Over the weekend, The Vancouver Sun's Daphne Bramham reported former American vice-president Al Gore wowed an "invited audience of 1,100 at UBC's Chan Centre" last Thursday with his global warming slide show presentation. As some of our astute readers may know, that event was in competition with the provincial Liberal's annual Dinner Under the Sails fundraiser. Nevertheless, according to our operatives, one Campbell administration cabinet minister made it to the event: Deputy Premier Shirley Bond. Also in attendance was Vancouver-Fairview New Democrat MLA Gregor Robertson, advanced education deputy minister Moura Quayle, Senator Pat Carney, Chretien government international trade minister Roy MacLaren and Charles Kelly, who was Prime Minister John Turner's special assistant in British Columbia. Others spotted Brad Bennett, son of Bill, in the audience, as well as headhunter Kyle Mitchell and spin doctor-for-hire James Hoggan.


Most lampshade wearing, enviroNazi celebrants like Al Bore, fail us all.

In a not too distant article in the London Telegraph (the only really readible paper in the Queen's courtyard), esteemed Australian geologist Bob Carter wrote that since 1996 average temperatures across the globe have not increased at all, in fact they have dipped slightly. Carter says what he calls "climate scaremongering" is merely a "self-created political fiasco".

In point of fact, Al Bore's supposition that the Earth became significantly warmer post-industrialization is utter bunk. The Earth actually got warmer between 1918-1940, before industrialization had reached any kind of zenith. The planet actually cooled enough to register a noted drop in temperature between the years of 1940-68, when world industrialization levels had peaked.

Dr. Carter's conclusion, then, is not terribly difficult to follow: global warming is cyclical and people like Al Bore are morons, who while having studied his chosen "field" for many years is almost blinded by the severity of his own political myopia.

The Earth's climate changes unpredictably and in cycles.

The dinner under the sails was an easy choice...

Al Gore is exactly the type of leader that the US and world needs at this juncture.

It would be great to see him become the President of the United States in the next election.

Who on earth is Bob Carter, Tsakumis? Do your have any links to either his resume or his papers?
By whom is he so esteemed?

Sure Budd, happy to oblige...

Prof. Bob Carter, PhD., is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

I took this off the university site, Budd. It took five minutes, no more than that.

I knew you are a rabid, doctrinaire left wingnut, but I didn't realize you were lazy as well.

Al Gore sure loves making up stories. Did he tell you people that he created internet too?

"I knew you are a rabid, doctrinaire left wingnut, but I didn't realize you were lazy as well."

Posted by A. G, Tsakumis on June 6, 2006 03:28 PM

As you know, that's false. What is clearly true is that you are not at all serious about this.

Carter may be one of those few scientists who does not accept that the world's temperature is rising and that human activities, energy consumption, is causing it. It would be interesting to know if his research in this field has been financed by interest groups who have a stake in saying that warming is not occuring.

Of course any scientist that questions the accepted wisdom on global warming must have some kind of ulterior motives, right Budd?

And scientists who support the global warming thesis don't have other motives at stake, oh no.

What blatant hypocrisy. The global warming crowd is happy to tout long resumes and distinguished academic backgrounds to justify their arguments, but whenever scientists of equal stature reject or even question their arguments, they are quick to discredit them in any shape possible.

It's called an open mind, and for people on the Left or in the environmental movemement who are so fond of questioning authority, it appears that there's at least one story that's untouchable - global warming.

Sorry Budd...when I wrote that you were, rabid, doctrinaire and a left wingnut, I was clearly being redundant.

Dr. Carter's thesis is subscribed to by many in his field, but their voices are usually bereft of the shrillness necessary for the enviroNazis when they speak. How else does a dunce like George Clooney qualify as an environmental spokesman? Or Leonardo diCaprio, or Cameron Diaz, or Al Gore, or Charleze Theron, or the Dixie Twits? And they are supported by no less a leftwing nutter PhD or two, mesmerized by the glitterati. It's pathetic. What happened to democracy and open dialogue?

