Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Canuck E Stan]

Finally - a balanced view on Kyoto. ....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

Keepitsimple,

It's against the rules to cross post the same item.

same post on other thread.

NO CROSS-POSTING

Cross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning.

I suggest you look at the rules for this forum to familiarize yourself with them.

rules

[B. Max]

Here below is a very good link of this happening right and it details the US Davis report of 2006 , and how it definitively states we humans are causing climate change. There is also the link to the UN report which details the same thing in a Harper thread.

As this article points out. If the science is so solid and humans are causing global warming. Drag it out.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,...STEYN04.article

Here is a wiki link on the Stern report that has also been discussed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

The stern report was a bunch of nonsense.

[Catchme]

Well, now we have it, both the Liberals and the CPC have failed Canadians regarding our Kyoto targets and and our GHG emissions.

[Canuck E Stan]

Well, now we have it, both the Liberals and the CPC have failed Canadians regarding our Kyoto targets and and our GHG emissions.

And the magic answer comes from whom? The NDP? the Greens? or the Commies?

And what is their magic solution,other than a lot of words.

[August1991]

Yet another thread on Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, Kyoto......

True but I thought we needed a thread that questioned the whole theory of climate change.

Hey August, I see you're still digging up the old tactics once used to denigrate the anti-Iraq War/WMD activists. It's the same method used by the Creationists (who evolved into the Intelligence Designers). Get on with it. Some of your points have long been disputed.

Have you heard the latest news? Harper and Bush have both accepted the science that global warming is a fact attributable to human activity. Get on the band-wagon. You know, you people have always religiously backed Harper and Bush even when they were wrong and shown to be wrong.

I frankly don't care what Harper or Bush think about this. And I don't need to be convinced of the potential danger humans pose to the planet's environment.

I object however to being stampeded into a set belief. To use your WMD example, someone should sit back and ask a few questions.

I particularly object to the comparison of a Holocaust Denial with a Global Warming Denial or Creationism.

In the case of global warming, I sense that there is room still for legitimate debate and enquiry. If the evidence is solid, let's see it.

From Steyn's article above:

From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.

"The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."

And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."

Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.

Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.

...

The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':

''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who is rich and who is poor."

There's a Leftist slant to this debate which is unworthy of true scientific enquiry. I sense some of the global warming proponents have a Khmer Rouge desire to take us back to the stone age - in an effort to save the planet.

[Catchme]

Yet another thread on Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, Kyoto......

True but I thought we needed a thread that questioned the whole theory of climate change.

There's a Leftist slant to this debate which is unworthy of true scientific enquiry.

There has been direct new scientific links posted, that have no political slant. I suppose you chose Stern's report because you apparently think it does. But dismissing it because of a perception that there is a "leftist" slant making it unworthy of true scientific debate is questionable. As science has NO political bias. Moreover, the right in this circumstance, and others, does NOT believe in science so no proof would be available for the right anyway.

But hey, feel free to dismiss away ... it does not stop the fact, humans are negatively impacting the environment in a very negative and destructive way.

[White Doors]

If it was left up to the right, of today, we would now have DDT ridden aquifers and drinking water supples, acid lakes everywhere, and NO pollutions controls whatsoever.

This is just simply NOT TRUE. Mulruney was voted the greenest PM in Canada. What party does he belong to? If the left can't get past this blind ideological clap-trap then they are only doing themselves a disservice if man made global warming is ever verified to be true.

Unreal stupidity.

[scribblet]

Thankfully the LIBerals did pleanty.

Because with Alberta refusing to do anything,in fact Alberta was the single biggest contributor to greenhouse gases raising emissions 50%

If not for strong action by the LIBerals can you imagine how bad off Canada would be now.

Just saw an interesting poll.Asked if you would change your lifestyle to help with global warming,35% said no.

Right wing thinking people make up aprox 35% of Canadians.

Like I said,why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much?

Toto - I'm not in Kansas anymore !

Dion (former environment minister)likes to portrays himself as a great champion of the environment, yet exactly what did he achieve - zip is what. What did Ignatieff, say during the debate oh right - “We just didn’t do it.”

The Grits had 13 years to do something but did nothing but talk, while greenhouse gas emissions rose 27% on their watch, from 1990 levels -far cry from their promise of lowering emissions by 10%. Wonder why they hate the environment so much.

[August1991]

As soon, as those who try to discredit that it is happening are proven wrong, that it is happening, they wait until that thread is off of todays topis and start another one. They start it as if they were not proven wrong already.

Catchme, you don't seem to understand the questions that I'm raising here. This has little to do with any particular report or whether Harper or Bush believe it.

I am simply taking the position of devil's advocate and questioning whether global warming is proven. So few people are doing this and doubt is at the heart of scientific enquiry. Excuse the partisan dig, but there is a political correctness to this issue that smells of Leftism.

The New York Times article quoting the latest IPCC report opens with this paragraph:

In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

It helpfully then explains what "very likely" means:

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was “likely,” or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to “very likely,” better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.

