Ice-free Arctic summers in 20 years: report - Macleans.ca
 

Ice-free Arctic summers in 20 years: report

Seals, polar bears, other life forms will suffer


 

Global warming will make for an ice-free Arctic Ocean in as little as 20 years, which could spell disaster for the Northern ecosystem, according to leading British polar scientist Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. While he expects the winter ice to stay for centuries more, an ice-free summer will raise sea levels and endanger seals, polar bears and other species, also meaning the Earth will appear blue, not white, when photographed from space. What’s more, a new sea route North of Russia will become navigable. To reach his conclusions, Wadham’s compared ice thickness measurements from 2007 to ones gathered this year. The Arctic ice plays as important role in the world’s climate, he notes; as the ice melts in the summers, it exposes ocean water that absorbs sunlight instead of reflecting it, which accelerates global warming. “The Arctic Sea ice holds a central position in our Earth’s climate system. Take it out of the equation and we are left with a dramatically warmer world,” he told Reuters. “This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions …. and extreme global weather changes.”

Reuters


 
Filed under:

Ice-free Arctic summers in 20 years: report

  1. I am being held captive in Alberta by a band of neo-cons who are refusing to believe in science. They think they have refuted evolution, ecology, pollution, and have instituted a new accounting method to measure things. They have blown up hospitals and threatened school children. I know Conrad is in jail, but isn't there any one in Canada who can help us? Uh, Stevie? Uh, no thanks, he comes from the same farm as the other cons. Anyone? Can I get some help here?

  2. Hah! Both the article and the commentator Help are enough to make me question my (relatively) firm belief in the reality of climate change.

    I hate histrionics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personali

  3. I believe in climate change. It is an indisputable fact, proven with ice core samples. This also shows that it is cyclical. Therefore I really question the governments motives regarding a carbon tax. Just a good excuse to get back in our pockets? Yes, I believe it is.

    • Yeah, it is cyclical… over tens of thousands of years. What we're seeing is a change over 100 years that we normally see over thousands, beginning during the industrial revolution and accelerating in the last few decades, in step with carbon emissions.

      Even the most drastic changes in global temperatures that we've been able to deduce haven't come this quickly – it took 400 years for the medieval warm period to fall to the little ice age and that was a change of no more than 0.8 degrees Celsius. There are cycles to our climate, but none occur this quickly.

        • Your list contains numerous people who are not climatologists. Those who are are not from highly reputable universities, such as Cambridge. The only prominent scientist on that list is Freeman Dyson, who is a physicist from Princeton. He's not a climatologist either, has been retired for years, and has willingly acknowledged his ignorance about the details of climatology.

          This is a letter, sent to the Prime Minister, by those who support the notion that current climate-change is predominantly man-made.

          http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

          It contains a long list of climatologists, including one from every single major research university in Canada involved in climatology, along with many prominent scientists from Environment Canada. These are Canadian voices only. The entire world, sending a message to the UN, managed to get only a few hundred signatories against the idea of man-made climate change, most of whom aren't climatologists. Canada alone produced 90 in support of that idea, all of which are climatologists.

          • If you consider some Canadian universities sucha as Ottawa, Carleton and Winnipeg
            to be unreputable then you most likely believe that so is MIT or the University of Lyon. I counted 28 climatologists. You are correct when you say that not all are climatologists. Many who signed are prominent physicists, biologists, mathematicians, statistcal experts, geologists etc… And I am not arguing to be right. I am not a scientist. However I do have a good dose of common sense that leads me not to believe everything I hear. And if their are two obviously different sides to this argument, why is only one being heard? How do you discount the claims of these experts without so much as asking why?

          • Those universities aren't unreputable, but they are certainly of lower calibre – any international ranking will demonstrate that. Lyon isn't that well regarded either – better than many others on the list, but certainly not anywhere near the level of Harvard, Yale, or Cambridge. Lidzen, the MIT professor, is affliated with the IPCC and took the lead on part of one of their reports – he seems to agree with much of what other climatologists are saying, with disagreements on details or certainty of claims – all of which are valid criticisms.

            I'm not dismissing what these scientists do, many have made valuable contributions. However, unless you'd like to debate the science itself (and I'm more than willing to do that), we have to go by the opinions of the experts, with preference given to those with a proven track record relevant to the area of study. Those who believe in man-made climate change are both more numerous and are more highly regarded in their respective fields.

