The Hook

Email Reading

I have not seen 3000 emails.

The data that I have seen is more like 1000 emails. I have gone through about two thirds of them so far.

I have also taken a look at some of the data manipulation routines and the binary files.

It is pretty damming in that is shows clear and deliberate intent to deceive. It also shows how vicious and mean spirited these people were.

The clear overthrow of the peer review process was especially cold blooded.

Falsification of data is about as bad as it gets in science.

Evidence?

Well, Illahie, can we assume that you too have read all 3,000 emails? If not, on what do you base your assertion?

As I've followed the debate over the last couple of decades, I've seen the scientists much more prepared to be found in error than the denialists. That's what science is all about: testing a theory until it survives or collapses, and moving on from there.

But the denialists don't seem to have a Plan B. Perhaps you do? If you found you had been in error about global warming, and had to admit that it was both happening and caused by human activity, what would you do about it?

My dear Crawford

The planet earth has many problems.

Global Warming is not one of them. The temperature of the earth peaked in 1998, more than a decade ago.

You say that you have followed the debate over the last couple of decades. Have you actually looked into the issue for yourself?

Carbon Dioxide cannot cause global warming. It is just not possible. Although it is technically a greenhouse gas because it does resonate with infrared radiation, the forcing is negligible. If the atmosphere was 100 percent CO2, we would have less greenhouse effect than the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor which is in the atmosphere today. A lot less.

A much more serious problem is the state of the oceans and the state of the worlds fisheries. Chronic overfishing is a serious problem worldwide, and a big problem right here in BC. Fish populations can fall to levels below where the stocks can recover. This has happened on the east coast with the Atlantic Cod and it could happen here in BC.

Spending time and treasure on non existent problems takes resources from problems that are real and pressing.

Denial

Good greif. She says "they never once suggest cooking the books ot fudging the science". What part of "hide the decline" ,"even if I have to change the peer review process" does she not get. Clearly if she can't even read she is definately not fit for office. Please B.C do not send this myopic zealot to Ottawa.

Oh my, Crawford

a bit out of whack on this one....this story has been percolating for fourteen days now without any media attention.

And Liz, you silly tart, of course there have been no reporters on this.....all the mainstream media have contorted themselves backwards to not acknowledge any problem.

And therein lies the bigger story- junk science in bed with junk politics aided and abetted by junk journalism.

Garbage in, garbage out.

illahie

Are you a scientist? You mention the state of the oceans and I agree with you that they are in terrible shape, mostly due to the same policies and tactics we see in the oil industry. Using lobbyist and political donations to buy politicians and get our resources handed over for pennies on the dollar.

Can you explain why our glaciers are receding in B.C. and why the winters are so much warmer if it isn't from GW? I do think forestry is having a huge effect on weather and I don't believe any rhetoric coming from the deniers making huge money with their oil sponsored web sites, or the fraser institute who are also paid by banks and corporations to lobby on their behalf at the expense of the public.

In less then 30 years our salmon have been decimated as have most of our valleys and forests with no thought to the future, so if B.C. isn't warming up why do we have so many Pine Beetles?

If you care.

Code issue (and here)

Realclimate on the CRU thing.

Or, more generally.

There's more, but you have to give a damn, and it's not always easy to evaluate the arguments when they get technical. Those who prefer rhetoric to science will probably skip the links anyways.

-Travis

RealTH

She couldn't possibly be any worse then gary lunn who would have lost last election if the cons hadn't pulled all their dirty little tricks.

The Harpo/May team.

Odd that she will be working so hard to elect Gary Lunn and Stephen Harper in the next election.

What is this love for greenies for the Neocon governments they are always complaining about but work so hard to elect and reelect.

M

Seth

Good point, I suspect May will split the left and let lunn win again and that would be a real shame.

Travis thanks for these links, interesting reading.

On credibility

Illahie,

I've followed the issue for a long time, since the 1970s, when I published a novel about the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet.

In the 1990s I published a long article in the Georgia Straight about the likely impact of global warming on BC, given our experience during the altithermal period 12,000 years ago. I run a little blog called Climate Wars.

And I think I know enough to say that the earth is indeed continuing to warm, that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, and that you don't know what you're talking about.

The atmosphere of Venus is around 95% CO2, and the temperature at the surface is close to 800º Celsius. Quite apart from that, methane is also a greenhouse gas, and is entering our atmosphere in growing amounts as permafrost melts.

You are hiding behind a bogus name, making bogus assertions without troubling to cite a single source for your bizarre claims. All we know for sure about you is that you deeply dislike the scientists whose research points to facts you'd rather not deal with.

So your credibility is zero, Illahie. The scientists you despise are putting their own names on their research, and they're prepared to be refuted. You give us nothing but your ignorance.

Think about this, Illahie: What if you're right?

If you're right, scores of thousands of highly intelligent, highly educated men and women have engaged in a monstrous conspiracy to dupe ordinary folks who just want to drive to the mall for the rest of their lives.

In a plot that must have started when they were kids in high school, they've connived at concocting false data in countries around the world, for decades, and nothing stood in their way but the selfless efforts of the fossil-fuel industry.

