The IPCC’s prediction for average sea-level rise this century is 13 inches (if global warming continues unchecked). Today’s report from a group of climatologist ups the prediction to 33 inches. This is what the difference looks like on a pair of identical twins. Photo Illustration courtesy Greg Ceo.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world’s foremost body for weighing and assessing climate science—received a kick in the pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported.
Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a startling update to the panel’s work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.
“The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science” is not an official IPCC report; it’s a summary of the hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC’s last assessment. It was released now to fill the long gap in between official IPCC reports—the last was released in 2007, but the drafting text is more than three years old, and the next isn’t scheduled until 2013. It was also timed to the Copenhagen climate talks, of course.
The essence of the new report is that things are grimmer than the IPCC has reported. And it’s not like the panel has been painting a rosy picture—its 2007 report concluded that the warming-induced melting of the Greenland ice sheet could create significant sea-level rise in this century. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said at the time, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.
The report’s authors (who include the preeminent Stephen Schneider) write that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.” If you’re keeping score, 2015 is just over five years away—somewhat less comforting than the distant “2050” you used to hear so much about.
In a time when the correspondence of scientists is hacked and stolen and as a matter of political strategy, some will no doubt dismiss the group’s research entirely. And even IPCC fans may question whether its decision-making process is swift enough to remain relevant. It certainly seems that events are outpacing the political system’s ability to deal with them.
Below are the key findings from the report:
Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.
Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.
Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets
Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
U.N. climate chief raises the temperature with racy novel
New E.U. organic logo set for Europe’s supermarkets
Comments
View as Flat
Switters Posted 8:53 am
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 11:05 am
24 Nov 2009
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
Permalink
Ashley Braun Posted 11:18 am
24 Nov 2009
It's a shame that much of the media coverage of this event has failed to set the contents of the stolen emails into proper context and has instead played to the hype blown up -- but not substantiated -- by global warming skeptics. Nothing I've seen so far from this story has refuted the mounds of peer-reviewed published research on global average temperature rise, arctic ice melt, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, etc.
For an update on the story, here is an interview with one of the climate scientists mentioned, Phil Jones: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
Permalink
flyfisherman Posted 3:39 pm
01 Dec 2009
by Paul Driessen
As legions of scientists, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians prepare to embark for Copenhagen, a predictable barrage of climate horrors has been unleashed, to advance proposals to slash hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions, restrict economic growth, and implement global governance and taxation.
CO2 has reached a new high (0.0385% of the atmosphere), were told, because of cars and coal-fired factories of death. Rising seas are forcing families to flee their homes. Oceans are becoming toxic. Climate change is driving Philippine women into prostitution. Higher temperatures will increase the likelihood of civil war in Sub-Saharan Africa and bring human civilization to a screeching halt. The Associated Press, BBC and other mainstream media dutifully regurgitate every press release.
However, the planet and science are not cooperating with the fear-mongering. There has been no statistically significant global warming for over a decade, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels and for several years average annual global temperatures have actually declined.
Carbon dioxide plays only a minor role, many scientists now say, and our climate is still controlled by the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: periodic shifts in ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earths orbit, the tilt and wobble of Earths axis, cosmic ray levels and especially solar energy output.
Far worse for the Climate Armageddon movement, newly released emails from its leading scientists reveal a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. The emails cast deepening suspicion over global warming data, science and models.
They reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, skew the peer-review process, pressure scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report and Briffas suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.
Jones to Mann: If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send it to anyone.
(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? Drs. J&M, thats the scientific method to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)
Jones: I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)
Jones: Ive just completed Mike [Manns] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures] . (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: If you think [Yale Professor and Global Renewables editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. (Saiers was subsequently dismissed. The American Geophysical Union is a once professional society that has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
These are the very tip of the melting iceberg. To gauge the scope, depth and depravity of the conspiracy, visit Bishop Hill, ClimateDepot.com and An Elegant Chaos on the web.
These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports all claiming that modern civilizations use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.
Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmists data didnt match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of consensus and unprecedented warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on.
Now, finally, the rat has been flushed from its sewer by a hacker, whistle-blower or someone who carelessly left secret files where a website visitor could find them and reveal them to the world. Now, finally, even the mainstream media can no longer ignore or whitewash the scandal.
The stakes are incredibly high. This bogus, biased science is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. The new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rights and enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections enable them to corner markets for renewable energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading.
For the most destitute people on the planet, the repercussions from this fraud are even higher. These people 750 million in Africa alone do not have electricity, cars, modern homes, jobs or hope for a better future. They die by the millions from malnutrition and lung, intestinal and insect-borne diseases that would be dramatically reduced with access to dependable, affordable energy.
