Right, reducing demand is driving prices up... that would be a miracle to see, preach it!
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Right, reducing demand is driving prices up... that would be a miracle to see, preach it!
From The Times
November 12, 2007
Polar bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke?
James Delingpole: Thunderer
Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? Because their paws are too big to get the wrappers off, obviously. It’s not a joke you hear so often these days, though, because polar bears are now a serious business. They’re the standard-bearers of a tear-jerking propaganda campaign to persuade us all that, if we don’t act soon on climate change, the only thing that will remain of our snowy-furred ursine chums will be the picture on a pack of Fox’s glacier mints.
First there came the computer-generated polar bear in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; then that heartrending photo, syndicated everywhere, of the bears apparently stranded on a melting ice floe; then the story of those four polar bears drowned by global warming (actually, they’d perished in a storm).
Now, in a new cinema release called Earth – a magnificent, feature-length nature documentary from the makers of the BBC’s Planet Earth series – comes the most sob-inducing “evidence” of all: a poor male polar bear filmed starving to death as a result, the quaveringly emotional Patrick Stewart voiceover suggests, of global warming.
Never mind that what actually happens is that the bear stupidly has a go at a colony of walruses and ends up being gored to death.
The bear wouldn’t have done it, the film argues, if he hadn’t been so hungry and exhausted. And why was he hungry and exhausted? Because the polar ice caps are melting, thus shortening the polar bears’ seal-hunting season.
Having been up to the bears’ habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.
No wonder Greenpeace had trouble getting polar bears placed on the endangered species list. A fivefold population increase isn’t exactly a catastrophic decline.
But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The doom-mongers certainly won’t. Despite evidence from organisations such as the US National Biological Service that in most places polar bear populations are either stable or increasing, Ursus maritimus will continue to top the eco-hysterics’ list of animals in danger because it’s so fluffy and white and photogenic.
If you’re really that worried about their demise, I’d book yourself a ticket to Churchill, Manitoba, where the evil buggers (about the only creature, incidentally, that actively preys on humans) are so rife they’re almost vermin.
And if things get really bad, we can always ship the survivors off to Antarctica where, unlike the North Pole, the ice shelf appears to be growing. Then the joke would be even less comprehensible. Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? But they do, actually!
November 12, 2007
Polar bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke?
James Delingpole: Thunderer
Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? Because their paws are too big to get the wrappers off, obviously. It’s not a joke you hear so often these days, though, because polar bears are now a serious business. They’re the standard-bearers of a tear-jerking propaganda campaign to persuade us all that, if we don’t act soon on climate change, the only thing that will remain of our snowy-furred ursine chums will be the picture on a pack of Fox’s glacier mints.
First there came the computer-generated polar bear in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; then that heartrending photo, syndicated everywhere, of the bears apparently stranded on a melting ice floe; then the story of those four polar bears drowned by global warming (actually, they’d perished in a storm).
Now, in a new cinema release called Earth – a magnificent, feature-length nature documentary from the makers of the BBC’s Planet Earth series – comes the most sob-inducing “evidence” of all: a poor male polar bear filmed starving to death as a result, the quaveringly emotional Patrick Stewart voiceover suggests, of global warming.
Never mind that what actually happens is that the bear stupidly has a go at a colony of walruses and ends up being gored to death.
The bear wouldn’t have done it, the film argues, if he hadn’t been so hungry and exhausted. And why was he hungry and exhausted? Because the polar ice caps are melting, thus shortening the polar bears’ seal-hunting season.
Having been up to the bears’ habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.
No wonder Greenpeace had trouble getting polar bears placed on the endangered species list. A fivefold population increase isn’t exactly a catastrophic decline.
But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The doom-mongers certainly won’t. Despite evidence from organisations such as the US National Biological Service that in most places polar bear populations are either stable or increasing, Ursus maritimus will continue to top the eco-hysterics’ list of animals in danger because it’s so fluffy and white and photogenic.
If you’re really that worried about their demise, I’d book yourself a ticket to Churchill, Manitoba, where the evil buggers (about the only creature, incidentally, that actively preys on humans) are so rife they’re almost vermin.
And if things get really bad, we can always ship the survivors off to Antarctica where, unlike the North Pole, the ice shelf appears to be growing. Then the joke would be even less comprehensible. Why don’t polar bears eat penguins? But they do, actually!
Hey Mike don't like it don't read it ;-)I think its a good thread both Tonington and Extra are doing a good job of arguing there points no?