Why confuse matters with "unequivocal" on one hand and a nine-in-ten chance on the other? Are we to believe that the earth's temperature is definitely rising but there is a one-in-ten chance that there is some other unknown cause?

What is one to make of this? This is not proper science enquiry but rather PR science or political-agenda science. Moreover, nowhere in the Times article is there any mention of a dissenting opinion or a contrarian viewpoint.

My own layman reading of this is that we simply don't know enough about the planet's atmosphere and the complex interplay between the sun, various emissions and how the earth itself sequesters certain gases. We don't know how the earth arrives at an equilibrium temperature.

The upshot is that before we embark on costly programmes to limit GHG emissions, we need to have a much better understanding of what we're doing.

[jdobbin]

I am simply taking the position of devil's advocate and questioning whether global warming is proven. So few people are doing this and doubt is at the heart of scientific enquiry. Excuse the partisan dig, but there is a political correctness to this issue that smells of Leftism.

Did you do a search on any of the noted scientists that you quoted in your first post?

The right wing often go back to these same scientists (some who aren't scientists) all the time. In the case of Doctor Lindzen, Harper's magazine early on pointed out that he's a shill for the oil, gas and coal companies. They pay him thousands of dollars per skeptical article and speech.

Several rebuttals have been made to Dr. Lindzen's posts. Maybe you should go read them.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...point-by-point/

I have no problem with scientists raising points about the climate based on solid work but where is Lindzen's academic work on this subject in recent years?

If the right wing believes all of this is a hoax then fund actual research by actual scientists and don't try to politically interfere in their work. If there is a flaw in the science, let thorough research reveal that flaw.

[Black Dog]

Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

[B. Max]

Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

I guess they'll have to wait a few months or maybe never to analyze the science behind the report. If they indeed ever release it. The report is nothing but fraud and another political document.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...9a-94da29b65178

[Black Dog]

I guess they'll have to wait a few months or maybe never to analyze the science behind the report.

And yet:

The report is nothing but fraud and another political document.

[August1991]

Oh, c'mon BD.

The AEI funds all kinds of research (as does ExxonMobil). The Guardian finds that, uh, wrong?

The Guradian no doubt added the incriminating phrase "emphasizing the shortcomings". In any case, I would hope someone somewhere is applying doubt to this report. Because judging by the attitude of the IPCC's chairman, there isn't alot of self-questioning going on within the IPCC.

To liken another scientist to Hitler merely because he legitimately has another viewpoint - one that the IPCC report readily assumes possible - is just not professional.

[scribblet]

It is not about who funded reports, but whether or not the reports are factual. The more I read the more I believe that there is a lot of alarmist hysteria; even if we stopped emissions completely it won't stop climate change.

I was listening to an interview with a Danish person http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg6/English in the car. Al Gore refused to debate with him while in Denmark, which is typical of Al Gore, he doesn't like to debate the issue. One of the points he made was that Kyoto would not give us the best bang for our buck...

"Gore shows that glaciers have receded for 50 years. But he doesn’t acknowledge they have been shrinking since the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800’s – long before industrial CO2 emissions. Likewise, he considers Antarctica the canary in the coalmine, but again doesn’t tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming, while ignoring the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The UN climate panel estimates that Antarctica’s snow mass will actually increase during this century. And, whereas Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, he fails to mention that ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing." http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=4191300/

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/...global-warming/

If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

[Who's Doing What?]

"Gore shows that glaciers have receded for 50 years. But he doesn’t acknowledge they have been shrinking since the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800’s – long before industrial CO2 emissions.

Right...the industrial revolution. That was just a time when every home and business in the world was heated by coal or wood. No polution there right?

[B. Max]

It is not about who funded reports, but whether or not the reports are factual. The more I read the more I believe that there is a lot of alarmist hysteria; even if we stopped emissions completely it won't stop climate change.

"Gore shows that glaciers have receded for 50 years. But he doesn’t acknowledge they have been shrinking since the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800’s – long before industrial CO2 emissions. Likewise, he considers Antarctica the canary in the coalmine, but again doesn’t tell the full story.

Gore doesn't tell you a lot of things. Like the fact that glaciers have also been growing around the world.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

[Black Dog]

August1991

Anyone who disputes the evidence is now called a "denier" - not like Peter - but rather like those who deny the Holocaust. Is this a reasonable way to conduct a scientific debate?

It is not the fact that they are denying climate change, but how they do it. The trotting out of faux-experts, the selectivitity, the conspiracy allegations that are part of the anti-climate change brigades bag-o-tricks are also hallmarks of Holocaust denialists, Creationists etc. Were they not using the same playbook as so many other cranks, the comparisons would not be so inviting. By all means, let there be a debate among peers, but let's keep the Exxon-funded essayists out of it (and yeah: there's a reason why bought and paid for pamphleteers are not to be trusted. As a self-proclaimed fan of the scientific method, wI would think the problems would be obvious to you.)

