The Shotgun Blog

« Well-read janitor gets apology | Main | Mine Your Own Business trailer »

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Doubt the global warming religion

At a recent address to the Petroleum Club in Calgary, Lawrence Solomon, Executive Director of Energy Probe International, the Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud took the gathered oil and gas executives to task:

"Instead of making your case to the public, instead of defending yourselves and your industry, you’ve thrown in the towel, or tried to be greener than green, hoping to avoid recrimination... Your present strategy of lying low and hoping all this will pass has gotten you nowhere. You need to make your case, factually and frankly. The public will be skeptical of your arguments, as it should be. But if your critics can’t counter your factual arguments, it is your critics who will fail."

He's right, by acceding to all the claims of their environmentalist critics, the oil companies place themselves in a position of moral inferiority (no one is buying your green campaign BP), many of them probably think of themselves as morally inferior, and experience the guilt and shame that goes along with that. Need I remind the sane readers that oil is what meets the demand for most of the energy in our high-energy-use society, without it we would not enjoy the high standard of living and unprecedented prosperity with which we live. The oil industry is of course far from faultless, but to target them (and ourselves) with increased taxes or regulation is lunatic. Government can hardly keep illegal drugs off the street, now we expect them to control the weather?

There are all sorts of cheaper and cleaner sources of energy compared to burning fossil fuels, but if we want to start moving faster to alternative energy sources, we need to clear the market of regulations, distorting subsidies, mercantilism, government ownership/monopoly, and other interventions which hold back entrepreneurship and innovation.

There is no climate change "consensus"; the case for human-caused global warming is not only debatable, but also also based on questionable assumptions.

Because of the widespread acceptance of the totalitarian policies necessary to "end climate change," in the hands of the watermelon environmentalists, global warming may be the biggest threat to human freedom since Leninism; it must be discussed and debated.

In most of Canadian society, however, this sort of talk is completely taboo. Just question global warming and you will likely be branded a "denier," a miserable term intended to evoke association with those contemptible individuals who deny the Jewish Holocaust. Many climate scientists who have problems with the case for anthropogenic global warming have gone on the offensive. Lay-skeptics should do the same. Imagine...

(HT: Lew)

Posted by Kalim Kassam on July 15, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553bc178e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Doubt the global warming religion:

Comments

We need not worry. Three things have already ruined the climate change agenda.

First, the impossibility of implementing Kyoto - aka NEP II. How handing unlimited sums of tax money off to foreign lands with zero accountability was going to fight climate change is anyone's guess.

Second, the antics of Suzuki wanting to arrest anyone who dissents from his stance. Pathetic.

Third, Ontario's exemption from Kyoto is an atrocity. The world could be at stake, but the Liebral/NDP/Green Party saw nothing wrong with allowing their main voting base to escape tax free. I guess it made sense for them to dump it all on Alberta, seeing how they have no votes there (or ever will again). But it is a crime - corruption - and should be severely punished.

I'll sleep better at night knowing that the climate change people have hacked their legs off with their insane agenda.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-15 8:15:25 PM

You know, it would be nice if someone, at some point in time could bring out some paper that seems to actually originate from someone in the field that goes counter apparent consesus about Climate Change.

It's funny really, I poked a bit around on the M4GW website and read their "hit piece" on Hansen, I liked on some of their supporting links and found myself astonished by one page PDF documents that at best could be described as an opinion piece, when digging around for information on the author it turns out it is.... Gasp, someone who has been involved with Coal for most of his career and doesn't even have a degree of any kind.

If the "There is no Global Warming" Crowd really wants to be taken serious and WANTS a discussion, maybe they (you) should come back with some people IN the field of Climate Science that can actually produce something that is akin to a scientific paper and not an opinion piece or a mailing to the "I hate Al Gore" Fanclub (I guess in Canada it would be the "I hate David Suzuki" Fanclub.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-15 8:54:01 PM

Here you go snowbunnie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/climatechange
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=11
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://climatesci.org/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
http://www.surfacestations.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Posted by: Alan | 2008-07-15 11:09:57 PM

'Runner: Take your head out of the snow, give it a shake, and do an honest investigation. There is so much expert evidence contrary to the AGW thesis out there these days, and readily available, that you have to be a REAL ignoramous to post something like the above. If you genuinely need some help getting references -- and aren't just playing the stooge -- you can start by poking around the website for the Frontier Centre.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-15 11:59:44 PM

Of course there is climate change. There has always been climate change.There always will be climate change. Not that long ago all of North America was under Ice. God bless global warming.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-16 12:51:46 AM

There is so much expert evidence contrary to the AGW thesis out there these days, and readily available, that you have to be a REAL ignoramous to post something like the above.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 15-Jul-08 11:59:44 PM

Come on. Give me the ONE research paper that has convinced you. I read a few things that sounded scientific on the surface, then I did some digging on who was behind it and it all lead back to either a think tank, a lobby group or someone directly connected to oil or coal.

