Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

'Canada has a credible plan for addressing our environmental challenges.'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 28, 2011 4:35pm - 188 Comments

In the wake of a recommendation from the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy that Canada move forward with a cap-and-trade system and a recommitment from the Liberals that they will move forward with cap-and-trade if elected, Peter Kent delivered his first major speech as Environment Minister this afternoon in Toronto.

The prepared text, after the jump.

Good afternoon to all of you.

I’m pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to speak with you.

Since I was appointed Environment Minister just three weeks ago, I’ve noticed that friends and acquaintances are treating me rather cautiously.

They seem uncertain whether they should offer congratulations… or condolences.

To be perfectly honest, at the very outset, I wasn’t certain which response was appropriate myself.

This is my first major speaking engagement as Canada’s Environment Minister, and I want to tell you all how honoured and privileged I feel to serve Canadians in this capacity.

I didn’t hesitate for a moment to accept this job when the Prime Minister called and offered it to me.

But I did wonder just what lay ahead.

The only thing I already knew for certain was that the three things never in short supply on the environmental file are opinion, criticism and advice.

In short, every form of assistance is on offer—other than real help.

But what I’ve found at Environment Canada, to my great delight, is a remarkable team of high-achieving, deeply-engaged scientists and engineers, policy experts, economists and lawyers all of whom are passionate about their mandate as stewards of Canada’s spectacular natural legacy.

They are located across the country from Arctic Bay to Sable Island to the western coast of Vancouver Island, but they are bound by their shared commitment to developing, implementing and enforcing world-class environmental standards for this country.

And so, having spent decades in a previous career as a broadcaster, I stand before you today with the most important news I have ever delivered:

Canada has a credible plan for addressing our environmental challenges.

And we are well advanced in executing that plan.

As an aside, just weeks into this job let me say how especially frustrating I find the constant, critical refrain that this Government has no environmental plan.

Not only do we have one, we are one of the very few countries that does.

What many people don’t realize is that Environment Canada already has the legal tools it needs to execute our plan. It requires no new legislation.

This is a plan that will ensure our national environmental and energy policies strike the right balance between economic renewal and sustainable development.

But before I get into this, allow me to talk with you briefly about the economy. Afterall, our gracious host here today is the Economic Club of Canada. :

Across the country, our Economic Action Plan is continuing to work for Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, we are seeing the results in the new infrastructure that’s being built in our cities, towns and local communities. And let’s not forget our $5 billion Green Infrastructure Fund.

But it’s important to remember — Canada’s economic recovery remains fragile.

That’s why our Government is continuing to focus on the economy and on creating jobs and growth.

In fact that’s why we recently extended the deadline on several key infrastructure programs.

Approximately 400,000 more Canadians are working today than in July 2009, growth has returned to the economy, and Canada is a leader among G-7 countries in exiting the global recession.

Our banks are sound, investment in Canada is up, and both the IMF and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to have the strongest average economic growth in the G-7 over the next two years.

But there’s more to do — that’s why since November and all through January, leading into February, my fellow colleagues in the Harper Government have been going across the country and meeting with Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs.

Following these meetings, we will bring forward the next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.

And I can assure you that we will continue to focus on protecting the financial security of hardworking Canadians and their families, and continue working to secure our economic recovery by ensuring our economic policies reflect the values and principles we share with the families across the country, including right here in Toronto and the GTA.

Now, turning back to our focus on the Environment, the link between the economy and the environment is clear. Let me assure you of one point in particular: This government is every bit as serious about the stewardship of Canada’s environment, as we are about ensuring our continued economic prosperity.

Our current plan ensures our national environmental and energy policies strike the right balance between economic renewal and sustainable development.

We fully understand the challenges inherent in our commitment to execute our plan and achieve our GHG reduction targets while prospering as an energy superpower.

Setting aside rhetorical flourishes, recrimination and—as much as possible—politics, let’s review the plain facts.

Fact number one: this government—in partnership with provinces, territories and others—has already taken actions that will reduce Canada’s 2020 greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by 65 megatonnes and bring us about one-quarter of the way to meeting our target of 607 megatonnes.

Of course there is a great deal to do, but we have good, foundational programs in place.

