Climate Change Consensus?

[Guest woxof]

One must realise though, it doesn't snow when it's cold.  The heaviest snowfalls occur when the temps are moderately cold just below zero.

Iceman

Quite true...I was just responding to the requested snow forecast for Whistler with an interesting side note.

[Guest woxof]

Fairly large news out of Australia as the tide continues to change...

Australia may be backing away from cap and trade

Before the Copenhagen conference on climate change, many believed that carbon trading, already underway in the EU, would sweep the western world, with Australia being the next country carbon-trading country. After Copenhagen ended in chaos, it became clear that the U.S. wouldn’t adopt carbon markets and that Canada, which is determined to follow the U.S.’s lead, also would not.

Now, all bets are off in Australia, despite gung-ho Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has staked his reputation on pushing through carbon trading.

''I think there should be a delay in whatever we do until we have a clear picture of the best course,'' Dick Warburton, head of the Labour government’s own Expert Advisory Committee on Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed Activities, said in a surprise statement earlier today.

Even before Copenhagen, Australia’s seemingly irrevocable decision to implement its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a cap and trade system that had the support of the Australia’s Liberal Leader of the Opposition, had begun to unravel. In a surprise move, the Liberal leader was ousted by seemingly fringe back benchers in favour of an outspoken climate change skeptic, Tony Abbott. The newly sceptical Opposition, in what was seen as a mere setback to the cap and trade scheme’s inevitable passage, then voted down the legislation in the Senate. Days later, the newly sceptical Liberals did surprisingly well in winning by-elections in Melbourne and Sydney.

And now, as the governing Labour party is pondering how to redraft its cap and trade legislation for reintroduction to parliament next month, Warburton is moving against it, saying that the country needs a proper understanding of the implications of climate change legislation before proceeding. ''Chairmen and CEOs and the public have very poor knowledge of what the ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme] involves.'' he stated, announcing he is organizing a round-table of corporate executives, government bureaucrats and experts to weigh the merits of carbon trading and to consider alternatives to it – in effect, a counter conference to the government’s expert advisory panel that he chaired last year.

“We need to get it right,” Warburton explains.

[Guest rattler]

Once again a post with no source.

For those interested WOXOF'S quote is from http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-and-trade.aspx

and the missing part identifies the Author:

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0ciUiwKmT

The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[Guest woxof]

Once again a post with no source.

For those interested WOXOF'S quote is from http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-and-trade.aspx

and the missing part identifies the Author:

Sorry Rattler. If you look at the articles I have posted previously on this thread, they should all have a link. Several, I believe are from the same author. His description sounds quite impressive.

This article seems to be more factual than opinionated and of course it is not a sure thing. Just a possibility. But that possibility, I believe was impossible just a few short months ago.

[Guest rattler]

One thing about providing the link, in addition to allowing readers to consider the source, it also provides credit where credit is due.

[Moon The Loon]

[Kip Powick]

Please let this thread die ..............

[Guest rattler]

Ok Kip one last comment from me. Due to the posturing by Ontario and Quebec at CPH there is a surprising desire in Alberta to do more to clean up our dirty energy and some are proposing the following solution.

Take any equalization money to be sent to Quebec and Ontario that can directly be attributed to the energy industry in Alberta, keep it here in Alberta and use 100% of it for exploring and developing cleaner energy extraction and alternate energy sources. Do you think that idea would fly since a positive result would benefit all of Canada?

TIC

[Canus Chinookus]

One thing about providing the link, in addition to allowing readers to consider the source, it also provides credit where credit is due.

He's right WOXOF. Posting a link is just the right thing to do.

[Canus Chinookus]

Ok Kip one last comment from me. Due to the posturing by Ontario and Quebec at CPH there is a surprising desire in Alberta to do more to clean up our dirty energy and some are proposing the following solution.

Take any equalization money to be sent to Quebec and Ontario that can directly be attributed to the energy industry in Alberta, keep it here in Alberta and use 100% of it for exploring and developing cleaner energy extraction and alternate energy sources. Do you think that idea would fly since a positive result would benefit all of Canada?

TIC

I think you're right about Alberta's desire, but it was already established long before the premiers of Quebec and Ontario made fools of themselves on the world stage.

[Guest woxof]

Please let this thread die ..............

Talk to the Greens. You are right...time to end the whole thing.

