WWF and GreenPeace are Govt and universities?
I don't remeber them being on a ballot or Green Peace University existing.
I don't remeber them being on a ballot or Green Peace University existing.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Climate is a measure of the conditions over a period of decades. It is not in a constant state of change but shifts within a narrow band in that time. Weather changes, climate does not except in tiny increments over long periods of time.
That is why what is happening is alarming. Climate change is happening in a very short space of time. It is rapid and large in its shift.
Humans, btw, cannot set the global thermostat at all. But they can stick their CO2 caked mitts on it and throw it out of whack.
You tell me! I don't remember anyone suggesting that they are. But why are you playing dumb since you know what I said is the opposite to that suggestion?
And thirty years is accepted as a long enough period to measure climate anomalies and say that they are climatic in nature.
I assumed that you were making a point for consideration such as who these groups might be and what are they doing that should not happen.
Canadian businesses unprepared for global warming, panel says
Companies' bottom lines and the country's economic health at risk
OTTAWA — Canadian businesses are putting their bottom line and the country's economic health at risk by neglecting to prepare for anticipated impacts of a changing climate, says a new report released Friday by a federal government-funded advisory panel.
The study, produced by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, says that securities regulators also have a role to play in requiring better information from businesses for the public and investors.
"Despite guidance to the effect already issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators, climate change risk disclosure in financial filings is limited, at best," said the report, entitled Facing the Elements: Business resilience in a changing climate. "Better enforcement of disclosure requirements is necessary, as are effective approaches for companies to demonstrate the value of climate change risk management and adaptation actions to investors."
Members of the panel — who were surprised to learn in the March federal budget that the government was shutting down their office — warned that while some large corporations are proactive in managing their risks, others that they met with for the study could face serious losses that could even lead to bankruptcy.
"The failure of businesses to adapt to future climate realities has implications for their bottom line, for their investors, customers, workforce, and ultimately, for our economy and society," said the report.
The research, led by policy adviser, Jimena Eyzaguirre and Suzanne Loney, noted that signs of climate change in Canada are already affecting the economy and will continue to do so in the future.
"The economic impacts of the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia, disruptions to Atlantic businesses from storm damages, and drought losses in the Prairies show what can happen when weather and climate take us by surprise," said the report. "The reality is this: Due to past emissions some degree of climate change is inevitable even if the globe drastically decreased greenhouse gas emissions today, so businesses must plan now to adapt to those irreversible effects. Yet relatively few companies are taking a structured and explicit approach to incorporating climate change risk management into regular business activities."
Some examples researched by the panel include oil and gas pipelines at risk from soil movements caused by flooding and overflowing rivers. The panel also noted that risks to this and other infrastructure also affects insurance costs for businesses.
David McLaughlin, the president and CEO of the panel, said the report is a warning to businesses that their "bottom line" is at stake.
"We were trying to make it more immediate, more relevant, and make them understand that this is a business bottom line issue," McLaughlin said, "If not today, then some point in the future, so you should start to prepare for it."
The report noted that there is also some confusion among businesses, between balancing the need for policies to reduce emissions that contribute to a warmer planet, along with the policies needed to adapt to climate change.
It said that governments must also play a supporting role in terms of research and providing relevant information to help businesses plan for the future.
"Climate change is global but climate impacts are local," McLaughlin said. "So getting that climate information in a way that (businesses) can see scenarios and understand between weather and climate (the average weather trends)."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government announced it was shutting down the panel's operations in its 2012 budget in March, saving $5.2 million in annual costs, suggesting that its research was no longer necessary in the age of the Internet and a wide-variety of skilled research organizations and environmental groups.
Companies' bottom lines and the country's economic health at risk
OTTAWA — Canadian businesses are putting their bottom line and the country's economic health at risk by neglecting to prepare for anticipated impacts of a changing climate, says a new report released Friday by a federal government-funded advisory panel.
The study, produced by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, says that securities regulators also have a role to play in requiring better information from businesses for the public and investors.
"Despite guidance to the effect already issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators, climate change risk disclosure in financial filings is limited, at best," said the report, entitled Facing the Elements: Business resilience in a changing climate. "Better enforcement of disclosure requirements is necessary, as are effective approaches for companies to demonstrate the value of climate change risk management and adaptation actions to investors."
Members of the panel — who were surprised to learn in the March federal budget that the government was shutting down their office — warned that while some large corporations are proactive in managing their risks, others that they met with for the study could face serious losses that could even lead to bankruptcy.
"The failure of businesses to adapt to future climate realities has implications for their bottom line, for their investors, customers, workforce, and ultimately, for our economy and society," said the report.
The research, led by policy adviser, Jimena Eyzaguirre and Suzanne Loney, noted that signs of climate change in Canada are already affecting the economy and will continue to do so in the future.
