In case you hadn’t noticed, the phenomenon known as, “A Canadian Winter”, died, six years ago during the mild winter of 2011-2012.
This is the cover of the March 26, 2012 issue of MACLEAN’S, and it says: “Coast to coast, we’ve had the warmest temperatures with the least snow in 65 years. Why we may never have a real Canadian winter again.”
And then having been filled with false hope, just 2 years later, reality, as it has a tendency to do, jerked the rug out from under us. With no apparent embarrassment, on March 13, 2014, MACLEAN’S published an article describing the winter that Canadians and Americans had just endured. The headline reads: “The Winter that Ruined Everything.”
It continues: “It broke records, kneecapped the economy, and showed us how ill-prepared Canada is for a future of extreme weather.” Notice the sly switch from global warming to “extreme weather”. Again, here’s the link. I did some research and discovered that we’d had lots of worse winters in the past. Actually, I’m old enough to remember lots of worse winters.
The article is a fun read if you’re into irony, but be aware that MACLEAN’S would like to have you believe that 100 years ago a tough winter was a natural event, but now it’s a climate catastrophe, and it’s caused by you.
Snow is snow, and minus 30 is minus 30, but snow and minus 30 are worse now, and it’s your fault! And of course, mild winters are also, your fault.
Europe had a bad 2013-2014 winter as well. Here’s a link to an article that tells us just how bad. As required by orthodoxy, it states that it could have been caused by climate change. But then it includes this telling line. “The results, published this week in the Journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggest the 2013-2014 winter storm season was the most energetic in nearly 70 years. I think that means that they had worse storms in the 1940s. Before SUVs. Imagine that!
This wildly ridiculous media coverage of climate would be quite entertaining – and that’s all it would be – except it’s costing us a lot of money, and diverting our attention from serious issues, like real pollution for instance, and food distribution challenges, and the psychological abuse of children by Progressivist left-wing ideologues.
The stupidity will end, only when enough of us, say, “Enough!”
Inform yourself and get involved. Write letters. Join a political party, and support organizations that strictly follow a scientific and logical approach to every issue. We often promote them.
Mr. Leonard quoted statistics going all the way back to 1980, 40 years ago, which is probably longer than he’s been alive, so anything happening before that apparently is irrelevant.
But since the United States has good statistics going well back into the 1800s, I wrote him the following letter.
January 11, 2017
New York Times, op-ed Department
Dear Mr. Leonard
I’ve just read your January 11 column on climate change and storm frequency, and in it you have the following two paragraphs, and I quote: “This week, the National Centers for Environmental Information — a federal agency that bills itself as the nation’s scorekeeper for extreme weather — released a ranking of the worst years for damaging storms since 1980. At the top of the list was 2017, and it wasn’t even close.”
And again: “Not every year is going to set a record, thank goodness, but the trend is clear. The six worst years since 1980 have all occurred since 2004.”
The data clearly shows that 2017 was 17th in US history in terms of lives lost. It is first in terms of inflation-adjusted property damage, but to be truly meaningful, that figure must be further adjusted for the huge increase in population, and therefore, far greater amount of property that is in the path of recent hurricanes.
So next I Googled for population statistics and found that in 1900, Florida’s population was approximately 500,000. Just 100 years later, in 2000 it was 16 million, or 32 times larger, with the attendant massive increase in housing and businesses.
In 1900, the Houston/Galveston area population was about 80,000. In 2000, it was nearly 6 million, or 75 times larger, again with the attendant increase in the numbers of homes and businesses. A storm hitting a population concentration 30 to 75 times larger obviously has the potential to do 30 to 75 times as much damage. Examined on that basis, 2017 was a fairly middling year for hurricanes, lives lost, and property damage.
In light of the recent snowfall and cold in the US Northeast, I did some more research and found that 8 of the 10 worst blizzards in US history happened before 1980 – to use your starting point – and most of them occurred before 1960 when human caused CO2 emissions apparently began wreaking havoc on the climate. In fact the worst blizzard in US history was in 1888, and it dropped up to 60 inches of snow, with winds creating drifts in excess of 50 feet, or 15 m. 400 people died.
So, as a journalist, your selection of statistics beginning less than 40 years ago, when statistics starting more than 150 years ago are readily available, is puzzling to me. Why would you not use the most comprehensive statistics available?
