Canadians should brace for coldest winter in almost 15 years: forecast

9 hours ago

TORONTO - After years of warmer-than-normal winters that spurred constant talk of global warming, winter this year is expected to be the coldest in almost 15 years and should remind everyone of what real Canadian cold feels like, Environment Canada said Friday.

With the exception of only small pockets of northern Canada and southwestern Ontario, this December through February is forecast to be one of the harshest winters in recent memory across the country, said senior climatologist David Phillips.

"It is somewhat remarkable that we're seeing the same situation from coast to coast to almost coast - from Vancouver Island to Bonavista, Nfld., we're showing the country as being colder than normal," Phillips said.

"The last time Canada had a significantly cold winter was back in 1994, more than a decade ago, and this may very well rival that one in terms of coldness."

1994 started with a bang of winter weather and Canadians across the country shivered through temperatures as cold as -42C - and that was before factoring in the wind chill.

Environment Canada's forecast for precipitation suggests much of the country is due for normal amounts of snow, although some cities could get more than usual, including Calgary, Regina and Toronto, which infamously called in the army in January 1999 to deal with a heavy snowfall.

The precipitation forecasts are less reliable, but Phillips said a colder winter would likely result in a lot of white Christmases across the country - defined as two centimetres of snow on the ground at 7 a.m. on Christmas Day.

Even if the forecasts don't hold true, Phillips said the weather will almost certainly be worse than the last couple years for much of the country.

Last year, a number of traditionally cold and snow-covered cities like Quebec City, Ottawa and Timmins, Ont., had a green Christmas for the first time in decades.

And places like Moncton, all of Prince Edward Island and Toronto had only two-thirds of their normal snowfall.

If there is a bright side to the gloomy forecast that most Canadians will probably curse, it's that snow and cold in the winter is good for the economy, Phillips said.

When Canadians see snow outside their windows they'll likely get into the Christmas spirit and start shopping, he said. And others will see the snow and make immediate plans to head south.

"I always think it's good for the economy when weather is behaving like it should, when winters are cold and summers are hot," Phillips said.

"With the Canadian dollar the way it is and with this colder than normal weather, it very well may be that the busiest people in the country are travel agents."

Phillips said the forecast for cold weather is being triggered in part by La Nina, a period of lower than normal temperatures in the Pacific Ocean.



yay!!!!

I'm glad I live in Victoria.

Man mad global warming is an unproven religion.......


However us, your neighbors to the south are expected to see above average temps for the upcoming winter... We shall see if they are right in their forecasts.....

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/temperaturemap111507_midsize.jpg

Us here in the lower Great Lakes and the Midwest may see above average precipitation.....

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/precipitationmap111507_midsize.jpg

Well all I can say is, I hope some of that colder Canadian weather makes its way down here to Seattle and gives us some extra snow. :)

I wish Global Warming would really kick in, and make our winters a thing of the past...ugh!

Me too. :)^^

No... ! I love winters! And hate summers!

You are loco!!!

I would be happy if the coldest we see is around -5 with a bit of snow; that would be acceptable!

I don't think it will be too bad in Southern Ontario. Especially after looking at the American winter forecast provided by NOAA.

EDIT: Then again, what do I care, I'm here in Melbourne, Australia where it will be like anything from 20 C to 45 C.

No... ! I love winters! And hate summers!

Me too.

One of the reasons I want to go home. No snow in Tokyo.

How most Canadians live.
http://www.adventures.ca/gasnet/static/northwest_territories/images/iglo.jpg

A typical Canadian city.
http://www.adventures.com/gasnet/pics/1966_52.jpg

Typical Canadian landscape.
http://www.bootsnall.org/datw/archives/caribou%20sun.jpg

GLOBAL WARMING MY A--!!!

lol, as soon as their is a cold/hot day/month/year everyone screams "look! proof for/against global warming!"

Its all about the averages people! These winters used to be common and now it is a once in 15 years! Soon it will be once in 30...you get the idea!

I hope we get a Pineapple Express storm and a Siberian High crash! That would be awesome! :)

boo f**king hoo!

We're Canadians not Americans. Quit whinig and suck it up.

I'm not a winter type. Hate it actually. Don't mind it, but wish it only lasted 1.5 months at most, not half a frickn year. This November has been COLD and December looks cold too.

GLOBAL WARMING MY A--!!!

Repeat after me:

"Weather is not climate."

Got it?

Try again:

"Weather is not climate!"

That's it! Say it enough, and it should start to kick in!

^^ it should be pointed out that this is in sync with the predictions of "more severe weather and stronger storms" with regard to the impacts of global warming.

boo f**king hoo!

We're Canadians not Americans. Quit whinig and suck it up.

First of all, a lot of people hate the cold, and anything worse than it already is can be even more miserable.

And secondly, it's easy for you to say, your in Australia where it's summer! (As am I)

EDIT: And since when do Americans whine more than Canadians?

That's fantastic news :D
It means i will get to experience some of the coldest
weather when i come on Holiday this January.
I hope there will be blizzards when i am there :yes:

boo f**king hoo!

We're Canadians not Americans. Quit whinig and suck it up.

I hear ya. I'm looking forward to a normal winter. There's nothing worse than a winter tease... mild fluctuating temperatures, green christmas... SLUSH... yuck.

I want blizzards, and I want them now.

Actually I find it encouraging that they are forecasting this, as it strikes me that they are usually wrong, anyhow. I think they would have more luck throwing darts at a board. No one can predict weather past at most a week, not even the gods at Environment Canada.

Actually I find it encouraging that they are forecasting this, as it strikes me that they are usually wrong, anyhow. I think they would have more luck throwing darts at a board. No one can predict weather past at most a week, not even the gods at Environment Canada.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree with such a statement, but La Nina is at play for this one, so that makes it an exception, I believe.

They have been wrong on El Nino and La Nina predictions before. My impression of their winter predictions is that they are generally "more of the same". That is, if this time of year is warmer than normal, they predict a "warmer than normal" winter, and the opposite. This late autumn has been cold, so I would have predicted they would predict this! :)

^^ it should be pointed out that this is in sync with the predictions of "more severe weather and stronger storms" with regard to the impacts of global warming.

That's true, but it's still weather, not climate. We'd need a consistent pattern before we could say anything for sure.

If its this cold on the 1st of Dec, I can imagine what it will be like in Jan. :ohno:

Actually I find it encouraging that they are forecasting this, as it strikes me that they are usually wrong, anyhow. I think they would have more luck throwing darts at a board. No one can predict weather past at most a week, not even the gods at Environment Canada.

Interesting that you say that, because according to the Farmer's almanac, we're in for a warmer and wetter winter. :P

So at least one of them will be correct either way. If you consider winter to begin with the first five inches of snow, then this winter has started off as one of the coldest in decades for Northern Ontario. Yesterday was colder than our average coldest day of the year by almost 5 degrees!

It is -9C in Halifax and I am FREEZING! Normally our low is -2C or -3C.

First of all, a lot of people hate the cold, and anything worse than it already is can be even more miserable.

And secondly, it's easy for you to say, your in Australia where it's summer! (As am I)

EDIT: And since when do Americans whine more than Canadians?

I actually travel back and forth do to work. Will be in Canada for two months this winter. Yet you won't hear me bitch and complain. It is a choice all Canadian's made by living where we do.

About time we have a decent winter for a change.

not looking good for all us guys that work outside. -10 right now in kelowna, although its going up to +10 monday/tuesday i don't want to think of the rest of the winter! Although i'll be sitting on the beaches of Mexico in February, it can't come soon enough!!

boo f**king hoo!

We're Canadians not Americans. Quit whinig and suck it up.

The 65 million Midwesterners are not lacking in the ability to suck it up when it comes to winter. Suppose neither are the Northeasterners.

In fact, I'm pretty sure Chicagoans, many of whom spend an awful lot more time outdoors waiting for the El, buses or trains than most Canadians could stand shoulder to shoulder with even Muscovites when it comes to Urban Arctic Survivalism.

Yes, we all know Chicago is famous for it's -40 windchills in November! Just like Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and Moscow.

Equals!! :hug:

Repeat after me:

"Weather is not climate."

Got it?

Try again:

"Weather is not climate!"

That's it! Say it enough, and it should start to kick in!

...and a photo is not an album :nuts:

...and thanks, but I'd rather exercise my right as a Canadian to complain about whatever I please, even if it includes Canadian winters...heck, complaining and whining are what we Canadians do best!

..

...and thanks, but I'd rather exercise my right as a Canadian to complain about whatever I please, even if it includes Canadian winters...heck, complaining and whining are what we Canadians do best!

ain't:cheers: that the trooth!

How most Canadians live.
http://www.adventures.ca/gasnet/static/northwest_territories/images/iglo.jpg

A typical Canadian city.
http://www.adventures.com/gasnet/pics/1966_52.jpg

Typical Canadian landscape.
http://www.bootsnall.org/datw/archives/caribou%20sun.jpg

LOL!
That's my neighbourhood!

Yes, we all know Chicago is famous for it's -40 windchills in November! Just like Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and Moscow.

Equals!! :hug:

Ottawans belong on that list too, I think. We endure some pretty harsh conditions every winter, too! We're not the world's second coldest national capital for nothing. ;)

How most Canadians live.
http://www.adventures.ca/gasnet/static/northwest_territories/images/iglo.jpg

A typical Canadian city.
http://www.adventures.com/gasnet/pics/1966_52.jpg

Typical Canadian landscape.
http://www.bootsnall.org/datw/archives/caribou%20sun.jpg

Vancouver is beautiful, eh?

Man mad global warming is an unproven religion.......


Is that so? I suppose the world is flat too? Comments like that are absolutely astonishing. Are you a caveman? It isn't a religion at all, but quite the opposite. It is based on a mountain of universally accepted conclusions about the effects of human behaviour on earth's climate. It is reality. I suppose it's just unproven religion that south Florida is warm if they have a cool day? It isn't based on your perception from looking out the window or any such simplistic test like that.

:ohno:

How most Canadians live.
http://www.adventures.ca/gasnet/static/northwest_territories/images/iglo.jpg

A typical Canadian city.
http://www.adventures.com/gasnet/pics/1966_52.jpg

Typical Canadian landscape.
http://www.bootsnall.org/datw/archives/caribou%20sun.jpg

I like it. Wish I could live in that kind of city/town. Love the second picture!

It's probably Iqaluit or somewhere else in Nunavut. They get around by snowmachine a lot up there, probably because they don't have roads. Cars are kind of useless without roads.

Is that so? I suppose the world is flat too? Comments like that are absolutely astonishing. Are you a caveman? It isn't a religion at all, but quite the opposite. It is based on a mountain of universally accepted conclusions about the effects of human behaviour on earth's climate. It is reality. I suppose it's just unproven religion that south Florida is warm if they have a cool day? It isn't based on your perception from looking out the window or any such simplistic test like that.

:ohno:

It is not universally accepted. The totalitarian groupthink of this pseudo-religion (yes, it is one) is astonishing and frightening.

What's more frightening is the 15,000 bureaucrats ensconced at Bali at the moment planning on gaining government control of a huge slice of the world's economy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

pseudo-religion (yes, it is one)

Global Warming: Planet Earth's first religion to not massacre innocent people in the name of "God".

It is not universally accepted. The totalitarian groupthink of this pseudo-religion (yes, it is one) is astonishing and frightening.

What's more frightening is the 15,000 bureaucrats ensconced at Bali at the moment planning on gaining government control of a huge slice of the world's economy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

:lol: Yeah, everyone's come to expect such drivel from you. It is universally accepted by those that are both educated and uncorrupted by oil (or other fossil fuel or petro-chemical) connections. If you don't believe in global warming by now, you are obviously trying to shore up support for fossil fuel related industries to stuff your own pockets, unless you're just a complete retard. What's astonishing is that there are still people who say there is no such thing despite well over 90% of the scientific community with a specialization in sciences related to climate have said they are positive that it is happening and as a result of manmade events. What's frightening is that there are people like you who have so little respect for both your own home and everybody else's despite the mountain of scientifically certified evidence beyond all reasonable doubts that this is happening. It is well documented. There is no more potential for arguments to say contrary.

Yeah, the scientists did make one mistake: The changes are happening 5 times faster than they predicted. That's right, they were being optimistic when they said the world would see an ice-free arctic in 2050... we'll probably see it in the summer of 2015.

Global Warming: Planet Earth's first religion to not massacre innocent people in the name of "God".

Well, not yet. We're just waiting for the Malthusian sect to first lead the culls.

:lol: Yeah, everyone's come to expect such drivel from you. It is universally accepted by those that are both educated and uncorrupted by oil (or other fossil fuel or petro-chemical) connections. If you don't believe in global warming by now, you are obviously trying to shore up support for fossil fuel related industries to stuff your own pockets, unless you're just a complete retard. What's astonishing is that there are still people who say there is no such thing despite well over 90% of the scientific community with a specialization in sciences related to climate have said they are positive that it is happening and as a result of manmade events. What's frightening is that there are people like you who have so little respect for both your own home and everybody else's despite the mountain of scientifically certified evidence beyond all reasonable doubts that this is happening. It is well documented. There is no more potential for arguments to say contrary.


WTF? I have no respect for my home or yours. What a load of crap. Universally accepted??? LIE!

You have obviously been baptized into the religion. Why not read up on Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen). He is one of if not the most illustrious global climatologists (MIT Professor).

And when you finish with him, check out some of the fellow skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Anthropogenic global warming is a THEORY!

^^ Pssh, yeah right, last time you tried to flash your scientific skeptics they had petro-chemical connections that obvious put cold water on their credibility. They all follow the same pattern. Grow up and get a clue. It is an established fact at this point. The only thing that has been mistaken so far, is the speed it will happen at, as the arctic is melting shockingly faster than projections.