The plotters even duped the insurance giants like Munich Re, who couldn't figure out why they are now paying 15 times what they used to for weather-related damage claims.

Well, why suppose that the plot is limited only to climate scientists, Illahie? Surely all those educated scientist folks are in on the conspiracy.

You think the cod are gone and the salmon are in trouble? Just another plot, Illahie! The eggheads want to deprive you of real fish and chips, just like they want to shove you onto public transit.

So if I were you, my dear Illahie, I'd either post stuff under my own name, and cite my sources, or I'd think about whether I just might need a Plan B after all.

solar flares

Solar cycles are behind variations in planetary climate. Both Venus and Mars show atmoshperic changes of a warming nature. How can SUV's do this, asks Alex Jones?? The push is on to a carbon trading scheme which will enrich Wall Street and London and lead to a global dictatorship using CO2, the war on terror, germ warfare, and collapse of the capitalist us dollar economy as means to that end.

Mr. Crawford

Crawford

Please no disrespect.

I have a legal right to the name Illahie, and I wish and hope that I can live up to the name.

The Hard Sell

It took most people about 20 years to come to a grudging acceptance that climate change was a looming problem and about 20 seconds to change their minds back again.

Fun with Science

Might as well have fun with this stuff before the Inquisitors snuff us. What method does one suppose it will be? Burning at the Stake will only compound the problem. Crawford thinks that all nasty deniers shop at 'The Mall'. Perhaps that's where they'll round us up. No worries for me since I always go to the local shops instead.

So, while Al Gore has canceled his Copenhagen jaunt and Phil Jones has resigned and is thinking of opening a B&B with only raw food and cold showers, the stalwart rabble try and cling to what's left of the crowd of dupes they almost harnessed and corralled into a global militia like a bunch of enviro-red guards, going around the world to drag the heathen from their SUVs and stomp them to save the planet. Kubrick would have relished the concept.

Here's yet another take on this end-of-scam fable:
The Thermomaniacs!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6729062/Forget-climate-change---save-the-planet-from-the-thermomaniacs.html

Is Crawford in Denial?

Crawford claims to have studies this topic since the 1970's which is great. But he can still be dead wrong.

I bet that he has never looked into the physics of CO2 in all that time.

The scientists which Crawford holds in high regard have been caught cooking the data. The emails (which Crawford probably has not read) clearly show that basic climate data has been manipulated and the real data destroyed in an attempt to show warming where none exists.

Michael Mann on the other side of the ocean has already been caught cooking up the hockey stick chart to show warming where none exists.

It is starting to look like the scientists that Crawford holds in such high esteem are just a bunch of crooks.

These guys are not just a bunch of nutbar bloggers. These are the people who provide the IPCC with the climate data that the United Nations uses to chart the path for our planet.

One of the great Canadian hero's

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadians+changed+climate+debate/2306516/story.html

So, Elizabeth May is proposing:

A Conspiracy Theory!

Honestly, after watching her on the Munk Debate and now this.

The Greens are going to have more problems with her than the Liberals with Iggy.

Realisticman, I must admit, the quip about Jones opening up a B&B is funny.

What would he call it and would he accept "credit"?

He could use an outhouse as his B&B. Al Gore can have the basement suite.

Now that, is trickle down economics.

With regards to email reading

The fair use policy of every institution indicates that when you are using univeristy/institute/governmental email accounts and bandwidth, you are on the public nickel.

In other words, "All your data belongs to us"

If you want to talk about your marriage or your constipation, you have every opportunity to do so via your own private email account and bandwidth.

If you want it put it in parenthetically with your publicly financed work. Then too bad.

As far as Jones being "cleared". Maybe via the "inside man" that they are using to investigate themselves. No different from recent RCMP investigations of themselves. With no different outcome expected.

However, Jones is damaged goods. As are all the PhD and Master's student that presumably he has supervised over the years. I have seen more than one capable research career torpedoed because his/her former supervisor was found to "funny with the data".

So, Elizabeth May, if you really give a crap about personal lives, then maybe think about the personal lives of the people who are negatively affected by the misdoings of Jones, Mann and the other members of that cabal.

That may not be the "Green" thing to do, but it sure as Hell is the "Right" thing to do.

Sadly, that may also be an oxymoron from what I have seen these days.

I beg to agree/disagree

I too have been following this from the 70's and my discipline is in climatology.

Ilahai....logging operations in BC should actuallly reduce heating- the albedo effect from slash area are reflective. Fisheries are in decline for many reasons- from technology and overfishing, to alienation of land, to poor forestry practices. All of which only serve to confuse the issue- is global warming anthropogenic?

I think not, although man's hubris knows no bounds on this one. Is the climate warming? I do think so but for more natural reasons.

Above and beyond that, the entire science of climatology and the scepticism that should always be part of that has been hijaked by political/economic agendas. The 150 mb of emails and data codes clearly point in that direction.

Before we go off o a tangent and expend scarce resources on a hot air fantasy, we need to step back and reassess the basis for all the rhetoric on AGW- the discussion is not over....it has hardly begun.

