Herewith, ladies and gentlemen, is how uppity politicians who dare to question the conventional wisdom on global warming (or climate change... or, to quote the latest from Barack Obama, "climate disruption" -- whatever they wanna call it this week), are dealt with.
The context was a Regional Services Committee meeting of the Cowichan Valley Regional District. I don't normally sit at this table; I was there as an alternate for someone who couldn't make it.
The item under discussion was a request from the District's Environmental Services Manager for authorization to participate in a Provincial program which is looking at amending building regulations in ocean-front areas because of the potential of rising sea levels due to climate change.
Her report/request included a PowerPoint presentation which essentially posited that the rising ocean levels (including a factor for high tides and potential storm surges), would make the oceans rise by several metres in the next 200 years, and that we should look at prohibiting any development along the waterfront in areas up to 6 metres above the present sea levels to account for the water level rise, the high tides, and the storm surges.
I opened my questioning with a declaration that I would be supporting the resolution, although I didn't say why. But for the record, my concern with building too close to the oceanfront has nothing to do with "rising sea levels", and everything to do with the very real possibility of tsumanis (tidal waves) along our coast in the event of a major earthquake.
The data I've seen on that scenario tells me that the areas that need to be protected from those kinds of disasters are, coincidentally, roughly to the 6-metre mark. In that sense, the proposal to revisit those building regulations on the foreshore seem reasonable for me, but for an entirely different reason.
If you click here, you'll find a link to the video of the exchange. (The technology is challenging, I haven't been able to figure out how to get the video to start at the right place every time. If you end up somewhere else, like at the start of the meeting, drag the counter/timer of the video to 1:40.40 of the meeting to get to the start of the exchange.)
I asked some rather simple questions which, as you will see, were not answered.
The NOAA website data referenced in my question, by the way, can be found here. (Just zoom in to southern Vancouver Island and click on the arrows over Victoria and Tofino to see what I'm talking about.)
In any event, if you keep rolling on the video, you'll see that I also had a brief exchange with Director Rob Hutchins, the mayor of Ladysmith, who appeared shocked that any thinking person wouldn't buy into the climate alarmism. The Chair of the meeting would have none of it, and couldn't move quickly enough to shut down the discussion. To jump directly to that, go to 1:44:45 of the link above.
And as to my assertion to Mayor Hutchins that there has been no appreciable warming, see this graph:
(This graph, by the way, is highly topical. Remote
Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets
(the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is
one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the
two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset,
version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most
accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers,
which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the
Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly
calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic
background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or
just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero.)
And for those who think the graph may be doctored somehow, I take you to the Holy Grail of "Climate Science" - the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Right on their website. If you download Chapter 9 of the latest report, you'll see, on page 26, a very clear admission that there has been a 15-year "hiatus" in warming. This is folllowed by several paragraphs of obfuscation in which they try to "explain away" the fact that reality isn't matching up with their climate models. However, the central point is that even the IPCC has now admitted the substance of what I was saying in the meeting; that there has been no "warming" since 1996. (As to the discrepancy between my 18 years and the 15 years referenced in the IPCC report, their numbers are generally based on stats that are a few years old; as we sit here in June of 2014, the actual number is just a few months shy of 18 years.)
I also stated in my response to Mayor Hutchins that the "flatline" in temperatures came as carbon emissions continued to increase. Evidence for that here.
Mayor Hutchins talked about "the hottest May on record", to which I responded that he was confusing "climate" with "weather". I could have equally responded that both Canada and the USA, have just come through one of the coldest winters on record. But appeals to short-term weather occurrences prove nothing about long term weather trends. At least, that's what the alarmists keep telling us every time things cool down a little. And if that's true for a cold winter, logic says it must be equally true for a single warm month.
All of which is to say... "Can you say 'awkward'?"
Lesson learned here, folks. Uppity politicians like me should just keep their mouths shut, especially if we are proposing a fulsome discussion about spending tax dollars on the basis of a theory of Climate Change which is being increasingly discredited by the hard data.