            There are two sides, but don't pull some false equivalency bull – one side has far more support from the scientific community than the other. You ask me not to discount the claims of the experts on your list (many of whom aren't experts in the field), but you're discounting the claims of many more actual experts in claiming that current trends are part of a natural cycle – why? You're right, you shouldn't believe everything you hear, but that doesn't mean you should automatically reject it either – look at the data, listen to the experts, not just the ones telling you what you'd like to hear.

          • False equivalency? If your going to compare apples to apples and sabre rattle over credentials, please recognize that over 95% of the "experts" on the list you provided originate from universities that don't rate in the top 100. (Universities by the way, rely on government funding. Take that as a hint) And if "majority rules" in this instance (i.e. 'I have more scientists than you to complete my argument') then the sun should still revolve around a flat earth where we burn witches at the stake. The majority ruled back then as well. However, I have obvious sceptical reasons for believing in government when their only solution to the problem is through further taxation. If you believe in it, then you deserve to pay it. But from the perspective of a consumer it is equivalent to getting diagnosed in the hospital with fatal disease and having the tar beat out of you rather than treat the ailment. It is big business that is the engine behind environmental damage. Go after the root cause. But it is not in my pocket where they are looking. If you are unable to understand this and/or believe that your elected officials always tell you the truth, then good luck.

          • Many of the experts on my list are from UBC, U of T, U of Alberta and McGill which ARE top 100 universities. There aren't that many climatologists from top 100 universities on your list – and while mine is just Canadian scientists, your's had the entire world to draw from and still couldn't match.

            And it's not just majority rules, it's not like they take an arbitrary vote and say "that's the science!" No, it's that the vast majority of educated, knowledgable experts have all arrived at the same general conclusion. Again, you want to bring it right down to the science, we can go that route, but otherwise, we have to trust the judgements of the experts – which overwhelmingly say that climate-change is man made.

            As for the government argument – our current government has its base in Alberta and has made no movement towards climate change. The previous Liberal government ignored the situation as well. If they were really influencing which studies get funded and which don't, the influence should result in more doubt about global warming, not less – why would the Conservatives willingly support biased research that pushes more votes away from them?

            As for the carbon tax, it happens to be the most effective way of dealing with the problem, because people work best when working in their own self-interest – that's free-market 101. A tax makes polluting the air against everyone's own interests, because it will cost people who pollute or support businesses that pollute more. Come on, it's basic capitalism – yes, businesses are the root cause, but the best way to hit them is in their profit margins or their sales, and that's exactly what a carbon tax targets. Besides, the most recent carbon tax suggestion came with an income TAX CUT, meaning unless you're polluting like a fiend, you'd wind up with exactly what you had before. Money grab… what money grab, the government was going to give you the money right back!

          • Correction. Some of your experts are from UBC, U of T and McGill. Sorry, but University of Alberta does not make the list. U of T ranks the highest in Canada at 24, followed by UBC at 37 followed by McGill at 67. The point you fail to recognize is that their are two sides to this and only one gets media attention. How do they refute the valid arguments of their peers? Should these scientists be fired for going against current dogma? If the are so obviously wrong, then how do they maintain their positions in publicly funded institutions of higher learning? And you are right when you state that it is a "general conclusion". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

            read next message

          • You're using a bit of an outdated list, but even with Alberta off the list, there are still numerous UBC, U of T and McGill climatologists on the list I provided.

            http://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking

            A more recent report puts U of Alberta in the top 100 – it's a newer institution, but it's stock has been rising steadily.

            And no, the scientists should absolutely not be fired for going against current dogma – going against the standard, when the evidence is there, is what good science is about. However, as they represent the minority and do not have the weight of evidence behind them, we shouldn't act on their assertions. Again, if you want to debate the science, we can do that. However, if you're going to base your opinion on the views of experts, make sure that you're listening to the actual experts and make sure you listen to all of them – the majority of which have, through their studies and research, come to the conclusion that we are experiencing anthropomorphic global warming.