Since 2006 we have:

established new standards for emissions from passenger vehicles and are establishing them for heavy trucks, one of the country’s largest sources of GHG emissions;

announced standards that will phase-out the use of dirty coal to generate electricity, another major emitter;

ensured there is a five per cent biofuel content in gasoline, with more to come soon on diesel. The GHG reductions from this initiative are equivalent to taking one million vehicles off the road;

continuously improved and strengthened energy efficiency standards for buildings and building products under the Energy Efficiency Act;

worked with provinces to update the National Energy Code for Buildings;

along with all major emitters, we signed the Copenhagen Accord on climate change which covers countries that account for over 85% of global GHG emissions;

increased the amount of land set aside for national parks by 30 per cent;

introduced aggressive new environmental enforcement rules which have just passed into law;

framed a national clean air management strategy which was endorsed by all provinces last October;

devised a chemical management plan that made Canada the first country to take action on bisphenol A and was the first in the world to systematically review chemicals already in use;

drafted national municipal wastewater standards that over time will stop the dumping of raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans;

signed a United Nations agreement to co-operate on the preservation of all species at risk;

created an advisory panel of independent scientists to address the health of the Athabasca River and related waterways and make recommendations on improving stewardship.

Climate change is one of the most serious environmental issues facing the world today.

Under our government’s leadership, Canada, while emitting just two per cent of the world’s GHGs, is determined to do our part for the planet.

That’s why our government has made clear commitments to be a world leader in clean electricity generation and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 % below 2005 levels by 2020.

We inscribed our 2020 GHG reduction target in the Copenhagen Accord, and don’t let anyone tell you that it’s not an ambitious target.

Canada has a growing in population.

Our economic prosperity is also growing, partly because we produce and sell energy to the rest of the world.

But both of those factors contribute significantly to GHG emissions.

That’s why I also want to make it absolutely clear that I’m not wagging my finger at industry alone: we all have to take responsibility for addressing climate change.

Our government also has a comprehensive plan to achieve real emission reductions in the short, medium, and long terms, while maintaining Canada’s economic competitiveness and its ability to create jobs for Canadians.

There’s nothing magical or glamorous about it: Achieving our objectives requires a systematic approach of regulating GHG emissions sector by sector and, where appropriate, alignment with the United States.

Canadians tend to get their hackles up whenever they hear terms like “harmonize” or “align” in the same sentence as United States.

But however much we may growl about it, when it comes to meaningful work on the environment—and climate change in particular—there is no practical alternative.

Furthermore, our strategic efforts with the United States are by no means the only example of our intent to work with others to a common goal.

Internationally, we are active, constructive participants in the United Nations’ climate change framework agreement and we’re working to ensure that becomes legally binding.

It is also worth noting that last June we announced a $400 million investment in new and additional climate financing for 2010 alone as part of our commitment to the Copenhagen Accord.

This is Canada’s largest ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change.

This funding will help least developed countries and small island states face the challenges of climate change.

Domestically, our plan is shaped by consultation with the provinces and other stakeholders.

Strong federal leadership is necessary to provide certainty for industry and, where necessary, to stay in step with the United States.

I’ve already spoken to my provincial counterparts to assure them that we’ll continue to work closely together, leveraging the steps they’ve taken to reduce GHG emissions.

This is the most sensible approach given that the development of a continental cap-and-trade system is unlikely in the near term.

All indications are that the United States will move forward with GHG requirements led by the Environmental Protection Agency.

And so, given the highly integrated nature of the North American economy, we will align with that strategy where appropriate.

This is consistent with the way we’ve moved forward to date.

Over the last few years, our government has used environmental regulation because it reflects the belief that initiatives based upon the “polluter pay principle” yield the greatest overall benefits to society.

While protecting the environment and human health, clear and focused regulatory actions also provide industry with the certainty needed to sustain economic and job growth.

It’s a question of the balance I referred to earlier.

Our government has pursued its sector-by-sector regulatory approach beginning with two of the largest sources of GHG emissions: electricity and transportation.

In one case, we’ve set out own course. In the other, we’ve worked closely with our American partners.

The electricity sector is a prime example of areas where it is impractical to align our climate change policy.

Ours is one of the cleanest systems in the world: we have 51 coal-fired plants compared to 650 in the United States.

That’s why our new regulations for coal-fired electricity generation are unique to Canada and, with an implementation date of 2015, will make us one of the first countries to phase out emissions from dirty coal.

The proposed regulations send a clear signal to industry at a time when many older plants are about to be replaced.

By sharing this plan early, we can influence investment decisions now and help avoid the new construction of higher-emitting facilities.

Electricity differs from transportation, where we’ve worked closely with the United States from the outset to get the plan right.