Come on, one paper. If there is so much overhelming evidence out there it shouldn't be that hard for you to provide me with one paper that holds up to some credential checking.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 1:04:31 AM

Showrunner:
You could start reading this one:
"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model
predictions" by Douglas et al, published in 2007 in the International Journal of Climatology
Once you have finished that, just ask me for the next peer reviewed paper that supports the skeptics view. I have many for your reference.

Posted by: Chris Schoneveld | 2008-07-16 2:48:03 AM

Sorry, snowrunner, I misspelled your name (not deliberately, ha, ha)

Posted by: Chris Schoneveld | 2008-07-16 2:49:45 AM

To make it easy on you, the paper has been made available online by icecap: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Posted by: Chris Schoneveld | 2008-07-16 2:55:51 AM

Snowy

"It's funny really, I poked a bit around on the M4GW website and read their "hit piece" on Hansen, I liked on some of their supporting links and found myself astonished by one page PDF documents that at best could be described as an opinion piece, when digging around for information on the author it turns out it is.... Gasp, someone who has been involved with Coal for most of his career and doesn't even have a degree of any kind."

Hansen is his own hit piece what with vague predictions, threats to dissenters, and flip flopping opinions on the direction of the climate going back decades.

So why did you even bring him up given this thread? A thread not about Hansen. A thread about oil companies and not COAL

Nice strawman argument...not to mention cliched.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-16 6:06:14 AM

To make it easy on you, the paper has been made available online by icecap: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Posted by: Chris Schoneveld | 16-Jul-08 2:55:51 AM

Thanks,

I'll try and read it tonight.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 9:19:13 AM

Hi Chris,

I remember having read that paper last year when it first came out and also that there was quite a pile of rebuttals. As I am not a climatologist I am not really in a position to speak to the validity of that paper.

BUT, what I can do is look at the people who authored it, and that pretty much paints a familiar picture:

David H. Douglass.

He's not a climatologist, he's a Professor of Physics Experimental Condensed Matter Physics at the University of Rochester, more interesting though is that he seems to be connected to Exxon via the Heartland Institute.

I wasn't able to find any information on grants, but that doesn't mean he didn't get any.

John R. Christy.

He actually is a Climatologist, he seems to be a bit of a flip-flopper, first he claimed that humans ARE responsible for climate change, now he seems to have reversed his stance.

Back in December 2003 he was a co-drafter of the American Geophysical Union's position paper on climate change and it says there:

"Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

He seems to be heavily involved with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institue, Independent Institute and once again our friends at the Heartland Institute.

At best, I guess one could say he's a hired gun and says whatever someone pays him to say. Currently it looks like "Global Warming is a Myth" is what he's paid to say.

Benjamin D. Pearson,

he seems to keep a low profile a cursory search didn't bring out a lot of info about him, heck, he couldn't exist for all I know. He seems to have partnered heavily with Fred Singer (see below), they almost appear to be joint at the hip.

S. Fred Singer.

He appears to be another hired gun, he has provided "scientific backing" for the tobacco industry and in September 1993 he provided a sworn affidavit that he was doing climate research on behalf of oil companies (Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell etc.)

Funnily enough in February 2001 he claimed in a letter to the Washington Post that he never EVER took any money from the oil companies.

Well, he lied at least once in that regard, take your pick for which one.

Currently he is involved with the Natural Resource Stewardship Project, which sounds nice, it's even Canadian based, too bad that it seems they are founded by a Lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics", called the "High Park Advocacy Group". These people lobby for the Canadian Gas Association, for Canadian industry on "environmental law and policy etc.

Their website is rather... Well, empty. Rather odd for a company that is all about bragging...

So, I am back at my original point. This paper, as scientific as it sounds, has heavy ties to the oil and gas industry (or at least their authors do).

Again, I am not a climatologist (yeah, I know H2, you were going to ask that question in a second), but if I look at the people who produce this report I have to question their motivation, much less their methods.

It is funny that most of these papers always lead back to the same handful of think tanks and people who all seem to have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Coincidence?

What other document do you have?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 1:22:52 PM

Snowrunner, there may be scientists denying global warming, who are paid by some industry that stands to benefit from those denials. But the otherside of the argument is completely benevolent? Nobody stands to gain from governments buying into the theory, and the resulting legislation?

If your whole argument rests on the possibility (you can say fact if you want, it does'nt change anything) that some global warming deniers have been paid by the oil companies, then what happens to it when you find out the other side has also taken money? Or that they stand to make fortunes through the resulting legislation?

