Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[Riverwind]

All those glaciers breaking up in such a short time must be our imagination.

This is typical of the hasty conclusions that seems to be common to many climate alarmists. There is plenty of evidence that we are going through a warming period. The issue is whether this warm period is a natural cycle or human induced.

Here is a graph of temperatures over the last 400,000 years estimated from ice cores in Antarctic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...-core-petit.png

That graph makes it clear that we should expect a warming cycle to occur once every 100-120 thousand years.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

And didn't it turn out that there were warmer years during the 1930's?

1934 was marginally warmer. It has changed the overall stats though.

Edited November 27, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Ironically, New York City's coldest reading ever was on February 9, 1934, where the temperature bottomed at -15F (real temperature units) or around -22 Trudeau Units. Many cold weather records were smashed that month. My point is that if that one freak event was removed, 1934 would be on the books as being even warmer.

Even if you're correct, jdobbin, that would make the 1934-date period trendless.

No one has said that local weather events can vary.

[jdobbin]

You still haven't told me why polar bears don't exist?

I'm not going to get involved with the polar bear debate one way or the other. I don't think there is enough when it comes to this species and their changing habitat.

Edited November 27, 2007 by jdobbin

[trex]

This is typical of the lack of thought that seems to be common to many climate alarmists. There is plenty of evidence that we are going through a warming period.

I don't think its entirely clear to some posters here recently, who seem to question whether global warming is even really taking place. So, just a gentle reminder to any "global warming deniers" lurking out there... Its real.

About the second point, are we the cause, none can say for sure. But even if not, if this is a naturally occuring event thats happened before, it doesn't mean that all is well and we can just go back to work and party on. Its never happened before, to US. Our high tech society is vulnerable. 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.

[capricorn]

Dion, however, is just political weaseling. I don't think he believes in Kyoto. I'm not even sure he believes in climate change at all. He's just being a hypocritical, dishonest weasel.

This was no more obvious than today during question period when he accused Harper of committing sabotage at the Commonwealth conference and said Canada should take a leading role on climate change. Action requires more than signing a flawed protocol such as Kyoto as the Liberals did then ignored the file all those years.

Harper's right. The US, China and India have to part of the solution or any efforts and successes on climate change will be negated over time.

[Riverwind]

But even if not, if this is a naturally occuring event thats happened before, it doesn't mean that all is well and we can just go back to work and party on.

I agree 100%. But the issue is where should we spend our money? Should we spend it to deal with the consequences of global warming (better storm protection, relocation of communities, more efficient water systems)? Or spend it on technologies designed to reduce GHGs in the blind hope that they might make a difference eventually? I say we spend our money on dealing with the consequences first and worry about GHG emissions second. Largely because I believe that any international GHG agreement will be a failure like Kyoto because we have no effective way to force countries to live up to the terms they might agree to. My opinion on the viability of a GHG accord might change if we start to see warming causing serious economic damage in the big emitting countries like China and India - until then we better starting building the dikes and water reservoirs and move people off the coast when pratical. Edited November 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Or spend it on technologies designed to reduce GHGs in the blind hope that they might make a difference eventually?

You're missing the point. Kyoto is

1. A Western guilt trip for prosperity;
   
2. A crooked scheme to facilitate a carbon credit trading scheme in which Mo Strong would profit enormously; and
   
3. A wealth redistribution scheme.
   

Climate is the settlng for the dispute, not the real action.

[capricorn]

You're missing the point. Kyoto is

1. A Western guilt trip for prosperity;
   
2. A crooked scheme to facilitate a carbon credit trading scheme in which Mo Strong would profit enormously; and
   
3. A wealth redistribution scheme.
   

Climate is the settlng for the dispute, not the real action.

The goods on Mo Strong and Al Gore on carbon credits documented here:

http://canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

An excerpt:

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

[noahbody]

It changed the data very insignificantly. In fact, prior to 2001, the report had said that 1934 was marginally warmer than 1998.

