• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!

Can you show me?

This week King David and his foundation started freeking out about the cut flower trade.

Seems 6000 Canadians a year are poisoned by pesticide - and this just has to be the source.

Hey Dr S. - Let's ban all imports from the developing world and see what happens!
 
google is your friend too.

It is in the annual reports of his society . . .

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

After Suzuki insinuates that scientists who disagree with him are "shilling" for big corporations, Oakley asks him where he gets his funding. Suzuki replies that his foundation takes no money from governments and complains that “corporations have not been interested in funding us." (To hear the audio clip click here.)

Corporations uninterested? Is it possible that the Great Suzuki has failed to attract a single corporate donation to his feel-good campaign to save the earth? Not one?

Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants... which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?

If I were less generous I might be tempted to accuse Suzuki of hypocrisy for accepting donations from corporations that he must believe contribute significantly to the production of greenhouse gases, but that would miss the point entirely. The real issue is that, contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations.

 
Haletown said:
and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!


a good summary of the implications of this news . . 

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/


Steve McIntyre  is a great Canadian. . . exposing the scientific errors and fraud done by the Faith Based Scientists "proving"  AGW  - but refusing to releaase their data, their methods or their funding sources. 

Just "trust us"  . . .  we wouldn't lie to you.

I think you meant to post this permalink: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
 
Strike said:
  There's also a big issue in ON right now about certain subdivisions that do not allow clothes lines because they are considered unseemly. 

One of my biggest WTF's .  All the new subdivions in Guelph make the purchasers sign a 20 year no clothesline pact.  Just friggin' unbelievable.

I love my clothesline.........
 
A fun civic action campaign: start a petition in your city to ensure all houses have clotheslines in order to fight "global warming".

Then watch who comes out to oppose your campaign and the reasons they give for banning clotheslines..........
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
Note to Suzuki, Gore, et.al.: global warming is calculation error, not a 'fact' http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878 ...  the new results here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
(and that's using data collection techniques that we already know are fatally flawed, eg: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1850#more-1850 )

Took them a while, but CTV National News picked up on this last night (buried at the end of the newscast, after the space shuttle stuff, but at least it's there) ... from the home page http://www.ctv.ca/ click on Lloyd Robertson's face (CTV News video: left side, about half-way down), the video player pops up and you can skip straight to the story by clicking on "NASA blunder 3:23" (make sure you are on August 15, 2007 newscast, they seem to hold about 5 days in the player).

I'm not holding by breath for the CBC, New York Times and the rest to pick up on this any time soon ...
 
One potential refinement for IC engines is to revive an idea from the 1920's and 30's: opposed piston engines.

The idea is to create a two stroke diesel engine with two pistons facing each other in the same cylinder. Intake and exhaust ports are covered and uncovered by the movement of the pistons and a very efficient uniflow scavenging effect is created. The engine also dispenses with cylinder heads, valves, spark plugs or glow plugs. The down side is you either need two crank shafts or some long connecting rods and rocker arms to connect one set of pistons to the crankshaft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposed_piston_engine

Despite these potential pitfalls, a very fuel efficient Junkers Jumo engine was deployed in the 1930's, the US Navy exclusively uses this type of diesel engine in submarines (yes, even nuclear submarines have diesel engines stashed aboard for emergency generation and power), and forms of this engine were used in trucks, British tanks (the Chieftain), diesel locomotives and even a triangular form of the engine (Napier "Deltic") in patrol boats where three sets of cylinders shared three crank cases, churning out a total of 3000+ hp, and an experimental version with a turbo compounding system capturing exhaust energy and feeding it back to the final drive reputedly achieved almost 6000 hp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_engine

Some companies are trying to revive this system with engines optimised for light aircraft (see the DAIR 100, for example http://www.dair.co.uk/

The questions are:
1. Can modern production technology ensure these kinds of engines have comprable reliability to conventional engines?