I can't see how we should just completly trust one side and completly mistrust the other. You are right to be skeptical of the deniers claims, but I think it equally wise to be skeptical of the other side. This is after all, about truth, not religion.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-16 2:35:51 PM

TM:

It's pretty obvious scientists tell the story their benefactors would like to tell them.

Otherwise, their source of funding would be cut off.

The UN has its own pool of money, the ruling elites of Europe have their pool of money, governments all over the world have their own pools of money.

I would say those sources of scientist's incomes are no more morally superior than corporations and in fact, their monopolistic status make them more dangerous that corporations, which must compete in the open market.

Climate always changes and scientists are capitalizing on something most kids in junior high should know.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-16 2:46:00 PM

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 2:35:51 PM

What would be the personal gain for these people be?

BTW, I am still not saying there aren't any scientists out there that ARE not attached to these companies that have done their leg work and have unearthed this kind of information, but so far I haven't found anything.

Everything that has been published in the "debate" and speaks out against global warming (either that it exists at all or that it was human supported / induced) leads always back to teh same handful of organization.

WHERE are the "outspoken scientists" that don't directly (and so obviously) profit from their work?

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

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 2:35:51 PM

Some? Again. I have looked over the last year at maybe two dozen different papers that were published, EVERYBODY who authored them was connected to these companies.

I am ASKING you people on here who claim that there is a debate by "serious" scientists: Bring me ONE paper authored by ONE guy who is NOT connected to these groups.

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

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 2:35:51 PM

Here's my problem TM: The one side has a clear connection to a group who benefits from claiming nothing is going wrong. The other side? Well, what ARE their gains.

Nobody has ever really told me what these Scientists stand to benefit. A research grand? A tax break?

The motivation of one group is utterly clear and easy to follow the other one disappears somewhere into a cloud.

Again: I am asking you (or anybody else) here to show me one published paper that denies that the climate is chaning (or even only a subset: That humans have zero to do with it) that does not directly lead back to those companies.

I tried, I have not find one of those. It's the same dozen or so papers that get recycled, re-written rehashed by the same group of people over and over again and then blown up to be this huge controversy.

The paper that Chris posted is actually a REHASH of a similar paper published by the same group back in 2004.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 2:53:03 PM

Snowrunner, maybe you are right. I have not researched this myself the way you have. Maybe I will find something that will satisfy you. But this is only one part of the whole argument anyway. If there really is global warming, is it caused by humans? If so, should we do somehting about it (is it really bad, or is it actually good?), if we should take action, what should we do and who should do it?

Through many of the schemes to cap & trade (or whatever) that I have read about, I think that some countries will benefit, and some will lose. Those that benefit seem to benefit, amazingly seem to believe in global warming.

Some campanies with internaltional interests, Like Royal Dutch Shell, are on the bandwagon for example. Why? Maybe because the truly believe global warming is happening and that it is bad. But maybe also because though it might cost them a fortune, it will cost their competitors a greater fortune. How is one to really know?

In the end, until scientists can better predict the weather next week, I will remain skeptical of both sides. Regardless of how many papers I read.

By the way, what if the earth was cooling? Would we then reward the US and Alberta more than the EU and PQ?

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-16 3:08:19 PM

Sorry for the typos and spelling mistakes.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-16 3:09:42 PM

>"Would we then reward the US and Alberta more than the EU and PQ?"
TM | 16-Jul-08 3:08:19 PM

If you're asking Snowrunner the answer is, "Not a snowball's chance in hell."
"Big Oil is Evil!"

Don't make the mistake, TM, of believing that leftists argue in good faith.
Snowrunner said above he would read Chris Schoneveld's link but instead read some Leftist ideologue's slagging of it as if that were the equivalent of actually reading it himself.

Snowrunner is constantly saying he's curious about this or wondering about that but he never is.
He isn't a seeker of truth.
It's all a pose to showcase his own bias.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-16 3:20:31 PM

In part, this thread was an encouragement to oil companies to fund research which contradicts the AGW thesis. Scientific debates should be decided on the basis of who presents the better evidence, not who's funding which research.

"Nobody has ever really told me what these Scientists stand to benefit. A research grand? A tax break?"

Research grants: yes, and lots of them; tax breaks: probably, but this rabbit hole goes much deeper. If you have doubts about how much the government, climate scientists, global government advocates, and the 'global warming industry' stand to benefit from convincing the world that the sky is falling, go to google video and watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Here's a 4-step guide for the 21st century government:
1. Steal money from taxpayer.
2. Give taxpayer money to global warming researcher.
3. Researcher tells you that more government is needed to control the weather, this must be payed for by more taxpayer money.
4. Steal more money.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-07-16 3:40:41 PM

Kalim, good points. I came across this little video http://www.openmarket.org/2007/10/04/the-global-warming-debate-al-gore-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-16 4:00:58 PM

Snowy

"Again, I am not a climatologist (yeah, I know H2, you were going to ask that question in a second), but if I look at the people who produce this report I have to question their motivation, much less their methods."