          • I can respect your opinion and have an admiration for your tenacity in doing the right thing. I just don't believe in it. After free trade, Afghanistan, Iraque and the history surrounding politicians and their ambitions (be it conservative or liberal), the overwhelming evidence presented to me suggests that we are being taken again. Their is too much speculation surrounding the effects of climate change that still exist within the IPCC even today that convince me that their is a definitive political motivation involved. Do you ever hear how the money is being used to solve the issue? How could you when their is no definitive consensus on the issue? In the meantime, it offers those that govern another chance at our accounts (although the general public is not responsible), to fix what may be an imaginary issue.

  4. I'm skeptical, but if it happens I'd be delighted.

  5. I'm skeptical given that global temp decreased through most of the 20th century and through all of the 90's, but if the Arctic does melt I'd be delighted. Canada's effective usable area would go up by a factor of ten or more.

    • "I'm skeptical given that global temp decreased through most of the 20th century and through all of the 90's"

      Really? Because NASA would like to know where you get your data.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

      • Apparently the sun just hit a Maunder minimum and that should make the earth as cold as it was in the 17th century…

        Obviously, it just isn't.

      • Did you look at the data on your link? It shows cooling from 1900-1910, then from 1940-1980, and then from the late 80's to the late 90's. That is correct, and accounts for at least 6 decades out of the 20th century.

      • Did you look at the data on your link? It shows cooling from 1900 to the late 1970's except for a brief blip in the 1940's. That is correct, and accounts for at least 6 decades out of the 20th century. Clearly it correlates to the fact that industrial production practically died away during the period from 1940 to 1980 (??).

        Meanwhile, in my city we've just had the coldest summer ever recorded. But hey, believe the climatologists who get grants based on the urgency of the global warming crisis, not your lying thermometer.

        • Wow. Gaunilon, you've thrown out some worthless statements in your time, but this has to be a topper.

          Global warming is an average, over locations and over time. There have always been variations in global temperature, this is normal and well understood by climatologists – it's incorporated into all the IPCC reports and into reputable climate models. You have to consider not only how many years have temperatures going up and down, but how much the change is – and the trend is clearly in the upwards direction. By your logic, 4 – 2 + 3 – 1 should equal 0 because there as many additions as subtractions.

          Again, in my city, over the last three days, the temperature has increased each day. The next three days, temperature will continue to increase. Does this mean that the cold weather of winter isn't coming? OF COURSE NOT! This week's temperature trends are just a natural variation of the next few month's overall trend down. Winter will come – natural variations mean nothing compared to the overall average.

          • I think you've misunderstood the plots in the NASA link you provided. They're not plots of average temperature, but rather of average temperature change. You'll notice that they're negative from 1880 to 1975 except for a brief positive blip in the early 1940's. That means that global temperatures were decreasing during most of the 20th century, which is what I said above and which your link was intended to refute.

            As to the arithmetic, to know whether global temperatures actually increased/decreased you'd have to take the integral of those plots. Int(dT/dt) = T + constant. Capisce? The plots themselves do not show a global increase in temperature. In fact my understanding is that the hottest year on record is 1934.

            As to your final point, let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Summers to summers, not summers to winters. This summer, where I live, was the coldest ever recorded. Could be an anomaly, sure, but it doesn't lend credence to "global warming" and neither does the fact that global temperatures decreased during most of the 20th century.

          • I think you've misunderstood the plots in the NASA link you provided. They're not plots of average temperature, but rather of average temperature change. You'll notice that they're negative from 1880 to 1975 except for a brief positive blip in the early 1940's. That means that global temperatures were decreasing during most of the 20th century, which is what I said above and which your link was intended to refute.

            As to the arithmetic, to know whether global temperatures actually increased/decreased you'd have to take the integral of those plots. Int(dT/dt)dt = T + constant. Capisce? The plots themselves do not show a global increase in temperature. In fact my understanding is that the hottest year on record is 1934.

            As to your final point, let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Summers to summers, not summers to winters. This summer, where I live, was the coldest ever recorded. Could be an anomaly, sure, but it doesn't lend credence to "global warming" and neither does the fact that global temperatures decreased during most of the 20th century.

          • I think you've misunderstood the plots in the NASA link you provided. They're not plots of average temperature, but rather of average temperature change. You'll notice that they're negative from 1880 to 1975 except for a brief positive blip in the early 1940's. That means that global temperatures were decreasing during most of the 20th century, which is what I said above and which your link was intended to refute.