But the alarmists bogus, biased science is being used to justify building a Climate Wall between these desperate people and the modern, energy-rich world. To justify perpetuating misery, disease and death.
Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri, White House science advisor John Holdren, CRU scientist Tim Osborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher Ben Santer and others implicated in this growing scandal should do the honorable thing and resign their posts. If they refuse, they should be put on paid administrative leave, until every aspect of this collusion and junk science scandal can be thoroughly investigated. Dismissal or other appropriate action should follow.
They should not be allowed to represent their governments or organizations in Copenhagen.
Institutions that received climate alarm grants should be disciplined and removed from future grant conduits, if they knew about these actions or would have known, had they exercised due diligence.
The entire IPCC and peer review process needs to be repaired. The alarmists and self-appointed censors who have corrupted the system must be replaced with scientists who will ensure honest inquiry and a full airing of all data, hypotheses and perspectives on climate science, economics and policy.
Most importantly, the United States, Britain and all other responsible nations should slam the brakes on every proposed climate crisis treaty, agreement, bill, regulatory proposal and endangered species action until we get to the bottom of this scandal, and determine which data and claims are honest and accurate, which are bogus and unfounded. President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, and his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty and commit the US to slash its carbon dioxide emissions to a job-killing 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 4:53 pm
01 Dec 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 9:43 am
24 Nov 2009
Please recall a story from the Bible regarding a gigantic tower built at the city of Babylon. Do you ever imagine that too much of our communication in the "now/here" could be similar to the foolhardy and confusing prattle supposedly heard in ancient times within the Tower of Babel? This skyscraping tower was apparently made of stone; whereas, a similar colossal construction in our time has been built from too many worthless greenbacks as a "house of cards" called the global political economy.
At least to me, it appears that some kind of terrible and unimaginable ecololgical wreckage could occur much sooner rather than later. The self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us are to going to keep getting more arrogant, more foolhardy, more greedy and richer. When a youngster, I was told to become a millionaire. That was the goal. Now I see children today being encouraged to be billionaires. That is the new sign of 'success'. Given the budget deficits we are running now, even as greedmongering leaders of one not-so-great generation mortgage the childrens' future and threaten their very existence, it cannot take long before the first trillionaire is minted. The mainstream media will report this news proudly, profanely. The Fortune 400 will be comprised of trillionaires soon thereafter. With the patently unsustainable levels of overproduction and overconsumption required to underwrite the conspiciously obscene per-capita lifestyles of a tiny minority of those in the human family who are perniciously concentrating a lion's share of world's wealth and power, it is no longer difficult to apprehend in the offing some sort of wholesale destruction of life as we know it on this Good Earth........willful blindness, hysterical deafness, elective mutism, global gag rules and stony silence notwithstanding.
Still, hopefully, meaningful communications and necessary changes toward sustainability remain a discernible possibility for those human beings with feet of clay.
Permalink
Switters Posted 9:59 am
24 Nov 2009
Please can anyone shed any light on these hacked emails?
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 10:06 pm
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 10:53 am
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
aislar Posted 1:49 pm
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 1:53 pm
24 Nov 2009
Here is what is real in Ontario, Canada, population 12,000,000+.
In the year 2000 1900 people died prematurely due to air pollution.
In 2001 there were 1950 premature deaths.
By 2005, there were 5800 premature deaths due to air pollution.
In 2006, there were 6000 air pollution deaths.
The last recorded number was in 2008 with 9,500 deaths.
By 2012, air pollution will be the number one killer in Ontario.
Ten years ago, the entire USA with a population of 330.000,000+ recorded 70,000 air pollution deaths. Ontario with a population of 12 mil will eclipse that less than ten years. What the numbers are in the USA I don't know. But I do know this - US air is much worse than ours plus all of America's fresh water is polluted. Drinking polluted water injures living tissue making the organism, man, woman or wildlife that more suseptible to air pollution injuries - and the chemicals are all the same chemicals - in air, water and soil. It's the ultimate witches brew and it's almost all thanks to the oil, gas and coal industries.
Ontario is a big place. But nearly all of the deaths took place in four areas - the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Windsor, Sarnia and London. These four areas are very small but their impact on the planet is huge.
Since 2008, the Federal Government has suspended funding of research into Premature Deaths by air pollution. There is no research of this kind going on in Canada's most populated and vulnerable province.
What isn't shown are the hospital admissions and injuries associated with air pollution. Back in the 1990s our hospital admissions due to air pollution were already in the millions. Since then no one has dared to put the numbers together.
In the year 2000, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) predicted that our air pollution death toll would be 2,600 by the year 2026. That number was exceeded two years later.
