Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #26 

Alberta Climate Change Panel -- Revisited

Our new NDP Minister of Environment, Shannon Parks, in an effort to ensure that the Global Warming Religious dogma prevails over real science, recently regurgitated the Anthropogenic Global Warming formula that:   “Climate change is a threat we all face, affecting everything from our health, food production, and fresh water, to biodiversity and our economy. Our government is committed to demonstrating real leadership on the environment and on climate change.”  

Since the hard scientific data shows there has been no climate change which is not simply the result of natural variations  …. it’s a bit difficult to characterize this as other than crass propaganda.
Further, in an effort to ensure that the cronyism for which the P.C Party was severely criticized does not die, she then proceeded to appoint a Alberta Climate Change Panel comprised of the following persons:

  • Andrew Leach .. chairman …  He recently spent a year on leave from the University of Alberta as Visiting Scholar, Environment Canada, where he worked mostly on greenhouse gas policy for the oil and gas sector

  • Another panel member is Stephanie Cairns, a Pembina board member and a former employee of the Pembina Pembina Institute that has long pushed for carbon taxes or cap and trade. Pembina Institute and Pembina Foundation have received nearly US$7 million from foreign funders,

  • Then, there’s Gordon Lambert who comes from Suncor which company successfully lobbied the government for an incentive program that increased wind power in Canada from 100 MW to 4,000 MW.”

  • The fourth panel representative, Linda Coady, works with Enbridge, which has investments in some 13 wind farms, one of them financed by a Renewable Energy Credits contract with California’s Pacific Gas and Electric.

This panel spent 3 months hearing from the citizens …. do you actually think that any submission which run contrary to the global warming mantra will be given any consideration or credence from this group whose vested interest is in promoting the global warming theory?  

Satellite measurements (which are the most reliable method of measuring climate) show there has been no dramatic change in climate in the past 18 years.  The computer climate models upon which the AGW group rely have proven consistently to be inaccurate predictors of climate.  All the un-doctored data shows no dramatic global warming.

However, what difference does it make?    Answer:  Albertans are already paying 2 billion for wind power transmission which will deliver only 4 percent of the annual power supply which is to be paid for through increased power costs …. and this is just the start of this climate boondoggle.    Billions of dollars will be spent on a discredited climate theory bolstered by crass propaganda ….. and the general public will sit blithely by and say nothing …..
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #27 

CO2 lags behind Temperature change so .. CO2 can't cause global warming .. see graph below


[image]
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #28 

Prof. Ian Clarke can claim to know a bit more about the science behind climate change than the average person. As a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, he focuses on paleoclimatology — the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of earth — and isotope hydrology, which determines the age of ice or snow, which can help indicate climate conditions in the past.

Q to Prof. Clarke by the Financial Post: "Are environmentalists wrong to blame oil sands for global pollution? Do you think Canada can develop its oil sands without adding to global pollution and global warming?"

A: The environmental movement has lost its way. Saving whales and fighting for endangered species were worthy causes, but taking on the oil sands at any cost and any misrepresentation of the facts will accomplish nothing good for Canadians.

Yes, the oil sands have disrupted great tracts of the boreal forest, but in time these are recovered. Let’s compare that with urban sprawl and the mega-stores dominating suburban landscapes. The ecosystems that were paved over will never be recovered. Never.

The oil sands is a mega project that improves the lives of many Canadians, and will do so for many decades to come. The operations continue to improve, with less pollution and less impact. It is a focal point for innovation and technological development.

We have many serious environmental problems from overfishing of the oceans, coastal eutrophication, and habitat loss. Let’s focus on those. Perhaps we use too much energy and need more conservation. This will come through education and technologies to improve efficiencies. Let’s focus on that. Cutting off the oil sands energy supply will not reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. It will only require North Americans to import more.