            As to the arithmetic, to know whether global temperatures actually increased/decreased you'd have to take the integral of those plots. Int(dT/dt)dt = T plus constant. Capisce? The plots themselves do not show a global increase in temperature (if I understand them correctly). In fact my understanding is that the hottest year on record is 1934.

            As to your final point, let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Summers to summers, not summers to winters. This summer, where I live, was the coldest ever recorded. Could be an anomaly, sure, but it doesn't lend credence to "global warming" and neither does the fact that global average temperatures decreased during most of the 20th century according to NASA.

            If you have a valid point to make, great. Correct me when I'm wrong and I will thank you for it. Throwing in snark doesn't add to your case; in fact it makes me think you likely have nothing instructive to add.

          • I think you've misunderstood the plots in the NASA link you provided. Look at the y-axes: they're not plots of average temperature, but rather of average temperature change. You'll notice that they're negative from 1880 to 1975 except for a brief positive blip in the early 1940's. That means that global temperatures were decreasing during most of the 20th century, which is what I said above and which your link was intended to refute.

            As to the arithmetic, to know whether global temperatures actually increased/decreased between the beginning and end of the dataset you'd have to take the integral of those plots. Int(dT/dt)dt [1880 to 2009] = delta T from 1880 to 2009. The plots as given do not show a global increase in absolute temperature (if I understand them correctly). In fact my understanding is that the hottest year on record is 1934.

            As to your final point, let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Summers to summers, not summers to winters. This summer, where I live, was the coldest ever recorded. Could be an anomaly either in time or geography, sure, but it doesn't lend credence to "global warming" and neither does the fact that global average temperatures decreased during most of the 20th century (while industrial output was continuously ramping up) according to NASA.

            If you have a valid point to make, great. Correct me when I'm wrong and I will thank you for it. Throwing in snark doesn't strengthen your case; in fact it makes me think you likely have nothing instructive to add.

          • Temperature anomaly means deviation from an established baseline, not year-to-year change. No, you do not understand them correctly – by your interpretation, global temperatures would have rise almost 10 degrees since the late 1970's and would be continuing to increase by about 0.75 degress celsius a year. Does that seem likely? Now that would be a huge shift in global temperatures – but that's not what's happening.

            My point about recent temperatures is that variation in temperature from time to time and place to place is entirely normal and expected. A single dip in temperature from one year to the next does not negate the reality of the overall trend of a warming planet, just as a rise in day-to-day temperatures in October does not mean that winter is not coming. Your anecdotal evidence means very little and your conclusion about NASA's data is flat-out false. 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US, not the world – see the first word document at the bottom of the page for evidence of that.

            Snark may not strengthen my case, but I feel more than warranted throwing it in. You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph. I'm not asking you to agree with my conclusions, but I am insisting that you think about what you're saying and educate yourself about the relevant data.

          • You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • Here, for reference, is a plot of thermal deviation for the last thousand years.

            You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • Let's look at a plot of thermal deviation for the last thousand years.

            You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • Let's look at a plot of thermal deviation for the last thousand years.

            You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • Let's look at a plot of thermal deviation for the last thousand years.

            You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak enough to allow skepticism.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and disingenuous statements are unimpressive.

          • Whether the meaning of the y axes is negative deviation from a baseline, or negative deviation from the previous year, it's still negative for most of the 20th century…which, as I stated above, makes me skeptical of global warming and not unreasonably so. Your point about the deviation amounting to 0.75 degrees at the far end of the plot is deceptive: that is only if one excludes the ocean surface temps. Taken as a whole the earth surface temp deviation is 0.3 deg at the right side of the plot.

            Yes, our local experience may be an anomaly (I believe I said that), but neither does it bolster the case for global warming. The fact that temperature deviation was negative during most of the 20th century also doesn't bolster the case.

            Let's look at a plot of thermal deviation for the last thousand years as shown in Loehle, C. 2007. "A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies." Energy and Environment, 18, 1049-1058.

            You'll notice that any small positive deviations in the last thirty years are dwarfed by the massive spike that occurred in the 8th to 12th centuries. (that height of industrial CO2 output!!) If you want to discount local or temporary anomalies, start by considering the last 30 years in context. The last century was largely a period of negative thermal deviation. This is why I am skeptical. I could be convinced that there is global warming, but this evidence is weak at best.

