Skip to Content
vo-banner.jpg

(51) Comments

Occupy, the spearhead of the progressive “Liberal” movement makes no mention of CO2 in their list of demands because of IPCC’s demand for the bankster funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians and corporations and Obama has not mentioned the crisis in state of the unions. Even Julian Assange himself, our courageous modern day Socrates of truth had exposed the twisted political science of climate change crisis exaggeration. Canada voted in a Prime Minister to a majority and accused by all as being a climate change denier who then officially killed Y2Kyoto and nobody cared. Not even the millions of people in the global scientific community who only say a crisis “might” happen, and have never said any crisis “WILL” happen. Every single IPCC warning is qualified with a “potentially etc.” so how close to the edge of no return from unstoppable warming will science drag us before they finally say it “WILL” happen. Too late, they already said we are at the point of no return (maybe). Help, my planet is on fire, maybe?

Science agrees that; “climate change is real and happening and could possibly be (theyhaveneversaidWILLyet) a catastrophic climate crisis. Ya, like a little climate crisis is possible, outside of a Harry Potter movie. Science has never said any crisis will happen, only might happen. Deny that.

 

Tom Harris September 19th 2012 | 7:19 PM

I always get a chuckle out of excited graphs of anything to do with climate that start in 1979. Given that one needs 30 years of meteorological data to have one climate data point, the record cited in this piece is far too short to be meaningful from a climate perspective. Afterall, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s--was that a "death spiral" too? If so, then nature seems to recover nicely after such events.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

 

PB September 20th 2012 | 7:19 PM

Perhaps I missed it - but is there no mention of sea levels. If that much ice melts that fast... wouldn't sea levels rise, causing (abrupt) flooding and disaster? 

Bobbie Bees September 20th 2012 | 10:22 PM

Well, considering that I'll be dead in under 40 years, this really isn't an issue for me.
I've done what I can, can't do any more.
And it's probably time for the human race to become extinct. And even that probably won't be enough to save this planet. All of the toxins in the environment that will be around long after our species is gone will continue to herm this planet for ages to come.
Nope, sorry, the human race was the worst evolutionary branch that ever could have existed.

 

Peter Carter September 21st 2012 | 12:00 AM

Best article I have read covering the Arctic summer sea ice collapse. This is a catastrophic event to the planet by any definition.

 

The Arcrtic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) has been warning of this for over a year, calling for recognition of this Arctic climate planetary emergency.

Scientists call the summer sea ice the air conditioner of the Northern hemisphere (NH). Its loss is projected to increase NH drought, extreme weather, and climate variabiloity, and all have been increasing already.

 NH drought has been increasing for the past 15 years. We have had extreme drought in Europe, then Russia and now the US reducing crop yields. 

AMEG urges the emergency development of the capacity to cool the Arctic. They say if the summer sea ice is not maintained crop failue will increase as drought increases and Arctic methane feeedback emissions will escalate. Both Arctic albedo loss and methane increase will drive up global warming committing us to runaway climate change.  

The experts who rely on their computer models have yet to acknowledge the sea ice is collapsing and are not recommending anything- except more modeling. 

 

Will MacKinnon September 21st 2012 | 10:10 AM

This is the only article I have seen that addresses a fair number of the issues arrising from the loss of arctic sea ice due to antropogenic global warming induced climate change, that quotes scientists to the exclusion of pundants and doesn't seem to be bullied by Koch brothers money. Unfortunately based on the number of comments your readership is small. Thanks for the effort though, I will try to refrence this article in comments as frequently as possible.

Baruch September 21st 2012 | 6:18 PM

Arguing about graphs is a waste of time and a distraction. The ice is going away. That's real. Continuing to deny what's happening when it is actually visibly happening is not rational.

Seanoamericano September 21st 2012 | 7:19 PM

Anything ipcc is not worthy of consideration. Unless you are into falsafied data made up graphs and manbearpig.   

simon September 21st 2012 | 8:20 PM

Why are they still trying to sell this failed piece of propaganda,  is it not obvious that people arn't buying?  These people sound like Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, talking about Iran.

Nathan September 22nd 2012 | 1:01 AM
Tom Harris wrote:

I always get a chuckle out of excited graphs of anything to do with climate that start in 1979. Given that one needs 30 years of meteorological data to have one climate data point, the record cited in this piece is far too short to be meaningful from a climate perspective. Afterall, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s--was that a "death spiral" too? If so, then nature seems to recover nicely after such events.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

 

Hi Tom,

 Of course someone who is funded by Exxon is going to say that. Of course however, it's going to be wrong. Putting "science" in your organization doesn't suddenly give it credit. There is no debate, humans are the cause of global warming. 

Nathan

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147

 

 

chuck darwin September 22nd 2012 | 7:07 AM

From 1940's to 1970s the world was cooling down. In fact the first earth day in 1972 was concerned about a new ice age. Now we are concerned about the world warming. The proposed solutions remain the same, a global entity that can collect taxes worldwide and give directives that will actually affect the living conditions of humans in an adverse way.

