McGuinty Flip-Flops

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/02/16/ontario-energy.html

McGuinty has shot himself in the foot-figuratively speaking of course.

“Premier Dalton McGuinty says if Ottawa is going to provide financial support for unproven technologies to capture carbon emissions in Western Canada, it should also support green energy initiatives.

McGuinty says he's not passing judgment on the merit of the science associated with carbon capture, but adds wind turbines and solar panels are proven technologies and deserve federal support.”

I don’t disagree with McGuinty’s push for funding for green energy initiatives. No, what I’m concerned about is what appears to be an almost instant flip-flop in his stance towards carbon capture technology. He first accuses the Federal government of supporting unproven technologies but, goes onto say he’s not passing judgment on the merit of the science. Well Dalton, that’s exactly what you did. If the Provincial government of Ontario wants support from the Federal government it has to drop the subtle yet combative tone.

No Rights for Gays?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287642

“Peter Tatchell of the UK gay-rights group OutRage! says that the chief of the Scout Board of Uganda, David Bahati – who is also a Ugandan MP and is sponsoring the Anti-Homosexuality Bill – is proposing that all serial "homosexual offenders," including scouts and scout leaders, should be hanged, even children.”

A story like this cannot go ignored. The idea that we should hang homosexuals is nothing short of barbaric. Comparisons to the Nazis are often just hyperboles but in this case I would argue that it is apt. I am not familiar with the political climate in Uganda but, the fact that such a bill is even under consideration suggests a climate of backwards thinking. There should be no defending such a statement. Anyone who believes in justice and freedom will speak out against this vile hatred.

They Must Resign

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/ireland-abuse-meetings.html

The Pope’s condemnation of the Irish clergy sex abuse is not enough. Any member of the clergy who was complicit in covering up the abuse must resign. It’s clear that the Vatican doesn’t function within the realms of the real world. A leader of any self-respecting organization would immediately fire employees who had been involved in covering up a crime (unless of course they too were involved in the crime). The Pope seems to feel that is sufficient to simply say a few words about how these actions offend God. Is it too much to ask for the Vatican to release an official statement condemning all forms of sex-abuse and a promise to stop offering protection to known sex-offenders in the Church? The clergy members involved in the cover up should be stripped of their title and left for the mob.

Time and time again we are told that the Church is an institution that can provide people with the necessary morals to function in society. While I disagree with this argument, there are many who feel this to be true. The result of this feeling is that people come to trust the Church to believe in its power to do good. Any action, such as sex abuse and a cover up only undermines the argument that the Church is a force for good. It seems the Vatican hasn’t fully grasped that idea. Well I do enjoy seeing stories like this emerge, that expose the Vatican and the Church for the corrupted institution that it truly is I am reminded that there are real victims behind these scandals. If the Church was serious about becoming a force for good then they would work towards making themselves a legitimate institution that protects the people who have come to it for guidance. It would be the best of both worlds, the Church could improve its’ imagine and no more children would have to suffer at the hands of the clergy. Of course, that seems like the optimistic view. The other scenario is that inaction on the part of the Vatican leadership will lead to more scandals in the future. Overtime, awareness of the Church’s misdeeds will destroy any remaining legitimacy of this out-dated institution.

No Warming Since 1995? Part II

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The headlines are exploding with news of climate scientist Phil Jones apparently stating that there has been no significant warming since 1995. Pundits are essentially calling this hook-line-and sinker for evidence that climate change is a hoax. I’ve provided the link to the interview above. Here is the quote that has caused the stir in the media.

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

Unfortunately, that has now been displayed as the major headline grabber “No warming since 1995”. There is quite a difference between that and what Phil Jones has said.

As I already addressed in my post relating to Rush Limbaugh’s discussion over this issue, I have no doubt that alarmists have been exaggerating claims. However, Phil Jones statement is not definitive proof that climate change isn’t happening. Real Climate points out that it’s difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a period of 15 years. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/). What this clearly suggests is that we need to continue to look at the bigger picture in order to determine whether or not climate change is happening.

The deniers appear to be saying that what Phil Jones is saying translates into “this is a hoax, we made the whole damn thing up, it’s all a lie.” I wonder how they reconcile that belief with the response Jones gives to whether or not he believes climate change is real.

“How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

Warming has taken place, it may not have taken place in the runaway manner that alarmists may claim it has over the last 15 years nonetheless it is still taking place. The rest of the interview deals with issues such as the Medieval Warming Period, an issue I addressed in another post, and Phil Jones’ arguments for why climate change is man-made.

