Monday, July 23, 2007


First, the latest study proving man-made global warming is set to be released:
Humans are directly affecting global rainfall patterns and have been doing so for most of a century, according to a new study that gives the first solid proof that people are causing critical climate change.

Researchers from Environment Canada say their analysis of global data shows rainfall has effectively shifted away from the region immediately north of the equator — including sub-Saharan Africa, southern India and south east Asia — and moved north to Canada and Europe, and south to the tropics below the equator.

And the main cause behind the global change is human activity, say lead authors Xuebin Zhang and Francis Zwiers, from Environment Canada.

“It's the first time that we've detected in precipitation data a clear imprint of human influence on the climate system,” Mr. Zwiers told The Globe and Mail.

The paper is to be published by Nature on Thursday

One more piece of evidence, that proves what most of us have already accepted. What I find intriguing, the comment section to this Globe And Mail piece. Please go visit the horror show, at the bottom of the article, it is both amusing and disturbing all at once. I don't understand the almost religious resistence to science.


Anonymous said...

Looking at the article, neither accepting or disapproving of it, I think the article, and only the article, is flawed as it does not even give any evidence connecting human activity with the sudden changes in rain fall. I was pleased at the headline but let down by it's complete lack of support.

This article by itself is circular.

Headline: Climate change is proved to be caused by humans

Article: Climate change has been proved to be caused by Humans.

The question is Where is the proof and what is it? Is it merely going over 1925 to present records and extrapolating it's from humans? Even that poor "scientific" method wasn't implied by the reporter.

I'm not criticizing the report, but I am the article. And in referencing this article as proof positive of humans causing climate change I think you erred as this article gives no support other then circular reasoning akin to the very religious reasoning used by those you cited.

I'm not saying either side is wrong or right, but being critical makes everyone the wiser; I suggest others on the web take heed also. -Liberal Outsider

Jay said...

Well, we now have their names. Maybe in 10 years we can sue all these people.

The comments are rife with nothing but pure ignorance and I think I have pinpointed the problem. They cannot connect the dots. They read an article about how it effects rainfall but then use the fact it doesn't mention another parameter mentioned in another article so it must all be false. They are unable to recall previous info, process it with new info to arrive at an educated opinion. A study on rainfall is not going to be adressing algal bloom data from the Mediterranean. Separate issues of a single problem sharing only the cause.

Not sure if it is lack of intelligence or laziness. Maybe as a society when averaged out we are dumb and dealing with the ozone layer was the limits to our collective intelligence and we are too dumb to deal with anything more complicated.


Anonymous said...

It's amazing that an article that says nothing can get published so easily - that must be because the editor simply believes it says the 'right' thing. Trashy.

The Mound of Sound said...

I think it's pointless to critique the article. It's merely a news story not an attempt to present the supporting data. There's not a lot of revelation in the study anyway. It does, however, verify what has long been predicted and accepted. We're creating climate change and those poor buggers who aren't are paying the price.

Steve V said...

"I think the article, and only the article, is flawed"

It's not the study, it's an article about the study, with some quotes from the authors. I doubt Nature would publish it, unless it was sound.


Yes, because the G and M editorial team is so sympathetic to global warming. Obviously, you need to pay attention.


Agreed. Scary.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

I'm by no means a "skeptic". Climate Change is real and made worse by humans (and I only avoid "caused by" because, obviously the climate would change over time if we weren't here but clearly the recent rapid change is our fault, and a BIG problem). Nevertheless, anonymous (4:42) has a good point.

While I'm sure the article in Nature goes into detail, and lays out a case for humans being responsible for this change in percipitation, the Globe article doesn't at all. It basically just says precipitation patterns have changed in a time period when humans existed. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain how the authors proved that human activity CAUSED the change. I'm sure the authors do, but the Globe article certainly doesn't. The closest it comes is to say that the changes in the precipitation match up (and even exceed) a number of climate models, but that doesn't actually PROVE anything. I could develop a model that predicts that the water in a pot on my stove is going to boil off by 10:00 pm this evening because the sun is going to explode at 9:52. But if the water on my stove boils off by 9:00, the fact that the real-world change exceeded the predictions of my model doesn't "prove" that the sun exploded early. Maybe the burner's on.

Again, this is not meant at all as an attack on the research (which I, and I'd imagine a VAST majority of commenters haven't read), but rather how this news article plays up it's significance, and then utterly fails to actually lay it out for us. This is a big problem, because people who deny that climate change is a problem don't usually get past the newspaper article. ESPECIALLY when a newspaper article makes grand claims and then completely fails to substantiate them. People looking for "junk science" will find "junk science" even where there's legitimate science, especially if it's presented as sloppily as this Globe article does.

Steve V said...


I didn't really put this post up to debate the article, we can talk about the details when it is released. It was more from reading the comments of the kneejerk denial crowd, that is just plain hostile.

Karen said...

Here's a reasonable conclusion from the comments section:

These socialist 'scientists' were paid off by Al Gore and David Suzuki. This show what can happen when you have too much book-learnin' and know too many fancy-schmancy 'words'.

I don't really understand the resistance either Steve, except to say that they seem to break out into two groups.

Group one doesn't want to take any responsibility and denying gives you the ability to sit back and do nothing. Group two, may be impacted financially and don't want to take the hit.

That's obviously simplistic, but over all it seems to break out that way.

When reading blogs they seem to abound, but in truth I think their numbers are pretty small.

Steve V said...


The reaction is akin to attacking a religion. I've never seen such a concerted attempt to paint any global warming supporter as a partisan hack. Objectivity is the victim, it all gets lost in the noise. It's a depressing debate.

Anonymous said...

I spent about a week in Bermuda with a passel of folks who had a livid rage on about the *corrupt criminality* of those bastards David Suzuki & Al Gore...

can't tell you which hurt more, listening to that bullshit or the jellyfish stings...

gotta tell you though, getting the hell off that island was a relief.

My question to anybody who debates Climate Change or Global Warming...

...what you wanna GAMBLE on the outcomes? sure, its not like living clean has a significant DOWNSIDE, is it?

its not like YOU'll be around to reap the rewards of ignoring how *unrealistic* mankind's activities & expectations have been with industrialization.

if anybody doubts Global Warming... ask if them if they feel feel modern society doesn't put a dramatic strain on ecosystems.

think not? well, don't breed, it just gives the rest of us more people to help while we shovel the crap you leave behind for everyone.

Its not like we haven't known about pollution & the risks of industrialization for some time now...

Gotta wonder if the 'skeptics' ever learned to wipe their butts either.

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
"We, two, form a multitude" ~ Ovid
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

Steve V said...

"can't tell you which hurt more, listening to that bullshit or the jellyfish stings."

LOL. Even if you deny global warming, you can't escape poor air quality. Given the substantial common ground the two share, it makes the hostility that much more ridiculous. What is the downside to clean livin, as you say?

Anonymous said...

'Solutions' to global warming have nothing to do with clean living - pollution control would contribute to clean living.

Steve V said...


What are you talking about? If you eliminated air pollution, it would have a measurable effect on GHG's. Coal, cars, etc. It's not rocket science.