[JerrySeinfeld]

August1991

Anyone who disputes the evidence is now called a "denier" - not like Peter - but rather like those who deny the Holocaust. Is this a reasonable way to conduct a scientific debate?

It is not the fact that they are denying climate change, but how they do it. The trotting out of faux-experts, the selectivitity, the conspiracy allegations that are part of the anti-climate change brigades bag-o-tricks are also hallmarks of Holocaust denialists, Creationists etc. Were they not using the same playbook as so many other cranks, the comparisons would not be so inviting. By all means, let there be a debate among peers, but let's keep the Exxon-funded essayists out of it (and yeah: there's a reason why bought and paid for pamphleteers are not to be trusted. As a self-proclaimed fan of the scientific method, wI would think the problems would be obvious to you.)

You make it sound like people who question the "direct-human-cause" theorists aren't scientific when in fact questionning and falsifiability are core tenets of the scientific method.

Furthermore you only tell one side of the "bias" story.

To suggest that the conclusions of scientists is influenced by the source and reasons behing the funding of research corrupts conclusinos on both sides of the argument, making your "point" a wash.

[Black Dog]

You make it sound like people who question the "direct-human-cause" theorists aren't scientific when in fact questionning and falsifiability are core tenets of the scientific method.

Nothing wrong with scientific questioning and testing global warming hypothesis. It's the decidedly unscientific approaches taken by people like Lomborg and Milloy that earn my scorn. Hello? Peer review?

To suggest that the conclusions of scientists is influenced by the source and reasons behing the funding of research corrupts conclusinos on both sides of the argument, making your "point" a wash.

I don't think there's many scientists who stand to make $10,000 an article for supporting global warming theories. The right wing conspiracy theory which states people like Greenpeace have as much or mor emoney to throw around as EXXON is perposterous.

[madmax]

If it was left up to the right, of today, we would now have DDT ridden aquifers and drinking water supples, acid lakes everywhere, and NO pollutions controls whatsoever.

Different governments react differently to issues at hand.

Mike Harris fits the mold above.

Brian Mulroney Spoke up on Canadas behalf and position to fight acid Rain.

Liberal Governments can be just as aloof to the environment. And ofcourse the Federal Provincial split, and what makes the economy roll are all factors in the governments response to the environment.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nothing wrong with scientific questioning and testing global warming hypothesis.

I'm glad you agree.

I don't think there's many scientists who stand to make $10,000 an article for supporting global warming theories. The right wing conspiracy theory which states people like Greenpeace have as much or mor emoney to throw around as EXXON is perposterous.

My guess is that billions more have been spent and contributed to scientists who perpetuate the THEORY that humans cause global warming, than to those who question the absoluteness of the conclusions and suggest a more prudent approach to both our assessment and tackling of an potential challenges.

For example in Canada alone, according to the environment commissioner, the Federal Government has spent roughly $6 Billion on various climate change papers, reports, etc. That's alot of incentive on the "human-cause" side.

Now let's measure dicks. Where is your $6 Billion (in Canada Alone) that has been spent on the "anti-human-cause-side"???

It seems pretty obvious which side is really raking in the cash.

[madmax]

Now, we see more provinces on board and higher awareness of the issue in the public.

I realise the Provinces would be a hard sell, and even with the Public Awareness, the Provinces will address the bread and butter issues first. I see Ontario and Alberta resisting the issue. Particularly with Ontario sinking into the abyss... Jobs will soon move Environment out of the picture Provincially.

If the Conservatives come out strong on this, they will take away an issue for the NDP and the Liberals as well as the Greens.

The way the Environment rushed to #1 and with all parties jumping on the "me too" wagon, the Green Party has lost alot of media exposure as the other 3 rush to the Cameras with the latest photo of a polar bear.

I fully expect the CPC to do just as you suggest with the effects you predict.

The NDP will try to take credit for the policy if it makes it through but most people forget about the guy who walked the bride down the aisle.

Yup. But it will be done. Usually the NDP gets something through in a Minority Parliment, and then are wiped out. But it gets done and for those whom the issue is a concern, which appears to be alot of people polled today, it is only the result that matters.

Imagine if the CPC drops the ball on this? They will lose any momentum they believe they have.

[Catchme]

Actually madmax I was actually being partisian meaning left as in Liberals, I do not believe the Liberals did anything that was required in a concrete way, but they did do minor things. Things that the CA, or now the CPC, would not have done at all. So I will give the Liberaals a small amount of credit of the CPC but not much. I was actually speaking about the true environmentalists.

And how is what Mulroney did working out these days?

[madmax]

I do not think that is the problem at all. I believe there are people who take advantage of environmental issues as a vehicle for wealth redistribution. Kyoto is a perfect example.

I know where you are coming from.

Unfortunately there are about 6 Global Warming, Kyoto, Kyoto II, Climate Change, and other threads going on it is difficult not to cross over discusions.

One part is understanding or accepting the science.

Certain Capital Markets want the cash of Kyoto to aid their investment in clean tech, in the cheaper 3rd world, such as China.