Owen September 22nd 2012 | 8:20 PM

I think this is fascinating. My bedtime reading includes books on paleoclimatology and the fact that I might be able to witness massive changes to our environment in my lifetime is very cool.

Kevin D Brown September 23rd 2012 | 6:18 PM

...which is what most folks who so easily discount the science of climate change keep throwing out there.

Sea levels don't significantly change with Arctic sea ice melting, since most of the ice is already floating, with a very small percentage above the level of the water. This is why your drink doesn't overflow when the ice melts, even if you are a slow drinker. Say there was a hose in your glass from a glass full of ice next to yours, and it melted and flowed into your full glass. You will not only get some snickers from the others at the party, but you will neatly show why landbased ice, like most of the ice in the Antarctic, and in Greenland, will have an impact on sea levels. 

I followed the links provided by those who called the piece "propoganda" and found articles which call into question data on retreating sea ice due to the fact that in the 1930's there was less.

This proves nothing. There was a warm period in the 1930's. Many remember it. It was called the Dust Bowl in much of the dry farms of the West. It was a huge drought, it worsened the Crash of '29 and deepened the economy into depression. The data on warming since 1880 shows this bump in the curve; the warming experienced in 2010 was twice as high (compared to the 1901-2000 mean). What the argument coming from Tuscon tells me is that warming has happened in the past, and that impacts are variable in different parts of the world. This does nothing to account for the impacts of the 90 million tons of CO2 that we emit, every single day.

The IPCC has been corrected in their predictions by real events. This is true. The IPCC was cautious in their early estimates of impacts in the early days of computer modeling because they were cautious about alarming the public and the world with dire predictions of certain peril, without a confidence in their figures. This is good, and is a natural part of science.

There are two points here. First, climate science has now progressed to the point where many climate scientists - not paid pundits - are willing to say that the current pattern of extreme weather events, from floods to droughts to wildfires, are most certainly caused by human-caused global warming. The chances of such patterns of record-breaking storms, floods, droughts and heat events is NOT caused by people and pollutants is very small. It's one to roughly the number of stars in the universe.

Second, confusion about what constitutes fact, between science and politics and reality, is no good reason to suppose that we can continue to treat the Earth as one huge garbage dump, with no impact. The impacts of dumping huge quantities of global warming gases into the atmosphere are real, occuring and felt by millions.

You might be dead in 40 years, Bobbie, but we are seeing impacts today. You may not have 40 years to procrastinate further, despite all you have done in the past. You are only as good as your last picture show, as they say. Defeatism is about as useful as out and out denial. It cripples needed action. 

There is plenty that can be done, and plenty that we need to get done, in order to stabilize our climate. Action on climate change is largely the result of individuals and small groups changing their world; governments can and must get behind these efforts. And industry should follow the path that allows reasonable growth - last year invenstments in sustainable energy outstripped investments in coal, oil and gas.

 

Tom Harris September 23rd 2012 | 7:19 PM

Nathan provides a rather humourous sample of the sort of logical fallacy and ridiculous assertions those of us who dare question the holy gosple of Al Gore have to face all the time. I could write them out but, first, I ask what ones you see in his junvenile  attack.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

Winsy September 24th 2012 | 12:00 AM

As any Geoscientist or anyone that has studied Geography at a university level could tell you... we are still coming out of the last ice age. The Earth is doing what it's supposed to be doing. Granted, greenhouse gases probably speed up the process a bit, but it's awfully arrogant of people to think this is all due to something that we've done. 

Afterall, humans are also only animals. In the scope of the universe, humans are insignificant.

Go back to your desk, open your computer and do some more research. If you go back 500 million years, you will see that the Earth has done this very thing several times. The only difference this time is that there are humans around and they're scared about how it will effect them. There people go... Thinking of themselves again. 

God, I hate people...

Winchester73 September 24th 2012 | 12:12 PM

The best thing we can do is ignore this problem and it will go away.  Don't believe all these scientists - they've wasted their lives locked away in labs studying the ice - so what do they know about the real world???  Soon Jesus will return and clean up our mess for us - kind of like when we were kids and our mom came in and cleaned up our messy room.  

John F. Dunbar September 24th 2012 | 5:17 PM

It's an interesting game that scientists, journalists and, in the past government officials, have to play to report their work to the "General Public". They cannot take a chance that the crisis will be any less severe or progress any less quickly than they report or the "GP" will write off everything their research shows. So, they have to be ultra-conservative in their reporting so that the reality is much worse than they "estimated" and the "GP" will have no reason to reject their findings.

At first glance this seems like a fool's game because it does not give governments the real picture to use when planning. But governments were not going to do realistic planning in any case so why tell them the truth?

The hope is that when the reality of the situation becomes undeniably apparent, the shock will be so great that change may be possible. I hope that shock comes asap so the transition to a better world can begin. 

ST September 26th 2012 | 6:06 AM
chuck darwin wrote:

From 1940's to 1970s the world was cooling down. In fact the first earth day in 1972 was concerned about a new ice age. Now we are concerned about the world warming. The proposed solutions remain the same, a global entity that can collect taxes worldwide and give directives that will actually affect the living conditions of humans in an adverse way.