2. Is the increase in fuel efficiency cost effective given the increased costs of the engine?

3. Are manufacturers willing to make changes to the form factors of their product lines (i.e. car engine bays) to fit this type of engine?
 
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Daily Tech Article link

Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Thanks RecceGuy!

Next time someone says something like "what about all the scientists?"
I'll have this for them.........
 
and then again, we have the infamous "2500 leading scientists" that the IPCC and all the Warmongers hyperventilate about . . .  2500 names, but only 605 individuals.  No fraud there, just an "oversight"  I'd guess.  Kinda like the NASA climate data that is bogus.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005909.html


Y2Kyoto: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Unscrew All Your Lightbulbs?

Reader "ural" picked up on something in the comments;

    "I just stuck the list [of contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report] into a spreadsheet to see who the 2500+ consensus scientists were ... See what happens when I sort the names... We're down to 605 consensus scientists"


Indeed. It's an exaggeration that's been previous noted. Roger Pielke Sr.;

    The media is in error when it states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)

    Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

    [...]

    This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.

    The use of the term “lead authors” is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.


The list still includes the name of leading hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, who publicly withdrew in 2005, citing IPPC misrepresentation of the research ;

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.


So, ural, that should be 604.
Posted by Kate at April 4, 2007 6:32 AM
 
I was greatly impresseed by the following Margaret Wente G&M column "Climate change a 'questionable truth" January 27, 2007.
This column stands out for me as a reasonable rational middle ground on this issue.

http://tinyurl.com/yoyt9g

The last few paras of the article:

Mark Jaccard is a professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, and also the author of an award-winning book called Sustainable Fossil Fuels. It's not a zippy read like The Weather Makers, but it's way more important, and Prof. Jaccard is in big demand these days among people wrestling with climate policy.

He argues that the best way to cut down on emissions is to clean up fossil fuels — which, like it or not, will still be our main source of energy for the next few decades. Cleaning up fossil fuels is far more feasible than, say, imagining we can replace them any time soon with wind or solar or biomass or hydrogen.

How to clean up fossil fuels? Tell the energy industry that it must capture a growing amount of the carbon it emits, by scrubbing it out or dumping it back into the ground. Set the targets and let the industry figure out how to meet them. Start gradually and ramp up. Small changes starting now will reap huge benefits down the road — not in time for the next hurricane season, but in generations to come.

This is not as sexy as putting solar panels on your roof or riding your bike to work. But it's actually a better solution to the problem. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing this already, by imposing carbon-reduction targets on the automakers. “They're market-oriented regulations,” Prof. Jaccard says. “What he says is, ‘You guys figure out how to get it done.' ”

By the way, Prof. Jaccard and other climate economists agree we should have started taking this type of action years ago, and they blast both business and governments for not getting off the dime.

Other experts have different (but not incompatible) takes. “We need to break out the challenges of energy policy and adaptation into many tens of thousands of parts,” Roger Pielke Jr. says. Despite the many uncertainties, we don't need to wait to act, if only because many of the things we should do are worth doing on their own. For example, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world — through substitution, conservation and new technologies — is a no-brainer.

But what about the alarmists? The ones who argue that the only way to save the planet is to stop driving, stop flying and stop consuming? Prof. Jaccard (who told me that he himself tries to live with a “small material footprint”) says: “Environmental activists are using climate change to wrap around their message about how they want humans to behave differently.”

In other words, it's not just carbon emissions they object to. It's our whole materialist, growth-oriented, SUV-driving way of life. For this reason, he argues that people like Tim Flannery are actually dangerous. “He gives people the impression that putting solar panels on your roof is actually a solution to the problem. And it's not.”

Here's another thought from Yale's Robert Mendelsohn. “The mistake Al Gore and others are making is to look at the cumulative effects of all the emissions over the next 100 years if we do nothing. And they say that will be really bad. And they may well be right. But the economics of this is that the damage from emissions now is quite small. So what we ought to be doing now is relatively mild things that don't cost very much. You should start slow and get increasingly strict over time.”

