Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

How Much Do Temperature Adjustments Affect Global Temperatures?

By Paul Homewood

While we’re on the topic of temperature adjustments, it is worth revisiting this paper from 2012.

image

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/2/documents/EGU2012-956-1.pdf


It must be pointed out that it is the old GHCN Version 2 which they are working on, though adjustments such as the Arctic ones did not seem to appear till Version 3.

Nevertheless, what the authors claim is that adjustments account for 0.3C of the 0.7C of warming recorded in the last century. Certainly not the insignificant amounts usually claimed.

One of the points they make is that corrections may introduce bigger errors than the errors they try to remove.



They conclude:

image

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

 

[OldBlackDog]

Political, Scientific Chicanery Underlies Global Warming Alarmism

In her December 28 CNN article, “How Germany Banishes Climate Myths,” German environment minister Barbara Hendricks argues that the climate policies enabled by her country and the EU as a whole have been an economic success.

This is nothing more than East German-style disinformation.

The reality is that Germany’s so-called “Solar Valley” has become a mothballed industrial rust belt. Nearly all solar energy manufacturers have closed their doors.

In support of her argument, Hendricks claims that while greenhouse gas emissions in the EU fell by 18% between 1990 and 2012, there was cumulative growth of 45% in the EU’s economy during this period. However, this represents a growth rate of only 2% annually, while typical investment portfolios grew by between 100% (4.5% annually) and 300% (13.6% annually) during this time.

Hendricks asserts:

Scientists have long agreed that climate action strengthens economic development and creates an opportunity for comprehensive modernization of our economies.

This makes no sense. Scientists aren’t experts on economics, and unbiased scientists never agree on such contentious matters. Hendricks continues:

The age of fossil fuel is coming to an end, just as the age of the horse and cart, the steam locomotive and the oil lamp eventually came to an end.

Strange, then, that the price of oil currently languishes near a 10-year low; that, allowing for technological developments, the world has adequate supplies of hydrocarbons to last for several hundred years; that coal remains the dominant energy source worldwide; and that even after 30 years of intensive propaganda and taxpayer subsidy, solar and wind energy sources are yet to provide even 2% of the world’s energy supply.

Hendricks’ CNN article is just another example of the use of fraudulent PR spin to promote a desired political message while ignoring the realities of science and economics. Regrettably, such obligatory use of spin and misinformation has now become a political norm, and may even be an inevitable result of modern Western democratic processes. But what is much more damaging, and has now been weakening OECD nations and the world economy for more than 30 years, is the complicity of leading and influential scientists in these political processes.

Why is it that when a political figure makes a misstatement about a global warming-related issue, which happens many times every day, no government scientific agency or leading university scientist ever corrects them?

For example, all climate modelers correctly label their speculations of future world temperatures as “projections,” meaning that they have no validated forecast skill. Yet politicians, mass media, and the public treat the models as providing temperature forecasts or predictions. Because this misusage is never corrected, politicians cheerily continue to base expensive public policy on it.

Another example: carbon dioxide, as an essential factor in photosynthesis, is the elixir of planetary life, yet politicians dub it a “pollutant.” Similarly, badging the theoretical global warming problem as a “carbon” issue represents scientific illiteracy because it fails to distinguish the element “carbon” from the molecule “carbon dioxide,” and deliberately encourages the public to confuse a colorless, odorless, beneficial gas with soot. Again, climate-alarmist scientists say little or nothing to correct these mistakes.

Many in the public understand that Hendricks’ behavior is typical of politicians everywhere. But most people do not recognize that fraud is also being directly committed in support of this travesty by many of today’s self-appointed “leading climate scientists.” For when they are not directly massaging the data relied upon in their scientific writings, these scientists often report their findings in ways that are intended to deceive the reader into believing that dangerous global warming exists, or will shortly exist. The UN’s climate reports are the magnum opus of this style of operation.

Describing or presenting data in ways that are intended to mislead represents an ultimate betrayal of the scientific method. Worse, the National Science Foundation might have funded the research, and the results are being published in leading scientific journals.

Massaging results can be even worse than direct fabrication. Skilled practitioners can bolster and present tendentious arguments based on real facts in ways that require extraordinary intellectual strength and lengthy discussion to rebut, responses that few science journals will allow to be published. And thus politicization of climate change research has led to that field now representing a travesty of proper scientific process.

The main reason that this exploitative scientific behavior is not more often openly labeled fraud is the fear of legal reprisal against scientist whistleblowers. For those who pursue climate alarmism have almost unlimited funds and legal advice — not to mention the support of the press, academia, government, and even religious institutions — to pursue and defend their cause.

The role played by professional climate scientists in propping up what is arguably the most costly scandal in human history should concern all responsible citizens. We are in serious trouble as a society should other science-based policy discussions be carried out in similar fashion to the climate debate.

Former Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics solar-climate expert Dr. Sallie Baliunas said in a presentation before the Independent Institute:

Science is the only successful means we know of to explain nature … But science needs special societal protection, and without that protection, science will just be dialed out and, in its place will be substituted the myths that humans love to create.

If science is to continue playing a leadership role in modern society, it must be protected from climate researchers who employ censorship, dishonesty, and aggression in an attempt to frighten the world into rash action. Scientists from all disciplines must now speak out. The stakes are too high to accept anything less.