            Thank you for the correction re 1934. But then you say this: "You're spreading false information, brazenly, without even a basic understanding of the information or, apparently, the ability to read a graph."
            Since all three statements there are false, and I think you know this, you've blown the credibility I attributed to you from the get-go. Snark and dishonesty are unimpressive.

          • There is a HUGE difference between whether the y-axis is a deviation from a baseline than a change from the previous year. Forgive the continued snark, but I'm baffled I have to explain this. One is rate of change, the other is absolute change.

            The first assumes that there is one temperature, call it T1. Each point on the graph measures the difference in the average global temperature from T1 during that particular year. For the first year, if the point is at -0.2 and the same for the second year, the total change from T1 for the second year is just -0.2.

            The second way, the way you're reading it, assumes that there is a starting temperature, call it T2, and that each point is the change of temperature from the previous point. That is, if, for the first year the point is at -0.2 and for the second year it is at -0.2 again, the total change from T2 for the second year is -0.4 degrees.

            That's a huge difference, 0.2 degrees over only two years. Again, explain how, under your interpretation, the graphs indicate an increase of almost 10 degrees in land-based surface temperatures over the last 30 years! Has it risen 10 degrees where you live, or where anyone lives, over that time period?! No! The average change has been about 0.4 degrees since the late 70's, just as the graph indicates if it's read properly.

            To JimD, intensedatabase is swallowing my relies to you, so I'll be very brief – I've seen the site (following my favourite author, Michael Crichton's book), but after some investigation, I found that the specific objections of that site, while valid, have been repeatedly discredited – the site has no scientific rigor to its methods, being run by a local news channel's meterologist and having its data gathered largely by volunteers with no scientific expertise.

          • The global warming argument is that excessive human/industrial CO2 emissions is amplifying any natural global warming effect. Yes, there have been major spikes and fall in global mean temperature in the past without humans being involved, but most of them can be explained by major changes in solar output, interruptions in global sea currents, periods of catastrophic volcanism, and large asteroid impacts.

            What we're seeing now, and what's alarming climatologists, is a spike in global temperature in the absence of natural global warming effects; the sun is in a maunder minimum so its output is at its minimum, there are no major desalinization event so the global sea currents are not affected, volcanism is relatively low, and Bruce Willis didn't have to save the earth from a big asteroid. The only explanation is the sudden spike in green house gases, mainly CO2, starting in the late '60s, which happens to be when the spike in global temperatures begins.

            Yes there are alarmists and klaxons who paint an exaggerated of doom and gloom but the big picture on global warming is that our excessive green house gas emissions is heading us into a runaway green house effect.

      • Obviously Craig you've never heard of surfacestations.org, a comprehensive survey of the sensor stations used by the GISS. So far they've surveyed 82% of the stations in the US, and found that 61% of them have a built-in error of between 2 and 5 degrees, and a further 8% have errors greater that 5 degrees. This is because many of these stations are located in parking lots, next to brick buildings, on rooftops, etc. I'm sure the stations they monitor in other countries are similiarly corrupted. This is why the GISS is the only one of the four global temperature monitors that does not show a decreasing trend in temps since 1998. Also, don't forget that the GISS has admittedly fudged the data collected during the middle of the 20th C, to fit James Hansen's pet theory.

  6. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. In conclusion why would you create a "Carbon Tax" to provide a TAX CUT? . You state, "…the government was going to give you the money right back!" ??? I doubt that. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THAT WAS THEIR INTENTION. Why take money off me to give it back? Don't do it at all and we'll call it even.

    • The whole idea of the Green Shift was to give you the money back, yes – unless you were a significant polluter, in which case you were going to pay more. That's consistent with any pollution law we have. Literally fines, dumping laws, and on, and on, and on – you pollute, you pay, a carbon tax is no difference. Again, basic capitalism – if you make a product more expensive, people will stop buying it. You make pollution more expensive, people stop polluting.