Together we’ve established stringent standards for GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks for the 2011 to 2016 model years.

Going forward, we’ll continue working with the United States to develop even tougher standards for 2017 and later model years.

Our government has also announced its intent to develop regulations to limit GHG emissions from new on-road heavy-duty vehicles, in alignment with those being developed in the United States.

The regulations will apply to 2014 and later model year heavy-duty vehicles.

Our plan includes action to reduce GHG and air pollutant emissions from the aviation, marine, and rail modes.

Canada is working with the United States and its international partners through the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization to develop and implement new emissions standards for these modes as well.

The transportation and electricity sectors will yield important results and make progress towards our government’s 2020 target.

That said, significant work remains.

That’s why we intend to continue to develop performance standards for other major sectors of the economy.

Looking forward, our government will continue to implement its plan by developing performance standards for all major emitters to make further progress toward Canada’s GHG reduction target.

There’s no question that environmental regulation will play a key role in fulfilling the commitment we’ve made—and will keep—to develop our natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way.

Neither is there any question that it’s going to take a tremendous degree of consultation and co-operation to develop and implement the right plan to address our environmental footprint.

We’ve already taken some initial steps in the right direction.

In December, Minister Baird accepted the recommendation of an advisory panel of independent scientists on water monitoring in the region around the oil sands.

We’ll respond with our plan within 90 days, as promised.

Air quality and protection of animals and plants are next on our list.

In conclusion, I’m tremendously optimistic about the path forward.

While there remains much work to do, we’ve got several important ingredients for success: political leadership passionately dedicated to improving the environment, a results-driven plan to regulate strategically on a sector-by-sector basis; and an unwavering commitment to succeed.

As the new Minister of the Environment, I’m the first to say I have a great deal to learn about the issues and challenges in this portfolio.

I’m also the first to say that I have the confidence that we’ll build on what we’ve already accomplished.

The stakes are high and finding ways to successfully balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic imperative must be a joint effort. On that score, I look forward to working with provinces and territories, industry leaders, environmental groups and individual Canadians. We all have an important role to play.

As I’ve so often said in my past—stay tuned. We’ll be back with more.

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
  • Leo

    More reading on the carbon credit swindle :-)

    Europe has to do nothing until 2020

    The importance of carbon credits to the negotiations in Copenhagen cannot be underestimated. They allow the EU countries to pat themselves on the back for committing to a 30 percent carbon dioxide reduction. What the European leaders never mention is that EU member countries have agreed among themselves that two-thirds of this reduction will be achieved by buying carbon credits in CDM projects in the developing world.

    If we want real climate change it is crucial for the European economy to change drastically both by saving energy and by generating renewable energy in substantial quantities in Europe itself. What is Europe's promise in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent really worth if it plans to achieve that promise by buying up fake credits abroad, while refusing to take politically challenging climate measures at home? http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2416330…

    • Emily

      None of which has anything to do with Peter Kent being another sock puppet.

  • Selena

    Obi-wan, the stupid runs deep on this thread.

    • Holly Stick

      Say that again, you can.

  • chet

    Himalayan glaciers to be gone in 25 years!!!!!!!!!! So said the IPCC…

    er, no.

    Major study finds the glaciers….advancing, not retreating.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clim…

    Under the slightest bit of scrutiny, each and every aspect to this meme is crumbling.

    Each and every one.

    • Emily

      This is why there is no 'debate' chet.

      A climatologist wouldn't waste time debating with you anymore than an astronomer would waste time debating with the flat earth society.

    • Holly Stick

      The IPCC made a mistake, which they admitted and corrected long ago. Your media article is biased; here is a better one:
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/1101…

      It points out that half the glaciers in the Karakorum region are stable or growing; elsewhere it says they are mostly stagnating in that region. Meanwhile the glaciers in other parts of the Himilayas are mostly retreating.

      Guess what, you have not disproved global warming. Sorry about that.

      • Holly Stick

        And here is some of the actual scientific report: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/…

        The title is "Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover" and it says things like:

        "…More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts…"

  • LC Bennet

    "In the wake of a recommendation from the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy that Canada move forward with a cap-and-trade system and a recommitment from the Liberals that they will move forward with cap-and-trade if elected,…"

    I wonder if NTREE and the Liberals have been monitoring the European ETS (emissions trading scheme), lately. Then again, being the party of Adscam, perhaps the Liberals ARE aware of the cap and trade problems.

