Anything BUT "hot air"

Ever since the issue of climate change burst onto the scene in recent years, there have been a deluge of books tackling the subject, from various perspectives, often with overheated rhetoric about the plight of what our actions towards the planet (and its subsequent effects on our daily lives) (See Heat by George Monbiot, or Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers") or the almost-complete denial of the issue being a big deal (*cough* Bjorn Lomborg, *cough).

Since climate change is a global phenomenon, these books take a global perspective. There wasn't really a book that analyzed it from a Canadian perspective.

Until now. I've just finished reading Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Daccard and Nic Rivers' "Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge" and I rarely say this, but this book should be required reading for everyone who acknowledges that climate change is a major issue in Canada. Here's why.

If you're a climate change denier, this book's won't convince you otherwise. It assumes climate change is happening and briefly summarizes the issue and science in one or two brief chapters so it wouldn't be too convincing. Its focus isn't the science, but the complete failure by our successive governments to be serious and committed to dealing with this problem, starting with the Mulroney government and ending right up to the Harper government.

It's saved its most scathing critique for the Chretien/Martin era, when they committed Canada (through Kyoto) to a difficult target, and then only set up voluntary measures, subsidies and as he said it on this morning's CBC show, "exhortations" as means to get Canadian involved. We all know how well THAT turned out. Instead of getting us 6% below 1990 levels, we were ABOVE by 25-26%.

And while they're less mean on Harper, they show how he and his government were completely blindsided the first time around (when Rona Ambrose, then Environment minister, became the sacrificial lamb) because throughout the 90s, they never believed in climate change anyhow. Smelling the political air changing, they quickly cobbled together a plan that was only slightly better than Dion's plan, with one major difference: The implementation of a mandatory emissions cap.

Their book is therefore bi-partisan in its critique, at the Liberals for failing to do ANYTHING, and at the conservatives for failing to believe in the issue. They also take swipes at the environmental movement, who've dogmatically regarded the Kyoto Protocol as the planet's sole saviour, and the Canadian business community, for being so antagonistic about dealing with this issue.

And this is where environmentalists might disagree with them but I agree wholeheartedly. KYOTO'S DEAD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE TARGETS IF OUR LIVES DEPENDED ON IT. MOVE ON.

While this doesn't mean that Harper should join that ludicrous "Asia-Pacific Partnership" (which by the way, has no compulsory components whatsoever, so voluntary targets will work SO WELL in Canada, as we've seen...), it does mean that our government (on both sides of the House) need to be adults and acknowledge that they've failed the public and the world community on this issue and that amends need to be made.

Their solutions are straightforward: Carbon tax, emissions cap, tradeable certificates, and carbon sequestration. Most of these would be compulsory, market-driven mechanisms aimed mainly at heavy emitters and energy producers. This does not mean they'll target Alberta (as Albertans are SO scared about that), as they show how different components can alleviate concerns but also reflect the fact that the Oil and Gas's newfound wealth has a cost that should be fairly paid. The carbon tax and the tradeable certificates would be the two that would really affect the individual.

None of these mechanisms will be very palatable, if only because the Canadian public hasn't completely accepted that our current lifestyle has a emissions cost that has yet to be paid. Their solutions are the first steps towards everyone accepting this cost.

While many people may not like using policy to change behaviour, we've seen that we won't do it voluntarily. We're all a part of this problem. It's time we be forced to do something about it.


P.S. Amazon customers are SO OFF BASE in that those who've bought "Hot Air" are buying books that pretty much deny the existence of climate change. Boy are they going to be disapointed. If anyone ACTUALLY wants to read a good book on the science of climate change, read Elizabeth Kolbert's "Field Notes From a Catastrophe".

Wrong doesn't even begin to describe it Pt. II

I was hoping to be able to stop from posting on Climate Change, as already done HERE and HERE.

But once again, we have another fine piece of reporting from Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun.

And while The Sun is noted for its journalistic excellence by SO MANY Torontonians, I just had to comment on it b/c his readership is so much bigger than mine and I wish it was oh, I don't know, accurate.

First, this comment:

"Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven."

Hmmm, could he be using a rhetorical device to link global warming (Hi, this is 2007, the accurate term is actually climate change, but welcome to the 1990s) to another supposed disputed scientific controversy (that shouldn't be disputed at all, by the way)....*cough* evolution *cough*. Sorry, I had a piece of antarctic ice core stuck in my throat. I would LOVE to know if he's read ANY of the many scientific papers that's been released on the changing climate that point to this serious issue. Because those thousands of papers couldn't possibly actually weigh as much as an anchor, could it?

"The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a “Summary for Policymakers” which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters."

UN spinmeisters, eh? well, let's see. I've addressed the authors debacle previously, both the number of scientists (2500 are the REVIEWERS, not the authors) and who they are. And while I said I addressed this issue already, it's kind of fun. Here's a list of the authors from the 2001 IPCC climate change report. Now, the 2007 list of authors isn't released yet, but judging from the 2001 list, I'm sure what they'll have done this time around is fire the whole lot of them and replaced them with geneticists, environmentalists and the boogeyman (I've been told he's on the UN payroll too).

If you can't be bothered to get these little pieces of information right, which are readily available on the IPCC main page, and found within seconds of googling "IPCC", then don't bother writing it. I wonder if he did ANY research on this, or whether all he did was watch Larry King Live, which, I've been told, is a bastion of truth and knowledge.

