Really, check this out
You Canadians in the group already know it, but for the benefit of the Yanks in the crowd the CBC has a better investigative journalism outfit on TV than anything (outside of PBS's Frontline) in the US: the fifth estateTheir latest story directly involves this group. They expose those scientists who cast doubt on the global warming debate through
( Read more... )
Furthermore, I would tend to look upon the NRSP with more skepticism than even the CBC, and for very good reason. Not only have Mr. Harris' articles in the Financial Post been somewhat fallacious and (i'm sorry to say) off the point, but the NRSP makes more arguments in favour of the free market then it does arguments against the science behind the Kyoto Protocol. If there is any group that is "ideologically driven", then it at least includes the NRSP. In fact, the NRSP seems to make contradicting claims: that, for the one hand, action on the climate issue is needed (but only through the market!)but on the other hand, the issue is not really that serious to begin with! So which is it?
Of course, I look at the actual scientific arguments. Some of the skeptical arguments can be dismissed from the outset, simply because they either miss the point or they make false claims. And that is what I plan to pay attention to for the time being. It's not that I do or don't trust the CBC, but rather that I have different sources.
Reply
Reply
As for the market, I wish were a total panacea, but there are so many distortions to it that even if it were a magic bullet it would be a very skewed one.
Reply
Search here under Harris
http://www.desmogblog.com/
Reply
Reply
Reply
Many scientists debate the need for CO2 control as specified in Kyoto and other "climate control" schemes:
1 - the link http://tinyurl.com/ygdmzq to the 61 scientists open letter to Harper.
2 - The Petition Project - see http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm - Of the over 19,000 scientific and technical professionals who endorsed the petition, nearly 8,000 are scientists in physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, and related fields of chemistry, biochemistry and biology
3 - The Leipzig Declaration - see http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html - 1,500 scientists have signed
4 - The Heidelberg Appeal - see http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html - signed by 3,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries - a call to reason on science and society
Here is what one of our NRSP advisors, told the Commons Comm. on Env. last year:
“Based on the paleoclimatic data I and others have collected, it's obvious that climate is and always has been variable. In fact, the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually. We certainly have no chance of stopping this natural phenomenon. … In our research, we are showing excellent correlation between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the Sun and earthly temperatures. Hundreds of other studies have shown similar trends. ”
Dr. Tim Patterson testifying before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, 10/02/05
WRTO de Smog Blog, please remember that they are the product of one of Canada's largest PR firms and are engaged in this battle on behalf of paying clients.
Tom Harris
www.nrsp.com
Reply
The science behind carboniferous gasses can be demonstrated to third graders. The phenomena of introducing gasses of increasing density and watching the overall temperature rise can be done with two garbage cans, two heat lamps, two thermometers and a source of CO2. It's really that simple to explain.
Furthermore, this phenomenon has been known and understood for centuries. One hundred years ago, Svante Arrhenius even took the time to calculate with a pen and lots of paper how long the planet had before warming to dangerous levels. He used carbon emission data from one hundred years ago; those levels have accelerated by several orders of magnitude.
Yes, the evidence does indeed point to a "natural" phenomenon happening once again; but this time, instead of by a meteor strike or massive volcanic upheaval, it will be helped along by human forces. Helped alot.
That said, you bring up an interesting point, Mr. Harris:
WRTO de Smog Blog, please remember that they are the product of one of Canada's largest PR firms and are engaged in this battle on behalf of paying clients. (emphasis mine)
I see there must be some big ol' pile of money funding your operation, since Dr. Singer from "The Denial Machine" is listed as an Allied Expert on your pages.
Care to divulge the "paying clients" behind your operation?
Reply
It was my understanding, however, that a majority of qualified scientists in fields that relate to climate have weighed in on the side of the current climate change being greater than a norm, probably dangerous in the long-term for humans, and most likely being at least partially caused by human activity.
If there is even a question that our activities are messing up the planet, I personally feel we should err on the side of caution and modify those activities.
Naturally I hope that more and more research will clarify matters as time passes. In the meantime, we can only act on the best information we have available. It certainly probably won't HURT anything if we reduce our carbon emissions.
Reply
Well, duh! However, paleo - variability does not refute the concept of anthropogenic climate change. After all, the argument from anthropogenic change does not claim that the climate has NOT been variable in the past. What it argues is that the rate of warming (notice how I do not say the amount of warming) observed in the last 50 years could not have happened has there been only natural factors at play. as I said in an earlier post on another board: arguing that anthropogenic climate change is a weak theory simply because paleoclimate variability (i.e. the variability of climate over geological time) was not anthropogenic is a poor way of reasoning and it smells of poor research.
Moreover, pointing to the power of the sun in past climate is hardly conclusive because it has already been agreed upon that the sun has influeneced past climate in very numerous, and very significant ways. Actually, it has even been found that the warming has began BEFORE subsequent rises in C02; that the sun is what starts the process of warming. This seems to suggest that c02 doesn't really play a part in warming. But this conclusion in spurios. See this link: for an explanation 9I love RealClimate): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]"
I leave it to the judges; but let us be sure that we have all of the arguments in hand before we pass judgement.
I will read these letters and links you post (although I have to admit that some of the arguments made on SEEP are pure rubbish). However, take a look at these also:
http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13034
http://www.royalsoc.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 (an earlier statement; not a letter, of course, but nonetheless as compelling).
Reply
I know what you mean about wanting to understand the science behind this "debate." When starting to research, it's hard to properly evaluate either side of the argument without taking someone else's word for it. However, I've found once you get in to it, most of the "skeptics" are making criticisms based on a number of common, misinformed or completely falsified themes.
While these sources may not be *completely* non-partisan, they have a lot of good information and lots of sources to back it up. I'd recommend checking out:
- a climate scientist's point /counter-point refutation of commen skeptic arguments
- www.desmogblog.org: a site set up by a leading Canadian Public Relations official to inform about the mass distortion of public opinion he sees being committed by others in the industry
D Lahey
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment