more on climate

Hi Kes,

I’d like to begin where you left off. The Will Ferrell piece is quite funny but it is this continual cross pollination of topics that prevents reasoned out debates that would actually help people make better decisions. When I (and others) think this is just a huge political football, it is because politics is always thrown in for extra measure—the clear message being that if we get rid of the Republicans in the U.S. all our problems will be over.
When you and I find scientific evidence to back up our point of view doesn’t it seem to you that even the scientists disagree. So who is right and who is wrong?

There are a couple of points on CO2 and solar output. Go to CO2 science.com to get a more complete picture of what is actually happening.
Terry Ball is not at the centre of a huge media counter attack. In fact, he is a retired Canadian climatologist, living in a leaky apartment, driving a 1992 vehicle and trying to use his knowledge and that of others to show people that we should not be watching Al Gores movie and swallowing it hook line and sinker.
If you dug a little deeper into the information provided in that movie you would determine that the predictions and data they are using is based on ‘computer models’.
I am paraphrasing here but;
Computer models have been wrong on every single 'prediction' to date and they leave out two of the major solar factors that cause climate change. They do not include negative feedack, they do not cope with particulates in the atmosphere and they barely include clouds at all - this include the latest research by Svensmark. NASA got the official temperature record wrong. This agency is under the direction of James Hanse, ardent Gore supporter. Ironically, the error makes all the staetments in Gore's movie about temperatures of the last few decades incorrect. Now we learn that four of the warmest four years in the record were in the 1930s before humans began producing much CO2. We learned 1998 was not the warmest year, it was 1934. These changes change the slope of the temperature curve so that the claim of 0.6°C increase over the last 130 years is wrong and well within natural variability contary to the claims it wasn't. These were the only pieces of evidence of a human signal. Apart from anything else the ice core and other records show that temperature changes before CO2, not as is assumed and as built into the computer models.

I know this is a little more of the ‘he said she said’ kind of rhetoric that doesn’t add much to the real questions but since you mentioned them as a source of information:
Desmogblog is a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded gullty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that Terry Ball is paid by the energy companies is false and when he helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) he warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary.

When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight Canadian climate experts including Terry Ball went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not consulted. Terry Balls expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turned out that a very small percent, about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses came from an oil company that he was paid by the oil companies to spout their line.
No spin here eh?

As for Kyoto…
True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not required to meet any reductions including China and India. Can you name any countries that met their Kyoto commitments? . The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human generated portion a minute fraction of that.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any other developed nation.
The entire Kyoto thing is political and was made so by Maurice Strong (board member of the Suzuki Foundation) and his formation of the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policymakers is produced by politicians. This is then released to the public but also goes back to the scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. India sent a single delegate.

Its true about information. Its amazing what’s out there when you done a little research and there’s lots for both sides of any question.

This is a good discussion and I think that in many respects we’re not that far apart because we both understand that polluting is bad and if each of us takes personal responsibility to do our small part it can make a huge difference.
I don’t know however how emerging economies especially like those in India and China can be made to buy in when they’re just getting an appetite for a consumer based society. Its difficult enough here where we figure that we have access to all this information that can help us make better decisions.
I recently heard a UBC professor(can’t remember his name) who has just completed a significant study that looked at the human ability to make better decisions based on more information.
His findings basically were that better educated people do not show any better ability to make better decisions. I thought this was pretty radical coming from a professor. He said better educated people tend to make more money and spend that money on more of the products that we claim are ruining the planet ie big suvs, living spaces much bigger than required and then filling them with all kinds of ‘stuff’.

In my eyes this is a form of ‘elitism’ and I really don’t like that concept which basically anoints a privileged few while telling everyone else they should follow a different set of rules. If you want to learn about the extreme condition that develops when this sort of thing is out of control, study the rise and fall of communism in Russia.

Signing off for now,
Love,
Dad

P.S.
I actually had a copy of Inconvenient Truth in hand and was going to buy it so that I would have that information on a first hand basis. I opted for not spending the 30 bucks but I will rent it sometime.
I did more research that continues to debunk a lot of what is said and i was going to send that to you but I won't unless you are interested in reading it or add it to the blog.

A lot of people are debating this issue and I especially reespect and enjoy the fact that we can be part of that conversation.