Dave W Reesor
Calgary Alberta Canada
*** Tuesday evening I attended a meeting of The Friends of Science; a Calgary-based group of engineers and Earth scientists that bring a scientific focus to the debates surrounding climate change. They have supporters from a number of different countries, and I’d encourage you to become a member of Friends of Science
This is an excellent organization that does great work throughout the year, but what is really impressive is that they have a major annual event, attended by hundreds. This year it’s on May 15. The evening begins with a buffet dinner, and then features presentations by two international experts on different aspects of climate change.
Whatever your current beliefs on the subject are, if you are interested in hard, but not boring, data, this event is for you.
Spend even more time calling out imbalance and extremism in the traditional and social media, on both sides of the debates. Support balanced media and cancel the rest.
December 28, 2017
National Geographic Magazine, Circulation Department
Since I was a child, I’ve have been a reader of National Geographic Magazine. And since our children became adults and moved away from home about 30 years ago, we’ve subscribed for them each Christmas.
But over the last number of years, the National Geographic has become more of an activist magazine, and much less a science publication. Particularly as regards global warming – a term now apparently dropped in favor of the catch-all term, “climate change”, your coverage has been almost consistently one-sided; increased CO2 is destroying the planet. Although I must say that in, I believe it was your April 2007 issue, you had a foldout that showed that increased CO2 is significantly increasing plant growth across the southern Sahara, as it is around the world.
The fact is that climate change has been a natural feature of our planet for hundreds of millions of years. And in the recent past – the last million years or so – it has been both warmer and colder than at present, several times in fact. How about an issue dedicated to that?
There is no consensus as to the significance of human contributions to global warming, or to climate change And many prominent scientists like Judith Curry are now admitting that they were duped by their colleagues. Where’s the outrage, or even the coverage? The 97% scientific consensus on climate change was manufactured; the very concept of consensus on such a complex issue is itself, unscientific.
Nothing predicted by climate change’s Huckster in Chief, Al Gore, has come true. He predicted that by 2016, the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in summer. This past year’s Arctic ice minimum extent was 4,640,000 km², (1.79 million square miles), an area half the size of the United States! Polar bear numbers have increased significantly over the last 30 years; another prediction gone backwards.
Michael Mann manufactured a famous, and regrettably, very influential, hockey stick shaped, 1000 year temperature graph, that completely erased the Little Ice Age from history. That’s not science, it’s deception. Surely, frost in July and the Thames freezing regularly in the 1700s, and into the 1800s, are newsworthy climate stories from history. And surely those stories are germane to the present debate.
Antarctica – except for a relatively tiny peninsula that juts into the currents between the South Atlantic and South Pacific – is setting record cold temperatures, and is gaining trillions of tons of ice. Where’s the feature article on that fact?
James Hansen was one of the most prominent and often quoted, climate alarmists on the planet, until nearly 50 of his colleagues, and his supervisor at NASA called him an alarmist, and an embarrassment to NASA. Where was the coverage of that?
I could go on, but it appears that National Geographic, like William Randolph Hearst, Scientific American, Time magazine, and even The Economist, has discovered that alarmism sells, and has decided that: “If it bleeds, it leads.” I’m not interested, and our children and grandchildren have said the same; therefore we are not renewing our subscriptions.
Dave Reesor, Calgary Alberta Canada.
P.S. Kudos for a well-balanced article on the life of Jesus in your December issue. Bring that same approach to the climate change issue, and we may re-subscribe.
Recent article in Vice.com. “Meet the woke young people trying to make Christianity cool again.” Apparently, “Cool Christians” totally believe in anthropogenic global warming and climate change orthodoxy, and in human rights and racial equality.
Before reading the story, it had never occurred to me that the point of adopting a worldview, like Christianity, or Islam, or Atheism, was to be cool, but rather, to find, and live in the truth. I still believe that.
But anyway; is it true that human produced CO2 is the major driver of climate change, and the warming trend? Since the current warming began about 1850, which is recognized as the end of the Little Ice Age, – Cold! Advancing glaciers! Frost in July! – it would seem that the current warming is natural Thousands of climate scientists agree. (Don’t bother fact checking at the CBC)
As for climate change itself; if we could bring up the spirits of our ancestors going back for the last hundred thousand years, it would be instructive to ask them if they think climate change is something new. Of course, from history and from the geological record, we know that it’s not. So, while believing in catastrophic, human caused, global warming and climate change may be cool, it simply isn’t true.
Genuine Christian belief has always supported the right of all people, to respect, and security, in the broader community. (Like any organization, the Christian church has a right to set its rules for membership. And as with any group of humans, there are people who don’t follow the rules.)