Good boy. You are learning. Now if you could only stop arguing from authority.

"Argumentum ad Vericundiam "

Not very convincing!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-16 7:50:50 PM

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 3:08:19 PM

The people who rang the alarm Bell (Lovelock et. al.) have thrown in the towel. Lovelock as of two years ago has been VERY adamant about the fact that this is no longer about prevention but about midigation of the effects.

Does that mean we should curb our excessive use of fossil fuels and the utter destruction of the environment in the chase for a bigger GDP?

Let me ask you: Can it hurt?

Our entire economic model (and this is where these papers originate from) is based on the idea that we have limitless growth. We are on a planet that is NOT limitless, we have "coaxed" the system to produce more than it could by itself by essentially throwing carbon the whole thing. The fire has burned a lot brighter, but I don't think we can continue for this much longer.

My "gripe" with these kinds of created controversy is that it completely sidelines any serious discussion on how to transition from a Growth Economic model to a sustainable one.

But then again, if I look what's in the pipeline in the world financial markets (and all that entails) we may not have to worry about that anyway.

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

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 3:08:19 PM

That is most likely due to the fact that the ones asked to give up are well of places like Canada and the US. Both places that are fully aware that their lifestyles (as it is right now) would be threatened.

But as I said above, it doens't really matter, I do believe like Lovelock that we're past the point where a simple act like turning off the cars and replacing light bulbs is going to have any effect. Large systems (like the worlds climate) are extremely slow in reacting to change and need an extreme push to move at all, but once they ARE moving, stopping them is almost impossible.

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

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 3:08:19 PM

My guess is more that they realize that they are on the verge of reaching their own production peak. So in a proactive way they support these schemes in the hopes to get a share of the next market.

They clearly don't do this out of "social responsibility" otherwise they wouldn't be involved in the way they are in Africa to get to the black gold.

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

In the end, until scientists can better predict the weather next week, I will remain skeptical of both sides. Regardless of how many papers I read.

By the way, what if the earth was cooling? Would we then reward the US and Alberta more than the EU and PQ?

Posted by: TM | 16-Jul-08 3:08:19 PM

You're asking the wrong guy, out of the reasons I gave above.

But you can probably answer the question yourself: What is the goal of an economy.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 9:05:43 PM

If you're asking Snowrunner the answer is, "Not a snowball's chance in hell."
"Big Oil is Evil!"

Posted by: Speller | 16-Jul-08 3:20:31 PM

Companies aren't human beings, as such moral values as good and evil don't apply.

Companies and Corporations exist for one purpose only: Make money.

There is nothing more or nothing less to it. Anybody who attaches a moral value to them is the one who is seriously dilluded into believing that there is more than there is.

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

Posted by: Speller | 16-Jul-08 3:20:31 PM

Huh? Reading comprehension failing again? When I skimmed it over lunch I realized that I had read that thing last year, and I also remembered having looked up the authors, so I pulled it out again.

What don't you get in your head? I am all for reading a dissending opinion from someone who doesn't seem to be spsonsored by a handful of companies.

If you're so convinced that the whole thing is true (that is, that there is no Global Warming / or at least no huaman induced one) then bring me a paper that is not sponsored by the usual suspects.

I looked, I haven't found one so far, but as you seem to be the expert I am sure you can link me to one in the next five minutes.

I am waiting.

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

Snowrunner is constantly saying he's curious about this or wondering about that but he never is.
He isn't a seeker of truth.
It's all a pose to showcase his own bias.

Posted by: Speller | 16-Jul-08 3:20:31 PM

While you are the flame of enlightenedment? You have made a lot of claims over the years, but never provided any proof.

But hey, feel free to follow the tried and proven method of link carpet bombing. Quick, go to google and post the first ten links, don't read any of them, just assume I won't either and realize that you have no clue what is behind those links.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 9:10:24 PM

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 16-Jul-08 3:40:41 PM

I call this a conflict of interest. The one line of business that has to have huge benefits in making people think their product isn't at fault (Hello Big Tobacco) is supposed to be the ones who hand out money to prove that their product isn't harmful and then this is considered "credible science"?

You know, if people who wouldn't be deeply involved with this industry would be the ones doing the research I could see this having some merit, but in the linked document all of the authors have been on their payroll for over a decade, independent that hardly is.

Realistically ANY scientist who would want to see his research accepted as unbiased would turn DOWN any kind of money from these entities EXACTLY because it is questionable if they influenced the research.

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

"Nobody has ever really told me what these Scientists stand to benefit. A research grand? A tax break?"

