Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Willy Wonka Conspiracy update: the pile-on begins | Main | Thanks, Kalim, but . . . »

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Lorne Gunter and Jan Narveson on global warming

With the Freedom Fair event in Edmonton now only a week away, event organizers have announced today that National Post columnist Lorne Gunter will be joining Western Standard columnist Dr. Jan Narveson on the “Global warming politics” panel.

Lorne Gunter has written extensively on global warming. You can find his recent columns here and here.

Dr. Narveson has written on the subject for the Western Standard. You can find his article “Cooling it on warming” here.

You can learn more about Gunter here. And more about Narveson below:

Jan Narveson, B.A. (Chicago), PhD (Harvard) (and FRSC, and O.C.) is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada (after 41 years as professor.) He is the author of over two hundred papers in philosophical periodicals and anthologies, mainly on moral and political theory and practice, and of several books: Morality and Utility (1967); The Libertarian Idea (1989; republished by Broadview Press, 2002); Moral Matters (1993; 2nd ed. 1999); Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice (2002); and You and The State (2008); also, with Marilyn Friedman, Political Correctness (1995).

Gunter and Narveson will speak from 3:15 PM – 4:00 PM at the Holiday Inn Express (10010 – 104 Street) on Saturday, May 17, 2008.

Contact Mike Sturko at [email protected] to reserve your place at the event.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 11, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5521d59988833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lorne Gunter and Jan Narveson on global warming:

Comments

i am curious, have you guys found any climatologist to speak to that topic? Or is a Philospher and a columnist the best you guys could find?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-11 9:52:04 PM


They could easily find one but I would prefer that they invite a very outspoken and arrogant former Fruit Fly Geneticist and or a psychopathic former US VP who are both so much more into the politics of Junk science and specifically hysterical AGW and who would, of course, refuse to debate with their relatively qualified equals.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-05-11 10:21:44 PM


That's all that climate change is - junk science and junk politics.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-11 11:02:16 PM


Snowy
"i am curious, have you guys found any climatologist to speak to that topic?"

What is your expertise in determining who does or does not qualify as having acceptable climatology bonafides?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-11 11:14:21 PM


What is your expertise in determining who does or does not qualify as having acceptable climatology bonafides?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 11-May-08 11:14:21 PM

Gee, I don't know H2, maybe someone who has made a career out of studying the climate? Or is that too lofty of a goal?

The Anti-Climate change crowd decries Gore for acting as a spokes person, yet they can't do better? Come on, the line currently is that there are "dozens if not hundreds" of Scientists who don't agree with the IPCC findings, there must be at least ONE climatologist in that crowd that would be more than happy to talk about his opinion.

Yet, wherever you look, the people who seem to be in the limelight of "climate change isn't happening" or "climate change is a natural thing and nothing we humans ever did or could do" crowd can come up with seems to be anything but expert in that field.

Dunno, do you go to your Librarian when you need your appendix taken out? I am sure they have read an anatomy book once in their life and by the logic of the climate change deniers that's good enough to be counted as an expert.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 2:35:43 AM


"What is your expertise in determining who does or does not qualify as having acceptable climatology bonafides?"

A hack from the Post certainly doesn't cut it.


Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-05-12 3:39:17 AM


"Man made" global warming is a myth and a tax grab. I'm looking very much forward to hearing them speak and meeting some sensible people.

Posted by: JC | 2008-05-12 6:04:53 AM


Snowy said

"Gee, I don't know H2, maybe someone who has made a career out of studying the climate? Or is that too lofty of a goal?"

Please re-read my question to you.

"What is your expertise in determining who does or does not qualify as having acceptable climatology bonafides?"

What is YOUR expertise in determining who is or isn't an expert? Are you qualified to tell other posters here that their favourite climate expert isn't really an expert?

I thought not.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-12 6:11:42 AM


You should seriously invite Al Gore. He's probably the best person out there to disprove global warming or "climate change".

Consider the fact that he provides absolutely no facts. I'm so against the idea of global warming, and it's all thanks to Al Gore. If he wasn't going around the world opening his mouth and expounding high doses of crap and statistical manipulation, I'd probably believe in global warming.

All the dying polar bears, hurricanes, floods and droughts aren't proof that man is causing global warming.

If you want to cut through the crap of an environmentalist, stop them in their tracks. Ask them "Prove that greenhouse gases cause warming." None of them have an answer because it has never been proven. They'd rather talk about polar bears and ice caps melting and water levels and all this other fluff that still doesn't go back and answer the question.

I don't like environmentalists because they don't give a crap about the truth or science. All they care about is forwarding their anti-industrial revolution.

Al Gore's statistical manipulations, just shows how "out of it" environmentalists are. I was flipping through the channels on tv one day and I say Gore on Oprah.

"The 10 hottest years ever recorded in the Earth's atmospheric record have all occurred in the past 14 years, Gore says"

I'll admit, I'm not a climatologist, but as an Engineer, I see big issues with that claim.

First, why did he pick 14 years? Out of all the numbers he could of choose, he choose 14. Why not 20? or 50? or 100?

Second, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and he's taking a statistical range of 14 years to prove something. Sorry Al Gore, you can't do that. Talk when you have a 100 million years of data to compare it against.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200612/20061205/slide_20061205_350_101.jhtml

Look snowrunner. Go through each slide of the show. You won't see any mention of proof. Just talk about the effects of global warming, as if it has already been proven(psychologically that is known as reframing a situation also the whole "global warming denier" sounds an awful lot like "holocaust denier". Psychological warfare is a bitch.)

To all the environmentalists reading this. CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is not pollution. It's a vital part of life and our existence. If there were no CO2 all your precious trees would die, along with us. If you love hugging trees, support increases in CO2.

Posted by: Chris | 2008-05-12 7:10:57 AM


The huge dilemma remains. For all of the petroleum industry kool aod drinkers. If we take some measurable steps to improve the carbon balance what have we lost. If the climotologists are correct and we do save the planet we have a future. If the climotologists are truly wrong than all we have done is save money for outselves and cleaned up our environment - DUH

Posted by: al | 2008-05-12 7:16:23 AM


We lose our standard of living and go live in poverty, while people starve and die.

Environmentalists never talk about what people need to give to accomplish these high goals. Al, do you know how much you need to give to meet the Kyoto standards? Disconnect the power from your house and you might be half way there.

Here's the deal. Anyone can make claims. I'm a factual person. I move on fact. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in magical fairies. And I certainly don't believe in this environmental dogma crap.

If you want to make claims without proof to back it up, than you have no room to push your agenda on others. I don't want to live in cold house with no electricity because you feel guilty about owning a car.

There is such a simple solution to global warming, that environmentalists don't want to do because they'd rather fight capitalism. It's really simple. Plant trees. Go plant some trees. Trees eat greenhouse gases. Mmm Mmmm Good.

You go plant trees and I'll continue to use electricity in my house. Okay. Sound fine?

Also, to apply your logic. I'm going to claim that there are aliens that live in the shadow of the moon. They're hostile and want to kill us all.

I have no proof to back that up, but we'll conscript everyone on Earth to fight and make a huge military arm build up. If we're wrong, what have lost, besides our standard of living and freedom. WE can now protect ourselves from aliens.

Posted by: Chris | 2008-05-12 7:31:24 AM


Environmentalism is evil.

Man's life requires that he use his mind to produce the values his life requires. We observe that food, shelter, drink, etc., are not automatically given to man. These are values which man has to discover by investigating nature.

Man analyzes the entities in nature to determine their properties and behavior. He then rearranges the elements of these entities to produce values which enable his life.

The environmentalist movement seeks to terminate this process. Posturing as scientists, environmentalists hope to cut off man's life at root by questioning his right to pursue his happiness, thereby enabling the violation of his property rights. And, without property rights, no other rights are possible.

There is no need to consider their "scientific" arguments in depth. You do not need a PhD. to see the folly of their position.

Man's life is his proper standard of value. That which enhances man's life is the good; that which diminishes it is the evil. Environmentalism seeks to diminish man's life.

Environmentalists arrogate intrinsic value to nature. They claim that nature has value in itself. But, this is false. The concept "value" only applies to conceptual beings. Dogs, trees, clouds, and seas do not [have the concept] "value." Thinking beings (men) are the ones who "value," and, on earth, without man, there would be no valuing as such.