 

[agentaqua]

LOL! pretending to be a scientist. What else is there to say.

What else OBD? How about "disrespectful"?

GLG doesn't need to be a scientist to read the Science. I never heard him claim he was - and if he was or wasn't - so what?

The Science is available to everyone - including you.

 

[OldBlackDog]

EDITORIAL: Changing My Mind about Climate Change, Part Three

Read Part One

I ended Part Two, yesterday, with a public graphic borrowed from Wikipedia.

climate change skeptics greenhouse gases co2 methane water vapor

We’ve got atmospheric temperatures shown at the top, shown in blue, and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) shown in green. Please note that, in this graph, the data has been manipulated to make the changes in CO2 and the changes in temperature appear to be nearly identical. Other graphic presentations of the same data would not necessarily look the same.

The creator of this graphic claims that the data came from a “Vostok” ice core operation, from data built on the supposition that a scientist (or group of scientists) can accurately assess both the temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the earth’s atmosphere 420,000 years ago by measuring chunks of ice extracted in Antarctica.

In January 1998, a collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m. Ice cores are unique with their entrapped air inclusions enabling direct records of past changes in atmospheric trace-gas composition. The Vostok ice core reached back 420,000 years and seemingly revealed several past ice ages.

Here are the happy scientists posing with their ice cores, and with the flags of France, Russia, and the U.S.

vostok ice cores global warming co2 climate change

As we can see from the graph made from their data, about 25,000 years ago the air temperatures indicated by Vostok ice core were about 10 degrees Celsius colder than current day. (That’s 18 degrees Fahrenheit colder.) Which suggests that the earth was largely covered with ice, near the end of what many scientists believe was our most recent ice age.

The Vostok ice core data suggests (to me, at least) several ice ages:

One lasting from 110,000 BC until about 20,000 BCE;

One lasting from about 225,000 BC until about 140,000 BCE;

One lasting from about 300,000 BC until about 240,000 BCE;

And the earliest one indicated by the Vostok ice cores, lasting from about 360,000 BC until about 330,000 BCE.

In between those ice ages, the temperature seems to have increased to a level higher than our current day temperature, for a relatively short period of time.

Here’s the Vostok chart once more, for reference.

climate change skeptics greenhouse gases co2 methane water vapor

This chart makes it appear that variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperatures happened at the same exact moment in time, but the graph may be a bit misleading in that regard. Yes, the CO2 levels rose and fell in a similar pattern — but the changes in CO2 levels actually happened about 800 years after the temperature changes, according to the Vostok ice cores, and other similar ice cores.

Scientists cannot easily explain this strange situation. Anyone with any sense would conclude that — if the CO2 increases and decreases happened 800 years after the corresponding temperature increases and decreases — then the CO2 could obviously not be the cause the temperature increases or decreases, but may have been caused by the temperature increases.

Scientists, especially “climate scientists,” cannot easily explain this data because they really want to believe that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth’s temperature to increase. When the data doesn’t match their preconceived notions, scientists do what they have done for centuries: they concoct a complicated theory to try and explain why the data looks wrong.

Here’s a little quote from the website, RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists, taken from an article by guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback,” much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

But… we have warmings… and we have coolings.

As we notice in the Vostok graph, the temperature of the earth climbed rather quickly (5,000 years) at the end of each ice age, and then about 800 years later, the CO2 began climbing as well. But when the CO2 was at its highest height, the earth’s temperature had already begun falling, and continued falling slowing for thousands of years.

How, then, did the temperature fall? When the atmosphere was chock full of CO2, the “greenhouse gas”? Suddenly, the CO2 lost all its magic warming powers. Professor Severinghaus doesn’t attempt to try and explain the ice age cooling process in his article. (More of the “currently unknown processes,” perhaps?)

A friend of mine explains it this way:

Let’s review the basic “global warming” hypothesis, and see where it fails to meet a standard of proof worthy of general academic acceptance — let alone worthy of reformulating the entire global energy economy around.

In the case of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, the basic hypothesis is that excess man-made greenhouse gases (primarily CO2 from burning fossil fuels) are accumulating at unprecedented levels and dangerous rates. These greenhouse gasses are trapping heat that would otherwise be radiated into space, and are causing the entire atmosphere, oceans, and thus the surface temperature of the earth to steadily warm. Over time, according to the hypothesis, this will cause great disruption in global climate, rising of sea levels through melting of existing glaciers and ice caps, destruction of habitats for wildlife, chaos, mass starvation, endless dust bowls, monster storms. In the end, Earth turns into a molten hell like the planet Venus.

Pretty scary, but basically a good testable hypothesis so far. In order to prove this hypothesis, you’d need to show a few things. Like, the earth is actually warming and at an otherwise unexplainably accelerated rate it. (It isn’t even warming, and hasn’t for 18 years now, let alone at an accelerated rate.) You’d need to show you understood all or most of the biggest contributing natural mechanisms that might otherwise impact warming, eliminate them as causes, and link your observed warming effects solely to excess man-made greenhouse gas production. And you’d need to be able to accurately predict the amount of that warming over, say, the next decade or two as a function of those man made CO2 levels.

It has now been over 20 years since the first doomsday predictions of global warming started to accumulate and gain popular political momentum. While it is true CO2 levels have been steadily increasing, atmospheric temperatures actually have not. According to satellite measurements, there’s been no net global warming since approximately the late 1990s — despite increasing levels of CO2.