Oh yes....maybe it is time to start thinking about that 1.3 billion dollar carbon gas tax grab so easily obtained on a fantasy.

The $1.3 billion carbon tax

The $1.3 billion carbon tax grab is chickenfeed in comparison of what the banks (Royal's quarterly profit) and the corporate mafia are stealing from the public's pockets every day.

Everybody's bitching and complaining about taxes, but not a word against the obscene and criminal profits and payments to CEOs and other executives.

However it is caused, global warming is a brutal fact we, living in the country, can see every day.

Ed Deak.

The Global Warming debate is winding down

There is still much active debate on Global Warming.

But while people are still debating the issue, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has flipped, and the sun is still showing reduced sunspot activity.

Both factors should cool the earth in the years ahead.

If the earth does continue to cool, the great Global Warming debate will come to an abrupt end.

The climate change crowd does not currently have a mechanism to explain a cooling planet in the face of rising CO2 levels. If CO2 keeps going up and the planet keeps on with its recent cooling trend, then we will have to find something else to discuss.

hoist on their own petard

This is almost funny. Almost, because the issue is too damn serious to warrant any guffaws.

I'm a believer in global warming despite the self-inflicted, possibly lethal blow the movement has just perpetrated. I believe it because, not being a scientist, common sense tells me you can't keep artificially pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and expect no impact whatsoever. Consequently, I'm in favour of the global attempt to reign the stuff in, if for no other reason that the alternative represents too big a risk.

But what this little collection of e-mails shows is that science, for too many years now, has been more wrapped up in ideology and religion than actual science. Scientific method, developed carefully over the last century, has fallen to "here's the theory, let's go prove it right." The opposite is supposed to happen -- if you have a theory you're supposed to try and prove it wrong. And once you've proved wrong all the other hypotheses, you've got a pretty solid theory.

Unfortunately, that approach doesn't cut it in today's headline grabbing need for research funding, grants, attention -- whatever. So if you think something marginally bad is happening, the only way you can get that front page headline is to make it a lot more than marginally bad -- it has to be a catastrophe in the making. And once you've sold that idea, well, it's pretty hard to step back from it if the ongoing research tends to point in the other direction. You sell the idea, you own it.

This has plagued environmental science, and probably medical science too, for about 30 years now. These leaked e-mails clearly illustrate the logical progression of that attitude: deny the data to the skeptics, fudge the numbers a little, make sure it gets attention. The end justifies the means.

The calamity here isn't climate science -- that will eventually recover, we can hope. The calamity is the trivialization of science itself. And we've all played a role in that. And Elizabeth May's conspiracy theories are laughable. The texts of those emails are damning no matter how they came to light -- and when some enterprising reporter does this to a government or an oil company, May and her colleagues treat them as heros. Funny how people react when the shoe is on the other foot.

Well, we have just found out that Blackie is a

"Mac"-ie

Good for you

LOL

You make a point, Blackie, Blackie,Blackie, Blackie.

Crawford's CO2 lesson

Crawford almost popped a cork above, and I take that to be a good sign. It means that he has run out of thought and reason and he is resorting to ad-hominem tactics.

I believe that he is now ready to join the camp of the deniers. Fortunately there is still lots of room under that tent.

I made a wild claim above about an atmosphere consisting of 100% CO2 would have considerably less greenhouse effect than just the effect of water vapour here on earth. As many of you are aware (or not) water vapour is responsible for 95 % of the greenhouse effect on our planet.

In an atmosphere of 100% CO2 there would be no water vapour, and 95% of the greenhouse effect would therefore be lost.

CO2 loses its ability to increase its greenhouse effect when it has absorbed 100% of the infrared radiation in its very narrow IR bands. That happens when CO2 levels are less than 1% of the atmosphere. (CO2 reached about 7% 550 million years ago.

Crawford wants some proof or evidence to back up my wild claims.

OK
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

Scientist

If GW is real and the scientists who are studying the climate screw up half as often as some of the doctors I have dealt with, I don't see much hope for our kids.

Good points Ed Deak.

"Everybody's bitching and complaining about taxes, but not a word against the obscene and criminal profits and payments to CEOs and other executives.

However it is caused, global warming is a brutal fact we, living in the country, can see every day."

Carol Taylor saves the Banks and their shareholders up to 500 million a year in taxes, she gets a board position and we get more taxes and less service. gordo saved his rich and corporate friends billions in tax breaks and freebies, we get stuck with the bill including the carbon tax which cost federal liberals the election and saved gordo, go figure.

Only in B.C.!

Now this bunch are going to stick us with the HST, well I for one will do whatever I can to avoid paying this tax or supporting any business that contributes to the liberals.

A cork gets popped when:

The pressure of the CO2 in the vessel overcomes the ability of the cork to keep it in.

On water vapour.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?.

Once again, only if you care.

-Travis

On water vapour.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?.

Once again, only if you care.

-Travis

Climate deniers

The timing of this e-mail incident, on the eve of Copenhagen, has sting operation written all over it.