In 2005, the OMA revised their prediction and told the public that by the year 2026, 9,500 people would die due to air pollution.
That number was reached four years later and will be passed in 2009.
The real numbers that would give an accurate picture of how air pollution is impacting Ontario are frightening to the nth degree. No one wants to know, nearly everyone is happy with delusion.
What that shows you in terms of a trend is that reality is keeping pace with the hairiest and direst predictions coming out of the IPCC's Climate Conference.
What no one seems to understand is this: The information is being gathered using equipment designed to measure weather related forces and impacts. None of the equipment is designed to measure impacts close to the ground where we live. In fact, most life on earth lives and inhales within 24 inches or 61 centimeters of the ground. Thanks to gravity, the highest levels of toxins in air are located at or below that 24 inch threshold.
I have just completed a review of an Environmental Assessment done in Durham region just east of Toronto.
My study of the information revealed that the landscape at that end of the GTA is dying. Our natural areas are dioramas - lots of vegetation very little wildlife. Birds exist in numbers too low to form flocks except for acclimatized nuisance species such as English Sparrows and Starlings.
The insect population is vestigial as are all other Foundational Species. Foundational Species are those species that the glamorous INDICATOR species feed on. Without food, no species can survive for long.
The bird population stands at less than 1/10th of what it was 120 years ago. The insect population is in the same state. Despite the fact that most of us think we can live without insects, we can't. But they can easily live without us. Or they could if we weren't poisoning them and every other living thing.
The massive chemical invasion of every aspect of the natural world is quickly poisoning everything edible and the chemicals themselves are the same chemicals that are commonly used to make pesticides.
This is CHEMICAL WINTER in action that I described else where on this site. It's here and if you don't find this scary, there is something wrong with you.
Over 50% of our air pollution comes from the Ohio Valley. The other 50% we make ourselves. And then we ship virtually all of it right back south to New York State.
If you think Ontario is going to reduce emissions in order to curb air pollution, you are sadly mistaken. The intentions are the best. No one wants to pollute. But as of right now, Ontario and all of Canada is financially and industrially committed and dedicated to ending life on earth just like everyone else.
Permalink
Phil Bickel Posted 4:41 pm
24 Nov 2009
The conspiracy to undermine scientist who disagree with their consensus is quite pronounced.
Nothing taken out of context, its pretty straightforward.
As for evidence of global warming, the only example I see was the 2006 Summer Arctic minimum, which was most likely caused by soot pollution from Chineese power plants and manufacturing.
CO2 appears to because by temperature not the other way around.
The 1997-1998 highs may very well have driven the release of CO2 from the oceans.
Near record low hurricanes the last two years
Permalink
memeri Posted 9:29 pm
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
Phil Bickel Posted 4:47 pm
24 Nov 2009
For God's sake, why don't you folks discuss the content of these E Mails?
Permalink
maladapted Posted 5:45 pm
24 Nov 2009
Well, for one thing, nothing in the stolen emails affects any of the scientific findings. For another, they're being massively over-discussed all over the blogosphere -- on Real Climate, there are over 1400 comments.
This is nothing like the Adlai Stevenson moment the deniers are hyping. It's more like a Colin Powell moment, there really aren't any weapons of mass Socialism. It's a glimpse into the way real science works, and some scientists are revealed to be human beings -- shocking! Nevertheless, AGW is still supported by multiple lines of evidence, and it's going to take a lot more than some candid talk between competitive colleagues to overthrow the consensus. But don't take my word for it, take it from the heroic climate scientists at Real Climate.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 10:22 pm
24 Nov 2009
Permalink
oracle2world Posted 7:15 am
02 Dec 2009
What "scientific jargon" is this? Seems pretty clear to me in the King's English.
Permalink
Boobialla Posted 5:47 pm
24 Nov 2009
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to get rid of the MWP, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no marching orders from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in robust discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
Its obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but its important to remember that science doesnt work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isnt a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isnt powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded gotcha phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problemsee e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isnt much to it.
There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies.
Permalink
GreenHearted Posted 5:50 pm
24 Nov 2009
Do you accept that scientists are human beings? If so, do you accept that some of them might be jerks? Or petty and small-minded? Or even, heaven forbid (since you want to do this for God's sake), competitive? I'm NOT saying that these epithets belong to any of the hacked scientists ... but I would like you consider that all scientists might be less than perfect human beings.
However, I would conjecture that if these guys were screwing around with their data, they wouldn't be bragging about it by email. For example, all the denier/skeptic/ignorer/delayer scientists who screw around with data don't brag about it, do they? Although maybe some of their emails should be hacked. Hey, there's an idea! Unfortunately, "this" side of the fray doesn't tend to use nasty tricks.
