Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« So Michael Ignatieff wants to be Prime Minister? | Main | Wagging the Dosanjh »

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Unexpected insight from Ottawa

I experienced one of those all-too-rare "holy crap!" moments this morning when going through my mail. The cause was the Spring 2005 edition of the Carleton University Magazine, whose surprising cover story is entitled, "Global Warming? Kyoto controversy rages in the scientific community."

What!? Could it possibly be true that a publicly funded journal, produced in the very heart of global-warming myth-land, would give serious treatment to the common-sense, scientifically solid objections of global-warming sceptics? Turning quickly to the story inside, I discovered that, yes indeed, the story lived up to its billing. Let's hope Carleton is sending a copy of the magazine to every single one of our now-vacationing MPs.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 29, 2005 in Science | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unexpected insight from Ottawa:


Must be a J-school student trying to earn extra credit.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-06-29 11:47:20 AM

Global Warming MYTH!!!!!!!! WTF.
You could probably instantaneously combust on the spot and on your headstone it would read "Global warming non believer".
How about you go look at a few before and after photos of the arctic.
Your ineptitude baffles me. You can ignore your own environment completely if it doesn't suit your partisan politics. Open your own eyes. Make your own scientific observations. The world is getting hotter and it will people like you that end up killing us all.
You don't need to pay attention to "liberal" scientists, get a thermometer.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 11:57:06 AM

See this article in today's Washington Post by Robert Samuelson: "Greenhouse Hypocrisy".

Two quotes:

"Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy."

"What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?"


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-06-29 12:03:56 PM


Eastern Arctic is warming (Canadian figures). Antarctic ice sheet is thickening (Russian figures). Glaciers advance and retreat---depends on the time scale (see diaries of C17th European travellers).

No-one suggests that there isn't a warming trend going on at the moment. There should be, given we are coming out of a little ice age. It is simply unproven that global warming is anthropogenic.

There is high-intensity reporting of extreme weather at the moment. I don't see this as part of a "global warming conspiracy", rather it's a natural result of too many so-called 'journalists' looking for stories---and freak weather has always sold newspapers.

The inability of the global warming hysterics to think in anything other than a century or two illustrates the narcissistic presentism of most people brought up in the 60s and 70s. I was struck by this yesterday when someone said that the present heatwave in S. Ontario was equalling temperatures set in 1904. And the fact that the rainfall in S. Alberta is reaching the same levels as a century ago. Funny: 100 years ago there was little heavy industry in Canada, and damn few SUVs on the Prairies.

Posted by: Patrick B | 2005-06-29 12:18:40 PM

Hear, Hear Patrick B. Rational, grounded people with any exposure to science will know Kyoto is irrational and has not been backed by solid, proveable, documentable facts. Kyoto is another bid for the Leftie, save-the-earth vote.

Not only is this journalists looking for stories but the Libs adopting the NDP agenda to retain power at all costs. Look for more Kyoto, SSM, social programs, attention to extreme minority group issues etc. And, of course any issue the large unions feel are important.

Anything to deflect Canadians from the Martin corrupt dictatorship!!

Posted by: Old Mother | 2005-06-29 12:34:33 PM

Patrick B, it isn't a matter of that hot day in 1904. It is setting record temperatures consistantly year after year in the last decade.
Here is one unlikely supporter of the Global warming "theory".

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 12:37:14 PM

Patrick B, it isn't a matter of that hot day in 1904. It is setting record temperatures consistently year after year in the last decade.
Here is one unlikely supporter of the Global warming "theory".

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 12:37:35 PM

A PR blurb from an oil company anxious to avoid attacks from Greenpeace et al is hardly supportive evidence.

Yes, in the northern hemisphere there've been a string of high temperature years in the last decade. But set against a perspective of, for example, three hundred years, this represents a 3.3% sample. Bit small to base fundamental shifts in economies, government control and prohibitions, isn't it?

Posted by: Patrick B | 2005-06-29 12:47:22 PM

Dear Googleblog...er...Gamblog,

Your command of the search engine is very commendable. Your ability to accurately comprehend what you google is sorely lacking. Nowhere in that article does it support the global warming "theory". It states right off the top that it is an assumption. If you're going to make inaccurate statements, then don't make it so easy for the rest of us to check up on you.

Although I agree that we need to be good environmental stewards, our generation and the generation before us represent a micro-blip on the radar screen of the planet Earth. Your use of a thermometer is NOT a reasonable approach to proving or disproving the questionable "theory" of global warming.

Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-29 12:55:31 PM

How much more evidence do you need?