"The economic impacts of the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia, disruptions to Atlantic businesses from storm damages, and drought losses in the Prairies show what can happen when weather and climate take us by surprise," said the report. "The reality is this: Due to past emissions some degree of climate change is inevitable even if the globe drastically decreased greenhouse gas emissions today, so businesses must plan now to adapt to those irreversible effects. Yet relatively few companies are taking a structured and explicit approach to incorporating climate change risk management into regular business activities."
Some examples researched by the panel include oil and gas pipelines at risk from soil movements caused by flooding and overflowing rivers. The panel also noted that risks to this and other infrastructure also affects insurance costs for businesses.
David McLaughlin, the president and CEO of the panel, said the report is a warning to businesses that their "bottom line" is at stake.
"We were trying to make it more immediate, more relevant, and make them understand that this is a business bottom line issue," McLaughlin said, "If not today, then some point in the future, so you should start to prepare for it."
The report noted that there is also some confusion among businesses, between balancing the need for policies to reduce emissions that contribute to a warmer planet, along with the policies needed to adapt to climate change.
It said that governments must also play a supporting role in terms of research and providing relevant information to help businesses plan for the future.
"Climate change is global but climate impacts are local," McLaughlin said. "So getting that climate information in a way that (businesses) can see scenarios and understand between weather and climate (the average weather trends)."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government announced it was shutting down the panel's operations in its 2012 budget in March, saving $5.2 million in annual costs, suggesting that its research was no longer necessary in the age of the Internet and a wide-variety of skilled research organizations and environmental groups.
Farmers have been betting against the climate for 13,000 years. You win some, you lose some but mostly we win.
That's not true. It depends on where the research is published. Some journals' review process allows the researcher submitting their manuscript to suggest the experts who should review their paper, such as the open access journal Remote Sensing. Recently an editor resigned from that journal for a controversial paper that he says should not have been published:
Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper ?On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance? by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1
It's a nuanced problem though. Many researchers won't review papers, it takes away time from doing their own research and there is no obvious benefit to the reviewer, who remains anonymous. Further, in some fields it's very possible that there will only be a few people experienced enough to have the deep understanding of a specific area of research. So it may be that the other publishing researchers, are in fact of like mind. That's not necessarily a nefarious thing. Sometimes that's just the way it is. Not all scientific questions are distributed in a manner that would make it easy to find dissenting opinions or theories.
It's never as cut and dry as the rhetoric would suggest.
Remote ensing is a new magazine that has not published climate science and is not a mainstream venue. The Editor who resigned said in his resignation that three "like-minded" reviewers were inadvertently chosen. It is also thought that the three were suggested by Spencer and Braswell.
Really, though, it shows just how far the "sceptics" have sink in crdibility. The paper has been rejected by "Science" since it was a thoroughly bad paper that ignore all evidence in favour of a preferred positioning. It is sad to see Spence, who is a respectable scientist otherwise, reduced to this.
As far as climate science is concerned, Remote Sensing must be just another of the Vanity Press.
Really, though, it shows just how far the "sceptics" have sink in crdibility. The paper has been rejected by "Science" since it was a thoroughly bad paper that ignore all evidence in favour of a preferred positioning. It is sad to see Spence, who is a respectable scientist otherwise, reduced to this.
As far as climate science is concerned, Remote Sensing must be just another of the Vanity Press.
He's right. Gore did an impressive job of spreading BS and getting the sheeple to believe him.
It has and is publishing climate science papers...this one was published in the last week:
Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | Validation of NOAA-Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS) by Comparison with Ground-Based Measurements over Continental United States
Mainstream or not, in the week since this paper was published online, the full article has been viewed by 41 unique IP addresses, and the abstract has been viewed by 215 unique IP addresses, as of this posting. Personally, I'm a big fan of the move towards open access publishing, and am rooting for the death of the current subscription based publishing model. I'm not alone. Harvard University recently released a memo urging researchers to move 'prestige' into open access journals:
Faculty Advisory Council Memorandum on Journal Pricing § THE HARVARD LIBRARY TRANSITION
The current model, as practiced by the big publishers like Elsevier, and J Wiley and Sons, places huge financial burdens on libraries. They package their journals, and academic institutions (private and public) have to pay huge fees to get access to the large libraries, often with publications that they wouldn't ordinarily pay for.
Death to the subscription model!
From the ironically named American Thinker, no less. First, if you can explain what Yuma and Flagstaff have to do with the Global Temperature anomaly then there might be some basis for response.
I don't know more about that "graph" other than it came from that comedy publication. It is phony, obviously but I need to know what they are claiming and where they got it from. It looks like something Anthony Watts dreamed up.
I don't know more about that "graph" other than it came from that comedy publication. It is phony, obviously but I need to know what they are claiming and where they got it from. It looks like something Anthony Watts dreamed up.