Values are neither "out there" in nature (intrinsic), nor are they "in here" in the individual mind (subjective). Values are derived by a process of reason: the mind investigating nature (the objective).

For a fuller discussion of the nature of values, please see Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

For a fuller discussion of the evil of environmentalism, please see Ayn Rand's "The Return of The Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution."

For a quick introduction to the nature of our battle against the environmentalists, I invite you to consider:

http://environmentalism.com/

Posted by: ANewMorality | 2008-05-12 7:36:21 AM


Good news!

Dion may champion carbon tax

Policy Shift; Could be key plank of election platform

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=508441

Looks like Harper will be in government for a lot longer. Not even Chretien, the 2nd worst PM ever and the most corrupt, saw a carbon tax as a viable idea.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-12 8:11:22 AM


What is YOUR expertise in determining who is or isn't an expert? Are you qualified to tell other posters here that their favourite climate expert isn't really an expert?

I thought not.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 12-May-08 6:11:42 AM

Oh, I don't know, a quick look at their educational background and what they do for a day to day life is usually enough to at least have an idea if they are in the right ballpark to be counted as an expert.

But hey, don't let me tell you to take your head of the hole in the ground you stuck it in. Enjoy your next visit to the Librarian for a medical checkup, I am sure they are excellent.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 8:43:11 AM


[Ed. This comment was modified for length. Please do not post entire articles in the comments section, use external links instead.]

Ask them "Prove that greenhouse gases cause warming." None of them have an answer because it has never been proven.

Posted by: Chris | 12-May-08 7:10:57 AM

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/#more-462

-----------------------

Look Ma' no polar bears.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 8:46:18 AM


Chris, well said.

The global warming has several arguments that rarely seem to addressed. The focus seems to be on the "fact" that it is occuring, and that governments must do somehting now.

The arguments are:

1. Is the earth in fact warming?
2. If it is warming, is it human caused, even in part?
3. If at least partly human caused, to what degree are we causing it?
4. If it is happening, is it a bad thing?
5. If it is a bad thing, can we do somehting about it that will make any difference?
6. Who should do it?

As to the last question, think about what happens whenever governments do something. The result is that we are physically forced to do something (or not do something). I would venture to say that rarely has this resulted in any real improvement.

Posted by: TM | 2008-05-12 8:53:24 AM


Chris,

As you describe it - there is a saturation point.
A point at which more CO2 will make no differance.

In point one you imply that CO2 is responsible for trapping 150W/m2! um... no. Almost a third of the trapped energy! while the trace gas amounts are still VERY tiny. If this were true I'd have CO2 in my walls and windows!
It's true you didn't state that explicitly
but that how it might appear.

In stating .5C and .7C you do not detail how you isolate these tiny figures from the noise of natural variation. In fact you do not describe how you isolate the VERY large effects of solar variablity from your data. I think you haven't isolated any natrual variability out at all.

Every gram of fossil fuel we burn was once living green stuff. That's why we call them "fossil" fuels. Im sick to death of "greenies" overstating the negligible and unprovable effect of burning fossil fuels. If what you greenies say is true - we have to stop using fossil fuels immediately and we can say good-by to 2/3 of earths population. Which of you greenies gets to say who dies?

The standard of living we have, our economies and indeed a large portion of earth population depend on the use of fossil fuels.
Is "switch to ethanol,even if it starves an African" really how we want to go?


Posted by: Flip | 2008-05-12 9:28:51 AM


Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 9:28:51 AM

Are you refering to the "six steps"? That wasn't Chris who wrote this, it was me who pasted it from here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/#more-462

Should have put the link in the original post, but feel free to comment on there / contact the author, they are usually more than willing to reply to any question people may have.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 9:57:43 AM


"Good news!

Dion may champion carbon tax!"

Zeb, now the bad news, there is enough useful idiots in Canada (like our friend snowjob) who have totally bought into this scam, hook, line and sinker.

Flip, the rough estimate is it takes two gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol, and people will still starve.

But our green friends would never let a fact like that get in the way.

There are as many reasons (as well as ignored facts) not to do it, as there are useful idiots (as mentioned above) that buy into this colossal lie.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-12 10:06:24 AM


One more time.