There, we've discussed it.
The reason the rest of us don't want to discuss the hacked messages is perhaps because there are more important things to discuss. Some of us live in or know about places in the world that are already being terribly impacted by climate chaos ... so our interest lies not with what the scientists said or did (they do not create or uncreate global warming with their research and communications). Our interest, time, energy and compassion are being focused on real-life climate change, the climate talks, and possible mitigation measures.
BTW, if you look at methane and nitrous oxide emissions, you'll see that there are other things to focus on right now besides hacked messages and CO2. Go veg, folks. Cutting those methane emissions caused by the livestock industry could buy us some valuable time.
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 6:03 pm
24 Nov 2009
Air pollution in developed countries was worse then than now. But the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) weren't being released like they are now. It's largely the VOCs that are causing the structural damage to living tissue. The birth defects and respiratory injuries that are happening now were almost unknown forty years ago.
What people don't stop to think about is how these changes are affecting wildlife. The loss of 90% of the wildlife on planet earth in 120 years or so is in geologic time almost a vanishing act. It has all been and is being caused by man. There is no doubt about it.
The human premature deaths due to air pollution data is work done by medical authorities. The deaths have names and addresses attached to them. They are not fictitious numbers. Most certainly, that data and worse is happening all over the world.
The frogs in Panama were the prime indicators and their communities went extinct in hours. Other frog populations have done the same. The only known common denominator was air.
The most prolific applicator of these global pesticides is aircraft. Think of airplanes as giant pesticide applicators. Not much in the way of emissions comes from them in flight individually, but in total they are applying and reapplying the same chemicals found in pesticides and cigarette smoke over every land mass.
If you have ever used a paint sprayer, you know that the very best and strongest paint jobs are achieved by applying the paint in very thin even layers and lots of them. Custom cars commonly receive 40 or 50 layers of paint to get that deep liquid finish. Imagine doing that unceasingly and coating everything on earth. Imagine being a caterpillar and having to eat the leaf you're crawling on and not being able to wash the benzene off. Imagine how such a small body would be impacted by that relatively huge dose of the most lethal toxins man can devise. That is what is going on. Climate Change and Global Warming don't amount to a hill of beans compared to that.
But even so, Global Warming and Climate change are going to get pretty bad and one of the worst hit countries will be the USA.
You people are running out of water and you've poisoned the rest as I mentioned earlier. In addition, you've drained your aquifers. You have way, way too many people for the amount of water you have left. As temperatures start to rise, your water supply will plummet. In fact it is already doing just that in many areas around your country. Vast areas. For some reason, you people aren't seeing the big picture. The rest of us are watching you with awe wondering when you're going to wake up. And you're worried about whether some scientist agrees or disagrees with someone else's numbers?
In 1900 you had 150 glaciers irrigating the mid west. Now you have 15. They will be dried up before 2020. That will help turn the midwest into a desert. Are you getting that? Those are numbers no one is disputing.
Permalink
Duckhorn Posted 6:45 pm
24 Nov 2009
Also, there's no need to get hot and bothered about the hacked emails. It's a storm in a teacup.
Permalink
Switters Posted 9:45 pm
24 Nov 2009
Have the scientists in question released the raw data to other scientists?
Permalink
pcamill Posted 7:00 pm
24 Nov 2009
It's potentially even worse than the Copenhagen Diagnosis. There's one more factor that's leading to potentially greater warming than we expect, as a forthcoming article in Geophysical Research Letters suggests---IPCC models may actually overpredict the strength of carbon sinks. I describe it here
http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2009/11/climate-warming-worse-than-previously-thought-because-plants-become-nutrient-starved/
Phil
Permalink
memeri Posted 10:27 pm
24 Nov 2009
https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Does it make a lick of difference? Is this going to topple the ediface of climatology? Furthermore, as mentioned, "the decline," a peculiarity of tree rings, is well-known among climate researchers.
So yes, the data are publically available, but more to the point, this very figure is a compilation of data from three different groups. It summarizes multiple independent environmental measurements -- of temperature as well as physical proxies that correlate with temperature. They couldn't fake these if they wanted to.
Permalink
oracle2world Posted 8:44 am
30 Nov 2009
Like in "scientific method", not deceitful like trick.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 10:54 pm
24 Nov 2009
The absence of hurricanes is as much a warning about AGW as the occurrence of wildfires in Spain and Greece is, as much a concern as the disappearance of the Salton Sea in California or the gyre of plastic junk in the northern Pacific.
Global Warming is happening and most of us here will experience it first-hand. It will not be pretty. The fighting then will not be about maximal percentages of CO2 or minimal degrees of temperature, but over who gets to eat that carrot and who owns that waterhole.