It seems to me that respect should go both ways. A same-sex couple’s right to live in peace and security does not include them being able to force others to participate their choices. My choice does not override your freedom.
For instance, whether or not to marry is a choice. Gay or straight, your choice to marry depends on someone else agreeing to that choice. And your choice of caterer, or officiator should depend on said individual agreeing to that choice.
I think we’ve gone way overboard in conflating fundamental rights, with an ersatz right to force someone else to acquiesce to, or even participate in our choices. In fact, I’m enough of a small L libertarian to say that if a condominium owner doesn’t want to rent to old white heterosexual couples, that’s their right. And I’d defend it.
I’d even say that if the fire department refused my choice to fulfill my lifelong dream to become a firefighter, (it isn’t) simply because I’m too old, that should be their right. Oh yeah; it always has been their right. Institutionalized Ageism!
Further to marriage; considering that it’s a biological fact that we evolved / were created, to mate heterosexually, I’d still tend to agree with the Supreme Court of Canada which said, about 25 years ago: “Throughout its history, marriage has been fundamentally about children, and is therefore, by nature, heterosexual.”
Of course marriage is no longer fundamentally about children, but rather about adults living out their choices. Let’s at least acknowledge, that after thousands of years, the fundamental definition of marriage has been changed.
Referencing the latest LGBTQ “rights” fad; while your insisting that that a child with a penis might be a girl!!, may be almost too cool to be true; the question is, is it true? There remains some doubt.
Finally, racial equality. My Mennonite (Christian) ancestors moved to Pennsylvania in 1739 and immediately joined a letter writing campaign opposing slavery, directed at the U.S. Congress. I’ve seen one of the letters. They kept it up until 1865, when Lincoln freed the slaves.
In Britain, an evangelical Christian named William Wilberforce spent almost his entire lifetime opposing slavery, and finally succeeding in having it outlawed throughout the British Empire. That was the first time, in human history, that slavery had been expunged from a society.
Jesus himself, by very pointedly and purposefully telling his disciples and the Jewish leaders of the day the story of the Good Samaritan, was setting the standard for interracial/intercultural attitudes. To the Jewish elites of that day the very term, Good Samaritan, was an oxymoron. They regarded Samaritans the same way that ISIS, and the extremists of the left and right, and those lonely nutters in the KKK, currently regard Jews.
Black Lives Matter? What about Asian, and Southeast Asian, and Native American lives? Dare I even ask: “What about old white Canadian lives?”
Anyway, when Christians think and act as racists, they’ve gone rogue. The rule hasn’t changed. But then, Christianity is all about the fact that we’ve ALL gone rogue in one way or another. In the movie “Unforgiven”, Billy the Kidd tells Clint Eastwood’s character that he’d shot one of the bad guys, but that: “He had it coming.” Eastwood’s character growls: “We all have it coming.”
And so we do. Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are the answer to that grave truth.
Tomorrow is Remembrance Day when we remember all those young people that lost their lives defending freedom. So let’s remember.
And then let’s continue to remember next week, and next month, and in the years to come; that freedom isn’t free. Nor is it guaranteed.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog in which I put some of the climate related events of the past 18,000 years into the context of a single day. Climate cycles actually last hundreds of thousands of years, or more, and within those cycles, are shorter cycles, lasting tens of thousands of years, and within those are shorter cycles lasting hundreds of years, and within those are cycles lasting several decades. Any weather pattern lasting less than several decades, is just weather.
Later this week, Al Gore is releasing his sequel – ingeniously titled, An Inconvenient Sequel – to his decade old, Oscar-winning docudrama, called An Inconvenient Truth. Conveniently, it has made him very, very, wealthy, and he lives the lifestyle to prove it.
Now I’m not aware of one significant alarmist prediction that Mr. Gore made 10 years ago, that’s come true; so, in the interests of science, and at great personal cost, and even, risk to my health, I’m going to the movie to see how Big Al handles all those truly, Inconvenient Truths.
I may even have to skip the popcorn for fear that the salt content would push my blood pressure past the tipping point. Hmmmm. Evocative phrase that, but I have to admit that “tipping point” probably isn’t original with me. I’m positive I’ve heard it somewhere before.
A friend told me he was amazed at how far I would go for research. Well, let’s remember that Barack Obama won the Nobel prize for far less!
Anyway, next week I’ll update you on the catastrophes that humanity will face, if Antarctica’s icecap melts. At the moment – and somewhat inconveniently – it’s growing.
