Canadian MP joins skeptics

February 24th, 2010 by John Draper

Many people who should know better often say “I know there’s global warming because the arctic ice and glaciers are melting”  Apart from the fact that this may have been true up to 10 years ago but not now, there is also the major problem that few are  arguing that point.  The issue is “is it man-made?”  And that has not been proved.  Another similar issue is “Is it caused by the increase in CO2 ?” Neither of these have been proved despite the fact that many have said that it’s settled.  The science has not been settled.

Maxime Bernier

Maxime Bernier

Canada has been going along with the apparent world consensus, but now one Canadian politician has come out and been the first Canadian to declare that the “Emperor has no clothes”! Conservative MP Maxime Bernier from Quebec says the issue has been taken over by alarmism – and he applauds the Harper government for taking a go-slow approach.

“The debate over climate change, stifled for years by political correctness, has finally broken out in the media,” Bernier wrote in a letter published in Montreal’s La Presse today. “The numerous recent revelations on errors by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have supplemented the alternative theories put forward for many years.

“We can now see that it’s possible to be a ’skeptic,’ or in any case to keep an open mind, on just about all the main aspects of warming theory.”

“It would certainly be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and impose exaggeratedly severe regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we’re still far from discerning,” Bernier wrote.

“The alarmism that has often characterized this issue is no longer valid. Canada is right to be prudent.”

He wrote that the planet obviously experienced warming over the last hundred years, but has stopped warming over the last decade even as carbon emissions skyrocketed. He said other factors, like the sun, could be responsible for changes in temperature, and he noted that at least one German researcher – Mojib Latif – even predicts the world could get cooler before it experiences a warming phase. Bernier says that if climate scientists can’t even agree on what will happen over the next decade, how could anyone trust their predictions about what will happen a century from now.

Rene Laprise, director of the Universite du Quebec a Montreal’s centre for climate studies and simulation heaped scorn on Bernier accusing him of being not scientific.  That’s exactly the attitude that got all the alarmists in trouble in the first place. When debating, one of the worst arguments to use is to quote authority without their actual reasoning or facts.  And that’s what’s been done for the last 10 years or so.  Sorry, it no longer works.

The Science is NOT settled

February 17th, 2010 by John Draper

Professor Phil Jones was  head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of east Anglia before Climategate.  He was in charge when all the numbers were put together that were used by IPCC  but he stood down pending an investigation.   CRU is one of the three sources of data for IPCC so comments by Jones are critical to the credibility of the IPCC.  In an interview on the BBC recently, Professor Jones said that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.  To be specific, the “trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”  In the same interview, he also conceded that the Middle Ages may have been warmer than now and went further by admitting that the science of climate change is far from settled  “There is still much that needs to be understood to reduce uncertainties”.

If the world knew all this in 1995, there would never have been a Kyoto accord, Al Gore would not have produced his slanted “Inconvenient Truth”, there would not have been a Copenhagen summit, there would not have been any proposals to implement Carbon trading – in short, we could have devoted all that energy to more useful things.

But the political momentum is hard to slow down – it takes politicians a long time to learn and an equally long time to unlearn.

IPCC Scientist calls for Pachauri to resign

January 28th, 2010 by John Draper

A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.  Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, was interviewed by Canwest News Service and said that the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.

“There’s been some dangerous crossing of that line,”  he said on January 26, 2010.  “Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates,” he told Canwest News Service. “I think that is a very legitimate question.”

Dr. Weaver also says the IPCC has become too large and unwieldy. He says its periodic reports, such as the 3,000 page, 2007 report that won the Nobel Prize, are eating up valuable academic resources and driving scientists to produce work on tight, artificial deadlines, at the expense of other, longer-term inquiries that are equally important to understanding climate change. “The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own,” says Dr. Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports.  “I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift.”

Dr. Weaver says Dr. Pachauri, the panel’s chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with.

He still believes in Global warming and being an “insider”, his comments are significant.  Terence Corcoran of the National Post comments on this report with:

That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble. He’s getting out while the getting’s good, and blaming the IPCC’s upper echelon for the looming crisis.

In the language typical of an IPCC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by Climategate and Glaciergate strongly suggest this is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate-change political machine is going to come crashing down.

See Corcoran’s comments here and news story here.