The deniers are primarily made up of public relations experts, not scientists. They know who to get a story into the media and how to spin it.

I have not read the 3,000 emails, and I don't need to. The science on climate change is unequivocal and decisive. The public relations and politics on climate change, is not so unequivocal. May and Weaver reflect the former, Illahie and his band of PR provocateurs reflect the later.

It's the job of journalists to bear out this distinction, and Crawford, unlike many of his mainstream cohorts, is doing that. Bravo to he and the Tyee for continuing to report the science-based truth on this issue.

Unfortunately, as with big tobacco, big oil is winning the public relations battle. They lost the scientific battle decades ago, so have put all their resources into PR. Illahie, you need to read James Hoggan's book on the PR machine behind the climate denial movement. I put you in the same ethical category as big tobacco cancer deniers, Holocaust deniers and the like.

Illahie said

"the sun is still showing reduced sunspot activity."
What does this have to do with this debate? Sunspote are magnetic poles and are much cooler than the rest of the "surface" of the sun.That is why they are dark and so are called sunspots.
and
"In an atmosphere of 100% CO2 there would be no water vapour, and 95% of the greenhouse effect would therefore be lost."

Tell that to Venus. It surface temperature is 100's of degrees above the Earth's surface temperature and its atmosphere is mostly carcon dioxide.

Travis, If you care

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/

With all this debate about

With all this debate about climate change/warming I can not understand how come we figure it's alright to pollute our oceans, soil, and atmosphere to have economic activity? We are dumping millons of tonnes of fertilizers and pesticides on the ground which goes down to the sea and is altering our pH level in our coasts. Has anybody heard of the 8th continent? It's a huge plastic garbage dump in the north pacific; it's so huge that how it got it's name. Shall we also talk about the pollution that the oil companies do to 3rd world countries like Equador and Nigeria? C'mon people, git yer heads out of yer butts and wake up fer christ sakes. All this blabbering about climate debate is all bullshit.

Sunspots for North of Hope

There is a correlation between sunspot activity and the earths climate.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/news/viewdetail/solar_activity_sun_spot_climate_study.html

Nobody said it was ok, Van Isle

By all means, lets change our polluting and wastful ways.

But, that is not the issue.

The issue is science being prostituted to the politics of consensus and those who think they can hoodwink the unwashed masses into believing climate change is man inspired.

Get your head out of your butt and put on your critical thinking cap. (Crawford will like that lol)

Some good points, Van Isle

Recently there has been a lot of talk about Global Warming and Climate Change. These are worthy of a lot of thought and action but they are only the beginning of the process to take care of the environment. We must remember plants, as well as animals and people, are part of the environment.
We need to be concerned about environmental alteration, not just climate change. We must be concerned about all pollutants, not just green house gases (GHG’s.) No chemicals should be used unless they are studied and tested for damage to animals, plants and the environment. These studies and results must be made public.

According to my scientist

According to my scientist friends, there are about 200,000 chemicals is use today, but only less than 15,000 have been thoroughly tested for damages to humans etc.

The excuse always is that the amounts in the cans and packages of food etc. are "so small that they won't do harm".

Tell this to people with allergies. We haven't been able to eat in restaurants for many years, because my wife got violently sick, most likely from the preservatives they use in pre packaged foods.

She has to read the ingredients on cans and packages when we shop.

Then we come to GM seeds and foods, not tested at all, because of the "intellectual property rights" claimed by the corporate mafia that makes them.

Meanwhile the cancer, diabetes etc,. epidemics, that didn't exist 40-50 years ago, are spreading like flood and our blood is full of poisons.

Ed Deak.

Lizies diaries exposed

Dec 05 2009
Dear Diary:

It is cold again today, Windy too.

Stupid sunspots none again today.
This is day 12 in a row with no spots, thats 255 so far this year with no spots, none.

Stupid Winter Olympics. Who would have thought that Whistler would get the snowiest November ever recorded.

Stupid emails, I just ruined the weekend by reading all three thousand of the one thousand emails that Phil and his buddies wrote. Well at least its a good thing that they did not write anything bad in them.

It looks like the Medieval Warming Period is back on the charts again. So is the dustbowl days of the 1930's. Thats when they used to know how to make warming, not like now.

Steve McIntyre is in the news again, I read about him lots in Phil's emails. What a jerk that guy is. It is absolutely horrible that he is so good at math. He is the guy who made Michael Mann take down his hockey stick chart. Imagine a Canadian who does not like hockey sticks.

Stupid December. December should be a happy month with Christmas and all. Maybe next year will be better, and perhaps warmer. 11 years with no warming is plenty enough I can tell you.

bye for now diary, I hope for better news tomorrow.

Solar flares

Illahie, I believe you might want some solar flares to warm your cold blood. They coinside with the sunspots but they release a lot more energy that may heat up the Earth. However it doesn't reduce the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
If you don't warm up soon, you could also have a hot toddy. But then you may end up producing more GHG's to heat it.