Last edited:
It's just a few holdouts who dispute the facts now, even Bush admits Global Warming is a fact and human activity is responsible.
Unlike with the cancer-tobacco link it's hard to deny the changes taking place on the planet, but I'm sure that even after the Arctic icecap is gone during the summer a few decades from now there will still be a few claiming it's just because unusually hot seasonal weather. It's amazing what some people will do to protect their wealth and priviledge, the Oil industry is even worse than the Tobacco industry.
It's also pretty disgusting.
Unlike with the cancer-tobacco link it's hard to deny the changes taking place on the planet, but I'm sure that even after the Arctic icecap is gone during the summer a few decades from now there will still be a few claiming it's just because unusually hot seasonal weather. It's amazing what some people will do to protect their wealth and priviledge, the Oil industry is even worse than the Tobacco industry.
It's also pretty disgusting.
Well call me a disgusting Heretic then cause theres plenty of scientists that say otherwise :lol:
This isn't about herecy, it's about an industry using the same techniques and in many cases the same mercenary "specialists" as the Tobacco industry did to prolong their market as long as possible.
All the "scientists" you talk about who are attacking the science behind Global Warming are also funded by the Oil lobby. It's about creating as much doubt as possible so that nothing effective is done for as long as possible for economic reasons.
We'll all be paying through the nose to try and correct the effects of Global Warming in the same way the general public has been forced to eat a lot of the healthcare costs associated with tobacco use. Only it's going to be 100 fold.
So stop being so generous with my money.
All the "scientists" you talk about who are attacking the science behind Global Warming are also funded by the Oil lobby. It's about creating as much doubt as possible so that nothing effective is done for as long as possible for economic reasons.
We'll all be paying through the nose to try and correct the effects of Global Warming in the same way the general public has been forced to eat a lot of the healthcare costs associated with tobacco use. Only it's going to be 100 fold.
So stop being so generous with my money.
Oh god the same old tired all scientists that deny GW are being paid by big oil :roll:Tell me where do Extra ,Walter and myself get our checks ?:lol:We could all use some extra cash ;-)
So every scientist who exposes the myth of manmade GW is paid by the oil companies? Every one of them?
Somehow I do not believe that unless you have facts to back that up. A common practice of the GW Crowd is to immediatly state that a scientist with an opposing view is naturally paid by the oil companies.
The oil companies must be paying out the nose because the list is now in the thousands and growing. I am surprised the oil companies can keep track of this new payroll.
Have you bought your carbon credits yet? Gore has a nice website when you can just give them your credit card number and they will automatically deduct your money and send you a certificate good for one year. You should try it if you are that serious. If not... you are part of the problem and are destroying the environment.
Somehow I do not believe that unless you have facts to back that up. A common practice of the GW Crowd is to immediatly state that a scientist with an opposing view is naturally paid by the oil companies.
The oil companies must be paying out the nose because the list is now in the thousands and growing. I am surprised the oil companies can keep track of this new payroll.
Have you bought your carbon credits yet? Gore has a nice website when you can just give them your credit card number and they will automatically deduct your money and send you a certificate good for one year. You should try it if you are that serious. If not... you are part of the problem and are destroying the environment.
Myth, that's funny. No, of course they aren't all on the pay roll of fossil fuel companies. Probably just the ones repeating the same old dry urban legends are paid shills. However, they're many times more vocal than the dissenting scientists who actually work at getting published.
They don't have to pay out the nose. They only need a few retired scientists to pay as consultants for the organizations they fund to spin their message. That small vocal group makes enough noise. Their efforts have been fruitless at swaying the tide of public opinion, but it has allowed for political inaction. In that way, they don't need to spend billions of dollars. A few million goes a long way. That includes bank rolling campaigns for democrats and republicans alike.
What myth? Human activity puts billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year, that's undisputable. There's widespread evidence for Global Warming, the link is clear.
It's been well established that the oil lobby is behind the funding for the attack on Global Warming as I and others have posted here.
Oil is almost $100 a barrel, funding the sharlatans behind the attack on Global Warming is a tiny fraction of what the oil industry makes in a day.
It's all about greed versus science just as it was with tobacco, the fact that the oil lobby employs the same "scientists" as Big Tobacco did says it all.
