Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Why 2008 will be the year of the polar bear

CHANTAL KREVIAZUK

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:37 AM EST 01/01/08

Singer's lament: Chantal Kreviazuk calls on Canadians to save the pride of the Great White North ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Singer's lament does not make her an expert! 'if the warming were part of a natural cycle, Dr. Amstrup says, the Earth would be cooling slightly by now. ' Well Dr. that is exactly what data show it does and has been now doing for few years! The Globe and Mail continues with their forced agenda on the issue: an economist, a political scientist, a Inu and now a country singer, every day comes with its litany without discussing what really is the issue, the science. Shame on this newspaper and its editors for such biased coverage on this issue!
  2. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 125,000BP? How about the Holocene Climatic Optimum at 5,000 BP dear Chantal? Sea levels were at least 1.5m above today's. Do you or your new found friends believe in spontaneous generation? Did Polar Bears not exist before the HCO? Being a mouthpiece suppose you understand what you are talking about. And you don't: you have no background to appreciate these people bias and thus put their comment in context. Of course you'll hide behind the 2,500 scientists of the IPCC to support your re-action forgetting that many so called established peer reviewed papers in the domain were the result of a clique of about 40 of them only! The last of spontaneous generation observed was the burgeoning number of 'climate scientists'! So Chantal, learn about the past and Earth history, atmospheric circulation before making a singing fool of yourself.
  3. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, perhaps you should publish. I'm tired of reading all these idiotic denier comments, who either cite information from blogs or opinion pieces, or misinterpret credible sources, or simply trash-talk without understanding of the concepts, as in your posts above. If you really feel your views are more correct, credible and qualified than those of scientists, go publish and have your ideas peer reviewed. It's much better than trolling around on forums like these.

    I hope to read 'Global Warming Debunked' by Jean Malice in the next Nature publishing.
  4. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, as well, your analogy to spontaneous generation. If you use the analogy properly, the spontaneous generation believers came first as did the people who denied GW existed. Louis Pasteur argued against it and proved that spontaneous generation was wrong and fought to gain public attention about it. Similarly, scientists supporting the GW concept fought for many years in order to bring GW to the attention of the public. Another example of how little you know...
  5. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Behind Space, Please do not rewrite history: the AGW crowd was never struggling or fighting for many years on anything except the newspaper front page! Perhaps you'd gain in learning about how political interference polluted climate conferences from the 1972 Stockholm conference, then the 1979 first climate conference in Geneva, then the first Villach conference etc... Hansen 1988 greenhouse panic to the latest IPCC circus... . You label me a 'denier' but soon you'll have the world convinced you are the one persecuted! I thought the consensus was the majority? Are you persecuted or the majority: chose your cross my dear! . Yahhh the peeer reviewed madness: inform yourself instead of parroting and showing you never published anything yourself in order to quote this peeeer review as a proof of the Truth cast in stone! By the way, how did polar bears survived the HCO since they indeed survived?. Oh and it was Fourier in 1827 who coined the greenhouse effect... then in 1861 Tyndall, in 1884 Langley and Arrhenius in 1896... looks to me the early 'global warmists' did not wait for the Goreacle to express themselves... Oh and Pasteur (1822-1895) he surely debunked the BS ''Imagination should give wings to our thoughts but we always need decisive experimental proof, and when the moment comes to draw conclusions and to interpret the gathered observations, imagination must be checked and documented by the factual results of the experiment.' Said Pasteur, Something the AGW modelling crowd needs to remember it seems...
  6. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Stick to singing, Chantal.
  7. Abid Virani from Guelph, Canada writes: Chantal! I had no idea she was such a great writer! Enjoyed the article!
  8. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: CHANTAL KREVIAZUK....

    You jumped onto a sinking ship... better find a life boat.

    2007 will close with 6% more sea ice than average. here is the graph:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Based on environment Canada's prediction of a 15 year cold record and unusually large amounts of Southern Hemisphere ice, it will be a long time before we see as little ice as we've seen.

    Explain, if the world is so warm... why is there 6% more sea ice than average?

    I'd check your facts before waxing stories about polar bears in 2008.

    ..//
  9. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Bob ImamI from Canada writes: 'Explain, if the world is so warm... why is there 6% more sea ice than average?'

    Even if it that were true, you need to consider all climate indicators, not cherry-pick one or two that appear to support your belief.
  10. Behind Space from Canada writes: Ugh, Jean, your stupidity entertains me. Are you trying to say that AGW was a concern back then in the late 1800s? Global warming was simply an explanation for what the atmosphere does. It was only around the 1970s that scientists started suspecting that their current global temperatures were being influenced by something aside from the natural cycles. Why has it become a concern only in recent years?

    The transition from a scientific movement to a political movement. Combatting AGW requires cooperation from industries who are too stubborn and embroiled in profits to care about changing their manufacturing processes etc. Scientific findings alone will not influence them, but political influence will.