IPCC quote on glacier melting was false

January 20th, 2010 by John Draper

In the IPCC report of 2007, it was said that the glaciers in the Himalayas would be all melted by 2035.  Yet it has now been revealed that this was never true.  The Indian Government is now saying that there is no sign of any abnormal retreat and that the IPCC is alarmist.  The path of the story is long and convoluted but the IPCC never checked its accuracy, it was never peer reviewed and the original author even said it was speculation.  Further, the scientist who uncovered the error is Canadian Professor Graham Cogley of Trent University who is an IPCC author and not what would be called a skeptic.  Another IPCC scientist had pointed out this error in 2006.  Austrian Glaciologist Georg Kaiser notified his IPCC colleagues of the “huge” Himalayan mistake: “This number is not just a little bit wrong, it is as wrong as can be wrong….  It’s so wrong that it is not even worth discussing”.  But of course his comments were ignored.

The IPCC is of course denying that the mistake is significant – what else would they say?

Here we have another example of falsified data.  It’s supposed to be “scientific” and “peer reviewed”.  The science is supposed to be “settled”.  Sounds like politics and not science to me.

Source: UK Sunday Times

Measurements do not support Global Warming

January 14th, 2010 by John Draper

When it comes to science, you start with measurements, then you postulate a theory and if the theory is right it will predict the future measurements.  It all comes down to measurements – and in the case of the Climate, the key measurement is atmospheric temperature.  And the most accurate way to do that is to have a consistent satellite based radiometer.  There is a satellite that measures lower tropospheric temperature and since 1979 it shows a rise of about 0.3deg C although in the last 11 years it has been steady.

So measurements do not support the theory – at least not so far.  Maybe the theory is wrong? Atmospheric Temperature

At face value, if it takes 30 years to increase 0.3deg, then it will take 200 years to increase 2deg.  Not quite the immediate disaster we are told about.  Or let me be pessimistic – look at the graph from 1993 to 2009 – it rose 0.48deg in that time.  So at that rate it would still take 66 years to increase 2 deg.  But looking at the trough to peak is not good math or good science – is that what the scientists have been doing?

The good news is that the public is finally waking up to this poor science.  “Global warming” is more like a religion that people want to believe. The ether was once believed as a sure thing as the medium for radio waves  – it HAD to exist – what other explanation was there?  But then along came skeptical Einstein.

CFCs caused recent warming, not CO2

January 9th, 2010 by John Draper

University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu recently published a paper in peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports that showed that the warming of the last few decades up to 2000 were caused by CFCs. And since the level of CFCs in the atmosphere is starting to drop because of a worldwide agreement in 1987, the temperature is now starting to drop.

Professor Lu, a path-breaking scientist in the field of ozone protection, made his CO2 discovery by accident — he was looking for culprits in the formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica. A chief suspect was CO2: Climate models produced by climatologists showed that CO2 would have devastating effects on the ozone layer, significantly enlarging the ozone hole over Antarctica and dramatically enlarging it over the Arctic. But when Dr. Lu compared the imagined output of the climate models with the actual measurements taken real-time by satellites and weather balloons, the models turned out to be soaring failures.

“I didn’t see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008,” explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant -”the global warming on Earth’s surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,” he concluded. “The models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise.”

In contrast, CFCs have long been known to be a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is 10,000 times more potent than CO2. Professor Lu’s satellite and balloon measurements showed that factor of 10,000 to have been a gross underestimate!

Had CFCs never been widely used in our air conditioners and refrigerators, Dr. Lu believes, the Earth would not have warmed in the last century. And had CFCs not been banned, he would not be predicting a period of global cooling.

But with the CFC ban, and the subsequent phase-out of this ozone destroying chemical, global warming stopped and, early this decade, a period of global cooling began. This cooling will last “at least 50 years, and possibly 70 years” as the global temperatures return to their pre-CFC levels, he explains, barring the rise of an alternative to CFC, or the introduction of another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

The cooling, he predicts, will be gentle -”after 2010 or so, the globe temperature will experience a small bounce back but a general declining tendency will not change.” Neither will the new levels be worrisome -Earth will find itself back at the levels of the 1950s, which themselves hadn’t changed much over the previous century.

His only concern right now is that some aspects (although not the main conclusions) might be suspect because he used data (as did many others) from the U.K. Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which is now suspect.

Source National Post

Where will energy come from?

December 23rd, 2009 by John Draper

Everyone agrees that one day all the non-renewable resources in the world will be gone or at the very least, very expensive to find.  The only disagreement is how long it will take.  For some resources it will be decades and for others it will be centuries.  This is particularly important  with energy since by definition it’s not renewable.  Once used – it’s gone. So other than emigrating to other planets or depending entirely on solar power, what can we do?

