Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Park plaque? | Main | Canada Makes the Right Choice »

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Is David Suzuki inflating the numbers to look environmentally important?

A metaphor for the issue of environmentalism.

David Suzuki rents a monster tour bus and goes on a month-long tour of Canada.  His people somberly pronounce that the bus will generate 20 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, but their sense of responsibility compels them to pay $35 per tonne to offset it.

David Suzuki rents a monster tour bus and goes on a month-long tour of Canada.  I look at the distances, the mileage expected, the EPA measure of the amount of greenhouse gas created by diesel fuel, and pronounce with some confusion that it would appear that the expected emissions would amount to about 1 tonne of greenhouse gas, and that you can pay as little as $5 per tonne to offset it.

Seven hundred bucks?  Or change you find in your pocket?

Certainly the environmentalists would prefer the larger number.  It makes the issue bigger.  In this case, two orders of magnitude bigger.

But the math doesn't add up.

Or maybe I've made a mistake.  Check out the calculations at Angry in the Great White North.

Posted by Steve Janke on February 24, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is David Suzuki inflating the numbers to look environmentally important?:


"Is David Suzuki inflating the numbers to look environmentally important?"

Is the Pope Catholic?
Does a bear crap in the woods?
Is Islam a threat to Western civilization?

Posted by: obc | 2007-02-24 10:26:00 AM

I love his motorcycles. They really go!

Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-24 11:12:08 AM

Of course, the answer is you got the numbers wrong. The distance from Halifax to Vancouver is 3840 miles ( http://www.etourist.ca/distance/canada.htm ). That assumes you won't go off the straight path an make side trips to places like Edmonton (Edmonton to Calgary: 183 miles) or Windsor (Ottawa to Windsor: 469 miles). It also ignores the 1402km (871 miles) from St. John's to Halifax. Add those up and you get 5363 miles. But that's also counting only one way. Unless the bus was rented in St. John's and is going to remain in Vancouver when he is done, the real distance is double this amount - 10,726 miles.

So your distance numbers are at best only one third of the reality (remember that it also adds up when you frequently leave the highway to drive around a city a bit). Now you claim that your gas mileage numbers and the cost of offsetting is right, but given your wildly inaccurate calculations of the distances involved you will forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

The score: Suzuki 1 Janke 0

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-02-24 12:43:31 PM

If,as Dr.Suzuki amd his ilk claim,we are in dire danger because of manmade global warming,how do these credits actually eliminate deisel exhaust emmissions from the air,thus saving us all?
They must be amazing little CO2 scrubbers.

If I follow the example set by Dr.Suzuki,that means I can buy the 68 Charger big block I've been eyeing and cruise to my heart's content...along as I remember to buy my credits along with my hi-octane additive.

Come on...if the esteemed Suzuki isn't worried enough to change his own lifestyle,why should I worry about global warming at all.

Thank you Dr.Suzuki,for proving by your very own actions,that this is all about the money.

BTW Steve,has anyone ever investigated these emmission credit pimps,sorry companies,to see exactly how they function?One of them actually made a direct link between global warming and Katrina.That tells me they are fully complicit in this'hoax'.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-24 1:03:44 PM

Logan: So by your calculations David Suzuki would actually add 3 tons not the 20 tons he claims.

Posted by: Alan | 2007-02-24 2:05:58 PM

I don't give a rats ass about this global warming crap and neither does China or India. Knowing the general public as I do, I doubt many of them are paying much attention either. I will live my life the same as I always have.

What keeps me from being wastefully polluting is economy. We live near to my wife's workplace, I work at home and we drive a four cylinder car.

We like a cool house and that keeps our heating bill low. It's much cheaper to wear a fleece than to turn up the heat.

I don't think about global warming, I think about my cost of living. I don't care how other people live .. that is their business. I do care about hypocrites like Suzuki and Gore because they want to tell me how to live. I don't need socialist swine telling me anything.

Suzuki is a commie and he is apparently a liar. The Liberal party of Canada is a criminal operation who are desperate to get back at the trough. They will do nothing about anything other than take money from the rest of us.

I don't recycle much and I don't feel guilty about anything. Shedding my catholic guilt long ago worked wonders for my mental health.

I live a free happy life in a great place and I suggest if everyone concentrate on making their lives worth living and stop worrying about what other people are doing we will have the great world we had back in the fifties.

This world was way better off before slasher movies, dead and dying sluts dominating the news and the charter of rights giving it all to the criminal and ignoring the victims.

This world had gone nuts over the last fifty years. Maybe it's a good thing if we are actually about to face some sort of dye off. I don't think we were meant to be so many especially when you take a look at what many of are doing here.

In the end reality will make it all right.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-24 3:31:14 PM


If people were to heed your advice (as they should), what would be left for control freaks to do?

They spend their miserable lives trying to find fault in others when the ultimate answer is to practise SELF-control.

Sigh. They are so easy to spot.

BTW. My garage is full of empty bottles, tin cans, cardboard boxes and newspapers.

My late father used to go for morning walks and collect bottles.

He would split it one-third for me, one-third for booze and one-third for my son's university educations.