    And what is your fear of peer-reviews? Really? To stress, peer-reviews certainly don't guarantee truth, but the correctness of argument. That way, people like you can't simply throw out statements like, 'AGW doesn't exist' without proof that can destabilize the current knowledge. Jean you should leave the science work to the scientists. Their many years of study are actually worth something unlike your internet knowledge of GW.

    Unless of course you are one of those science-fearing idiots, complete with the conspiracy theory that scientists are all out to get us...in which case there is no helping you...
  11. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Behind Space wiggling out of peer reviewed are ya? So far except insults no facts have adorned your posts. Fear of what? You seem to fear anyone debunking your certainties so far... you are among those who claim the science is settled, not me. Anyway Basta!
  12. Behind Space from Canada writes: I'm so confused. What exactly are you accusing me of wiggling out of? Aside from that, well, you've confirmed yourself to fit into the science-fearing group. Have fun Jean.
  13. Behind Space from Canada writes: Like I said, AGW arguments have passed peer-reviews because of the strength of their arguments and the evidence. Arguments against, well, few pass peer-reviews, which explains why most of the anti-AGW scientists must publish their arguments on online blogs instead.
  14. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Behind Space from Canada writes: Like I said, AGW arguments have passed peer-reviews because of the strength of their arguments and the evidence. Arguments against, well, few pass peer-reviews, which explains why most of the anti-AGW scientists must publish their arguments on online blogs instead. ' Attempting to mislead again? Your naivety is touching if it were just that, as I said You must never have published a scientific paper in your life to believe such triffles! Most likely, you know very well when a group of 40 or so scientists control reading committees in the few journals dealing with a field, there is little chance for anyone else to be published even if he holds the same views; so for opposing views, good luck: even a student knows that much!
  15. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Of course, climate change affects more than polar bears. It has been 125,000 years since this planet was as warm as they say it will be in 50 years, with even warmer temperatures projected after that. Unless something is done, the balance between land and sea will be altered. Problems we associate with faraway places with strange names will be at our front door. '
    Interesting way of putting it: even in business one has always to be suspicious of companies that are stating their cash flow with projected quarterly numbers instead of past quarterly results... But here, these 'scientists' can tell with certainty the temperature 50 years from now while they can't year over year!
    When it is known that the latest interglacial started with Holocene transgression about 16,000BP was accompanied with a sea level rise of over 100m, that the HCO Holocene Optimum Climatic of 5,000BP has been known to produce sea levels over 1.5m to present day in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, one doesn't need to go 125,000 years back to fearmonger! In the past 10,000 years the climate has been anything but stable, normal etc... only ignorants believed it was.
  16. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, you once again confirm yourself as a believer of the science-conspiracy. Science is out to get you Jean. Fear the science bogeyman. It knows you're afraid.
  17. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As a new convert into AGW sect, Chantal just regurgitates the arguments given to her by someone else. Being a talented artist she definitely put much more emotion. It does not concern her that her travels between Canadian north, Toronto and Los Angeles emit a lot of more CO2 than any of us.
  18. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: No, science is not out there to get me my poor fellow otherwise who would be able to point out incorrect statements about sea level and climate of the past made by these people? You? LOL
  19. Jon Barnett from Toronto, Canada writes: Actually, paradoxically, ice sheet growth can increase with higher temperatures (towards zero celsius) as precipitation and hence accumulation increases. However, just looking at surface area growth is an insufficient measure . You really need to look at whether the volume of ice has increased to determine whether there is really more ice in the Arctic than previous years.
  20. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: ..//
    Jon.. so paradoxically... Ice sheets can shrink if temperatures drop?

    ..//
  21. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Globe and Mail headline NOW:

    Atlantic Canada braces for yet another storm48
    System promises up to 30 centimetres of snow, could double normal amount for December
  22. Mark From BC from Canada writes: The polar bears loss is the grizzly bears gain. The boreal forest is moving further north, and streams that never existed before are getting salmon runs. Prime habitat for Grizzly bears.

    Polar bears can also adapt. They can start eating salmon from the new runs, and eventually there will be no need for their white coats, and the recessive gene that causes the whiteness dies out, and polar bears become brown.

    If someone is going to serve as an advocate for the polar bears, I want to put my two cents worth for the grizzlies.

    Polar bears will hunt humans for food, grizzlies only attack if you inadadvertantly get between a sow and her cubs, or come accross a grizzly that has an abscessed infection. So as far as species to co-exist with I will take the grizzly hands down.