      There is always uncertainty in science. There are no guarantees that gravity is true. But we, so often, make the assumption that it's true. Why? Because there's no clear experimental evidence to believe it's wrong and it makes the world make sense – just because there's no proof for gravity doesn't mean you should walk out a 4th story window. The same is true for climate change – the evidence presented leads most scientists to the conclusion that it is man-made. Are they 100% certain? Of course not! But without clear evidence against the notion and plenty in support of it, they make the assumption that it is true. Our politicians, who should really take their advice on scientific matters from scientists, should also make that assumption and base their policies accordingly.

  7. Sorry Craig… not enough room on these pages….. read up three messages to start….

        • Yeah, I've read both those before, and they're both rather irrelevant. Yes, temperatures have recently peaked in 1998, but they're hardly declining at a strong rate. The last 8 years all register in the top 10 warmest years in recorded history.

          Today, the temperature will be about 7 degrees where I live. Yesterday, it was about 5, and the day before it barely hit 4. By the logic of those articles, I should assume that things are getting warmer and that December will be a balmy 15 degrees – nevermind the fact that it'll be winter then.

  8. I cannot help you with your fanatical belief in a Harpercentric form of government. To me, it no longer matters if they are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Green. They are corrupt from top to bottom and every day I see the news, their is another scandal to swallow with no accountability for anyone in office. No one goes to prison for the same white collar crimes they commit in the private sector. I don't trust any of them and another tax is simply another excuse to get more money out of us. Global warming is a political windfall for governments the world. And in my opinion, if everyone who follows along without asking the important questions like…“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?”, then they deserve what they get for sticking their heads in the sand and their collective asses in the air. Like you.

    • well you seem perfect for the job. have you thought of running yourself? maybe in your mandate you could emphasize, "getting the crooks out of government". You're so original.

      • Your mom was a guy!

    • I'm glad you brought up Antarctica, it's one of the important moderating facts that often gets lost in the media presentations of climate change, but is routinely discussed in scientific circles. Just because the global average temperature is increasing does not mean that every area is increasing at the same rates, or at all. The arctic is increasing in temperature much faster than the other areas, while parts of Antarctica (by no means all of it mind you) are getting colder. People do follow up on those important questions, all the time.

  9. What stuns me most (and climate change is but a symptom of this), is that Canada is a resource rich country, beyond imagination. And in the midst of a global crisis, our country should be the one that all others are coming too requesting help. But to the contrary, we have been sold out. They would ship the oil sands to Mexico for processing if it were not in the free trade agreement (because they tried!). Everything else seems plundered by foreign interests. Our own citizenry has been pushed aside in the vested interests of the global elite, who bargain with our elected officials who have conceded to this traitorous behaviour to advance their own interests. Please, argue with that and tell me that I am wrong. Tell me that I am imagining the scandals I read about in our own national newspapers EVERY DAY!

    It has been a pleasure debating this with you.

  10. Hello Craig…. please read up, two messages to start at the beginning.

  11. I have just come from a screening of the new movie "Not Evil, Just Wrong". It is brilliant and every person interested in the environment should see it.

  12. Anyone idiotic enough to believe that this:

    "To reach his conclusions, Wadham's compared ice thickness measurements from 2007 to ones gathered this year."

    is valid research method deserves to get fleeced by whatever tax the government can dream up. This would be like me saying the tree in my yard grew 30 cm this summer, after only growing 15 cm in 2007, so I can expect it continue doubling its growth rate every two years. By this methodology, I predict my tree will grow 960 cm during the summer of 2019. Is that prediction based on actual observed scientifically precise measurements? Yes, it is. Is that prediction scientifically sound? Hell no. Just because a researcher starts by using atmospheric CO2 measurements, or ice thickness, or tree rings, or whatever variable you can think of, doesn't mean they are using sound methodology.

    Unfortunately, most researchers aren't quite as stupid and reactionary as this Wadham chap. Most used methodology much more complex, although equally flawed, to try and convince us the world is ending.

  13. This latest "study" was so weak that it proved nothing in particular, but I was depressed at the speed at which the media uncritically disseminated it. Not even the IPCC believes that we will have an "an ice-free Arctic Ocean in as little as 20 years", but this silly exaggeration is passed on by the breathless reported as though it is the gospel truth.

    Don't they check anything before publishing ?

  14. test…

  15. I have to agree with Bill. How obtuse can you be, to believe a study whose methodology is to show a trend, and then only takes two data points in time. Anything that purports to be science, should at least have the

    So here's the thing: the media far too often allows itself to be trifled with in the most obvious manner, to the point where most of what they do report has to come under a great deal of suspicion. The news is now only the narrative.

