"Urgency needed"
Politicians react to stark warning on dangers of climate change
Canada needs to do more to prepare for the effects of climate change, government and opposition say
Here's the kicker, below the "full story" link on the front page are the following related stories:
"Canada's top 20 climate change power list"
"The Post's Deniers series on climate change"
"The green fervour"
Follow the logic, first a story outlining the grave climate change situation, followed by the never ending National Post series, which gives audience to every crackpot on the globe who rails against global warming. As an added bonus, an editorial that tries to frame environmentalism as some kooked out religious cult. Unbelievable. Why bother?
Next up, John Baird reacting to today's climate change predictions:
"The IPCC has presented further scientific evidence on the challenges Canada and the world is facing and will continue to face with climate change," said Baird, who wasn't available for further comment.
"But this government hasn't waited to act."
The government has acted, yet Baird says:
said Ottawa will announce targets for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases and air pollution in the coming weeks.
We've acted, but we will be acting in the "coming weeks". We haven't waited, but just wait a little longer. That sounds logical.
20 comments:
Better the "crackpots" that rail against 'global warming' than the nut bars that perpetrate the nonsense of man made global warming. If the IPCC told me the time of day I would check my watch.
AGW = JS (junk science)
They do walk among us Steve...yikes!
Apparently today, there were some scientists that walked out (though came back I believe) and I cannot wait to hear the BT's, claim that is a reason to dispute the science. The problem is, most of them came from the "big" polluting countries and couldn't agree to the words in the report, as they were implicated.
I think Baird is the best cartoon character ever. I do not know how you can keep a straight face and spew what he does. Honestly, I'm incapable of getting that.
Just when I was ready to go all guilty about being a human being causing the earth to burn up:
Edmonton Journal
April 6/07
Mars warming much faster than Earth
PARIS - Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of windswept dust and changes in reflected heat from the sun, according to a study released Wednesday...'
Now just what is a lowly human being supposed to do about that damn ''windswept dust and changes in reflected heat from the sun''?
wilson
See above.
wilson, before you get too excited, the two have nothing, NOTHING, to do with each other.
The study of Mars and it's warming is NOT related to Earth, nor are the independant causes even in the same scientific realm.
Gawd, I cannot believe I even have to write that and frankly, I didn't think anyone would be so foolish to actually try to correlate the two.
Obviously, I forgot about wilson, etal.
knb
The funniest part, or pathetic, was when Baird went to the G8, pontificating about how Canada wanted to move discussion beyond Kyoto, something more substantive. Canada was going to lead, it was almost like he believed it, the propaganda so convincing. I think we all know why Harper chose Baird, he can spew it with not only a straight face, but the added righteous tone.
And the Mars reference is relevant, because it make me wonder what planet some people are on.
Steve V said...
"And the Mars reference is relevant, because it make me wonder what planet some people are on."
Maybe it could mean that there are other factors besides human beings that are having a greater impact on global warming than we are led to believe.
"Maybe it could mean that there are other factors besides human beings that are having a greater impact on global warming than we are led to believe."
Or maybe we could believe what 99% of the experts are telling us, in no uncertain terms.
Steve better check your stats. 99% of the experts you refer to is closer to 25%. There are only 605 scientists in the 2500 "experts" the IPCC flaunt. Further few if any of the 605 are quoted as experts in their own field of expertise. An expert in earth worms does equal an expert climatologist when speaking on the climate. Most expert climatologists reject AGW independant of which nation they reside.
joe
You should be embarrassed using the word "stats", considering your position.
This is my last comment here, because frankly the discussion has moved beyond the stubborn stragglers. Believe what you want, your obviously determined to anyways, evidence be damned. How's the sand?
anon...the two phenomenons are not even remotely related. I don't mean to be rude, but do you people even read?
Geesh, Steve, I wondered if this would come out of the woodwork when the Mars study was released, but I thought no, no one could be that stupid. Silly me.
knb
"Most expert climatologists reject AGW independant of which nation they reside."
How can you respond to that?
THEY ARE NONBELIEVERS ..OF SCIENCE ...
pretend to act and hope they don't really have To do it in any substantial ways.
I was thinking about how divided and unsure and unpredictable the people are now about what to expect from governments..
Maybe Mother Nature will give us some lessons ..
I also thought about Do Canada have a FEMA type national emergency and Disaster response program ???
maybe we should cancel those stupid fighter jet orders and transfer the money for shopping for rescue helicopters and...other .necessary supply??? I am sure we will need it sooner then we want it…
we are entering a different phase regarding this climate change
marta from Vancouver
Steve, I'm dumbfounded, so in answer to your question, I guess we don't.