The world is consummed by the mainstream media, who are fundamentally not there to report anymore, but to forcefully shape society in such a way that their positions in their respective mediums remain intact. They are the real money whores, not the oil companies or big business.

And what did Al Bore do? Why he started his own enviroNut station. Funded by what and whom? George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc.

Yup, real credibility Budd, that's what all your ilk are about.

And scientists who support the global warming thesis don't have other motives at stake, oh no.

Posted by Hot Air on June 6, 2006 04:50 PM

What stake or interest or ulterior motive would that be, Hot Air? Do these scientists own shares in companies that sell land guaranteed to be above the high water mark 200 years out? What is their commercial interest in peddling this theory?

BTW, I think you've chosen an entirely appropriate moniker for your posts. Congradulations, ... now, if you could just get Tsakumis to do the same.

I will give Budd some credit. At least he CAN take a position on twinning the Port Mann, that is more than I can say for the entire NDP Caucus.

Adelaide is a good university from whence Charter calls home. However, there is little merit to his (borrowed) thesis of "warming pre-1940 negates the global warming hypothesis".

The global warming hypothesis is this:

Earth's cycle of warming and cooling has been shifted in the direction of a warmer planet since industrialization.

Stated otherwise, previous cycles of warming and cooling suggest that the planet should still be in a cooling phase; but, we are measurably in a warming phase. Something is different and industrialization, or more precisely Co2 content in the atmosphere, are measurably different than in most of earth's history. Co2 is known to trap heat so is a good candiate to explain the apparent pattern change in the earth's cooling and warming cycles.

God it would be nice to realize a better world where we work together for the best interests of all our children and not just the "children" who find the need to bait each other. Just once it would be nice to read an intelliigent conversation representing diverse and different viewpoints where the best ideas win out - i.e. the ones which are developed from both sources.

It is no wonder so many people are disallusioned with politics and the people who work there. As a fellow "political operative" I look forward to finding some common ground with both fellow Liberal, Conservatives and NDP. Call me a radical thinker but maybe, just maybe our kids deserve such noble accomplishments.

Buddly, it's really simple. The junkets, the trips, the fora in foreign lands, the grants--an entire bloody industry has been created out of this scaremongering for the left marchers to suck on.

As for Eugene Parks' hypothesis, I have only this to offer: if anything of what you had suggested was true, then warming would have have caused temperatures to relatively skyrocket during the peak (quickest jump in stack emissions etc.) of industrialization. With the amounts of CFC's in the atmosphere, given your suggestion, that's what would have transpired. Co2 would have driven the temperature up. But it didn't. Even since 1998, the relative temperature has dropped. Good effort Eugene.

No one is saying that we shouldn't be concerned. But Gore's flatulence flick is full of the same over-the-top dogma. The Kyoto Protocol, in it's original form, was a bad deal for this country and will prove to be a bust for others.

Balance is key to this argument and the linguine left don't have any.

A.G. Tsakumis wrongly inferrs: "... warming would have have caused temperatures to relatively skyrocket during the peak (quickest jump in stack emissions etc.) of industrialization. With the amounts of CFC's in the atmosphere, given your suggestion, that's what would have transpired. Co2 would have driven the temperature up. But it didn't. Even since 1998, the relative temperature has dropped."

The scientific evidence is that the cooling trend of the planet was reversed... and the planet is in a warming cycle, which is what we would expect with rising C02. Those are the scientific observations and the predicitons.

A.G. Tsakumis observations don't match the scientific ones nor does his micro predictions correlate with what scientists are saying.

Tsakumis, you speak of the conferences, junkets and the like attended by "left marchers". No doubt there are professional environmentalists who, rather like the missionaries of a former time, are doing well doing good.

Still, the amount of loot made available to environmental organization by wealthy heiresses who adore bird watching, contrasted to the bottomless pockets of the oil industry, would not indicate a preponderance of financial interests gathering on the side of those who espouse a global warming hypothesis.