Permalink
Duckhorn Posted 12:22 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:19 am
25 Nov 2009
It is simply incredible that scientists do not publicize the obvious exponential nature of this crisis. "40% faster" is an inadequate dscription of what's happening.
Perhaps we could have an explanation describing the time it takes to double the rate of melting, methane release from melt, and so forth? Exponential increase means that the rate doubles every so many years. With effects like ice melt increasing in speed continuously. That 40% increase will not be stable, it will double in a few years.
It's the difference between speeding up in your car 40% and keeping your foot to the floor and continuously increasing your speed. If you let up on the gas after you are going 40% faster, that's it. You go no faster. Climate change is proceeding with the pedal to the metal, going ever faster and faster. That 40% ice melt isn't the end, it's a snapshot on the way to disaster.
I know this is hard to explain, but really, scientists need to corner IPCC official, politicians, and reporters and lecture them on this until they understand it and report it. This is crucial, only understanding on this point will get the urgency across. Especially with talking point denier fever raging with this ridiculous hacked e-mail BS.
This isn't like healthcare reform, where only 100s of thousands will continue to die every year because teabagging lies helped gut the legislation. We are talking worldwide catastrophe, with 100s of millions of lives at stake in the coming decades and billions after that.
Permalink
Joel W Posted 3:35 am
25 Nov 2009
Realclimate.org says the same.
“More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.”
People who are still in denial should try visiting some of the places that are suffering right now.
http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/australasia/australia/climate-change-deniers-holida/
Permalink
G J Lau Posted 4:25 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 6:09 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 7:58 am
25 Nov 2009
Our Ministry of the Environment have Air Quality Monitoring stations dotted unevenly around the province that are supposed to tell us the real state of the air. For my money, the death rate is the most accurate indicator so far.
To give you an idea; monitoring stations record air borne chemicals 10 metres off the ground (33'). Not many of us do much inhaling that far off the ground in our daily lives.
The chemical engineers who work the monitoring stations don't understand the concept of layering with respect to air. To them, the air is the same at ground zero as it is at 10 metres.
You can take a piece of toilet paper (not Charmin the tree destroyer type) and dangle some off the roll at different heights. My findings are that in my area there is a division that starts at 36 inches ((91.4 cm) off the ground. The air movement from there down is often less than it is higher up. At six inches and lower, there is often no discernable air movement by comparison and the paper is hanging straight down even though at 36" the toilet paper is blowing at 90 degrees perpendicular to the ground. Obviously as you go higher up the wind will be stronger and stronger.
My observations this morning were taken in the middle of a residential intersection on top of a hill when there was no traffic and no wind tunneling effect.
Naturally in periods of high wind the layering effect is diminished. But on the whole, my past observations have shown that the layering is fairly consistent and there is little air movement close to the ground.
As you all know - what goes up must come down. In the air, that means the heaviest chemicals in the air are going to be densest near the ground - where most animals inhale. As well as the heaviest chemicals, the other chemical assortment would be present as well making for a more toxic layer the closer to the ground you get.
If I'm right, virtually none of the world's air monitoring equipment is monitoring the air in the proper location - at the level where living things inhale and where the chemical exchange between ice and air takes place, air and water, air and soil, air and forage.
Now think about this - practically all animals inhale at or very near ground level from elephants and giraffes to salamanders. Everything relies on scent to communicate, find each other to mate, hunt, avoid being hunted and so on. Most scent markings are left on the ground or lower than 36" from the ground.
Air pollution deadens the sense of smell. So just on that basis, besides eating contaminated vegetation, wildlife is going through a profound thinning of the herd with the smallest foundational species disappearing without a trace and without us noticing they're gone.
Why not try the air movement test yourselves and then get back on here and report your findings? Maybe we will be able to point out something to the experts and thus do our little bit to help.
Permalink
memeri Posted 10:12 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
abcda Posted 9:31 pm
26 Nov 2009
Okay. So who’s company is Environmental Media Services? A simple Wiki search tells us:
“EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign”
Realclimate.org is owned by Al Gore’s press officer. You couldn’t make it up.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:26 pm
28 Nov 2009
Instead of cherry-picking items which conform to particular ideas, why not try reading the whole reports, noting that that the hacking was illicit to begin with, that the science was not proven incorrect nor the scientists to be manipulators.
And there was no indication that Schardt "owns" realclimate; you made that presumption by linking him to Gore by reason of his former association with Gore's former presidential campaign through Schardt's founding of Environmental Media Services in 1994 and which is the web service for realclimate. A real stretch, even for a magician.