A theory and fact apparently are synonyms for geniuses like yourself.

When you spout that anthropogenic global warming is a "fact", you sound pretty much like an Evangelical Christian who thinks Creationism is a Fact.

A theory and fact apparently are synonyms for geniuses like yourself.

When you spout that anthropogenic global warming is a "fact", you sound pretty much like an Evangelical Christian who thinks Creationism is a Fact.

Actually I was thinking you sound more like an Evangelical Christian thinking Creationism is a Fact when you deny global warming. Why does so much of the denial toward global warming come from the USA?

Let's all talk in ten years, when temperatures are predicted by many SCIENTISTS to be on a cooling trend.

Global warming is a political issue, that's why Gore made the propaganda piece.

And enjoy your coldest winter in 15 years...there's more on its way.

And the real conspiracy is not of the oil companies (many of which stand to benefit from schemes such as emmission trading)..it's the totalitarian stranglehold that the Global Warming Church has on free scientific thought. As Lindzen wrote last year..

"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

You're on Globill! Come back in ten years. Oh, and by the way, of
course there is "more on the way". The new reality of climate change will
be fierce swings of hot and cold, drought and flooding as weather patterns
change. You are naive if you think it just involves hotter weather.

I blame Canada for this cold wave. Hit a sizzing -1°C today.

;) :jk:

Hehee! I blame the hot air coming from certain parts south that is pushing the cold weather down to you!

You're on Globill! Come back in ten years. Oh, and by the way, of
course there is "more on the way". The new reality of climate change will
be fierce swings of hot and cold, drought and flooding as weather patterns
change. You are naive if you think it just involves hotter weather.

I suppose you are more of an expert than the 6o scientists who wrote an open letter to your PM in 2006 blasting the vaunted "consensus"

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

But I suppose I should believe you all more than the likes of

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

I thought you said you were coming back in ten years.

Just ban him. He's so fucking annoying. He's like Dale, but he actually believes what he's saying. :|

Why thanks Vid. Ban someone for disagreeing? Anyhow, happy winter all.

And if you disagree with all of those scientists, might as well write to their university presidents and try to ban them too while you're at it.

And by the way Vid, the Global Warming religion has not caused the death of people ...yet. If it succeeds in limiting economic growth in the third world which is the most likely outcome of its totalitarian "remedies" for this theaoretical problem, it will indeed cause untold misery for millions of our fellow human beings.

Fucking annoying enough for ya?

I thought you said you were coming back in ten years.


I tend to respond to name-calling with facts. I overlooked your last sentence where you called me naive.
After re-reading I was moved to call in those Canadian scientists who spout drivel, are in total denial, and are so "fucking annoying" for not following the party line on global warming.

And for what it's worth, I haven't owned a car for over 12 years, live in a tiny apartment in a hyper-urban East Asian megalopolis, don't have a clothes dryer and have monthly utility bills that total less than 50 USD. So my guess is my "carbon footprint" is a few sizes smaller than virtually everyone on these forums. And it's not because of global warming, it's just the way I prefer to live.

I suppose you are more of an expert than the 6o scientists who wrote an open letter to your PM in 2006 blasting the vaunted "consensus"

There's waaay more than 60 scientists that have put their stamp on the latest and most comprehensive IPCC document, which is internationally (pretty much universally) recognized as conclusive. You are way outgunned, by the hundreds. Seriously, the people that do deny global warming (well, global energization as someone else on these boards can be quoted as saying, and it's a good point) are as lost a cause as an Evangelical Christian who thinks Creationism is a Fact... sorry, what were you saying again? :lol: Your facts are shady at best.

Ahh the sweet smell of progress...we have moved from "universally" to "pretty much universally"..

cute little baby steps ;)

Ahh the sweet smell of progress...we have moved from "universally" to "pretty much universally"..

cute little baby steps ;)Nothing's changed wise one, check the original post where I stated well over 90% of scientists... that's where the "pretty much universally" comes from. No difference or wavering on my part (quite frankly, you wish). You're the only one up the creek without a paddle... or "in the middle of the desert with no water" may be a more appropriate way of putting it :lol:

And by the way Vid, the Global Warming religion has not caused the death of people ...yet. If it succeeds in limiting economic growth in the third world which is the most likely outcome of its totalitarian "remedies" for this theaoretical problem, it will indeed cause untold misery for millions of our fellow human beings.

But millions of people in third world countries are suffering now! :ohno:

But millions of people in third world countries are suffering now! :ohno:

So let them (and their nations) drive cars and build factories....or should the UN bureaucrats determine how we should all live? but it would be a shame if all the world's peoples lived modern lifestyles...we would mourn the demise of anthro-tribal documentaries.

I mean who wants to go on Safari and encounter the locals at a stoplight in an SUV on his/her cell phone, much better if they maintain their fascinating sustainable lifestyles.... (http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/)

Not to mention that hundreds of millions will leave coastal areas when ocean levels rise and urban areas flood, as a result of melting arctic ice. The proper name should be Climate Change, not Global Warming.

My chem. teacher today pointed out to the window and said “Global warming, yeah right!” :lol:

I should think the damage done to the ozone layer will cause more extremes of weather..
cold/hot/dry/flooding. I don't think it is a literal thing like constantly warming temperatures.
However, I am sure a certain person will step in now to bite my ass and tell me I am wrong! :)

Who would that be?

Ta-dahhh!!! :D

I read somewhere that all the dignitaries flying to Bali created a carbon footprint equivalent to 20,000 cars.

I think that's awesome. ;)

Can you imagine the carbon footprint created by all the Americans flying/driving home to Mom and Dad's for Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving weekend? Probably the equivilent of 10,000,000 flying Bali dignitaries! And that is just one weekend. ;)

Can you imagine the carbon footprint created by all the Americans flying/driving home to Mom and Dad's for Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving weekend? Probably the equivilent of 10,000,000 flying Bali dignitaries! And that is just one weekend. ;)

Carbon is good.

See the carbon.

Be the carbon.

Be the carbon.

I guess that would make us carbon copies!

My chem. teacher today pointed out to the window and said “Global warming, yeah right!” :lol:

That's the great thing about Global Warming. It explains everything. It probably even explains Jennifer Love Hewitt's controversial new 'curves'.

but is there is a chance the other Jennifer's big bum curves owe more to Big Macs and donuts?

Can you imagine the carbon footprint created by all the Americans flying/driving home to Mom and Dad's for Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving weekend? Probably the equivilent of 10,000,000 flying Bali dignitaries! And that is just one weekend. ;)

Yes, but they aren't burning that carbon in an effort to tell people to stop burning carbon. That's the hypocrisy of it! Why couldn't they just have a video conference or something? We have video conferences here all the time, especially for court proceedings. Not only does it save money, but it saves the environment as well. Could you imagine the cost of flying people from an area larger than Germany on a near daily bases for something as trivial?

And that big snow storm we got a few days ago was a WARM air mass. ;)

Sometimes people have to meet face to face to solve issues. I don't begrudge a meeting like this if it results in positive change. My point was that every day in America and Canada is one big massive carbon footprint, and perhaps quite a few people don't want to modify their habits one bit.

Came across an interesting article about the current decrease in Solar activity (following the highest period in 8000 years...hmmm csuppose that might have affected the Earth's temps?) Anyhow some scientists are predicting a little Ice Age is on its way.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3223603.ece

When 50,000 years from now. :) ^^

Can you imagine the carbon footprint created by all the Americans flying/driving home to Mom and Dad's for Turkey dinner on Thanksgiving weekend? Probably the equivilent of 10,000,000 flying Bali dignitaries! And that is just one weekend. ;)

I stayed at home on Turkey day...I'm doing my part in stopping Global Warming. :cheers:

I watched a dvd tonight called Arctic Tale... a National Geographic documentary about climate change in the Arctic, and how it is affecting the wildlife, like the walruses and the polar bears. A person would have to have a heart of stone (and a brain of one, too) to believe that the climate has not been f***ed-up.
No shortage of stones in this world, however.

I watched a dvd tonight called Arctic Tale... a National Geographic documentary about climate change in the Arctic, and how it is affecting the wildlife, like the walruses and the polar bears. A person would have to have a heart of stone (and a brain of one, too) to believe that the climate has not been f***ed-up.
No shortage of stones in this world, however.

Seen recent satelite photos of Greenland while on we're on the topic? Shocking.

They are predicting that by 2040 the ice will be thawed completely from the Arctic straits. Wave goodbye to the wildlife up there. But I keep forgetting... it is all a myth created by fanatics.

They are predicting that by 2040 the ice will be thawed completely from the Arctic straits. Wave goodbye to the wildlife up there. But I keep forgetting... it is all a myth created by fanatics.

Well of COURSE it is all myth, there's an ice age around the corner!:nuts: Evaree1 noes dat! U'r soh ztooped:lol:

Did you bother to read the article???

I suppose you are more of an expert than the 6o scientists who wrote an open letter to your PM in 2006 blasting the vaunted "consensus"

There are so many problems with the open letter from sixty scientists, let me go over them. To start off with, you position it to be saying global warming does not exist. This is not the case. It denies the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and questions whether global warming is occurring, but does not discount that possibility. Rather, it calls for more research into the topic which absolutely no one should be opposed to. Also addressing it to the Canadian Prime Minister is a bit deceptive in that it leads you to believe the sixty signatories are all Canadian. Sure, some of them are but not even half. I just counted and only twenty are Canadian. Not to say that I'm not xenophobic to the point where any non-Canadian's opinion is worthless to me, but I'm sure you could find sixty scientists out of the millions employed worldwide to endorse any number of things which are ridiculous. I mean, there's about twenty-five signatories to the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". I'll let you guess what that one's about.

This pretty much ties in to my next point, which is a number of the scientists have nothing to do with climatology. I mean, an economist? A social anthropologist? One of them, Art Robinson, is a Chemist specializing in protein chemistry and nutrition and is founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (sorry, not currently accepting any students). Oddly enough, he is also a signatory to the previously mentioned "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". Don't get me wrong, they're undoubtedly well spoken in their respective fields, I'm not sure if I'd trust Art though. I mean really, he sets up shop in a place called Cave Junction in Oregon and his institute produces a pamphlet on how to survive a nuclear war. It sounds too much like something out of Fallout for me.

Back on topic, only two of the signatories listed here are currently appointed in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. Poor old Art just doesn't cut it for that. Also, one of the signatories, Dr. Gordon Swaters withdrew his support of the petition saying his signature was obtained through deception regarding the content of the letter, which makes me wonder if any others were.

Above all else, as soon as this was made public, an open letter endorsing the IPCC and calling for action on climate change was created and had 90 signatories, plus an additional 30 after it's release. Feel free to blast their credentials, but at this time they were all Canadians. Here's a link, by the way: http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

So yeah, to sum it up, that letter is a load of crap.

They are predicting that by 2040 the ice will be thawed completely from the Arctic straits. Wave goodbye to the wildlife up there. But I keep forgetting... it is all a myth created by fanatics.

To be honest, yes, many species of animals and plants are going to go extinct through climate change. Thunder Bay has already lost a couple arctic disjuncts because of development and climate change and we will lose more, the same will happen to their relatives in the north, but saying "wave goodbye to the wildlife up there" is just a little bit extreme. It isn't as if the whole region is going to become barren. It will just have different animals interacting in different ways.

Thousands of years ago there were animals that no longer exist. Why didn't anyone put forward and effort to save them? Because extinction and evolution of species is natural. Yes, losing polar bears and pandas and koalas is sad, but that kind of thing happens.

". Yes, losing polar bears and pandas and koalas is sad, but that kind of thing happens"

And it especially happens when man comes along, cuts down the trees around the planet and pollutes the air to the point that the water starts freezing over three months late in the Arctic. Because Polar bears need the ice to hunt, many of them will die. I am not sure we can just explain it all away as being "a natural thing".

What about Pandas? They eat only one type of food and seem to be afraid of sex. They're just asking to go extinct! Similar for Koalas.

Sometimes people have to meet face to face to solve issues. I don't begrudge a meeting like this if it results in positive change. My point was that every day in America and Canada is one big massive carbon footprint, and perhaps quite a few people don't want to modify their habits one bit.


Well I have done my bit since coming down to Australia. I didn't by a car as Mass transit is at my door step and at work it is a five minute walk. If I do need a vehicle I use the company vehicles which run off of propane. Sadly when I'm in Canada these options just aren't available. Plus a five minute walk in -30 is a hell of a long walk.

It is an option in Canada... I have lived 22 years downtown without owning a car. If you live far away from downtown it is necessary, however.

Did you bother to read the article???

With your credibility? Hell no, why shoud I? I knew someone would come along and tear your reference to shreds just like I did the first time I looked at some of your so-called "evidence", and Windex did. I rest my case, don't waste my time. Honestly, you're pathetic.

OMG, this BS is amazing, they're really trying hard to lose the next election now :nuts:. I can't believe their arrogance and abuses of power. Can you beleive this bias?! UNREAL!!!


Business gets a voice on Canadian delegation at Bali
Environmentalists and MPs excluded by Ottawa cry foul over federal government's decision to give executives a place at the table
GEOFFREY YORK

From Monday's Globe and Mail

December 10, 2007 at 3:26 AM EST

NUSA DUA, INDONESIA — After banishing environmentalists and opposition MPs from Canada's delegation to the Bali climate conference, Ottawa has decided to allow an oil company and several business executives to join the official delegation.

Two companies from Ottawa, where Environment Minister John Baird is an MP, have been allowed to join Canada's official delegation to the climate-change conference, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

A major oil and gas producer, EnCana Corp. of Calgary, was also permitted to join the delegation.

