MP's climate-change stance misguided

Rob Leggett
By Rob Leggett
October 28th, 2009

To see the column Rob is responding to,  click here

This December, representatives from around the world will be invading Copenhagen for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change and, much to the displeasure of MP Alex Atamanenko, Canada may be going without a plan for greenhouse gas reductions.

In a move that I consider appropriate, given the most recent research, Liberal and Conservative MPs passed a motion that will delay the Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) from passing in the House of Commons.

Atamanenko charges that the Conservatives and Liberals are ignoring the pleas of Canadians to address the serious impacts of climate change; but I would like to ask the MP, given the current scientific data, what are the serious impacts of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming is…is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is man made? It turns out that those who claim consensus do not explicitly state what that it is. If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate, then I would even have to include myself in that consensus, but too often it is only some vague, fill-in-the-blank implied assumption.

The public has been given the mistaken impression that a lot of research has gone into the study of alternative explanations of the so-called AGW.

There has not!

In fact, people are amazed when I tell them there has been practically no research into other possible causes, such as the very plausible explanation of natural climate cycles.

What’s more, they are equally surprised to learn that the hottest recorded year was not 2008, nor was it 2007 … it wasn’t even in the last decade. The surprise is because they are being handfed misleading information that makes them believe that the climate is warming on a daily basis.

It comes as a relief that scientist are finally starting to re-examine all the data available and not blindly following the herd. Scientists, like Dr. William Harper, who supervised all Department of Energy work on climate change, and 650 other prominent international scientists (including both former and current United Nations International Panel on Climate Change scientists) are challenging the claims made by the 52 scientists who authorized the IPPC’s report.

The truth of AGW is that current data leads to the conclusion that the IPCC’s models are not only wrong, but they are so off-the-mark as to be ridiculous.

According to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), the global surface temperature, which they update and publish every month, “has shown no statistically significant global warming for almost 15 years, however statistically significant global cooling has now persisted for nearly eight years”.

More significant still, the SPPI states, “the ARGO bathythemometers deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms, where it is agreed that at least 80 per cent of all heat caused by global warming must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years”.

Even the IPPC’s assertion that AGW is causing the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers around the world seems to be just as erroneous under the new findings by scientists.

There has been reported glacial growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss, as well as in Canada, California, New Zealand and most recently Norway, and the flow rate of many glaciers has also declined.

It comes as no surprise that the main stream media has failed to mention that, while none of the IPPC models predicted it, the sea ice around Antarctica has increased by 43 per cent since the 1950s. The interior ice is also increasing, but it is not due to warmer temperatures, as the IPPC models have predicted but because, according to NOAA GISS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies) data, temperatures have actually fallen by one degree Fahrenheit, with the coldest year being 2004.

Even the AGW scaremongers’ poster children – the polar bear and Al Gore – betray them.

Despite what has been said, the actuality of the plight of the polar bear seems to be that their numbers have increased dramatically since the 1950s; and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has suffered from such incidents as the British court ruling that nine significant errors had to be corrected prior to the movie being allowed to be viewed in British schools.

There is so much more information available, like NASA’s recorded data of the sun’s cyclic increase and decrease of sun spots which respectively warms and cools our planet or the natural climate cycles of the planet that have been accuring repeatedly for the last 10,000 years, than I am not able to cover in only one column.

I urge everyone to research the so-called AGW before hoping onto the bandwagon and joining in the hysteria caused by faulty science.

Our politicians in Ottawa are choosing to do this; many scientists around the world are now doing this, so why shouldn’t we, given what the most current data has shown to be really happening, be doing this?

And to those that insist on keeping on with the hysteria, such as Atamanenko, I will ask again, given the current scientific data, what are the climate impacts of AGW?

‘Cause I don’t see any.

Categories: Op/Ed


9°C Overcast Clouds

Other News Stories