It turns out there are other greenhouse gases we don’t hear talked about much. Like methane from plant decomposition and intestinal distress of animals (and certain humans).

And… water vapor.

Read Part Four…

 

[agentaqua]

Speaking of historic CO2 levels steelmadness - have a look at this graph and article below from: http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-blog/mass-extinctions-and-co2-levels See how the peaks in CO2 levels are associated with mass extinctions. Still think business as usual is our best option?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Extinctions and CO2 levels

Submitted by John on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 15:57
Newsletter:
Climate Change / Ocean Impacts Blog
The chart below is adapted from a similar graph in Dr. Peter Ward's book, "Under a Green Sky." It plots all the mass extinction events of the last 500 million years against the best estimate of carbon dioxide levels (CO2) at the time. According to his analysis, all major extinctions occured when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).

This is a fascinating and ominous correlation, which I will explain in a moment. First, a word about Peter and the book cited above. He is well - qualified, beyond being an emminent professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. He has received many honors; was featured on some television shows; gave a talk at the highly reputed TED conferences; and has written 17 books. (Although we have recently become friends, I was a reader and fan for several years prior.)

In "Under a Green Sky" he describes the fascinating detective work, in which he participated, to understand some of the previous mass extinctions. The tedious work to decipher the geologic record in diverse places around the world, becomes an adventure.

The picture that emerges, is that over tens of millions of years, Earth's climate and life forms have changed dramatically, at times, with different causes or 'trigger events.'

He proposes that there are two different biologic modes of the planet, over the last few hundred million years. The big distinguishing factor is the state of the ocean, and its bio-chemistry. At a certain level of temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) the sea turns purple, with a hydrogen sulfide base. When that happens, a mass extinction occurs. A mass extinction is defined as when more than half the species disappear.

As you will see on that graph, each known mass extinction during the last 550 million years occurred when CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm. If you want to get an understanding of the connection, and a fascinating understanding of how leading paleontologists decipher the past, I encourage you to get this book.

The cause for concern is that the current CO2 level -- more than 390 ppm (parts per million) -- is projected to reach a thousand ppm in approximately one hundred years at the current rate of increase. The measurement of CO2 levels has been done with great precision for more than fifty years going back to the legendary work of Dr. Charles David Keeling, on a remote Hawaiian mountain top, to avoid the influence of civilization on the atmosphere. Now those measurements are also done by labs around the world. (I will cover the Keeling curve in a separate post soon.) Back to the question of extinctions and CO2. What is unknown is how quickly such a chain of events (high temperature and CO2 causing the hydrogen sulfide chemistry to take over the seas) could occur.

When people talk about the extinctions of species, and how our environment is changing, sometimes they ask, "Do you think we could go extinct?" Until I read Ward's book, I would always dismiss that, not wanting to be an alarmist. Now I think differently, and look for a funny or tactful way to sidestep the question -- depending on the audience and the situation.

For the truth is that of course we will go extinct -- the question is whether that occurs in billions of years, when our sun expands to the point of incinerating life on our planet, or due to some event MUCH sooner. The connection that Peter has now illuminated, puts a very different timescale on the issue. There is a big difference between the possibility of a mass extinction during the next thousand years, or the next billion. As Ward explains, we can not yet predict how quickly high CO2 levels could change the ocean biochemistry system.

Also it is still hard to project the rate of change for CO2, given the recent and current rapid growth of our emmissions, largely from energy production. Dr. James Hansen, a leading climate expert points out that at the current rate CO2 will increase 100 ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change -- the most recent one occuring approximately 50 million years ago -- it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by 100 ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than at any time in known geologic history.

Unitl now, I thought the primary issues associated with climate change and increasing levels of CO2 were a) how much the CO2 and other greenhouse gases would warm the planet, b) how the warming would melt the ice sheets, causing a major crisis from sea level rise over the next few centuries, and c) the effect of CO2 disolving in the ocean, causing a drop in pH -- known as Ocean Acidification. With this new powerful insight from Dr. Ward, I now add the CO2 itself as a threat even if the timeframe is some unknown number of centuries, or even millennia.

If you are like me, you probably are stunned with this information, and may need to let it sink in. It truly puts a new level of importance on the issue of how high we are willing to let CO2 levels rise, regardless of the cost to solve the challenge, or the impact on short term economics. As they say, extinction is forever. Until now, I never seriously considered that there was even a remote possibility of humans going extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now I see a different reality if we were to foolishly let CO2 levels climb ever upward. Of course at some point necessity and human ingenuity will likely figure out a way to reduce the CO2 levels, so-called "geo-engineering." The challenges, side effects, and unintended consequences of geo-engineering are ENORMOUS. We will look at that in another blog post.

- See more at: http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-le...tinctions-and-co2-levels#sthash.VVauzn6l.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

<iframe src="https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
TED talk-A theory of Earth's Mass Extinctions:

 

[OldBlackDog]

Something to discuss.

The true arrogance is to believe that we are so irrelevant we can't impact climate on a global scale. While certainly the past climate changes had little to nothing to do with anthropogenic involvement, to use those as examples of why anthropogenic contributions cannot have impact now is just plain stupid. Obviously something that wasn't occurring in the past, could not have affected the past. Your argument is the logical equivalent of arguing "There were massive die offs of organisms in the past and none of them involved nuclear weapons, so we needn't worry about nuclear weapons now".

We know we can influence climate on very large scales because we have already and we have in the past. If you don't want to think we can change climate on a massive scale by our own actions, I'd suggest you read about the combined natural and human forces that led to the famous Oklahoma dust bowl. The farming practices we implemented helped to create the dust bowl and dust storms that traveled 2000 miles from west to east and blackout the skies in cities like Washington DC and NY. The changes in farming practices largely eliminated such storms. We've also massively changed climates in many regions through deforestation. Much of the land mass of the earth looks nothing like it did prior to human industrialization so it's clear to anyone who looks around and thinks sensibly that we can have massive impacts on a global scale.
We can also model the impact of throwing so much CO2 into the atmosphere and we know it can, does and has increased the global temperature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I thought you would like to argue against this point Seadna?

Let’s review the basic “global warming” hypothesis, and see where it fails to meet a standard of proof worthy of general academic acceptance — let alone worthy of reformulating the entire global energy economy around.

In the case of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, the basic hypothesis is that excess man-made greenhouse gases (primarily CO2 from burning fossil fuels) are accumulating at unprecedented levels and dangerous rates. These greenhouse gasses are trapping heat that would otherwise be radiated into space, and are causing the entire atmosphere, oceans, and thus the surface temperature of the earth to steadily warm. Over time, according to the hypothesis, this will cause great disruption in global climate, rising of sea levels through melting of existing glaciers and ice caps, destruction of habitats for wildlife, chaos, mass starvation, endless dust bowls, monster storms. In the end, Earth turns into a molten hell like the planet Venus.

Pretty scary, but basically a good testable hypothesis so far. In order to prove this hypothesis, you’d need to show a few things. Like, the earth is actually warming and at an otherwise unexplainably accelerated rate it. (It isn’t even warming, and hasn’t for 18 years now, let alone at an accelerated rate.) You’d need to show you understood all or most of the biggest contributing natural mechanisms that might otherwise impact warming, eliminate them as causes, and link your observed warming effects solely to excess man-made greenhouse gas production. And you’d need to be able to accurately predict the amount of that warming over, say, the next decade or two as a function of those man made CO2 levels.

It has now been over 20 years since the first doomsday predictions of global warming started to accumulate and gain popular political momentum. While it is true CO2 levels have been steadily increasing, atmospheric temperatures actually have not. According to satellite measurements, there’s been no net global warming since approximately the late 1990s — despite increasing levels of CO2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We are not so good at predicting/modeling short or even moderate term trends, but the overall rise in temperature is well modeled and well understood. The argument that we are "arrogant" by "thinking we could influence climate on a global scale" is the epitome of sticking one's head in the sand. We know we can have global impact on animal species (hunting, over fishing etc.), plant species (farming and deforestation), air quality (CFC's, Ozone, NO, etc), heavy metals (China recently reported that 16.1 percent of the country’s soil and nearly 20 percent of its arable land has been contaminated, largely by heavy metals such as cadmium, nickel and arsenic), etc., etc., etc. To think that we can't possibly screw with climate simply because it has high natural variability is IMHO, incredibly stupid.

 

[agentaqua]

http://vimeo.com/64407973
"Under a Green Sky," Peter Ward
from Visual Media Services, EdCC PLUS 1 year ago NOT YET RATED
Brown Bag Lecture Series; Center for Student Engagement & Leadership; and Arts, Culture, and Civic Engagement
Apr. 11, 2013
In honor of Earth Month: Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., is a paleontologist and professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Washington. Ward specializes in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (the one that killed the dinosaurs), the Permian-Triassic extinction event, and mass extinctions in general. He was elected as a fellow of the California Academy of Science in 1984 and has been nominated for the Schuchert Medal, an award of the Paleontological Society. Ward has written many books including Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future and The Flooded Earth: Our Future In a World Without Ice Caps.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Here you go, scientists.
Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years


Christy
Dr. John Christy, director of the University of Alabama/Huntsville's Earth System Science Center, testifies before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' hearing on global warming in August, 2012.
(CNSNews.com) – The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.
“That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.

The "plateau" is evident in the climate record Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.

CNSNews.com asked Christy why the United Nations’ climate models, which all predicted steeply rising temperatures over the past two decades, were all proven wrong.

“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something' when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.

“A policy is supposed to have a goal. Well, if you don’t know how the system works, that means you don’t know how to make it go toward that goal. And that’s certainly the case now, since none of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past. And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”

However, he noted that “there is still a strong belief system that greenhouse gases control the climate, and so if that is your belief system, then it doesn’t really matter what the evidence shows.”

Global temperatures
(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Christy said he has “no idea” if the Earth’s temperature will go up again in the future.
“I’m a climatologist, which means I’m driving the car and looking in the rearview mirror, not out the front windshield, so I don’t try to forecast,” he told CNSNews.com.

But earlier predictions that the El Nino will drive up temperatures this year were off the mark, he says.

“There was a big pulse in what was a precursor to the El Nino back in May, and so it looked like it was going to be a very strong El Nino, but that pulse of warm water in the ocean – the heat content, actually – just faded away, basically. And so this wasn’t going to be a 1997/98 El Nino again. I don’t think they’re going to see the big spike in temperature” that was originally predicted.

