Asking the right questions about climate change: Knowledge Driven Revolution

Adherents to the hypothesis of human-caused climate catastrophe were given a free ride from a public relations perspective in 2006. Despite the truly apocalyptic visions of Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Sierra Club, doomsters were rarely challenged to back up their claims with hard science. Everything from sea level rise to droughts, melting ice caps and drowning polar bears were blamed on global warming brought on by man's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Alternative climate science viewpoints were carefully screened out of government pronouncements and few in the public seemed to even notice. Oprah Winfrey summed up society's general naiveté about climate change when she concluded her December 5th interview of Gore, gushing, "Thank you for being our Noah!"

However exciting such an approach may be, it is time for Canadians to get real. Climate change is not a religion, or at least it shouldn't be ‚Äì it is science and like all science is subject to questioning and constant revision based on what scientists actually discover. And what is being discovered is taking us further away from any sort of consensus that human-produced CO2 is a major cause of global climate change.

This is not a popular message among those who profit from today's climate hysteria, of course. But considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe environmental extremists, or a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in one of the biggest science news scandals of all time, society must start to hold 'warmers' to a far higher standard. In particular, those who would have us radically restructure our economy in the vain hope of "stopping climate change" need to be asked some basic, but revealing questions. Here is a sample:

# What is your background as it relates to climate science?

Most of those grabbing the spotlight on this issue have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone the exceptionally complex field of global climate change. While politicians apparently don't think it necessary to ask for the climate-related credentials of those who testify before government committees, the rest of us should stop making this mistake. As Professors Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick explained in their award-winning book, Taken by Storm, "the stage is populated by many people whose desire to save the world is deemed an acceptable, even preferable, substitute for technical understanding... It is a bit like a hockey game where the majority insists on playing without learning to skate or use a hockey stick." Activists are as entitled to express their opinions as anyone, but Canadians must take what they are told about climate science from those with no formal science education with a rather large grain of salt.

# How do you know that the 'vast majority of climate scientists' agree with your point of view?

The only place that a climate change science consensus exists is in what Essex and McKitrick call 'Official Science', the collective voice of governments and other so-called 'science authorities'. But this is not real science. Among qualified climate researchers, there is an intense debate raging about the causes of the past century's modest warming. Even among those who concentrate on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures, there is a wide diversity of opinion about the timing and magnitude of future climate change. Among Earth scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us, there is no consensus whatsoever.

# How closely has Earth's climate tracked CO2 levels in the past?

Over short, medium and long time periods the correlation is very poor. 440 million years ago, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to have been over 10 times their current levels, our planet was stuck in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods, but show no correlation with temperature in the 600 million year geological record. Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable correlation between temperature and CO2. However, these detailed records consistently show that temperature rises occurred some 800 years before CO2 rise, indicating that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not the other way around. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming. Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly.

# If Canada delayed CO2 reduction decisions by, say, a year, while the science was more closely examined, what would be the impact on global climate?

Essentially none. Even if human emission of CO2 was a problem, Canada produces only 2% of the world total, an amount similar to the yearly increase in China's output. Supporters of today's climate change doctrine admit that even complete compliance with Kyoto by all nations held to limits would result in less than a 0.1 C difference to global climate a half century from now.

# Are polar bears and other Arctic wildlife really threatened by current and forecast warming?

Recent research shows that 8,000 years ago temperatures were several degrees higher in the Arctic that they are today with dramatic reduction in sea ice extent. Nevertheless, polar bears and other Arctic wildlife obviously adapted and survived and so are not likely threatened today. Leading polar bear expert and manager of wildlife resources for Nunavut, Mitchell Taylor, explains that, of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, nine, possibly 10 of them are either increasing or steady. Only two groups are declining due to climate change plus hunting, and one, possibly two, due to over-hunting. Past populations counts, while not particularly accurate in comparison with today's census, indicate an overall rise in polar bear population over the past decade.

In science, questioning is the norm and proponents of new hypotheses are expected to defend their point of view, not the skeptics. Not so in the public climate debate where those who question are labelled 'deniers' and expected to disprove the global warming hypothesis, clearly an impossible task. Consequently, many of our most qualified climate scientists refuse to get even remotely involved in the public debate, a massive loss to Canada.

We need to help foster an environment that will encourage broad participation of climate experts in this important national issue before it disintegrates further into merely a battle of political ideologies, devoid of science content altogether. Asking the right questions would be a good start.

Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
HOME George Bush Sr. The New World Order Parrot Party Police, Party Courts and Concentration Camps P3s, Nazis and Polite Canadian Fascism The Ghost in the Machine - The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man Rouge States and the 9/11 Truth Terrorists Canadians Should Pay NOT to be Poisoned: NDP V for Vendetta - R for Reality Canadian Bird Flu Pandemic Looming ? Shill of the Week: Stephan Harper Chicken Little Terrorist of the Week: Creating Fake Terrorists Shill of the Week: Paul Martin The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave	Asking the right questions about climate change Tom Harris & Dr. Ian Clark - Canadian Free Press February 1, 2007 Adherents to the hypothesis of human-caused climate catastrophe were given a free ride from a public relations perspective in 2006. Despite the truly apocalyptic visions of Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Sierra Club, doomsters were rarely challenged to back up their claims with hard science. Everything from sea level rise to droughts, melting ice caps and drowning polar bears were blamed on global warming brought on by man's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Alternative climate science viewpoints were carefully screened out of government pronouncements and few in the public seemed to even notice. Oprah Winfrey summed up society's general naiveté about climate change when she concluded her December 5th interview of Gore, gushing, "Thank you for being our Noah!" However exciting such an approach may be, it is time for Canadians to get real. Climate change is not a religion, or at least it shouldn't be ‚Äì it is science and like all science is subject to questioning and constant revision based on what scientists actually discover. And what is being discovered is taking us further away from any sort of consensus that human-produced CO2 is a major cause of global climate change. This is not a popular message among those who profit from today's climate hysteria, of course. But considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe environmental extremists, or a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in one of the biggest science news scandals of all time, society must start to hold 'warmers' to a far higher standard. In particular, those who would have us radically restructure our economy in the vain hope of "stopping climate change" need to be asked some basic, but revealing questions. Here is a sample: # What is your background as it relates to climate science? Most of those grabbing the spotlight on this issue have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone the exceptionally complex field of global climate change. While politicians apparently don't think it necessary to ask for the climate-related credentials of those who testify before government committees, the rest of us should stop making this mistake. As Professors Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick explained in their award-winning book, Taken by Storm, "the stage is populated by many people whose desire to save the world is deemed an acceptable, even preferable, substitute for technical understanding... It is a bit like a hockey game where the majority insists on playing without learning to skate or use a hockey stick." Activists are as entitled to express their opinions as anyone, but Canadians must take what they are told about climate science from those with no formal science education with a rather large grain of salt. # How do you know that the 'vast majority of climate scientists' agree with your point of view? The only place that a climate change science consensus exists is in what Essex and McKitrick call 'Official Science', the collective voice of governments and other so-called 'science authorities'. But this is not real science. Among qualified climate researchers, there is an intense debate raging about the causes of the past century's modest warming. Even among those who concentrate on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures, there is a wide diversity of opinion about the timing and magnitude of future climate change. Among Earth scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us, there is no consensus whatsoever. # How closely has Earth's climate tracked CO2 levels in the past? Over short, medium and long time periods the correlation is very poor. 440 million years ago, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to have been over 10 times their current levels, our planet was stuck in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods, but show no correlation with temperature in the 600 million year geological record. Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable correlation between temperature and CO2. However, these detailed records consistently show that temperature rises occurred some 800 years before CO2 rise, indicating that CO2 is controlled by temperature, not the other way around. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming. Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. # If Canada delayed CO2 reduction decisions by, say, a year, while the science was more closely examined, what would be the impact on global climate? Essentially none. Even if human emission of CO2 was a problem, Canada produces only 2% of the world total, an amount similar to the yearly increase in China's output. Supporters of today's climate change doctrine admit that even complete compliance with Kyoto by all nations held to limits would result in less than a 0.1 C difference to global climate a half century from now. # Are polar bears and other Arctic wildlife really threatened by current and forecast warming? Recent research shows that 8,000 years ago temperatures were several degrees higher in the Arctic that they are today with dramatic reduction in sea ice extent. Nevertheless, polar bears and other Arctic wildlife obviously adapted and survived and so are not likely threatened today. Leading polar bear expert and manager of wildlife resources for Nunavut, Mitchell Taylor, explains that, of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, nine, possibly 10 of them are either increasing or steady. Only two groups are declining due to climate change plus hunting, and one, possibly two, due to over-hunting. Past populations counts, while not particularly accurate in comparison with today's census, indicate an overall rise in polar bear population over the past decade. In science, questioning is the norm and proponents of new hypotheses are expected to defend their point of view, not the skeptics. Not so in the public climate debate where those who question are labelled 'deniers' and expected to disprove the global warming hypothesis, clearly an impossible task. Consequently, many of our most qualified climate scientists refuse to get even remotely involved in the public debate, a massive loss to Canada. We need to help foster an environment that will encourage broad participation of climate experts in this important national issue before it disintegrates further into merely a battle of political ideologies, devoid of science content altogether. Asking the right questions would be a good start. Read the full article here Broken Link? If the link to the original article is broken or has been altered you can view the article by clicking here. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Features Archive What Is Wrong With Canada ? Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
		Counter
Copyright © 2005-7 KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com