Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Peter Kent explains the greenhouse effect

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 5, 2011 9:04am - 210 Comments

Whatever his qualifications and future as Environment Minister, in cannot be said that Peter Kent doesn’t understand the problem he is now charged with addressing. Indeed, reporting for CBC in 1984, he hosted an extensive report on the looming threat of global warming. Twenty-six years later, it holds up rather well—either because of the foresight of the reporting or because the discussion has progressed so little since.

Parts 2 and 3 after the jump.

Tags: cbc, climate change, global warming, greenhouse effect, peter kent, The Journal

More by Aaron Wherry

Dr. James Deutsch

You can't fool mother nature. You can't violate the laws of physics. Learning to understand the full picture of climate change is really hard work.
See below for more complete explanations of how the "deniers" "cherry pick" data to support their "arguments":
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Dan Cummings

In addition to the excellent citation of Anthony Watts' website — http://wattsupwiththat.com — and the other references above, let me add a Canadian compendium of climate-related story and media links: http://www.newswatchcanada.ca/climategate.html

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but as noted above there are many other ways and reasons climate changes and the focus on human-caused activity is simplistic and embarassing to our race.

Let's just think of some recent news stories:

1. Russian ships caught in 18-foot thick ice west of Alaska
2. historic cold and white winter in Europe
3. ocean surface temperatures dropping
4. 2010 a record year for earthquake activity
5. 2010 a big year for volcanic activity
6. floods in Australia caused by La Niña — ocean cooling
7. low jet stream in Europe

How did man/woman cause these? We didn't… And scientists have no rational explanation that connects our activity to any of these (except the Russian ships, which must have believed in global warming, or something).

What we know is the thin crust of the earth sits on a molten core and mantle and slides around, causing earthquakes and volcanoes. Earthquakes and volcanoes release lots of CO2 and SO2 and many carbon compounds.

We can't do anything about these natural phenomena.

And we sure can't change what the sun is doing.

Does it make sense to pollute the air less and try to keep water clean? Yep. Nobody argues the opposite. But destroying world economies in the hope we might reduce world average temperatures (which are not accurately measured anyway) by a degree or two is lemming-like madness.

Peter Kent was good to explain the greenhouse effect. And he was a good choice as Environment Minister because now we won't have the chirpsters claim he doesn't know what he's talking about. But there's more to the big picture than the hreenhouse effect as so many have eloquently expressed above.
klem

I think Bernier does not need any help in that regard. Just give him some time and bit of rope. Can't wait to see it.
Thwim

The problem is that multiple economists have looked at the situation, and determined that sensible methods to reduce greenhouse gases could be enacted with next to no negative effects on the economy, and with some significant benefits to it.

In the end, remember that reducing waste, (and that includes CO2) is increasing efficiency.

The only negative effects to the economy, then, are in the realm of those who rely on us being inefficient. Personally, I have no sympathy for them.
Holly Stick

How about the Russian heat which killed thousands of people last summer? How about the record high temperatures on New Year's Day?

The fact is that the climate scientists consider all of these other factors; but they also know that humans have emitted massive amount of CO2, much more than any volcanoes, and basic physics shows that all of that CO2 is having a warming effect. You deniers simply don't know enough about doing science to be creible critics of it.

You just tell your alarmist lies that dealing with climate change will destroy "world economies" ( we only have one world, and climate change is destroying that economy).
http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
alfanerd

Oh economists said so did they? So the proposed trillion dollar fund that the west will be paying out to the 3d world wont affect our economies at all? Awesome. Why not give me 1 trillion dollars then, it shouldnt affect the economy either. I think you need to find new economists.
sourstud

Are those the same economists who said that Carbon trading would be a billion dollar business? That there would be thousands upon thousands of "green collar" jobs created? The same ones who said to invest in wind and solar energy companies?

Well, carbon trading is basically dead. Those "green collar" jobs never showed up. And if you've been investing in solar and wind, you're likely to have lost a substantial amount of money.
klem

ya like wind turbines which generate power at around 22% of capacity. Real efficient. I can't wait to put one in my backyard. Lol!