“But you know, El Ninos come and go, and they shouldn’t be factored in what the overall temperature does over decades.”

Christy countered claims by some climatologists that the satellite data doesn’t show an increase in surface temperature because the "missing heat" was absorbed by the oceans.

“That would require a change in wind speeds. It also means the climate models don’t have the oceans right,” he pointed out. “The other alternative is that the heat never was stored in the climate system, and that it escaped into space. That is just as plausible.”

"I predicted this in 1999," Dr. Don Easterbrook, a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State, said of the 18-year period with no global warming. "My prediction has now happened."

"The same year the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) models were predicting that the Earth would warm by one degree per decade, I was predicting that the Earth would cool for the next three decades," he noted. "They were way off the mark, while my prediction is still on target."

Easterbrook added that with the sun entering a period known as a Grand Minimum, "it's a sure thing it's going to get cooler. It's just difficult to tell how much. It looks like it may get one degree cooler and maybe more," he said. "That may not seem like a lot, but it only warmed up one degree during the entire last century."

What else OBD? How about "disrespectful"?

GLG doesn't need to be a scientist to read the Science. I never heard him claim he was - and if he was or wasn't - so what?

The Science is available to everyone - including you.

 

[agentaqua]

Christy said he has “no idea” if the Earth’s temperature will go up again in the future. “I’m a climatologist, which means I’m driving the car and looking in the rearview mirror, not out the front windshield, so I don’t try to forecast,” he told CNSNews.com

Ahh - the "I'm not a scientist explanation". At least Christy was honest about his lack of experience in the forescasting end of the climate change Sciences. Yet - he was called in to testify in the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Kinda makes one wonder who invited him - and how one gets invited to those sessions.

Interestingly enough, Christy and our old friend Roy Spenser work together. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

'Since 1989 Christy, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once quite controversial: From the beginning of the satellite record in late 1978 into 1998 it showed a net global cooling trend, although ground measurements and instruments carried aloft by balloons showed warming in many areas. Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[5][6] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.".

He appears to be a little more honest in the courts: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf

'In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [12] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." When then asked if he presently agreed with that IPCC assessment Christy responded, "As I answered here, because of the qualifications in that statement, I don't have significant concerns.""

Christy also signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Earth-warming-at-faster-pace-say-top-science-2545632.php which states in part: " "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century.""

"In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century.""

Nice try OBD - keep it coming...

 

[GLG]

LOL! pretending to be a scientist.
What else is there to say.

Is that all you got?
I just poked a hole in your "18 year with no global warming" theory and that's the best you could come up with.
No I'm not a scientist but I did pay attention when I was in school.
I also had to learn new, complicated, things through out my career.
Learning should not stop once you leave school, work in a career or when you retire.
Perhaps that's why I have the tools and the nohow to spot ******** when I see it.

No I'm not a scientist but 97% of the climate scientists say we have a major problem and we need action now.
No I'm not a economist but they say we have all that is needed to fix the problem without harming the economy.
No I'm not a politician but they say we have the policy's available to fix the problem.
No I'm to a religious leader but they say it's our moral obligation to fix the problem.
No I'm not a business leader but they say they are ready to fix the problem.

We have the tools and technology to get the job done, we just need to start.
Many of us are have already started and have the courage to voice our thoughts.
I would rather be wrong and leave a clean future then you and a disaster if you are wrong.
Think about that point... what if you are wrong? What then?

We have an amazing future ahead with a new low carbon economy based on free renewable energy. It's a shame that some would like to keep the old system based on selling fossil fuels and all the problems that come with it. Imagine a world that everyone had as much energy as they needed without being held ransom to the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure the "buggy whip" industry fought hard to keep it's industry alive when they became irreverent. I personally think the answer to our energy question is clean fusion energy. I like the wireless option at this point till we can build out something bigger.


Why don't you try to address these points and show some leadership?

 

[seadna]

Something to discuss.

Your quote is not what I said but rather contains text written by you interspersed with what I said. You should edit your post to correct your misattribution of your words as mine. As for the theory of global warming failing "to meet a standard of proof worthy of general academic acceptance" - that's nonsense. It has met a standard of proof worthy of general academic acceptance as is indicated by the general academic acceptance of those who actually study climate science.

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/0...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090215

Five Public Opinion Headaches For Alberta Oil Execs
Polling from Calgary's own corner offices reveals pipeline protest 'not just for West Coast hippies anymore.'
By Emma Gilchrist, 7 Feb 2015, Desmog Canada

Alberta Oil magazine just published its national survey on energy literacy, the culmination of 1,396 online interviews of a representative sample of Canadians conducted by Leger.

The results are particularly interesting coming from Alberta Oil, a magazine destined for the desks of the energy sector's senior executives and decision-makers.

Summing up the survey's findings, Alberta Oil editors wrote that opposition to energy projects is ''not just for West Coast hippies anymore.''

Indeed. There are quite a few nuggets in the survey's findings that are probably causing a headache or two in Calgary's corner offices this week. We round up the top five.

1. Trans Mountain vs. Northern Gateway

Opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is just as serious as opposition to Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline -- if not more so, according to the survey.

What's more, the more highly educated citizens are, the less likely they are to support Trans Mountain or Northern Gateway. Perhaps the anti-pipeline crowd isn't all unemployed hippies after all?

