From some of your other posts it didn't seem you were that much of a fan of theirs.

Live and learn, I guess!

[noahbody]

At any rate, it is not me you have to convince. It is Harper and Baird who have said they believe global warming is happening and that emissions cause it. They might not be doing a lot on the issue but they are not campaigning against doing nothing on emissions either. In fact, you can say their expensive ethanol program is their answer to global warming (even if it it makes food more expensive).

So if it's a left/right issue, we can agree that Harper is on the left. I knew it!

[Wild Bill]

I await the data.

I happen to believe the majority of the scientists on this. I know many on the right wing dispute global warming and emissions but then they trot out Carter or Tim Ball or others who are not actually publishing work on present climate change, I find it hard to take seriously. Moreover, when I see who pays for their speaking engagements and their paid message to the prime minister, I am left questioning if their opinion is for hire.

Next, I hear the contention that peer review is corrupt so there is no need for it to prove the point that global warming is not happening in published journals.

At any rate, it is not me you have to convince. It is Harper and Baird who have said they believe global warming is happening and that emissions cause it. They might not be doing a lot on the issue but they are not campaigning against doing nothing on emissions either. In fact, you can say their expensive ethanol program is their answer to global warming (even if it it makes food more expensive).

Hey, I haven't taken a stand one way or the other on global warming. I just find the evidence to often be more religious and/or political than scientific. Still, even when the boy kept crying wolf that never meant there wasn't a real wolf one day. It just meant it was so damn aggravating listening to the kid whining that it was hard to keep an open mind for when he was actually right!

Anyhow, here's a couple of links I found if you're still interested. I kinda like the idea of challenging the assumption that CO2 in the airbubbles in the arctic ice would be pristine and accurate. I can't imagine how a true scientist would not have checked that out in the first place!

Unless he was just so excited finding something that seemed to fit his preconceptions that he couldn't be bothered...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...af-5d9089a5dcb6

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti..._CO2_Record.pdf

As for Harper (no need to mention Baird 'cuz anybody in Harper's party is just a ventriloquist's dummy anyway) I don't mind him spending money to reduce our emissions at all! I have no problem with cleaning up some dirt! I just have a problem with giving unaudited foreign aid moneys in the form of emission credits INSTEAD of cleaning up our OWN mess!

[trex]

Just heard on the news that Quebec is sending its own delegation to the upcoming meeting in Bali, to show that they disagree with the Harper government on climate change.

Also-

"BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe reportedly wrote a letter to Indonesia's president, appealing to him not to listen to what the Tory government has to say."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71126/20071126/

Edited November 28, 2007 by trex

[jdobbin]

So if it's a left/right issue, we can agree that Harper is on the left. I knew it!

Harper is certainly trying to mimic the Liberals. However, it is probably just the minority talking. If he gets his majority, we can see the real stand on things like the environment. It will be back to the one line it received in the last election campaign.

[jdobbin]

Hey, I haven't taken a stand one way or the other on global warming. I just find the evidence to often be more religious and/or political than scientific. Still, even when the boy kept crying wolf that never meant there wasn't a real wolf one day. It just meant it was so damn aggravating listening to the kid whining that it was hard to keep an open mind for when he was actually right!

Anyhow, here's a couple of links I found if you're still interested. I kinda like the idea of challenging the assumption that CO2 in the airbubbles in the arctic ice would be pristine and accurate. I can't imagine how a true scientist would not have checked that out in the first place!

Unless he was just so excited finding something that seemed to fit his preconceptions that he couldn't be bothered...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...af-5d9089a5dcb6

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti..._CO2_Record.pdf

As for Harper (no need to mention Baird 'cuz anybody in Harper's party is just a ventriloquist's dummy anyway) I don't mind him spending money to reduce our emissions at all! I have no problem with cleaning up some dirt! I just have a problem with giving unaudited foreign aid moneys in the form of emission credits INSTEAD of cleaning up our OWN mess!

So far, I have not found any compelling evidence from global warming opponents that: 1) global warming is not happening 2) that emissions have nothing to do with it; or 3.) It will won't make a difference to people even if we do warm up.

I happen to agree with you on doing more in Canada to be energy efficient, reduce emissions and develop new technologies. At the very least, it would save Canada energy bills to have home and workplaces that don't lose heat, generate their own power from thermal and solar sources and require less gas and oil. And that is just to start. At the very most, it would reduce Canada's emissions by a very large amount.

[no queenslave]

Canada has no veto to block any climate -change deal. Only more people voted for Canada's proposal than any other proposal.

[Riverwind]

1) global warming is not happening

Melting glaciers and ice caps leave no doubt on this point: the globe is currently in a cycle of warming.

2) that emissions have nothing to do with it;

The issue is misallocation of resources. Do we spend trillions reducing emissions that may or may not make a difference in the long run or do we spend the money preparing for the effects of climate change. If change is coming we should prepare for it.

3.) It will won't make a difference to people even if we do warm up.

There will be problems in the future but the majority of those problems will be a result of over population and not global warming per se. Countries that cannot adapt to climate change will be those countries that have populations that are too large for their resource base. Any deaths that result will be mothers nature's way of making humans do what humans should have be smart enough to do on their own: i.e. control their own population.

Frankly, I have little patience for people who seem to think changing our 'lifestyle' will solve the problem. Overpopulation is the real problem but we are stuck in this horrible moral quandry because controlling population means telling some people that they can't have kids and that would restrict something that we consider to be a basic human right. So we sit paralyzed and simply wait for mother nature to clean up the mess we created.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Melting glaciers and ice caps leave no doubt on this point: the globe is currently in a cycle of warming.

The issue is misallocation of resources. Do we spend trillions reducing emissions that may or may not make a difference in the long run or do we spend the money preparing for the effects of climate change. If change is coming we should prepare for it.

There will be problems in the future but the majority of those problems will be a result of over population and not global warming per se. Countries that cannot adapt to climate change will be those countries that have populations that are too large for their resource base. Any deaths that result will be mothers nature's way of making humans do what humans should have be smart enough to do on their own: i.e. control their own population.

Frankly, I have little patience for people who seem to think changing our 'lifestyle' will solve the problem. Overpopulation is the real problem but we are stuck in this horrible moral quandry because controlling population means telling some people that they can't have kids and that would restrict something that we consider to be a basic human right. So we sit paralyzed and simply wait for mother nature to clean up the mess we created.

Some of the people here disagree that there is any warming at all.

Some of the people don't here want any preparation for climate change or emissions. Period. They don't believe either is happening and if it is, it is good for Canada.

I see you believe in Darwin when it suits the purpose.

Want to solve the problem of overpopulation? Promote education. It is a lifestyle choice but quite effective at reducing the amount of children born.