But at least the manufacture of wind tubines puts people to work. In China.
alfanerd

Holly,

instead of insulting people and posing useless links to that garbage site realclimate which is run by the frauds and liars of climategate fame, you should learn about feedbacks and how they relate to your theory of agw.

if you can tell deniers that they "simply don't know enough about doing science to be creible critics of it.", go ahead and talk to me about the science. Specifically, please enlighten us rubes as to what piece of empirical evidence convinced you?

What's that? Another stupid link? You know nothing about the science? You insult others without knowing the smallest shred of actual information yourself? Typical lefty loser authoritarian fascist douchebag.

I long for the day, coming soon, when this scam will be exposed once and for all and recognized as the biggest swindle in the history of mankind, and any argument with dimwits like you will be won by simply invoking that you, were a poster child for AGW – and shazamm – no more credibility.
Leo

You sure don't beat around the bush do you, lol Saved me some typing, thanks.
sourstud

Not to mention that politically, the only countries on the planet who still have AGW on their agenda are those who would be on the receiving end of subsidies from other countries. People in countries across the globe are no longer willing to elect governments who will risk their economic well being in the name of Being Green. You show me a politician who's running on a Global Warming platform, and I'll show you a dead-in-the-water loser.
klem

But RealClimate is just another dishonest alarmist blog. Now what do we do? I'm sooooo confused.
klem

Oh yea?

Don't forget folks, climate change is dead. Cheers.
lenny

So I assume you avoid automobiles, considering that they use about 15% of their fuel's energy to propell themselves, and less than 1% of the energy they consume actually moves the passengers and cargo.
klem

That's my point exactly. So if cars suck so bad why on earth would anyone want an idiotic wind turbine in their neighbourhood? Thanks for pointing that out.
lenny

Most of the word disagrees with you that cars are too inefficient to be worth using, despite their terrible performance compared to wind generation.
So, considering that you believe "cars suck so bad", what mode of transportation do you use?
mememine69

THE DENIERS HAVE WON
As a former climate change believer, I personally apologize for condemning billions to death by CO2 for 25 years of needless panic. I meant well but issuing CO2 death threats to my kids just to get them to turn the lights out a little more often, had made me a neocon of CO2 environMENTALism. I apologize for calling cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for leading responsible environmentalism down the wrong road and wasting a quarter century on climate control instead of needed population control. Finally, I apologize for the demonizing that was so unprogressive and I’m sorry for exaggerating climate change to include death to the planet yet not admitting unstoppable and runaway and out of control climate warming were death threats to all.
The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy.
chet

In a few years from now, while we'll be looking back at that causes of this faulty science, the science itself will be secondary (though those in the scientific community are already recognizing the damage the political fear mongering has caused),

the broader issues of a lockstep "progressive" academic media complex that has taken hold of our universities and journalism will be seen as a significant culprit in which debate was replaced with promotion of "correct" ideals and "truths". And a web of other phenomenon:

AGW theory was integral to a newer, fresher brand of socialism to replace the dying cold war variety,

The replacement of mainstream religion with a core belief system complete with notions of heresy, absolute truths, salvation etc. By turning out my office computer after I forgot it, dude in my office would walk by as if he helped saved us all from a firery inferno.
JackPoynter

Trying again for the second half of the (evidently too long comment:)

It is probable that the AGW movement will follow the same trajectory. We can predict that true believers will still be haranguing us for a very long time to come, even as the next great milleniarian movement is taking place.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the Preacher, and there is nothing new under the sun. Or as the Pagans would say, the Sun.

I leave you with a quote by Mark Twain, I thnk form Letters From the Earth: "Humanity," wrote Lucifer to his friend Michael the Archangel, "is enough to make a cat laugh."
Holly Stick

Here's a guide to the IPCC; this page links to lists of the many scientific papers referenced in various parts of the reports by the various working groups.

When some ignorant rightwinger claims the IPCC report has no credibility, ask him how many of these papers he has read, and if he understood what they said, and what part each paper played in the final IPCC report. Ask him why ignorant rightwingers think that arguing that one reference might be incorrect means that all the hundreds or thousand of other papers might be incorrect. Watch his ignorant head explode.
http://zvon.org/eco/ipcc/ar4/#w_0