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 16-Jul-08 3:40:41 PM

I've seen it, and that movie seems to have used some deceiving tactics, if you read some of the comments from the people that were interviewed, with cleverly cut interviews and misrepresentation of some of the people that were interviewed, or rather their position. Of course you will also find the three or four usual suspects there who seem to be everywhere where there is the need to blow some smoke.

Where ARE these "thousands" of scientiests, experts in the field, that don't agree with the IPCC findings? Seriously. Maybe that's something for the Western Standard to do: Go and find one of these scientists that doesn't seem to be able to be heard and provide them a platform.

----------------------------
Here's a 4-step guide for the 21st century government:
1. Steal money from taxpayer.
2. Give taxpayer money to global warming researcher.
3. Researcher tells you that more government is needed to control the weather, this must be payed for by more taxpayer money.
4. Steal more money.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 16-Jul-08 3:40:41 PM

Very simplistic view. Much more so as over the last two years several of the early climate "alarmists" have given up on trying to prevent the change and try to get people to understand that we have to midigate the consequences.

Of course politicians, publicity whores that they are, haven't quite gotten to that point yet.

But again Kalim, same challenge to you: Find me a Scientist that is in the field of climatology and does not agree with the IPCC findings.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-16 9:17:53 PM

Kalim:

Just direct our friend to the website of the Thunder Bay MP, who spells out in no uncertain terms the Green Shift has nothing to do with the environment.

Tell him. Sorry, not buying. Then slam the door in his face.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-16 9:44:04 PM

Posted by: set you free | 16-Jul-08 9:44:04 PM

Okay all you "There is no Climate Change, it's all just an attempt to steal from us."

Option 1:

All the Scientiest around the world have created this vast conspiracy to rip off the United States and Canada with those carbon trading schemes. And none of the Scientists involved dares to speak up or Al Gore's death squads will take him / her out.

Option 2:

There is a general consensus, but a few people with vested financial interest in the Status Quo finance a few people to create FUD and get people like you on the whole tax angle.

Now, which of the two sides do you think is more likely?

BTW, if the Western Standard WANTS to do something that comes close to journalism instead of being a soap box, maybe you should try and get an interview with this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

He DID resign from the IPCC claiming that too much was politically motivated back in 2005, would be interesting to hear HIS side of the current debate.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 12:03:07 AM

Snowy,

"Option 1 ...
Option 2 ...

Now, which of the two sides do you think is more likely?"

Option 3. Neither. Perhaps, there is no scientific conspiracy and no scientific consensus. Perhaps the existing science is still in its infancy but has been hijacked by irrational people and most importantly, latched onto by Big Media in an attempt at ratings in their latest scare story. This happens about every decade.

Alar, ozone hole, pre-school child abuse factories, etc.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 4:43:51 AM

h2, add to that overpolulation of the world, and with it mass starvation.

The world is flat.

The earth is the center of the.

The sun is the center of the universe.

David Suzuki is the center of the universe...

People can believe what they want but greedy, power hungry humans surely are on both sides of this issue. There are people and organizations who will benefit financially on bot sides. To believe otherwise is to be naive.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 9:00:07 AM

Posted by: TM | 17-Jul-08 9:00:07 AM

That's certainly true, but what I am missing here on the Western Standard is anybody actually going out and trying to find:

a.) The people who are supposely not agreeing with the IPCC finding and aren't directly linked to a group that clearly benefits from the status quo.

b.) Showing who is actually winning by these carbon trade programs.

The latter one is especially interesting, because the push back in Canada (and the US) comes from the group that is already trying to confuse the situation for people.

If the Western Standard wants to actually CLARIFY things then they should do some investigating instead of turning into another soap boax for some unverified information.

It is funny really, on BOTH sides of the argument people spew out information without everseeming to bother to verify anything.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 9:25:20 AM

Snowrunner, maybe I will take you up on that challenge. But in the meantime, think about a simple economic principle: when legislation is enacted, if you look, you will find someone who is going to benefit from it financially.

Do you honestly believe it is possible that nobody on the believers side is going to profit from the types of schemes different governments are coming up with? Do you really believe this has escaped them? Do you really believe it is possible that the same greedy nature that is in us all, is somehow supressed in them and they will not try to use every lever they can to push fo legislation they see will profit them?

One last thing. Even if global warming is true, and is mostly human caused, and even if we can and should do something about it, the scientists that you respect so much have no concept about economics. The best way to combat global warming is to encourage profits through a free market.

For some reading, this is a start http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 9:51:36 AM

TM:

By now, it's apparent to most everybody that snowy has a chance os somehow benefitting in some way from the ‘new economy' based on taxation of carbon industries.

The Green Shift is just a giant wealth transfer scheme based on classic Marxist thought. That's pretty much proven through the comments of Thunder Bay MP Ken Bischkoff (?) on his website which hail the Green Shift as the most significant social program in 40 years.

