Welcome to NB Tory Lady's Comments
Because he's a professional reporter with The New York Times. And he links to scientific web sites that are run by climate scientists who help explain the post.
It's just that simple.
The world's climate fluctuates naturally, heating and cooling. No one debates that.
But it's now heating up at a rate that is faster, and humanity's pollution is the reason.
Richard:
Slow down a bit and think about what you're saying lad!
"Can't accept that evidence. You have to link to something other than a blog..."
Then you cite the following:
"Here's a better analysis:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.co...climate-report/
How can you discount a blog with unedited satellite photos, and then quote a blog yourself?? You completely neglected to mention the same comparison photos from the University of Illinois Daily Arctic Sea Ice maps (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/
print.sh?fm=07&fd=16&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=16&sy=2008 )
Lastly, how is it "irrelevant" that the fossils found in Antarctica (livescience link) show that it was 17 degrees warmer at that same latitude centuries ago? If we are still here after a 17 degree warming, that kind of pokes a hole in the "catastrophic warming" theory of a 2-6 degrees rise - doesn't it?
And I came back to post this link, about a wind farm off the Norwegian coast. Think it would work here?
http://www.statkraft.com/pub/win...les/
Windsea.asp
Phil...
Can't accept that evidence. You have to link to something other than a blog. The Live Science link is interesting, but not relevant.
It's true, scientists aren't expecting the arctic sea ice to disappear this year, or even reach last year's... And you some how find that comforting?
Here's a better analysis:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.co...climate-report/
Mark my words, in eight years, we will see oil companies in light as cigarette manufacturers.
It seems there are some questions about the whole Arctic/Antarctic sea ice melt as well:
Arctic Sea ice not melting so fast (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/
satellite-imagery-shows-artic-ice-still-unmelted/ )
Comparison of Arctic sea ice: 2007 - 2008 (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/
print.sh?fm=07&fd=16&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=16&sy=2008 )
Livescience reports on fossils from warmer Antarctica (a long time ago) (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080722-
antarctic-warmer.html )
"Antarctic ice (which is about 20 times as voluminous as the Arctic kind) has grown by 1% per decade,
Also, after last summer’s record melt in the Arctic, this summer’s melt in Antarctica was the smallest on record."
I guess my point is that we need the whole story to understand the scope of the problem. As stated before, if the facts are only presented selectively, that constitutes propaganda.
Phil...
I'm not a huge fan of the Green Shift because it doesn't go far enough or fast enough...
But the criticisms of it largely have no merit. I am hoping that Dion will come around, and suggest that the revenue from a carbon tax will be used to fund renewable energy projects and a green tech infrastructure (like wind and wave turbines!)
But even without that investment, the carbon tax will do exactly what Dion says it will. Companies won't be frightened by $10 a ton, but as it goes up, companies will invest incredible sums in changing their ways. It will lead to billions of investment into energy efficiency and renewable energy, as companies will prefer to give their money to anyone but the government. And they'll be amazed when the new efficient systems pay for themselves in 3 or 4 years... Most companies that make this investment see the advantages so quickly that they start getting greener, just because it makes business sense.
A carbon tax is also the fairest and least-bureaucratic way to cut emissions. It works better than a cap-and-trade policy, and will have few bureaucratic headaches. But I'll take a cap-and-trade any day over our current greenhouse gas policies.
The countries that have introduced carbon taxes have easily met their Kyoto targets, and they have thriving economies. I can provide many examples. Remember your point about Danish turbines. That, my friend, is the carbon tax in action... Denmark had an economy based on coal and natural resources in the 1990s, and they've been transformed as a renewable energy hub for Europe. Right now, they're building the electrical infrastructure to charge electric cars cheaply, will more than 100,000 charging points. And they build the world's most successful electric car, at a company called Th!nk Global.
I know all this stuff because that's my job, it's what I do every day. Read environmental stories with strong business angles.
So... if we have a carbon tax... We would need to protect the poorest people, and the middle class would need to tighten our belts, but we'd do it because we love our children.
And in a few years, with the investment that would come from a carbon tax, we'd have wind and wave energy so vast that we could start exporting to 60,000,000 Americans; we'd have railways that run through the most populated cities and towns across Canada, so we could leave our cars at home; we'd have electric vehicle recharging stations in every city, so we wouldn't have to buy gasoline; and we'd have huge new industries. (For instance, there is a company, run by a former Formula 1 engineer (and yes, a rocket scientist, too) that can travel hundreds of miles on compressed air... I shit you not).
The potential is inspiring. But we're missing out!