I have a lot more faith in Hansen and the consensus of science behind him that I do with Carter.

Faith and science don't mix. Hansen used false data. That's a fact. If you can dispute Carter's data and conclusions based on historical evidence please do so.

As far as 'changed the data very insignificantly,' I'd disagree. With the correction "six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere." Also, seven of the hottest 15 years occurred over seven decades. Five before ww2. Four of the hottest years were in the 30s versus 3 in the 90s.

All the hysteria was based upon this is climate change we haven't seen in the last 150 years. Unfortunately, even with such a narrow focus, this doesn't appear to be unprecedented. Viewing a broader view of historical data, the case for an unprecedented climate pattern is non-existent. Unless you believe God put that data there like the dinosaurs to test our faith.

[jdobbin]

Faith and science don't mix. Hansen used false data. That's a fact. If you can dispute Carter's data and conclusions based on historical evidence please do so.

As far as 'changed the data very insignificantly,' I'd disagree. With the correction "six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere." Also, seven of the hottest 15 years occurred over seven decades. Five before ww2. Four of the hottest years were in the 30s versus 3 in the 90s.

All the hysteria was based upon this is climate change we haven't seen in the last 150 years. Unfortunately, even with such a narrow focus, this doesn't appear to be unprecedented. Viewing a broader view of historical data, the case for an unprecedented climate pattern is non-existent. Unless you believe God put that data there like the dinosaurs to test our faith.

I have a lot more confidence in Hansen's data than you despite the correction.

I have already posted a link that disputes all four sections of Carter's lecture.

[Keepitsimple]

An interesting column in the National Post today about Harper's Uganda/Kyoto mission. Read the whole thing - it's quite humerous.

Link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...ed-world-0.aspx

With that in mind, it’s worth looking at what happened in Uganda, from the safety of having been nowhere near the place.

Most of the 53 members are a lot more like St. Kitts and Nevis than they are like Canada: tiny little island countries, bobbing around out in the ocean, with little to protect them if alarmist predictions are correct and water levels start rising. There’s Tuvalu and Nauru, two miniature nations in the middle of the Pacific, whose entire population could pretty much be crammed on a commuter train heading into Calgary or Montreal or Toronto. There’s Vanuatu, a relative giant with 200,000 people, St. Lucia, the Solomons and Malta, the Seychelles, the Maldives, Barbados and Dominica ... and Fiji, when it isn’t getting kicked out for staging military coups. The list goes on.

Add to these the usual complement of struggling African countries -- Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Botswana and Cameroon, to name a few -- and and few Asian states like Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia -- and you have the overwhelming majority of the 53 Commonwealth members.

None of them are in any danger of having to meet the restrictions they were eager to impose on the handful of countries that qualify as “developed.” Either they are too tiny and lacking major industries to produce much in the way of emissions, or, as “developing” countries, they get a bye. This is the way large multnatinal gatherings often work. At the UN, dozens of countries that have no indigenous people were mad keen to sign a recent pact demanding ambitious new rights for indigeneous peoples.

So what about the countries that would have had to comply with the Commonwealth pact? Only a handful would have been seriously affected -- mainly Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Of these, only Britain backed the wording of the deal, though admittedly Australia might have as well if it hadn’t been caught in the middle of ousting its government.

Two other significant countries were also holdouts. According to one report, South Africa, the most developed African country in the gathering, refused to sign on. And India, by far the biggest polluter in the bunch, would have nothing to do with anything even hinting at obligatory restraint.

It’s not going to happen, and Harper seems to be one of the few crotchety enough, to say so. The rest -- including the usual pack of professional critics in Ottawa -- would be more than happy to stack one more ineffective agreement on the heap.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[noahbody]

I have a lot more confidence in Hansen's data than you despite the correction.

I have already posted a link that disputes all four sections of Carter's lecture.

So in one post you try to attack Bob Carter's credentials, then you provide a link to a rebuttal by someone who goes by themaiden. That's funny.