    If you really want to save polar bears, its far better to stop shooting them, than de-industrizing civilization to slow global warming.
  23. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Al Gore is the Noebbels Prize winner!
  24. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Here are the fact that contradict the story, as usual with most of science done by the country singer types stories. ___________________________________________________________________________ The world population of polar bears has been estimated at 22,000-27,000 animals. These bears live in 10 to 15 separate sub-populations. There is little or no contact between groups. Canada has the largest population with an estimated 15,000 polar bears. Three sub-populations, an estimated 3,000 bears, can be found along the arctic coasts of the NWT. The two largest of these populations are stable. The third, a small population shared with Nunavut, is increasing in size. ______________________________________________________________________ Check yourself a link: http://www.nwtwildlife.com/Publications/speciesatriskweb/polarbear.htm
  25. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: You can detect that someone is feeding you disinformation when other possible factors not present. In our case it can be hunting. It is not mentioned in the video segment. Form the same link: __________________________________________________________________ Polar bear populations are mainly limited by human hunting. Given their low reproductive rate, overhunting could severely deplete any of the 15 sub-populations. Because there is little contact between sub-populations, it is unlikely that new bears would move into an overhunted area. Therefore, it is important to carefully monitor each sub-population. Changes in the populations of seals and other prey items also affect polar bear populations. Environmental changes, such as a crude oil spill, could have a devastating effect on an entire sub-population.
  26. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: And would you like to have a simple explanation to 30% decline in Polar Bear population of that particular group: _________________________________________________________________________ Nunavut increased its annual hunting quotas by 29 percent last year — to 518 kills, an increase of 115 — saying that Inuit hunters were actually seeing an increase in polar bear populations. _________________________________________________________________________ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/world/americas/27bears.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Globe and Mail editors, please check your facts before letting eco sect to broadcast their propaganda.
  27. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I have grown very tired at the misinformation being spouted frequently by several regular correspondents here and so I have created a website which provides some of my analysis of climate-related measurements.

    You can find it at http://climatechange.dynalias.com.

    Please have a look at the graphs which I have posted there. They were created in Excel spreadsheets using measurement data downloaded from primary sources like the Hadley CRU and NOAA.

    Bob ImamI, Tim Rutkevich and Jean Malice would like you to believe that global warming has stopped, a frequent claim by GlynnMhor, as well. Have a look at the graphs for global and hemispheric temperatures to see just how badly distorted their assertion is.
  28. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: You might also like to look at day-by-day side-by-side comparisons of ice sheet coverage at http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh rather than just asssuming that ImamI's pronouncement about the extent of the Arctic ice means anything. You can compare side-by-side the dates of your choosing.

    Have a look at mid to late September, when the ice is at it's smallest extent and thickness and compare a couple of decades ago with now.

    You might also like to read about the risk of runaway melting triggered by albedo changes in a paper by Hansen at al. published by the Royal Society, downloadable at:

    http://tinyurl.com/33oyjb
  29. Yellow Submariner from Beneath the Waves of Green, Canada writes:

    Chantal is right ... we do have a serious problem, powered by greed. Even the Inuit are willing to put enviro concerns aside in order to get the $25K a tourist will spend to shoot a bear. Chantel evidently does not know or perhaps doesn't care that her extensive travels are doing much more damage than the average Canadian's travels do ... but she wants her lucrative and fulfilling career, which trumps those concerns.

    As long as we are all selfish like that, damage will continue. In Genesis, God tells us to take care of our environment. His Son, in Matthew, tells us to put aside greed and selfishness. As long as we are not willing to obey, there will continue to be hell to pay.
  30. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Burke I see! Is your blog peered reviewed?
  31. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Have a look at mid to late September, when the ice is at it's smallest extent and thickness and compare a couple of decades ago with now.'
    Sadly Alan Burke you repeat a fact without checking its cause and explanation (high pressure agglutinations, low cloud coverage US Snow and Ice, American Geophysical Association). By NOT mentioning these facts -both measurements- you imply that what happened is 'of course' a result of AGW. But it ain't.
  32. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: So, Jean Malice, try comparing last year instead of this year.

    Or look at the graph which they provide on their home page showing steady decline in icecap extent and thickness.
  33. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, you asked 'Is your blog peered reviewed?'

    The forum portion of the website will be moderated initially only by me. The website portion will include links to allow anyone to download material, including the spreadsheets used to create the graph, to allow others to critique and work with the data.

    Even you, Jean Malice (aren't you 'Mr Fijne in a new disguise?) will be able to get to and critique the data, provided you show some objectivity and references to verifiable sources, unlike your usual noise.
  34. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I have grown very tired at the misinformation being spouted frequently by several regular correspondents here and so I have created a website which provides some of my analysis of climate-related measurements.'