I noticed in a news report a few days ago that a group scientists went to the northern arctic to count the polar bears. They didn't get there because surprise, the ice had not melted.
Maybe its because there have been no, zero, nil, sun spots for the last 2 years. The last time this happened we had minny ice age. What will Al Gore do now?
Richard, welcome back to the discussion.
You're right that more needs to be done, but my point was we have started. Part of the problem is the bureaucratic nightmare that we have here in Canada. Millions of dollars of federal money are transferred to the provinces where they sit in trust funds for years before R&D clients can get ahold of them. I think its great what Texas is doing, but be careful before you compare our resources to the US. California for example has a population greater than our entire country. They have a whole lot more money to throw around.
One of the things I found odd about the T&T article I cited is that the turbines came from Denmark! Why aren't we building these things here and making better ones?
I appreciate your honesty about the Green Shift. Since only 6% of their proposed tax revenue goes to anything remotely environmental, it is misrepresentation to call it a GREEN plan. If they had proposed a new tax that would go to R&D for sustainable energy, at least that would have been honest. As it is there are no emissions targets at all in the plan - how can they sell that as green?
One final thought: I have long wondered why we don't look at the "internet" model of electricity generation and distribution. Instead on a few big GHG spewing plants, why not have thousands of small micro-generating stations that contribute to the grid? In broad terms the principle is diversity of resources and supply (just like the packets on the internet). It may not be practical for industrial energy users, but most homes don't take that much to power (relatively speaking).
I'm at work, so here's one link about cute, cuddly penguins:
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/...?
uNewsID=119060
And another with photos:
http://
www.worldviewofglobalwarm...antarctica.html
I can also point you to a recent study that measures sea level... it's risen by 2.5 inches in the last 40 years, and several Pacific islands need to be evacuated.
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/ne...R-08-06-
07.html
Richard--when you say things like...actually Antarctica is shrinking...could you show us a link or something to back this up? I note that you type a lot of claims but I do not see "back up" to any of this. I am wondering why. If it is just an opinion..then that is all that is needed... I'm just sayin....just observing...correct me if I have erred
As phil pointed out there is nothing more convincing that taking us to the hole and showing us that it is actually a hole. (just an example lol)
Oh... I also meant to apologize for swearing... for saying carbon tax! Just to clarify, I'm not backing the Green Shift... I like carbon taxes, but I don't think the money should go back to everyone, except low-income earners. The money should be used to support green industries, and help companies lessen their carbon footprint... and then the market will drive innovation and reduce our emissions.
But you should know that carbon taxes do work, dozens of countries have proved that, and carbon taxes don't have to destroy the economy.
Our reliance on foreign oil can destroy our economy, though. This I believe.
Phil... You're right, work is being done locally, but not on the scale that it is being done elsewhere. You're talking millions; I'm talking billions!
For instance, Nova Scotia alone could generate enough wind energy to power all of Atlantic Canada and most of the North Eastern US. Imagine if wind power farms were to spread throughout all FOUR Atlantic Province. We would become the Saudi Arabia of wind power.
But even if we start right now, we'd have to wait... The waiting list for new wind turbines is 3 years long. China, everyone's whipping boy when it comes to global warming, will be building more wind farms in the next 12 years than currently exist in the world.
Just this week, Texas announced plans to spend $5 Billion to build the infrastructure (just the infrastructure) to carry the energy from its wind farms to the big cities.
That's the scale I'm talking about.
Wind power is very close to being the same price as electrical energy (that isn't generated by coal). But that's because companies don't have to pay for pollution. If they have to pay $20 or $40 for every ton of carbon they emit, then wind power becomes economical, and we'd have an opportunity to build all those wind farms in Atlantic Canada.
One more note for Richard: You mentioned that "I see every day how billions of dollars are going build wind farms and green tech plants and electric cars, and virtually nothing is being spent in Canada - or Atlantic Canada. We won't be able to compete in this new economy. And we should be leading the world."
Please note (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/
article/362788 )
where the Times & Transcript reports: "Once the [current Moncton wind] project is online, it is expected to generate 280,000 megawatt hours of power per year, approximately enough electricity to meet the needs of 17,300 homes.
...Other wind farms are slated to be constructed in Aulac, Lameque, Caribou Mountain and Bathurst over the next couple of years."
As you said, there is little downside to increasing our renewable energy supply. Unfortunately the cost of wind energy cannot yet compete other sources of generation, but progress is being made.
If I can answer anything else, let me know and I'll try. For instance, our gracious host in her post about propaganda mentions that Antarctica is expanding... What's happening is that Antarctica is shrinking, and huge chunks of ice are breaking off the continent, and floating around Antarctica... so the continent is getting smaller, but the extent of the ice is getting larger.