    From The Guardian:
    "The European commission's emergency suspension last week of trading in carbon allowances to put a halt to rampant theft of credits by hackers has been extended indefinitely until countries can prove their systems are protected from further fraud."

    Again from The Guardian: Three Britons charged over €3m carbon-trading 'carousel fraud'

    Europol: The Hague – The Netherlands. The European Union (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS) has been the victim of fraudulent traders in the past 18 months. This resulted in losses of approximately 5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.

    Cap and Trade is lucrative business for criminals and shady politicians. For taxpayers and consumers, ETS is a disaster. BTW, has Maclean's or any other member of the Canadian MSM done an expose on the massive fraud inherent to the worlds biggest cap and trade market? I know details,details…allegation of fraud doesn't fit the narrative…there would be no chance of fraud in a Montreal carbon trading market…the risk is worth the reward…the end justifies the means.

    • TimesArrow

      Yup…we need a carbon tax.

      • LC Bennet

        I agree. I hope and pray that the Liberals campaign on GreenShaft II. I am sure that it is not that Canadians didn't want to pay more for heating and driving, the LPC just needed better messaging. Team Ignatieff will surely succeed where Dion failed.

    • Leo

      This lack of interest by Canadian MSM on the fraud that goes on with the carbon credits has me worried too. Montreal carbon trading market in that most corrupt province, lol!!!

  • chet

    Hey everybody,

    did you know the Earth actually has TWO poles?

    The arctic, and the antarctic?

    Guess which one actually contains the vast majority of the Earth's ice?

    Not only that, but it's ice levels have been gaining since records of it have been kept, and it's now at record highs.

    I'll give you a hint.

    It's the pole which virtually never gets mentioned by our ….cough cough…"balanced" media.

    I'd provide a few links but I'll save you from the immediate warmist first responders here to cry out "LIES!!".

    • Holly Stick

      Comparison of sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctic: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/its-the-tr… Note that both are fulfilling the predictions by climate scientists.

      But of course, in Antarctica there is a whole bunch of land ice as well, and it is decreasing:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gainin…

      Remember now, chet: Antarctica has land ice and sea ice, and they behave differently.

      • TimesArrow

        Seems only yesterday Chet [ or was it Biff - i forget?] was claiming the ice was returning to the arctic. I wouldn't cross the street on you all clear chet, much less accept anything you have to say on CC. I see you've given up linking to discredited former tobacco industry shills too! What's with that?

      • chet

        I've had a look at the "skepticalscience" site you keep linking to.

        What's remarkable is how conclusions based and one sided it is.

        • Holly Stick

          More good science there than any link you have come up with.

        • Thwim

          That's the funny thing when dealing with facts. They tend to be both one-sided and conclusive.

      • chet

        Here's what one commenter on that "skeptical science" site astutely and accurately noted about the above very misleading link by Holly:

        "The misinformation on this site is astonishing.
        Antarctic ice is increasing.
        In addition to the cryosphere link provided Anthony,
        This is confirmed by NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/regions…
        by NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008…
        and by numerous scientific papers, including
        Cavalieri and Parkinson, J. Geophys. Res. 113, C07004 (2008),
        Comiso and Nishio, J. Geophys. Res. 113, CO2S07 (2008).

        You have managed to find one paper that finds a decrease – but that only covers a 3 year period! Obviously you cannot get a significant trend from 3 years data. "

        • chet

          So to recap,

          Holly's definitive source (definitive to her because it tells her what she wants to hear), cherry picks a single substandard paper, omits important others, including actual NSIDC data on the issue,

          and presents that very misleading, cherry picked paper as being the sum total of the evidence on the matter.

          Welcome everyone, to the world of the Warmists.

          • Holly Stick

            The comment you quoted, which is #5, had this response:

            "Response: Please, people, pay attention! Sea ice is increasing. Land ice is decreasing. Read and reread the post above until you realise they are two separate phenomena."

            Land ice: Sea ice. Learn the difference.

            Here's the link for anyone who is lost: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gainin…

          • Holly Stick

            Didn't you read that response, chet? If you did, why didn't you quote it as well?

          • chet

            And?

            Oh yes, that's right, I also read some of the other commeters about sea ice increasing in the Antarctic actually being evidence of …. drumroll please….global warming.

            To recap:

            sea ice purportedly (it's actually fully regained) decreasing in the arctic….means global warming.

            see ice INCREASING in the antarctic…global warming.