When he died two decades ago, my son had $3,000 in his account.

And, the world has always been nuts. It's not just the left-wing commies and nazis of the 20th century. Utopians have been around for a long time trying to control others' lives.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-24 3:57:02 PM

Logan (will say eventually).

Holocaust denier = Anthropogenic Global Warming denier.

Just getting the preliminaries out the way.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-24 4:50:47 PM

In my original post, I considered multipliers like the actual road mileage, but 20 tonnes is still beyond the extreme. Bottom line is that they still give the high numbers as if they are the likely numbers (assuming those high numbers aren't actually imagined).

Posted by: Steve Janke | 2007-02-24 4:50:55 PM


There is nothing like a fine set of rose-colored glasses.

The only reason the fifties were so"great"was because a different group of control freaks were in charge.Sure,the family was a lot more secure then but ask the blacks if they want to go back.Or how about shitkicked wives.

Oh yeah...there were control freaks back then all right.The only difference is they were almost all white male christians.I have no doubt that many white male christians miss those days of moral control over society dearly.As a white man myself,I'm sure they were good times in NA.

For white men that is.

As for the Catholic Church,we seem to have had similar experiences.

Your remark about guilt is what I found appropriate to these emission credits.Since wasting fuel has been likened to sinning...does that make these credits a form of 'confession and pennance'?

Kyoto appears to be more like a religion every day.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-24 4:56:42 PM


There were bad people in 50s and there are bad people now. Men who beat their wives are still here, but the wives are now living alone with their kids. There is not much we can do about that other than keep increasing welfare and dealing with the kids when they do bad shit.

RE the negroes. Yes they had it not so great back then, but look at their behavior now. Look at the rap ganster music. Look at the drug culture. Maybe it was better when they were less free to be what they have become. I don't wish this on them, but they simply don't seem be able to handle equality very well. What say you?

Along with civil rights came ultra civil disobedience bordering on anarchy at time.

And by the way, the major wife beaters nowadays are form the middle yeast infection and they want their own laws to make it all legal. Multi cultural insanity is helping in this effort.

In the fifties we had a white Christian Sociey that was more productive and law abiding. What society can you name today that is better?

Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-24 6:14:29 PM

Duke & CO
I think the clarifying question is, where would you rather live?

North America circa 1950 whether white or black


the ME at any time and being any creed/colour/gender


Africa at any time and being any creed/colour/gender

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-24 6:55:37 PM

Suzuki is simply lying again, that's all.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-02-24 8:33:13 PM

Aw, c'mon.

Suzuki, the angry old man (according to an account of his appearance at a Calgary elementary school on Friday), and Saint Al of Gore are merely overstating their case in an attempt to draw attention to the problem only they can fix.

How can they survive is nobody believes them?

Hang on ...

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-24 9:10:17 PM

This whole scam of global warming is a waste of time. At the rate things are going we shall be trying to survive Islamisation long before the sky falls in.

Considering that in 1945 our navy was the 3rd largest fleet in the world and that our air force was one of the best along with our troops, it is indeed unbelievable that we have mostly been reduced to nanny-state junkies who have renounced responsibility, self-reliance, and freedom for state control. To make matters worse, just like Europe, we fail to reproduce even enough children to sustain our population preferring to rely on immigration. Immigration in itself is not always a problem, but when our immigrants, or the large majority, come from cultures hostile to democracy, the rule of law, etc., determined to impose their ways on us, we have a very big problem.

Instead of discussion the real problem, we twitter about global warming, needing to get with the Kyoto agreement or how we should be more like Europe. This even though Europe is on her death bed.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-24 9:19:20 PM

Well, I think if Suzuki can speak in front of elementary kids (unedited and undebated), Ezra should demand the same right, perhaps on the topic of why Canadians should do all they can to make sure the Americans elect a Republican president in the Bush mould. I suggest a few other good right-wing Albertans (and a couple of BCers) in this post on my blog:


Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2007-02-25 3:17:43 AM

Well, if Suzuki is inflating the cost as is suggested, it seems that the cost of reducing man-made carbon dioxide is much cheaper than both the left and right have claimed. So maybe Kyoto won't bring destruction like some Luddites would have has believe.

On the other hand, there's a really easy way to settle the debate on what the cost of carbon dioxide and other pollutants are - it's called creating a market for them and allowing that market to attach a cost to them.

Let the truth be revealed and the market created.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-25 6:12:57 AM

It seems this global warming is merely a symptom of foolish societies that lost their purpose. Next, we will have a group trying to stop meteorites from falling on the earth or trying to stop comets.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-25 11:54:30 AM

Global warming frenzy/religion 101


Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-25 12:20:57 PM

It seems this global warming is merely a symptom of foolish societies that lost their purpose.

Or it's a way to convince people to reduce energy use and save money.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-26 6:22:56 AM

Why should David Suzuki be any different that Al Gore?

Gore himself has admitted the public cannot be rallied to a cause unless there is an element of exaggeration.