On the subject of ‘climate change,' yeah, so what?

The climate has always been changing. It gets warmer for a while, it gets colder for a while.

Fact is, CO2 is not a pollutant. Humans exhale it. Therefore, humans are a virus to Gaia and must be eliminated ... or at least thrown in jail.

In a couple of decades, this entire debate will become a case study in cult recognition.

Pollution is a totally separate issue from the eco-freak agenda.

On a personal note, I try to live a minimalist lifestyle, have recycled before recycling was cool and have plenty of trees in my yard.

I do the best I can and mind my own business, If the eco-freaks would do the same, they would earn more of my respect.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-17 10:16:29 AM

Snowrunner,
You asked for just one climate scientist who disagreed with the IPCC findings. In March, Jaws and the gang interviewed Dr. Roy Spencer on the WS Radio Network show 'Political Animals'. From the episode description:

"Today, our phone-in guest will be Dr. Roy Spencer, former climatologist for NASA and author of "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor."

more info:http://westernstandard.blogs.com/western_standard_radio/2008/03/ws-radio-global.html
a very interesting interview/debate: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/western_standard_radio/2008/03/ws-radio-glob-1.html

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-07-17 10:35:56 AM

Set you free, good points. My thinking has changed over the years, maybe Snowrunner's will too. If he has an open mind.

Regarding recycling, what if we found out most of it was a waste of time and money? One quick test to see if what you have is worth recycling, is to set it out at the end of your driveway and see if someone, without paying them, will take it. If you put out copper wire, it will be gone the next day. If you put out recycling and nobody takes, it is garbage. It may not be a perfect test but it is a quick test that indicates the energy input and human capital required to recycle it, is greater than using new materials.

I live in a county that now mandates that we cannot put organics or recycling (their definition of recycling) materials into the garbage or they will not pick it up. I wonder if this will lead to garbage police. Anyway, I wonder if the global warming issue will result in similar policies to curb our energy usage. Maybe in the form of forced power brown outs, or limits on engine size, etc. Maybe even the kind of radicals that spray paint fur coats in Europe will spray paint Hummers.

It's enough to make a guy crazy!

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 10:55:41 AM

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 17-Jul-08 10:35:56 AM

Ah thanks, I missed that. I'll check it out.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 11:36:51 AM

TM:

What I object to is the judgemental tone ... throw them in jail if they don't agree with me.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Dunno if you saw a recent study by a German scientist (poor taxpayer, but that's a different issue). In his study, released in the past two weeks, he discovered that plants actually grow faster in a controlled atmosphere of CO2 equivalent to the predictions of the earth's atmosphere in 2012.

Good conclusion, Sherlock.

Since CO2 is actually beneficial to plant life and humans exhale it, that's a natural process of balance.

Pollution, the equivalents of throwing your chocolate bar wrapper on the street, is an entirely different issue. That's more about respect for your fellow human beings.

As Thunder Bay MP Ken Bischkoff has posted on his website, the Green Shift is ‘the most important social program in Canada in the last 40 years.'

It's not about the environment at all, it turns out. It's a Marxist wealth redistribution plan according to the script.

Playing the part of the privileged oppressor is BIg Oil. So. according to Marxist theory, the suffering imposed upon the proletariat by Big Oil can be allayed with Big Oil's money.

Simple, huh?

It's amazing how many simple-minded buy into this scam.

I can only speak for myself. I grew up on welfare and certainly had no priviliges as I made my way through life. I had to work hard for what I have, something I would recommend to everybody.

And, working hard at stealing other people's money doesn't count.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-17 11:53:41 AM

Set you free, good points. My thinking has changed over the years, maybe Snowrunner's will too. If he has an open mind.

Posted by: TM | 17-Jul-08 10:55:41 AM

Let's try to clarify a few things here, and yes, that will hurt a few people's brains:

1. Do I think that human behaviour contributes to environmental change? Yes, we have dug trenches, rerouted rivers etc. for a long enough time to know that we do have a lasting impact on the environment, including unforseen consequences (e.g. destruction of fish habitat through "streamlining" rivers for ships that literall swept said fish away. Or people building on flood plains, then building dykes and flooding areas down stream that haven't been flooded before).

2. Do I believe that human behaviour is causing climate change?

Undetermined. It would not surprise me if we DID have a measurable effect. The climate on this planet in order to support life as we know it has an equilibrium, as this is a very complex system the equilibrium is hard to spot as it is a "moving target" in a sense, much more so as we do not fully understand all the pieces that fit together.

3. Do I think carbon trading etc. will work?

No, I think it's way too late for this. A large system like the earths climate takes a long time to "get a move on", so even if this was what got it to change / move the idea that we can stop it now is idiotic. Anybody who wants to stop it, feel free to stand in front of a runaway train with your arm stretched out and stop it. Once you've successfully managed that we'll talk.