Does that make sense?
(My last post was cut off... it continues here)... I didn't know that we were going to be talking about Lord Monkton today when I left the comment yesterday mentioning the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), a supposed nonprofit that runs articles and "scientific papers" debating climate change. They are funded by Exxon, which has granted $16 million to various groups to do just this thing... Confuse the hell out of people, and make them think that some climate scientists are still on the fence, or publishing papers that show that the climate change science is flawed. They're super effective, and they've repaid Exxon's investment handsomely (in record profits).
Lord Monkton is the Chief Policy Advisor at the SPPI! He takes money from oil companies to muddy the global warming debate!
And here's the other thing, and the reason why I am venturing forth, taking the time to write these notes. Recent studies are all suggesting that the IPCC was right about the general trend, but wrong about the specifics. The pessimistic view they have of the coming decades and climate change didn't go far enough... It's now expected to be much worse, and that's scared the bejesus out of everyone.
Phil...
Thanks for your gracious comment; I'll do my best to explain. I have science degree, so I have some understanding of the scientific method, but I'm not an expert, just someone who tries to explain science to others.
Lord Monkton, in fact, isn't a scientist either, although he has been involved in the IPCC on behalf on Great Britain, so he has a basic understanding of their methods and conclusions. He even has a Nobel Laureate pin as, you know, from having worked with the IPCC.
So he's not an expert, but he is knowledgeable (perhaps in the same way that I am, reading hundreds of climate change stories and studies every week). My understanding of his calculations is that in the very beginning of his analysis, he changes one figure to suit his own purposes (substituting a value of 2.16 for the IPCC number of 1.9). Now, that doesn't sound like much, but as it's a crucial figure, as it gets used on several occasions, and each time it causes the gap between his figures and the IPCC figures to widen.
Now here's the key part that has put him at odds with the APS. What's changed about global warming is that new scientific studies and measurements in the last three to four years are finally confirming the computer models that you mentioned earlier. (If our models are showing X, we should see warming at Y). And Monkton totally dismisses these new results, and divides a relevant IPCC number by three for no reason that makes sense to any climate scientist. There is some debate about what this number should be, but Monkton can't explain to anyone why he chose that number. It appears that he chose it just to make his analysis work. It a nutshell, it torpedoes his analysis, and he's lost all credibility.
And that's why the APS ran the red flag. Now this is where it gets just a little bit amusing (just in terms of a Peer thinking his article has been peer-reviewed). When the editors at the publication decided to run two articles on climate change, they felt that they were honor bound to run Lord Monkton's paper, even if it was wrong. So they did. But they couldn't do so unchallenged.
In science, a peer-reviewed article gets passed around to several experts who spend some time with it, make comments and counter-arguments, so there is a great deal of back-and-forth. Monkton's article was only edited by an editor — who does hold a PhD - but he was just working as an editor in this instance. He suggested some clarifications and corrections, but didn't try to otherwise influence the article's direction. Had he passed it to five or six colleagues, and they made extensive notes, then it would have been peer reviewed. I actually find it surprising that Monkton doesn't understand this.
Now for me, here's the fun part. And Hoarfrost, I hope you're following this, too. I didn't know that we were going to be talking about Lord Monkton today when I left the comment yesterday mentioning the Science and Public Policy Institute
Hi, seems the problem I had yesterday is solved.
Tried first thing this am and it seems to be ok.
NBTL knows what I mean.
By the way Richard, Lord Monckton was quite appropriately miffed that his submission to the APS was flagged when in fact IT HAD been extensively peer reviewed. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?
q=Y2IyMDE3NDMzYzgxMGM1ODMxNzU2N2U2ZjM0NjQyMWU=)
We await the APS's justification for sullying his good name after soliciting his input. It seems strangely suspect that he dared to be true to science instead of reinforcing the party line. A new age of enlightenment may be just around the corner if we can keep the IPCC and AlGore from burning the heretics.
Richard, please don't leave so soon - I was hoping to actually get some answers.
Unfortunately every time I ask something that contradicts the current "man is killing the planet with greedy development" theory, I get the same response. "Who are you and who are your scientists to question my scientists?"
You asked for a peer reviewed scientist who questions the current theory of what is CAUSING global warming, and off the top of my head I offer you Lord Monckton (http://mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=333)
No reasonable person that I know is denying that the climate has changed. Most people agree that there has been a recent warming. The question is, what has caused this warming and can it really all be laid at the feet of mankind?
Considering the fact that the most catastrophic predictions are based on incredibly intricate computer models, every factor should be justified by sound science. If there are a million variables in the equation and 30 of them are off, what happens to the outcome?