 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #29 

So the AGW crowd keep saying over and over again that we are experiencing global warming. They justify this on the basis that their computer climate models tell them that the climate is getting warmer.  But, of course, the empirical data, the actual recorded temperatures never bear out their predictions …. leaving a large question as to the validity of their “science.”


The Canadian climate model produces one of the most extreme warming projections of all the 30 models evaluated by the IPCC. The discrepancy between the model and the observation increase dramatically after 1998 as there has been no global near-surface warming during the last 16 years as shown in figure 12. The model temperature warming trend as determined by the best fit linear line from 1979 to 2013 is 0.337 °C/decade, and the average trend of the two observational datasets is 0.149 °C/decade. The model temperature warming rate is 225% of the observations.


[image]

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #30 

The Climate Change “Consensus” ?

Just in case anyone is confused by the mythology that “97% of the world’s leading scientists believe that CO2 is the driving force behind climate change” and that the “science is settled” 31487 American scientists of which 9029 were Phd’s signed and sent to the U.S. Government a  Petition which said in part:

“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon monoxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will,in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.” [see:http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php]

And for those who want an analysis of the so-called surveys which are relied upon for the 97% statement go to http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf . It seems these “surveys” supporting the 97% myth leave much to be desired in terms of statistical integrity.

 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #31 
In today's Gazette Joe Prins asks an interesting question about global warming/climate change.  He asks: 

And one final question: could the trillion dollars spend each year on climate change in one form or another be better spend to increase the standard of living of the more than one billion people who heat their supper over dung? I hope Rachel Notley reads the St. Albert Gazette.

Unfortunately he will never get an answer to that question from the global warmists.  They love to pose as the working man and poor man's political party ... but simply turn a blind eye to the obvious namely .... their pursuit of their climate change mythology subtracts billions of dollars from programs which could actually help Third World Countries and financially challenged families.  However by giving huge government subsidies to solar and wind mill companies .... it does ensure these companies have tons of money to donate to the liberal and NDP parties to ensure their re-election.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #32 

It is interesting to see Kevin Ma in today's Gazette attempt to wade in on the Global Warming debate by using Skeptical Science as his source of information.  Given that Skeptical Science was intentionally created as a global warming advocate and apologist and thereby moved Global Warming from a scientific endeavour to a political movement relying on Skeptical Science for objective information is rather dubious.  

Relying on Skeptical Scene, Ma writes: "Allred and Prins argue that climate science is bunk because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is politicized .......... if the IPCC was intentionally slanting its conclusions, you’d expect their predictions to be overstated."

FACT: IPCC has repeatedly overstated their predictions .... The IPCC predicted warming at +2.4, +3, +4.7, +5.3 C/ century when observed warming trend is equivalent to 1.5 C / century. [see: scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/co2_report_july_2010.pdf ]

Ma write: "Allred claims that the IPCC is suppressing debate .................. They’re not being “suppressed.” They’re being ignored because they do bad science.

FACT: The suppression of debate by the global warmists is well documented ranging from their attempt to shut down debate by yelling "the debate is over" to their "lawfare" tactics in which they are attempting to use the legal system to suppress anyone who doesn't succumb to their beliefs. [See: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/15/lawfare-lefts-climate-inquisition-waging-war-science-freedom-truth/ ]

Ma writes: "Allred claims that CO2 is essential to life on Earth, ............ and retorts ......... plants do not live on CO2 alone, and the extreme weather caused by rising CO2 levels mean less reliable water, heat, and nutrient supplies for our crops. "

FACT: The empirical data has never shown that CO2 increases in the real world have CAUSED global warming as the CO2 always increases centuries AFTER the global warming has occurred. Further there is no reliable data to show CO2 increases cause extreme weather. So this is the classic propaganda tactic of assuming their conclusion to be true without any evidence to support the proposition.

Ma writes "Prins also makes a related claim by saying that climate science can’t explain the Medieval Warm Period. ............ A major 2013 study has found that we’re now well above the warmth found in that era, meaning that, yes, today’s temperatures are unusual.