Mark Jaccard agrees. In fact, he argues that if we start to do the right things now, we will scarcely notice because adjustment will be gradual. The important thing is to get started. Now.

So what can a worried citizen do? “Lobby the politicians to put policies in place immediately that put a value on the environment,” he says. “Drive your car to Ottawa if you have to. The most important thing is to get policies in place that are intelligent.” And go ahead and ride your bike to work. At the very least, it will be good for your health.

As for Al Gore, here's one prediction you can bank on: Even though much of what he says is dubious or just plain wrong, he's going to win that Oscar anyway.

Margaret Wente is a columnist for The Globe and Mail.






 
Heres something of interest to those who think global warming isn't having any ill effects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362/

Most polar bears could die out by 2050

WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — and the entire population gone from Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.

Only in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland are any of the world's 16,000 polar bears expected to survive through the end of the century, said the U.S. Geological Survey, which is the scientific arm of the Interior Department.

USGS projects that polar bears during the next half-century will disappear along the north coasts of Alaska and Russia and lose 42 percent of the Arctic range they need to live in during summer in the Polar Basin when they hunt and breed. A polar bear's life usually lasts about 30 years.

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century," the report says.

Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, which is their primary food. They rarely catch seals on land or in open water. Because the general decline of Arctic sea ice appears to be underestimated, scientists said their forecast of how much polar bear populations will shrink also may be on the low side.

"There is a definite link between changes in the sea ice and the welfare of polar bears," said USGS scientist Steven Amstrup, the lead author of the new studies. "As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear."

Amstrup said 84 percent of the scientific variables affecting the polar bear's fate was tied to changes in sea ice.

As of this week, the extent of Arctic sea ice had fallen to 4.75 million square miles — or 250,000 square miles below the previous record low of 5.05 million square miles in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No hope for quick change
Scientists do not hold out much hope that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases blamed for heating the atmosphere like a greenhouse can be turned around in time to help the polar bears anytime soon.

Polar bears have walked the planet for at least 40,000 years.

"In spite of any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we are going to see the same amount of energy in the system for at least 20, 30, 40 years," Mark Myers, the USGS director, said.

Greenland and Norway have the most polar bears, while a quarter of them live mainly in Alaska and travel to Canada and Russia. The agency says their range will shrink to no longer include Alaska and other southern regions.

The findings of U.S. and Canadian scientists are based on six months of new studies, during which the health of three polar bear groups and their dependency on Arctic sea ice were examined using "new and traditional models," Myers said.

USGS issued nine separate reports on polar bears Friday. Those included projections for one group of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea and two in Canada that are among 19 distinct subpopulations.

They were made public to help guide Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's decision expected in January on his agency's proposal to add the polar bear to the government's endangered species list.

USGS declined to provide precise estimates of polar bear populations 50 years from now.

Numbers estimated at 20,000-25,000
A separate organization, the World Conservation Union, based in Gland, Switzerland, has estimated the polar bear population in the Arctic now is about 20,000 to 25,000, put at risk by melting sea ice, pollution, hunting, development and tourism.

Last December, Kempthorne proposed designating polar bears as a "threatened" species deserving of federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, because of melting Arctic sea ice from global warming. That category is second to "endangered" on the government's list of species believed most likely to become extinct.

That action is in response to a lawsuit in 2005 by three environmental groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace — to force such a proposal from Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species.

"This grim news about polar bears and sea ice decline is horrifying, but it is a call to action, not despair," said Kassie Siegel of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity. "The good news is that there is still time to save polar bears. Our hope lies in a rapid response, including both deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions and a full-court press on other greenhouse pollutants such as methane."

The fate of polar bears has struck a public nerve. Fish and Wildlife officials have received 600,000 public comments so far on the proposed listing, spokesman Chris Tollefson said.

On Friday, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., urged the Bush administration to grant polar bears federal protection.

"This is becoming a tragic metaphor for the administration's voluntary approach to global warming," said Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "Instead of meeting the challenge, the Bush administration is happy to float along, waiting to see if the planet, and polar bears, will sink or swim."

Another member of the committee, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the loss of some of the magnificent creatures on earth may be the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" needed to prod both Congress and the Bush administration into action on climate change.
 
Are the seals abandoning the planet in spaceships or something? Polar bears hunt on iceflows because that's where seals hang out, if the seals start hanging out someplace else the polar bears will go looking for them. In fact I see the opposite effect to disappearing iceflows - seals will be easier to catch all year making the polar bear population increase. When the Vinkings gave Greenland it's name because it was green it's a good bet the iceflows were also much reduced and both the polar bears and seals didn't go extinct.
 
I think the gist of this thread has been cause v. effect.

Not so much about "if" the climate is changing but why.
If one were to read back through, It's pretty clear
that change occuring and that it has been conceded.

Is man causing the problem? Is it a problem?
Or is change the only constant?

I, for one think we need to focus back on good old fashioned
pollution. Not just here, but in Asia where pollution is growing
faster than the economies are that are producing it.

Along with the E.coli loaded toys and Lead covered food. ;D

 
as of June 2007, Canadian researchers have a different opinion.

http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/polarbears/Canada%20Presentation.pdf

"Impacts of climate warming are evident in two Canadian subpopulations, and declines in body condition have been documented in a third"

That's  two of 13 subpopulations and Canada has 15,000 polar bears  - 66% of the world's total.

Sounds like the American researchers are "crying wolf" to keep their bear research funding flowing . . . . 


 
I have a problem with this article.  How is it that recent studies have documented the Polar Bear population on the rise, not the decline?  Could all of these predictions be more of an indicator that without natural predators or hunters, the polar bear population is in fact the problem?  Too many bears; too few means to feed them.  This is probably also the cause for all the reported incidents of polar bears entering human habitations more frequently.  Perhaps the real problem is that these animals are on a "Protected Species" list and have overpopulated their habitate, thus being subjected to starvation.
 
"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result ...

Of course if those projections are wrong, or their effects are not exactly what we expect, we could also be overrun by a massive over-population of polar bears.

This is exactly my problem with the global cooling global warming climate change believers: repeating (or exaggerating) supposed consequences does not prove the underlying assumptions in any way (and for my part, it actually makes me more wary of the motives of those who repeat them).
 
Heres a good article on what the Inuit elders have to say about polar bear populations.

http://josephbutson.com/JosephButson/nfblog/?p=104

Inuit Elders:Too Many Polar Bears
I listened to NPR a couple of days back and a very upset Howard Ruby, photographer and billionaire, bemoaned the effect Climate Change will have on the polar bear population.

Fast forward to a piece at cbc.ca where the Inuit elders are very concerned about the Nunuavut Environment Minister and Canadian Wildlife Services attempts to conserve a so-called declining polar bear population and are proposing moratorium on hunting.

The Inuit prize the polar bear as a valuable resource and deem it necessary for their survival. From the elders:

“But Johnny Karetak, an Inuit elder from southern Nunavut, told the hearing panel that Inuit don’t agree the bear population is decreasing, and he doesn’t want to see anyone get killed because there are more bears than people may think.

Many elders at the meeting gave examples of frightening encounters with the bears — encounters they say are happening more often.

Other elders voiced concern that the wildlife board is only considering scientific information such as the Canadian Wildlife Service’s data, and overlooking Inuit traditional knowledge.”

So who should we believe? And why are the scientists and government at odds with the natives who know the polar bear best?

Update: 5/7/07 SDA is reporting on the polar bear overpopulation too; picked up from Captain Capitalism!
 
Y2Kyoto: Is That A 90-Horse Johnson Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?
check out the chart.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005307.html

or how to use "Peer Review" to fool the fools. 
 
Back
Top