By joining the Canadian delegation, the corporations could influence Canada's position at the Bali conference, where about 190 countries are trying to hammer out a new agreement to replace the Kyoto accord to solve the global-warming crisis.

Last month, the government announced that environmental groups and opposition MPs would not be welcome in the official delegation at Bali, despite a long-standing tradition of including them in Canadian delegations to international meetings. Aboriginal groups were also banned from the delegation.

Among those included on the Canadian delegation are four executives of Iogen Corp., a biotechnology company that produces cellulose ethanol, and PlascoEnergy Group Inc., a waste conversion company.

Both are based in Ottawa, and both have received substantial federal money. Iogen was given $7.7-million by the federal government last February, while Plasco has received $6.5-million from the federal government.

Plasco's CEO is Rod Bryden, former owner of the Ottawa Senators of the National Hockey League.

By joining the official Canadian delegation, the companies will gain a series of privileges, including access to government briefings and closed-door sessions at the Bali conference.

A senior government official confirmed that the three companies are included in the Canadian delegation. “These three companies are good examples of new, exciting and innovative Canadian technology,” he said. “It's impossible to bring everyone, but we're happy that these companies are here as examples of Canadian technology to fight climate change.”

Those excluded from the Canadian delegation are crying foul. They say it is unfair and inconsistent for the government to invite business leaders after excluding environmentalists and MPs.

“The government has thrown off anyone with a critical viewpoint, and they're not sharing their views with anyone in civil society,” said Emilie Moorhouse, atmosphere and energy campaigner at the Sierra Club of Canada.

“They're deciding their policies at the exclusion of the representatives of civil society and the majority of MPs. It reflects a huge lack of transparency in the government. All voices within Canadian society should be consulted and represented.”

Dale Marshall, climate-change policy analyst at the David Suzuki Foundation, said the government has never properly explained why it decided to ban environmentalists from the delegation.

“It's in the government's interest to have a wider range of views represented,” he said.

Nathan Cullen, the NDP environment critic, said he eventually gained access to the Bali conference by getting registered as a “non-governmental organization.” He said he requested permission to join the Canadian delegation, but the government never explained why it refused to include him.

While banning environmentalists and opposition MPs from its Bali delegation, the government did decide to set up an “advisory panel” whose members include former Quebec premier Pierre Marc Johnson; Mary Simon, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; Ian Morton, chief executive officer of Summerhill Group; and Elizabeth Dowdeswell, former chief of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Meanwhile, Canada has announced a boost in funding for a global fund designed to help poor countries deal with climate change.

The new $7.5-million contribution makes Canada the second-largest donor to the Global Environment Facility's climate-change fund, federal officials said.

With a report from Canadian Press

With your credibility? Hell no, why shoud I? I knew someone would come along and tear your reference to shreds just like I did the first time I looked at some of your so-called "evidence", and Windex did. I rest my case, don't waste my time. Honestly, you're pathetic.

So much for a dialogue huh? Let's just hope for Canada's sake, those Russian scientists aren't right that the sun's activity doesn't influence the Earth as much as carbon levels.

Dishonest political tampering
with the science on global warming
by Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
_____________________________ 
..
6 Dec 07 - As a contributor to the IPCC's 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate's alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report's first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC's bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC's published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong..

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world's poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

Harper is going to learn that hard way that acting like you have a majority when you don't is the least successful way to get a majority.

"My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis."

Oh, of course not. The 31 degrees we see in the arctic every summer these days is just a product of the sun being wonky and humans have absolutely nothing to do with it because adding a gas to the atmosphere which is proven to keep the earth warm is just like adding blankets on top of blankets - no matter how many there are, they're only as good as one. This is why wearing layers in winter doesn't keep you warm.

And you try to talk about "dialogue"? :roll: Check out this drivel...
I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakersAn Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.Amazing, credibility is already damaged, not once, not twice, but thrice, by false statments, proposterous assertments, and bad jokes in the first paragraph.

IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.I have been unable to confirm such an award after cross-reference attempts.

and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.Wow, you actually believe that? You're quite a sucker, aren't you, check this out:

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMH59MVGJE_index_0.html

Satellite data yields major results in Greenland glaciers study


21 February 2006

ESA's satellite radar imagery has played a central role in scientists’ findings on changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Using satellite data collected between 1996 and 2005 by ESA’s European Remote Sensing satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, ESA’s Envisat Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) and Canada’s Radarsat-1, scientists learned Greenland glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed.
Eric Rignot of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California and University of Kansas scientist Pannir Kanagaratnam measured glacier velocities using Radarsat-1’s radar interferometry data collected in fall 2000 and spring and summer 2005, ERS-1 and ERS-2 data collected in winter 1996 and Envisat data from summer 2004.

The study, published in Science on 17 February 2006, found Greenland’s southern glaciers are now dumping twice as much ice yearly into the Atlantic as they did in 1996, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the estimated 2.54 millimetre annual rise in global sea levels.

"The importance of the ERS archive to this work is enormous. ERS-1 and ERS-2 1992 and 1996 data is our reference survey for decades to come. It is quite important to maintain this reference. As good wine, it will gain value with age. None of our work would have been possible without it," Rignot said.

See link for full article


Greenland's ice mass is not increasing, it is melting faster than previously thought.

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world's poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

Yeah, and we should rally behind this guy because? Let's ask one Dr. Stephan Harrison, a Senior Research Associate at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment. That sounds like a pretty credible position to be making statements from, so I'll run with it if you don't have any objections.

http://www.ukwatch.net/article/christopher_monckton

Christopher Monckton’s recent article (Sunday Telegraph) is in many ways a remarkable polemic. He purports to show how scientists from a wide range of different disciplines, including atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, climatology and palaeoclimatology, have misunderstood and misused the science of climate change, and he tries to debunk them all. Let it not be said that the man lacks ambition.

Perhaps the most extraordinary and telling thing is that a paper like the Sunday Telegraph has to rely on Christopher Monckton, a journalist and former political advisor to Margaret Thatcher, to attack the science behind contemporary climate change. As far as I can tell he has no qualifications in the field of climate science and I doubt he was written a single scientific paper on the issue. The fact that nowadays the skeptics camp can hardly field a single informed scientist to support their views and have to rely on Monckton, surely says something about the weakness of their arguments.

To go through his long article and the even longer set of supporting notes he provides and point out his mistakes would take far longer than I have here, and has been done comprehensively by other climate scientists on the Realclimate weblog, so I will just point out some of his worst errors.

First, Monckton doesn’t seem to understand climate sensitivity. This is normally defined as the climate warming we would expect following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations above pre-industrial level; in other words, what will the global temperatures be like after we reach atmospheric concentrations above 550ppm. He uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to show that a doubling of C02 concentrations would result in a rise of just 1°C. This is in sharp contrast with most scientific estimates (based on a combination of palaeoclimatology, contemporary observations and theoretical understandings) which suggest that equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25°C/(W/m2) with the predicted rise in temperature at about 3°C, and with likely serious consequences. So why is Monckton’s estimate so low? The main failure of his argument is that he assumes that the earth behaves as a black body with a sensitivity at the Earth’s radiating temperature of around 0.27 °C/(W/m2) which means that a change in radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2 produces a warming of about 1°C. However, the Earth isn’t a black body and the known feedbacks in the climate system, which include the water vapour, albedo and methane feedbacks, will significantly increase this figure. He also forgets that the sensitivity is an equilibrium response, and the various lags in the system such as the slow warming of the oceans means that the temperature rise we have seen so far (around 0.6°C) only forms a part of the warming we will experience.

Second, he bravely embarks upon the now traditional skeptic pastime of trying to show the global extent of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP). By doing this he hopes to undermine the numerous reconstructions of climate over the past 2,000 years which have tended to downplay the global significance of both these events. The fact that much better qualified skeptics than he have tried and failed to demonstrate this (astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas for example), doesn’t seem to have deterred him. As someone partly involved in this scientific debate, I’ve never seen the significance of it. I think there is plausible evidence from dated glacier variations in many parts of the world to show that mountain glaciers receded from their late-Holocene maximum positions around the end of the nineteenth century. However, the timing of late-Holocene glacier advance to these positions is not always clear, and I, and many other Quaternary scientists, are sanguine about the idea of a regional and Northern Hemisphere LIA. There appears to be little evidence that the MWP was a global event, or that global temperatures were warmer than now. Even if the MWP were warmer than the present day, it would have little impact upon the attribution studies that demonstrate the importance of anthropogenic Co2 as a major forcing at the present time. Whether localized parts of the globe were as warm as now in the distant and not so-distant past, when the climate forcings were different, seems irrelevant in influencing our understanding of contemporary climate change.
The rest of his article is also full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples. For instance, he argues that the recession of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro is a result of deforestation at the base of the mountain rather than climate change, but fails to mention that the vast majority of mountain glaciers all around the globe are in recession and this must reflect a global climate forcing. He says that during glacial/interglacial transitions, increases in atmospheric C02 follow rather than precede warming, and argues that this nullifies the present causal link between high levels of CO2 and observed warming. Of course it doesn’t. Warming at glacial/interglacial timescales is driven by orbital forcing, with C02 playing an important feedback on global temperatures. This is entirely different to the situation that exists today, where changes in insolation amounts or patterns are insufficient to explain the warming we see. Either Monckton knows this (in which case his arguments should be dismissed as pure propaganda) or he doesn’t know this, in which case his understanding of the science is woeful.

In the end, the obvious response to Christopher Monckton is to ask why he doesn’t submit his arguments to a scientific journal for publication. After all, this is how science progresses, with new ideas being subject to the scrutiny of scientists via the route of publication in the scientific literature. If he is right that thousands of scientists in half a dozen different disciplines have got it all wrong, the potential rewards for him are enormous; a Nobel prize for overturning a large chunk of atmospheric physics and a Fellowship of the Royal Society are both almost guaranteed. The obvious reason why he doesn’t do this is that he secretly knows that his arguments lack credibility and wouldn’t pass the peer review required by mainstream scientific journals.

Finally, I’m not sure who Monckton was trying to convince. Are Sunday Telegraph readers really so gullible that they will accept the views of someone like Christopher Monckton rather than the overwhelming consensus of thousands of informed scientists around the world? Perhaps they are. Or more likely, they simply hate the idea of climate change because they hate its implications. In running the risk of generalizing, I imagine the average reader of the Sunday Telegraph is very happy with his or her lifestyle, and doesn’t look forward to a time when political and economic concerns about climate change place restrictions on their behaviour. Such people will cling to any view to maintain their economic position, even if the only view available is as flawed as Monckton’s.



Gee, who would have thought, another piece of so-called evidence that isn't worth anything. So much for debate, yeah, because you can't find a fact or credible source to save your life. Don't act like it is my fault, your lack of credibility is completely your own doing. You could continue being stubborn to the point it does great damage to your IQ, or you could admit that you're obviously wrong.

So I guess I've been beaten to the punch to debunk solar radiation as the cause of global warming. Nevertheless, if you're interested, http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

To sum it up, solar radiation certainly would contribute to an increase in temperature, but nearly to the scale that we're seeing. Here's a neat little graph from Wikipedia which illustrates it nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Re: Southern Greenland glacier's dumping ice into the sea


That's called calving and is the result of growing glaciers.

Growing glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic do not disprove global warming at all. Quite the opposite.

Remind me TRZ,

why exactly is is called Greenland? Was there an explosion of greenhouse gases guring Leif Ericson's days when Greenland was indeed green?

Greenland was a marketing tool used by the Vikings.

No really, go ask Mr. Denmark.

so wheres the cold weather?

Remind me TRZ,

why exactly is is called Greenland? Was there an explosion of greenhouse gases guring Leif Ericson's days when Greenland was indeed green?

As far as I know, Greenland was not green when it was discovered. I am not going to Google this, but from the vague recesses of my childhood schooling, I believe it was named "Greenland" by embarrassed explorers who wanted to report back that they had found a lush land, and were afraid to be honest and say it was not. Some sort of political dilemma for them, if I remember correctly.

Canada one of three nations to receive "Fossil Award" at Bali UN environmental conference

Mon Dec 3, 2007 1:16pm GMT

BALI, Indonesia (Reuters) - It's not easy being green. Particularly if you are big polluters Saudi Arabia, the United States and Canada. All three earned the first "Fossil of the Day Awards" at U.N.-led climate change talks in Bali on Monday, with each receiving a little sack of coal adorned with their national flags at a mock award ceremony filled with boos and laughter.

The awards, a daily feature of annual Kyoto Protocol gatherings, are presented by youth delegations from around the world to heap scorn on nations accused of having less-than-green views.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter and renowned for refusing to endorse any emissions targets, won its award for being the most obscurely obstructive in the Bali talks on Monday.

The United States, the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, earned its award for "blocking the international effort to fight climate change," a young American award recipient said.

Delegates from Canada, which has ratified Kyoto but failed to meet its reduction targets, were accused of telling a committee in Bali that emission reduction obligations were not necessary for all largest emitting countries.

"After backing out of our own Kyoto commitments we have absolutely no credibility in demanding new obligations for others," a Canadian youth activist said when she accepted the award.

(Reporting by David Fogarty; editing by Alex Richardson)





Australia's off the list, replaced with Canada. Thanks Harper, we're now at par with the United States.

Remind me TRZ,

why exactly is is called Greenland? Was there an explosion of greenhouse gases guring Leif Ericson's days when Greenland was indeed green?

The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there.[2] Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer, and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Grnlnd2.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Grnlnd1.jpg

There are very small patches here and there in the southern area of the island that are in fact green. However, you're asinine presumption that the second largest ice mass on earth suddenly popped up overnight atop a tropical paradise is a little far from the real world.

Re: Southern Greenland glacier's dumping ice into the sea


That's called calving and is the result of growing glaciers.