SanFran Chronicle: Only The 'Informed' Believe in Global Warming
By Warner Todd Huston | November 13, 2007 - 05:41 ET
The San Francisco Chronicle decided to pat Californians on the back last week for how much "better informed" Golden Staters are on the supposed dire threat of global warming. With their headline joyously proclaiming, "Californians better informed on global warming threat, poll finds," the SF Chron handed out the party hats, blew their celebratory horns and lined up little Al Gore statuettes to hand out at the awards banquet. And how is it that their poll "found" this startling fact? Why it's because our friends in California believe, man! It's not because Californians are any better informed, that they know all the facts, it's just that they accept Al Gore's claim that the "debate is over" despite any evidence or lack thereof. They really, really believe man.
The SFChron goes on with their elation:
The Chronicle gives us all sorts of figures to back up their claim, of course.
It should be remembered that there was a time when 100% of the people believed the world was flat and that monsters guarded the edge of that flat world, too. Polls like this do not prove truth, they prove sentiment. Facts and sentiment are not necessarily one and the same, despite how the Chronicle is trying to spin this empty poll. In fact, not one time does the Chronicle talk about facts, or scientific proof in their triumphalist celebration. It's all about believing.
Now, this blind belief, this unthinking faith, is the same sort of thing that elicits chortles of self-importance and guffaws of ridicule from the media when such faith is applied to religion, isn't it? Faith without proof? Faith and belief without knowledge? Aren't these the things that the MSM and their scienceist compatriots in the secular world call "superstitions"?
But, watch out. When applied to the religious beliefs of global warming, why it suddenly becomes "better informed" to just accept it all as mere fact without question and to want to allow the nanny state to come to a dubious rescue makes you "better informed." The same blind faith that is ridiculous for a Christian to indulge in is completely acceptable for an acolyte of global warming as far as the Chronicle is concerned.
This blind faith that the "debate is over" reminds me of how the left in America claimed that we should just get used to the Soviet's existence, that they were here to stay forever. It reminds me how they blindly assumed that the Cold War was unwinnable because the Soviet Union wasn't ever going away. It was because socialism worked and the "debate was over" on that count, they assured us. These are the same people who now say that we cannot win in Iraq.
Yes, the debate really is over. The left is filled with a sense of their own infallibility. And facts and truth... well, that isn't an ingredient necessary for their perfection.
You just have to believe.
By Warner Todd Huston | November 13, 2007 - 05:41 ET
The San Francisco Chronicle decided to pat Californians on the back last week for how much "better informed" Golden Staters are on the supposed dire threat of global warming. With their headline joyously proclaiming, "Californians better informed on global warming threat, poll finds," the SF Chron handed out the party hats, blew their celebratory horns and lined up little Al Gore statuettes to hand out at the awards banquet. And how is it that their poll "found" this startling fact? Why it's because our friends in California believe, man! It's not because Californians are any better informed, that they know all the facts, it's just that they accept Al Gore's claim that the "debate is over" despite any evidence or lack thereof. They really, really believe man.
Californians are more likely than the rest of the nation to see global warming as a threat, but also are more optimistic that greenhouse gases can be cut while creating jobs and expanding the economy, according to a Field Poll released Friday.
See, they are "better informed" because they are "more likely" to see global warming "as a threat." It's not because they have any more facts or science backing up this "informed" position. It's cuz they "get it," baby.
The SFChron goes on with their elation:
State residents are more likely than other Americans to back efforts to address climate change, with large majorities favoring government regulations, tax incentives and other efforts by industry and individuals to curb their emissions, the poll showed.
Ah, I see. It isn't because our friends on the left coast have memorized Al Gore's movie and independently verified the facts. It's because they are "more likely" than the rest of us dolts to "back efforts to address climate change." It's not that they actually know anything, but because they are more easily duped into allowing extremist global warming advocates to glom onto piles of their tax dollars and more likely to acquiesce to their politicians' demagoguery and pledges to "do something" about global warming.
The Chronicle gives us all sorts of figures to back up their claim, of course.
More than 4 out of 5 respondents said they believe that global warming poses a serious or very serious threat. Californians see climate change as an issue with major regional impacts: 63 percent said it threatens the snowpack in the Sierra; 66 percent said it poses health risks to residents where air quality is poor; 53 percent believe it could hurt Central Valley farmers; and 51 percent said it threatens low-lying coastal communities.
That is just one small segment of the "facts" presented in this piece... all based on Californians feelings and beliefs. The Chronicle piece is filled with these poll percentages, all presented as if they are "facts" that prove the case of global warming.
It should be remembered that there was a time when 100% of the people believed the world was flat and that monsters guarded the edge of that flat world, too. Polls like this do not prove truth, they prove sentiment. Facts and sentiment are not necessarily one and the same, despite how the Chronicle is trying to spin this empty poll. In fact, not one time does the Chronicle talk about facts, or scientific proof in their triumphalist celebration. It's all about believing.