It's the sun, son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.

Posted by: foobert | 2008-05-12 10:08:29 AM


It's the sun, son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.
Posted by: foobert | 12-May-08 10:08:29 AM

Too bad that it doesn't seem like there is any increase in solar activity though.

Unless of course it is all just a huge conspiracy by Al Gore to get to your money and they suppress all the astrological observations.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 10:10:36 AM


To bad there doesn't seem to be any warming of the oceans either.

I'm sure it was just an oversight by Gore, and he didn't really mean to play on the fears of small minded people like you.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-12 10:16:38 AM


deepblue: we all know that the things which these environmentalists oppose the most aren't pollution and climate change - it's capitalism and freedom.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-12 10:27:15 AM


My apologies to Chris!

Snowrunner...So you cribbed this from a propaganda site? .....Figures.

The whole piece depends on a very narrow part of the EM spectrum and neglects all of the other inputs from the sun. The later commentary on the website goes into these other issues.

I have always seen this AGW as a political movement and this is demonstrated by the continuous overstatments made by environmental groups. In quoting falsehoods Snowrunner kind of makes my point.

AGW harpies should be careful what they wish for.
There are consequences.

I'm all for responsible environmentalism.
There are things we should stop.
Like cutting down Indonesian rainforest for Biofool production. We should stop killing birds with wind turbines.

In my opinion CO2 is probably the key to feeding our hungry planet.

Posted by: Flip | 2008-05-12 10:28:41 AM


Flip:

Algore himself said people would not pay attention unless the case was overstated.

That's about the only scientifically correct statement he's made on the topic.

The most wonderful thing about science is that it's never settled.

And, about the polar bears ... not only can they swim, but their populations are actually increasing.

I'm not holding up much hope for the Democrat-controlled congress to understand the scientific facts about the increase in polar bear populations.

So, on Thursday, they have a chance to confirm what the scientific research says ... or they will show their true political stripes. It should be an interesting day.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-12 10:36:57 AM


Zeb,

Absolutely. And the funniest thing is Gore could be the poster boy for capitalism.

He and his disgraced boss Clinton, both who did absolutely nothing while in power to combat "global warming", both who live lavish lifestyles and now would slap a carbon tax on you and I, and in Gores case is critical of any sort of progress and wants to roll back the American standard of life are held up as some sort of messiahs.

Both of these clowns since they fell from power are estimated to have amassed a combined net worth of over a quarter of a billion, yes that's with a b, dollars.

For doing absolutely nothing but running their mouths.

These two clowns simply prove the famous line from PT Barnum.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-12 10:42:35 AM


"We should stop killing birds with wind turbines."

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm sure you have noticed how the corrupt media handled the "duck disaster" and as usual bastardized the fossil energy folks without even a mention of the thousands, if not tens of thousands of birds that are killed by friendly "green" wind turbines every year.

Just another disgraceful example of the length the incredibly corrupt media will go to push their agenda.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-12 10:50:41 AM


Snowrunner...So you cribbed this from a propaganda site? .....Figures.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 10:28:41 AM

What do you consider "Propaganda"? A site written by Climatologist trying to make the science more accessible to the layman, while an Op-Ed piece by Lorne Gunter is unbiased reporting?

-------------

The whole piece depends on a very narrow part of the EM spectrum and neglects all of the other inputs from the sun. The later commentary on the website goes into these other issues.

I have always seen this AGW as a political movement and this is demonstrated by the continuous overstatments made by environmental groups. In quoting falsehoods Snowrunner kind of makes my point.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 10:28:41 AM

So if these scientists are all wrong. Then I hope you can provide some "unbiased" peer reviewed material that proves this?

---------------------
AGW harpies should be careful what they wish for.
There are consequences.

I'm all for responsible environmentalism.
There are things we should stop.
Like cutting down Indonesian rainforest for Biofool production. We should stop killing birds with wind turbines.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 10:28:41 AM

Oh boy, that one again. You do know that less birds die each year from flying into a (slowly rotating) windmill than splat into houses each day?

