Friday, June 08, 2012

Calling the Prince of Darkness, Calling Beelzebub

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has an unwelcome message for Steve Harper - global warming is real and it's going to cost Canada big time.

Telling the Weather Story, a report released this week by the Bureau, predicts climate change will drive a 50% or greater increase in wild fires in British Columbia by 2050.

The study predicts B.C. can expect an increase in wildfires over the average of nearly 2,000 blazes a year between 2000 and 2010. Furthermore, the province will likely see a host of other weather-related issues like warmer temperatures, declining — and, in some regions, disappearing — mountain snowpacks, more intense rainfall during the winter, and drier summers. The number of wildfires sparked by lightning strikes — responsible for nearly 60 per cent of fires — is also expected to rise.

“It’s not a just a possibility,” said Dr. Gordon McBean, the report’s lead researcher. “There’s a very real probability it will happen.”

McBean, a climatologist and professor at the University of Western Ontario, conducted the research with cooperation from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, where he also serves as policy chairman.

The full report can be found here.


opit said...

LOL You think about as much of Harper as I do.
When it comes to science, though, I've tracked years of representations that the norm of back and forth contention does not apply to catastrophe. It can be difficult to summon the energy to challenge Authority when outside one's area of understanding. Or is it ?
That's the latest of many finds. You will find I've been 'on' this for a while.

The Mound of Sound said...

Opit, I have read your stuff and I couldn't disagree more. This isn't a conspiracy, it isn't a hoax. The central theory of global warming is steadily corroborated by multi-disciplinary research in fields ranging from climatology, atmospherics, meteorology, geology, hydrology, botany and biology, medicine and epidemiology, chemistry, the list goes on and on. You might as well reject all these basic disciplines, all their research and, in some cases, generations of knowledge if you intend to reject the central thesis they all support. You can reject the consensus if you like but you're rejecting very powerful, well-researched and tested reality.

opit said...

If you understand I come from the angle of energy geopolitics underpinning resource wars with the power of nations equal to squandering of trillions of dollars and millions of lives in the chase for dominance in a scenario spanning centuries...'reality' is manufactured.

Try this. The foremost practitioners of economic warfare denied oil to Japan and Germany. The later change to denying nuclear power is a short hop of infrastructure destruction detailed in the NPT TRAP.

Scientific literature verifying the awesome power of soothsaying is a slight perversion in such a scenario aligned to the imperial aspirations of the powerful. Yet that is what modeling is - and G.I.G.O. to boot.
Is there something about Politically Correct Science that is difficult to understand when promoted by Hollywood and its equivalents ?

The Mound of Sound said...

What is difficult for me to understand, Opit, is how you can believe that some notional Hollywood-driven, politically correct science cabal could ever stand up to Big Oil/Big Coal/Big Gas if the science you reject was false. Big Fossil Fuel has literally trillions at stake in this science and, was the science that plagues them, wrong they would have their own science refuting it and refuting it conclusively for everyone to see.

That's the inevitable and persistent hole in your argument - money, big money. Once you factor in just who has how much at stake in this, your straw men fall down all on their own.

opit said...

Hollywood is itself a creature of the military industrial complex. A tool of economic warfare that creates itself in the form of self-imposed sanctions funneled to the UN while leaving the US and China outside the mad compact restricting availability of energy resources is no keeps petroleum close to the US and available at a practical discount.
I don't have to reject false 'science.' No science is ever actually shown : just allegations of scientific consensus. Har. Tell it to Newton or Einstein.