Themaiden seems to want to frame the debate around the validity of computer models.

He fails to address the point that the climate pattern we are now seeing is not unprecedented. A spike in global temperature is nothing new. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions and taking a better safe than sorry approach. But do it responsibly. Saying we need drastic cuts by 2012 or it will be deadly and spending trillions on what could very well be an imagined problem is idiotic.

If you want to believe in the 2012 or deadly mantra, then you realize without India, China and the US, the world is doomed. And the only one will to stand up and save mankind is Stephen Harper. More than likely the 2012 has more to do with "they're on to us, we'd better get their money while we can."

Edited November 27, 2007 by noahbody

[jdobbin]

So in one post you try to attack Bob Carter's credentials, then you provide a link to a rebuttal by someone who goes by themaiden. That's funny.

Themaiden seems to want to frame the debate around the validity of computer models.

He fails to address the point that the climate pattern we are now seeing is not unprecedented. A spike in global temperature is nothing new. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions and taking a better safe than sorry approach. But do it responsibly. Saying we need drastic cuts by 2012 or it will be deadly and spending trillions on what could very well be an imagined problem is idiotic.

If you want to believe in the 2012 or deadly mantra, then you realize without India, China and the US, the world is doomed. And the only one will to stand up and save mankind is Stephen Harper. More than likely the 2012 has more to do with "they're on to us, we'd better get their money while we can."

Many in this thread and many of the right wing doesn't even go as far as you in saying emissions should be reduced. They ant the issue killed outright.

Harper is only trying to make sure that nothing will be done on the issue while making out that he is being the diplomat in getting things done. I doubt he will put much effort into getting it done.

You take Bob Carter pretty seriously but almost no one in the sciences in Australia or New Zealand does. As the Australian media has pointed out, they believe he is a paid flack and the money paid by Exxon to his organization confirms it. Every major scientific academy in the industrialized world believes in global warming. The majority of the scientists believe it is greenhouse gases.

Most of the scientists don't even respond to to Carter because he is considered such a minor figure in the whole denial group.

Hells Maiden is about the only one who was prepared to slap Carter down. Most scientists don't even think of him as a climate scientist.

There are many links on Carter. I like this one:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/min...3722560417.html

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.

Carter also says this:

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. 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 don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

Peer review is not important? What?

He is making claims. Publish them in peer reviewed papers is what I say.

I'm sorry. I don't take Carter seriously.

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

So in one post you try to attack Bob Carter's credentials, then you provide a link to a rebuttal by someone who goes by themaiden. That's funny.

Themaiden seems to want to frame the debate around the validity of computer models.

He fails to address the point that the climate pattern we are now seeing is not unprecedented. A spike in global temperature is nothing new. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions and taking a better safe than sorry approach. But do it responsibly. Saying we need drastic cuts by 2012 or it will be deadly and spending trillions on what could very well be an imagined problem is idiotic.

If you want to believe in the 2012 or deadly mantra, then you realize without India, China and the US, the world is doomed. And the only one will to stand up and save mankind is Stephen Harper. More than likely the 2012 has more to do with "they're on to us, we'd better get their money while we can."

Excellent post, since the globe stopped warming in 1998 and is probably entering a normal cooling trend, the kool aid drinkers of the Climate Change crowd will only get more shrill.

[Riverwind]

Peer review is not important? What?

He is making claims. Publish them in peer reviewed papers is what I say.

Here is a good article that explodes a number of myths regarding peer review and scientific consensus: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963

Many writers who are not scientists themselves are trading on the prestige of science and the authority of scientists. Reference to “peer-reviewed research” and to an alleged “scientific consensus” are regarded as veritable knock-out blows by many commentators. Yet many of those who make such references appear to me to be more or less ignorant of how science as a form of knowledge-seeking and scientists as individual professionals operate

...

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be.

...

Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases―until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off.

...