    Thank you for your ongoing efforts. What the deniers here lack in insight they more than make up for in quantity. I suspect that's all that really matters to them.
  35. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: And the senior members of the sect appeared.
  36. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Alan Burke and your point with respect to polar bear population is:..... No one denying that Arctic ice have melted in last couple of summers more than observed since 1970s. In fact some experts say that polar bear population risen from about 5,000 to about 25,000 in the same time.
  37. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Alan my congratulations on becoming paid missionary in the sect. The sight you gave link is not very good but it is sponsored. Thank you for showing your money.
  38. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Tim, the money is all mine. Orcagis Inc. is my company, solely financed by me and in no conflict of interest on this issue, unlike some other correspondents here.
  39. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: I never denied...LOL that I am Fijne. I even posted it. The reason I was forced to change was that I became suspicious when the comments under fijne were never answered. Not that my ego was hurt, no it was that whatever the comment, the subject, NO ONE responded. Even more interesting, my comment would appear on my computer when logged in but not appear on anyone else's. I deduced the Globe and Mail has some way of barring a poster's comments. I changed my handle and it worked. That's all. Alan Buerke is climatology only defined by statistical temperature records? If so then YOU should receive the Noebbels!
  40. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: No, Jean Malice, not by measurements alone; modelling follows but when people like GlynnMhor make unfounded statements about the measurements themselves then I feel bound to respond.

    As my website evolves, I will welcome commentary and contributions on measurements, models, theories and opinion but I want to keep discourse on an objective tone with commentary that is backed by verifiable sources, not just emotional flames or political spin.

    I also want a repository where there will be some memory; this place gets amnesia much too quickly.
  41. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, hmm, I did say in another forum that you seem quite illiterate. And apparently you don't know how to spell 'peer-reviewed' or 'Nobel' properly.

    Alan Burke, nice site. Unfortunately it won't do much to change the minds of deniers like Jean Malice. They had a rough 2007 running from the science bogeyman.
  42. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Behind Space, my guess is that he's trying to associate Noebbel with Goebbels. You know, guilt by subliminal association.
  43. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm hoping that correspondents here will find it convenient to use my website as a memory repository, easily accessible, for backup to objective comments here but without the Alzheimer's problem which this forum suffers from and with pictures which carry more meaning that a few words.
  44. martha stewart from Canada writes: Who is 'Chantal Kreviazuk'? Oh, now I know. This worked!

    Love this fairy tale: 'Native people believe that the Earth truly is our mother, and that we must take care of her, that we must take only what we can use and that we must give back.'
  45. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Sorry Alan, I did not click before on the link to find out that you are like me using your real name. I can see you have vested interests in continuing global climate change phobia for financial gains.
  46. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Tim, when you say 'I can see you have vested interests in continuing global climate change phobia for financial gains.' may I ask how you came to that conclusion? My focus is on public safety and public health, not on the environment. If I ever get to the stage of receiving money for work on environmental issues in my business, I'll declare that interest on the website. I'd like to see the same kind of disclosure from everyone - we had to dig it out of Brian R. Klappstein who had a big axe to grind, or should I say shovel to dig with.
  47. martha stewart from Canada writes: Tim Rutkevich writes: 'since 1970s. In fact some experts say that polar bear population risen from about 5,000 to about 25,000 in the same time.'

    Tim, the numbers accepted back in the 1960s were actually about 10,000, but it is the same 'catastrophic' trend line ;-)

    As for the First Nations fairy tale being spun here, all early historic explorers found few or no polar bears because the Arctic people consistently killed them. Very easy to hunt and kill polar bears with dogs. And those people were struggling to survive in the real world... DVD sales to idealistic urbanites just couldn't help them.
  48. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - So you are concerned with 'public health, not the environment'? Hmmm. There's no connection? Spinning?

    And let me understand this. You are setting up a 'like-minded' website... and just the other day you were pointing out the 'like minded' stream from Inhofe that was allegedly all garbage because... because?... because it was 'like minded'? ... but not the same kind of 'like minded' as your site of course.

    Appreciate your efforts. But it sounds like just another one, if you know what I mean. Hope it helps you get some contracts.
  49. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Martha, is everything in your mind associated with the environment? Or nothing? It is pretty pervasive.

    Is it too much to ask that correspondents be objective? If that means being like-minded, then I plead guilty. I deal with reality, not spin.

    Once the website is up and running I'll ask you to pass judgment then but please don't show prejudice at this point. Judge me by my actions, not your words.
  50. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: A memory repository! LOL please keep going your supposed repository... or your reposed sup... LOL Thank you for explaining the joke on Behind Space: Surely between his ears, space is quite empty! Yes A memory Repository! In other words: a partisan blog.
  51. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jean Malice, at night do you curl up into the fetal position, rocking back and forth slowly, saying over and over again, 'Can't sleep, science will get me...'? Though with your illiteracy difficulties, I'm not sure exactly how you'd pronounce your words...
  52. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Oh pah-leeeeeeeez! I've never heard of this 'singer and songwriter' before, but the article is replete with the sort of sanctimony and drivel you expect in a G&M global-warming-will-kill-us-all sermon.