Permalink
oracle2world Posted 7:10 am
02 Dec 2009
Medical science is well aware that a researcher's expectations can completely confound the results of a clinical study, so only double-blind placebo controlled studies are generally accepted. Clearly these Climategate emails show the researchers were so driven to prove AGW that they would go to any lengths to manipulate data and computer code to meet their conclusions.
So although AGW folks outside of science don't think much of Climategate, and will continue to be in denial, this is a bombshell in academia.
Major universities in the US are research arms of the US government (DoD to kill people more efficiently, NIH to save lives). At a big school the grants are in the billions. So no university is going to risk this kind of money to cover-up anything. AGW researchers now have to justify their work down to the nit with more than their sewing circle of "peers" doing the review. And if everything isn't completely 100% above board ... they get crucified.
And lawsuits -- the lawyers are sniffing around like piranha. Because those emails show intent to destroy scientific journals and reputations.
Permalink
selti Posted 7:27 am
28 Nov 2009
CO2 is only 0.04% in the atmosphere, and in this trace amount, the human contribution is only about 2%, as the majority of CO2 is released by the sea and soil. As a result, the human emission component of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.0008%. Water vapor in the atmosphere varies from 1% to 4%. As a result, for the greenhouse effect, the change in water vapor overwhelms all the human emissions of CO2. This means that CO2 does not have any contribution to global warming. None.
That is why one climate scientist said in an email that it is a travesty that we cannot explain the current non warming.
Global Warming Projections Found to be Wrong
Ice core data shows first the temperature increases followed by increase in CO2, which is released by the ocean with increase in temperature. CO2 is an effect, not a cause of global warming!
Climate "science" scam:
1) Manipulating data.
2) Deleting data.
3) Corrupting the peer-review process.
CO2 driven global warming is the greatest scientific stuff-up or scam of all times.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 8:44 am
28 Nov 2009
The rapid loss of thick Arctic ice is not accountable for any known natural cause other than an increase in CO2: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=44905277001
Be sure to see the video 2 minutes into the above link. Other data (GRACE) indicates that Greenland ice melting is about 8.6% per year increase and was 270 gigatonnes in 2007. If this acceleration of melting maintains this 8.6% rate, then Greenland's ice will be gone by 2090 with a resulting 20 ft ocean rise: http://egpreston.com/climate_knowledge.htm for more information.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:53 pm
28 Nov 2009
But human beings, over the past few hundred years, have increasingly released tremendous amounts of CO2 which was formerly sequestered within fossil fuels, so we are responsible for Global Warming right now from our activities as well as from the huge increase in our population (the "hockeystick" graph really does apply to these specific statistics).
H20 in its gaseous form does not contribute much to global warming as a greenhouse gas - check the Sahara Desert, the Gobi Desert, the Mojave Desert, etc. They are not hot places because of the presence of water vapour, but because of its absence. As H2O converts from solid to liquid the total surface area of the oceans will increase and the total surface area of land will decrease. No scam. Just plain imminent disaster.
Permalink
dalbert Posted 8:40 pm
28 Nov 2009
1. From the Executive Summary of "The Copenhagen Diagnosis," Univ of New South Wales,
"Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming."
2. From the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium:
"The equilibrium warming above pre-industrial temperatures that the world will observe is 2.4 degrees Celsius -- even if GHG concentrations had been fixed at their 2005 concentration levels" (right-hand column, page 10).
(There is general agreement that we should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, to avoid potentially devastating consequences and the risk of irreversible effects.)
In the UNEP 2009 Compendium, look at Figure 1, which shows the probability distribution curve for the 2.4 degrees C of committed warming. This figure comes from "On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead," by V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, PNAS, Sept 23, 2008, vol 105, no. 38. This Ramanathan-Feng paper is worth reading to see how they arrived at these conclusions, and how the warming and cooling effects of aerosols fit in. Google it if interested.
Here is a link to the UNEP 2009 Compendium: http://www.unep.org/pdf/ccScienceCompendium2009/cc_ScienceCompendium2009_full_en.pdf
Although there is no doubt that aerosol effects are real, there are large uncertainties in predicting the effects of aerosols on warming. This might explain the reluctance of some scientists to include aerosols in their calculations, especially when the results show we have exceeded 2 degrees C of warming. However, that does not mean we will not experience those effects.