            Like I said, all roads will inevitably lead to the conclusion of global warming.

            That's some "science".

          • Holly Stick

            How dishonest of you.

          • Thwim

            Ice extent != ice mass.

            You still haven't learned basic facts.

            Sea ice extent is growing, this means more ice is floating free and spreading out.
            Ice mass is shrinking.. the reason more ice is floating free is that there's less to hold it to the main mass.

  • chet

    One more fun fact that the warmists don't like to mention.

    Did you know Greenland was at one time, actually, well green?

    Yup, the climate was warmer at a previous time in the Earth's history. A lot warmer. Which is why they find stuff real deep in the ice there.

    I wonder if there are actually time machines, and they were filled with gas filled Dodge Durangos and…gulp… GMC Yukons, millions of them were transported back in time to cause the last warming period…since, you know, it just had to be man made.

    • Emily

      Stupid on purpose. LOL

    • Holly Stick
      • chet

        It was…er "regional".

        I understand.

        You see, here's how it works:

        Hurricanes aren't "weather" they're examples of global warming (apparently so are the rains in Austrailia). Why? Because they said so.

        Entire continents being warmer (or colder) before, isn't evidence contra global warming, just really big "weather".

        The beauty of the Warmist religion is, there is no way to disprove it. All roads lead to the conclusion of global warming, and no roads…..none (not even apparently the fact that there used to be an ice age…I assume the drastic change from much of the planet being in ice to where it is now….just…"bad weather back then") can lead to contra evidence of global warming.

        And get this.

        All of the esteemed scientists that say there's no real "proof" per se of AGW….they're all "liars".

        See how this works.

      • chet

        I encourage folks to read through the comments on that site which professes to be the definitive source on these matters.

        In short, Holly's links get shredded. (see also Holly's "skeptical science' link on my comment about the earth having two poles). Her source cherry picked a single limited study (covering three years) while dutifully omitting all the major sources and studies on the matter, as pointed out by an astute commenter I quoted.

        To Holly: more please,

        To objective readers: enjoy the shredding in the comments of that site.

        • EeeOar

          Shredding?

    • brooster2

      Are you never embarrassed by your public displays of idiocy?

      • Thwim

        It's only idiocy if he doesn't get paid for it. If he's getting paid, it's simply dishonest.

  • chet

    When many of us look at our themometers and check the temperature, that is that. The temp, is what the temp is.

    Many people think the NOAA, James Hanson and the like, simply take the tempertures from various weather stations, and produce those fancy graphs.

    Except they don't. They make "adjustments" based on certain assumptions. In the link below, you'll see how they previously tracked temps, adjusting for the heat Island effect, and then changed it to delete that effect (among other "assumptions"). As you can see, you can pretty much create whatever shape of graph you want depending on the "assumptions", the relevant ones here, are selected to produce the desired "alarmist" result:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028…

    • Emily

      No dates over the weekend eh?

      • chet

        This is a particular pet issue of mine. I started several years ago by fully believing in the AGW theory. Over time, and after much reading and independent research have come to learn what more and more are now learning. AGW theory is complete bunk.

        • Emily

          No chet, you are simply one more uneducated kid. The world is full of them

          Here's a quote for ya

          "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

          Isaac Asimov, Newsweek interview. 1980.

          • Leo

            I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. -Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

          • Holly Stick

            "Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors."
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperatu…

            All the facts, data and links you need.

          • Holly Stick

            chet's powerline blog source appears to be lawyers, not climate scientists, including some with the Claremont Institute, another rightwing belief tank. And why don't they update their graphs?

          • chet

            Right. Lawyers link to something, so the link must be a "lie".

            Al Gore the politician making millions off this? Oh, his links are "the truth".

          • Emily

            I dunno what your problem is with Al Gore, but you sure do mention him a lot.

            Al Gore was a multi millionaire before he was born, he doesn't need the money.

          • Emily

            Yup, Asimov was a scientist. And he went by facts.

            Something teabaggers never do.

          • Emily

            In fact here's what Asimov said about climate change in 1989
            http://climatecrocks.com/2011/01/06/1989-isaac-as…

            or what he said about it in 1977
            http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw…

  • chet

    And the raw data used to make those temp graphs?

    They're staunchly refusing to release them. Raw data being the actual readings before "adjustments".

    This "science" isn't about openly showing what was done and inviting scrutiny (the ability to disprove) like anyone learns in any intro science class.