[Guest rattler]

I think you're right about Alberta's desire, but it was already established long before the premiers of Quebec and Ontario made fools of themselves on the world stage.

Remember I did say TIC

So do you think the idea of losing the money to be used for the benefit of all Canadians would fly in Quebec and Ontario. The Quebec amount alone is estimated to be around 8 billion.

[Canus Chinookus]

long day... read the enTIRE response! doh, I missed that!

[ILB]

Woxof...better read this on an empty stomach:

Moderator of United Church brought to the brink by climate change.

Mardi Tindal, the newly elected moderator of the United Church of Canada, returned from last month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen with a deep malaise. Not a true clinical depression, but an anxious despair that reduced her to weeping.

“The difference between depression and what I was experiencing is that I wasn’t suppressing or finding myself in a place of isolation,” she said in an interview about her “lament,” and how it helped her to see “the truth about the condition of my own soul.”

She was so disappointed by the meeting’s failure to reach a binding deal that she broke down in the car one day as her husband drove toward their home church in Brantford, Ont.

“I simply wept. My tears were quiet, but I spoke through them, and I was being listened to. My husband said, ‘There is great power in what you have just said, and it is a powerful message that makes clear why you are weeping.’”' More here.

[Guest woxof]

Woxof...better read this on an empty stomach:

Definitely an important read for everyone to see the ridiculous forecasts by the man-made global warming crowd. More suicides, more schizophrenia, otherwise healthy people will suffer psychological distress, anxiety and traumatic stress, etc, etc, etc. And of course....racial segregation is brought up. Don't you feel so guilty now...better send your money and your job to the third world dictators, or else you are part of this segregation.

Fortunately...Woxof rides to the rescue again with more exposure of the scam of the century.....

Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

"Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

[Guest woxof]

Now some of you may feel that Woxof is playing up exaggerations made by individuals such as in my last post. But what if the supposedly most influential UN body is exaggerating or...outright lying in their predictions?

See the article below...

"PARIS - A top scientist said Monday he had warned in 2006 that a prediction of catastrophic loss of Himalayan glaciers, published months later by the UN's Nobel-winning climate panel, was badly wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said in 2007 it was "very likely" that the glaciers, which supply water to more than a billion people across Asia, would vanish by 2035 if global warming trends continued.

"This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

The triple-volume Fourth Assessment Report is the scientific touchstone for political action on climate change.

Destruction of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was questioned in a report by Britain's Sunday Times, which said the reference derived from a news article published in 1999 and had failed to be scrutinized by the IPCC.

Kaser suggested the initial error originated from a misreading of a 1996 Russian study or from findings on a handful of glaciers that were mistakenly extended to apply to the whole region.

In either case, he suggested, the fact that it found its way into the report underpinning global climate negotiations signalled the need for a reform of the way the IPCC collects and reviews data.

"The review community has entirely failed" in this instance, he said.

Kaser was a lead author in Working Group I of the IPCC report, which dealt with the physical science of climate change.

Its conclusions -- that climate change is "unequivocal" and poses a major threat -- remain beyond reproach, he said.

The prediction for the Himalayan glaciers was contained in the separately published Working Group II report, which assessed likely impacts of climate change.

More specifically, the chapter focussed on an assessment of Asia, authored by scientists from the region.

"This is a source of a lot of misunderstandings, misconceptions or failures," Kaser said, noting that some regions lacked a broad spectrum of expertise.

"It is a kind of amateurism from the regional chapter lead authors. They may have been good hydrologists or botanists, but they were without any knowledge in glaciology."

Kaser said some of the scientists from other regional groups took heed of suggestions, and made corrections ahead of final publication in April 2007.

But the Asia group did not. "I pointed it out," he said of the implausible prediction on the glaciers.

"For a reason I do not know, they did not react."

But blame did not rest with the regional scientists alone, Kaser added.

"I went back through the comments afterward, and not a single glaciologist had any interest in looking into Working Group II," he said.

The head of the UN climate panel, Rajendra Pachauri, told AFP his organization would look into the matter.

He has already vowed to probe the so-called Climategate affair involving hacked email exchanges among IPCC scientists that skeptics say points to bias.

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment, scheduled for release in 2013, will probably be adjusted to avoid such problems, said Kaser.

"All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the Fourth Assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made," he said.

"If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time.' It is clear now that Working Group II has to be restructured," he said.