One answer is fusion.  Physicist Steven Cowley is certain that nuclear fusion is the only truly sustainable solution to the fuel crisis. He explains why fusion will work — and details the projects that he and many others have devoted their lives to, working against the clock to create a new source of energy.
(The video is about 9 minutes with Cowley and the balance on a traffic management system in Stockholm that was sponsored by IBM – yes it’s a long commercial.)

Steven Cowley: Fusion is Energy’s future – produced by TED.

Steven says “we have been working on it for 50 years”.  It seems like every 10 years they move the bar further out – he’s now saying we should be successful in 20-30 years.  Let’s hope he’s right.  The last 30 years has been the communication revolution – we now need an energy revolution.

The Battle has been won – Gore (and others) defeated.

December 18th, 2009 by John Draper

It seems there are now three groups of people in the World – sharply divided with little overlap:

  1. The screaming warmist, alarmists etc who equate denying  AGW with being anti-environment.  David Suzuki,  Al  Gore and most of the leftist media would be in this camp.  This could now be called a strident minority.  They are now in retreat.
  2. The skeptics who say there is no problem with man-caused warming but we are still strong environmentalists and against pollution and very much in favour of preserving the environment without going broke in the process.  These will now relax somewhat due to the emergence of the next group.
  3. The public at large who are by far the largest group.  Most people now understand that at best the science is not settled and would not be surprised to find it faulty.  They will not be willing to have their country suffer economically for an uncertain cause; they realise that (e.g.) Canada’s contribution could only be miniscule – and we could all go bankrupt to support China!  As usual, the silent majority both counts when it comes to votes/politics and also says little.  Read between the lines on TV , newspapers and blogs – the Greens have lost the battle to bankrupt the western world to support their misguided campaign to reduce CO2 emissions.

It’s now very unlikely that Obama’s Cap & Trade bill will go anywhere – and Canada will follow that lead.  Australia will see the futility and work on Nuclear power and mitigation; Europe will continue on their path – but justified more by reducing pollution and preserving fossil fuels.

And this blog will focus more on the Environment generally – e.g. the virtue of preserving fossil fuels and limiting population growth.

I declare the battle to be won although there will still be stragglers.

The climate change conference from Hell

December 16th, 2009 by John Draper

This is so well said, I’m going to repeat it in full.

By Kelly McParland at the National Post

Let’s see now…

Robert Mugabe at Copenhagen

Robert Mugabe at Copenhagen

Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life’s work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the “hypocrisy” of its position on climate change. (Zimbabwe doesn’t have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions, because, thanks to Mugabe, its economy is in a state of collapse.) Update: Here’s Stephen Lewis talking about a new report on Mugabe’s use of rape as a weapon.

We have the government of China, which won’t allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is “not transparent.”

We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela’s radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western “dictatorship.” (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he’ll toss them in jail).

We have “climate change activists” cutting down and desecrating the Canadian flag. More “activists” disrupting the talks and trying to break into the conference centre, beaten off by police in riot gear using tear gas and pepper spray.

We have the mayor of Toronto telling the world he’s “embarrassed” by his country’s policy while denying he already has a plum job lined up with an environmental organization when he finally, mercifully (and not a moment too soon) quits his job as mayor late next year. (Way to stand up for your country Mr. Mayor! Way to display pride at being Canadian). We have Al Gore, he of the energy-sucking mansion and private jets, who charges $1,200 a handshake to be fawned over by fans, announcing that new hot-off-the-presses data show the Arctic ice cap will be fully melted in seven years, the only problem being that it’s not true.

All this so countries like Canada can pony up something in the range of $100 billion for a climate fund, to be dispursed to people like Mugabe, so they can use it to pad their foreign bank accounts “adapt” their nations to climate change.

Remind me again why I want nothing to do with these clowns and their farce of an international climate crisis, and why I have no faith whatsoever in their ability to mount a credible emissions plan…

No, wait … never mind. I remember!

Kelly McParland
National Post

This reminds me why I have a subscription to the Post – all I want now is for them to feature this on the front page!

Canada’s CBC blasts Climategate

December 13th, 2009 by John Draper

Rex Murphy spoke about Climategate on CBC’s National news service yesterday and he was not kind to the scientists involved in  Climategate – in fact, his view is that the whole episode discredits the science of global warming.  He asks how can anyone now separate science from advocacy when they are talking about global warming.  See his video below.

Can we now focus on environment instead of the narrow faulty science of warming?