They are growing because warmer temperatures allow it to snow more. It isn't really that they are growing, it's just that there is more weight from the snow.

Greenland is a desert. And all of a sudden it's getting more precipitation than it normally would. Why?

Same is true for Antarctica, which is growing in some spots but getting thinner in others, and its losses are offsetting its gains.

were is this cold weather?

From November 29 to December 9 it was 20 degrees below normal.

That's cold, isn't it? :P

It's -13 now, which is about normal for this time of day at this time of year. We're back up to normal. :)

Bring it on. :guns1:

Here's some more of that "consensus" for ya TRZ...

Climate warming better explained by solar variability
_____________________________ 
.

Greetings from UN Conference in Bali .

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project - 10 Dec 07

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass ( Univ. of Rochester ), Prof. John R. Christy ( Univ. of Alabama ), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer ( Univ. of Virginia ).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface * and thus the climate.”

Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project

Sun's Variations Have Little Effect on Global Warming

Variation in the brightness of the Sun is not the major factor behind the unusual warming the Earth has experienced over the past few centuries, a new study suggests.

Researchers traced changes in our parent star's energy output back to the 17th century and found that solar cycles, peaking nearly every 11 years, did not play a significant role in contributing to global warming.

Earth's warming trend, which climate reconstructions show began in the 17th century, has accelerated in the last 100 years. Most studies reveal that this temperature rise could be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

In addition to man-made factors, natural inconsistencies in Earth's climate could also play a role in climate change. Additionally, some scientists have speculated that changes in the Sun's brightness affect temperatures on Earth.

About once every 11 years, changes in the Sun's magnetic field result in increases in the number and magnitude of sunspots and solar flares, which bombard Earth with charged particles.

During times of high activity, like in year 2000, the Sun shines about 0.07 percent brighter, researchers report in the September 14 issue of the journal Nature.

The researchers used a combination of data on solar brightness obtained by spacecrafts since 1978 and isotope data --collected from Earth's atmosphere and in ice sheets of Antarctic and Greenland--to recreate the Sun's influence on terrestrial temperatures over the past several centuries.

Although events such as sunspots have increased in the last 400 years, their effect only contributed a small amount to global warming, the results show.

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," said study co-author Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html
-----------------------------------
We report. You decide.

We are indeed lucky to have our American friends explain to us that man has not influenced the change in climate through pollution and abuse of natural resources. I feel much comforted now knowing there is no need to stop doing what we have been doing for the past century! :)

Globil, Fred Singer also just happens to be a libertarian; a good majority of them of course believe that global warming is bunk because it severely threatens their ideological stance. Not to mention his pockets are lined with Exxon's money...

Singer also does not believe in the Chlorofluorocarbons - ozone depletion connection, an incredibly powerful case of cause and effect... hardly a source I would especially trust.

No, the Ozone repairing itself after we banned CFCs was just a co-incidence.

Globil, Fred Singer also just happens to be a libertarian; a good majority of them of course believe that global warming is bunk because it severely threatens their ideological stance. Not to mention his pockets are lined with Exxon's money...

Singer also does not believe in the Chlorofluorocarbons - ozone depletion connection, an incredibly powerful case of cause and effect... hardly a source I would especially trust.

:cheers:

The defence rests its case.

LOL! Owned, I'd say.

Unn if you follow th link above, the next story reads a little different. Hardly owned. And the opening sentence of the posted article is hardly definitive


Variation in the brightness of the Sun is not the major factor behind the unusual warming the Earth has experienced over the past few centuries, a new study suggests

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.

Yet the debate is over???? Let's hand over the world economy to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats because well...the science is settled. Right....

Unn if you follow th link above, the next story reads a little different. Hardly owned. And the opening sentence of the posted article is hardly definitive


Variation in the brightness of the Sun is not the major factor behind the unusual warming the Earth has experienced over the past few centuries, a new study suggests

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.

Yet the debate is over???? Let's hand over the world economy to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats because well...the science is settled. Right....
Look, skyscraper_1 and you are posting articles that state more or less directly opposing suggestions. Myself, Windex, and Salvius have already destroyed three of your references consecutively. Forget best 2 out of 3, we have you fried 3-nothing. Give up. The science is settled as long as you aren't a libertarian-neo-con-oil-sponsored-delusionist.

Look, skyscraper_1 and you are posting articles that state more or less directly opposing suggestions. Myself, Windex, and Salvius have already destroyed three of your references consecutively. Forget best 2 out of 3, we have you fried 3-nothing. Give up. The science is settled as long as you aren't a libertarian-neo-con-oil-sponsored-delusionist.

No, the science isn't settled (it's never settled), it can only suggest with consensus.

Personally, I'm of the mind that we should be doing what is economically sound - that what we should be giving up should never be greater than what we gain. Having said that, I hope our nanotech labs can come up with a way of converting CO2 into nanostructures (nanotubes, nanopaper, fullerenes.) That would be doing something with clear gains and minimal losses.

TRZ, you really need to grow up. What makes you think conservatives somehow worry less over the fate of the earth than folks like yourself?

And please do explain why Mars has also been experiencing global warming? Are the Martians carbon footprints as large as Al Gore's?

Here's a little vid for ya TRZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_TkXdZa0U

Global warming on Mars?

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

So what is causing Martian climate change now? Mars has a relatively well studied climate, going back to measurements made by Viking, and continued with the current series of orbiters, such as the Mars Global Surveyor. Complementing the measurements, NASA has a Mars General Circulation Model (GCM) based at NASA Ames. (NB. There is a good "general reader" review of modeling the Martian atmosphere by Stephen R Lewis in Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 44 issue 4. pages 6-14.)

Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.

In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS 2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

TRZ, you really need to grow up. What makes you think conservatives somehow worry less over the fate of the earth than folks like yourself?

Because they have blind faith in the free market and deregulation.

The best example you could find is "CFC's aren't bad for the environment" Singer. Why does he make such a claim? Does he really have science on his side? No. He does, however, have a belief in inviolability of private property and blind faith in the free market. Thing is, (surprise surprise), the businesses didn't respond to the ozone layer crisis, which prompted an international agreement which effectively banned CFC use. Well, of course Singer doesn't like that... Because he's 100% laissez-faire. So he does what any fine ideologue would do: dig up some mumbo-jumbo, string it all together, and then claim that CFCs has nothing to do with the ozone layer (before we continue, I should ask you globil -- do you believe that? Because then there isn't much left to talk about).

CFC's, however, are small potatoes in comparison to the amount of government intervention that would be necessary to carry through meaningful reduction in CO2, since Exxon and other 'friends' of the earth have been unwilling to respond on their own. So, mother of all surprises, Singer doesn't like this idea either. And much as he does with the CFCs, he denies the whole problem whatsoever. Problem solved, because there isn't a problem.

Libertarians, and most Conservatives, have a problem with global warming since it threatens their beliefs in a fundamental way. Maybe the market doesn't always know best? Since that's an incredibly hard pill to swallow, it's much easier to pretend that there is NO problem, and talk about mumbo-jumbo on Mars as if its atmosphere in any way approximated the earth's.

Well put, salvius. Ultra conservatives don't want to see anything stand in the way of profit. If it means denying the sky gets blue, they would be willing to do that, too.

AARGGHHH!!!

Yep, that's right. It couldn't be that some of us are concerned that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been hijacked by an unelected global organization as a means to gain de facto control over the world's economy. Could it?

Oh no, those who insist the science is not decided are greedy capitalists. Right.

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » Last updated at 11:01am on 13th December 2007

Comments Comments
Pope Benedict XVI

Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

Well at least you are consistent in your politics, Globill, and there is never any surprise which way you are going to lean on any issue. But just one little question... do you really believe that quoting Pope Benedict XVI is going to win you any support?

"Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology."

This coming from the leader of the worlds most elaborate fairy tail......

What the Pope actually says is quite reasonable however. I don't like a bunch of chicken littles running around saying the sky is falling. But Listening to the scientists involved a good majority do support the theory that current climate change is man-made in origin.

SANTA CLAUSE DOUBTS MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

While scientists met in Bali, the leader of the world's most favorite holiday took time out of his busy schedule to give his view on the global warming.

Speaking from the North Pole he remarked " Global warming? What global warming? Its cold here no matter what. I have no alterer motive, but I am skeptical because of the evidence I see around me"

Sally McNotreal of the ecology action center disagrees with Santa's neutrality. She points out that Santa's Workshop would be facing costly upgrades if harsh emission caps are imposed. His factory was by far the largest emitter in the North according to 2006 data.

LOL! :lol:
I'd lend more credence to Santa than that exceptionally backward Pope.

Reality condemns the Catholic prophets of doom

Reality has launched a surprise attack on Catholic prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to humanity must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

More than a billion humans suggested that fears over burning in hell for not following Catholicism were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The realists said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the Catholic movement.

Those who have observed reality said the world needed to care for the environment as welfare of animals and plants has direct correlation to that of mankind.

lmao.

AARGGHHH!!!

Yep, that's right. It couldn't be that some of us are concerned that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been hijacked by an unelected global organization as a means to gain de facto control over the world's economy. Could it?

Oh no, those who insist the science is not decided are greedy capitalists. Right.

When you're that vastly outnumbered, the odds of you being right are astronomically small. Nobody's stupid for being conservative, it is just that most conservatives are stupid. It is people like you that lend undeniable support to that famous quote (John Miller's, was it?).

This "unelected global organization" as you love to refer to it to as, are formed based on their qualifications in the field. To suggest that this body be elected rather than selected by qualifications evaluation is just further proof of how much your ideas are simply non-starters. Let somebody buy the election and we elect Exxon to that global organization - just like some oil companies bought their way onto the Canadian delegation in Bali. Do you know why oil companies were able to buy their way onto the delegation and at the same time get environmentalists banned from the delegation? Because it is a conservative government. How can you try and say they are not a tool of evil when they stack the deck like that? That's just outrageous and appaling and goes against democracy. Only conservatives pull that kind of crap.

AARGGHHH!!!

Yep, that's right. It couldn't be that some of us are concerned that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been hijacked by an unelected global organization as a means to gain de facto control over the world's economy. Could it?

Some of 'you' I'm sure are concerned.

Not Singer, however, the source you've chosen to quote.

What do you think was Singer's motivation in the CFC debate? I will admit, science over global warming isn't, say, in the 95% consensus... for the CFCs, the science consensus was pretty much at 99%. So why the disagreement? What was more likely there? That he had strong convictions and indisputable knowledge that everyone else is wrong? Or perhaps it's more rational to assume that his opposition was based on a fairly primal ideological conflict? After all, the man does have associations with the Independent Institute. And in terms of global warming... he just also happens to have tight connections with American Petroleum Institute... Who do you think lines his pockets with the green? And do you really think that's irrelevant???!!!!

When you're that vastly outnumbered, the odds of you being right are astronomically small.

The mob mentality is alive and well and the mob is usually wrong.


A Word About Consensus

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Michael Crichton

AARGGHHH!!!

Yep, that's right. It couldn't be that some of us are concerned that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been hijacked by an unelected global organization as a means to gain de facto control over the world's economy. Could it?

Oh no, those who insist the science is not decided are greedy capitalists. Right.

What is your point? Also what is your arguement? Then your proof?

Sounds like you are saying a elected rep from the U.S. is the word of god?

And all of you honorable anti-conservatives, a question....is it even remotely possible that anyone on the global warming gravy train, even if they are an angelic liberal, might...just maybe have ulterior and financial motives for pushing the panic button and trying to create ENTIRE NEW INDUSTRIES??? (carbon trading schemes)

Ever heard of Generation Investmetn Management?, the firm through which Gore buys carbon credits to offset his private jet emmissions? Well, just so happens that he is the Chairman of the company and his old friend and aid to run the American division of the company, which stands to make billions in financial profits off of the creation of an entire new market in carbon offsets.

Oh, the sheeple, they have been warned, but cannot see.

Meanwhile, a complacent media, rather than hounding Gore over his financial conflicts of interest, continue to shill for this conman’s junk science.

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

*
First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
*
Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
*
Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
*
Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
*
Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
*
Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens


Have any of you seen or heard about Gore's Chairmanship of this company?? And how many of you have heard about Cheney's work with Halliburton?

I thought so.

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and youre okay.
Money, its a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think Ill buy me a football team.

And all of you honorable anti-conservatives,
Who is the judge of our politics?is it even remotely possible that anyone on the global warming gravy train, even if they are an angelic liberal, might...just maybe have ulterior and financial motives for pushing the panic button and trying to create ENTIRE NEW INDUSTRIES??? (carbon trading schemes)
Perhaps you are right globill:lol:? Oh yea we are Canadian we are not manipulated that easy! Grab a brain dude! You sound way too silly!
Right wing christian values are the demise of the U.S.
Do not ask me look at your future?

What is your point? Also what is your arguement? Then your proof?

Also answer this question too me?

http://www.*********/contents/more/archive/soldiers_against_the_war.htm

And all of you honorable anti-conservatives, a question....is it even remotely possible that anyone on the global warming gravy train, even if they are an angelic liberal, might...just maybe have ulterior and financial motives for pushing the panic button and trying to create ENTIRE NEW INDUSTRIES??? (carbon trading schemes)

Ever heard of Generation Investmetn Management?, the firm through which Gore buys carbon credits to offset his private jet emmissions? Well, just so happens that he is the Chairman of the company and his old friend and aid to run the American division of the company, which stands to make billions in financial profits off of the creation of an entire new market in carbon offsets.

Oh, the sheeple, they have been warned, but cannot see.

Meanwhile, a complacent media, rather than hounding Gore over his financial conflicts of interest, continue to shill for this conman’s junk science.

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

*
First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
*
Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
*
Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
*
Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
*
Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
*
Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens


Have any of you seen or heard about Gore's Chairmanship of this company?? And how many of you have heard about Cheney's work with Halliburton?