If Suzuki and Gore would actually speak the truth, there is no conceivable way they could extract guilt money from the gullible they extract through fear tactics.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-26 7:35:10 AM



Suzuki says that Harper is reluctant to implement Kyoto because he doesn't want to annoy Alberta. He even pointed out - quite correctly - that Alberta could secede over this issue. "Ottawa kind of tiptoes around Alberta all the time, because they're afraid. The closest thing to separation is Alberta, not Quebec..."

Hey, when he's right, he's right. Alberta is Harper's home turf. It would be a bad idea to press on Kyoto when they could turn against him.

However, Suzuki ignores the fact that the Liebrals did the same thing with Ontario. They knew full well that Kyoto would burden Ontario's economy, particularly its auto industry. Any negative effects such as closed auto plants or auto part plants would reciprocate into lost Liebral votes While the Liebrals exempted the auto industry (setting a dangerous precedent that other parts of the Ontario economy could use later) they also delayed implementing it to avoid further controversy.

Now the same Liebrals expect Harper to implement Kyoto. How pathetic could they get? Moreover, how pathetic and self-righteous could Suzuki get?

Keep on opposing Kyoto, Alberta. It's the Second NEP and it is our duty to fight for our human rights, for future generations' sake.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-02-26 8:07:58 AM


I'm not into collective guilt and that seems to be tactic the Kyoto-wackos control freaks are using in building the spider web to ensnare gullible human beings.

The Ontario auto industry is thriving, but all we hear is how the North American manufacturers are in trouble.

Far as I know, Honda is doing just fine in Ontario.

If the Big Three had a product worth buying, perhaps I would consider it. I held out until buying my Civic in 2003, my first foreign manufacturer auto. I will never go back.

Anyway, the trasheap of history is full of false religions and Kyoto's lifespan as a Utopian alternative will have a shorter lifespan than the godless commies ... since it is an apparition of godless commies.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-26 8:20:46 AM

I have a Civic too, so I understand the preference for a supposedly foreign car.

All the science in the world can't justify Kyoto. It is a deeply, seriously flawed idea that will do nothing to curb climate change. Instead, it is simple wealth transfer from the richest countries to other countries. Scarce taxpayer's money will be used to accomplish this. The voters have the right to know how their money will be used. They ought to understand that no guarantees, monitors or checks exist to ensure their money is used properly. Kyoto is a scam, pure and simple.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-02-26 9:11:34 AM

The argument as I understand it: "I refuse to become environmentally and socially responsible because my bigger concern right now is the growth of militant islam, which can only be checked by unhindered economic growth in the west. My access to cheap gas and $5 running shoes at any expense to the earth is key to our victory against evil brown people. To legitimize this betrayal of my core values I will attack anyone and everyone who exposes my laziness and moral negligence."

Can someone, anyone, please show me how neglecting our responsibility to protect and conserve our Living Space will in any way affect the vector and velocity of militant islam? Parents, if your kid refused to clean her room and brush her teeth because she said she was busy keeping the neighbors from buying a trampoline, what would you say?

When did conservatism abandon the intellectual and moral high road?

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-26 11:06:03 AM

Would it help to cool the rhetoric here if you knew that David Suzuki believes Kyoto is a gravely flawed treaty TOO?

Unlike most of his critics here, I've heard David Suzuki speak twice now, in person, and on both occasions I heard him describe how he agonized over the Kyoto accord and it's flaws; particularly the credits compromise. He wanted absolute caps, not climate karma. Kyoto IS flawed, but it's a Flawed Something instead of a Perfect Nothing. It's arbitrary and enforceable, unlike voluntary limits and voluntary controls which we all know never work. Imagine a voluntary speed limit, with no police interceptors. Who here would drive under 140 down the highway?

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-26 11:13:13 AM


Can you tell me what drugs you're on? I'd like to try them.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-26 12:13:48 PM

"Would it help to cool the rhetoric here if you knew that David Suzuki believes Kyoto is a gravely flawed treaty TOO?"

"Kyoto IS flawed"


If only the Green Party,NDP,Liberals and much of the press would concede that simple truth,maybe some people here wouldn't be so suspicious of their motives.

'What else aren't they telling us?'becomes a pretty damn sensible question to ask.

BTW,this site runs on 100% clean burning rhetoric.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-26 12:40:24 PM

The flawed thing about Kyoto isn't the compromises or the idea that it should be rigorously forced on us by Eco-Fascists like Suzuki.

The flaw is the very idea that man has any effect on the warming climate at all.

It burns me up watching people who are supposed to be Conservatives or Libertarians concede the idea of Anthropogenic cause in climate change.



Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-26 1:53:21 PM

What matters not whether someone goes and drives around. We have already developed the technology to drive around in buses that do not produce C02.

The issue is that inbetween now and then, we will still drive around in buses, and paying money through Kyoto, to some third world despotic nation, such as Sudan, will do nothing for reducing the green house emmissions.

Sure will make the despots happy.

What would be much better, would be to take that money and stuff it into green technology here in Canada. We have a global footprint of 2.9% of the world's green house emmissions. We can and could reduce that in half without dampening our economy. But we can only do that with a conservative power base.