    No, this AGW "science" is about circling the wagons and fighting real scrutiny to the end (as was painfully obvious with the climategate emails.)

    Of course, none of this is really reported. We need more stock footage of an icefield splintering off into the ocean (as has been happening for thousands of years, but portrayed as some recent alarming event).

    • Holly Stick

      Data sources, including raw data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources…

      • Holly Stick

        Ha, this diappearing post reappeared!

      • chet

        That's patently false.

        The raw data has yet to be released.

        Access to information requests are still currently being hotly denied.

        • Holly Stick

          Prove it.

    • Holly Stick

      Links to all sorts of data sources, including raw data sources. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources…

      And be sure to scrooll all the way to the bottom for more links to more big data sources; keep following links and you find all sorts of neat stuff like this: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Po…

      • chet

        I encourage readers to simply google the "raw temperature data" "access to information requests", to get all the information they wish in this sordid tale, Holly's efforts to obfuscate notwithstanding.

        There's a ton out there, but here's a piece summarizing the concern in the Orange County register from just last week on the issue:'
        http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/data-285015-tem…

        The problem is well know to those who care to know (and perhaps to those like Holly who'll throw in some site that refers to "raw data" in an effort to falsely suggest that this huge problem doesn't exist.

        • Holly Stick

          Prove that the raw data you want is not in the links I supplied. And don't waste my time with a newspaper editorial; do you think some newspaper editor is an expert?

          • chet

            Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.

            (all from my above link, which in turn has many more authoritative links)

  • chet

    Finally,

    I encourage all interested readers to read through the sub thread on my "the earth has two poles" comment.

    Very interesting. I make a statement, Holly comes in with a link which suggests its the definitive authority on the matter (and fully in accordance with warmist beliefs), I get ridiculed, and then I link to a comment left on Holly's site which shows how misleading that study was, how Holly's link deliberately omitted several studies that show antarctic ice is increasing, including the two major ice tracking authorites.

    Remarkable.

    Please do read that thread, it says alot about the state of AGW "fact" picking.

    • Holly Stick

      Land ice: Sea ice. Learn the difference.

      Around the south pole, land ice is decreasing. Sea ice there is increasing in winter but melting again in summer because it is a seasonal phenomenon. Sea ice is less significant at the south pole than the sea ice at the north pole is.

      It is all explained here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gainin…

      The comment chet refers to, #5, has this response added:

      "Response: Please, people, pay attention! Sea ice is increasing. Land ice is decreasing. Read and reread the post above until you realise they are two separate phenomena."

      • chet

        Sea Ice (purportedly) decreasing in the Arctic – means global warming

        Sea Ice increasing in the antarctic – apparently now means global warming.

        Now what are the chances if sea ice in the antarctic was decreasing, that the warmists would say it's also evidence of global warming? I'd say about 100%

        • Holly Stick

          If you bothered to read the article at skeptial science you would understand why sea ice at the north pole is more significant.

          "…Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged…"

          See, chet? Antarctic sea ice melts every summer. Arctic sea ice doesn't all melt every summer, but that is changing because of global warming. And then it feeds back, because when more Arctic ice melts, there is more open ocean which absorbs more heat from the sun. Remember the sun?

      • chet

        I'd suggest that you read the links referred to in that comment as well as the studies, but alas, I suspect there's a snowball's chance in he** of that happening.

        I believe the appropriate term is apostacy. You wouldn't want to be guilty of that, now would you?

        • Holly Stick

          Stupidity is also undesirable.

  • Emily

    To sum up:

    Peter Kent is an idiot, and shouldn't be allowed out without a keeper.

    • Emily

      Oh sorry chet. Did you really think anyone had been diverted by your red herrings?

    • Healthcare Insider

      Emily, I really don't think Peter Kent is an "idiot". He appears to be a highly intelligent individual.

  • chet

    Oh my.

    How timely, just out today in the UK press:

    "When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.
    Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade."

    Here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chr…

    • Holly Stick

      Aw, the poor denialist Telegraph is all excited because people are showing up some of its liars. Tch, tch.

      • Holly Stick

        Because chet believes a denialist newsrag rather than the Royal Society, which has real scientists:
        http://royalsociety.org/

      • chet

        I see you stayed safely away from the point of the article – an "adjustment" to the data to make a headline grabbing point that 2010 was the hottest on record,

        and instead hurled the "denialist" label.

        These "adjustments" are common.