Now, this blind belief, this unthinking faith, is the same sort of thing that elicits chortles of self-importance and guffaws of ridicule from the media when such faith is applied to religion, isn't it? Faith without proof? Faith and belief without knowledge? Aren't these the things that the MSM and their scienceist compatriots in the secular world call "superstitions"?
But, watch out. When applied to the religious beliefs of global warming, why it suddenly becomes "better informed" to just accept it all as mere fact without question and to want to allow the nanny state to come to a dubious rescue makes you "better informed." The same blind faith that is ridiculous for a Christian to indulge in is completely acceptable for an acolyte of global warming as far as the Chronicle is concerned.
This blind faith that the "debate is over" reminds me of how the left in America claimed that we should just get used to the Soviet's existence, that they were here to stay forever. It reminds me how they blindly assumed that the Cold War was unwinnable because the Soviet Union wasn't ever going away. It was because socialism worked and the "debate was over" on that count, they assured us. These are the same people who now say that we cannot win in Iraq.
Yes, the debate really is over. The left is filled with a sense of their own infallibility. And facts and truth... well, that isn't an ingredient necessary for their perfection.
You just have to believe.
IPCC Head Should Practice What He Preaches
William Yeatman
November 13, 2007
The International Panel on Climate Change is holding a conference to draft a report on global warming and what can be done to stop it. In an apparent dig at diplomats who might try to influence the report’s conclusions, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said that scientists were determined to “adhere to standards of quality.”
So the head of the Nobel-winning IPCC wants to cut out the politicians’ influence, eh?
Apparently the U.N.’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, didn’t get the message. He opened up the conference with a warning to scientists and policy makers responsible for drafting the report. Boer told them that their failure to conclude that climate change threatens the existence of poor peoples would be “criminally irresponsible,” and an attack upon the impoverished of the world.
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1290
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:sNYePsul2JQJ:www.canadaeast.com/progress/article/125062+Rajendra+Pachauri+%E2%80%9Cadhere+to+standards+of+quality%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9Ccriminally+irresponsible%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...nally+irresponsible”&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca
William Yeatman
November 13, 2007
The International Panel on Climate Change is holding a conference to draft a report on global warming and what can be done to stop it. In an apparent dig at diplomats who might try to influence the report’s conclusions, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said that scientists were determined to “adhere to standards of quality.”
So the head of the Nobel-winning IPCC wants to cut out the politicians’ influence, eh?
Apparently the U.N.’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, didn’t get the message. He opened up the conference with a warning to scientists and policy makers responsible for drafting the report. Boer told them that their failure to conclude that climate change threatens the existence of poor peoples would be “criminally irresponsible,” and an attack upon the impoverished of the world.
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1290
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:sNYePsul2JQJ:www.canadaeast.com/progress/article/125062+Rajendra+Pachauri+%E2%80%9Cadhere+to+standards+of+quality%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9Ccriminally+irresponsible%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...nally+irresponsible”&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca
Last edited:
Please save me the headache of tracking down original sources. Two words taken out of context and then interpreted harshly by a journalist borders on libel. I am sure if you quoted the original source in its entirety this spin would simply appear like blatant dishonesty on Yeatman's part. Tracing original sources is not my job nor other people's who would read this article, and placing a news article like this here, an article whose tone requires extensive citation, degrades the value of this thread in general.
I see that you couldn't answer my question. I did not expect you to because you would have to admit that you were wrong and Gore's Diciples just don't do that.
Well established by who? Oh yes... Gore's Diciples. That means that no facts are needed just accusations. The "Big Oil Conspiracy" :lol:.
Greed? Like Carbon Credit Greed? Like six figure speaking engagements? That kind? Like Zinc Mining Greed? Like trying to make oil companies fill the coffers of GW sponsored companies via Carbon Credits? That kind of greed?
You want answer, how's this, I live below the poverty line and don't even have a credit card. I probably have an environmental footprint a fraction of yours.
<SNIP: FOUL LANGUAGE REMOVED>
<SNIP: FOUL LANGUAGE REMOVED>
Last edited by a moderator:
Theory On Thin Ice
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Environment: Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.
Related Topics: Global Warminghttp://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1802
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.
This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.
"It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer,"writes environmental scientist Pat Michaels.
"Further, it's common knowledge in the scientific community that there has been no net change in Arctic temperatures in the last 70 years."
