Climate Change In Canada

In its continued exploitation of the oilsands of Alberta, Canadia may have recently surpassed even the US in its ability to ignore climate change science in the name of making economic gains.  It was a pleasant surprise, therefore, to find an opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian national newspaper, supporting the work of scientists as “square-jawed heros” of current crises.

Effectively a firm rebuttal of the idea that just because of a few poorly-worded emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia the entire climate science paradigm (or even the broader scientific establishment) has collapsed, the author highlights the vital work of scientists and the robustness of the system within which they work.

In the Hollywood version of how science influences policy, the brilliant scientist has a eureka moment in the lab and calls the president, who promptly dispatches a square-jawed hero to save the day. In the real world, both science and politics are enormously more complicated.

It is in this real-world context that we must place the imbroglio surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s research. Breathless media claims that the scientific consensus supporting the reality of climate change and its causes has collapsed are simply untrue.

At its heart, the debate centres on the role and process of science in creating a platform for human progress. If anything has been “revealed,” it is the challenge of communicating complex science to a media world that requires scientists to reduce their research to a sound bite.

I highly recommend reading the full article.

, ,

  1. #1 by Jon d on February 17, 2010 - 19:02

    He Also says…

    Yes, some scientists showed poor judgment in private e-mail exchanges later hacked and made public. Yes, some errors in fact and incomplete citations have been found in the IPCC’s 1,000-page reports.

    My skeptic buds however note that all the errors detected that I’ve heard about seem to have fallen on the side of the charts resulting in overstatement of the problem. Are we just not hearing about errors in the other direction or is it down to some other reason? Jus askin.

  2. #2 by F0ul on February 23, 2010 - 11:10

    Strange that in a subject which is more full of hot air on both sides that you fall on the side with the most to gain.
    I count myself as sceptic on the idea of man made climate change. The reason? Because I have a graph on my PC showing the results of an analysis of a Greenland Glacier – going back over 100,000 years.
    Yes its getting warmer, but its still not as warm now as it was even 1000 years ago, never mind at the time of the Greeks or even the building of the pyramids.
    It isn’t as if the IPCC don’t know this – just look at their reports from 1990 – before they worked out that more grants translate into more alarmism translate into more grants!

    Sceptics? You are just the listening to authority!

  3. #3 by MCMorris on December 8, 2010 - 12:18

    It is an interestin­g question , because it really is revealing of the actual ideology of the Warmists : they’re the heirs to the radical anticoloni­alist movement of the Sixties, which enhanced all sorts of micro-nati­onalisms worldwide, so they are afraid that the microstate­s they adore so significantly, and who play a so important role in the UN, will disappear : they thus show that their motivation­s are much more political than scientific­. Obviously, it means absolutely nothing that climate models have been accurately predicting this stuff because the ’80s. I’m guessing the laws of thermodyna­mics and fluid mechanics have a liberal bias.

(will not be published)