If we gave the cash to some third world despotic nation, you think they are going to spend the cash on things that are not oil users? hell no! So, in the end our economy will plummet, theirs will go up on welfare and war no doubt, and the green house effect will not be addressed one iota!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-26 2:20:13 PM

Why would we want to reduce CO2?
CO2 is GOOD.
Why do we need to care about greenhouse gasses?
Greenhouses are GOOD.

You aren't silly enough to think humans can affect the climate?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-26 2:32:57 PM

Wah wah wah, the other kids get to stay up late and burn styrofoam so why can't I?

Why exactly should the center or the left trust the right with the policy tiller of the country when the right is such a little hot-tempered tantrum-throwing baby? Life is all about living with unfair disadvantages in the name of doing the right thing. Look at every other social principle the right stands for and you'll see values that should call it to align with the so-called Eco Fascists. Delayed gratification, prudence, conservation, preservation, level-headedness, discipline, hard work, pragmatism, the good old calvinist work ethic. All I see here is instant gratification, selfishness, covetousness, slander, anger, indulgence, insecurity, and dare I say a real lack of faith in the West's ability to make a go of it under harsh conditions. I suspect our pioneering ancestors would slap us upside of the head and tell us to pull our socks up, quit our whining, and do the right thing.

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-26 4:02:05 PM

They might slap you upside the head...

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-02-26 4:14:18 PM

" Life is all about living with unfair disadvantages in the name of doing the right thing. "

I see your bromide and raise you a pithy quote.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-26 4:26:55 PM

Steve said

"The argument as I understand it: "I refuse to become environmentally and socially responsible because my bigger concern right now is the growth of militant islam, which can only be checked by unhindered economic growth in the west. My access to cheap gas and $5 running shoes at any expense to the earth is key to our victory against evil brown people. To legitimize this betrayal of my core values I will attack anyone and everyone who exposes my laziness and moral negligence."

The argument as I understand it: "I refuse to become critically and socially rational because my bigger concern right now is the growth of my opponents' ideology, which can only be checked by unhindered restrictions of speech in the west. My access to cheap drugs and $5 hookers at any expense to society is key to our victory against decent family oriented people. To legitimize this betrayal of my core values I will attack anyone and everyone who exposes my intellectual laziness and moral deprivations."

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-26 4:35:33 PM

Remember in the 70's when our friend Maurice helped propagate fear and loathing of the clean(er) energy, nuclear?

He was working for the oil interests (i.e. his own). Science was used by them to prevent competition and disruption of their control of the world economy. Fake science with lots of concerned little citizens frothing at the mouth.

Who is manipulating the current frothing earnests?

Steve, that's why people are interested in who gives money to David Suzuki.

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-26 4:39:28 PM

"Life is all about living with unfair disadvantages in the name of doing the right thing........Blah blah blah and dare I say a real lack of faith in the West's ability to make a go of it under harsh conditions."
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 26-Feb-07 4:02:05 PM



The Physical Evidence of Earth’s
Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
S. Fred Singer
President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Adjunct Scholar
National Center for Policy Analysis
Dennis T. Avery
Senior Fellow
Hudson Institute
Adapted from their forthcoming book,
Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1,500 Years
NCPA Policy Report No. 279
September 2005
ISBN #1-56808-149-9
Web site: www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279
National Center for Policy Analysis
12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75251
(972) 386-6272

Executive Summary

The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.
Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps
200 years or more, regardless of human activity.
Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change — ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures.
There are also shorter-term proxies — cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.
Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history.
From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years.
Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).

Other substantiating findings followed:
● An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland
— showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported
in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off
Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles.
So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.
None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Control 1

Is the Earth currently experiencing a warming trend? Yes.
Are human activities, including the burning of fossil fuel and forest
conversion, the primary — or even significant — drivers of this current temperature trend? The scientifically appropriate answer — cautious and conforming to the known facts — is: probably not.
Indeed, the current warming cycle is not unusual: Evidence from around the world shows that the Earth has experienced numerous climate
cycles throughout its history. These cycles include glacial periods (more commonly
known as Ice Ages) and interglacial periods, as well as smaller, though significant, fluctuations. During the past 20 years, scientists have been accumulating strong physical evidence that the Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500
years (plus or minus 500 years).