Sacrificing for research……. and maybe you could drop a note to the Nobel committee?
For the past 20 years global temperatures have not risen significantly. Neither have they fallen much; they have “plateaued.”
But based on the increase in CO2 levels, computer models said that temperatures should have kept rising. Climate change alarmists insist that they have kept rising, or at least stayed high enough to keep setting some records. And, they’re right. Several years in the past 20 have recorded temperatures near or slightly above the highest temperatures recorded in the last century. So what does it mean?
Here’s a picture of a plateau. As a verb, to plateau means reaching a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress. As a noun, a plateau is an area of relatively level high ground.
You’ll notice that the sides slope up until they reach the top, and flatten out, or plateau. This level, high ground continues on for some distance, as a plateau, and then falls away again.
How does this relate to global warming? Well, as you should know, for the last 15,000 years we have been exiting a major Ice Age. During that exit, temperatures have generally gone up, but with some downs; glaciation has generally retreated, and, as the land ice has melted, sea levels have risen, by about 130 metres or 400 feet. It’s not an even climb.
1000 years ago, it was warmer than it is now, then for several centuries, it cooled off during what is known as the Little Ice Age. Glaciers advanced and overran towns in the Swiss and French Alps; the Thames River in London froze over completely – it last did that in 1814 – and crops in the northern United States froze in July. But since about 1850, we’ve been warming up again.
But even so, there have been ups and downs in temperature. The 1920s, 30s and 40s were hot – some of the records still stand – but then it cooled off, and in the 1950s 60s and 70s, many scientists were predicting a new Ice Age. I remember the alarm: “What are we going to do to fight GLOBAL COOLING?! “
At the end of the 70s it began to warm up again until about 1998 when it reached a plateau. We’ve been bouncing along the top of that plateau for nearly 20 years, with occasional annual records being set by 1/10 of 1°, a number which is totally meaningless except to people employed in writing newspaper headlines, or extracting research grants from taxpayers.
So here are a couple of things to think about. If CO2 levels have risen significantly for the past 20 years, and they have, why has the temperature plateaued? Could it be that CO2 is not that important a greenhouse gas? After all, water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases.
The other thing generally agreed upon is that the increased CO2 levels have been responsible for a major increase in plant growth around the world. Even parts of the Sahara Desert are turning green, again. CO2 is as essential to plants as oxygen is to you.
But, in spite of this, you’ll regularly hear someone say: “We have to tackle climate change.” What does that even mean? It’s just more babble from the Progressivist Left meant to impress you with how virtuous they are; no connection to reality required.
The climate change industry is a racket. Some in it are getting rich, and some are getting famous, and a lot of people in the industry, who know better, just don’t have the guts to speak the truth. Those that do speak out usually lose their jobs. That’s not science.
Politicians like Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama and Kathleen Wynne and Rachel Notley and now the unholy alliance of the Greens and NDP in BC have no interest in science; they are interested only in implementing their left-wing ideology, and shutting down Canada’s energy industry business. Saudi and Venezuelan oil are apparently quite acceptable.
Canada’s environment Minister Catherine McKenna says that Canada is “Marching on” with the Paris Accord and 200 other countries. Yes they are, like a herd of lemmings. You might think Donald Trumps is nuts, but he’s not that nuts.
Climate change is normal, and the reason that we’re still here because our ancestors adapted to that reality. They even adapted to a 400 foot sea level rise, by moving to higher ground.
Do you notice that you don’t have to be a scientist to figure this out? There’s no excuse.
IWUZ reading the Economist Magazine and was startled to see an article admitting that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are causing a massive increase in plant growth around the world. Since 1982, an area double the size of the United States has begun to turn green. Why? Well, it’s partly because some colder areas have warmed since a 30 year cold snap ended around 1980. (Global warming!) Plants do much better in heat than in cold.
But the biggest greening effect has been from – wait for it – an increase in CO2 levels from about 300 ppm in 1952 just over 400 ppm today. Does that mean that CO2 is a good thing? Of course! Greenhouse operators have pumped CO2 into their buildings for decades.
There’s more! The Economist: “Studies conducted in greenhouses have found that plants can photosynthesize up to 40% faster when concentrations of CO2 are between 475 and 600 ppm.” Does this suggest that plant growth would benefit from even higher levels of CO2?