4. Do I think that reducing our carbon footprint is a good idea?

Yes. Because even if you don't believe in the environmental impact of our lifestyles we only have a limited amount of resources. Sooner or later we won't have any left. I would prefer to be on a technology by then that doens't rely on it. Obvious solutions to this are renewables (e.g. wave, wind and solar, and no, not photovoltaik, that's something for your radio).

5. Am I an environmentalist? Yes and no. Yes, I do believe that we do need to conserve the environment for the generations after us and we do have a responsiblity to leave something behind for the next generations.

I also don't think that our "gung-ho" attitude towards the environment is really helping us in the long run. The idea to meddle in systems we don't fully understand usually doesn't end well. Modern agriculture is one of those examples where we thought we "got it" and have craeted an entire industrial process around a handful of crops that we basically feed Natural Gas and oil.

If you don't think Monocultures are bad, I suggest to think back the last time your computer network at work was shut down because a Windows virus had gotten in. Now try to imagine that with a food crop.

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

Posted by: TM | 17-Jul-08 10:55:41 AM

Recycling is big business.... Remember when this first came out?

"REDUCE, REUSE, Recycle", the problem is that the first part has gone completely out of the window, the second part is only partially acknowledged and the last one is just to make yourself "feel good" about having done something.

There is a lot of stupidity in recycling and a lot of that could be avoided if people (and that also means companies designing packaging) would concentrate on the first part more.

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

It's enough to make a guy crazy!

Posted by: TM | 17-Jul-08 10:55:41 AM

When I grew up in Germany the city introduced the "brown garbage bin" which is intended for anything "biomass" if you want. They picked it up twice a week.

They also introduced something (industry driven) called the "Green Dot", which basically is collecting all the packaging materials (boxes, cans etc.) and puts them back into recycling.

Finally you had your normal paper recycling and then the normal garbage.

The interesting thing that happened? At my place (10 families living there) we went from five garbage bins down to one over the evolution of this, and that one was only half full. The rest was picked up with the yellow bin (Gruener Punkt) and the brown one.

The brown one was taken by the city and turned into compost used in the parks and sold for cheap to gardeners who wanted it.

The cost for the individual? A little bitmore time, you had to figure the first time around what goes where and that was it. A side effect of the packaging recycling was that the companies started to simplify it, using more paper, less plastic and overall reduced their material use beause they had to deal with getting it recycled later.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 11:55:20 AM

Pollution, the equivalents of throwing your chocolate bar wrapper on the street, is an entirely different issue. That's more about respect for your fellow human beings.

Posted by: set you free | 17-Jul-08 11:53:41 AM

May I recommend a little self experiment? I suggest to have a doctor nearby though:

Drink over the course of five hours 20l of water. Tab water / bottle watered, doesn't matter.

After all, we're all drinking water so you should be fine, right?

Or maybe you don't want to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia

My point being: Just because we can tolerate or even need something a certain quantity does not mean that a lot of the same thing is going to be even more beneficial.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 11:58:56 AM

Hey Kalim,

I tried to listen to the interview but couldn't find an archive link? Is the show archived anywhere?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-17 12:02:40 PM

Re: Snowrunner's comments "...Find me a Scientist (sic) that is in the field of climatology that does not agree with the IPCC findings."

A very clever request. Notice that those who oppose the hypothesis of global warming must be in the "field of climatology" in order to be worthy of a hearing, while proponents can be from any field. Is Suzuki a climatologist? Nope, he's a geneticist.

Is Al Gore a climatologist? Nope, he's the owner of a carbon offset company, but I don't hear Snowrunner, or any other global warming proponent, calling him a "shill for the global warming pushers."

And how about the scientists who comprise the IPCC, are they all climatologists? Nope, only about 40% are, the rest being an assortment of "soft" scientists who have joined in, I believe, to give their egos a boost.

Anyone reading Snowrunner's comments and feeling the need to engage in a debate with him should really pay attention to how he words things. He uses the classic trap of right-brain thinkers (those who make critical decisions using their emotional right-brains, rather than their logical left-brains), which is using "apples and organges" comparisons. I've already pointed one out, here's another:
(2) demanding rigorous scrutiny for global warming deniers (GWD's), while accepting "peer-reviewed" scrutiny from global warming accepters (GWA's).

The best example of peer-reviewed research gaining acceptance despite contaminated data is the famouse "hockey-stick graph," used as the whole basis for the global warming hoax. The originator of this hypothesis refused to share his code so that scientists outside his field could check his data. Only after Congress forced him to give it up, would two scientists be able to prove him wrong.

Let's also have a look at Al Gore's doumentary. Are his followers aware that he spliced in a computer-generated image from the film "The Day After Tomorrow?" If the world is as bad as he says it is, why is he stealing images from a disaster film in order to make it look worse? And if he's pulling fraudulent tricks like this in his documentary, what else is he lying about?