There will still be regional chapters, but the review process will be modified, he added."

http://www.canada.com/technology/climate+b...5973/story.html

[Mitch Cronin]

Now some of you may feel that Woxof is playing

... and some of us are just wondering if woxof ever speaks for himself?

Regarding the article: These things sure make one raise an eyebrow. I think it's pretty clear there's dirty work going on in factions from both poles of the issue.

Reading only what gets posted here, it certainly does seem as though the science is nowhere near as conclusive as had been reported.

[Guest woxof]

Reading only what gets posted here, it certainly does seem as though the science is nowhere near as conclusive as had been reported.

Glad to be of help to you. I will keep on posting.

Woxof...speaking clearly as always.

[Canus Chinookus]

If any of you doomsdayers/MMGL'ers get anything out of this 17 page climate change thread, it's that the science is most definitely NOT settled. If you can see even that little then I do have hope that maybe there's some sense out there.

[E-HANDLE]

Evidently, Alberta's oilsands are the root of all of Ontario's problems. I'd call this a stretch, even coming from enviro zealots.

The gratuitous use of the term "tarsands" is becoming tiresome. It is, IMO, indicative of the shrill bleating coming from ranks of the warmers these days. Their "science" is falling down around them.

Manufacturing in trouble? You can thank the tar sands

Hitching the economy to dirty oil production turns our dollar into a petro-loonie, which hurts manufacturing

Gillian McEachern

Matt Price

Environmental Defence

Published On Mon Jan 18 2010EmailPrintRepublishAdd to Favourites Report an error

Canada has been criticized by environmentalists and other countries for promoting the development of the Alberta oil sands. Pictured is Suncor Energy Inc.'s plant on the banks of the Athabasca River in Fort McMurray, Sept. 11, 2001.

JEFF MCINTOSH/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO

If there's one thing that the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen clarified, it's that the Canadian federal government's global warming strategy is really pretty simple and can be summarized like this: protect the tar sands, no matter who it hurts.

When the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec spoke up against federal inaction, Alberta tried to dismiss them by claiming the tar sands are paying the bills. Apparently, those who want a safe climate for us and our children are supposed to be bought off and keep quiet.

But are those who extol the economic benefits of the tar sands for Ontario and Quebec even right about their own arguments? A less flattering picture emerges when you factor in something that doesn't get enough attention in Canada: how hitching our economy to dirty oil production turns our dollar into a petro-loonie. This hurts manufacturing by pricing our products out of international markets as our currency follows the price of oil ever upward over time.

Rest of this at

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/751...k-the-tar-sands

[mo32a]

If any of you doomsdayers/MMGL'ers get anything out of this 17 page climate change thread,

You seem a little behind the times there friend, better keep reading.

[Moon The Loon]

You seem a little behind the times there friend, better keep reading.

There's three types of people in this world: those that can count, and those that can't.

[Fido]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/751...k-the-tar-sands

More good arguments for the separation of Alberta from Canada.

Sask and BC do you want to join in?

[Mitch Cronin]

More good arguments for the separation of Alberta from Canada.

Sask and BC do you want to join in?

Why Fido, because the likes of these guys are snivvling about lost profit: "Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada, Jeff Rubin, former chief economist for CIBC World Markets, Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna/[Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada, Jeff Rubin, former chief economist for CIBC World Markets, Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna"?

"A recent study by a University of Ottawa professor and others estimates that 42 per cent of the job loss in Canadian manufacturing over the last few years resulting from the rise in the dollar can be attributed to our rise in oil exports, and identifies the computer and electronics, textile, transportation, machinery, paper and plastics sectors as those most affected. "

Another recent study by a highskule dropout and others estimates that 100% of the job loss in Canadian manufacturing over the last few years, that has not been a result of bankruptcies, can be directly attributed to employers seeking more profit. Free Trade, Privatization, Global Economy, Shareholder Value, Investment Return, Cost/Profit Analysis, Average Annual Return, Return on Equity, etc... In the language of the triple C Conservative there is no Humanity.

Seems to me a high Canadian buck is a damn fine thing for the average Canadian shmuck.

And Fido.... if you don't like Canada, please turn south, and start going... write back when you like what you see.

[Fido]

And Fido.... if you don't like Canada, please turn south, and start going... write back when you like what you see.

Anything that gets us away from the Eastern Bastards is OK with me.

Alberta belongs to Albertans not to anyone from Ontario.