The evidence indicates that:
● The Earth experienced a Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
● A Modern Warming period began about 1850 and continues to the
Figure I tracks the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age that preceded
today’s Modern Warming.
We have long had physical evidence that the Earth has experienced
numerous climate cycles throughout its history. The best-known of these is
the Ice Age cycle, with 90,000-year Ice Ages interspersed with far shorter
interglacial periods. What is new is the evidence of more moderate, persistent
climate cycles within these broader cycles.
Climate Cycle
Source: Thomas J. Crowley (1996, http://www.gcrio.org/). Compiled by R. S.
Bradley and J. A. Eddy (EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991) based on J. T.
Houghton et al. (1990).
“The Earth’s climate cycles
through 90,000-year Ice Ages
interspersed with shorter
warm periods.”
“Within the longer cycle, the
climate warms and cools in
1,500 year-cycles (plus or
minus 500 years).”
2 The National Center for Policy Analysis
The message that the 1,500-year climate cycle is real, broad — and
sudden — is being dug up from the Earth itself by modern science. The key
evidence comes from very long-term proxies for temperature change, especially
ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny
sea creatures that document even small changes in Earth’s temperature over
many thousands of years.
In addition, we have a number of shorter-term proxies (cave stalagmites,
tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety
of other temperature proxies) that testify to the global nature of the 1,500-
year climate cycles.
A striking example of the effect of this 1,500-year climate cycle can be
seen in the temperature-sensitive history of wine-growing in England.
The Romans grew wine grapes in England when they occupied it from
the first through the fourth centuries. Aerial photography, remote sensing and
large-scale excavation have recently revealed seven Roman-era vineyards in
south central England. One site contains nearly four miles of bedding trenches
that could have supported some 4,000 grapevines.1
A thousand years later, during the Medieval Warming of 950-1300,
the Britons themselves grew wine grapes in England. The Domesday Book,
compiled in the 11th century, recorded 46 places in southern England growing
wine grapes. (Richard Tkachuck of the Geosciences Research Institute notes
that German vineyards were found as high as 780 meters in elevation during
the Medieval Warming, but are found today up to only 560 meters — indicating
a temperature difference of 1° to 1.4° C.2) During the Little Ice Age (1300-
1850), England was too cold to grow wine grapes. Instead, London often held
ice festivals on the frozen Thames River, which hasn’t frozen in the last 150
Now that the Little Ice Age has given way to the Modern Warming, a
few hardy Britons have again begun serious efforts to grow good wine grapes
in England — but thus far with spotty success. The Web site www.englishwine.
com admits that British wine-making is still a very chancy proposition.
Only two years in 10 will the wine be very good, and during four of the other
years it will be terrible, “largely due to weather....”
British vintners should be hopeful, however. The Modern Warming is
still young, and likely to eventually give them several centuries of good wine
production. The Earth is apparently having its third natural, moderate — and
unstoppable — warming in 2,000 years.
Taken by itself, the cycle of wine-grape growing in England might be
seen as an aberration. However, this is just one bit of the emerging body of
physical evidence of a natural climate cycle — a cycle too moderate and too
long to have been reported in the Viking sagas and earlier oral histories from
people without thermometers.
“Evidence from every continent
and ocean confirms the
1,500-year cycle.”
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Control 3
None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves.
However, in order to dismiss the huge impact of the 1500-year climate
cycle, we would have to dismiss not only the human histories from those periods,
but also the enormous range and variety of physical evidence presented
Importantly, if the current warming trend is, as the evidence suggests,
part of an entirely natural climate cycle, actions proposed to prevent further
warming would be futile and could, by imposing substantial costs upon the
global economy, lessen the ability of people to adapt to the impacts — both
positive and negative — of climate change.
The Ice Cores
In the 1980s scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing,
moderate natural climate cycle. The 1,500-year climate cycle emerged
almost full-blown from Greenland in 1983.
Denmark’s Willi Dansgaard and Switzerland’s Hans Oeschger were
among the first people in the world to see two mile-long ice cores that brought
Change in Oxygen-18 Ratio in
Greenland Ice Cores, A.D. 820-1985
Note: The vertical axis shows the mean bidecadal change in oxygen-18 in the Greenland
ice cores. The horizontal lines through the graph of the data give the average
annual change in 180 for the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and Little
Ice Age (LIA).
Source: Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, “Climate History and the Sun,” George
C. Marshall Institute, June 5, 2001; from Minze Stuiver, Pieter M. Grootes
and Thomas F. Braziunas et al., “The GISP2δ18O Climate Record of the Past
16,500 Years and the Role of the Sun, Ocean and Volcanoes,” Quaternary
Research, vol. 44, 1995, pages 341-344, Figure 4.
“The changing concentration
of oxygen-18 in Greenland
ice cores corresponds to the
1,500-year cycle.”
4 The National Center for Policy Analysis
up 250,000 years of the Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. Over the
previous dozen years, the two researchers had pioneered ways to pry information
from the ice cores. They had learned, among other things, that the ratio of
oxygen-18 isotopes to oxygen-16 isotopes in ice could reveal the air temperature
at the time when the snowflakes that made the ice fell to earth. The correspondence
of the change in the isotope ratios to the recent Medieval Warming
Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) is shown in Figure II.3
Dansgaard and Oeschger expected to see the big 90,000-year Ice Ages
in the cores, and they did. But they were startled to find, superimposed on the
big Ice Age swings, a smaller, moderate and more persistent temperature cycle.
They estimated the average cycle length at 2,550 years. They dismissed volcanoes
as a causal factor because there’s no such cycle in volcanic activity. The
timing of the cycles seemed to match closely with the known history of recent
glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
The report that Dansgaard and Oeschger wrote in 1984, “North Atlantic
Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” was, in retrospect,
almost eerie in its accuracy, its completeness and its logical linking of
the climate cycles to the sun.4 The only major correction imposed by subsequent
research is that the cycles were more frequent than they thought. The
average length of the cycles has now been shortened by almost half — from
their original estimate of 2,550 years to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).
Dansgaard and Oeschger were correct when they told us that the
climate shifts were moderate, rising and falling over a range of about 4° C in
northern Greenland, with very little temperature change at the equator — and
only half a degree when averaged over the northern hemisphere.
The cycles were confirmed by 1) their appearance in two different ice
cores drilled more than 1,000 miles apart; 2) their correlation with known
glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe; and 3) independent data in a
seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland.5
They noted that the cycle shifts were abrupt, sometimes gaining half of
their eventual temperature change in a decade or so. That suggested an external
forcing, perhaps amplified and transmitted globally by the ocean currents
and winds. (In the mid-19th century, the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming
went from Little Ice Age to Modern Warming in about 10 years.6 That implies
a climate driver from outside our planet, almost certainly involving the sun.)
However, Dansgaard and Oeschger noted, “Since the solar radiation is
the only important input of energy to the climatic system, it is most obvious
to seek an explanation in solar processes. Unfortunately we know much less
about the solar radiation output than about the emission of solar particulate
matter in the past.”
The two scientists did know, however, that both carbon-14 and beryllium-
10 isotopes vary inversely with the strength of the solar activator. The
“Ice cores from Antarctica
show the same climate
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Control 5
isotopes of both elements in their Greenland ice cores showed historic temperature
lows during what solar scientists term the Maunder sunspot minimum
(1645–1715) — the absolute coldest point of the Little Ice Age and a period
when sunspots virtually disappeared.
Today, we can measure variations in the sun’s irradiance from satellites
out beyond the obscuring atmosphere of our own planet. The solar constant
isn’t — constant, that is. We also know that when the sun is less active, its
solar wind weakens and provides less shielding for the Earth from the cosmic
rays that bounce around space. With a weaker sun, more of the cosmic rays
hit the Earth, creating more charged particles in the atmosphere, which then
become low, wet clouds reflecting more heat back into space. A less active
sun thus means a cooler Earth.7
The importance of the 1,500-year cycles found in the Greenland ice
cores increased dramatically four years later when they were also found at the
other end of the world — in an ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier.
The Vostok ice core went back 400,000 years, and showed the 1,500-year
cycle through its whole length.8
The scientific world had known about the sunspot connection to
Earth’s climate for some 400 years. British astronomer William Herschel
claimed in 1801 that he could forecast wheat prices by sunspot numbers,
because wheat crops were often poor when sunspots (and thus solar activity)
were low. Not only did the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) coincide with the
coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Sporer minimum (1450–1543) aligned
with the second-coldest phase of that period.
In 1991, Eigel Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen noted that the correlation
between solar activity and Earth temperatures is even stronger if we
use the length of the solar cycle to represent the sun’s variations instead of the
number of sunspots.9 (The solar cycles average about 11 years in length, but
actually vary between eight and 14 years.) Their paper in Science concluded
that the solar connection explained 75 to 85 percent of recent climate variation.
Seabed Sediments
Let’s look now at another source that seems to confirm the 1,500-year
climate cycle: seabed sediments.
Gerard Bond of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
analyzed sediments on the floor of the southern North Atlantic.
Roughly every 1,500 years, there was a surge in the amount of rocky debris
picked up by the glaciers as they ground their way across eastern Canada and
Greenland. This ice-rafted debris was then floated much farther south before
the icebergs melted and it dropped to the sea floor. Both the increase in the
“Climate cycles coincide with
sunspots and variations in
solar energy output.”
6 The National Center for Policy Analysis
volume of the debris and its floating much farther south indicated severe cold
Bond found nine of these cycles in the last 12,000 years, and they
matched those in the cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Vostok Antarctic
glacier — again strengthening our confidence that the cycles are real and
Bond’s 1997 research report in Science 10 begins:
“Evidence from North Atlantic deep-sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts
punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable
Holocene [interglacial] climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing
waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of
Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland
changed abruptly. . . . Together, they make up a series of climatic shifts with a
cyclicity close to 1,470 years (plus or minus 500 years). The Holocene events,
therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennialscale
climatic cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate
state.” (emphasis added)
Bond thus points up the fact that the moderate 1,500-year cycle is powerful
enough to periodically warm the Earth’s climate even when thousands of
trillions of tons of ice are determined to keep it Ice-Age cold, and to periodically
chill the planet even during warm interglacial periods.
The evidence for this moderate but persistent climate cycle has continued
to mount around the world in recent decades.
Peter deMenocal’s team found African coastal seabed sediments documented
a history of major changes in sea surface temperatures.11
Changes in plankton numbers and species gave the deMenocal team
ocean temperature readings from the past, and the amounts of dust blown from
Africa were an indicator of drought. These proxies tell us that when the sea
surface temperatures fell off West Africa, much of the continent went drier
for centuries. Then, the climate snapped back, quickly bringing such heavy
rains that large lakes formed in the Sahara Desert. The most recent cooling in
the region was a two-stage Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1850, essentially
simultaneously with similar coolings in the Greenland ice cores, in the seabed
sediments of the North Atlantic found by Bond, and in the reconstructed sea
surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea found by Lloyd Keigwin. 12
Bond concluded that every 1,500 years, harsh cold periods drop North
Atlantic ocean temperatures by 2 to 3.5° C. However, deMenocal says ocean
temperatures off Africa simultaneously dropped even more sharply, with
changes of 3 to 4° C.
Bond’s subsequent study demonstrated the linkage between the Earth’s
warming-cooling cycle and the sun, using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 as proxies
for solar warming and cooling.13
“Glacial rocks deposited in
Atlantic seabed sediments
show a 1,500-year cycle.”
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Control 7
He wrote, “It is highly unlikely that Holocene climate forcing alone
could have produced such large and abrupt production-rate changes at essentially
the same time in both [the C-14 and Be-10]. Our correlations are evidence,
therefore, that over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time
scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to
a distinct interval of . . . reduced solar output.
“A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied
by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic....”
Dating Back a Million Years. Near Iceland, Maureen Raymo of
Boston College found the Earth was undergoing Dansgaard-Oeschger’s 1,500-
year climate cycles more than a million years ago. Raymo and her research
team retrieved a very long sediment core from the deep sea bottom south of
Iceland. As the Raymo team wrote in Nature:
“Here we use sediment records of past iceberg discharge and deepwater
chemistry to show that such millennial-scale oscillations in climate
occurred over one million years ago.... Our results suggest that such climate
instability may be a pervasive and long-term characteristic of Earth’s climate....”
A Global Sampling of Sea Bed Cores. South of Iceland, Giancarlo
Bianchi and Nicholas McCave studied a 1,500-year climate cycle that “may
be related to an internal oscillation of the climate system.” The grain sizes of
sediments carried by the Iceland-Scotland part of the “Atlantic ocean conveyor”
reveal the strength of the current. Colder periods with less ice melt
generate slower bottom currents that carried smaller sediment grains; warmer
periods with stronger currents carried larger sediment grains. They found that
flows changed with the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age, “and extend
over the entire Holocene epoch with a quasi-periodicity of ~1500 years.”15
(emphasis added)
In the Norwegian Sea, Sweden’s Carin Andersson led a team which
constructed a 3,000-year temperature history from the stable isotopes in the
plankton and the number and types of protozoan skeletons from seabed sediment
cores.16 The climate history shows a long cold period before the Roman
Warming, then the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age.
A Baltic Sea sediment core shows a cold-weather period beginning
about 1200, characterized by “a major decrease in the [algae cyst] assemblage
and an increase in cold water [algae species].”17 The study also found the
present Baltic is still too cold to support the subtropical marine species it had
during the Medieval Warming.
Off Alaska, Old Dominion University’s Dennis Darby analyzed sediments
from the continental shelf.18 The number and species of dinocysts (tiny
”cocoons” left behind by one-celled organisms) gives evidence of sea surface
“The 1,500-year cycle has
persisted more than one million