    Thus far in life I've managed to avoid taking political advice from jugglers, buskers, heavy-equipment operators, musicians and taxi drivers. I also don't turn to my dentist for advice if the car breaks down.

    Who but an absolute bonehead - or a member of the G&M global warming choir - would turn to a 'singer' for advice about nature and science? Let her put her deep thoughts in a song. Maybe the Sierra Club will give her an award for meritorious moaning on behalf of the polar bears.
  53. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan writes: 'Martha, is everything in your mind associated with the environment?'

    Yes, of course. Everything is. The 'environment' is no something 'out there.' We are in it. We are part of it. There is no man versus nature. It is all natural. Since I do not believe in the usual religious visions I don't see any other possibility.

    I should not judge something before seeing it. My comments to date are based on your words, not mine. Waht exactly qualifies as a 'verifiable source' in your world? A link to a tinyurl?
  54. Behind Space from Canada writes: pete peters, I don't think she's trying to give us advice about nature and science...
  55. martha stewart from Canada writes: Behind Space - Wow, just woke up. Normally I sleep like a baby, dreaming of a warmer world with about two months less winter here. But just now I woke up, rocking back and forth, trying to figure out who this nobody singer trying to get some free publicity riding the polar bear really was? Was she one of the McKenzie Brothers? Did she play hockey? Or is she just one of the CBC's usual token suspects? Either way she sure tells some silly stories.

    Will be interesting to see how many more 'celebrities' try to pump up their careers on this hysteria. Will Linda McCartney go hug some polar bears? Will the Bee Gees sing with penguins? Or will Al Gore have another 'turning point' concert where everyone can hold their breath for a minute as their sincere effort to reduce CO2.

    P.S. Does anyone else even remember the musical Gorefest? It is cooler this winter so far so maybe it worked?
  56. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: I guess you didn't read the article, Behind, you just show up to splash around this pool because it's fun. Most people would call this sort of thing 'advice': 'The laws of physics tell us that adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warms the planet. Among serious scientists, there is no longer any real debate'.

    What do you suppose qualifies this singer to judge which scientists are serious and which ones aren't? Do you suppose she's read all the peer-reviewed studies about climate change and polar bears? Surely she has time to while jetting from Churchill to Toronto to Los Angeles on one of those watch-what-I-say-not-what-I-do climate change junkets. Cry me a river for the polar bear, baby!
  57. Behind Space from Canada writes: Morning martha =) Chantal Kreviazuk is actually very well known...I'm not sure why the denier crowd would say otherwise, and demonize her for such assumptions as well.

    Besides, she's simply expressing her opinion, and her scientific facts are simply her reasons for why she takes her position (This goes for you pete peters).

    Though I kind of agree with you martha in finding it futile for musicians and artists publicly announcing their support for 'x-cause'. It really doesn't change the minds of individuals, but the musicfests are always great to watch.
  58. martha stewart from Canada writes: Maybe Rita MacNeil will speak for the walruses?

    Her career could use a boost too.
  59. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Martha ... outrageously funny comment, but putting 'Rita MacNeil' and 'walruses' in the same sentence will get you banned for life from Cape Breton. They're very protective of the lady who sings with the Men of the Deeps.
  60. martha stewart from Canada writes: Behind Space - We all know why environmentalists use celebrities, and vice versa. The same reason car companies use celebrities, and vice versa.

    And, no, this particular 'celebrity' is not well known to me at all. But, I confess, I can no longer listen to CBC radio (except Cross-Country Checkup and As It Happens).

    It would appear that she has as much credibility here as, say, Paris Hilton. Except Paris would not make up these silly stories about her supposed ancestors living in harmony... cum-bay-yah.

    I wonder what Tommy Hunter thinks about global warming? How about Mr. Bean? Or come to think of it, since the McKenzie Brothers were from the Great White North, they must have something relevant to add about polar bears.

    But hey, wonder what does Paris Hilton think about this??? Or Oprah? Now that really would matter.
  61. Behind Space from Canada writes: pete peters, your selected quote, 'The laws of physics tell us that adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warms the planet. Among serious scientists, there is no longer any real debate'

    That...well I'm not sure what you are trying to say but this statement IS true (notice there isn't anything in there about HUMAN influences).

    And I don't splash around, I just don't like seeing people who have no knowledge of the scientific concepts behind the studies, judging scientists on their findings. The vast majority of the time the problem stems simply from that. People don't understand the concepts and judge, feeling that they DO know everything needed to understand the findings. Scientists spend years to earn their qualifications, and people feel ready to discredit them based on what? Internet knowledge from wikipedia, etc?
  62. Behind Space from Canada writes: martha - I'm not quite sure what you intend to say by, 'We all know why environmentalists use celebrities, and vice versa'. It seems like you are implying that environmentalists actively go out and seek celebrities to partake in news interviews and publicize the environmentalist opinion, like a hired speaker.