2. Trust issues

Fewer than one in 10 post-secondary graduates find oil and gas industry associations credible and trustworthy when it comes to carbon emissions.

That shouldn't come as a huge surprise given industry associations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have fought new greenhouse gas regulations and successfully lobbied to weaken Canada's environmental laws.

3. Define 'essential'

Young people aren't sold on the future of the energy industry. Just 16.5 per cent of people aged 18 to 34 described it as ''essential,'' compared to 30.3 per cent overall. What's more, only 9.3 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 34 described the oilsands as ''essential'' compared to 18 per cent of the broader population.

4. Quebec's anti-pipeline surprise

While British Columbia has thus far been the focal point of Canada's pipeline debate, the strongest opposition to the oil and gas sector is actually in Quebec.

That's going to have big ramifications for the proposed Energy East pipeline that would theoretically transport bitumen across that province. When asked to think of the oil and gas sector in Canada and select words that come to mind, 51 per cent of Quebecers came up with ''environmental disaster.''

Time for Trans Canada's public relations professionals to pop an Advil.

Map.jpg
Screencap of Alberta Oil magazine's national survey on energy literacy.

5. Literacy… in what language?

The editors at Alberta Oil do some hand-wringing about Canadians' lack of “energy literacy”… although literacy in this case appears to be defined as the ability to answer somewhat obscure pro-industry questions.

Take the multiple choice question on how much more carbon intensive the oil produced from Alberta's oilsands is than the average grade of U.S. crude on a well-to-wheels basis. Only 5.6 per cent of respondents chose correctly. Hold on… hasn't there been a raging debate going on for the past few years on oilsands' emissions intensity?

While Alberta Oil would like you to think the ''correct'' answer to that question is six per cent, a comparison of oilsands emissions intensities (well-to-wheels) from seven data sources to the 2005 U.S. baseline showed that oilsands emissions range from eight to 37 per cent higher than the baseline. Really, the best answer would probably be that there's a huge amount of variation and disagreement on oilsands emissions intensity.

The good news is very few Canadians can spew out the precise answers industry wants to hear. Oil execs probably aren't stoked that their multi-million dollar public relations campaigning appear to be falling on deaf ears.

 

[agentaqua]

EXCELLENT! posts CDNA and GLG! Keep up the good work!

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/de...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

TOO HOT TO HANDLE
Heat waves are becoming more frequent and deadly (suddenly winter seems a lot less threatening).

BY BRIAN PALMER | @PALMERBRIAN | 1 hour ago
PHOTO: MEAGAN
We need a new phrase to describe prolonged periods of extremely high temperatures. “Heat wave” conjures up images of people fanning themselves on the front porch, surrounded by moist glasses of iced tea and lemonade, or dancing to Martha and the Vandellas. Tell someone it’s going to be bitterly cold, and they imagine clinging to life in a parka and a balaclava, with ice accumulating on their eyelashes.

I’m not sure why cold is so much scarier than heat, but the evidence is everywhere. We say hyperbolically that we’re “freezing to death,” but there’s no equally common phrase involving death from heat. The myth that being cold can cause a viral infection is one of the most persistent in our culture, but your grandmother never said, “Take off that knit cap or you’ll get sick!” Even our government policies reflect our overactive dread of the cold. The government spends nine times as much money trying to keep poor people warm as it does trying to cool them off. An extreme fear of cold seems to be hardwired into our lizard brains.

We should start approaching extreme heat with the same trepidation—things are bad and getting worse. For a new study in the journal Environmental Research Letters, a team of international researchers examined temperature data between 1973 and 2012 for evidence of urban heat waves. They defined “heat wave” not as a time of increased lemonade consumption but as a period of six or more consecutive days with daily highs in the 99th percentile of the sample. Yeah, that’s hot.

The findings are startling. Heat waves increased every decade in the 217 urban areas studied, and the rate of increase seems to be accelerating. The most recent four years in the study were all among the five with the most heat waves. Extreme cold and wind, by contrast, were down.

The news is not entirely surprising, of course. We call it global warming for a reason. Temperatures are rising in many places. All 10 hottest years on record have occurred between 1998 and now—and we haven’t seen a record cold month since 1916. Nevertheless, the rise in extreme heat is a special concern, because this can lead to preventable deaths.


How many deaths? Good question. The truth is, nobody really knows. Extreme heat is usually an indirect cause of death—it makes people who are already weakened by youth, old age, or a variety of illnesses more likely to die. Epidemiologists also quibble over the right way to describe the deaths themselves. Some argue a heat wave that advances the death of a nonagenarian by a few months isn’t the same as a snowstorm-induced car accident that kills a teenager. Others say premature deaths are all tragedies and should be treated the same.

Despite these complications, there's some data on heat-related deaths: NRDC (disclosure) estimates that each year there are 400 directly related to heat in the United States, and 1,800 from illnesses worsened by heat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 666 heat deaths annually between 2006 and 2010. But the numbers vary considerably year to year, since extreme heat waves are unpredictable. A single English heat wave killed as many as 760 people in 2013, according to researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

OK, OK—even with heat waves rising, about twice as many Americans die from cold as from extreme heat. (At least, that’s how the CDC sees things.) But the new study suggests heat is soon going to overtake cold mortality. In 2013, another group of researchers calculated that deaths from heat waves would rise by a factor of 10 in 45 years, blowing away deaths from cold.