As for your discussion of when emissions peaked, I have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about. I do think it's known generally that the majority of scientists accept the thesis that the world is warming due to industry and consumption. The minority of scientists who claim the opposite sound to me the the pro-creation, anti-evolution crowd of scientists, dissenting nuts.

BTW Mr Tsakumis, speaking of interests in the financial sense, there is a guy with the same name as yourself leading the charge to get Barnston Island out of the ALR. Any relation?

The difference, Mr. Parks, between your hypothesis and mine is that I believe that the temperature has dropped slightly since '96, as that's what science has proven.

Sorry Mr. Parks.....since the mid-nineties, we've all gotten cooler, except you.

And Chalmers!? Work together for all our children in peace and harmony, let's all love one another, blah, blather, blah-AAAAGGHHHH!

Wasn't that you foaming at the mouth at the every Emerson appearance? That's what you call working with Conservatives (and all political stripes to better our children)?!?!?

You're a political operative? Sock puppets everywhere rejoiced when you retired from your futile cause! People will know go back to laughing at them, instead of the Gliberals.

Give it a rest Kev.

Tsakumis writes "I believe that the temperature has dropped slightly since '96, as that's what science has proven."

It did not take long to find something more definitive...

And the first link...


I very much appreciate the opportunity to joust a little. We will not agree on the issue of global warming. I think it's largely a ruse the way it's been handled, you don't.

However, because this issue of Barnston Island has come up on Public Eye before several times, and I continually get hassled by the mainstream and local press about it, I'm only too happy to give you and Sean the exclusive, here and now, and set the record straight once and for all.

The fellow you refer to, whom is trying to get Barnston out of the ALR is my uncle Bill Tsakumis. While I love my uncle very much and respect him immensely, I am NOT in support of taking farmland from the GVRD's Green Zone and turning it into commercial/industrial or residential development, unless there is iron-clad, multi-partisan support and the many fears surrounding such a move are allayed. Meaning, the First Nations, the waterfowl sanctuary, the farmers--all stakeholders must be fully satisfied. An almost impossible task to be sure. I have never and will never have any financial stake in the Barnston project. I think any government would be nuts to touch this with a ten foot barge pole. But, I've been wrong before.

In contrast, I am a former owner of Britannia Beach. I am the only owner in it's history to have initiated any kind of treatment of the harmful effects to the environment of the Britannia Mine. I partnered with Dr. John Meech of UBC (my alma mater), CERM3 and the Dept. Mining Engineering and we installed the Millenium Plug, which turned the gently flowing water running through Britannia Creek into potable water. True, I am primarily a developer, but with a social conscience. I've proven that.

So there you have it Budd. I believe in protecting the environment but not at the unreasonable expense of people and lives. Balance, as I said above is key in any of these discussions.

"The difference, Mr. Parks, between your hypothesis and mine is that I believe that the temperature has dropped slightly since '96, as that's what science has proven."

See links from Paul Ramsay, the trend is obvious and demonstrates there is little merit to your micro analysis.

What is more "disturbing" (if you will excuse the pun) is that the macro trend-cycles suggest the plant should still be cooling but took a course change when industrialization began. i.e. the current affect may be warming the plant against forces that should be cooling it -> hence the concern, the current effect may be very strong.

Utter bunk, Mr. Ramsay (is that former NDP Minister Ramsay?) and Mr. Parks!!!!!!!

The official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, actually indicate that "for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)".

This all took place during a spike in SUV and consumption rates.

The cooling periods of 1940-68 took place during the peak of industrialization.

You believe the alarmists in the enviroNazi movement and I believe the balance of Dr. Bob Carter and the thousands of scholars who believe similarly or identically, that global warming, while somehting to monitor, is being played by the current mainstream 'scientits' who drink their own bathwater regularly.

I love it when the left find a profit center and bathe it in bent statistics and earth-loving cover. Only to complain when having been uncovered.