    Please correct me, because your usual posts make more sense than this, and I'm hesitant in arguing against you on this point for that reason...
  63. martha stewart from Canada writes: Behind Space - No kidding! Methinks you are pretendingto be naive?

    As our 'celebrity' wrote:

    'When I arrived last month, with the assistance of Polar Bears International...'

    Gee, did they fly her in for her music? ;-)
  64. martha stewart from Canada writes: pete peters - Well I'm a long way from Cape Breton, and if should could jump on this bandwagon it would help her career.

    Speaking of the Maritimes, I am surprised that nobody has wrapped the climate change blanket around the seal hunt. Don't polar bears eat seals? Doesn't that hunt reduce their food supply... especially in the hellish future when they come wandering further south in a desperate search for food?

    Or perhaps they could ship the carcasses to Hudson Bay to feed that hungrier population there? On solar powered ships of course.
  65. Behind Space from Canada writes: Hmm, good point martha, but still, I doubt they paid her to have a certain opinion. Her opinion and the opinions of Polar Bears International were merely aligned.

    Like I said, the way you worded it, I got the impression that you felt they paid her to have the opinion she expressed to the media. My apologies if my impression was wrong.
  66. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Behind Space ... I assume you include yourself among the 'people who have no knowledge of the scientific concepts behind the studies, judging scientists on their findings'. The remarkable thing about AGW is that you don't NEED to know the science to be an 'expert' these days. All you need is the ability to repeat, verbatum, the latest scare-your-pants-off news release from the IPCC. Look at the pantheon of public 'experts': Al Gore, David Suzuki, Jeffrey Simpson, Nicholas Stern - none of them with a single credential in climatology, yet they preach at us like evangelicals. And as for the 'science is all settled' bit, this is nothing but naked propaganda from global warming alarmists. Four hundred prominant scientists - most with climatology credentials, some of them past and current participants in the IPCC process - signed a public declaration this year saying they dissent from the so-called 'consensus' that humans cause global warming. The response from the alarmist community is to try to discredit each and every one of them. Often, laughably, by accusing them of not publishing anything in recent years. More often they're smeared as shills for the oil industry. Smothering dissent is part of the great global warming swindle. And they are failing.
  67. Behind Space from Canada writes: pete peters, I made the mistake that you were literate. You completely misinterpret my post. Also, you confuse 'experts' with 'public figures'.

    By the way, it IS a fair argument to discredit claims from scientists when their arguments are lacking, which is why you'll find most scientists who are against AGW must publish on internet blogs etc. Also, shills for the oil industry, that's a fair accusation when their major source of funding IS from big oil companies. If the scientists didn't want their source of funding to bite them when they try and publish, they should not associate themselves with a group that has an obvious bias. It's not smothering dissent, it's actual failure of the anti-AGW group to provide arguments to support their claims. And also, they are not failing. The evidence for AGW only continues to grow, and those 400 scientists, while they may have the qualifications etc, are a small group when compared to the size of the entire world's scientific community.

    It seems you too fall under the group of science-conspiracy nuts. Yes pete peters, the science bogeyman is out to get us all. Sleep well tonight.
  68. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes:

    No, all this is not serious and in France, Academicians such as Allegre, Courtillot and Le Mouel are starting to take an active role and scrutinize the 'science' behind the alarmism of the modellers self declared climatologists like Le Treut and other runaway 'people' climate scientists a la Suzuki, Gore.
    Yes there are major pollution problems that need to be addressed and the sooner the better. But the AGW crowd and their gullable recruits are in fact hampering solutions by diverting money to... themselves of course and to a non-issue! Politicians in the Keynesian way feel growth can be renewed by shifting a paradigm, so they go for it... as long as it keeps them popular with the gullable crowds!
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: Behind Space - OK. It just a coincidence ;-) And when large corporations jet politicians around, who then vote in favour of legislation that will help them, it is just a coincidence too. -----

    The proof is in the pudding. Would our 'celebrity' be getting all this free publicity if she did not agree with the G & M's favourite crisis?
    And her opinion is based on what? The Hudson Bay population that all the bad news is about - where she went - is the most southern polar bear population in the world. It is the extreme scenario. It does apply to the rest of the population. Its constant use is the most obvious example of how the Big Lie is being told. Our 'celebrity' bought it, hook, line and sinker. Of course. It was the politically correct and lucrative thing to do and she was obviously easy to fool.
    ------
    Cute the way she got 'in touch' with her 'heritage' on her quick junkets up there. I'm guessing that she sells herself as an 'aboriginal' musician. Now that she is riding the polar bear too, it is now my duty to go out and buy her CDs to save the planet... NOT!
  70. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Behind ... you've done an excellent job repeating the bromides and specious arguments of the Chicken Little crowd; even got in the
    'small group' of dissidenters all on oil company payrolls. Congrats on memorizing the entire IPCC gospel, with the Goracle's annotations.