The classic lyric “It’s like a heat wave, burning in my heart” is about to take on a much darker meaning.

 

[OldBlackDog]

As I said not a scientist.
Therefore not qualified as you have said before.
My reply to you is there, if you disagree with these scientists then email them or go on their sites and show them.

Is that all you got?
I just poked a hole in your "18 year with no global warming" theory and that's the best you could come up with.
No I'm not a scientist but I did pay attention when I was in school.
I also had to learn new, complicated, things through out my career.
Learning should not stop once you leave school, work in a career or when you retire.
Perhaps that's why I have the tools and the nohow to spot ******** when I see it.

No I'm not a scientist but 97% of the climate scientists say we have a major problem and we need action now.
No I'm not a economist but they say we have all that is needed to fix the problem without harming the economy.
No I'm not a politician but they say we have the policy's available to fix the problem.
No I'm to a religious leader but they say it's our moral obligation to fix the problem.
No I'm not a business leader but they say they are ready to fix the problem.

We have the tools and technology to get the job done, we just need to start.
Many of us are have already started and have the courage to voice our thoughts.
I would rather be wrong and leave a clean future then you and a disaster if you are wrong.
Think about that point... what if you are wrong? What then?

We have an amazing future ahead with a new low carbon economy based on free renewable energy. It's a shame that some would like to keep the old system based on selling fossil fuels and all the problems that come with it. Imagine a world that everyone had as much energy as they needed without being held ransom to the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure the "buggy whip" industry fought hard to keep it's industry alive when they became irreverent. I personally think the answer to our energy question is clean fusion energy. I like the wireless option at this point till we can build out something bigger.


Why don't you try to address these points and show some leadership?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Again, that was not the question that you have not answered and no one else has.
Peer reviewed science that says global warming has not stopped for 18 plus years.
GLG is not peer reviewed science.

Ahh - the "I'm not a scientist explanation". At least Christy was honest about his lack of experience in the forescasting end of the climate change Sciences. Yet - he was called in to testify in the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Kinda makes one wonder who invited him - and how one gets invited to those sessions.

Interestingly enough, Christy and our old friend Roy Spnser work together. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

'Since 1989 Christy, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once quite controversial: From the beginning of the satellite record in late 1978 into 1998 it showed a net global cooling trend, although ground measurements and instruments carried aloft by balloons showed warming in many areas. Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[5][6] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record.".

He appears to be a little more honest in the courts: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf

'In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [12] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." When then asked if he presently agreed with that IPCC assessment Christy responded, "As I answered here, because of the qualifications in that statement, I don't have significant concerns.""

Christy also signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Earth-warming-at-faster-pace-say-top-science-2545632.php which states in part: " "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century.""

"In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century.""

Nice try OBD - keep it coming...

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil...i-predicts-a-drop-to-20-us-a-barrel-1.2950573

Oil output still growing, as Citi predicts a drop to $20 US a barrel
OPEC sees a slowdown in growth in Canada, but no cap until 2030
CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2015 2:39 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2015 4:33 PM ET

Oil prices rose for a third day to the $53 US a barrel range, but Citibank is predicting the price will eventually drop to $20 a barrel. (Hasan Jamali/Associated Press)

The Organization of Oil Exporting Countries says Canada's oil output will grow more slowly than expected because of lower oil prices, but will continue to expand until 2030.

The latest World Oil Outlook from the cartel said the liquid supply from non-OPEC sources will continue growing over the next few years, from 56.2 million barrels a day in 2014 to e 57.5 million barrels in the first quarter of 2015.

Oil price drop creates winners and losers
That's despite a glut of oil that has seen prices fall by 50 per cent in the past eight months. Oil production won't peak in North America until 2030, OPEC said.

The report comes as Citibank predicts oil storage in North America will be close to capacity by the second quarter of 2015.

Citibank is now predicting oil prices as low as $20 US a barrel later this year as the glut of oil grows. That's an additional 55 per cent drop in the price of crude.

Signs of a slowdown in U.S. drilling, seen last week in a report of fewer active drilling rigs, doesn't mean the crude glut will be eliminated, said Edward Morse, Citigroup's global head of commodity research.

Oil now at $52 US

Oil contracts had risen for a third day in a row on Monday, after weeks of declines. The West Texas Intermediate, the contract traded in New York, was up $1.05 at $52.74 a barrel.

Brent crude, the contract traded in London, rose 32 cents to $58.12 and Western Canada Select, a contract used by many Canadian producers, rose $1.32 to $39.56.

The Canadian dollar strengthened on the rising price of oil, lifting 0.35 of a cent to 80.23 US cents.

In its outlook, OPEC pointed to the role of U.S. shale oil and Canadian oilsands crude in boosting oil output worldwide.

"On the supply side, the primary driver of recent non-OPEC output growth has been the U.S. and Canada. Most of the recent increases have been due to oil from tight crude and unconventional natural gas liquids, as well as oilsands development," OPEC said.

In Canada, oil output is expected to average 4.35 million barrels a day in 2015, which is 20,000 barrels lower than OPEC's earlier prediction as low oil prices cause oil companies to cut spending and slow output.

OPEC points to the sensitivity of Canadian oil production to lower oil prices.

"Canada’s oil production outlook for 2015 remains steady on expected conventional oil, but output from unconventional sources will gradually be affected by sustained low oil prices," the report said.