Illahie's authorities

Thanks for your post earlier today, Illahie, where you actually provided a link to a source for your view of CO2. I did a lot of searching for Heinz Hug based on the 1998 paper you indirectly linked to. He's also published or co-published a couple of other papers on the subject, but they're purchase-to-see.

A search on Google and Google Scholar shows not much about Dr. Hug, and few responses to his view that CO2 is simply not a greenhouse gas. Where he does show up is in comments like yours to posts on climate sites (both skeptical and otherwise).

Over a century of climate research finds CO2 to be a greenhouse gas. Hug's contrary finding ought to be like Copernicus overthrowing Ptolemaic astronomy and leading to a flood of new research in atmospheric studies. Yet it's not there, not even in the skeptics' websites. Why not?

Confirming Hug's view with hard evidence would be a sure path to the Nobel Prize, yet no one has done so.

So if Heinz Hug's epochal paper has few citations, perhaps it's because his colleagues read it, shook their heads, and got on with serious work.

I'd love to see more links to your sources. After all, your credibility depends on them. Playing at satirist of Elizabeth May is clearly not your metier.

Dr Alexander, thanks for the link.

The (relatively cautious) author of the piece you link to admits that the code in question, at best, only suggests the possibility of fraud, and does not qualify as proof. It's still possible, and I would say probable, that there is a simple and harmless explanation. I would say likely one that has already been offered, both in the comments in the link you provided and elsewhere.

Without the proper context it's very difficult to determine the meaning of the various quotes that are being thrown around. There was the quote about the "trick", which unless I've missed something important, has been shown to be innocuous, after all, once seen in context.

I feel kind of silly supporting the "I was quoted out of context!" side of a debate, but as best I can tell, that's what's happening.

I'm curious to see what happens as this issue is investigated further.

-Travis

P.S. It probably goes without saying, but I hope people see that even if everything the deniers were saying was true--which we know it isn't, and we only await confirmation one way or another on a few issues--it doesn't change anything about the state of climate science as a whole.

North of Hope

Everybody knows that I am beyond hope.

A Youtube Video on ClimateGate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Human neglect and abuse of the environment

Thank you Van Isle for mentioning the 8th continent in your post, I googled it and found two posts on the tyee.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/07/26/PlasticSea/

http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/11/21/PacificGarbagePatch/

So much for humans not affecting the planet!

Waitlisted for a condo on the International Space Station

"Welcome to the desert of the real."

Morpheus

Case closed

I've read Crof long enough to know he does his homework & rarely gets it wrong. The climate change case similarly stands on a solid base of hard data, transparency, peer-reviewed analysis & repetition.

If May and East Anglia were all we had, I'd have serious doubts. But we have thousands of smart, trained independent & govt scientists (the latter often with disincentives to support climate change) & a rigorous, transparent scientific process whose checks & balances include risking one’s career & reputation for screwing up.

On the other side: industry (self-interest) & anonymous bloggers with nothing to lose & much to gain by creating doubt. Instead of reasoned argument, it’s full of logical fallacies, non sequiturs, circular arguments, ad hominems & red herrings.

3 people’s email is supposed to be conclusive proof that 10,000+ scientists and others, strangers with no common purpose, conspired in total secrecy for 3 decades to perpetrate a gigantic fraud!? But people believe Elvis lives, 9-11 was an inside job, we faked the Moon landing, Obama is an illegal (Moslem) alien & man and dinosaurs walked the earth together at creation 6,000 years ago - proof some people will believe anything

What's scary is not the alleged gap in the science process but the weight & momentum that such fallacies gain in the blogosphere. Like the poster arguing that land use, forestry, over fishing etc caused fisheries declines, thus disproving climate change.

While such factors impact salmon, recent declines show the opposite - i.e. that a much bigger force is also at work. US & Canadian west coast stocks are diving DESPITE a decade of reduced harvests, improved forest practices, land-use controls & huge investments in hatcheries & restoration. (And before you shout sea lice - the pattern crosses over areas with/out fish farms.)

Looking further out, there's record production further north, especially in Alaska and Russia. Even further north, salmon are starting to colonize Arctic streams. These patterns are all 100% consistent with climate change as a dominant productivity factor.

Scientists have documented how warming has changed marine and freshwater habitat; the mechanisms whereby these changes kill salmon AND the resulting increases & decreases in productivity that you’d expect from that.

No one working with Pacific salmon doubts that we've seen the results of a large-scale climate shift that dwarfs local fishing or habitat impacts. Given this, whatever happened in East Anglia is irrelevant - we have all the evidence we need right here in BC.

Case Closed?

Oh....you mean the discussion is over?

junk science + junk theories + junk hype=

scepticism....which is just about where we should be at this point. Scepticism writ large.

I will only post this once. lol

And further....

the only direct evidence you have in BC for anthrpogenic glonbal warming is a Cambell government theft of 1.3 billion CAD based on an unproven and increasingly discredited theory.

And, even further....

about that Pacific Ocean garbage patch....I sailed directly though that area with my schooner in the summer of 2003 on the way to Hawaii, taking the northern route.

I didn't find a continent...not even an island. I did find a container with half a dozen sharks circling. That was about it.