A. G. Tsakumis - Thank you for so succinctly illustrating my point � I neither apologize for my work on behalf of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway nor my desire to lead a more constructive dialog vis-�-vis issues important to all of our future� including climate change. Let me know when you are more interesting in emotionally investing in making a positive difference in the world than irrationally feeding your id.

A. G. Tsakumis,

Provide your links... Ramsay gave you a goolge link that lists a few hundred sites (most with charts and references) that debunks your micro analysis.. now it's your turn to post links to charts.

If interested, UVIC climatologists are among the best in the world.... ask then for recent charts (last 150 years) and mid-range charts (last few millenium) and then long-range (last several ice ages).

Go for it... but don't look the scientists' charts in the face and just call it bunk and say we are have to be cooling because that is what you believe. You need better than that.

Putting quotes around phrase about CRU numbers makes it seem like CRU said that, but in fact that is a quote from the lovely and talented Dr. Bob Carter, who is using a classic example of how to lie with statistics to find a "trend" he can write about.

The actual real numbers are available here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

If you look at the numbers to the far right hand side (the global annual average) you will immediately divine why Dr. Carter chose 1998 as the start point for his "global warming is over" article: 1998 was in fact a very warm year, the warmest ever, on average (though not for all months).

To test the robustness of Carter's "trend", try some additional math: compare the average of the five years starting in 1998 with the five years previous. Really, try any combination of futher aggregation of years and Carter's "trend" breaks immediately: because 1998 is an outlier. Or try this: 1998 is the warmest year on record, what is the second (2005), the third (2003), the fourth (2002), the fifth (2004). I am not getting a fuzzy feeling here, Carter's rhetoric about SUV's notwithstanding.

The same trick is used to fluff up numbers around the "long-term rate of return on equities" (hint, if you start from 1929, the rate is a lot worse than if you start from 1934).

(MLA PR > Me)

Paul Ramsay,

1998 is a "trend setter"

If you look at the charts from, say, 1860 to now you will note many "trend-setters". There are many higher and higher peaks in a naturally noisy uptrend.

Scientifically speaking, and respectfully speaking, you cannot call a point an "outlier" unless you know its explanation.

In the case of 1998, its explanation is that it falls naturally within the range of uptrend signals; it is not an outlier but just another of trend indicating points.

Coincidently, 1998 also falls near the peak of world GDP growth and output before the 2003-2003 "crash"... just so coincidently.

Regardless, the signal is the mean of the highs and lows... and that trend is solid and 1998 is a point that proves the point... it follows the trend, follows the prediction, and may yet be just another minor peak on the way to more peaks as there is yet no evidence that the trend has been broken.

Mr. Parks,

It is obvious that you and Mr. Tsakumis do not agree. I am well versed with Mr. Tsakumis' argument and happen to agree with him. Your position is a bit strange.

On no less than three postings above, Mr. Tsakumis has cited the CRU and a Dr. Carter from Australia. How many more times do you need that evidence? My background is in geography and geology (PhD Cambridge, 1981), and I do not believe for one minute that Co2 is the lone culprit. The facts are, that the global temperature is measured using many different methods and calibrations, with the results open to a myriad of interpretations. Mr. Tsakumis' adherence to the methods used by Dr. Carter are no less valid than yours. Dr. Carter is well respected in our endeavours. Finally, Google is hardly a scientific source. I suggest Mr, Parks that you stay away from pretending to be an expert in fields which you are only a proponent of, and leave the real scientific work to those of us qualified to do it. At least Mr. Tsakumis understands this and makes no claims to the contrary.

Is that the Bob Carter who is the former director of offshore drilling in Australia and a geologist specializing in oil and gas deposits and a member of two foundations dedicated to fighting evironmental groups opposed to global warming that receive funding from exxonmobil? Just asking.