Marta, yes, I think we have our priorities all wrong.
Scenario, "disaster". Baird runs to O'Connor and ask's for help. Reply: "We're looking into to that and when the negotiations are finished, we'll be able to tender the findings and whatever comes from that will be transparent to all of Canada, then....."
We're dead.
You know, that said, there is something about O'Connor that makes me think he is a good guy...just not the right guy in that position. Veteran Affairs maybe, I don't know, but you want experience coupled with forward thinking, in my view.
Uh Steve even the guy from NASA that started the AGW hype has now rejected it. If you think my mind is closed you are mistaken. I have very carefully weighed the evidence and eliminated the hype and logically reached my conclusions. For too many years now the "scientists" have been given a free ride. A number of years ago "scientists" who wanted to fund a manned expedition to Mars 'found' a rock on Antartica and concluded it was from Mars. How many rocks have fallen off Earth? How does a rock fall off any planet? How can anyone tell which direction the rock came from? You didn't see it fall to earth, the earth is spinning, the rock could have come from any direction. In fact the only hard evidence we have is that the "scientists" wanted to fund their pet projects. The GW debate has much more to do with politics than hard science. In fact the climate projections are based on computer models that can't predict past events. The data from the 1960's were used as inputs and they failed to predict the climate of the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's etc etc etc. Take any data available and input it into the "models" and compare its projections with known results and you will find that there is no correlation. One other question how do you know my motives? You psychic perhaps? ROTFL
A guy named after a volleyball and a guy named for a cheap pair of pants show up on your blog as deniers of synthetic climatic destabilaization.
What kind o' joint you runnin' here?
Joe said:
"Uh Steve even the guy from NASA that started the AGW hype has now rejected it."
Uh Joe, which guy are you talking about? Normally when you make a statement like that you would mention a name. I would mainly associate "the guy from NASA who started the AGW hype" as James Hansen. Far from rejecting it, he has become more and more vocal and concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
"In fact the climate projections are based on computer models that can't predict past events."
Well I guess you are right, computer models can't predict past events like say, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, but they can project past temperature trends using the same information as they use to for future temperature projections. We have already seen how accurate their future temperature projections are for instance with the eruption of Pinatubo. They used their computer models to project the effect that massive eruption would have on future temperature and found that they were remarkably accurate. In the 15 years since that projection their computer models have been fine tuned by adding additional forcing factors and additional understanding of climate change. But yes Joe they still can't predict an "event."
"Most expert climatologists reject AGW independant of which nation they reside."
Really? Please tell me more. I know of no poll of climatologists which shows a high number rejecting AGW.
In fact the only "major" scientific organization that I know of which rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Not specific to climatologists, but here is a list of some prominent scientific associations which are concerned about human induced climate change:
*In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
*In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitely acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
*In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community.
*The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
*On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).
*American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
*American Geophysical Union, also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics: "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."
*Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London: "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."
*Geological Society of America: "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."
*Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC). This statement noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate. Excerpt:
"The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction... Whatever policies are promulgated with respect to energy, it is imperative that policy makers recognize that climate, its variability and change has a broad impact on society. The policy responses too should also be broad...Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change."
OK, I showed you mine, you show me yours.
Steve said:
"Follow the logic, first a story outlining the grave climate change situation,"
Well I guess they have to show they are "fair and balanced"
"followed by the never ending National Post series, which gives audience to every crackpot on the globe who rails against global warming."
Even then they couldn't find enough crackpots so they had to twist some scientists words and work to make them appear like crackpots. Dr. Sami Solanki being the perfect example of an excellent scientist who showed that the natural factors like changes in the Sun's intensity level could NOT be a factor in the current warming trend, and the reporter changed his words around to make it appear that he was saying the exact opposite of what he really was.
"As an added bonus, an editorial that tries to frame environmentalism as some kooked out religious cult. Unbelievable. Why bother?"
Well of course there is some truth to this. Many environmentalists don't actually know the science of global warming. They are just intelligent enough to recognize that the scientific consensus is overwhelming and that 6.5 billion people living as wastefully as we do is bound to affect the planet and of course they go outside and can see the changes over time. But they are, in many cases, accepting that climate science is caused by humans by faith I guess. I would prefer it if many more of them would actually do the research. It is not that hard to understand. That would reduce the number of wild statements I have heard many "believers" make that skeptics pounce on. Of course it no where near the absolute stupidity I routinely hear skeptics repeat time after time.
wayward son
Thank-you!
dana
I forgot to close the barn door ;)
Post a Comment