A quick summary glance at papers published in this period shows the vast majority still predicted global warming and only a small percentage of scientists were investigating the possibility of cooling.  The only hype on cooling in this period is yellow journalism--you seem to be very good at this yourself.

Not only that but we have technologies now upon which to gather data that simply didn't exist in the 70's.  Your argument makes as much sense as saying that all cancer research now must be wrong because it wasn't that far along in the 1970s.

 

 

dennis baker January 2nd 2013 | 12:12 PM

Regardless of the clear and present danger (You) still don't advocate the replacement of fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities. Why ?

 In my opinion



We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!

At a scale required to accomplish this task :

Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.

Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.

Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option

Solar uses food land : Not a viable option

Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option



All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html

The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.

Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.

Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .

Reducing illness / health care costs as well !



Dennis Baker
Penticton BC V2A1P9

dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Susan Eyre January 4th 2013 | 3:15 PM

When the disaster comes to you,fire, flood, landslide, drought -how will you fare? Will you have a source of drinkable water, food to eat, shelter? Will you do anything now to increase your chances of survival? Do you care about anyone elses' survival?

Do you live in awe of the Miracle of Life - do you acknowledge that your existence here- is simply the luck of the draw?

Humility is called for.

Witnessing climate change in the same area for 60 years -we conclude that climate change is real and poses signifigant danger to the natural system that sustains us. Therefore decreasing the accelerants of global climate change is a wise action. Humans are a very adaptable -we are capable of changing to safer systems to energize ourselves. Much of what we think we need to consume is clutter. When a person is at deaths' door, priorities become clear. The sweet Miracle of Life and all the wonder and love it provides is #1. Time to come home to reality money lusters.

Max Douglas January 4th 2013 | 5:17 PM

..but we won't.

 

Tom Harris wrote:

I always get a chuckle out of excited graphs of anything to do with climate that start in 1979. Given that one needs 30 years of meteorological data to have one climate data point, the record cited in this piece is far too short to be meaningful from a climate perspective. Afterall, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s--was that a "death spiral" too? If so, then nature seems to recover nicely after such events.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

 

John Carter January 6th 2013 | 5:17 PM

from ICSC's website.  See any contradiction here?  Is this statement about how pathetic they are as fundraisers or is there something of a contradiction here?

"Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has never received financial support from corporations, foundations or governments.

While we welcome contributions from all sources, including corporations, foundations and government, and are actively soliciting support,...[blah, blah]."

http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=510

John Carter January 6th 2013 | 5:17 PM

Tom Harris writes:
Nathan provides a rather humourous sample of the sort of logical fallacy and ridiculous assertions those of us who dare question the holy gosple of Al Gore have to face all the time. I could write them out but, first, I ask what ones you see in his junvenile  attack.

OK we go directly from "holy gosple of Al Gore" to talking about other people's "junvenile" attacks.  Hmmmm.  Mechanical engineering.  Dude, hire a shill who can spell.  Unless, hmmm.

Cole Haley February 9th 2013 | 8:20 PM

Arrogant humans (reporters and so-called scientists rather) trying to say that we have caused this melting of the polar ice caps... How then do they explain the fact that EVERY other planet in the solar system is undergoing the SAME 'warming'????

This is just a ploy to TAX 'carbon' and spray us with toxic chemicals in the name of "geo-engineering' among other destructive and money making scams...

ken February 9th 2013 | 10:22 PM

well, you can thank ignorant ppl for this. no one reads the classics anymore, n no one rlly cares to. americans, and most all other countries ppl, have become superficial n selfish. god is nature maybe, and we's about to get no vasiline.

Bill Clough February 10th 2013 | 7:07 AM
Tom Harris wrote:

I always get a chuckle out of excited graphs of anything to do with climate that start in 1979. Given that one needs 30 years of meteorological data to have one climate data point, the record cited in this piece is far too short to be meaningful from a climate perspective. Afterall, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s--was that a "death spiral" too? If so, then nature seems to recover nicely after such events.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

 



Tom Harris: I get a chuckle when an "expert" or someone with a lofty title like "Executive Director" cannot spell simple words. Maybe you would have an ounce of credibility if you could spell "EXISTENT." From observation I have learned that someone who cannot even spell or cannot take the time to use a dictionary is, more often than not, a shoddy researcher.

Paul Coughlin February 10th 2013 | 5:17 PM

Why does the only answer to global warming from all the alarmists seem to be some sort of global carbon tax??  I'm not even sure who is supposed to get the money, or what it is supposed to be used for.

Glen February 10th 2013 | 11:23 PM
Tom Harris wrote:

I always get a chuckle out of excited graphs of anything to do with climate that start in 1979. Given that one needs 30 years of meteorological data to have one climate data point, the record cited in this piece is far too short to be meaningful from a climate perspective. Afterall, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s--was that a "death spiral" too? If so, then nature seems to recover nicely after such events.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

 

Its amazing that people (or puppets) like you swath in your own self taught ignorance, and then pass it on instead of trying toe HELP and prevent human errors, if you are what your tiel says, you SIR are an idiot and should be removed from any public figure or teaching facilty.