Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Your climate change article is correct in that actions are not in line with the rhetoric. Please do not be fooled by things like the recent CBC article which tells us we are warming twice as fast as others. The endpoints selected (1948 to 2016) were instructive. The forties were a cooling decade and 2016 was the peak of a warming El Nino. If dates were 1943 to 2018 instead the data shows no warming at all. So one can make the data show what you want it to. This is typical of the articles that are seen in mainstream media. That there is warming is certain but how much , what causes it and what impacts it will have are still very much under study. The 1.7C warming in Canada was from land based measurements as well. Earth is 70% water and the land temps go up faster. Even if we raised 1.7 that is the same as other countries not more. Dreadful reports that spin scary stories do not further a scientific debate. PS I am an Engineer with both Research and Environmental background so I speak from a position of knowledge on this subject.
BT | April 15, 2019 | Reply
No one really disputes that our climate changes it just how it does and can we really determine what the climate will be 50 years out with sufficient accuracy to start wrecking our national economy now?
The climate change industry is based on computer modelling. For example there was Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph showing that 1998-99 was the hottest period in over 1000 years. This was reported extensively in the media. It was a product of modelling which, in time, was found to be suspect and had to be withdrawn. During Copenhagen some inconvenient emails were released that showed that the models were not showing any increased heating. Up to that time it was all about “global warming” after that it was just “climate change” which is a great hedge should we actually enter an ice age. In fact an ice age was our future according to Newsweek magazine in 1975.
Finally I offer the name Edward Lorenz who was an MIT meteorologist working in the early 60’s. His project was to use computers which were then beginning to be developed and model weather for more accurate forecasting but he ended up discovering the new science of “chaos” He found that in computer modelling some things cannot be predicted with any certainty because even the smallest inputs (unknown unknowns) caused wide ranging outcomes. This is the famous “butterfly effect”. Look up the book “Chaos” by James Gleick for more details.
Graeme Tweedie | April 15, 2019 | Reply
Agree that nuclear should play a larger role in finding lower carbon emission energy sources. Science and reason should be our guide rather than emotion. Re the carbon tax, you have previously expressed skepticism. Perhaps the details should be reworked but at least the carbon tax engages market forces to create incentives for “cleaner” energy. For me, a principle to guide us in all this is “be responsible for cleaning up your own mess”. If “mess-creating” behaviour comes with costs, we’ll try and find less costly ways of getting what we want.
Steve Chipman | April 13, 2019 | Reply
Creative Commons 2010 – Present