        If you are an anti-capitalist/leftist/socialist, of course the ends justify the means, and such blatant data manipulation is but a trifling matter.

        For the rest of us, it is a very big deal indeed.

        • Holly Stick

          That's because I don't believe what Brooker writes, and I know that eventually some of the good science bloggers will look at his BS and explain why it is BS. You are far too gullible, chet.

          • Holly Stick

            About the high global temperature:

            "…Like a growing number of extreme weather events, an increase in the number of record-high temperatures—and a concomitant decrease in the number of record lows—is characteristic of a warming world. For instance, while 19 countries recorded record highs in 2010, not one witnessed a record low temperature. Across the United States, weather station data reveal that daily maximum temperature records outnumbered minimum temperature records for nine months of 2010. Over the last decade, record highs were more than twice as common as record lows, whereas half a century ago there was a roughly equal probability of experiencing either of these.

            Temperatures are rising faster in some places than in others. The Arctic has warmed by as much as 3–4 degrees Celsius (5–7 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 1950s. It is heating up at twice the rate of the earth on average, making it the fastest-warming region on the planet…"
            http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51

          • chet

            I get it. Anyting, from anyone, including the world's leading scientists, who don't conform to the AGW religion,

            are "liars".

            I suppose you'd get the same response from a devout Muslim, when told that the true prophet wasn't Mohammod.

            All of the insidious emails, reproduced as is from the CRU's own computers?

            All "lies" eh? And the releasors who let the information out? Heretics, I suppose.

          • Holly Stick

            First you would have to find one of "the world's leading scientists" who would say the science of AGW was incorrect. That would be difficult because leading scientists are smarter than you are, and certainly not dumb enough to think that accepting scientifi evidence is like following a religion.

            Speaking of religion, your Telegraph writer, Christopher Booker, appears to be a creationist, as well as pro-tobacco and pro-asbestos. Nice role model.
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christ…
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

  • chet

    Here's what's going to happen. I'm going to provide a link with a massive compendium of scientists who, in varying degrees, come out against the AGW meme. There will be direct quotes from most. And most, if not all will be leading scientists from scientific institutions.

    Then Holly will come out and say the site owners are either liars, the scientists themselves are lying or "paid by big oil" (a slander of men of the highest integrety) or their quotes were all…..all….taken "out of context" even though many of the quotes appear difinitive.

    Take care to read the actual quotes, then read Holly's (inevitable) links.

    Quite informative.

    Here goes – 650 scientists to slime:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction…

    • Holly Stick

      Wow. Just wow. Here's some advice, chet. Don't post denialist crap that is more than three years old, because it will have been debunked repeatedly by more intelligent people, like here:
      http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/23/inhofe-650/
      http://www.grist.org/article/will-the-media-be-fo…
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_…
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_i…

      You see, chet, quite a few of the scientists on that list say they do not belong on it. The liars Inhofe and Morano have slimed them by putting them on the list in the first place.

      Shame on you for spreading lies.

      • Holly Stick

        Besides, chet, you are sadly out of date. Inhofe's more recent list has 700 on it, so denialist liars can claim a growing number of "scientists" who oppose the consensus that AGW is occurring. Of course he had to squeeze in some creationists, who did not learn science at any earthly school:
        http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=140…

        "…Problems arise, however, when Inhofe's work is subjected to scrutiny. For example, some of the senator's scientists are actually economists. Others are scientists and inventors who have "no expertise in climate science whatsoever." Many are on ExxonMobil's payroll…" http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individ…

        And here is Inhofe's updated list, crappier than ever:
        http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction…

        • Holly Stick

          Here's a good one:

          "…• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
          • Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
          • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
          • Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list…"
          http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/ranking_…

          Sigh, I could do this all day, but no one is paying ME to.

          • chet

            How many of the 2500 "scientists" the Warmists claim are part of the IPCC are "climate scientists"?

            It's actually my link above. The answer is a paltry few. Another meme, shattered.

            BTW, it's easy to take a broad brush as say that it's all "untrue".

            You don't want me to start pulling out direct quotes from IPCC scientists themselves do you Holly? I'd be happy to put you in a position of calling one the "experts" touted by the IPCC itself a "liar".

            Shall I?

          • Holly Stick

            Yawn

      • chet

        A few may have been uncomfortable being on that list, for varying reasons (including intense pressure from the "community".

        But not all of them. Not even close. A tiny fraction.

        Hundreds,

        hundreds of esteemed scientists are telling the real story, in direct quotes.