Permalink
blueskykate Posted 2:08 pm
01 Dec 2009
Oil depletion is going to hit us the same time as more serious climate impacts (and will limit the most serious climate change if feedback mechanisms don't kick in), so I suggest that rather than argue with people who are not open to changing thier opinion, you just start learning how to get by with a lot less energy. You'll have to do this WITH your neighbors and your community, for it to work.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 3:58 pm
01 Dec 2009
Permalink
blueskykate Posted 4:07 pm
01 Dec 2009
On the other hand, nobody really knows whether/when the climate might hit a tipping point and click into a totally other gear that the IPCC models don't even include - with a major possible culprit being methane releases from polar regions where it's now in cold storage, in the form of methane clathrates on the ocean floor and methane/carbon dioxide in frozen (or formerly frozen) tundra. We do know that there's some methane starting to bubble up in some arctic seas, and also know that quite a lot of tundra is no longer frozen year-round and is releasing gas. Nobody seems to have a good grip yet on quantities, or rate of change - so stay tuned. If much of that methane clathrate starts to let go in a short time frame, it's really game over, much much worse than 6 degrees world average - but again, nobody can quantify how bad. We also know something today that the IPCC did not understand just a few years ago - the ocean is now warm enough and acid enough in the surface zone that it no longer absorbs as much carbon dioxide as it used to. Not sure why the IPCC didn't anticipate this in their modeling - any chemist could have predicted this. One other item the IPCC modeling got terribly wrong was the polar zone ice melting rates, and they still have no idea how to model that effect as a function of time/temperature/wind.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 4:20 pm
01 Dec 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 5:23 pm
01 Dec 2009
The Larson B ice shelf was predicted to be safe for another 1000 years in 1998. It collapsed in 2002. The magnitude of the error of 99.4%
There are many, many scientific computer models that have completely failed to show reality because they are not based on reality.
Emissions modelling is done using testing devices that are up there, not down here next to the ground. They cannot possibly be right.
To test emissions properly, scientists should be analysing points of impact like the nasal mucus excretions of humans and other animals for point of impact. In other words we should be picking our noses in the name of science and participating in medical studies.
None of Ontario's testing (as earlier mentioned) is based on anything real. Our people and most of the rest of the world probably follows the EPA. How often are they right? Our health officials think aviation emissions are just short of nutritious. Our transportation officials think the way to solve Global Warming is to build more airports and highways.
Where do rocket fuel emissions fit into the calculations?
Gene is right. There is no turning back and the 2050 date for cleaning up our planet will be missed by a mile.
The thing that continually defeats the computer models is that there is no way to calculate the acceleration of deterioration factor. That's because what we are doing to the planet has never been done before and historic data is useless as a result.
Scientists simply cannot predict how bad it will get because they are conservative by nature. So get used to scientist making mistakes that have close to a 100% margin of error.
Don't give scientists credit for too much imagination on these issues. Science is not about imagination, it's about banging your head against the wall until even wrong information sounds right. You can never get a right answer without asking the right questions, then doing the appropriate research.
As for the tipping point, that has been reached.
Animal populations all over the world are starving to death.
The foundational species that are beneath most scientists notice - the ones the glamour species prey feeds on, are being wiped out by what is called biomagnification. That is toxic exposure that to us may seem infintesimally small, that are huge to an infintessimally small organism who just happens to be vital to our survival and that of every other living creature.
These are what I call Foundational Species because these no-name species are the life forms that all other "higher" forms of life depend on for the pyramid of life to remain standing rather than crumbling like a house of cards.
Don't take my word for this. Google STARVING POLAR BEARS, BLACK BEARS, WOLVES, COYOTES AND COUGARS. This year in Canada was a starvation year for predators in Canada.
Think about this - Coyotes eat mice and rabbits. Yet two attacked and killed Toronto recording artist, Taylor Mitchell on Cape Breton Island. Game officials reported the animals starving - in summer! Where were the mice and rabbits? Does the word pesticides mean anything in this picture?
Insects of every description, not just bees are going the way of the dodo and the dinosaur in one hell of a hurry in case you haven't noticed.
Here we no longer need bug sponges or bug screens. There are NO BUGS! Or nearly none. I've been monitoring the situation since 2005. Our woods and fields are dioramas - practically devoid of life other than mosqutoes and black flies (in season). They will be having problems to without red blooded animals to suck on. Other than us I mean.
Our frog and snake populations are vestigial. Our hawks are living on road kills and line both sides of the highway in a sort of death watch trance.
If you pay attention, I'm sure you'll find that the climate shift is having an effect on your area too.
Permalink
dbaker Posted 8:57 pm
01 Dec 2009
103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
Permalink
oracle2world Posted 6:45 am
02 Dec 2009
Doesn't seem like much "consensus" here about sea level rise. This doesn't bother anyone?
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:00 am
02 Dec 2009
Thanks for all you are doing and hope to accomplish at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
It appears that all of you have been "swift-boated" by ideologues. Arrogance, foolhardiness, greed-mongering and ideological idiocy rule the world in our time.