Again, of course. We know that during the periods when the earth was covered in vegetation from pole to pole, CO2 levels were much higher than today. We also know, that higher CO2 concentrations enable plants to use less water.
So, the human caused climate change/global warming catastrophe has been cancelled? We wish. After all, The Economist, like Scientific American, National Geographic and most of the media, are totally invested in climate alarmism.
To be fair, in July 2009, National Geographic did put this article in it’s Daily News section. One line says: “Emerging evidence is painting a scenario in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.” Bet you didn’t hear about that on the CBC or PBS.
But mixed in with all the good stuff about CO2, the Economist article uses phrases like: “the wet bits of the world will probably become wetter, while dry parts will become drier.” “Rainfall patterns may change.” “Higher temperatures could kill tropical forests.” And “the precise details are still unclear.” Unclear? No kidding!
What is perfectly, abundantly, irrefutably clear is that thescienceisnotsettled, and anyone who tells you that it is, is either speaking from ignorance, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive you.
The Economist article concludes by saying, that while CO2 gobbling plants have probably reduced the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, the resultant global greening offers only “a little breathing space,” and that: “kicking the fossil fuel habit remains the only option.”
Here’s another option. How about kicking every politicized climate scientist and science writer off the planet for a while; maybe send them to Mars with Leonardo Di Caprio, considering that not one of their; “might,” “maybe,” “possibly,” catastrophes has materialized. For instance, in the past 30 years, despite all the hand wringing, Polar Bear numbers are way up.
(I ask you, do those guys look stressed?)
Come to think of it; neither have any of the alarmist’s absolutely positive “wills,” “shalls,” or, “we’ve reached the tipping point,” prognostications proven true. When a theory is consistently wrong, do you think maybe it’s time to look for another theory?
So I say, let the greening of the Earth continue. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines.
I’m a small c conservative who believes in good, small, government; entrepreneurial capitalism; and helping ourselves and our neighbors, so I’ve had some interesting back-and-forths with readers who hang out farther to the left.
I believe that at a very fundamental level; Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and Social Democrats are all members of the same family; they just approach their mission with different degrees of urgency, or viciousness. Next couple of weeks, I’ll take a look at what I believe that means.
Like and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter. And if you agree that conservatives need to do a better job of getting our message out, I invite you to JOIN US, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community.
Speaking to Variety Magazine recently, Leonardo DiCaprio said that the warm chinook winds he encountered while filming in Calgary were a terrifying reminder of the seriousness of climate change.
Of course Calgarians have loved the chinook since the city was founded in 1884, just as native North Americans living on the east slopes of the Rockies have for thousands of years!
Unfortunately, climate induced outbreaks of chinook-ish hot air from Leonardo DiCaprio and other celebrities are all too frequent.
A few years ago, Robert Redford said that Canada’s boreal forest was being cut down “at a terrifying rate.”Apparently Redford is very easily terrified! The red line encompasses the total oil sands deposits, and the green dot is the maximum area that can ever be mined. The mine-able area of the oilsands is less than 1 per cent of total oil sands area and about 1/5th of 1% of Alberta’s boreal forest.
In recent years, Redford himself has bulldozed trees on his property east of Salt Lake City in order to create building lots to be sold for nearly 2 million dollars each. Redford excused his hypocrisy by saying that he needed the money. His personal net worth is reportedly north of $200 million.
Singer Neil Young recently compared Fort McMurray to Hiroshima, Japan, thereby simultaneously, and gratuitously, insulting the people of Hiroshima and Fort Mac. Of course, if Fort Mac remotely resembled Hiroshima after the bomb it would be terrifying, but it doesn’t.
It’s a beautiful city in Canada’s massive boreal forest with a comparatively tiny industrial footprint. Imagine taking a close-up photo of your freshly dug vegetable garden; enlarging it and putting it on the internet. Without context it would appear that you had destroyed your property.
Other prominent climate change alarmists like James Hansen, formerly of NASA, (Hansen was called, by nearly 50 of his NASA colleagues: “an embarrassment to NASA”) and, Canada’s resident Saint, David Suzuki, (Suzuki thinks that politicians that don’t agree with him should be put in jail), are routinely quoted and lauded by newspapers and wire services. It’s past time for journalists to get back to doing their jobs.
In the dry spring of 2005, which followed a low snow winter like we seem to be enjoying this year, a prominent Alberta environmentalist said that if we didn’t get rain, it would be a dry summer. I remember saying to someone at the time: “For this you need a PhD?”