        And you can link to as many advocates of AGW you want, but unless you can show that these hundreds of quotes were all concocted, you're left with the sliming.

        BTW, many of them have been quoted saying the same things publicly.

        What's remarkable, is if you've been trying to keep an open mind and paying real attention rather than zealously defending and attacking deniers,

        you would know that this "consensus" of yours in bunk.

        • Holly Stick

          BS

  • chet

    Okey dokey, here goes:

    Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

  • chet

    Another of the 600 or so:

    USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

  • chet

    Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists," released a scientific study of the Arctic on March 2007 that concluded the recent warming was likely "natural" and not manmade. (LINK) Akasofu, an award winning scientist who has published more than 550 professional journal articles and authored or co-authored 10 books, also recently blasted the UN IPCC process. "I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field," Akasofu said in an April 1, 2007 interview. "But so many [scientists] jumped in, and the media is looking for a disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control," Akasofu added.

  • chet

    One more, you get the picture:

    Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers, questioned man-made global warming fears. According to an April 27, 2007 article at Zenit.org, Zichichi "pointed out that human activity has less than 10% impact on the environment." The article noted that Zichichi "showed that the mathematical models used by the [UN's] IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method. He said the IPCC used ‘the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations.'" Zichichi said that based upon actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,"

    • Holly Stick

      Not a climate scientist, criticised for bias and errors in some of his writings:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi

      And why are you posting all these quotes that are four years old.

      • Holly Stick

        "The Heartland Institute "global warming experts" list contains vanishingly few researchers who consider themselves climate scientists and who regularly publish papers supporting their climate science views in reputable peer-reviewed journals (e.g., not Energy and Environment)."
        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartl…

      • chet

        Because keeping track of all the scientists who fall outside of the AGW camp is practically too difficult. It's in the thousands and thousands.

        Entire areas of study are continuing, particularly in solar sciences, where….gulp…other theories are seriously being considered as to the source and impact on the Earth's climate.

        You do realize that, without a doubt, non-man made sources have had a dramatic impact on the climate of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. We've had ice ages, and warming tropical periods over the course of the Earth's history.

        Similarily there's been shorter term fluctuations in climate over the last few hundred years. These things are without a doubt.

        There's a cause for that.

        A cause that warmists desperately wish not be studied. To the warmists the conclusion comes first, and all else leads to that.

        Even if it means ignoring 100,000 to a million years of historical context.

        To the warmist, climate began changing in the 1930's, all else is irrelevant, and to study the causes that don't point to AGW is heresy.

        • Holly Stick

          Humans are producing CO2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere means that earth absorbs more heat than it emits. We are heating up. No number of denialist lies can change that simple fact of physics. No lies or theories about cycles or other causes of global warming in the past can change the fact that we are causing global warming here and now which is causing climate change.

          We have sown the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

          • chet

            From my link below:

            "Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

            When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report"."

  • chet

    Holly questions the recency of the list (I believe it's been updated several times over since 2007).

    But here's an entire Japanese contigent now saying no to AGW from a year and change ago:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-sci…

    • chet

      The money quote:

      "Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

      When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report"."

      90%. That's, like, alot.

      Over to you Holly.

  • http://www.globalinstructor.com Teacher

    well someone better make sure he has all the documents by scientists regarding every planet in the solar system heating up .. not just ours before he decides to start this carbon tax hooey.. he seems rather intelligent so i hope he does all he says. .. research and advance only on proven problems.. not bandwagon the tax grabs all the other government bodies are rallying for.

    Good Luck! LOL

  • Emily

    If you're really a teacher, obviously it's not in science.

  • Thwim

    Myth #32

    Hey, at least you're out of the top ten of repeated debunked myths.

  • TJCook

    "before I get into this, allow me to talk with you briefly about the economy. But first, a word from our sponsor, Laramie Cigarettes:"

    You see, government regulations prohibit us from advertising on TV at taxpayers' expense.

    [ Inhales, Exhales ]

    Ahh.

    That sweet Carolina smoke.

    But they can't prohibit us from sponsoring a speech from one of our Cabinet Automatons and inserting party talking points into unrelated media coverage across the nation! What a feeling!

  • Thwim

    You got that feeling too, eh?

  • Holly Stick

    I thought that myth went out of fashion years ago. Whatsamatta – never heard of cosmic rays?

  • TimesArrow

    it was notably jarring wasn't it?

From Macleans