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.

Faux Green vs. Faux Green

Alright already.

Conservatives: You mocked anyone who tried to give a damn about the environment but changed your tune just a few months ago when public opinion shifted against you on the environment file.

Liberals: You had the chance to try to change our behaviour towards the environment and you barely lifted a finger.

Conclusion: YOU'VE BOTH SUCKED since 1993 on this issue. Can you all now admit your mistakes, quit your sniping, and move on to doing something actually constructive?

"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...

A law for every household; a helmet on every head

I was going to comment at length about the excessiveness of calling for mandatory helmets for tobogganing kids, to be enforced by law (?!), because of recent tragic children deaths from head injuries. The fact that half of the unfortunate deaths were car-related (DON'T TOBOGGAN ONTO OPEN ROADS!) and the very low-risk activity that it actually is seem to have been lost to the discussion.

If each parent talked to their kids a bit more about personal responsibility and playing safely, I'm sure this issue will go away, along with the ridiculous government overreach.

The up and downsides to reading well-written blogs daily is that they often beat you to the punch, and usually respond better to the issue.

Little Mosque back-patting

As I noted in the comments here, I expected that the second week of "Little Mosque on the Prairie" would draw in about 1.2 million viewers. What was the magical number that the CBC reported?

1.2 million viewers.

If only guessing right actually got me anything but a smidgen of honour and glory. Oh well. I must say though, the second episode did improve, except for the 'hit-over-your-head' blatant jokes about hockey and such. Those were still really bad.

I'm looking forward to the third episode, except it gets pre-empted tonight by the NHL All-Star Game and returns on Jan. 31. With the novelty wearing off and a missed week, the question is whether it will keep consistent viewership numbers from next week onward.

Tales from the Bookstore I: So we've narrowed it down to...it was signed.

Customer: I'm looking for a book.

Me: Okay.

Customer: It's a novel. I don't remember the name of the author or the title. It's kinda scary. I saw it in one of your other stores and the author had signed it...

Me: Okay...so it's either Mystery or Horror.

Customer: That's all I know about it.

Me: Right...Do you recall anything about the plot?

Customer: Umm, I think it had to do with some murder and they were trying to solve it. The author had signed the book.

Me: (*Thinking* So that's pretty much every Mystery novel ever written...good.)

Customer: The author's only written this book and nothing else.

Me: Okay, so is it a hardcover.

Customer: No, it wasn't that but bigger than these ones.

Me: So it was a trade paperback.

Customer: Yeah, maybe. I remember the cover was shiny. I just remember seeing signed copies in the other store.

Me: (*Thinking* I give up. I've officially lost interest.)

Winter's arrived...

Photo courtesy Torontoist

...and it took its sweet time! I definitely missed the sound of snow crunching beneath my feet.

The iPhone: Everyone's talking about it...

...but not everyone will be able to talk with it. If you haven't heard about the iPhone, then you must have NO (or very, very little) access to mass media whatsoever.

A nice, comprehensive review of it can be found from Chrominance.

Little Mosque on the Prairie review

eh. it was okay. Some jokes were well-delivered...some weren't. As I told my friend Elaine, it has potential, but I hope they don't run out of jokes after this episode. I guess we'll all find out if the next few episodes get better, or whether they'll end up re-hashing the same territory.

Between 6.5 and 7 out of 10.

First (substantive) snowfall!

Hopefully it will last, but I doubt it with the weather we've been having.

Who falls for these things anyways?

via Kottke

This link is somewhat old, so bear with me. You know those emails from various African countries claiming to want to smuggle out millions of dollars and they need YOUR help to do it, which you will be handsomely compensated? Aside from the complete immorality of helping some corrupt official impoverish an already impoverished nation, you could smell the stink of scam coming off these emails from a mile away. I didn't think anyone could fall for these things.

Oh, How I'm SO wrong. (Of course, I understand that these scams wouldn't exist if no one fell for it, but still...)

Little Mosque on the Prairie

There've been a lot of press coverage on a new CBC half-hour comedy debuting next Tuesday (Jan. 9) at 830pm EST. Why? Because it's a show starring Muslims about Muslims in Canada.

Titled, "Little Mosque on the Prairie" (get it?), one of the actors commented that it may be getting a lot of press solely because the title might make people think it's going to be overtly political and controversial, while the actors and those involved say it's just a simple sitcom: think "Corner Gas", but with a mosque and not a gas station.

Hopefully, it'll be just as funny. And if it is as funny as hyped, that'll be TWO comedies set in the Prairies...who said there was nothing worthwhile out there.

I'll be watching it. I hope you will too.

Crazy Bookshoppers, a series?