I don't doubt the mechanics of the vortex in the Pacific or that there is garbage in it- it ain't no continent...but it makes for great reading.

At any rate...absolutely nothing to do with AGW.

Warmers and Coolers

There is certainly a large gulf between the Warmers and the Deniers/Coolers.

Over the last 2 to 3 decades, while the planet has been warming, it has been pretty easy to be in Anthropogenic Global Warming camp. It makes sense that mankinds rampage of the planet would have consequences. We have burned up huge amounts of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, and we have emitted huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

It has been pretty tough slogging away in the denier camp. The slogging is getting a little easier these days though, because the planet has stopped warming and has now begun to cool.

Hopefully the sillyness and end of the world pronouncements will slow down somewhat. Soon perhaps we will no longer hear about false pronouncements of sea level rise, or the oceans turning acidic. I look forward to a day once again when science is conducted by scientists.

What scientists ? In the

What scientists ? In the pay of governments, the corporate mafia, religions or ideologies ?

There may be some independents around, if they happened to win the 6/49, but many of today's are no better than those who served Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao.

Ed Deak.

Other example

Of course, if one needs another example of a warming trend in the last while, take a look at the Columbia Ice Fields on the Icefield Parkway between Jasper and Banff. You can walk over and see how much has melted. Or you can check the ice,if there is any, in Crypt Lake in Waterton Lake Nat. Park. Of course you have to drive to get there and this further contributes to the melting.

Yep, yer right

no doubt about it, gaia is having a hot flash.

But what the hell does that have to do with man made warming....

Nothing. Zero. Nada.

North of Hope, Saline Canine

When Mt. St. Helens blew a gasket circa 1980, it left a big hole. That hole is now a glacier. Glaciers on Mt. Shasta are also growing. Some glaciers in BC are growing, many are retreating.

Glacier growth and retreat is a bit complicated, in that precipitation and elevation and flow rates are important variables.

The icefields parkway glaciers are just the bits the flow off of the massive icefields. They have certainly been in retreat over most of the last century.

Regarding Saline Canine, Sea Dog, AKA Halite Hound, and the great gyre thing. There is no mechanism to bring trash into the centre of a gyre. The people that think so have been watching toilets flush for too long. The ocean is sort of um flat.

The great 1990 great Nike escape and the 1992 rubber ducky spill seem to show that ocean circulations, AKA gyres tend to loose about half of their trash per cycle, which in the Pacific is a couple of years duration.

Glad to hear that you have a schooner, I have a ketch.

Fiat Lux! That is quite an accusation to make. AND

speaking as someone who is in the "business", you are pretty well right on the money.

Every funding application I have ever made, was always targeted to what the government considered a priority. When I requested funding from pharmaceutical companies, it was always in concert with what they wanted. If it was from a charity, it was with the understanding that some approaches were acceptable, some not (stem cells for some US charities/foundations for example). For example, pharmaceuticals don't want to fund DCA studies as a possible treatment for prostate cancer. It cannot be patented. They want to fund something patentable.

So, for the most part, you have to move your career and research along a path that driven by externals. The whims of government, and the profit-drive of corporations or foundations/charities. (Do you think the Suzuki Foundation is going to fund somebody who has evidence that runs counter to AGW?).

The best scientists that I have ever seen were when I worked for DFO (many years ago). What was generated by them and myself (when I was there) was so bastardized when it hit Ottawa, that the conclusions and policies that came forth from the Minister, was completely unrecognizable. Unfortunately, we swore an oath to the Crown and we are unable to say a damn word about it. Very good for shifting the blame from incompetent Ministers in Ottawa to "those damn scientists" doing the actual work in the "chuck" and the lab.

So, from what I have seen, and continue to see, it is just as likely for a "Climate Scientist" to lie, cheat, fabricate data, in order to ride the AGW wave as it is for a "Tobacco Scientist" to tell us that smoking is not harmful. It's all about getting ahead, getting money, and getting recognition.

So, think that Hadely CRU is just a couple of guys? Think again. The whole lot is just as corrupted as those guys putting together Vioxx, or developing bioweapons or designing flechettes or perfecting undetectable landmines.

It was not all that many years ago when we had plenty of "Scientists" actively involved and promoting Canada's Eugenics Programme.

A despicable lot, right? Well, nothing much has changed.

1200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Lying, cheating climate scientists

Well, Dr. Alexander, I could give you an earful about incompetent college teachers I knew over my 40-year career, and ex-DFO employees I know could probably beat your complaints. Our own experience is the most persuasive kind of anecdotal evidence. At least to us.

But projecting such anecdotes onto scientists you don't know is sloppy science that doesn't deserve respect, let alone funding. Like Illahie, you aren't thinking through the implications of your self-congratulatory beliefs.

If every government-funded scientist "is just as corrupted as those guys putting together Vioxx," etc., I'm amazed you take your life in your hands by eating government-inspected food, driving a car designed and built to government standards, and using a computer to communicate with us when it might blow up in your face (or multiply your posts by 9).