-----------------

In my opinion CO2 is probably the key to feeding our hungry planet.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 10:28:41 AM

And this unbiased scientific proven opinion is backed up by.....?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 10:53:10 AM


Just another disgraceful example of the length the incredibly corrupt media will go to push their agenda.
Posted by: deepblue | 12-May-08 10:50:41 AM

I am not holding my breath thinking I could get this through your thick skull, but the windturbine killing birds is based on one wind park that was build early on, right in the migration path of birds and on top of a mountain. The actual numbers of birds getting killed by them is less in a year than bird that die by flying into building. Maybe we should stop building houses first if you are so determined to save our featherd friends from flying into manmade structures.

As for the ducks, yeah, the media jumped on it, ducks are "cute" and cute stories sell. Welcome to the modern media that is profit oriented and reports on things that people want to read about, not necessarily what is important to report but utterly boring.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 10:56:41 AM


Snowrunner,

Anyone who owns a greenhouse knows that raising the CO2 level to 3 times what is in the atmosphere today will boost plant growth and improve plant health. Governments support and publish this method of "forcing" as it makes pesticide unnecesary. In short, common knowledge and common sense.

The "stuff" you quoted was NOT peer reviewed science. It was propaganda designed to dazzle and baffle. Get a real source. Common knowledge and common sense.

What I do know is that Gore is making a ton of money trading in hot air and beachfront property no one else wants. His movie is shown with a disclaimer in the UK because his ENTIRE PREMISE has been shown to be false. Do I have to say it again?

AGW as it is described in the media (for profit) is a political movement. The actual damage that might be done (if any) is not nearly as potentially destructive as the misguided nonsense put forward to stop it. This movement is killing people and destroying the environment today.

Way to go Snowrunner!
Keep it up!

Posted by: Flip | 2008-05-12 11:43:49 AM


Snowrunner, a government run media would be worse than profit oriented media.

Regarding the ducks, I maybe Syncrude will be fined for hunting without a license.

Posted by: TM | 2008-05-12 11:49:07 AM


I thought I'd reply to the 6 steps. I'll make a note to say that no studies have been referenced to back this up.

Step 1:

I'm not really sure what gavin is referencing here with respect to long waves. I just have to ask because Al Gore talks about waves too. Is he talking about waves produced by the Earth or waves produced by the sun?

Anyway, I pretty sure he's talking about the ones produced by the Earth. Don't you find it funny that he choose long waves. Oh wait, you don't because you obviously don't know what he's talking about. This isn't about "green houses gases", or natural "green house effects". Long waves have low frequencies. Right?? Period = 1/frequency, therefor frequency = 1/period. So if you have a long period, you'll have a small frequency.

I'm sure you're aware that microwaves run at 2.3GHz and cellphones run at about the same frequency. It's very high rate.

I'm sure you're aware of FM(frequency modulation) and AM(amplitude modulation) radio. Did you ever notice you can get AM radio from other countries, but you can't do it with FM.

You put the radio on 93.1 FM, you're picking up the frequency of 93.1 MHz. When you put it on 730 AM, you're putting it on 730 KHz.

I hope I'm not confusing you here. I promise, there is a point. So how come you can get AM radio from England, but not FM? Well, 730 KHz is less than 93.1 Mhz. Since AM has a lower frequency, that means it has a longer wave. What happens to the AM frequency? It goes up in the air and bounces back down. FM radio goes up in the air and out into outer space.

The question is why now? Is it evil green houses like carbon dioxide? No, it's the ionosphere.

Let's review. No long wave radiation has EVER ESCAPED the Earth because it is IMPOSSIBLE because of the IONOSPHERE.

So I caught this "gavin" character in a lie.

I don't feel like going onto step 2 since, step 1 was an obvious desperate attempt to LIE to people that are gullible enough and don't know jack about science.

But I will, later.

Posted by: Chris | 2008-05-12 12:55:50 PM


Chris:

Radio stations cause global warming?

I like it. Makes much more sense than the lies the lying liars tell us.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-12 1:18:58 PM


Snowy said

"But hey, don't let me tell you to take your head of the hole in the ground you stuck it in. Enjoy your next visit to the Librarian for a medical checkup, I am sure they are excellent."

In other words, you are no more qualified than anyone else here in deciding which experts are correct. Additionally, I called you on it and you took offense and must now rely on personal insults to save your ego.