    To demonstrate: In 2007 the media (the BBC) reported that <a href="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:7FppRrc2L6cJ:http://www.ascwa.com/art121207.pdf+Peter+Wadhams&hl=... >Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2013

    Friday, the Macleans site carries this Reuters article that: <a href="">Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2029

    So what can we scientifically determine using the above observations and prescribed methodology?
    In 2011, Peter Wadhams will predict the summer ice cap will be gone by 2078 – because Peter Wadhams' predictions on when the summer ice cap is gone, are increasing by a factor of 3.333 every year.

  16. I have to agree with Bill. How obtuse can you be, to believe a study whose methodology is to show a trend, and then only takes two data points in time. Anything that purports to be science, should at least have the appearance of science.

    So here's the thing: the media far too often allows itself to be trifled with in the most obvious manner, to the point where most of what they do report has to come under a great deal of suspicion. The news is now only the narrative.

    To demonstrate: In 2007 the media (the BBC) reported that &lt;a href="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:7FppRrc2L6cJ:<a href="http://www.ascwa.com/art121207.pdf+Peter+Wadhams&hl=en&gl=ca&sig=AFQjCNE6LCM_v2ECSib9kDXOHwq9_1H8Dw%22&quot; target="_blank"><a href="http://www.ascwa.com/art121207.pdf+Peter+Wadhams&hl=…” target=”_blank”>www.ascwa.com/art121207.pdf+Peter+Wadhams&hl=… &gt;Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2013

    Friday, the Macleans site carries this Reuters article that: &lt;a href=""&gt;Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2029

    So what can we scientifically determine using the above observations and prescribed methodology?
    In 2011, Peter Wadhams will predict the summer ice cap will be gone by 2078 – because Peter Wadhams' predictions on when the summer ice cap is gone, are increasing by a factor of 3.333 every year.

  17. I have to agree with Bill. How obtuse can you be, to believe a study whose methodology is to show a trend, and then only takes two data points in time. Anything that purports to be science, should at least have the appearance of science.

    So here's the thing: the media far too often allows itself to be trifled with in the most obvious manner, to the point where most of what they do report has to come under a great deal of suspicion. The news is now only the narrative.

    To demonstrate: In 2007 the media (the BBC) reported that Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2013

    Friday, the Macleans site carries this Reuters article that: Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2029

    So what can we scientifically determine using the above observations and prescribed methodology?
    In 2011, Peter Wadhams will predict the summer ice cap will be gone by 2078 – because Peter Wadhams' predictions on when the summer ice cap is gone, are increasing by a factor of 3.333 every year.

  18. I have to agree with Bill. How obtuse can you be, to believe a study whose methodology is to show a trend, and then only takes two data points in time. Anything that purports to be science, should at least have the appearance of science.

    So here's the thing: the media far too often allows itself to be trifled with in the most obvious manner, to the point where most of what they do report has to come under a great deal of suspicion. The news is now only the narrative.

    To demonstrate: In 2007 the media (the BBC) reported that Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2013

    Friday, the Macleans site carries this Reuters article that: Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2029

    So what can we scientifically determine using the above observations and prescribed methodology?
    In 2011, Peter Wadhams will predict the summer ice cap will be gone by 2078 – because Peter Wadhams' predictions on when the summer ice cap is gone, are increasing by a factor of 3.333 every two years.

  19. I have to agree with Bill. How obtuse can you be, to believe a study whose methodology is to show a trend by taking only two data points in time. Anything that purports to be science, should at least have the appearance of science.

    So here's the thing: the media far too often allows itself to be trifled with in the most obvious manner, to the point where most of what they do report has to come under a great deal of suspicion. The news is now only the narrative.

    To demonstrate: In 2007 the media (the BBC) reported that Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2013

    Friday, the Macleans site carries this Reuters article that: Peter Wadhams predicts the summer ice cap will be gone by 2029

    So what can we scientifically determine using the above observations and prescribed methodology?
    In 2011, Peter Wadhams will predict the summer ice cap will be gone by 2078 – because Peter Wadhams' predictions on when the summer ice cap is gone, are increasing by a factor of 3.333 every two years.