Thursday, July 31, 2008

The lighter side of global warming.

By that I mean the fact that Ellesmere Island is several thousand tons lighter today. A chunk of ice 20 square kilometres across broke off. On the show today, I included that with the weather. After all, it really is a weather issue, isn't it? It'd be nice if, during the everyday, "weird weather we're having" conversations that take place at boring workplaces the world over, people might include the "giant ice chunk missing from our arctic" weather news as well as the "geez this rain has really made my lawn grow fast" weather talk. But this isn't the point here. The point is that in every story I read about this event, there was one thing that was consistent:

"Scientists involved are being coy about using the GW words"

"Derek Mueller, a researcher at Trent University in Ontario, was careful not to blame global warming."

"did not blame the Ward Hunt breakup specifically on climate change, but said it was consistent with the theory"

This is one of the few quotes I could find that actually suggested, factually, that global warming clearly was the cause of the ice break-off. It's from a scientist named Will Steger, who has spent 45 years traveling the Arctic and advising on solutions to the climate crisis:

"With more frequent reports about the break-up of the multiyear ice, it is evident that long-term thaw of Arctic ice has begun. That process is further accelerated by the melting ice and snow, revealing sea water and darker ground that absorbs the sun's rays instead of reflecting them.
"As an eyewitness to the changing topography of the Arctic, I was stunned to see the rapid repercussions of global warming for the region, its wildlife habitat and indigenous cultures. Swift loss of sea ice will considerably alter the landscape of the Polar regions as we know it."

So, what's going on? Is there such a backlash now against using the words "global warming" that even the scientists who know it's fact won't say the words? For fear that a bunch of people will start yelling "propaganda" and "screw Al Gore" and all that other nonsense? Because global warming has been so successfully positioned as a "theory", and not as a "fact" by the naysayers that now you have to print it this way in papers? The way you have to print "alleged murderer", or "suspect" when a guy kills three people in front of forty-four witnesses? I think this may be the case. People are now "careful not to use the GW words". And that can only be because of those people ready to leap on the statement and trash the guy who DID use the "GW words". Well, I'll use them. This breakup of ice in Canada's arctic occurred because of global warming. Now, go discuss it at your water coolers.


  1. First of all they should avoid the GW phrase. By using it you get lumped in with all the people who have "proven" it. Nobody has. Only computer models. Their computer models leave out some key considerations. Like for instance the Sun. You may have heard of it. It's the big ball of fire in the sky responsible for warming the planet in the first place. OK, so it's getting warmer. But why? CO2? Probably a very small contributor. Not all scientists agree. Not even close. But to publicly not agree is heresy. So scientists with other theories that warrant consideration don't come forward because they will be called quacks. Time will likley show who the real quacks are. Remember it was only 30 or so years ago these same people told us we were heading to another ice age. Puleeez. Next you're gonna tell me some wanker story about GM killing the electric car or the oil companies suppressing the 100 mile per gallon carburetor.

  2. That's terrific. You clearly agree the planet IS getting warmer. Which means that you agree Global Warming IS taking place. Now, whether we lay the blame at the feet of CO2 or "The Sun", that doesn't change the fact that global warming is clearly happening. So...what's the plan then? We wait 30 years to find out who was right and who wasn't? And suppose 30 years from now, we find out it actually was just "The Sun". Whew! Thank God we didn't do anything about this! Or suppose we find out it actually WAS CO2, and by extension us. Oh dear. Too bad we didn't do anything about this. Oh well, at least now we know who was right.

    I also enjoy this backlash against global warming science, (which is so political in nature). These scientists must be quacks because it affects my life to think otherwise. And yet, global warming science explains the destruction of the polar ice caps, the melting of the permafrost, the rise in frequency and force of tropical storms, the destabilization of local climates, and glacier thinning in the Andes, the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayas, among many, many other things. And those who consider the science of global warming to be a bunch of bunk cooked up by hundreds of thousands of "quacks" are able to prove that...the overall theory of man-made global warming isn't 100 percent proven...

  3. It hasn't been ONE HUNDRED per cent proven, just more than 90%.

    Third paragraph.

    I find it funny that they're afraid to blame global warming when it's VERY LIKELY (more than ninety percent) that more CO2 emissions are the cause of it.

  4. They said 20 is it square kilometers of ice broke off. Did you know that over 2 million square kilometers of new artic ice was formed last winter. Yes the earth is getting warmer as it should is it because of co2 don't know could it be because the rotation of the Earth slow's down who knows it is said that eventually the rotation will equal a month of daylight who knows for sure? Man or woman should spend the next 20,000 or so years that this Earth still has actively looking for a new planet to spoil instead of debating who is right or wrong.