Apparently yet another climate scientist didn’t get the memo called “OK shut up, there’s a consensus! The science is settled!”. Another scientist—this one Canadian—will have a fatwa issued against him by the scientific community, I guess, and he won’t get many invites to join liberals on the cocktail circuit this summer. Nor any government or quasi government/environmentalist industry funding.
I’ll start with a quote from deep within the article:
In some fields the science is indeed “settled.” For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
There. Now that the liberals have all left and have headed to their progressive porno sites, let’s carry on getting educated and learning actual facts.
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change – and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that “the science is settled.” At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn’t seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don’t question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of “stopping global climate change.” Liberal MP Ralph Goodale’s June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have “a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world,” would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade—100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
[…]
Read the rest of R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON’s article (10 minutes of science). He’s a professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
There’s another good article today, called
. Here’s an excerpt:
I recently heard a famous Canadian journalist, whom I know to be astute and well-informed, with above-average income and education, give a speech about the environment. He grew up in Muskoka, he said, where they never used to get smog, but now things are so bad that even up there they have started getting smog warnings. And here in Southern Ontario there are now—for the first time—smog warnings in the fall and winter, which never used to happen. The gist was that it’s high time Ottawa did something.
[…]
So you might be surprised to learn, as was the journalist when I told him afterwards, that Ontario air quality has actually been improving, for decades, even in Toronto. Indeed the same Ontario report begins by saying: “Overall, air quality in Ontario has improved significantly over the past 35 years for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide. However, ozone and fine particulate matter, the major components of smog, continue to exceed the ambient air-quality criteria and set reference levels, and thus remain the pollutants of most concern.”
You read that correctly. Most major categories of air pollution have fallen, in some cases dramatically, since the 1970s…
Also see our Steve Milloy column today:
“Climate Activists’ Credibility Gap”
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Wow what a shock: a Big Government project’s cost estimate has DOUBLED — in only a few months - Tuesday April 30, 2024 at 4:50 pm
- UPDATED: State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