So Angela had noticed that I hadn't posted in a very long time and wanted stories about crazy bookshoppers.

There have been some...interesting shoppers, and few come to mind, but I want to save those for the next few posts, since they deserve their own. No names, no locations. Nothing. If I get fired from Chapters because of this blog, it'd be funny, sad and lame all at the same time.

Suffice it to say, shoppers are messy. Chapters encourage this because we allow people to browse. During the holiday season, it just becomes worse. People are more demanding about wanting the material but at the same time other people are inconsiderate with the way they handle the material. They work against themselves. When I have to pick up coffee cups and used tissues from the shelves, that just frustrates me. Thus, people on my MSN lists have been on the receiving end of very terse messages about Chapters customers as part of my name.

I'm glad it's slowly returning to normal volumes of customers. Though It also means that employees have to once again be a bit more persuasive about making that sale, so back to something that I know is part of my job that I'm okay at but uncomfortable with at times.

Gives me one more reason to finish my thesis more quickly.

Filler Material

The novelty of working at Chapters has definitely worn off with the end of the holiday retail season. Much has happened and less is happening.

Now that my work hours are being reduced, I can work on my thesis again. That also means time for my side-project on a rails-to-trails report. It also means less time for blogging. Lot of interesting things are happening but nothing blog-worthy. I'll have to keep a more vigilant eye.

I also noticed less personal blogging about me, hence this post. Being in a constant state of fatigue isn't fun, but after reading "Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures", I realize of course, that this is nothing. Though the story about Dr. Chen falling asleep while driving and the things he does to keep himself awake resonated with me because I do the exact same things (pinch self, slap face, sing loudly and badly)...maybe it's universal.

One thing about Chapters though. It's forced me to read more, which is great. Being introduced to so many new books, but it also means there are many I want to buy, but can't, many I want to read, but don't have time to. There's always a catch.

But of the books I've read that I want to recommend, it's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "The Dodecahedron or A Frame for Frames" by Paul Glennon. I've read at least seven books since I started and those two are by far my favourite. The former a non-fiction and the latter a fiction, so a recommendation for both sides of the aisle, I guess

That's a Joseph Heller if I ever saw one

You can't win with some people.

First, Mark C. agrees with Ezra Levant that a PM candidate, like Stephane Dion would be if a general election is ever called, should only hold one citizenship:

"Unlike the GG, M. Dion did not actively apply for French nationality...Nonetheless, he should renounce French citizenship "

I can accept that statement if that's what he expects of any leader of Her Majesty's opposition or Prime Minister or a Governors General.

But then Mark C. turns around and mocks the renunciation of French citizenship from Stephane Dion because that's what people like Mark C. expected of him:

"So, Citoyen Dion, you have family feelings that are so important to your identity. But if it becomes a question of power, tant pis pour maman. Eiskalt.

The pragmatic egoist. The tears, count 'em."

Sir, I say sir, that's dishonest.

You can, however, win with other people.

Free! It's all FREE!

Via Declan AND Kung Fu Monkey,

A guide to free software that allows you to replace most standard productivity software that you would have to sell an arm for, like Microsoft Office, Photoshop, iTunes (well, this one's already free, but if you want to be free from the clutches of the big and scary Apple Corp. too...), etc.

Everyone likes Free.

Apparently, third place is where you want to be.

On a strange saturday night, two candidates came from third place to win their respective leaderships.

First, Ed Stelmach came from behind to defeat Jim Dinning and Ted Morton to become the premier-designate of Alberta and the leader of the provincial Progressive Conservatives.

I've read very little of Stelmach, so I'll have to start learning more into Alberta politics if I end up working in Calgary. I probably won't agree with many of his positions, but if I can respect his principles and he's less reactionary than Ralph Klein, then I can live with that.

Second, Stephane Dion came from behind to beat the two frontrunners of the Federal Liberal Party, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, respectively, and become the Leader of the Opposition.

As for Dion, he's pledged his platform around the concept of Sustainable Development, except he actually seems to know what he's talking about when he uses the three pillars: economic, social and environmental sustainability. If he can actually form a coherent platform from this, using help from the likes of Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay, it might actually make me consider voting for the Liberals in future elections.

He has two weaknesses that I care about: his failure to do accomplish anything with Kyoto when he was in government. And his lack of a sound foreign policy strategy. I hope he can correct these two flaws (well, the former really requires an admittance of failure while the latter will be a bit tougher...)

Either way, the surge in support for the Green Party in the London by-election and the election of Dion has sparked a small flame of optimism in me about the possible future direction in Canadian politics.

One step forward, two steps back

CBC to revive hour-long local/regional newscasts for 6pm.