But by mid-May 2005 it had started to rain. It continued through June, and we ended up with the floods of 2005. So the learned PhD was right. It had rained a lot, and it became wet.
And then we had the big one in 2013.
For some perspective, here’s a quote from the Calgary Herald. “Communities along the Elbow River – particularly Elbow Park – were the most affected by the flood.”
Except, the quote is not about the 2013 flood, but from an article written 90 years earlier; June 2, 1923.
And even earlier than that, in the late 1800s, Calgary recorded two floods that were much larger than the 2013 flood, yet, predictably, the climate alarmists blamed the 2013 flood on “climate change” which they insist is now caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
So Leonardo et al., tell us what caused climate change and chinooks, 100, or or thousands of years ago?
Climate change isn’t terrifying because we can adapt, just as we have for thousands of years. What I find terrifying is that high profile celebrities like DiCaprio, Redford, Young, Hansen, and Suzuki, and our local climate gurus, go largely unchallenged when spouting their alarmist nonsense.
And they’re usually given a pass on their personal hypocrisy, like owning or using multiple homes, multiple cars, yachts, and private jets.
230 million people in India still live on less than two dollars a day, and their escape from poverty lies in cheap and abundant energy. In other words, fossil fuels.
Windbags like DiCaprio aren’t heroes; their sanctimonious grandstanding is hindering economic advancement around the world, and inhibiting the poorest of the poor in developing countries from achieving decent living standards.
They need to be called out, pointedly, and often. Anyway, that’s my perspective.
Today, I’m re-posting a blog I wrote three years ago, about the complete lack of reality with which the left approached climate change. Since then, the left’s hysteria has increased, possibly because nothing that they predicted has come true, and they’ve decided to double down. It’s a typical left wing solution. Spending isn’t working? Spend double.
In the blog, I gave numerous historical examples of radical climate change, and the fact that our ancestors adapted to it. I could give many more examples than I did. Here’s the blog.
Yes, the climate is changing, and, except for the last 20 years or so, it’s been getting warmer. But in fact, for millions of years, Earth’s climate has been in a continuous cycle of Inter-glacials, and Ice Ages. The most recent Ice Age reached its maximum extent about 18,000 years ago. Since then we have been in the inter-glacial part of this cycle.
We’re now probably living very close to the sweet spot of climactic cycles. Most of the ice from the last Ice Age has melted; sea levels are rising at a normal rate; once dangerously low CO2 (plant oxygen) levels are returning to where plant growth around the world is increasing significantly; the average human being is eating better than ever before in history; and energy from fossil fuels has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, and will continue to do so in spite of the manufactured hysteria about GLOBAL WARMING. And statistically, the frequency and severity of droughts and floods and tornadoes and hurricanes are a bit below average for this climate cycle.
So let’s condense the 18,000 years into 1 day. 750 years equals 1 hour, and 12.5 years equals one minute. For example, the Little Ice Age which lasted from about 1300 until 1850 AD, began about 1 hour ago, and ended 12 minutes ago.
18,000 years ago, North America as far south as Kentucky, and much of northern Europe and Asia were under a sheet of ice. You could have walked on the ice in a straight linefrom Boston to northern France. Here in Calgary, Canada, the ice was over a mile, or 1.6 kilometres thick! So much water was contained in the ice sitting on land, that sea levels were more than 100 meters (300 feet) below the present.The Grand Banks of Newfoundland were dry land, but covered in ice!
Between midnight and 1 AM this morning, temperatures began to rise, and by 2 AM, serious melting had begun.
Civilization progressed slowly, and it wasn’t until 5:30 this afternoon that the construction of Stonehenge began. Off the southeast coast of England, our ancestors farmed “Doggerland”, an area that is now, at midnight, about 40 metres, or 130 feet below sea level. But when they were farming the area 8000 years ago, Doggerlanders could have walked from present day London to Amsterdam, on dry land.
The melt continued, and by 6 PM, the Columbia Ice Fields in the Canadian Rockies just west of here, had disappeared.
As sea levels rose, our Doggerland ancestors moved to higher ground. So did the aboriginals living east of what is now Cairns Australia. That flat plain is now home to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef!
Moving to higher ground was common sense to our ancestors, and while you can’t move Manhattan or Palm Beach, the point is that the climate has always changed, sea levels rise and fall, and that won’t change. Hopefully we’ll change our attitudes, and become humble and sensible enough to adapt.