    You completely ducked the point about expertise. I assume like other poseurs writing here you know a great deal about very little on this topic. Otherwise you'd know that more evidence surfaces all the time discrediting the AGW hypothesis. And more scientists are going on the record with their dissent.

    The problem with the AGM dike is that it's springing more leaks than Al Gore and his acolytes can plug. That's why they want to smother debate and stampede goverments into policies that will wreck economies and harm untold millions of people. And in that they will fail.

    Happy New Year .. and may you discover your skeptic gene in 2008.
  71. martha stewart from Canada writes: Behind Space - I keep looking for Big Oil's sinister misinformation campaign. Since they have so much cash and are supposedly so all powerful, how come we never see any of this disinformation in the media? Can't recall ever seeing anything in the G & M that ever questioned the Kyoto orthodoxy. Have you?

    In other words, what Big Oil conspiracy? Another phantom enemy?

    George Orwell was only wrong about one thing in 1984 - the date.
  72. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: I support this article and Thank You Chantel for taking a stand on this. I do not if you have been the comments I am sure you have, and can see what We who care about the environment and animals are up against.
  73. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I assume, pete peters, that you're referring to the Inhofe driven 'Senate Minority Report' when you refer to 400 'experts'. If you look carefully at who is being quoted, you'll be hard pressed to find experts in climatology.

    As to Inhofe himself, well all you need to do is look at who has contributed to his campaign funds. Roughly $2 million has come to him from various resource industry companies.

    Just a bit biased, wouldn't you say?
  74. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Perhaps you'd like to know a bit more about Sen. Inhofe:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/inhofe-diatribe/

    http://www.desmogblog.com/senator-inhofes-science-by-petition

    Here's a link to 'Mother Jones' discussion about disinformation and funding, primarily from ExxonMobil

    http://tinyurl.com/8l7xs
  75. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Allan Burke of Ottawa ... what you say is false. A majority of the 400 scientists who publicly registered their dissent on AGW in 2007 - proving there is no so-called 'consensus' - have credentials that qualify them as climate experts. Most are publishing on the subject. And few, if any, have ever taken money from the oil industry although this handy smear by climate fanatics has nothing to do with the science involved.

    These dissenting scientists have more expertise on GW than evangelicals Gore, Suzuki and Simpson (to name but three) who are pimping the biggest fraud ever attempted. And they will fail because more and more people understand the fraud.
  76. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Let me ask specifically, pete peters, are you referring to the 'experts' in the Senate Minority Report released in December?
  77. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think someone should counterbalance your statement about the 'experts', pete peters, so I suggest having a look at:

    http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/
    http://tinyurl.com/2mjav9
  78. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Alan Burke of Ottawa ... thank you for the links to Joseph Romm's blog, grandly called 'Climate Progress'. Romm is a former official in the Clinton administration's energy department who, as usual, has no apparent credentials in climatology.

    No doubt Dr. Romm is a clever fellow but he's typical of the kind put up by the AGW crowd to try to discredit dissenters. Laughably, he attacks some of them for not having climate credentials when he, a physicist, is in exactly the same boat. Credentials don't matter in this argument, just how much smoke you can blow to obscure the landscape.
  79. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: All you're concerned about is the politics, right pete peters? It's hopeless, I guess, to ask you to read about the science and to look past partisan politics. You do not have the will to look.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Rational discussion with you appears to be impossible; I don't know why I'm trying.
  80. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Now you're the one blowing smoke, Alan Burke of Ottawa. The 'oh gosh, you're too partisan to understand this stuff' lament is a well worn tactic of AGW evangelicals intolerant of any close examination of their claims.

    When the claims are examined - as for example when a British court recently tested assertions made in Al Gore's hysterical movie - you lot come away with a bloody nose.
  81. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: More disinformation, I see, pete peters. You should read the judge's decision. He faulted some exaggerations (don't forget that it was a politician speaking, not a scientist) but concluded that the science behind the filme 'An Inconvenient Truth' is sound.

    You can download a copy from here:

    http://www.globalwarming.org/files/Dimmock.pdf

    Why not read it and then quote for us what you think is wrong with the science.

    I invite close examination of my claims, which is why I have created a website (http://climatechange.dynalias.com); you can see my analysis. It's called scientific method. It requires scrutiny, something you're unprepared to give, apparently, never quoting sources or providing verifiable links, just hot air.

    The IPCC reports also received very close scrutiny. If you have a problem with them, quote where, please, so that we all can benefit from 'discovered truth' rather than your 'revealed truth'.
  82. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Alan Burke of Ottawa ... thanks once more for supplying a link to Mr. Justice Burton's approved judgement. I have seen big chunks of it before but never read the full document.