Apparently unwilling to learn its lesson, the Times published a fretful story Oct. 2 about Arctic ice loss. Good for shipping across the pole, and fishing and oil exploration in the region. But not so good, the article said, for polar bears that could be in for a "particularly harsh jolt."
The alarmists like to scare the public with harrowing stories of bears drowning when they get trapped on melting ice and can't swim the long distances needed to reach safety. The specter of their extinction has been raised.
So how to explain the increase in the polar bear population from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 today, as documented by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? The alarmists are noticeably quiet. Could it be that the facts don't fit with their campaign of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Environment: Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.
Related Topics: Global Warminghttp://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1802
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.
This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.
"It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer,"writes environmental scientist Pat Michaels.
"Further, it's common knowledge in the scientific community that there has been no net change in Arctic temperatures in the last 70 years."
Apparently unwilling to learn its lesson, the Times published a fretful story Oct. 2 about Arctic ice loss. Good for shipping across the pole, and fishing and oil exploration in the region. But not so good, the article said, for polar bears that could be in for a "particularly harsh jolt."
The alarmists like to scare the public with harrowing stories of bears drowning when they get trapped on melting ice and can't swim the long distances needed to reach safety. The specter of their extinction has been raised.
So how to explain the increase in the polar bear population from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 today, as documented by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? The alarmists are noticeably quiet. Could it be that the facts don't fit with their campaign of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies?
As Helen Lovejoy would say, "Won't someone please think of the children."
'Frightening' projection: ice-free passage possible by 2010
Marianne White, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 15
QUEBEC - The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
They had forecast the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice as early as 2050. But Fortier told an international conference on defence and security in Quebec City Thursday that the worst-case scenarios are becoming reality.
The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true," Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect - the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.
According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.
The Arctic, considered to be the barometer of global climate change, is warming faster than expected and this could cause global average temperatures to rise still more.
Fortier stressed that 90,000 square metres of sea ice melted in 2007, a spectacular figure that was expected to be seen in only 15 to 20 years.
"The most unbelievable thing is the total absence of ice in straits where you never thought you would ever be able to navigate. The changes are not progressive anymore, they are dramatic," he said.
The great melting, uncovering vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean, will open up the Northwest Passage as a shortcut to Asia, something explorers have been dreaming about since Christopher Columbus reached America.
"We have seen the passage open up for the second year in a row this summer. It's going to have a tremendous impact. It will totally change the way business is done. For instance, you will be able to save some 12,000 kilometres on a transit between Asia and Europe," said Fortier.
The rapid degradation of the ice cover has been a key factor in the growing interest among - and tensions between - Russia, Canada, the United States and other northern nations in securing territory, resource claims and shipping rights in the Arctic.
Canada claims that most of the Northwest Passage routes, which pass between many Canadian islands across the top of the country, are inside its territorial waters. But the U. S. doesn't agree and wants an international passage.
Fortier approved of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's move to reassert Canadian sovereignty in the North - he announced in August a $100-million deep-water seaport on Baffin Island and a new military training centre at Resolute Bay.
"We have to increase our military presence in the Arctic, and it would be totally foolish not to do it," said Fortier.
"In the near future, the Arctic (Ocean) will play ... the same role the Mediterranean Sea played in the antiquity. So it's very important that Canada gains control on this huge region," he added.
'Frightening' projection: ice-free passage possible by 2010
Marianne White, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 15
QUEBEC - The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
They had forecast the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice as early as 2050. But Fortier told an international conference on defence and security in Quebec City Thursday that the worst-case scenarios are becoming reality.
The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true," Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect - the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.
According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.
The Arctic, considered to be the barometer of global climate change, is warming faster than expected and this could cause global average temperatures to rise still more.
Fortier stressed that 90,000 square metres of sea ice melted in 2007, a spectacular figure that was expected to be seen in only 15 to 20 years.
"The most unbelievable thing is the total absence of ice in straits where you never thought you would ever be able to navigate. The changes are not progressive anymore, they are dramatic," he said.
The great melting, uncovering vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean, will open up the Northwest Passage as a shortcut to Asia, something explorers have been dreaming about since Christopher Columbus reached America.
"We have seen the passage open up for the second year in a row this summer. It's going to have a tremendous impact. It will totally change the way business is done. For instance, you will be able to save some 12,000 kilometres on a transit between Asia and Europe," said Fortier.
The rapid degradation of the ice cover has been a key factor in the growing interest among - and tensions between - Russia, Canada, the United States and other northern nations in securing territory, resource claims and shipping rights in the Arctic.