I thought so.

Are you on drugs?

I thought so.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.


This is the highlight of my evening! The Pope (Pontiff) suggesting science over dogma! Was this article made for me or what thanks Globill! Perhaps the Pontiff should become part of scientology? http://www.scientology.org/


Seriously the Roman Catholic Church is based on Dogma not science. I certainly prefer Gnosticism or Buddism! I think it is better to have knowledge or be awake then have dogma!
Not to offend anyone it is just fact.

Are you on drugs?

I thought so.


Typical for the level of debate on this subject in this thread. Disagree with the global warming groupthink? You are an idiot...you are on drugs...you work for the oil industry.

HAve any of you read up on the record volcanic activity detected under the arctic sea in recent years? Or the numerous studies researching the effect of soot from Chinese factories that changes the albedo of the snow cover in the arctic (therefore increasing melt) ?

No? Stick the CBC geniuses, they'll give you the party line.

Have any of you seen or heard about Gore's Chairmanship of this company?? And how many of you have heard about Cheney's work with Halliburton?

I thought so.

You really are an idiot!, aren't you? Halliburton is a big source of attack because it is a conflict of interest. Cheney is giving Halliburton, at which he was one of the head honchoes before becoming Vice President in the White House, tons of lucrative oil contracts in the Middle East - non-competetively to boot. It is reasonable to assume that once he's kicked out of the White House next year, he can easily walk back into Halliburton as a head honcho. It actually has nothing to do with the fact that Halliburton is an oil company. This isn't an environmental issue, smart guy, this is an obvious issue of conflict of interest, but that obviously goes right over your head since Republicans and Conservatives can do no wrong no matter how immoral their crackpot schemes are. Gore's company started in 2004, he hadn't been Vice President since 2000 - even though he actually won the election, it was learned after Bush stole the Presidency. Sure, Gore has influence from making a movie and winning a Nobel Prize, but that's the result of the work he's done outside of his political life, and that is the key point that puts him on a faaaaaar higher moral ground than Cheney - who is abusing the Oval Office for stuffing the pockets of his friends at his previous and likely-future employer.

The Pope!! LOL! :hilarious Still wiping the tears from my eyes. Laughter is medicine for the soul, Globill, so thanks for revealing so much of your insight with us. Who next? Dr. Phil?

but that's the result of the work he's done outside of his political life, and that is the key point that puts him on a faaaaaar higher moral ground than Cheney - who is abusing the Oval Office for stuffing the pockets of his friends at his previous and likely-future employer.

When this global warming hysteria dies down in just a few years time and the cooling trend that started in 98 begins to be generally felt and acknowledged,(how's this winter shaping up there Canucks?) it will be Gore who will be seen as a fool and manipulator of epic proportions.

Creating a piece of propaganda with contrived "science" in order to frighten a generation of folks to believe the sky is falling, all the while heading up an investment company whose success is dependent upon unelected bureaucrats gaining leverage over the global economy....purportedly in order to fight this hysterical monumental bullshit scenario....???

History will judge Cheney much much more kindly than the Goracle......trust me.

History will judge Cheney much much more kindly than the Goracle......trust me.
I generally agree with you that much of the "global warming/climate change" agenda is premised upon insufficient data and hysterical groupthink...that much is evident. I don't agree with your argumentation, though. Mentioning the Pope as an authority is, well, funny.

And your line quoted above comes direct from Bizarroworld. While Gore is a hypocrite of the highest order (carbon tax credits? They are a fraud and ethically illogical), he's just a mouthpiece of the current environmentalist sideshow, and will be judged as something of a clown. Cheney, though, is the closest thing to evil that you can get in secular, post-Enlightenment society. He will be judged harshly by honest appraisers of this era, though, of course, he will invariably be lauded by narrow-minded rightwing automatons pace Nixon's refurbishing by same.

History will judge Cheney much much more kindly than the Goracle......trust me.

That's a laugh right there. Cheney and Bush are going down as the worst administration in American history. Bush has pretty much secured himself the title of "Worst President Ever" by a majority of the American population, with of course Bush being a puppet of Cheney's. Cheney is never going to be judged "kindly" by history, and shows just how far off your rocker you are.

How about the snow storm from the weekend? Unprecedented, and proof of global warming as predicted. Part of the global warming schtick includes stronger storms on a regular basis, genius.

I generally agree with you that much of the "global warming/climate change" agenda is premised upon insufficient data and hysterical groupthink...that much is evident. I don't agree with your argumentation, though. Mentioning the Pope as an authority is, well, funny.

And your line quoted above comes direct from Bizarroworld. While Gore is a hypocrite of the highest order (carbon tax credits? They are a fraud and ethically illogical), he's just a mouthpiece of the current environmentalist sideshow, and will be judged as something of a clown. Cheney, though, is the closest thing to evil that you can get in secular, post-Enlightenment society. He will be judged harshly by honest appraisers of this era, though, of course, he will invariably be lauded by narrow-minded rightwing automatons pace Nixon's refurbishing by same.

It is refreshing to read a rational and balanced post. On this forum, they are often few and far between...especially on a topic such as climate change that tends to elicit strictly emotional responses, often without much thought or reason.

It isn't global warming, it's climate change.

Cheney will be remembered for his hunting skills! You know... that mystery weekend shooting, well.. grouse or something!

I generally agree with you that much of the "global warming/climate change" agenda is premised upon insufficient data and hysterical groupthink...that much is evident.

Evident based on what?

Climate modeling is an inexact science and therefore cannot give us precisely the answers we need. However, this can hardly discredit the whole enterprise as a product of 'hysterical groupthink.' Indeed, there is little serious debate in that human activity is contributing to warming of the earth because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction; any real disagreement between scientists is based on just how significant the human contribution is. While it is foolish to succumb to hysteria, it is often wise to err conservatively.

---

A much more interesting discussion of the matter is going on at Urban Toronto at the moment, for anyone that cares.

Well said

HAve any of you read up on the record volcanic activity detected under the arctic sea in recent years? Or the numerous studies researching the effect of soot from Chinese factories that changes the albedo of the snow cover in the arctic (therefore increasing melt) ?

I have actually heard about the soot. The studies I've heard about focus primarily on industry from North America from the Industrial Revolution and on. However, it still is pretty interesting. Maybe that's a factor as to why global warming is happening much faster in the Arctic than in other parts of the world. Regardless, I don't think I've heard anyone claim that it's the sole or even primary cause of global warming. And on top of that it's still caused by humans, so it doesn't really support the argument you're trying to make, I'd imagine.

As for the increase in volcanic activity, I'll admit, I haven't heard of that. I Googled it though and only found a some vehemently anti-global warming sites espousing it. If you can find me a credible source, I'd read it. However, I really doubt it. Consider the following: the ocean contains about 1.37 billion cubic kilometres of water, using a bit of Thermodynamics (I'm rusty), I calculated it requiring 5.73 x 10^24 joules required to raise the temperature by just 1°C. As a comparison, Mount St. Helen's released about 2 x 10^18 joules when it erupted in 1980. So it would take about 3 million eruptions of that magnitude to increase the world's ocean temperatures by just one degree.

More pertinent to the original topic, how is everyone's winter?

This winter has been refreshingly very white. It's been snowing so periodically that it has been diluting all the rock salt that has been thrown down.

^ ye lots of snow fell in toronto today. people were wrecking their cars everywhere trying to drive...toronto also felt like a ghost town.

I like it. Wish I could live in that kind of city/town. Love the second picture!

snowmobiles are also cheaper, and have better traction. it would be nice to go up there for a few days and see how the aboriginals live...and of course, take the snowmobile off some jumps!

I give up theres already to much snow. :lol:

That's a laugh right there. Cheney and Bush are going down as the worst administration in American history. Bush has pretty much secured himself the title of "Worst President Ever" by a majority of the American population, with of course Bush being a puppet of Cheney's. Cheney is never going to be judged "kindly" by history, and shows just how far off your rocker you are.

They are hardly going down as the worst in history. If you look at it objectively, Bush hasn't done much at all (good or bad). Sure, Iraq is messed up now, but there has been solid economic growth under him (and I believe this year or last marked a decline in the total GHG emissions in the US). Speaking of Cheney, as a VP he is miles ahead of what Gore was. He just simply knows what he is doing, and he doesn't care what people think.

Climate modeling is an inexact science and therefore cannot give us precisely the answers we need. However, this can hardly discredit the whole enterprise as a product of 'hysterical groupthink.' Indeed, there is little serious debate in that human activity is contributing to warming of the earth because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction; any real disagreement between scientists is based on just how significant the human contribution is. While it is foolish to succumb to hysteria, it is often wise to err conservatively.

No matter what the models say and how far wildly apart they vary, there is still the scientific fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. Even if it is a 1 degree change over 5000 years, shouldn't we seek to minimize our footprint on the planet?

"Bush hasn't done much at all (good or bad)"

You actually believe that he hasn't done much bad? :shocked: :runaway:

They are hardly going down as the worst in history. If you look at it objectively, Bush hasn't done much at all (good or bad). Sure, Iraq is messed up now, but there has been solid economic growth under him (and I believe this year or last marked a decline in the total GHG emissions in the US). Speaking of Cheney, as a VP he is miles ahead of what Gore was. He just simply knows what he is doing, and he doesn't care what people think.

GHG emissions have been declining in the US, but this is by no initiative of the Bush Administration, this is all happening at the State Level, with California pulling out most of the stops and showing good progress. Other states in the New England region have also been enacting their own measures. This is all independent of the Bush Administration.

Bush has done plenty. Ask a majority of Americans and they will be unimpressed. I'd dare suspect that a majority would indeed say that he is the worst president ever based on some polls that I have read in newspaper articles. Are you aware of Bush's public approval rating? Domestic, not overseas (everybody knows everybody outside the US hates him... that's based on population, not political leaders, you've probably seen the joke map of the world that shows how the world would have voted if the US presidential race was a global event, the whole world is a Blue State except for the US which is a Red State. This joke map is funny because it is relatively true). Bush has made a mockery of the US like no other, raked up a debt like no other - in fact he outdid all previous presidents COMBINED for debt increase... screwed up a military operation like no other... LBJ is laughing at Bush and singing vindication. The Patriot Act, woooooah, that's real popular shit there guy! Guantanamo is of course a mad popular tourist destination too. The US court system striking down the legislation passed by the Bush Administration - and the stupidity of the Bush Administration to think that they are above the courts (the way government works is that the court is there to advise and guide the government, the government is not there to guide the courts, to think that the leader of a nation can make that mistake is the epitome of ineptitude and inappositity). Then there's his passive attitude towards Bin Laden, which raises serious questions about his relationship with the man. Then there's the recession, inspired by his ill-thought-out tax cuts from his first term. Nevermind the fact that he never actually won that first term in the first place but stole it, undermining the very foundation of the country he hijacks the helm of. Need I bring up the Halliburton contracts again... do you want me to go on?:nuts:

Best line out of Bali:

"If for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way."
- Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea


http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bali.jpg

They are hardly going down as the worst in history. If you look at it objectively, Bush hasn't done much at all (good or bad). Sure, Iraq is messed up now, but there has been solid economic growth under him (and I believe this year or last marked a decline in the total GHG emissions in the US). Speaking of Cheney, as a VP he is miles ahead of what Gore was. He just simply knows what he is doing, and he doesn't care what people think.



No matter what the models say and how far wildly apart they vary, there is still the scientific fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. Even if it is a 1 degree change over 5000 years, shouldn't we seek to minimize our footprint on the planet?

Well certainly with your first point you should suggest whom was worst and why? Secondly Shamey is not a politician he is a businessman!
He is the worst idea for an idea!:bash:

GHG emissions have been declining in the US, but this is by no initiative of the Bush Administration, this is all happening at the State Level, with California pulling out most of the stops and showing good progress. Other states in the New England region have also been enacting their own measures. This is all independent of the Bush Administration.

Bush has done plenty. Ask a majority of Americans and they will be unimpressed. I'd dare suspect that a majority would indeed say that he is the worst president ever based on some polls that I have read in newspaper articles. Are you aware of Bush's public approval rating? Domestic, not overseas (everybody knows everybody outside the US hates him... that's based on population, not political leaders, you've probably seen the joke map of the world that shows how the world would have voted if the US presidential race was a global event, the whole world is a Blue State except for the US which is a Red State. This joke map is funny because it is relatively true). Bush has made a mockery of the US like no other, raked up a debt like no other - in fact he outdid all previous presidents COMBINED for debt increase... screwed up a military operation like no other... LBJ is laughing at Bush and singing vindication. The Patriot Act, woooooah, that's real popular shit there guy! Guantanamo is of course a mad popular tourist destination too. The US court system striking down the legislation passed by the Bush Administration - and the stupidity of the Bush Administration to think that they are above the courts (the way government works is that the court is there to advise and guide the government, the government is not there to guide the courts, to think that the leader of a nation can make that mistake is the epitome of ineptitude and inappositity). Then there's his passive attitude towards Bin Laden, which raises serious questions about his relationship with the man. Then there's the recession, inspired by his ill-thought-out tax cuts from his first term. Nevermind the fact that he never actually won that first term in the first place but stole it, undermining the very foundation of the country he hijacks the helm of. Need I bring up the Halliburton contracts again... do you want me to go on?:nuts:

blah blah blah blah blah.........yawn.

blah blah blah blah blah.........yawn.

:lol: Yeah, I thought as much. Nothing you can say to that.

GHG emissions have been declining in the US, but this is by no initiative of the Bush Administration, this is all happening at the State Level, with California pulling out most of the stops and showing good progress. Other states in the New England region have also been enacting their own measures. This is all independent of the Bush Administration.