    Again, more smoke. Were I, like you, fully aboard the AGW bandwagon I would, unlike you, not take a great deal of comfort from this ruling. Burton finds that Gore had nine specific lies and misrepresentations in his enviro-polemic, none of which has ever been acknowledged or corrected by Gore or his acolytes. You brush these off like they don't matter. Lies DO matter, and the context in which this film is presented in UK schools has changed as a result. Teachers now have to tell kids there's another point of view, which is more than you and the rest of the Chicken Little vangard ever do. When will the public get "guidance" notes to go with "Inconvenient Truth"?

    Public policy must never be forged on lies and misrepresentations, or in an environment where one side is trying to prevent the other side being heard. Science, before now, was never done that way either.

    My advice is this: stop overstating the data, tone down the alarmism, examine alternative hypotheses, tolerate informed dissent, and for god's sake lay off the preening sanctimony.
  83. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Burke, your defense of Gore is laughable: really are you already that low and insecure that you have to defend his gesticulations? Are there ANY proponent of AGW that are not perfect? Are they all beyond criticism? Is the science settled? A memory repository you said... we'll see if you'll be courageous enough to keep it up when in a few years it will be demonstrated by nature that the alarmism was overblown and the predictions were based on incomplete, unthought through use of partial science. When indeed Nature will prove you wrong...
  84. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Alan Burke when $9M a year charity exposes someone who gets couple Thousands a year from some one, this is in best case kettle calling a pot black in worst disinformation. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7989
  85. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Alan since you started us on the money trail: CEI supposedly oil company financed fighters of global warming is $3.7M a year charity. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7847 _____________________________________________________________________ Alan as you have pointed correctly there is much more money in peddling global warming. The whole climate change is about using western Judeo-Chrisitian cultures guilt for living better than the rest of the world. Personally I don't have a guilt, thus no one can go guilt tripping on me, second, my outlook on life are those of middle age male mature rationalist. I need facts that support point of view before I will accept it. I the same age as Gavin Shmidt, Michael Mann, Gaspar Amman, etc... I also have roughly the same undergrad education as them. In the first year we learned to use the fudge factor to fit our models to the outcomes of the lab experiments.
  86. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Chantal herself writes: "When I arrived last month, with the assistance of Polar Bears International, the animals we imagine hunting seals on floes were still waiting on shore." To me it looks like Polar Bears International booked and paid for the trip. It is disturbing that Polar Bears International has a lot of lawyers, developers and vain rich people on its board by no serious scientists. Its financial is not transparent at all. Any charity that claims that its fundraising expenses are 0% is lying.
  87. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: If you want to see for yourself the most reliable statistics on the Polar Bear free of propaganda: http://pbsg.npolar.no/pbdist.htm
  88. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - Well it just goes on. Thanks for your links to obviously unreliable agenda-driven websites for you expose of the evil Big Oil conspiracy.

    But its a phantom nemesis. Where is the evidence of it in the real world? Where is their flow of propaganda? If one can only find "evidence" of it on some obscure websites, then that all powerful cartel must be doing a very, very poor job.

    So why do people WANT to believe in this phantom enemy? It is a complete distraction that conveniently polarizes. And it provides people with a reason to shut out "inconvenient" thoughts because they were allegedly generated by this conspiracy that does not exist.

    A REAL scientist with an OBJECTIVE mind would consider all the evidence on its actual scientific merits, not prejudge it because of its ALLEGED source. As long as you fall for this phony "war", you are not being a real objective scientist. Period. No matter how many tinyurls you cite.

    Why not make a New Year's Resolution to open your mind?
  89. martha stewart from Canada writes: Suggestion for Alan Burke's website.

    Alan, it occured to me how you could make a great contribution to the search for answers here with your website, as a more permanent 'repository.'

    Why post post whole articles from BOTH sides, and let everyone "peer review" them. Not the political fluff surrounding all this, just their content. Wouldn't it be fun for you to shred, for the record, one of those Inhofe sourced papers you love to hate? And post from the other side too of course - I'm sure there is shredding to be done all round.

    And just to stimulate the brains to the max, post papers from other relevant fields that can contribute converging evidence. I find archaeology tells quite the climate change story and lots more for the longer term picture.

    I'm astonished how much effort you put into providing links and data given the nature of these forums so I see why your website makes sense. Good luck with it.
  90. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: In fact, Martha, there already is a blog which might serve just as well or perhaps better, at:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com

    Having seen that site, I might just keep my site as a website to post information which does present or persist well here.

    Another option, if I do go ahead with something like that blog could be to provide various "speaker's corners" where the owner acts as teh moderator. What I'd like to do in that case is ensure that any culled postings be moved over to a "dissenter's" topic, reserving the right, of course, to totally remove any posting which falls into guidelines like those supposedly used by the Globe & Mail but rarely enforced (e.g., libellous statements).
  91. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ouch - "which does NOT present or persist well here."