Maybe they were premature in releasing the summary before the final report was ready to be published, but that's not to say that they won't release a much larger volume that goes into detail what their research shows. Again, from the IPCC site, the final report is 4 volumes long. Count it with me. FOUR. Is that enough for you Mr. Worthington? Probably not, because you wouldn't read it anyways because it's not 'scientific enough'.

"Talk of “consensus” in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided."

"Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of “consensus.” Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens’ bodies."

If the scientists were just sitting around the coffee table making stuff up and agreeing that it's true then yes, consensus would be nonsense. However, when they're doing independent research and testing their hypotheses gathering information, affirming that their results are in agreement with each other, that's a whole different story. And no, consensus isn't always a compromise. It can be, just not every time.

And apparently, any scientists working for the IPCC are now puritans too. Just wanted to let you know in case Mr. Worthington wasn't clear enough.

"Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who’ve been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC."

And yet, Mr. Worthington couldn't give his readers one example of who those scientists that Prof. Lindzen talked about were. Didn't he watch the show? He couldn't have jotted one name down? Prof. Lindzen is a 'genuine scientist', but all those people writing for the IPCC? They're clearly not because they don't hold tenure or publish papers in scientific journals. They're merely genetics-quoting hippies. Yep. That's clearly who they are.

As for the "Friends of Science" website. I'll let DeSmogBlog take it over from here, who've catalogued the supposed 'expertise' of this group.

"Predicting climate change is more than computerized models — and far more complex than predicting the weather change — which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week."

"Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it’s man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet."

I'm so tired of pointing this out. Really. Predicting any complex system is...wow, complex. So does that mean we shouldn't try? And it's not like these computer models are based on variables pulled out of thin air. It's using historical data and trying to infer what will likely happen. Yes, there's uncertainty but there's uncertainty in any model. Again, my point is not to disparage economics, but why is it that uncertainty in economic forecasts are much more accepted than say, climate change predictions? Both are large complex systems, both use mathematical and computer models to predict behaviour, so why is the risks in one more accepted than another?

On the other hand I totally know where he got his information on carbon dioxide from. A very reputable scientific source, I'm just saying. I'll let RealClimate do the heavy lifting on this one.

Finally,

"As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life."

Yes, all those people who live in low-lying coastal areas who may get flooded from sea level increases due to melted ice caps will be SO MUCH more comfortable.

Alright, I'm done. I'm going to back to sleep, where it's a Mr. Worthington-free world and it actually makes sense.

P.S. A much more compelling reaad is Pheton's Reins, by MIT professor Kerry Emanuel.

More Climate Change fun.

Apparently, the Fraser Institute released an "Independent Summary Report for PolicyMakers" (ISPM) in response to the IPCC's Summary Report for PolicyMakers (SPM). As much as I would enjoy refuting the ISPM (I really wouldn't), both RealClimate and DeSmogBlog already beat me to the punch. Which is fine, because they actually probably would've had more fun doing it than me.

Though once again, I'm sure contrarians will believe the 10 authors of the ISPM moreso than the 1250 authors and 2500 reviewers. Because, if anyone's tried to get consensus within a small group knows, it's nigh-impossible. You get this large group of scientists to agree about one thing, and it's clearly they're ALL crazy and lying about the consensus, right?!

Wrong doesn't even begin to describe it.

I don't want to say that I'm better than the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal, but did they even read the recently released IPCC Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM)?

Two easy examples:

"The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions."

Written BY policymakers? It was written FOR policymakers. I've read Jonathan Overpeck's (one of the authors) papers in a class on Global Environmental Change. He's a scientist, not a policymaker. Google any of the other names and you'll find them to be scientists.

"More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming."

"Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction."

Now, 17 inches is 0.4318m. In the IPCC SPM report's Table SPM-2, they used 6 different scenarios to predict what the projected sea level rise would be by 2100 (technically 2099). According to this, the lowest project rise to the highest projected rise will be between 0.18 to 0.59m. That's 7.08 inches to 23.22 inches. Whether almost two feet is vastly different from the three feet is up to you. It's still not the 17 inches that they publish as the 'high end'. Now there's only one other place where the number 17 comes up:

"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century. The total 20th century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m. {5.5}"

Now, I'm not saying that's exactly where they got it from, but I have no other explanation for how they came up with that number, except that this Lord Monckton is wrong, in which case, the Wall Street Journal should stop quoting him.

I was going to write more about their inaccuracies with the supposed 'dispute' over the Mann et al. article, but RealClimate (a blog published by climate scientists), have enough rebuttal points HERE and HERE. Just checking now, they've also posted a response to this editorial HERE.

My final point is based on this:

"The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change. It can be hard to keep one's head when everyone else is predicting the Apocalypse, but that's all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the actual science."

I agree that we should keep cool and focus on the science. It's just too bad they haven't. This summary, plus the final report coming out in May, was written by 450 scientific authors with input by another 800+ contributing authors and peer-reviewed by another 2500 scientists. And they're ALL telling us the same thing. What more do they want? Again, have one scientific paper (Soon and Bailunas comes to mind) that calls into question climate change BUT has refuted on a scientific basis, and the whole science is called into question. Have a report written, read and edited by thousands of scientists (because surprise, climate change has so many complex factors that you need oceanologists, paleoclimatologists, atmospheric scientists etc. to weigh in on the forcings and the impacts) and it's "ONLY a contribution to the warming debate".

You can't win. You just can't win.

"I will do the next best thing...block it out..."

"Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun."

When real policy imitates the Simpsons, you know it's a bad idea...