At 10:30 PM (1000 years ago) Vikings were farming in Greenland. Then around 10:50 PM a sudden and severe cooling trend, now known as the Little Ice Age, forced them to abandon their farms. You can bet that Leif Erickson believed in climate change! Archaeologists are now using jackhammers to dig those abandoned Viking farm artifacts out of permafrost. Take a moment to connect the dots.
The Little Ice Age lasted about 50 minutes, from 10:50 this evening until about 11:40; or just 20 minutes ago. During its coldest extremes, crops failed and thousands starved. In London, the Thames river froze.Entire villages in the French and Swiss Alps were overrun by glaciers. Conferences were held into the 1930s, to discuss ways to mitigate the damage from advancing glaciers.
During the Little Ice Age, the Columbia Ice Fields reformed. and reached their greatest modern extent in 1850, or about 12 minutes ago. Europeans first saw them about 10 minutes ago, but then, 8 minutes ago, temperatures began to warm; the Little Ice Age began to end, and the Columbia Ice Fields again began to recede.
In the past 12 minutes, (150 years) the average global temperature has risen just over .75 of a degree Celsius. If we’re cooking, we’re cooking very slowly.
But, at about 11:57 PM, (1980), or just 3 minutes ago in our Ice Age Day, andat the end of a 30year cool cycle which was severe enough to prompt scientists to begin warning of a New Ice Age, warming resumed. And fortuitously for the alarmists, that’s when satellites began to measure Arctic Sea Ice extent, (1979).
Now it should be obvious that as temperatures resumed their climb, Arctic sea ice extent would diminish. Yet most articles regarding Arctic sea ice extent include the deliberately misleading phrase: “ – lowest extent since satellite records began.” Does anyone actually believe that records with a starting point 3 minutes, (35 years) ago have anything meaningful to say about climate change?
None of the information I have cited have comes from computer models. It’s all hard data from the historical record, and we used to study much of it in school. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to figure out that global warming and climate change, and even radical climate disruption is nothing new. And contrary to the “97%” lie, there are thousands of scientists around the world that affirm exactly that.
There is archaeological evidence off coastlines around the world, that for thousands of years our unsophisticated ancestors adapted to rising sea levels by moving to higher ground. But left-wing fundamentalists now insist that the climate can be controlled. More likely, they see climate alarmism as a way that you can be controlled.
So how do we get common sense back into the conversation and counteract the ignorance, and governmental overreach? I believe that the only way to do that effectively, and on the required scale, is to produce fact based, audience targeted, information pieces, especially videos.
We then must use the power of social media and the Internet to deliver them to our friends, colleagues, employees, and especially, our children, and grandchildren; on their laptops, smart phones and tablets. Talk to your offspring. I talk to mine, and there isn’t a climate alarmist in the bunch.
The Let’s Do It Ourselves (LDIO™) online community has been created to facilitate conservative co-operation, contribution, and communication. Please help us in this endeavor by becoming a member of our community. For less than cost of a cup of coffee a week, you can become part of our project to build a reliably financed platform from which we can present the conservative perspective, on climate, government finance, and culture.
Please visit our website at http://www.ldio.org/join-ldio/ and let’s work together to make our voices heard! Because we are going to have to, Do This Ourselves!
The Keystone XL Pipeline is truly a big deal, both for Canada and the United States. The Keystone will carry oil from the Canadian oil sands, and, from North Dakota, to the Gulf Coast for refining. It will reduce American dependence on offshore oil. Some Hollywood actors and professional agitators are wildly opposed.
NASA’sformertop climate “scientist”, James Hansen, has been arrested four times for various protests revolving around climate change and the pipeline. Mr. Hansen has predicted that if global warming continues – which according to him is caused by man made emissions of CO2 – the oceans will “boil”. Of course using oil produces CO2. But then so does exhaling.
CO2 is to plants like Oxygen is to us; without it they will die. In fact, greenhouse operators inject CO2 into their buildings to make the plants grow better. Hmmmm…..
Back to the protests. Regarding the oilsands; Robert Redford has come out with videos denouncing “the terrify rate” at which the boreal forest, where the oilsands are located, is being destroyed.
Singer/songwriter Neil Young has likened the oilsands area in Alberta to Hiroshima which was destroyed by an atomic bomb at the end of World War II; and where 75,000 people died.
Actress Darrel Hanna chained herself to the White House fence and got herself arrested while protesting the Keystone. I have no idea why that is important, but mainstream media covered it, so it must be.
If all this alarmism is true, we heading straight towards climate Armageddon.