Bush has done plenty. Ask a majority of Americans and they will be unimpressed. I'd dare suspect that a majority would indeed say that he is the worst president ever based on some polls that I have read in newspaper articles. Are you aware of Bush's public approval rating? Domestic, not overseas (everybody knows everybody outside the US hates him... that's based on population, not political leaders, you've probably seen the joke map of the world that shows how the world would have voted if the US presidential race was a global event, the whole world is a Blue State except for the US which is a Red State. This joke map is funny because it is relatively true). Bush has made a mockery of the US like no other, raked up a debt like no other - in fact he outdid all previous presidents COMBINED for debt increase... screwed up a military operation like no other... LBJ is laughing at Bush and singing vindication. The Patriot Act, woooooah, that's real popular shit there guy! Guantanamo is of course a mad popular tourist destination too. The US court system striking down the legislation passed by the Bush Administration - and the stupidity of the Bush Administration to think that they are above the courts (the way government works is that the court is there to advise and guide the government, the government is not there to guide the courts, to think that the leader of a nation can make that mistake is the epitome of ineptitude and inappositity). Then there's his passive attitude towards Bin Laden, which raises serious questions about his relationship with the man. Then there's the recession, inspired by his ill-thought-out tax cuts from his first term. Nevermind the fact that he never actually won that first term in the first place but stole it, undermining the very foundation of the country he hijacks the helm of. Need I bring up the Halliburton contracts again... do you want me to go on?:nuts:

Whoa, lots of writing. First, I wouldn't say the reason for decreasing GHG's in the US is the states (some of which are dicking around with carbon markets), it is solely because record oil prices have decreased demand for oil and oil products. About Bush's approval ratings: I don't pay attention to those, because let's face it -- noone likes politicians. What is the difference between 45% and 30%? A majority of people will always disapprove and no president is different. Also, look at Reagan. He was hated terribly, but now some 20 years later he is remembered fondly by Americans. Clinton also was in some muddy water with the sex fiasco, but his image has improved out of office, and Bush will be the same.

US debt as a % of GDP is still very healthy (still better than Canada's even after all these surplus years and deficits there), so Bush's deficits aren't some big catastrophe like people make them out to be (and they are decreasing as well). I'm not going to go on because you clearly have an ideological bent with a hate for Bush, so there's no point in debating. But if you try to look at it objectively, he hasn't done all that bad.. and he's tried to change Social Security around and Immigration (two big things which need to be changed).

Clinton also was in some muddy water with the sex fiasco, but his image has improved out of office

though Clinton is internationally perceived as one of the best and most friendliest American presidents.

Whoa, lots of writing. First, I wouldn't say the reason for decreasing GHG's in the US is the states (some of which are dicking around with carbon markets), it is solely because record oil prices have decreased demand for oil and oil products.Record oil prices are helping, but it is not the root cause in some states. California's policies have been pointed to as a role model by other government bodies on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

About Bush's approval ratings: I don't pay attention to those, because let's face it -- noone likes politicians. What is the difference between 45% and 30%? A majority of people will always disapprove and no president is different.It matters a lot actually, because it is called "public opinion", which leaders are supposed to be following. If a leader does not follow the public opinion (s)he was put into office to represent, then (s)he is a failure. The more people disapprove, the more likely they are to vote in order to get rid of him.
Clinton also was in some muddy water with the sex fiasco,If that's the best you can do for dirt on Clinton, that's sad. The Monica affair had no actual impact on his job performance, it was a personal issue not a professional liability, and the Republicans only went after him for it because they thought it would be funny, clearly showing their lack of interest in the good of their nation and are purely obsessed with partisanship and keeping power for themselves for the mere sake of power.
Clinton has his faults, but Monica is irrelevant.

but his image has improved out of office, and Bush will be the same. :lol: Bush has been a failure all his life, both inside and outside the White House. He is long out of opportunities to improve, his fate is sealed and everyone knows it.

US debt as a % of GDP is still very healthy (still better than Canada's even after all these surplus years and deficits there), so Bush's deficits aren't some big catastrophe like people make them out to be (and they are decreasing as well).

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
^^The bill for the Iraq war by the time Bush's term is up.
I'm not going to go on because you clearly have an ideological bent with a hate for Bush, so there's no point in debating.Yeah, because you know, if you lay out all the facts that show Bush has done all kinds of unpopular and damaging things, you have to be partisan with an ideological bent because Republicans are always flawless and their pursuit of wealth and power for themselves puts them on a higher moral footing than all others :| Real credible there.
But if you try to look at it objectively, he hasn't done all that bad.. and he's tried to change Social Security around and Immigration (two big things which need to be changed).Tried to would be the key part of that.

still waiting for the cold weather its curently -6 in winterpeg ...

Record oil prices are helping, but it is not the root cause in some states. California's policies have been pointed to as a role model by other government bodies on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

It matters a lot actually, because it is called "public opinion", which leaders are supposed to be following. If a leader does not follow the public opinion (s)he was put into office to represent, then (s)he is a failure. The more people disapprove, the more likely they are to vote in order to get rid of him.
If that's the best you can do for dirt on Clinton, that's sad. The Monica affair had no actual impact on his job performance, it was a personal issue not a professional liability, and the Republicans only went after him for it because they thought it would be funny, clearly showing their lack of interest in the good of their nation and are purely obsessed with partisanship and keeping power for themselves for the mere sake of power.
Clinton has his faults, but Monica is irrelevant.

:lol: Bush has been a failure all his life, both inside and outside the White House. He is long out of opportunities to improve, his fate is sealed and everyone knows it.



ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
^^The bill for the Iraq war by the time Bush's term is up.
Yeah, because you know, if you lay out all the facts that show Bush has done all kinds of unpopular and damaging things, you have to be partisan with an ideological bent because Republicans are always flawless and their pursuit of wealth and power for themselves puts them on a higher moral footing than all others :| Real credible there.
Tried to would be the key part of that.

I don't know specifically about California, other than that they have only started to implement things in the past two years, which is hardly enough time for policies to kick into effect. A leader following public opinion is hardly the only criteria by which to judge them. I suppose you want a judge to follow the opinion of the mob and sentence someone to a hanging? Clinton was a mixed bag with many things. He raised taxes, yet enjoyed a strong confident economy because for the first time in the history of this planet, there was general peace and no large rivalry.

So what if the bill for the Iraq war is 1 trillion dollars? US GDP is 13 trillion dollars (per year...). US debt as a % of GDP is ~65%, roughly the same as Canada's. The US budget is forecast to be into surplus position by 2012 at this rate without changing things (want the proof? here: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/budproj.pdf). I don't believe Republicans or Democrats are flawless. They are both screwed up parties financed by the same people and the same lobbyists. They are both socially regressive dinosaurs.

Back onto the climate change topic though, people can bitch at Harper/Baird or Chretien/Dion all they want, but the fact is the only way this country will reduce emissions in the long term with minimized economic damage is with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Any other carbon-credit/Kyoto/Bali agreement isn't worth jack. About Baird's position of everyone or noone: he is right. Look at how CFC's were banned.. it took the cooperation of every country. If that doesn't happen for Global Warming, then good luck. Canada can sign and do whatever it wants but if China/India/the US don't sign on, then it is all for naught.

I generally agree with you that much of the "global warming/climate change" agenda is premised upon insufficient data and hysterical groupthink...that much is evident.Evident based on what?

Well, partly things like this:


For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

Has global warming stopped? (http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004)

Evident based on what?

Climate modeling is an inexact science and therefore cannot give us precisely the answers we need. However, this can hardly discredit the whole enterprise as a product of 'hysterical groupthink.' Indeed, there is little serious debate in that human activity is contributing to warming of the earth because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction; any real disagreement between scientists is based on just how significant the human contribution is. While it is foolish to succumb to hysteria, it is often wise to err conservatively.


Much of the debate on human-induced climate change relies almost exclusively on 'hysterical groupthink'. Additionally, anyone who questions the the contribution of human activity is blasted for being an evil capitalist and obviously pro-pollution. People seem not to understand that questioning the evidence (on all sides), and examining all options is the only method to further any scientific data and obtain objective results.

People also tend to ignore the history of our planet. Over the vast duration of the earth's history, there have been drastic changes in the temperature of the earth. These fluctuations were far more drastic than any changes that have occurred in the relatively tiny amount of time since human temperature records began around 1860. Any data gleamed from such a relatively tiny time period provides an incomplete picture as to overall trends (temperatures since 1860 would not even be evident on any line graph conveying overall trends in temperatures over the course of the earth's history).

Furthermore, these drastic fluctuations in temperature have occurred for many millions of years before man arrived. Therefore, far more drastic changes in temperature have occurred totally independent of human activity. The current climate has been changing over a million-year period, with swings from cold to warm, and back again.

No one is certain what caused the lower temperatures of the Ice Ages, and several different causes probably worked together. The 100,000 year long cycle is likely caused by variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt that change the amount of heat reaching Earth from the Sun. A small change can make the few degrees difference between a temperate climate and ice. Also, the Sun's total output of heat may vary a little. Many other factors have been proposed mechanisms and/or contributors, such as the level of volcanic activity.

The amounts of the atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, affect temperature. The majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations. If nothing else changes, more greenhouse gases would make the temperature rise.

Data from the air bubbles in ice cores show that in the past when the temperature was higher there was more carbon dioxide. Thus the temperature and the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were correlated. (That is they changed together, and in an understandable way.)

The observation that past temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed together doesn't tell us that one effect necessarily caused the other.

Variations in solar energy could have changed the temperature. Temperature differences induced from a plethora of other sources could alter the amount of carbon dioxide. Variable theories attempt to account for the unknown causes of alterations in carbon dioxide (independent of humans) over earth's history, and thus altered the temperature. Some unknown factor may have altered both temperature and carbon dioxide.

The cause and effect relationship might be different in different geological eras. Specifically man-made carbon dioxide may be changing temperature, but in the past it was the other way around.

There are a host of examples of climate change, even in the last 1,000 years. For instance, 'The Little Ice Age'.

This actually occurred in three distinct cooling periods - chilled northern Europe and parts of the United States. It sent the Vikings back to Europe from their outposts in Greenland. Farms in Norway were covered with glaciers and crop failures around Europe caused famines and spikes in grain prices.

In 1816, New England experienced its "year without summer," when many crops failed. One researcher argues that the storm that wiped out a large part of the Spanish Armada - and made Sir Francis Drake's job easier - was part of the Little Ice Age pattern. The Little Ice Age is the only abrupt climate change that people have experienced in industrial times. Other abrupt changes, like the rapid cooling event that peaked 8,200 years ago, could be far more disruptive.

The last ice age ended with a temperature burst that raised the thermostat at Greenland by some 9 degrees C over a mere decade. We still don't understand the causes" behind the increase.

Other theories that attempt to blame human beings for negative effects on the environment exist, both historically or otherwise. For instance, the overkill hypothesis blames human hunting for a major extinction that occurred over 20,000 years ago. Recently, evidence suggests that climate change was the more likely culprit. Thus, one of the reasons people have glommed on to the overkill hypothesis, and possibly the current climate change, is 'green' politics. It plays to the Judeo-Christian theme that human beings are all-powerful and responsible for negative impacts on the environment.

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

Earth's Climatic History

Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

A Very Recent History of the Earth's Temperature

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 - 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

Best line out of Bali:

"If for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way."
- Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea


That's a no-brainer, considering the majority of the population of Papua New Guinea live in traditional societies and practise subsistence-based agriculture.

How will they ever meet those Kyoto targets? Less flatulence?

maybe they could hold their breath?:ohno:

maybe they could hold their breath?:ohno:

In Mr. Conrad's case, we can only hope.

The observation that past temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed together doesn't tell us that one effect necessarily caused the other.

So it tells us that they don't affect one another?

Certainly we can continue to study it and we by all means should. However, to ignore the evidence we have so far is, well, ignorant. Maybe further research will tell us that humans burning fossil fuels and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have little or no effect on the environment. If so, great. However, it doesn't seem that likely at this point.

In any case, you're right in that emotions are playing a bit to heavy in any discussion of global warming, on both sides of the argument. Personally, I think it's a good idea to try and reign it in now because it's easier than putting it off and having to do so later when the situation is much more dire. And yes, you're right in that there have been many periods of climatic change in the past. There have been periods with ice covering almost the entire planet and periods when the poles would feel like Florida. However, wouldn't something like that happening cause much more significant damage to the global economy than a little conservation now?

So it tells us that they don't affect one another?

That isnt' what it tells us at all. Please keep your eye on the ball.


Certainly we can continue to study it and we by all means should.


But of course.


However, to ignore the evidence we have so far is, well, ignorant.


Who is ignoring evidence? Objectively examining the evidence in the proper context of historical climate behaviour is necessary to draw scientifically sound conclusions.

The people who are ignoring evidence seem to be the knee-jerk pseudo-environmentalists who insist on relying entirely on immature data and pseudoscience in support of one side of a multi-sided debate.


Maybe further research will tell us that humans burning fossil fuels and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have little or no effect on the environment.

Doubtful, as pollution obviously affects the environment. However, the relative contribution of human activity to climate change is questionable and has a far more dubious relationship.

If you had read the information posted, perahps there wouldn't be a need to clarify such basic points and concepts.


If so, great. However, it doesn't seem that likely at this point.


This is the problem. We're relying on and resorting to statements such as "doesn't seem likely". Pretty flimsy grounds for a discussion.


In any case, you're right in that emotions are playing a bit to heavy in any discussion of global warming, on both sides of the argument.

Perhaps, which is why I am promoting an objective view based on all objective data from all sides.


Personally, I think it's a good idea to try and reign it in now because it's easier than putting it off and having to do so later when the situation is much more dire.

