Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘AGW’ Category

This morning Lorrie Goldstein shows us the underlying contradiction in the recent report presented by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy’s (NRTEE) - Only one place for this report:

…Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won’t damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.

And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: “It is not the NRTEE’s view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future.” Excuse us?

Exactly.

So while our own efforts alone would likely return negligible results on a global scale and would likely damage our economy if the U.S., China and others refused to join the cause, we should still soldier on with the proposals in the faint hope that everyone else will follow our example?

Well, here’s the problem. Not every country in the world has a Lemming mentality. If Canada’s economy is going down the tubes, that is of little concern for the rest of the world. In fact, it could be a plus for China, which is already getting the benefit of our collapsing manufacturing sector.

I see little incentive for the others to join our little march over the cliff.

Perhaps the environmentalists should follow their own advice and try to tone down the gaseous emissions rising from this pile of manure.

My heartfelt thanks to Helga Fischer of Kitchener for saving me the trouble of having to write to the Record about their idiotic Jan. 2 editorial, A year for saving the environment.

Ms. Fisher’s letter is much better than anything I could ever have composed - Weather is changeable:

…Whether it’s a period of a few months or many thousands of years, the weather keeps changing. Plate tectonics, the tilt of the earth and solar activity play the major roles in weather shifts. This seems not to concern you, but put a few SUVs on the road and you “warm mongers” see only catastrophe. I am asking you: How much more evidence do you need that climate change is normal . . . it’s been happening for millennia.

My favourite part of your rant is the second part of your question. The reference to “overstating” the warnings. Why can you not use honest language? The correct word is “exaggerate.” I have noticed that the word “overstate” is being used a fair bit by the “warmers” these days. If the word “exaggerate” scares you then little wonder you’re so “unnerved” by no snow until the middle of January last year.

Except for skiers and snowplow drivers, I heard very few complaints. If I were you I would be more intrigued by another “global warming” story . . . the one about how Al Gore went from a net worth of about $1 million seven years ago to a current estimated worth of over $100 million. I think it’s fair to say that global warming is the best thing that’s ever happened to him…

I love that last bit.

My personal feeling is that we don’t know exactly how much AGW is a factor in climate change, but to blame it on all man-made sources and say there can be no more discussion is quite disingenuous - although not surprising for an editorial board in the centre of Lemmingland.

Lorne Gunter is another columnist with a common sense approach on AGW similar to Lorrie Goldstein’s.

In “A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature”, Gunter explains the reasons why we should keep an open mind on just how much man-made global warming there is vs. natural.

…My point is that coverage of global warming and climate change have become horribly one-sided. Every report about a disappearing tree tick or nasty bout of rainfall that seems to support the received wisdom is blared loud and wide, while stories that might undermine it are seldom given more than brief mention.

It the public is to make up its mind about climate change, it needs better balance.

Exactly.

And we are fortunate to have such talented Canadian columnists as Lorrie Goldstein and Lorne Gunter to point that out, and mitigate some of the hot air coming from other media sources.

As I mentioned in the previous post, with all the Kyoto misinformation being tossed about, it is refreshing to come across a voice of reason and healthy skepticism in MSM. Lorrie Goldstein has done a tremendous amount of reading on all sides of the debate, and provides a balanced, rational approach.

I asked him by email if he would sum up his position as being an “AGW believer; just not a Kyoto advocate in particular?”

His reply was as follows:

…I agree with the IPCC’s latest report that AGW is “very likely”, although I do not automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with this theory as a “denier”.

I do not agree there is any scientific consensus on how fast it is happening, how dramatic the impact will be or, most important, what we should do about it, the latter of which is a political issue, not a scientific one.

I oppose the Kyoto accord for reasons I have highlighted in today’s column and many others.

I believe we should purse a made-in-Canada policy which emphasizes practical energy conservation, not just reducing GHG emissions, but air pollution as well, another byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

I would end public subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (how much subsidy do you need when oil is $100 a barrel and rising?) and earmark those funds for credible public and private sector research in Canada into ways of combatting pollution and global warming, including burning fossil fuels as cleanly as possible.

I would also invest money now going into public subsidization of the fossil fuel industry into credible public and private sector research and development of renewable energy resources, especially solar power, which I consider more potentially promising than wind.

I believe we should offer such technology to the rest of the world on fair and reasonable financial terms.

Finally I believe in the responsible use of nuclear power, the only practical man-made energy source we have right now that does not emit GHG or significant amounts of air pollution, to fill in the energy gap as we start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Makes sense to me. How about you?