As for Snowrunner's contention that he can't find any GWD's research that can't be traced back to the oil companies, well, that's another red herring. The first stage of sketicism about global warming doesn't lie in reading research, it lies in understanding the basic concepts of scientific investigation, which are:

1. the least reliable method of investigation is computer modelling, because this tool is highly subject to bias (computer models can be made to spit out support for any hypothesis, whether it's true or not). Interestingly, the entire hypothesis of global warming sprouted from computer modelling.

2. Correlation is NOT causation.

That means you cannot point to a dwindling ice floe and make the statement that "this is a sign of global warming" with any truth or validity. Any "hard" scientist (those who abide by high standards of scientific investigation) wouldn't be caught out doing such a thing. It's the "soft" scientists (those who don't adhere to high standards of investigation and use science as a cover for their personal agendas) like Suzuki who
keep breaking this rule and getting away with it.

These two requirements are enough to engender skepticism about global warming, but here is some more information that should wake people up:

(1)the head of the ICPP has admitted that the world is not in a state of global warming, and hasn't been for the last 10 years.

(2)a Russian scientist has put forth his theory that cabon dioxide emmissions contribute mimimally to climate change. That came out about a month ago, nothing more since. Hmmm, seems like no one wants to hear opinions contrary to global warming hype.

Unfortunately, all these facts won't mean much to global warming supporters like Snowrunner. As right-brain thinkers, facts have no bearing on their decision making capabilities. Their allegiance is to people (people who make them feel good, people who have more power and therefore need to be believed), not principals, so they will always be at the mercy of the fear motivators and hidden personal agendas of those using the environment as a cover for a huge wealth-transfer scheme.

Jude Pankewitz

P.s. My question to Albertans is this: if Dion gets elected on the basis of his Canadian wealth transfer scheme (and believe me, it will be mighty attractive to those in Ontario and Quebec), what are you prepared to do to stop it?

Hint: writing on blogs won't be good enough.

Posted by: Jude Pankewitz | 2008-07-17 12:19:03 PM

We have a recycling program that's been going on for a month in Sherwood Park.

I'm all for it. It's pretty simple to do and actually deals with pollution.

Once it's sorted, what used to be hauled to the dump every week now takes about two months. So, there's only about one-eighth going to the dump now than used to go to the dump.

100% behind that concept.

100% against demonizing the oil industry and extracting billions of dollars on a marxist redistribution scheme, such as the Libs are proposing.

There is a world of difference between the two concepts.

Over the years, I've learned that the person I trust most with my hard-earned money is me, so paws out of my pocket.

CO2 is actually good for plant life, which takes the carbon and releases more oxygen in the air. Ain't nature wonderful?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-17 12:22:25 PM

Snowrunner, good points. But...

We will NEVER run out of oil or gas. It will just get more and more expensive. The best way to ensure innovation is to leave the market to do it. Greedy people will see an opportunity make huge profits and they will develope new technologies. While doing this they will inclrease wealth for everyone.

When governments get invloved, they make everyone poorer.

Recycling IS big business. The probelm is that not all the costs are passed on to the people who by recycled material. You can have a municiply run recycling a program that boasts about how efficient they are and how money they make. But they are not adding in all the costs. Add the cost of the water used to rinse all the containers. Add to that human capital, that is our greatest asset. Add to that the low quality of goods some recycling materials produces. Add to that the extra cost we pay for some things (like paper from Staples) that is made from rcycled material. Then see if it is profitable. Some things will. Some won't. Hey, I would love to run a business where the government covered much of some of my costs.

I just don't want the different governments to make me do things, because I don't trust them. I don't trust them because I know they are no different than I am. They are totally incapable of understanding how to run a single department, let alone an economy. The market is the best way. teach your children well and let the market be.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 12:25:57 PM

To Snowrunner,
Here is another peer reviewed paper.

Published in Climate Dynamics (2008)

Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
By: Hakan Grudd, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden

Conclusions:

The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetra¨sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra¨sk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.

Posted by: Chris Schoneveld | 2008-07-17 1:36:27 PM

TM:

Another credible group of scientists come out against the flawed premise of AGW.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

PS about our recycling program, where Albertans are actually doing something instead of talking about marxist-inspired wealth-transfer schemes.

The biggest part of my waste is classified as non-edible organics.

There's a plant outside of Edmonton which produces ethanol from stuff like grass clippings, tree branches, watermelon rinds and all other waste that normally went to the dump.

I'll reserve judgement on the program until I find out how much of my tax dollars are going toward this project and until I find out if what they're doing is actually economically viable.

Right now, I'm 100% behind it until proven otherwise.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-17 1:55:45 PM