One psychologically disordered leader recently championed with pride that the business of greed is evidence of God's good work in the world he and others who are similarly situated rule absolutely. He and other self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe would have human beings with feet of clay believe that all of us can actually exist in our planetary home without the natural resources (that they are rapaciously dissipating) and the ecosystem services (that they are recklessly polluting and relentlessly diminishing) only the Earth can provide. If these so-called leaders of the human community are allowed to continue blazing the "primrose path" of an ever enlarging-scale of economic globalization, as many too many of these intellectually dishonest poseurs and profiteers are doing now, then the Earth could soon be ruined as a fit place for human habitation. On a finite planet with the size, composition and frangible ecology of Earth, humankind cannot realistically "outgrow" the converging global threats that have emerged as a result of distinctly human overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities now rampantly overspreading the surface of Earth. Despite all the Masters of the Universe uniformly advocate through their obscenely enriched minions in the mainstream media, their patently unsustainable plan for the seemingly endless expansion of the global political economy is a fool's errand.
Perhaps necessary change toward sustainability is in the offing, lest a tiny minority of the most avaricious and hyperconsumptive hoarders among us despoil the Earth and its environment before the end of the next decade.
Until Copenhagen, where humanity's last best hope to provide a good enough future for the children abides,
I remain sincerely yours,
Steve
Permalink
Switters Posted 7:14 am
02 Dec 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:35 am
02 Dec 2009
Please let me be crystal clear about one thing. Under no cicumstances would eugenics be an acceptable course of action for the human community.
I will go so far as to say your "slippery slope" is a steep and narrow one that is anathema to me.
Thanks for your comment.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 9:17 am
02 Dec 2009
In our case, with the aid of our brilliant and almost totally artifical technology combined with the near global abysmal ignorance of environmental necessity and reality, humanity's thinning of the herd is going to be swift and brutal when it happens.
It boils down to this: we either take care of our population excesses and thus our emissions or it will be taken care of for us.
That is not too complicated a concept is it?
When I first started researching these issues actively back in 1970, what was going to happen was pretty obvious to me. So I painted a series of major paintings depicting what was going to happen. All of it has or is happening. It was not difficult to envision:
Sitting around a camp fire tells you smoke is not healthy. Dumping garbage into the environment and not recycling would lead to trashing finite resources on a planet with no spares.
Simple addition and multiplication soon showed what the future would hold.
In school, I never passed a math test after I was 15. My math skills are rudimentary compared to what is taught in grade school today.
So how is it that minds far more mathematically adept than mine are having trouble working out what is going to happen if we don't somehow reduce the planet's population in one hell of a hurry regardless of the ethics?
Has anyone but me figured out that endgame pollution has no capacity for ethics?
It's eugenics or annihilation. Pick one.
Permalink
Switters Posted 9:57 am
02 Dec 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 11:41 am
02 Dec 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 1:14 pm
02 Dec 2009
Yes there is a third option. It's called CANNIBALISM.
Permalink
memeri Posted 1:52 pm
02 Dec 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 3:14 pm
02 Dec 2009
If you think about it, it's starting to happen already. Asthma becomes Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (not always)and those specimens are cut from the herd as time goes on. MCSrs don't procreate normally. As the atmosphere degrades, more and more Asthmatics, Autistics etc.etc., will be more severely affected and in their weakened state will have weaker offspring most of the time.
The ultimate survivors may end up vastly different to us due to new physical requirements thanks to genetic modification after VOC DNA damage.
As of right now there is likely not a single warm blooded being that has not acquired a chemical bioaccumulation. And that bioaccumulation will have mid to long term consequences affecting all future choices for survival at every level.
In my area, the geniuses that run our government are intending to build a new super highway, an airport, a huge incinerator (the better to pollute New York with) that will emit nanoparticles and a massive sewage pipe to enable more upwind development. The population of the Greater Toronto Area will double and according to these same geniuses who know squat about emissions themselves claim there will be little or no effect on down wind communities or the environment. And don't forget what I said earlier - all Canadian emissions gathering is based on a self-perpetuating fairy tale.
And don't forget, not one of our governing wackos knows that the emissions regulations are assembled by scientists who spend their time surfing the internet for fake info.
Just this afternoon I was denied access by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)(does that acronym remind you of anyone fitting the dumb and dumbest description?)to review a couple of monitoring sites (to help prove their info is fake). Yet our federal Weather Act, Section 5 guarantees me access.
If I manage to prove that our emissions testing is fraudulent, by extension, I will prove the emissions testing done nearly everywhere is equally fraudulent and that the information we have been given is much rosier than it really is.
All I need to prove the fraud conclusively is one visit to a site with a Ministry expert and that will be that.
Permalink