When your research implies a “need” for drastic government action to avert a looming disaster or to allay some dire existing problem, government bureaucrats and legislators (can you say “earmarks”?) are more likely to approve it.

The last point is most significant: there is no money to be made pushing theories that GW is *not* a result of human activity. Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Here is a good article that explodes a number of myths regarding peer review and scientific consensus: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963

Canada does not block it - England blocks it - Harper repesents the crown. Get with it kids.

[jdobbin]

Here is a good article that explodes a number of myths regarding peer review and scientific consensus:

The last point is most significant: there is no money to be made pushing theories that GW is *not* a result of human activity.

The Independence Institute makes money from taking that view. It receives money from Philip Morris and Exxon for its libertarian views.

The author of the article receives money from the Earnhart Foundation to promote the view that peer review is not important.

The Earnhart Foundation is a conservative think tank.

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

The Independence Institute makes money from taking that view. It receives money from Philip Morris and Exxon for its libertarian views.

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

[Riverwind]

The Independence Institute makes money from taking that view. It receives money from Philip Morris and Exxon for its libertarian views.

Points raised in the article are still valid - the peer review process is fair from perfect and that the mechanisms used to access government funding encourage scientists to produce certain kinds of results. In other words, no scientist dependent on government funding has any business dismissing the work of another because it was funded by private interests with a certain POV. Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Points raised in the article are still valid - the peer review process is fair from perfect and that the mechanisms used to access government funded introduce a bias into the results

And the point I am making that the Institute and the man responsible for the article take money from conservative think tanks and anti-global warming companies is valid as well. Their views are often coloured by what they are opposed to.

I find it rather astounding that peer review is being disputed when the author himself had to defend his thesis and other academic articles using the peer review method. However, when it comes to global warming, he finds the method lacking.

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

And the point I am making that the Institute and the man responsible for the article take money from conservative think tanks and anti-global warming companies is valid as well. Their views are often coloured by what they are opposed to.

Just like the views of government funded scientists are coloured by what conclusions will get them more funding.

BTW: here are Carters published papers: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm

Here is one published paper that presents many of the facts that he used in his talks:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/Carter&...-Science-04.pdf

I also suspect the quote regarding him dismissing peer review is taken out of context.

I pisses me off about this entire debate is that not one critic of Carter has even tried to address the fundamental question he raise: why do so many people claim that the current episode of GW more significant that in the past when the empirical data does not support such a conclusion?

I would be more than willing to consider any scientific argument that explains the inconsistency. Unfortunately, the climate change zealots seem to feel that character assassination is an acceptable substitute for scientific debate.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Just like the views of government funded scientists are coloured by what conclusions will get them more funding.

BTW: here are Carters published papers: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm

Here is one published paper that presents many of the facts that he used in his talks:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/Carter&...-Science-04.pdf

I also suspect the quote regarding him dismissing peer review is taken out of context.

I pisses me off about this entire debate is that not one critic of Carter has even tried to address the fundamental question he raise: why do so many people claim that the current episode of GW more significant that in the past when the empirical data does not support such a conclusion?

Carter responded in an economics paper to the Stern Report but has no peer reviewed work on the other claims he makes. His other paper doesn't dismiss the present scientific view on global warming.

I don't see how it could be quoted out of context since the full response of the committee is on the record in regards to peer review. He then repeated the whole thing to the Sydney Morning Herald.

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.

As far as character assassination goes, Carter does pretty well on that himself.

Carter's statistics are pretty much blown up here.

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

Edited November 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Carter responded in an economics paper to the Stern Report but has no peer reviewed work on the other claims he makes. His other paper doesn't dismiss the present scientific view on global warming.

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

Carter is just not taken seriously on the subject.

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

This one points out that C02 levels were much higher in the past.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/c...nge2/07_1.shtml

While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time

So why exactly are rising C02 levels such a concern now? Because they are higher than they were 10000 years ago? That is not a compelling argument in itself. Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

--

Edited November 28, 2007 by Riverwind