Canada claims that most of the Northwest Passage routes, which pass between many Canadian islands across the top of the country, are inside its territorial waters. But the U. S. doesn't agree and wants an international passage.
Fortier approved of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's move to reassert Canadian sovereignty in the North - he announced in August a $100-million deep-water seaport on Baffin Island and a new military training centre at Resolute Bay.
"We have to increase our military presence in the Arctic, and it would be totally foolish not to do it," said Fortier.
"In the near future, the Arctic (Ocean) will play ... the same role the Mediterranean Sea played in the antiquity. So it's very important that Canada gains control on this huge region," he added.
Yes, of course. The climate change fundamentalist religion doesn't like heretical information to get out. Rule #1 for AGW dogma - Attack the heretic and repeat the mantra - there is global warming and we are causing it, there is global warming and we are causing it, there is global warming and......
How not to measure temperature, part 35
20 11 2007 One of the emerging patterns that I see again and again as the volunteers and I survey the USHCN climate stations of record around the USA is that many of them have been relegated to back lots with an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. At California Polytechnic Institute, San Luis Obispo, that attitude seems obvious.
Here we have a USHCN station in the middle of a junk pile. Old storage crates and containers, a rusty metal trailer, and a disabled Winnebago. Most curiously, one piece of junk, a discarded solar mirror, has the potential for heating up the thermometer more than a few degrees under certain conditions. It’s hard to believe, but this is exactly how I found the site.
USHCN San Luis Obispo Cal Poly Looking North
This was my second attempt at surveying this site. In my first attempt, I found three other weather stations, all on campus building rooftops, and one of my readers said he spotted the “official station” in grass plot near a large parking lot. It turned out to be none of those. This station was tucked away behind the maintenance buildings.
Note how the solar mirror is pointed right at the shelter, under some sun angles, I’d wager that this reflects sunlight directly on the shelter. At other times, some localized heating of the ground and objects near the shelter could also occur, heating the air nearby. Here is another view:
Catching some rays?
In addition, the Stevensen Screen is wind sheltered on all sides, and a pool chemical test facility was recently constructed about 90 feet south, which adds humidity to the air, possibly increasing Tmin at night.
Click picture for a larger image
And, if that isn’t enough, the Stevenson Screen is at the crest of a small hill with acres of ashpalt and vehicles just below:
Given these many microsite biases, it is not at all surprising to see a sharp upwards temperature trend for this location.
The Cal Poly campus, like many, has seen a lot of building going on. In the last 5 years, two new buildings have been constructed just south of the station, and there have been other land use changes.
It seems a far less than ideal place to measure long term temperature trends. The complete station survey with additional photos is available on my surfacestations.org image server.
20 11 2007 One of the emerging patterns that I see again and again as the volunteers and I survey the USHCN climate stations of record around the USA is that many of them have been relegated to back lots with an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. At California Polytechnic Institute, San Luis Obispo, that attitude seems obvious.
Here we have a USHCN station in the middle of a junk pile. Old storage crates and containers, a rusty metal trailer, and a disabled Winnebago. Most curiously, one piece of junk, a discarded solar mirror, has the potential for heating up the thermometer more than a few degrees under certain conditions. It’s hard to believe, but this is exactly how I found the site.
USHCN San Luis Obispo Cal Poly Looking North
This was my second attempt at surveying this site. In my first attempt, I found three other weather stations, all on campus building rooftops, and one of my readers said he spotted the “official station” in grass plot near a large parking lot. It turned out to be none of those. This station was tucked away behind the maintenance buildings.
Note how the solar mirror is pointed right at the shelter, under some sun angles, I’d wager that this reflects sunlight directly on the shelter. At other times, some localized heating of the ground and objects near the shelter could also occur, heating the air nearby. Here is another view:
Catching some rays?
In addition, the Stevensen Screen is wind sheltered on all sides, and a pool chemical test facility was recently constructed about 90 feet south, which adds humidity to the air, possibly increasing Tmin at night.
Click picture for a larger image
And, if that isn’t enough, the Stevenson Screen is at the crest of a small hill with acres of ashpalt and vehicles just below:
Given these many microsite biases, it is not at all surprising to see a sharp upwards temperature trend for this location.
The Cal Poly campus, like many, has seen a lot of building going on. In the last 5 years, two new buildings have been constructed just south of the station, and there have been other land use changes.
It seems a far less than ideal place to measure long term temperature trends. The complete station survey with additional photos is available on my surfacestations.org image server.