As I said before, if a 5th grader asks why 83% of temperature rise comes from adjustments to the formula as opposed to actual recorded measurements - that deserves an answer. Surely an IPCC, peer-reviewed scientist can answer a simple question like that...(http://mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=339)
Personally, I'm all for the NDP'ers and the Greens. They have a great environmental conscience, but that character trait should not become con-science. If it's really as bad as it sounds, you should be able to explain it even to a dummy like me.
To Richard
No they don't all agree. That is just it.
I'm actually not uncomfortable here... But I ventured onto a few Conservative blogs lately (Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the US), and I've been told in no uncertain terms not to return.
But I like Red Tories, and I like Conservatives like Lord Stern* and Angela Merkel who understand that cost of NOT fighting climate change will be astronomical in 10 years, and affordable if we start today.
*Former Chief Economist, World Bank, now UK climate change activist
Awww Richard it was just getting interesting...I am sorry you will not return.. I am sure none of us meant to offend...it is a very touchy subject....
--all are welcome here and we have to take the good with the not so good...it's part of life... I admit I am very happy being a conservative and this is a conservative blog....and I know you are not comfortable on a conservative blog...just as I would not be on an NDP or Liberal one.
Let me apologize, too, for offering criticism on your own blog about such a provocative subject.
I do have strong opinions but I'm not, by nature, confrontational. I write for an environmental publication that goes to business execs, and I see every day how billions of dollars are going build wind farms and green tech plants and electric cars, and virtually nothing is being spent in Canada - or Atlantic Canada. We won't be able to compete in this new economy. And we should be leading the world.
I'm also passionate about global warming because I want to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. If I'm wrong, we have renewable, clean energy, and energy independence, and it costs us one or two percent of our GDP. (Google: Lord Nicholas Stern). If you're wrong, whole countries will disappear, there will be more wars, and billions more will live in poverty.
I won't be back to debate further. Feel free to delete my comments.
All I suggested was the truth. Dr. Evans does work for Microsoft, and he does write computer software. And yes, Dr. Evans has worked for the Australian government, but he isn't a climate change expert, and has never published a single paper in a scientific journal on climate change.
Truth to tell, all you really have to do to shut me up is find a respected scientist who can publish his or her work in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal and who will proclaim that greenhouse gases can rise above 450 parts per million without that affecting the climate? Just one.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Climate change is a scientific certainty.
That some people are confused about climate change proves that citizen journalism has gone awry; the Internet is littered with slick web sites with official-sounding names like the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) and Friends of Science that have duped millions of amateur writers into believing global warming is a fraud. At these sites you will find "climate scientists" who spout all manner of opinion that muddies the evidence to support global warming. But if you did deeper, you’ll find that SPPI and their ilk are sponsored by companies like Exxon that have borrowed from the tobacco industry’s moral guidebook. Their experts aren’t climate experts; they either pocket oil industry money, or they can't publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Richard, this is so typical to "attack the messenger" without answering the questions.
Frankly, I don't care if the question comes from a D average grade school student. If there is a legitimate flaw in the logic, or a selective presentation of data that skews the outcome - that demands an answer. Why can't people deal with the facts and go on? This debate is too important to reduce it to a personality contest. Answer the questions that make people doubt and you will win them over. Avoid the questions by attacking those asking them and you look like you have a hidden agenda. All we're asking for is a little honest debate so we're not victims of propaganda like some of the past "science scares" that turned out to be bogus.
My dear Readers..I added a few links about Dr. Richard Evans so you can make up your own minds about his credibility. I see that reader Richard took wide lease with his interpretations. Ahhh well. All opinions welcome.
Richard where is your proof that they all agree??Its the MSM that agree because they print these assertions.Its the same with polls,nanos always tells it the way he thinks,not the way it actually is.Questions are dishonest and who makes them up??Libs?MSM?Anyway i read that there are more real scientists,climatoligists that disagree with the GORE scam artist and they are being heard more and more.And anyone over 6 can remember summer,winter,spring and fall.Its called the 4 seasons and thats why we get changing temperatures.If people dont know that then get off the drugs.
I know, NB Tory Lady, that we'll never agree.
But so your readers will understand, David Evans is not a climate scientist, or even a professional scientist. He's not even a rocket scientist, as the article suggests. He's a computer programmer who once worked for the Australian government and now works for Microsoft.
He has never published a single scientific article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal on the subject of climate change. So I guess he's like Suzuki and Gore in that regard. The difference is that all the climate scientists who do publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals agree with Suzuki and Gore/
Commenting by HaloScan