"Al Gore sure loves making up stories. Did he tell you people that he created internet too?"
Posted by Fan-Hsin Kung on June 6, 2006 03:53 PM

Can we please put this to rest. It's been proven Gore made no such claim:


Anyone who repeats this myth is simply echoing the lies made up by his political opponents.

David Porter,

Cambridge is a good school too. However, shame on you for the bully tactic of implying that your geology degree merits you the right to say my physics degree does not qualify me to read a statistical chart.

Beyond the attempt at the bully stuff, your argument is thus: there are lots of interpretations "a myriad of interpretations"... and one is as good as another, "Mr. Tsakumis' adherence to the methods used by Dr. Carter are no less valid than yours".

And that arguement is just so so very unscientific. Science isn't the philosohpical arguement that any interpretation goes. Further, your arguement assumes that my adherence to is mere belief and not founded on analysis... which is just pure rehtoric on your part Dr. Porter.

Fact, Mr. Tsakumis and apparently you want 7 points to be a trend without fixing those points to the other available points.

Counterpoint: Climatology is about trends and direction and not about arbitary points chosen against a couple of others chosen problematically.

The individual points fit the trend based on all of points. And, the individual points do not fall outside normal variation but rather are consistent with their explanation - global warming.

As a scientist you should be able to see a data set for what it is. More personally, Dr.Porter if you want to debate scientific points, even related political points, then get out your data points and your statistics books and lets have at it... but spare me the trash talk that you somehow know better.

How interesting that this entire discussion was started by a developer with an obviously strong knowledge of environmental issues and the only nastiness is coming from the global warming lobby! I think Mr. Tsakumis has played both of you well Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Parks, considering his lack expertise.

I agree with Dr. Porter (and Dr. Carter) that Mr. Parks is blowing smoke and is stuck on his own perspective, and unwilling to learn anything from anyone else.

The entire 20th century temperature rise, if seen in proper perspective, lies well within the bounds of historic temperature change. In particular, recent temperatures still fall well below those of past climatic optimums, when there was considerably less CO2 present in the atmosphere.

The charts and graphs noted by Mr. Pamsey and Mr. Parks are available to counter arguments. Theirs is an opinion by the self-righteous, rather than the definitive be all to this complex issue. Mr. Ramsey's butchering of earlier graphs and charts was frankly embarassing.

I wrote several articles on global warming in NA and the UK when completing my own doctorate; not that a higher academic standing means much any longer. The more I researched, the more I found the global warming crowd to be full of hot air, mainly because they are immediately dismissive of scholarship and research, which does not support their lobby.

The manufactured attacks by Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Parks and whoever 'N' is are fuelled by a political animus. Al Gore did indeed infer that he helped create the internet. Let's stop splitting hairs. He is a very foolish man who is very out of touch with reality. And no, I would not vote Republican if I were an American.

So there you have it Budd. I believe in protecting the environment but not at the unreasonable expense of people and lives. Balance, as I said above is key in any of these discussions.

Posted by A. G. Tsakumis on June 7, 2006 12:24 PM

There must be something wrong with my monitor. I just read an intelligent bit of debate.

Carter, and now Tsakumis, and Porter's position is thus: Ignore all but seven points - and ignore that these seven point fit the upward trend of the other ignored points - then argue from there.

Donaldson's argument was thus: ignore the trend within the dataset and say the data is within variation.

Conversely, the global warming hypothesis is thus: the data shows a warming planet and that the trend reversed what was thought to be a cooling phase. We see historically high levels of C02 and other heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. The planet appears to be retaining more heat than would have been typical of the natural heating and cooling cycles of the planet.

In summary: Donaldson, Porter, Tsakumis, and Carter do not address either the Global warming hypothes nor the dataset... their case is not based in science but is rather based in rehtoric (as the opening sentence of this thread began) and then progressed to personal attacks (attempting to discredit individuals) rather than address the topic and its data.

IMO, thus is the nature of conservative political agruments and their apologists mis-named of "science" to pre-fit their agenda.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.