Congratulations.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-12 2:52:21 PM


set you free, step 1 would prove that the Earth causes global warming. But than again, long wave radiation would actually have to be proven to heat in the first place.

Microwaves, for example, don't heat food. They cause molecules that have slight polarization (like water) to spin at incredibly fast speeds. The spinning causes friction and heats the food.

----------------

Step 2:

The hypothesis in this case is futile. The reason the frequencies bounce back is the ionosphere.

I'd like everyone to take note that the science used in this case, isn't science. They're basically correlating.

Basically what this "gavin" is saying is "long waves are bouncing back and there is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so therefore greenhouse gases are causing the bouncing back."

Not science. This is known as retardation.

I'd also love to see some studies done on the hypothesis that CO2 some how absorbs more energy than normal air. I imagine there is no study cited because it is so easy to do and probably showed that long waves broke down at the same rate as regular air.

Step 3:
This is an undisputed fact. Humans are causing high amounts of green house gases.

Step 4:
This step seems to hold the idea that greenhouse gases cause warming. Still unproven at this point.

Step 5:
Still assuming CO2 causes warming. Still unproven.

Step 6:
Another fun thing about science is that you just can't multiply numbers together and use it. Which apparently this step does.

For example, Global warming effect is 2W/m^2 and human effect is 0 Cm^2/W.

global warming effect x human activity = 0 C.

Yippie!

All this "gavin" person did was try to bog down the reader in over complicated bullsh*t. Nothing more.

His first step was wrong, therefore every step after it is wrong.

Snowrunner, the funny thing is that I don't believe you really seek the truth. I want to seek the truth. I bet out of the both of us, I'm the only one to read the IPCC reports.

I know snow, that you must be pissed, cause the bad thing about science is that I can check it, sort of like a math problem.

2+2 doesn't equal 5. sorry.

Step 4:

Posted by: Chris | 2008-05-12 3:29:05 PM


chris:

Free people who love the truth will win out in the end.

The beautiful thing about science is that it is never settled.

Science, not a system of free though based on Judeo/Christian values as best practised by the United States, is the enemy of the warmongers.

Science and its relentless pursuit of the truth is the enemy of those who would lie to you and steal your money

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-12 4:06:13 PM


Four things have to occur before a debate on Kyoto can begin:

1) an end to all exemptions and the prosecution for those who sought them on charges of corruption.

2) a detailed estimate of costs. The taxpayer's share should be capped. If I were doing it, no more than $1 (one dollar) would be spent on it.

3) the pledge that not one penny will be spent outside North America on any kind of 'carbon trading' idea. There's too much risk of further corruption and waste.

4) an end to Toronto's plans of racial segregation and the prosecution of those who sought it on the basis of violations of human and civil rights.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-12 4:41:37 PM


In other words, you are no more qualified than anyone else here in deciding which experts are correct. Additionally, I called you on it and you took offense and must now rely on personal insults to save your ego.

Congratulations.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 12-May-08 2:52:21 PM

No H2, but I know that I won't go to a guy writing opinion pieces in a national newspaper to explain to me how the world climate is working, much less would I go to a Librarian for a medical checkup just because they happen to read the Lancet on occasion.

That this doesn't seem to get into your head doesn't surprise me, but I figure I make one last attempt make this clear.

But hey, why don't the organizer call up these guys:

http://easweb.eas.ualberta.ca/

Considering the supposed desent by the people who have made it their life's work to understand the climate on this planet I am sure they can find a guy who is willing to hop onto the LRT (or drive his hummer across the Bridge) to the Holiday Inn and give a speech too.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 5:33:58 PM


Anyone who owns a greenhouse knows that raising the CO2 level to 3 times what is in the atmosphere today will boost plant growth and improve plant health. Governments support and publish this method of "forcing" as it makes pesticide unnecesary. In short, common knowledge and common sense.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 11:43:49 AM

Yes, too bad that the world is not a Greenhouse were the only concern is to grow bigger plants.

--------------

The "stuff" you quoted was NOT peer reviewed science. It was propaganda designed to dazzle and baffle. Get a real source. Common knowledge and common sense.