Reducing pollution is always a welcome outcome, but the most efficient, effective, and least disruptive means of acheiving this is complex and difficult. Additionally, personal and individual responsibility has to factor in somewhere.

However pollution doesn't necessarily equate to climate change, and thus the solutions for each are not identical. Besides, to date climate change focused protocols such as Kyoto are fundamentally and inherently flawed.


And yes, you're right in that there have been many periods of climatic change in the past. There have been periods with ice covering almost the entire planet and periods when the poles would feel like Florida.

Which is why it is logical to infer that climate change occurs on a drastic level without human interference...because it has been doing so for millions of years before our arrival and subsequent industrialization.


However, wouldn't something like that happening cause much more significant damage to the global economy than a little conservation now?


Perhaps. However, as noted above, any proposals to date would not effectively hinder global climate change...and thus the economic costs are unacceptable.

Yet, your statement consits exclusively of hypotheticals. Decisions should not be based on baseless assumptions.

Reducing pollution should be a goal of every citizen, government and company...however, reducing pollution should be an inherent goal in and of itself...unrelated to "climate change". If by reducing pollution, we reduce any supposed "climate change", then it is a 'win win' situation. The effects of pollution are far more objective and established...climate change, not so much.

I implement many environmentally friendly practices personally, such as having a short commute (down a flight of stairs to the home office--yes, I know this isn't an option for everybody), living in a built-up urban area, reducing automobile use combined with much bicycle-riding, recycling, sensible grocery purchases with an emphasis on local produce, avoiding plastic bags at the supermarket, keeping the thermostat on low during the winter while wearing sweaters and tights, not having an air conditioner (I used to live in a tropical country--southern Ontario is not humid), not having an English-style lawn which needs to be watered incessantly but rather a North American wild-growth frontage combined with various plants and flowers that looks fabulous and that we never turn the hose on, limiting my air travel to once every five years, reducing other types of travel...I'm an environmental saint compared to Al Gore, who is a hypocrite and a fraud.

I'm all for reducing our "footprint," i.e. our impact on the environment. Air pollution is a terrible problem in the third world's teeming metropolises (see Mexico City, Beijing, etc.), and though it's a walk in the park in places like Toronto, it's still not great. My reasons for wishing to live in an environmentally friendly way are completely selfish--it's a better way for all concerned. I have a rather Malthusian attitude when it comes to the survival of the human race from a global perspective, though. There are already far too many of us to truly put a serious dent into a looming catastrophe, if indeed there were one looming. I mean, if we're caught in these cycles and there's nothing we can do about them, the only real way that the impact on humans could be minimal would be if there were only 500,000 of us living along the coasts of India instead of 500,000,000, because rising waters wouldn't be a huge deal if you only had to deal with 500,000 people all told.

Solution? Get rid of the humans, say the cockroaches and ants.

-7 in winnpeg now...

and there calling for 10-15 cms of snow there was a winter storm warning but that got lifted i see...

Who is ignoring evidence? Objectively examining the evidence in the proper context of historical climate behaviour is necessary to draw scientifically sound conclusions.

Absolutely. So tell me how inferring that temperature trends are related to greenhouse gases is not examining the evidence present? Past glaciations have occurred when greenhouse gas levels have been low and past warm periods have occurred when greenhouse gas levels have been high. Of course there are other factors, but this is one that, as I understand, happens to stand out.

This is the problem. We're relying on and resorting to statements such as "doesn't seem likely". Pretty flimsy grounds for a discussion.

At this point, though, we don't have all the answers. As this (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm) shows, there are a number of causes to global climate change and many of them are just not that well studied yet. Keep in mind, that information is over five years old and does not include all factors present. For example, there was a recent paper on solar variation (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf) that suggests that based on what we know about historical global climate and solar variation, the latter's affect on the former is small. Climate research is on-going though and a clearer picture will develop as time passes.


Perhaps, which is why I am promoting an objective view based on all objective data from all sides.

And I see no fault in this. However, don't go so far as to toss out valid observations just because they aren't absolute proofs.

Reducing pollution is always a welcome outcome, but the most efficient, effective, and least disruptive means of acheiving this is complex and difficult.

I don't quite follow you here. There are many things which can be done that are quite efficient, effective and disruptive ranging from extremely simple to prohibitively complex to reduce pollution.

Besides, to date climate change focused protocols such as Kyoto are fundamentally and inherently flawed. [...] Perhaps. However, as noted above, any proposals to date would not effectively hinder global climate change...and thus the economic costs are unacceptable.

Well, what would you say are the inherent flaws in the Kyoto Protocol? Certainly it's not perfect. To go by a per capita standard than an absolute standard would be preferable, but it's at least a step in the proper direction. As for whether the economic costs are worth it, I'm not an economist but I've heard that it could be either an economic boon or bust, so I'll leave that for someone else to discuss.

Which is why it is logical to infer that climate change occurs on a drastic level without human interference...because it has been doing so for millions of years before our arrival and subsequent industrialization.

C'mon, that's no argument against anthropogenic global warming. Nuclear fusion also happened for billions of years without human interference prior to the atomic bomb.

Yet, your statement consits exclusively of hypotheticals. Decisions should not be based on baseless assumptions.

I'm flattered that you presume the entire debate about climate change is based on my one previous post, but more seriously, I can assure you that my assumptions are not baseless. Also, since you seem to bring it up quite a bit, I wanted to clarify that my emotions are not heavily invested in global warming. It would not break my heart to know that we aren't the cause of any climate change.

Additionally, personal and individual responsibility has to factor in somewhere. [...] Reducing pollution should be a goal of every citizen, government and company...however, reducing pollution should be an inherent goal in and of itself

Of course it does. It's something to strive for because it's a win-win situation. Using less energy to heat your house/light your room/run your transit system will save you money, after all. In the grand scheme, pollution is a much more pressing concern. It's not as sexy though.

I also can't help but notice you keep referring to the events of 1816. Now that doesn't really have much to do with long term climate change at all. It's pretty much agreed upon that it was caused by a large number of volcanic events shooting ash into the atmosphere and blocking the sun. Certainly an interesting event, but that temperatures that year were an anomaly.

Absolutely. So tell me how inferring that temperature trends are related to greenhouse gases is not examining the evidence present?

Related, most certainly. However, it is but one of a plethora of factors, many of which we do not fully understand. Additionally, at this point, it would be a false inference, given past climate behavior, to attribute it entirely to human activity, and to assume causality as the only manner of relation. I merely suggest reason and caution, and allow all ideas and theories to be studied and examined in depth, instead of relying on reactionary hysteria reminiscent of Y2K. Much of the debate concerning climate change relies almost exclusively on these dangerous and hysterical methods of reasoning.


Past glaciations have occurred when greenhouse gas levels have been low and past warm periods have occurred when greenhouse gas levels have been high. Of course there are other factors, but this is one that, as I understand, happens to stand out.


This is a gross oversimplification, and ignores a plethora of other pertinent factors, either related, causative, contributive, and additive. Thus, the type of information and reasoning you have provided is below even pseudoscience in terms of quality and validity.



At this point, though, we don't have all the answers.

Exactly what I have stated. Thus, the very reason why caution and reason must be emphasized in any debate, and before any rash conclusions are drawn, at this point, primarily based on assumptions.


As this (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm) shows, there are a number of causes to global climate change and many of them are just not that well studied yet. Keep in mind, that information is over five years old and does not include all factors present. For example, there was a recent paper on solar variation (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf) that suggests that based on what we know about historical global climate and solar variation, the latter's affect on the former is small. Climate research is on-going though and a clearer picture will develop as time passes.


Again, my posts have recommended further research before any valid conclusions can be drawn. Thus, I'm not sure why you are suggesting this very phenomenon which I have emphasized in a rebuttal styled response.


And I see no fault in this. However, don't go so far as to toss out valid observations just because they aren't absolute proofs.

I haven't. Please do not put words in my mouth. Please read and respond to what is written, not false arguments you seem to invent out of thin air.


I don't quite follow you here.

Or anywhere else for that matter.



There are many things which can be done that are quite efficient, effective and disruptive ranging from extremely simple to prohibitively complex to reduce pollution.

Those initiatives and technologies that are worthwhile have been initiated. Many of value are still being studied, at varying levels of maturity and practical legitimacy and cost-effectivelness. However, for every valid and effective proposal, there are thousands that simply are not practical or effective. That was my point- nothing more, nothing less.

However, in the context above, I was suggesting that Kyoto is not necessarily designed to combat pollution, nor is it an effective methodology to reduce climate change (for which it was specifically designed)...and the economic costs for such a flawed protocol are unacceptable (cost-benefit analysis).



Well, what would you say are the inherent flaws in the Kyoto Protocol?

Too numerous to mention. This topic alone easily is deserved of it's own thread.

However, at your request, I will provide some critiques of the weaknesses of the protocol from both a global and Canadian perspective. This will take some time, thus my response will not be prompt.


Certainly it's not perfect.

Understatement of the month.


To go by a per capita standard than an absolute standard would be preferable, but it's at least a step in the proper direction.

Or conversely, a step in the wrong direction.


As for whether the economic costs are worth it, I'm not an economist but I've heard that it could be either an economic boon or bust, so I'll leave that for someone else to discuss.

I will discuss it in my critique to follow. However, perhaps you should do some of your own reading and form an informed opinion of your own. This is the problem I have with most Kyoto proponents- overly simplistic reasoning, and a complete lack of understanding of the protocol, relying entirely of "I've heard" or "someone told me".

Stop wasting my time, and read up on Kyoto yourself...perhaps then you'll be able to provide something other than what you have provided thus far- absolutely nothing of value.


C'mon, that's no argument against anthropogenic global warming.


It is a perfectly valid argument to counter (or at least balance) the contribution of human activity as a causal factor.


Nuclear fusion also happened for billions of years without human interference prior to the atomic bomb.


Not on earth...thankfully.

Logically invalid analogies tend not to strengthen arguments. You're truly 'reaching for the stars' with this argument.


I'm flattered that you presume the entire debate about climate change is based on my one previous post,

Hardly.

You haven't even provided any information.

However, your assumption of presumption on my part is consistent with your posts thus far- nothing more than false inferences, poor analogies, and presumptuous statements.


but more seriously, I can assure you that my assumptions are not baseless.

Please, by all means 'assure' me...however, to assure someone, typically one must rely on some sort of date...and not baseless opinions.


I also can't help but notice you keep referring to the events of 1816. Now that doesn't really have much to do with long term climate change at all.

Perhaps, but it does convey the notion that the climate can rapidly deviate from temperatures considered 'normal' for a certain period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. This concept seemed pretty straightforward, however I apologize for not clarifying.


It's pretty much agreed upon that it was caused by a large number of volcanic events shooting ash into the atmosphere and blocking the sun. Certainly an interesting event, but that temperatures that year were an anomaly.


The events are pertinent to this discussion, in that it is just as logical as your description/justification of the events of 1816 to infer that perhaps these current temperatures are anomalous. Perhaps a decrease or lack of variable and irregularly cyclical volcanic activity is responsible for any currently observed increase. This is obviously over-simplistic, however this seems to be your primary method of reasoning and communication.

The point is, climate alterations are multi-factorial and complex. Anomalies do occur, some long-term, some short-term, some broad and some specific, some obvious and some obscure.

Thank you Dr. for your contribution to this thread. I think we should also welcome George Carlin's take on the Earth etc....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Wow, George Carlin! There is an affirmative source if I've ever seen one!

Case closed!!!!

Thank you Dr. for your contribution to this thread. I think we should also welcome George Carlin's take on the Earth etc....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

George Carlin is hilarious...I've always enjoyed his social and political humor.

The stand-up of David Cross is also quite funny...squagels!

:cheers:

Related, most certainly. However, it is but one of a plethora of factors, many of which we do not fully understand. Additionally, at this point, it would be a false inference, given past climate behavior, to attribute it entirely to human activity, and to assume causality as the only manner of relation. I merely suggest reason and caution, and allow all ideas and theories to be studied and examined in depth, instead of relying on reactionary hysteria reminiscent of Y2K. Much of the debate concerning climate change relies almost exclusively on these dangerous and hysterical methods of reasoning.



This is a gross oversimplification, and ignores a plethora of other pertinent factors, either related, causative, contributive, and additive. Thus, the type of information and reasoning you have provided is below even pseudoscience in terms of quality and validity.




Exactly what I have stated. Thus, the very reason why caution and reason must be emphasized in any debate, and before any rash conclusions are drawn, at this point, primarily based on assumptions.



Again, my posts have recommended further research before any valid conclusions can be drawn. Thus, I'm not sure why you are suggesting this very phenomenon which I have emphasized in a rebuttal styled response.



I haven't. Please do not put words in my mouth. Please read and respond to what is written, not false arguments you seem to invent out of thin air.



Or anywhere else for that matter.




Those initiatives and technologies that are worthwhile have been initiated. Many of value are still being studied, at varying levels of maturity and practical legitimacy and cost-effectivelness. However, for every valid and effective proposal, there are thousands that simply are not practical or effective. That was my point- nothing more, nothing less.

However, in the context above, I was suggesting that Kyoto is not necessarily designed to combat pollution, nor is it an effective methodology to reduce climate change (for which it was specifically designed)...and the economic costs for such a flawed protocol are unacceptable (cost-benefit analysis).




Too numerous to mention. This topic alone easily is deserved of it's own thread.

However, at your request, I will provide some critiques of the weaknesses of the protocol from both a global and Canadian perspective. This will take some time, thus my response will not be prompt.



Understatement of the month.



Or conversely, a step in the wrong direction.



I will discuss it in my critique to follow. However, perhaps you should do some of your own reading and form an informed opinion of your own. This is the problem I have with most Kyoto proponents- overly simplistic reasoning, and a complete lack of understanding of the protocol, relying entirely of "I've heard" or "someone told me".