What is your solution? Continue burning fossil fuels at an insane rate just to see if global warming is actually occurring? Why not conserve and look for alternatives? What is the harm?
What happens when we run out of oil? If we address climate change now it won't be a problem when the pumps run dry.
Sucking on tailpipes are killing people and giving our kids asthma. We don't even need to look on a global scale to see the harm burning fossil fuel is causing.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 1:05:56 PM

Well we are all going to burn in hell with the attitudes you people express. This is something you can't ignore, but I'm sure you will just crank up the A/C.
None of you are scientists, so why do you choose to ignore them? What is their motivation for trying to save the planet? Is it because they hate Alberta?
Put the blinders on it will be a hot summer.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 1:14:36 PM

Scroll up to the top and read the freakin' article, Googleblog. The point of the matter is for every global warming proponent there is a global warming opponent. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that we simply don't know what is causing any warming or even if the warming is cause for concern. Simply put (for simple minds,) gullible people like yourself believe what the talking heads tell you to believe. And the talking heads are telling you to believe in fossil fuel-induced global warming. I suggest you think for yourself, support the ongoing study of climate change, and make an educated statement in some future enlightened state.

I don't believe any environmental study would refute the need for awareness and temperance of humanity's environmental impact. That goes without saying. The opponents of the human-induced global warming theories are merely debunking flawed studies which have been blindingly adopted as fact. This article attempts to present BOTH views.

Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-29 1:24:46 PM

Gamblog wrote:

"Sucking on tailpipes are killing people and giving our kids asthma. We don't even need to look on a global scale to see the harm burning fossil fuel is causing."

Er, and scientists that drive their cars to work in laboratories heated by natural gas are finding cures for asthma. I'd like to hear from the likes of Gamblog or any other Kyoto-natic as to why they think the negative impacts of fossil fuel use exceed the benefits society realizes from cheaper fuel.

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-06-29 1:30:04 PM

Further proof that you don't need to be able to read in order to google:

From http://www.climatehotmap.org:
"Clearly, all the processes and types of events on the map can and have occurred naturally in the past, some even during times not considered to be global warm periods. They represent complex phenomena that have multiple causal agents. Thus, while all of these are consistent with a warming climate, it is impossible to state for any single event that it is due to global warming. Part of the difficulty is that our scientific understanding of the connection between global climatic patterns and individual weather extremes is still incomplete."

From http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument: "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system."

Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-29 1:46:04 PM

Yes, every MP got a copy of the magazine. They get a copy of every issue of the magazine. More than likely, they end up on the recycle bin. MPs get dozens of free magazines every week, and can't begin to read even a small percentage of them.

One of Canada's foremost anti-Kyoto professors works at Carleton, hence the cover story in Carleton's magazine.

Posted by: Hill Staffer | 2005-06-29 1:51:51 PM

UK, US 'caused Zimbabwe droughts'
Posted by Clive
On 06/29/2005 11:24:01 AM PDT · 45 replies · 505+ views

BBC News ^ | 2005-06-28
UK, US 'caused Zimbabwe droughts' A state-run newspaper in Zimbabwe has suggested the UK and US are to blame for droughts in southern Africa. The Herald said climate change has been artificially induced "in a bid to arm-twist the region to capitulate to the whims of the world's superpowers". It said weather was being manipulated for political gain using unspecified "unconventional" chemical weapons. It is widely seen as a mouthpiece for President Robert Mugabe's government, correspondents say. It said recent droughts, which defied predictions by the Zimbabwean government and the Southern African Development Community's Drought Monitoring Centre, pointed to the..



Unholy crap from the socialist regime in Zimbabwe.


Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-29 2:09:52 PM

Gamblog, If you are truly interested in Kyoto go to Mr. Mills' website. He is the Conservative M.P. for Red Deer, Alta. He spoke for two days on the subject and never repeated himself. I listined and learned all about 'global warming.'
Kyoto has NOTHING to do with climate - the tilt of the earth does though and so does the burning of forests. Greenhouse 'gases' are in the carbon monoxide catagory. Would you like to stop breathing?
The Kyoto Protocall was written by a rampid left wing socialist elitest billionare named Maurice Strong. It is a grand scheme to redistribute wealth; ego, make the developed countries as poor as all third world countries.
We NEED a REAL 'clean-up' plan. The Conservatives have a 'made in Canada' solution that would decrease TOXIC gasses created by burning toxic chemicals and nucular waste. We need to deal with human waste, highly toxic, especially when laced with legal and illigal drugs and food poisons; some cities (For example,Victoria, B.C.; riding of former environment minister, David Anderson - Lib ) still dump raw sewage in our rivers and oceans.
Let us get REAL on this issue. Elect a Conservative.

Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-06-29 2:55:31 PM


"None of you are scientists, so why do you choose to ignore them?...."

Some of us are scientists. How many would you like to hear from? How about the 17,000 scientists that signed the following petition.


The IPCC models, generated to justify Kyoto can't even account for the past medieval warm period when oats were being grown in Greenland let alone predict the future with any certainty.

The "warmers" typical of "conservation theology" see science as a tool for change rather than a rigorous search for truth, from hypothesis to legislation with no hard work in between.

I could bury you alive in scientific paper that doesn't "fit" the popular hysteria surrounding global warming.

If you were not a product of the Disney-Suzuki Mind-F..k you could find lots too.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2005-06-29 5:42:50 PM

Just this morning I realized I committed a typo when making the original blog entry. Carleton's cover story is actually punningly entitled "Global Warning?" with an 'n', not "Global Warming?" with an 'm'. Doesn't change the focus on the story, though.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2005-06-30 9:03:54 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.