FACT: The Global warming crowd were caught red-handed in a scandal called "climate-gate" in which they acknowledged the global warming period was a serious problem for their global warming theory since it was warmer in the Middle Ages when their was no industrialization and production of CO2. Climate gate emails document their decision to reconstruct climate history to remove the Midieval Global Warming period so that the adjusted temperature data would fit their theory.  The 2013 study which is now largely discredited is the final result of these shennigans.  [See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/ ]

It seems Mr. Ma should go back to the drawing board if he wants to provide us with a serious rebuttal to the letters written to the editor by Allred and Prins.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #33 

For those interested in the credibility of Kevin Ma's reliance on "Skeptical Science" as a source for information to enable a person to make an informed opinion on the global warming debate here is a comment on the website Popular Technology.net {http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html}

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions."

See also: https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/roger-pielke-sr-at-the-ss-com-a-dark-day-in-the-climate-science-debate/

0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #34 
the same people who believed Al Gore, even after the lies of an Incovenient Truth were exposed, are pushing carbon pricing and carbon tax on us.  You could show them absolute proof and they'd still scoff. 
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #35 

The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper maintained that without a testable hypothesis a particular discipline really isn't science at all, but rather a "pseudoscience." Applying Popper's test of "falsifiability" it seems clear that the hypothesis "that global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human activities" is not capable of falsification.

Global warming skeptics can point to the numerous predictions of an apocalypse that simply have not occurred as proof of the falseness of the global warming thesis. However, the global warming crowd then simply reply that these catastrophes have not yet occurred because we have not yet reached the "tipping point." No one can prove or disprove the global warming thesis because it is nothing more than a prediction or guess as to future events. Consequently in Popper's terms it is simply a pseudoscience.

If it is, in fact, a pseudoscience, why then does it have so many people in the scientific field who have become apologists for this doctrine"

The answer seems to be found in a published Royal Society article called "the Natural Selection of Bad Science" by Smaldino and McElreath. (See: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ content/3/9/160384)

 They argue that scientists desire tenure and recognition in their field of research. In order to attain these two goals in our modern society requires a prodigious amount of published scientific papers. Scientific papers are the product of research and research is only possible if the scientist has the funding. In today's world over 90% of research funding comes from the government and hence political agendas begin to taint pure research.

Politicians and bureaucrats don't fund research which negates their particular thesis but do fund research which supports and legitimizes their political agendas. In the global warming field, which is more political than scientific, this results in hundreds of "scientific papers" which are not directed toward testing the hypothesis. Rather they are research in which the results of the research ARE CONSISTENT WITH the global warming theory which is hardly an application of Karl Poppel's falsification test.

So basically we have 95% of the world's climatologists undertaking pseudoscience to get the grant money to promote their careers. Unfortunately the nonsense they produce is being used by ideological fanatics to destroy the energy business in Alberta.

0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #36 
It's interesting that after the numerous posts theskeptic has offered on "climate change", there hasn't been a single rebuttal to his information. If the scientific evidence was so final, why has no one stepped up to defend the side of science?
0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #37 
The nasty evils of CO2:

- is the building block of all forms of life, obviously including human.
- sustains plant life which feeds animals and people
- increases the quantity of food for consumption
- increases the quality of food (i.e. minerals and vitamins found in plant tissues)
- increases therapeutic effect of medicinal plants
- higher CO2 levels enable plants to utilize H2O more efficiently thereby allowing low rainfall areas to support more varied vegetation.
- help plants deal with air and soil borne pathogens more effectively.
- in order to survive, we breathe in 400 ppm and exhale 40,000 ppm (To all the carbon contributors - "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!")
- reduces side effects of COPD and asthmatic sufferers

Given the above, should CO2 not be celebrated instead of being demonized?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,177
Reply with quote  #38 
Everyone who wants to leave oil in the ground should be forced to watch this:

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.