Stop wasting my time, and read up on Kyoto yourself...perhaps then you'll be able to provide something other than what you have provided thus far- absolutely nothing of value.



It is a perfectly valid argument to counter (or at least balance) the contribution of human activity as a causal factor.



Not on earth...thankfully.

Logically invalid analogies tend not to strengthen arguments. You're truly 'reaching for the stars' with this argument.



Hardly.

You haven't even provided any information.

However, your assumption of presumption on my part is consistent with your posts thus far- nothing more than false inferences, poor analogies, and presumptuous statements.



Please, by all means 'assure' me...however, to assure someone, typically one must rely on some sort of date...and not baseless opinions.



Perhaps, but it does convey the notion that the climate can rapidly deviate from temperatures considered 'normal' for a certain period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. This concept seemed pretty straightforward, however I apologize for not clarifying.



The events are pertinent to this discussion, in that it is just as logical as your description/justification of the events of 1816 to infer that perhaps these current temperatures are anomalous. Perhaps a decrease or lack of variable and irregularly cyclical volcanic activity is responsible for any currently observed increase. This is obviously over-simplistic, however this seems to be your primary method of reasoning and communication.

The point is, climate alterations are multi-factorial and complex. Anomalies do occur, some long-term, some short-term, some broad and some specific, some obvious and some obscure.

I believe the fullness of these questions you suggest against climate change are valied! History has shown us that climate changes,we have differant periods of time that suggest this fact. You say that there are a plethora of factors which we do not understand! I also agree and reason and caution! However I disagree with "allow all ideas and theories to be studied and examined in depth" This shit has been studied too death!
"Much of the debate concerning climate change relies almost exclusively on these dangerous and hysterical methods of reasoning" What is dangerous about these reasonings? Is it not better to error on the side of caution?

In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. Is it not so difficult too understand if you do damage to the planet you live on. Just like if you do damage to your own body. You will suffer the consequences.

I wish to recongnize you Dr. Phalange for understanding Plethora but perhaps you should read more about Sophia as well as your theories the Demiurge.:lol:

Related, most certainly. However, it is but one of a plethora of factors, many of which we do not fully understand. Additionally, at this point, it would be a false inference, given past climate behavior, to attribute it entirely to human activity, and to assume causality as the only manner of relation. I merely suggest reason and caution, and allow all ideas and theories to be studied and examined in depth, instead of relying on reactionary hysteria reminiscent of Y2K. Much of the debate concerning climate change relies almost exclusively on these dangerous and hysterical methods of reasoning.



This is a gross oversimplification, and ignores a plethora of other pertinent factors, either related, causative, contributive, and additive. Thus, the type of information and reasoning you have provided is below even pseudoscience in terms of quality and validity.




Exactly what I have stated. Thus, the very reason why caution and reason must be emphasized in any debate, and before any rash conclusions are drawn, at this point, primarily based on assumptions.



Again, my posts have recommended further research before any valid conclusions can be drawn. Thus, I'm not sure why you are suggesting this very phenomenon which I have emphasized in a rebuttal styled response.



I haven't. Please do not put words in my mouth. Please read and respond to what is written, not false arguments you seem to invent out of thin air.



Or anywhere else for that matter.




Those initiatives and technologies that are worthwhile have been initiated. Many of value are still being studied, at varying levels of maturity and practical legitimacy and cost-effectivelness. However, for every valid and effective proposal, there are thousands that simply are not practical or effective. That was my point- nothing more, nothing less.

However, in the context above, I was suggesting that Kyoto is not necessarily designed to combat pollution, nor is it an effective methodology to reduce climate change (for which it was specifically designed)...and the economic costs for such a flawed protocol are unacceptable (cost-benefit analysis).




Too numerous to mention. This topic alone easily is deserved of it's own thread.

However, at your request, I will provide some critiques of the weaknesses of the protocol from both a global and Canadian perspective. This will take some time, thus my response will not be prompt.



Understatement of the month.



Or conversely, a step in the wrong direction.



I will discuss it in my critique to follow. However, perhaps you should do some of your own reading and form an informed opinion of your own. This is the problem I have with most Kyoto proponents- overly simplistic reasoning, and a complete lack of understanding of the protocol, relying entirely of "I've heard" or "someone told me".

Stop wasting my time, and read up on Kyoto yourself...perhaps then you'll be able to provide something other than what you have provided thus far- absolutely nothing of value.



It is a perfectly valid argument to counter (or at least balance) the contribution of human activity as a causal factor.



Not on earth...thankfully.

Logically invalid analogies tend not to strengthen arguments. You're truly 'reaching for the stars' with this argument.



Hardly.

You haven't even provided any information.

However, your assumption of presumption on my part is consistent with your posts thus far- nothing more than false inferences, poor analogies, and presumptuous statements.



Please, by all means 'assure' me...however, to assure someone, typically one must rely on some sort of date...and not baseless opinions.



Perhaps, but it does convey the notion that the climate can rapidly deviate from temperatures considered 'normal' for a certain period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. This concept seemed pretty straightforward, however I apologize for not clarifying.



The events are pertinent to this discussion, in that it is just as logical as your description/justification of the events of 1816 to infer that perhaps these current temperatures are anomalous. Perhaps a decrease or lack of variable and irregularly cyclical volcanic activity is responsible for any currently observed increase. This is obviously over-simplistic, however this seems to be your primary method of reasoning and communication.

The point is, climate alterations are multi-factorial and complex. Anomalies do occur, some long-term, some short-term, some broad and some specific, some obvious and some obscure.

You have too much time on your hands.

You have too much time on your hands.

You have to love the people who have a whole shitload of nothing too say!:bash:

The weather has turned mild in Montreal, a least until the new year. :)

Well I for one must congradulate Ken Dryden! After Bobby Orr he is my biggest influence on hockey!

Alright you ever-misguided skeptics, check out statiscal facts of the past year, all in line with predictions on climate change impacts.

Warming enough for you?
ALAN BLACK

The Canadian Press

December 27, 2007 at 7:43 AM EST

TORONTO — A chunk of ice the size of Ontario melted away in Canada's attic this year, and that stunning development in the high Arctic was selected as Environment Canada's top weather story of 2007.

On Sept. 12, scientists were stunned by satellite images revealing that Arctic sea ice had shrunk to about four million square kilometres – a 23-per-cent reduction from the previous record of 5.3-million square kilometres in 2005.

“You can imagine the kind of emotion and shock when climatologists and scientists examined the ice imagery ... and they could see the ice absolutely disappearing before their eyes,” senior climatologist David Phillips said.

“This huge chunk of ice the size of Ontario vanished within one year.”

The threat of a devastating flood in British Columbia was second on the list, followed by pre-winter storms across Canada, a hot and sticky summer on the Prairies, a dry summer in southern Ontario and the effects of hurricane Noel in eastern Canada.

The list was rounded out by falling water levels in the Great Lakes, the late start to winter, record Prairie storms and Canada's first F5 tornado.

One of the most remarkable effects of the melting ice cap was the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage, which was nearly ice-free and navigable for about five weeks in late summer.

Only 20 kilometres of its 2,300 kilometre length were icebound instead of the usual 400.

Several factors led to the unprecedented shrinkage of Arctic sea ice, Mr. Phillips said.

“There were very favourable winds that kind of kicked the ice out into the Atlantic. You had a lot of sunshine this year in the Arctic, which helped to decay the ice cap, and a pattern of persistent warm temperatures.”

What remains to be seen is how the dramatic transformation of the Arctic surface from a highly reflective white snow or ice to dark heat-absorbing sea water will affect planetary climate.

“When you go from a surface that reflects 90 per cent of the radiation that comes in to a surface that absorbs 95 per cent of the sun's rays ... I think it has incredible implications for all people,” Mr. Phillips said.

“What those implications are, I just don't think we quite nearly know yet.”

In early spring, experts began bracing for the worst flooding in B.C.'s history when the mountain snowpack built up at a record rate and posed a major threat to people living along swollen water courses, especially in north-coastal B.C. and in the south along the Fraser River.

Instead of the snowpack's ripening and lessening as usual in April, more snow was piled on. Once May arrived, a perfect recipe for disaster was in place.

By June however, rivers had peaked or were falling and the Fraser Valley avoided catastrophe when cooler temperatures returned and a soppy storm turned away at the last moment.

Had the flooding materialized, Mr. Phillips said, “It would have been a $6-billion hit.”

Pre-winter snow storms across the country took third place on the top-10 list.

“When Dec. 1 rolled around, we had huge dumps of snow in Victoria-Vancouver,” Mr. Phillips said.

There was brutal cold on the Prairies, heavy snow in southern Ontario, southern Quebec and even more misery in Atlantic Canada.

“Power outages in Prince Edward Island and along the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland were some of the worst the utility companies had experienced,” he said.

Then a week before the official start of winter on Dec. 22, eastern Canada got pummelled by up to 30 centimetres of snow generally, with up to 60 centimetres in London, Ont., and 50 in the Ottawa Valley and Quebec.

No. 4 on the list was a hot, stick tropical summer in the Prairies, primarily due to standing water left by the seventh wettest spring on record for the region.

From Calgary to Regina to Winnipeg, “it was a scorcher,” Mr. Phillips said.

On July 28, Carmen, Man. reached a humidex of 53 – a national record that surpassed the record of 52 in Mr. Phillips's hometown of Windsor, Ont., which he called the humidity capital of Canada.

A hot, dry summer in southern Ontario with idyllic weekend weather took fifth place on the list.

The number of days above 30 degrees ranged between 20 and 30 – two to three times the normal. Toronto had only five wet days, and in most cases, the rainfall was a mere sprinkle.

But while most city dwellers soaked up the rays, many farmers watched their crops wither.

“Farmers had planted record corn and they were seeing corn cobs wilting in front of them,” Mr. Phillips said.

“There were watering bans, wildfire bans, campfire bans at times, stressful to a lot of people.”

On the other hand, fruit and grape growers in Niagara were delighted by the abundant sunshine and disease-free conditions.

Hurricane Noel, the most powerful of the season's 15 named storms to hit Atlantic Canada in 2007, is No. 6 on the list.

However, by the time the storm raced into Canada in early November, Mr. Phillips said, it was really only storm Noel since it lacked tropical characteristics and had become a leftover remnant.

The sprawling system, however, dumped heavy rain across Atlantic Canada and caused property damage and widespread power outages.

No. 7 on the list is falling water levels in the Great Lakes.

Lake Superior hit a record low water level in a September since measurements began in 1900. Lower water levels on the lakes forced freighters to lighten their loads in order to navigate safely.

The lack of winter weather at the start of 2007 was eighth on Mr. Phillips's list.

At the halfway point of the season, a persistent flow of warmth from the south and west left the ground in Eastern Canada soft, lakes and rivers free of ice and leaves hanging from trees. Winter eventually arrived in the second half of January to end the longest delay of winter weather in eastern Canadian history.

The most active summer for severe weather on the Prairies was ninth on the Environment Canada list.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba recorded 410 severe weather events in the summer, eclipsing the previous high of 297 set only last year.

Rounding out the top 10 was Canada's first recorded F5 tornado on June 22 near Elie, Man., about 40 kilometres west of Winnipeg. The localized tornado, just 300 metres wide, tracked about 5.5 kilometres before lifting into the air.

Its top wind speed was estimated between 420 and 510 kilometres an hour as it blasted bark off trees.

Weather - what is happenening now
Climate - what happens over the long term
Confusing them = you are NOT smarter than a first grader.

Weather - what is happenening now
Climate - what happens over the long term
Confusing them = you are NOT smarter than a first grader.


"it bloweth where it listeth"

Well I for one must congradulate Ken Dryden! After Bobby Orr he is my biggest influence on hockey!

That said my favorite hockey player of all time is more recent! Steve Yzerman! The others I grew up with and learned from. I wanted to tribute Ken Dryden for having his number raised in Montreal!
When Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux where breaking records. Steve Yzerman was always my favorite!

That said my favorite hockey player of all time is more recent! Steve Yzerman! The others I grew up with and learned from. I wanted to tribute Ken Dryden for having his number raised in Montreal!
When Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux where breaking records. Steve Yzerman was always my favorite!

What in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

melted away in Canada's attic this year,

where is Canada's Basement?

Warming enough for you?
ALAN BLACK

The Canadian Press

where is Canada's Basement?

Attic = Nunavut (Iqaluuit)
Basement = Southern Ontario (Windsor)
Closet = Southern Alberta (Calgary)
Smoking Room = Fraser Delta and Vancouver Island (Vancouver)
Guest's Room = City of Toronto
Pantry = Saskatchewan (Regina)
Kitchen = Quebec (Montreal)
Hallway = Manitoba (Winnipeg)
Furnace Room = Sudbury
Woodshed = Northern BC (Prince Rupert)
Garage = Southeast Ontario (Oshawa)
Parlour = Newfoundland (St. John's)
Utilities Box = Northern Alberta (Ft. McMurray)
Swingset = Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown)
Sandbox = Southeast BC (Kelowna)
Playroom = Rockies (Banff)
Crawlspace = New Brunswick (Fredericton)

and where is Canada's Bathroom?

Thunder Bay, of course!

Rosslyn can be the barn, complete with Cow-On-Stick!

http://www.embargo.ca/highway11/ThunderBay/TB-18-Rosslyn-Cow.jpg

I would have made Montreal the bedroom instead of the kitchen, personally! :naughty:

I would have made Montreal the bedroom instead of the kitchen, personally! :naughty:

:nono: :lol:

hehe... just speaking from personal experience! ;)

oh my

anyway.....

Oh c'mon, you'd love to go to the Bedroom of Canada for a romp. :)

What in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?


Nothing that was my point! Well you all know I love hockey too!