None of it is. Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist, Walter Cunningham has chastised James Hansen, a former colleague, by saying that: ”Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear,even when NASA’s own data contradicts him”. Dr. John Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor,said that: “Climate models are useless” (the whole climate change frenzy is based on models), and that Hansen is “an embarrassment”. Or, in even plainer English, he’s a wingnut.
I’ve been to Fort McMurray and out into the oilsands mines dozens of times. Fort McMurray is a wildly busy but beautiful city of about 100,000, set in Canada’s boreal forest. Wildlife abounds.
The mines are a few miles away, and they are indeed, an industrial development area. But you’ve seen plenty of pictures of the oilsands, so here’s a picture of a coal mine in Germany. Germany is regarded as a world leader in green technology, and in combating climate change. Their mines look about the same as the oilsands. Germany will re-forest their mines, and we’ll re-forest ours.
China is building dozens of coal fired power plants every year. Their CO2 output completely dwarfs that of the oilsands, as does that of American, coal fired electrical plants.
To the right is a picture taken entering downtown Fort McMurray.Neil Young’s comparison of Fort McMurray to Hiroshima is an obscenity; a slur against the people who live and work at Fort McMurray; and a desecration of the memory of those who died at Hiroshima.
And here are some facts about Redford’s “terrifying rate at which our boreal forest is being destroyed”. The world’s northern boreal forests cover over 6,000,000 square miles. Canada’s share is 2,300,000 square miles; the oilsands underlie only 54,000 square miles of that total, and only ten percent of that, or 5400 square miles, is mine-able.
So at most,1/426th of Canada’s boreal forest will ever be mined for oil. Then, by law, it must be re-forested. If you find that scenario terrifying, then you clearly have the same on again / off again flirtation with common-sense that Mr. Redford apparently does.
Mr. Redford has a development at Sundance Resort, Park City, Utah where he is selling two million dollar building lots. Trees are being “destroyed” to make way for mega-footprint vacation homes. Mr. Redford says he needs the money. His net worth is estimated at 170 million dollars. Tens of thousands of people from across Canada and the US, and around the world work in the oilsands at better paying jobs than they’d ever dreamed of. Would Mr. Redford have them sent home?
Perhaps the native kids who live near the oilsands, and enter great paying jobs when they graduate should just go on welfare?
What Redford is essentially saying to the people who work at Fort McMurray, is: “Sure; I have my 170 million, but I also have a need to feel that I’ve done something righteous to offset my extravagant lifestyle. I know we’re all supposed to enjoy an equal opportunity, but I’m more equal than you, so tough luck!” Redford and Young have passed their “Best Before” date, but unfortunately, they retain some celebrity status, and they have an audience. We need to push back.
Almost every dire prediction that the global warming alarmists has turned out to be false. Polar Bears are an endangered species! Their numbers have doubled. Himalayan glaciers are going to disappear by 2035! It was nonsense put forward by the head of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), and they now admit it was nonsense.
Just three months ago, some alarmists confidently predicted that “the Arctic Ocean might well become ice free this summer!” But not only was this summer colder than normal; the summer ice melt was far less than last year. So now, their updated prediction is that the Arctic Ocean may become ice free by the end of this century; an 87 year adjustment in three months! Oops!
An interesting, and even more pertinent fact is that the Arctic Ocean was ice free, 4000 years ago. That’s right about the time that Abraham and Sarah left Iraq and headed for Israel, (modern names); and as far as I know they drove methane emitting camels, not CO2 emitting SUVs.
Of course, humans do have some effect on climate; we just don’t know how much. But research suggests that even if we were able to shut down half of human activity on the planet, the effect would be minor. So whether it gets colder or warmer – and it has done both many times in the past – we’ll need to adapt. When sea levels rose in the past, our ancestors used common-sense, and moved to higher ground!
If you wish, look up the facts for yourself. And forward this blog to everyone who might be interested. It’s time to push back against lies and misinformation. My definition of insanity is: Complain, Do Nothing, Wait for Change.
Let’s do it ourselves; and let’s think for ourselves!
Blessings to all –
BTW: If you’d like to support this IWUZ blog, and the work we’re doing to launch the Let’s Do It Ourselves online community, you can join / donate at www.ldio.org Go to JOIN LDIO on the website, and if you wish to donate less than $50, simply use the $5 a month option for one two, or however many months, and discontinue whenever you wish. Thanks for your encouraging, and your argumentative comments. They are all greatly appreciated!