Just the Tip of the Iceberg showing that Arthropogenic climate change is a LIE.

Eco-Fascists can kiss my squirrel.
You, Steve, are a tool.

The right thing you say, Steve?

The right thing would be for you and your Eco-Fascist pals to learn the truth before demanding action.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-26 5:02:51 PM


When I analyzed the Kyoto Protocol, there were two things this document claimed.

One, it claimed it was truth.

Two, it claimed it could reduce C02 around the globe.

Bow, I am not about to get into a scientific debate with you, because that would be unfair. You are not a scientist.

Whether you believe that there is global warming or not, or whether pink elephants are going to sprout out of the earth, really makes no difference whatsoever. The matter is a policial one.

There have always been polical issues.

And many of these issues, over time, have been dealt with poorly by governments. Some, much worse than others. Such as Liberal governments, or NDP governments at the provincial level. Only a conservative government has the wherewithall to bring us through this current polical issue, with flying colours.

A Liberal government, for one, would ruin the oil industry.

I feel very strongly about the free market. And I also feel very strongly that a prpper government, and the right incentives, can help people put their money where their mouth is. If people really do reduce their own C02 footprint, if that is what they really want to do and not just fluff words, then there is a way to do that without destrpying the economy.

If these ideas are not properly merged, there will be a nasty political scene down the road.

Even if you could place a hundred non-oil industry funded papers on the table, that proved no Global warming, the issue would still be on the table, and in the next election.

Do you understand?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-26 5:49:40 PM

BTW, Speller, the after analysing the document, I came to the conclusion that the Kyoto protocol was a lie on both counts.

The document is nothing but a mechanism to steal money out of our economy and place it into the hands of depsots.

And, it is the biggest bureaucratic nightmare since the UN.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-26 5:51:38 PM

I want to tell you that we don't need to reduce our CO2 footprint. I want to tell you that CO2 is not a toxin.

I want you to understand that I believe in Global Warming and it is OK.

I want you to know and understand that the entire environmental movement is a ploy to reduce our industrial capacity to make a better world.