But on the positive side, it forecast global demand for oil would rise in the coming year.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/alberta-economic-outlook-dims-in-face-of-lower-oil-prices-1.2950279

Alberta economic outlook dims in face of lower oil prices
CIBC says province's GDP could shrink by 0.3%
CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2015 11:18 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2015 4:19 PM ET

Calgary and Alberta will be hit hard by the low price of oil, with CIBC predicting that the jobless rate could jump to 6.8 per cent. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

The outlook for Alberta's economy is darkening as economists revise their 2014 estimates of the province's growth in the face of low oil prices.

CIBC is predicting Alberta’s economy will shrink by 0.3 per cent in 2015, as activity in the oilpatch dries up.

And the Conference Board of Canada says the drop in oil prices will strip more than $40 billion US from corporate coffers this year.

It has revised its growth forecast for all of Canada to 1.9 per cent for 2015, down from 2.4 per cent in its previous forecast given last November.

"The pain will be severe, particularly in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, and, to a lesser degree, in Saskatchewan," the Conference Board report said.

The economic think-tank estimates oil prices will level out at about the $60 US a barrel level, probably in the first quarter of 2015. That's still 40 per cent below last year's prices.

If Canadian oil producers export about three million barrels of oil per day in 2015, the low price will cost them more than $40 billion US in lost revenues, the report estimated.

That will lead to a slowdown in capital spending and in employment in the sector.

Recession for Alberta

In its latest forecast, CIBC's research department says unemployment in Alberta will jump from 4.7 per cent to 6.8 per cent by the end of the year.

"I think Alberta is going to toy with recession. Our number is negative 0.3 for 2015, so basically a recession," said Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist at CIBC, in an interview on The Exchange with Amanda Lang.

"Why? Look at what happened in 2008 – basically the same situation. The economy went down, you see a significant increase in unemployment," he continued.

Alberta has enjoyed a net migration of 80,000 workers, many from Atlantic Canada, in recent years to snap up easy to find jobs. But as work disappears, these people might be slower to leave the province, pushing up unemployment figures, Tal said.

He also predicted a downturn in the housing sector and declining household income for Alberta.

"I predict the number of bankruptcies in Alberta probably will rise by 40 per cent over the next year or two – that's more or less the same number we've seen in 2008. It's not a huge issue because it's starting at a very low base," he said.

The Conference Board of Canada agrees, forecasting a hit to Alberta's housing sector with a steep slowdown in housing prices and housing starts.

Both CIBC and the Conference Board see an improvement in the economies of Ontario and Quebec, as the lower dollar, a decline in energy prices, improved productivity and a resurgent U.S. economy create perfect conditions for the manufacturing sector.

CIBC predicts Ontario could grow by 2.8 per cent in 2015 and 2016 and Quebec by 2.4 per cent and 2.6 per cent.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...famation-suit-against-national-post-1.2950286

Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation suit against National Post
'Imputations of dishonest behaviour on the part of a scientist... can constitute defamation'
CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2015 11:21 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2015 11:22 AM ET

Green Party candidate Andrew Weaver is shown in this undated handout photo. If the campaign in the Vancouver Island riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head was all about academic credentials, Andrew Weaver would win -- hands down. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO (Canadian Press)

Andrew Weaver sued the newspaper, its publisher and several writers over four columns that were published in late 2009 and early 2010, which he alleged implied he was "untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent."

Weaver is now a Green party member of B.C.'s legislature, but at the time he was a University of Victoria professor who had participated in the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.

He alleged the columns implied he tried to divert public attention from a scandal involving the IPCC by linking the fossil fuel industry to break-ins at his office, and that he distorted and concealed scientific data.

The scandal in question was dubbed "Climategate," in which hackers leaked thousands of emails from a British climate centre in 2009. The emails were embraced by climate change skeptics who said they contained proof that global warming was a scientific conspiracy.

The Post columns reported that Weaver had pointed to the "fossil fuel industry" as the culprits behind two break-ins in his university office, and that he had implied a connection between the break-ins and Climategate.

Weaver said he had told a Post reporter that the fossil fuel industry was benefiting from an overall campaign to discredit climate science, but he never suggested that it was responsible for security breaches at the university.

He also alleged that the columns had falsely implied that he had distorted and concealed scientific data in exchange for government funding and to promote a public agenda about climate change.

The National Post could not immediately be reached for comment. Former publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as columnists Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin, were all named in the legal action.

National Post used 'fair comment' defence

The newspaper argued the articles were about Weaver's public actions and words, not his character. It also argued they were protected by the defence of fair comment, which essentially allows writers to state opinions if they are in the public interest and based on fact.

B.C. Supreme Court Judge Emily Burke disagreed with the defendants, concluding that an ordinary reader would infer defamatory meanings from the columns — including that Weaver was "deceitful" and "avaricious."

"The reality is the combination and cumulative effect of these articles is such as to adversely impact on Dr. Weaver's reputation and integrity as a scientist," she wrote. "Imputations of dishonest behaviour on the part of a scientist or professor in that role can constitute defamation."

She awarded $50,000 in general damages, and also ordered the Post to remove the articles from its electronic databases, withdraw any consent given to third parties to re-publish the columns, and publish a full retraction online.

Weaver wrote on Twitter on Friday that he was "thrilled" with the decision.