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 11:43:49 AM

So why don't YOU provide me with a real source that is peer reviewed and shows that CO2 has no effect on rising global mean temperatures? Cleary there is enough proof that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere right now than there was in the last 600K years (see ice cores), so if there is no effect I am sure YOU who makes this claim has a few studies up your sleeve that fit your own criteria, namely:

- Being peer reviewed
- Being published in a reputable publication (and no, the National Post Editorial doesn't count).

I am waiting.

The article I posted was indeed not peer reviewed, it was an explaination of the science that HAS been peer reviewed and if you would have actually READ the whole thing you would have noticed that it did reference the papers on which the explaination was based.

---------------------

What I do know is that Gore is making a ton of money trading in hot air and beachfront property no one else wants. His movie is shown with a disclaimer in the UK because his ENTIRE PREMISE has been shown to be false. Do I have to say it again?

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 11:43:49 AM

It wasn't the entire premise. There were nine points that the judge found not to be fully accurate, but he also made it clear in his findings that the premise of the movie is scientifically solid.

To quote straight from the ruling:

----------------

From the October 10 United Kingdom High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) judgment:

The Film

17. I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii)

iii) As Mr [Martin] Chamberlain [counsel for the defendant] persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

iv)

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

[...]

22. I have no doubt that Dr [Peter] Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Mr [Paul] Downes [counsel for the claimant] does not agree with this, but to some extent this is because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report. But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters -- 9 in all -- upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

--------------

So, even the Judge doesn't agree with you. Guess he was bought off by Al Gore too, eh?

-------------------

AGW as it is described in the media (for profit) is a political movement. The actual damage that might be done (if any) is not nearly as potentially destructive as the misguided nonsense put forward to stop it. This movement is killing people and destroying the environment today.

Way to go Snowrunner!
Keep it up!

Posted by: Flip | 12-May-08 11:43:49 AM

Yeah right, and you are a fountain of accuracy and "common sense". Why do something that even remotely has the chance to hurt us in the long if it would require us (and by that I mean society more than individuals) to make some changes that pinch us in the short run.

Or to summarize the Anti-Global Warming Crowd:

"GDP, GDP above all else".

Churchill said so nicely: "You can count on the Americans to do the right thing, right after they've tried everything else."

The same can be said for all humans, we are too stupid (as a whole) to think ahead and give up a little now to keep the rest later, until we face plant and are in a world of hurt the majority is not willing to make changes.

But back to my original question: A Philosopher and a Columnist is the best that the organizers can do to the topic of climate change?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 5:45:47 PM


Damn, some of the text from the ruling didn't make it. But you people are smart and can surely find out how to google for the ruling yourself.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 5:47:17 PM


Snowrunner, the funny thing is that I don't believe you really seek the truth. I want to seek the truth. I bet out of the both of us, I'm the only one to read the IPCC reports.

Posted by: Chris | 12-May-08 3:29:05 PM

REading is one thing, did you understand the reports too? There seems to be some serious problem with text comprehension in these parts of the internet.... I think it is mainly related to people only wnat to understand that fits in their picture of the world / ideology.

----------------

I know snow, that you must be pissed, cause the bad thing about science is that I can check it, sort of like a math problem.

2+2 doesn't equal 5. sorry.

Posted by: Chris | 12-May-08 3:29:05 PM

Why should I be pissed? You still haven't brought me any proof.

And btw, saying 2+2 != 5 is not a proof either, it's a claim.

Please provide me a PROOF for your assertion.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 5:49:42 PM


It's the sun, stupid!!

Is it a coincidence that Mars is also warming? To Al Gore, it is proof that aliens are driving too many SUVs.

My big question is: How can socialism settle a problem of science. It has utterly fucked up every other thing its tried to solve.

The whole thing ISN'T about science at all.

Posted by: abc | 2008-05-12 6:06:20 PM


I'm not going to argue science because I'm not a scientist. If man really is responsible for some of the warming, there's not a damn thing we can do about it, so why waste all this energy arguing about it.

If man is really responsible we should do everything in our power to avoid penalties. We were just trying to make a better life for our families. Let someone else feel guilty and give up their comfortable life. It was all those third world countries trying to catch up with our excesses that caused the spike in oil consumption.