I’m sure there is a panic among the community of those who believe climate change is real and a sense of euphoria mixed with rage among the denialists. The apparent revelation that there has been no warming since 1995, while not exactly taken out of context is misinterpreted.

Phil Jones does express doubt the assertion that the debate on climate change is over. Again, we must note that he doesn’t doubt it’s happening, it seems in this case that the debate refers to the seriousness of the issue. If we say the debate is over then we run the risk of not working towards finding more evidence to provide an even more solid picture of the situation. We would run the risk of leaving too many holes for the deniers to attack. Alarmists condemning humanity for the apparent destruction of the planet will not win over any large scale popular support, especially if such accusations are backed up by faulty claims of how we will face total climate Armageddon in the next 20-30 years.

Medieval Warming

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021510/content/01125109.guest.html

Claim: The world was warmer in medieval times than now -- suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon

False: There is no evidence that the world was warmer in medieval times than now (http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/). Though I hasten to add that I wouldn’t deny that we have gone through cycles of warming and cooling in the past that were in fact natural cycles, therefore the real issue that needs to be addressed here is natural cycles vs. man-made phenomenon.

This article addresses the issue of natural vs. man-made climate change (http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/). Natural changes have indeed happened but, this article asks the deniers to show proof that this current change is indeed being affected by natural causes. Of course this would go against scientific consensus that warming is occurring and is man-made. The conclusion is that CO2 emissions from human activity are affecting global temperatures.

No Warming Since 1995?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021510/content/01125109.guest.html

Claim: Phil Jones at the Hadley research unit at the University of East Anglia, which is in the UK, has finally admitted there has not been any warming since 1995.

True: Phil Jones has stated that “there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-science-isnt-settled-now-what/article1469050/). This article is interesting. I’d like to think that I’m in the middle between the deniers and the alarmists. I often roll my eyes at the environmental extremists who treat the earth as if it’s some sort of religion. Alarmism won’t help the environmental cause. We have to be willing to admit that glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035, that failure at Copenhagen is unlikely to actually lead to a climate change doomsday scenario in the next 20-30 years.

Now don’t get too excited. I’m hardly conceding that Rush has been right on climate change all along. I hear no mention of Phil Jones saying climate change isn’t a concern. The Globe and Mail article notes many experts say climate change is happening but that the more extreme claims have been wildly exaggerated. Both Rush and the alarmists are using the same play book to further their cause. In the world of political talking points and 24 hour news channels (that for some reason appear unable to dedicate sufficient time to issues) alarmists and denialist shouting talking points will gain much more attention than a long but reasonable assessment of the situation. Rush should note that the quote is “no significant warming” not “no warming”, there is a difference. At the same time alarmists need to realize that their doomsday warnings and unwillingness to acknowledge that their might be problems with the IPCC only undermines their cause. I think it’s time we re-evaluate the leadership of this organization. We need people who can say more than “this is embarrassing but the problem is still very real.” We need people who understand the fuel such errors give to the denialists and prepare more effective responses then “we are sorry it won’t happen again.” Climate change, is most likely a threat that for the time being is still very distant. However, if we continue to allow the debate to be distorted by the deniers and the alarmists, then we may never have the opportunity to allow reason to prevail.

Arctic Ice is Melting

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070908/content/01125109.guest.html

Claim: Do you know the amount of ice in the arctic this month (July 9 2008) versus this month 20 years ago is identical?

False: Rush doesn’t give us a link to these graphs that supposedly depict the fact that Arctic ice isn’t melting. Scientists would certainly disagree with this claim. Note Section 2 and the photograph on this site (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp). I really want to know where Rush got his information. I read through the background material he provided it isn’t there. The only proof we have that the arctic ice isn’t melting is from the mouth of a conspiracy nut. A friendly piece of advice, if you say you have evidence then it is best that you provide a source to it. Otherwise your claim will easily be debunked. Claims that have no evidence can be disproven without evidence (thank you Christopher Hitchens). I feel I’m being courteous by actually providing evidence to disprove a statement that has no evidence. The real hilarity here though is one of the articles that Rush provides at the end of the article. It disputes Rush’s long-standing claim that climate change is a hoax. It acknowledges that climate change is real! (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060921123321.htm). I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked at the fact that Rush is cherry-picking facts. It really does beg the question of whether or not he actually believes the whole thing is a hoax. It may be possible that he just found a way to profit from becoming a prominent voice in the world of climate change deniers.