There are no emerging technologies to take the place of carbon based energy and that the only existing technology that has any hope to do that is nuclear energy.

That said, the countries who are striving hardest to obtain nuclear energy are doing it not for the need of their people to heat their homes or power their TVs and computers but to obtain weapons material and retard our technological advance so that they can maintain their totalitarian governments while catching up to us militarily.


If we cede that there is, when it is in fact a ruse, we lose.

We lose here in Canada because Albertans aren't going to take another F***ing when we took one during the NEP for nothing except to retard Alberta's economy and prestige.
Alberta will secede before we take another attack on our economy and that will be just fine by the Communist's reckoning.

We lose for Western civilization because there is NOTHING that can be done to stop the natural Global Warming that is occurring(and occurs every 1500 years) and control of our economy will pass into the hands of people who want to ration things which are not in need of being rationed.

There is therefore no need for recycling in Canada.



There isn't even enough carbon based pollution to make the various strata of Canadian governments apply 1970s automobile emission standards laws or OUTLAW backyard fire pits or wood burning fire places.

No I am not a scientist.
But I am not gullible and I do understand that Global Warming is NOT a THREAT.

I look forward to having orange trees in my yard in my old age.
I'll drink an entirely homemade Tequila Sunrise in toast of the rise and fall of:
Communism, Environmentalism, Mohammadanism, and Nazism.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-26 7:27:17 PM

Interestingly I haven't had any real answers to my questions. Why does conservatism so strangely resemble liberalism of the 60's, or where the conservative values of the pioneers went? All I've seen are potshots, sophomoric catcalls, and a summary from a lobbyists paper that hasn't survived peer review copied and pasted into a comment field by critics who hide behind handles and pseudonyms which tells me they don't feel comfortable standing behind their word, but feel happy enough to slam anyone who does.

Steve Janke and I may not see eye to eye on the issues, but at least I know that Steve Janke and I don't see eye to eye. Who knows who or where 'h2o273kk9' or 'Speller' are or are coming from? Big oil astroturfers? Children of the CEO of Alcan? Green Party staffers trying to rile up the faithful by posing as moonbat extremist caricatures of their rivals? Bored 12 year olds? If you really value free speech then speak, don't snipe. Stand up and be counted (and countered).

In any case it's like putting your fist in a bucket of water, you're not going to leave a dent, so why waste your time and energy?

For what it's worth, I'm an evangelical christian, a creationist, very happily married, a second generation Canadian raised in Alberta, I don't drink or smoke, I attend a weekly Bible study, I sort my garbage and carpool, I support our soldiers tangibly through the CFPSA (my brother in-law served in Afghanistan and Bosnia), I work to evangelize muslims to Christianity, and contrary to h2o273kk9's accusations, have no interest in access to cheap drugs, $5 hookers, or the NEP which dislocated our family from Ft. McMurray in the 80's.

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-27 8:55:49 AM


You're so wonderful, I don't know how to respond.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-27 9:09:42 AM

'Set You Free', respond with answers. It'd be a start.

Here's a few restated questions you can take a shot at answering.

1. Why does the conservative movement appear to have abandoned principles like delayed gratification, social responsibility, and self constraint for the sake of self constraint?

2. Why are the 'moonbat liberal eco fascists' responded to in kind? Why do we live up to their stereotypes? Why aren't we the calm, classy, rational, diplomatic, flexible but firm sorts of people that any genuinely raving eco fascist would be terrified to square off against? Condescension, mockery, and furious rants aren't going to win anyone the popular support it'll take to steer the ship of state. Narrow electoral wins, litigation and threats of secession won't either.

Have a nice day!

Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-27 10:30:11 AM


My answer is to live according to your conscience and by your example.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-27 10:49:28 AM

"If you really value free speech then speak, don't snipe. "

Oh, that's rich. I took your strawman quotes that shoved words into our mouths never spoken and I replaced a few words and strings of words that changed only the focus yet maintained the snarky tone and contemptuous air of superiority. Yet, you have the chutzaph to lecture me on the value of free speech over sniping. Get a clue!

You want me to address your comments. Ok, let's try this one.

"1. Why does the conservative movement appear to have abandoned principles like delayed gratification, social responsibility, and self constraint for the sake of self constraint?"

My response: have you stopped beating your wife?

What's wrong? Don't you like the buried premise? Same goes for your "leading" question.

"Steve Janke and I may not see eye to eye on the issues, but at least I know that Steve Janke and I don't see eye to eye. Who knows who or where 'h2o273kk9' or 'Speller' are or are coming from? Big oil astroturfers? Children of the CEO of Alcan? Green Party staffers trying to rile up the faithful by posing as moonbat extremist caricatures of their rivals? Bored 12 year olds? "

Why does it matter if you know our identities? Does that change the substance of the debating points or the strategy used? Debate the position and not the person.

For what it's worth, your resume is essentially worthless because I have no way of verifying your claims. So, you are still essentially anonymous, just like me, as far as I am concerned.

"Have a nice day!"

Peace be upon you.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-27 4:02:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.