I'm glad oil went over $120 a barrel. Maybe it'll convince the Chinese that bicycles aren't so bad. Keep it expensive, and keep it exclusive. Let's use up every drop of middle east and South American oil, then start exploiting our reserves. Maybe those people will come up with some alternative energy sources. It would be the first time in about 500 years they've contributed anything to the world of science.

Were you at the fight card abc? We were bouts 6 & 7, one win one loss.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-12 6:28:19 PM


Stephane Dion has some kind of wacky theory that he can save the planet through carbon taxes.

If I understand it correctly, he's claiming a 50 cent/litre tax would be enough to change people's behaviour.

About a year ago, gas could be had for about 75 cents/litre.

Today, it's at $1.24 a litre.

According to Dion's theory, the next penny we'll be charged at the pumps will be enough to save the planet.

Am I missing somethiing?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-12 6:55:11 PM


Posted by: dp | 12-May-08 6:28:19 PM

Ah, at least some truth. For most here it is not about climate change at all. As usual, with the new "conservatives" and "liberitarians" it's about the "me me me" only.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-12 6:58:26 PM


dp: I didn't go. I'd like to, though.

Posted by: abc | 2008-05-12 7:04:20 PM


Snowrunner,

Things have changed since the court ruling and more of the Goracles' "science" tossed into the dust bin. Like I said - His ENTIRE PREMISE is currently false.

I was defending my point about CO2 being potentially a positive thing when I used the greenhouse analogy.It carries as much weight as the unprovable hypothesis that CO2 is harmful.

Your words-
"Yeah right, and you are a fountain of accuracy and "common sense". Why do something that even remotely has the chance to hurt us in the long if it would require us (and by that I mean society more than individuals) to make some changes that pinch us in the short run."

That "pinch" as you put it, is the world's poor starving because YOU would rather be safe than sorry. To put it another way - 1/4 of the corn grown in the US this year will go into a fermenter instead to foreign aid. This is a current FACT. The prices for grains all over the world has gone up because of Biofool subsides.
How does this "precautionary principal" obscenity
appeal to common sense? Indonesia is being razed as we write -today- so Europeans can burn palm oil in their Benz's. China's demand for energy grows unabated along with REAL pollution because activists in NorthAmerica and Europe want us to feel a "pinch". Oh, and ever go to Rio? The yellow smog there is a direct result of biofool.

I am more concerned with the mercury that comes out of those little spiral light bulbs and other real environmental threats that some hypothetical quasi-religious argument about CO2 and the guy who would sell indulgences. (Gore who owns shares in a carbon trading company)

Posted by: Flip | 2008-05-12 7:21:20 PM


You just don't get it snow. It's always about "me". You aren't doing a damn thing about global warming. You may think you are. You may honestly believe you have no guilt.

Whether or not man is contributing to global warming doesn't matter. We will not change because we're not wired to give up what we've worked for. Those who are have nothing. Third world residents have nothing to give up, so it falls on us. We aren't giving up what we fought for.

So there you have it. Global warming will continue no matter how bad anyone feels about it. That being the case, I'm going to find something else to worry about. I might just start looking for reasons to feel good about global warming.

There snowguy, don't you feel better already?

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-12 7:51:12 PM


Add me to the ‘I'm not buying' list.

The general warming trend started at the precise moment of the deepest glacial covering.

And, it's been going on for 7,000 years.

At least, that's what I learned in Grade 3 science. OK, maybe Grade 5

It's warmed and it's cooled ... and when the climate changes, it's called climate change. Duh!

It's beyond me how something kids of my age learned in elementary school is now being presented as some type of scientific revelation.

It also forms a certain impression of the intellectual capacity of those who are pushing and falling for this particular obsession.

The climate's changing. Always has always will.

No go to your room and study up on your elementary level science.


Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-12 8:08:41 PM


I never learned about climate change in school - darn Alberta education system! But I did learn to mistrust everything and anything the Liberal Party and the corporations of Toronto do. They're a devious bunch, even willing to buy off Greenpeace, David Suzuki and other "environmental" organizations. Why else would they continue to support Kyoto in spite of the exemptions given to Ontario's auto industry? It doesn't take a genius to see through their sham.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-12 8:17:46 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.