I spent 40 years trying to explain to my students that you can't generalize from small samples, and I'm sure your teachers (unless they were government-funded scientists) tried to teach you the same thing.

If your view of corrupted science were true, you wouldn't be wasting your time bloviating here on The Tyee. You'd be looking for a bunker in the Chilcotin where you might try to survive the inevitable collapse of a society whose technology was created and run by corrupted scientists...assuming you could trust your vehicle to get you there, and your supplies to keep you fed and healthy during the great implosion.

Dr Alexander and DFO

I am a bit confused.

I too used to do work for DFO mostly as a consultant. When we did a study, we would then write up a report, which was then published.

Are you saying that you did not get to write your own reports?

Are you saying that you had pressure to change the data or conclusions in the reports that you were required to write?

Or did you write the reports without outside influence, and upper management decided to ignore the findings of your research?

Crawford and Illahie

Crawford

Self-congratulatory beliefs? Is that some kind of Jungian/Freudian/EST analysis?

I will project and opine as I please. I am not scientifically examining "other scientists". I am relating my experiences. And we live by our experiences. My experience provides me with the 10-90 rule.

10 percent of the scientists that I have ever worked/dealt/encountered/hob-nobbed/argued with are actually doing really good work, sufficient to drag along the other 90 percent of marginal/loafer/uncaring/doin' OK work lot. That's my assessment. It works for me. If you don't like it, make your own and live by it.

With regards to risks in life and moving to the Chilcotin. In fact, I used to live up near Fiat Lux's neck of the woods. I'll do that when I retire. To do so now, would be for those that prefer to "Cop Out".

Now, if you think that scientific principles have to be applied to everything in life, including opinion, then I don't want to be around you when you explain to your "significant other" that you picked him/her based on the scientific method.

Illahie. What was written on our side was the real deal. What was published by the Ministry and what became public policy by the Minister was an entirely different thing. One may as well have written a letter to Santa Claus.

The folks that I worked with at DFO, at stream and lab level were the most genuine, dedicated folks that I have ever worked with and, to a person, they considered the salmon as something to be revered and protected. The travails and destruction of the Pacific fishery is something that I personally blame Ottawa and Victoria at the political level.

Dr Alexander

It is great that you were able to work without any outside influence, and that was certainly our experience. If the reviewer had any issues with our work it was always on technical issues.

We have always found that DFO was great to deal with and they never tried to influence our research.

I gather that you were able to publish your findings without any influence, and the reports that you published accurately reflected your findings. If this is so you have done all that you could.

l

One ity bity little issue

With Dr Alexander is that he said:

"Illahie. What was written on our side was the real deal. What was published by the Ministry and what became public policy by the Minister was an entirely different thing. One may as well have written a letter to Santa Claus."

The problem is that the study for publication is provided by the consultant in a format for publication. It is not modified
after it leaves the author.

Name

You say

"DESPITE a decade of reduced harvests, improved forest practices, land-use controls & huge investments in hatcheries & restoration. (And before you shout sea lice - the pattern crosses over areas with/out fish farms.)"

I disagree with your claims that forest practices have improved under gordo and company. Land use controls have also declined in my opinion. Go on Google Earth and look at the size of the clearcuts around Francois Lake, Babine, Ootsa, the Nechako River (now weed infested and dirty) or the area North of Fort St James east to Mckenzie.

It would be interesting to get a sample of the water coming out of the Endako Mine Tailings Pond and see how many heavy metals are leaching into that watershed and on to the Fraser River.

You can see that Pond on Google Earth, just type in Fraser Lake B.C. and go 7 Miles west.

Disinformation and Hatred of Science

Disinformation has always been a part of human behavior. I've read studies linking the early ability to lie with intelligence.

Of course, sometimes stupid people equate lying in adulthood with intelligence, which is not the case. Combine that with a jealous hatred of science and a set of diverse and equally petty, stupid agendas, so foul and unappetizing that they must be kept secret for shame, and here we are: "Climategate."

As with all BS, it will pass. Human beings "conquered" this planet by growing big brains and using them, and it takes intelligence to understand the usefulness of truth: it can mean the difference between life and death.

Thanks for the links, Travis and Dr.Alexander.

That hole is now a glacier.

Illahie said, "When Mt. St. Helens blew a gasket circa 1980, it left a big hole. That hole is now a glacier."
Let's take this to its logical conclusion.
And it was an ice cap before it blew. Why is there an ice cap at the top of the mountain, but not one at the base?
It is because it is colder at the top of the mountain than at the base.
Why is it colder at the top than at the base?
It easier for the heat to escape from the top of the mountain because there is less insulation.
What is this insulation?
The insulation around a mountain is the atmosphere.
If we have denser air there will be more insulation. Since carbon dioxide is more dense than air, it is a better insulator or heat trap. As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, more heat will be trapped on the Earth and it will get warmer.
Hence we get global warming because we have increased our output of carbon dioxide.

North of Hope

So you think that adding additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will help save the planet from its recent cooling?

Sorry but I do not think that will work all that well. Carbon Dioxide does not have much more to give to save our planet from cooling, just as it did not have much to contribute to heat our planet during the last 30 years of warming.

It is not Carbon Dioxide's fault really. It is not a lazy molecule or anything. It is just built wrong. The molecule has too much symmetry. The interaction with the Infrared Spectrum is far too narrow to be an effective Greenhouse gas.

It is not waters fault that is a very effective Greenhouse gas. It is the way that sucker is built that makes it one of the greenhouse greats. H2O wobbles and shakes all over the place, taking up heat over a large part of the Infrared Band.
It cant help it really it is just the way those suckers were built.

Crawford's CO2 lesson Part 2

Crawford Wrote

"I'd love to see more links to your sources. After all, your credibility depends on them. Playing at satirist of Elizabeth May is clearly not your metier."

On the possibly remote chance that Crawford is actually serious about wanting to see more links on the CO2 thing I will oblige.

Understanding CO2 is critical to understanding how mankind and planet get along.

The link below does an excellent job I think of explaining why we have absolutely no need to worry about CO2 causing Global Warming.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

What other nasty effects of CO2, will we suffocate or something?

Historically CO2 levels are very low. Too low. The planet would be a more productive place if CO2 levels where much higher.

Lets take a look at the Carboniferous period when CO2 levels where much higher than today.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

It was one of the most productive periods in the planets history.

One of the least productive periods led to the evolution of C4 type plants.

http://www.palaeobiology.org.uk/projects_05.htm

There are many other C4 references such as

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/seki/pdfs/IJPS_Keeley_Rundel.pdf

What about CO2 turning our oceans into acid?

The easiest way to debunk this one is to take a piece of litmus paper and stick it into the ocean. Yep it is solidly basic, and extremely well buffered.

What happens when CO2 levels in the ocean double, will shellfish disolve or quit growing?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091201182622.htm

So some critters do better, some do worse.

How about some facts on ocean acidification

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

Crawford living on Venus

Of course the atmosphere on Venus is 800º Celsius, and it's got very little to do with CO2, look at it's distance from the sun. Go back to school and learn a tiny bit more before you use such silly logic.

Come what May

Well Ms. May, I do know that playing dirty politics is not beneath you. You will recall the nastsy bill you supported that took away workers rights to the presumption of innocence in pollution matters? You will recall your testiony before the Seante besmurching the reputations of those who have done more to protect the marine environment that your cadre of extremists would ever accomplish.

Yes, this is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. You and your pal Gucci Suzuki and Gordo should get your pictures taken together when you are in Copenhagen.

When was it that the enviromental completely sold out not just their principles but also their allies?

more facts

Illahie, I glad you agree with me that carbon dioxide is a GHG. There are many others as well like water, sulfur dioxide and so on. In fact when many fossil fuels are burned, they are all produced.
If methane is burned, CO2 and H2O will be produced. Some CO may also be produced, depending on the circumstances. If coal is burned, a myriad of chemicals could be produced, depending on the circumstances. But always get water and carbon dioxide. And they are greenhouse gases.

thinkaminute, with respect to the distances to the planets and their temperatures, Mercury is 0.3 AU from the Sun and has a surface temp. of -300 to 800 degrees Celsius, with practically no atmosphere. Venus has a very thick atmosphere with a surface temperature of 800 degree and Earth is from about -60 to 40 degrees, with an atmosphere that is growing in CO2.
As the Arctic ice melts, it is ironic to see the northern countries arguing over who has the rights to the oil under the Arctic Ocean. Again we don't seem to be learning the lessons of Global Warming, Climate change and environmental degradation.

Ursus

I agree that BC's forest practices code has been weakened under the BC Liberals (especially with MPB salvage) but in the bigger picture, forestry practices are much improved over what they were 4 - 5 decades ago and much past damage has been extensively mitigated. And I'm talking coast-wide, not just BC.

Crawford, I a satirist?

"Playing at satirist of Elizabeth May is clearly not your metier."

I must state that I have no official knowledge of how lizies diaries were hacked.

As your humble servant, I thought that you and the rest of the Tyee's loyal following should be alerted as to their release to the public.

As with you, I was absolutely horrified as to the content that she would write in her diaries.

I found that I had to avert my eyes, and I am grateful that I am a touch typist and can forward this information without actually looking at it.

CO2 and the worlds Oceans

I am not sure how many people here read the links in "Crawford's CO2 lesson Part 2". It seems to me to be that the IPCC mandate has been to find out how humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing Global Warming.

Al Gore's Inconvient Truth states that increasing CO2 levels causes the planet to warm. This is probably backwards. If the planet warms, the oceans can carry less CO2, and release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence CO2 levels follow the planets temperature, not the other way around. We have been looking in the wrong place. The oceans are the place to look, and the health of the oceans is critically important.

We are mismanaging the oceans fisheries by overharvesting, especially the oceans top predators. We are changing the predator/prey dynamics of the oceans, which effects zooplankton, phytoplankton and bacteria. By focusing on climate change, we are likely to screw up the planet.

In case you missed the link on ocean acidification above, I am reposting the link. It is an interesting look at oceanography

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm