That article from the WSJ....Double Plus Good

Well, that sure would be a hoot if Gerbil Warmenization was debunked in the mainstream right around the time Dion brings Harper down.

What the chattering classes forget, and continually have to relearn, is that science is a self correcting discipline. Every theory is open to correction or outright dismissal.

Science is indeed a discipline; and, it must be fallible, that is, open to disproof.

But the climate evangelists don't treat their view as scientific - even though they claim that it is 'supported by 100% mainstream scientists'. They view it as The Absolute Truth - which immediately removes its conclusions from the scientific realm and moves them into religious, faith-based dogma.

Then, they treat everyone who disagrees as heretics - and the froth and fury at their heresy becomes a feverish scream.

I've been called every name in the book because I reject the Global Warming apocalpytic scenario, an ideology that is fundamentalist and medieval in its axioms and fervour (sin of mankind, apocalyptic result).

Id vote for global warming anytime I could if I thought for one second that a government could change the weather.

At the last iceage the glaciers stopped at the Black Hills of South Dakota. Except for a possible open corridor down through the "bad boy" province (unproven or temporary at best) the rest of this place was buried in a mile of ice.

Oh, Kate.  Don't you know that BigCityLib has already done a "smackdown" on anyone who's a Climate Change Denier?  In fact, many smackdowns, the latest of which is this?

Yes, that's right.  According to such luminaries as BCL, the very letter you've quoted couldn't possibly even be written by advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory, 'cause, y'know, they're all so full of truthiness 'n stuff.

Or something.  I always get truthiness confused with certain bodily excretions.

"Moral clarity", good Lord how I do love catch phrases. Listening to those yahoos is akin to taking swimming lessons from Ted Kennedy.

I fail to see how a heavily polluting corporation that spends money on denying their pollution is bad for humans, has people defending a "moral highground". It's mind boggling really what I see people here defending as if they enjoy pollution more than life itself.

You drive, don't you Saskboy?

Eh... and you also realize that CO2 isn't a pollutant?

If you want to have your eyes openned about "climate change" and "greenhouse gasses" watch this lecture.These are hard facts not science by concensus.

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm

Saskboy,

It is about freedom, not freedom to pollute or not pollute (apologies to Kate just keeping consistent with the nomenclature), it is about the freedom to dissent and be wrong or right.

If the science bears it out then AGW will win the day, we will develop a political consensus around it, as we did with CFC's, and take action. The lack of action has more to do with the lack of consensus.

There are legitimate alternative theories, solar forcing, and more importantly it isnt clear that C02 is the main cause even if it is AGW....maybe it is methane, maybe it is water vapour (which screws up hydrogen cars doesnt it)

The point is muzzling alternative theories, even if they are wrong, is the true path to disaster.

For those who opposed the Iraq war wasnt this exactly the argument. Had there not been a predetermined conclusion and more honest analysis then the US wouldnt have gone in?

So if that argument works for that situation why wouldnt it also work for alternative theories or opposition to AGW theories?

Unless it is "religon" and there is another agenda.....then muzzling opposition makes perfect sense.

Hey, if Saskboy et al want us to go back to living in caves etc..fine. No more heated homes, no more coal generated electricity to run their esspresso machines, no gas for their 1969 VW van, and David Suzuki and Al Gore will have to adjust to travelling by foot. Just don't expect me to be giving you any of my wooly mammoth meat. And the Libs will be crying as their girlfriends ditch them in favor of conservatives with guns that can "bring home the bacon". Bring on the stone age...yet another era where conservatives will prove to be superior.

"Hey wanna buy some carbon credits?"

Holes show in Dion's plan

Dion has stuck with this plan, even though the Liberal government's own consultants warned that major emitters would hoard the credits and wait until the price rose, at which point they'd make a killing at the expense of the taxpayer.

A self fulfilling prophesy?

But the EU scheme suffered a major blow in April and May when it emerged that companies were issued with more allowances than they needed, a serious problem in a market that depends on the scarcity of allowances for its existence. The European Commission has promised a much tighter cap on emissions in the second phase of the scheme, from 2008 to 2012.

Quite the opposite johnboy, I want us to use technology more, not go back to caves. Stop equating efficiency with cave-living. Exxon wants us to STAY in caves, metaphorically speaking, because that's how they see themselves making the most money.

That's one reason I'm proud to help write Off The Grid, and will keep looking for technology and techniques to help people increase Canada's and their own energy and resources independence.

==
"You drive, don't you Saskboy?
Posted by: Kate at December 5, 2006 10:25 AM
Eh... and you also realize that CO2 isn't a pollutant?"

I don't drive in order to pollute Kate, I drive to get from A to B. I unfortunately don't have the ideal vehicle class I want (who does right, unless they are rich or can build their own?), because Exxon is part of the societal movement to keep better technology that relies less on their polluting product, out of the hands of average consumers with limited influence - like I. There's NO difference between making a plug-in hybrid, and a combustion engine vehicle, yet the obviously inferior product remains on the market past the point the new one is tested and known to everyone. There are obvious forces holding back progress, and it's important we ask why it's hard to get technology that is better than what the big guys decide we want. Vehicles are a means of transporting mass from point A to point B, using energy. If you spend more on energy than you have to on creating the vehicle and operating/maintaining it, then you and the whole system loses, because energy is money/what-people-want-to-have-more-of. Pollution increases the cost of the system, because it's an unwanted byproduct put into a random place the operator doesn't want it to go - and it takes energy to put the byproduct back into the ideal place (like deep underground, or inside plants we don't eat).

And Kate, you do realize that burning gasoline creates more than just CO2 as a polluting by-product. I know you don't think CO2 is a pollutant, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the OTHER pollutants from combustion that we could reduce by going to better technology.

I have to ask johnboy and all, who is actually being anti-technology in this discussion? I'd put it to you, "Bring on the stone age.." answers who actualy doesn't care if we move backwards.

My long career in the private sector of earth science brought me into constant contact with the reality of the cyclic nature of earth's history. Most of the earth scientists that I personally know believe the same as I do: that the present trend toward a warming cycle is a long way from being proven as being caused by the activities of man. The history of the earth, exhibited quite well within the geologic column, shows cyclic change to be the norn, not the exception. Essentially all of that cyclic change predates man's appearance upon earth.

So much for the *concensus* from the scientific community. They certainly haven't asked ALL of us.

The above referrenced letter is appalling. Apparently to dissent could become dangerous to your economic health. In fact, it implies that the time is running out for when any dissent will be tolerated.

This amounts to nothing more than Global Warming Jihadism. 'You either believe in it, and cease dissent, or else we will come after you!'

What can we expect next? Videos of masked GW terrorists cutting in two kidnapped Exxon-Mobile credit cards?

saskboy - your argument focuses on one cause of Evil - Exxon. That reductionism moves your perspective out of empirical reasoning and into demonization - which is faith-based and rejects both data and reason.

You assign a Will to Power to Exxon, an agent with a Will to Keep Better Technology out of the hands of the hapless citizens. Rubbish. Better technology is constantly being explored - read the science and engineering journals - but, moving the science from the theoretical to the applied isn't one-two-three.

It can be extremely difficult and, not merely costly -which would make the resultant product available only for the Elite Class (which you disdain) - but it requires testing and above all, new products don't exist 'all by themselves'. They must operate within a supportive infrastructure - which can manufacture the parts, supply the energy requirements for these new energy types..and so on.

But your simplistic reductionism of causality to Exxon and those types - is akin to Satanism - where you put all the blame on an Evil Agent with the Will to Power and Do Harm.

Naive. But, I suppose it's emotionally satisfying.

Moronic and paranoid conspiracy theory rears its head again:

"Exxon is part of the societal movement to keep better technology that relies less on their polluting product, out of the hands of average consumers with limited influence"

Hey saskboy, did you know that ExxonMobil isn't even in the top ten oil companies in the world? It's tiny compared to the state-owned oil companies. You didn't know that, did you?

This is also an amazing statement, indicative of profound ignorance, it's like something someone really stoned on pot would say:

"There's NO difference between making a plug-in hybrid, and a combustion engine vehicle"

Hey Saskboy, that plug in the front of your car doesn't classify it as a "plug-in hybrid". Doh!

I see saskboy is a respected and linked to blogger in the lefty internet blog circuit, they've kind of got a Special Olympics sort of thing going.

Anon, in that case, what are the material differences between the two engines, holding back a wider rollout?

ET, as if you'd want to discuss data or reason with me, we both know I'd wipe the floor with your efforts, because there's just no way you can justify wasting energy if you want a lot of people to be wealthy. Exxon's motives are profit, not the energy efficiency of society's transportation system. Put that data in your pipe and smoke on it a while.

Trains, trucks and planes need fuel. They travel long distances.

Urban commuters need energy efficient, less polluting vehicles.

The facts show:

Exxon Mobil is the most profitable corporation on earth. They could afford to HELP make their product less polluting, or help the useless Big 3 make more efficient engines.

Their PR campaigns are not unlike Big Tobacco (remember light cigarettes being promoted as 'better' for you? i know a ton of people who used to smoke more of the lights than they would regular strength.) Let's face it, oil companies don't give a damn about anything but profit.

Smog and industrial pollution make many cities in China, not to mention Toronto, quite revolting to visit compared to our prairie skies.

While Kyoto is a silly Chairman Mo/UN program that doesn't work, and global warming can't be tied to carbon emissions (yet), defending pollution and environmental destruction will not preserve our western wilderness.

Obviously, the oilsands resource is the big item here. The world needs the resource, but we are RESPONSIBLE for what gets left behind.

Let's continue to develop the resource, find ways to reduce ALL pollutants getting into the atmosphere and groundwater, and continue to enjoy life in the greatest place on earth.

TexasC, wouldn't it be nice if it did mean that, though? What are the forces holding back that kind of progress, and is Kate a part of that force by denying that climate change exists, and quibbling with me about what tailpipe/smokestack emissions are real "pollution" or not. If I wanted red herring, I'd pull it from the overfished ocean, I don't want to see it all over the Internet thank you very much.

"I don't drive in order to pollute Kate, I drive to get from A to B."

No company or individual has pollution as their goal. You pollute to maintain your chosen lifestyle, no different than any other individual or corporation. Some of us make a choice to do what we can to minimize the pollution we create, but most of us will not sacrifice much our lifestyle to do so.

If you believe hybrids are the answer (or a part of it) then you better purchase one and work hard to convince as many as you can that that is the way to go. You see, one of the strongest "obvious forces holding back progress" is the consumer. If consumers want it, the auto makers will give it to us. However hybrid doesn't always mean efficiency - a hybrid Highlander is downright thirsty compared to a conventional Yaris (this is one of the big reasons I'd oppose special benefits (like car pool lane access) or tax credits based on hybrid technology).

AS far as your lamentation that the "ideal vehicle class" is untenable for all but the wealthy, I'd say the afore mentioned Yaris is a great environmental choice, or perhaps the Smart car - both of which are available at the very low-end of new car prices (though the latter is a couple bucks more). The more the market moves in this direction, the more low-cost fuel efficient vehicles will be available.

I think it is unfair to single out Exxon as they support masterpiece theater on PBS.
Are the know it all global warming prophets the same ones who 15 years ago were predicting the onset of an ice age?
Preventing Global warming seems a bit like King Canute on the beach.
Clean air seems to me a more pratical target.
Also the earth was apparently warmer back in the 1500's than it is today but we don't like to talk about that because it messes up the graph.

Forest Miner, that's what I'm saying too. Even IF (and for the sake of Kate's argument I'll conceed for the moment that CO2 isn't causing "pollution" or "climate change"), there are still benefits for everyone, if Exxon works at reducing the amount of oil burned in combustion engines. But who in their right mind with a straight face can say that Exxon isn't part of an effort to keep the status quo where they make more money than Jesus (as Family Guy Peter put it)? Liars or shareholders, that's who.

Ian, LOL@ first point, good joke.

==
Denis "If consumers want it, the auto makers will give it to us."

That's where I think your logic (which is how things should work in the free market) falls down in reality. It's like saying Communism is the best political system - it ignores what happens in real life.

There are all sorts of products on the market with "features" that the consumer doesn't demand, yet there are enough of them buying them because there IS NO REALISTIC alternative. Who in the right mind buys an MP3 player with DRM? No consumer wants DRM, it's completely forced on us from the top down. It's the same thing in the Big Oil/Auto market, they are parasites able to exploit us with their product - Big Auto doesn't have to invest in new equipment for better technology and makes more money, and Big Oil doesn't have to sell less gas - they both win, and we all lose!

And these eco-wackos as well as HOT AIR AL GORE can do this from the comfort of their airconditions building and chuffer driver limos while using hour of kilowatts of electricity what a bunch of green eletist snobs

Saskboy:

It's refreshing that you support nuclear power so much. Don't you?

If you want to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage, the only viable answer (other than the as-yet unavailable Dilithium Crystals) is nuclear...Or park your car and turn off the lights and furnace.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Fuzzy wishful thinking will not keep your house warm tonight. "Off the Grid" is great stuff, I have friends who live like that. But they still put gas in their Chevy, and the factories that supplied the modern materials for their off-the-grid home are on-the-grid in a big way.

Ergo: pro-nuclear, eh?

Mark Twain once said that when you find yourself on the side of the majority, that is the time to pause and reflect.

Reflect perhaps on the nature of regimes that stifle debate.

saskboy - don't get into simplistic puffed up displays (eg, your juvenile claim that "we both know I'd wipe the floor with your efforts"). We don't both know. You have tried data or reason.

Again - your reductionism of causality of energy use problems to The Greed of Exxon is naive and simplistic. Your reduction and personification of a corporation to a person, giving it the emotions of greed - is illogical.

Your lack of data to show how alternatives to oil already exist, have been moved from the research papers and the testing labs into the applied area of manufacturing and marketing - shows that your claims are pure rhetoric and faith-based.

"It's refreshing that you support nuclear power so much. Don't you?"

Yes I do, I realize the energy has to come from some where, and besides the wind and sun, nuclear is the most efficient and mass producible means to create power for our grid. It's not perfect, but if it's done carefully, and the waste is either shot successfully into the sun [which we can't do yet], or buried deep into a place without much volcanic activity or underground water to move radioactive particles into our ecosystem, it's much better than coal which SK uses now.

As I've heard, part of the reason we don't go nuclear in the land of uranium, is that we don't have a large enough load to justify it. If more people were plugging in their cars for fuel, I'd guess we'd have closer to the load that justifies a plant for the prairies.

ET, anyone who's read me in the past (aside from you maybe) knows that I've refuted your most recent claims. So please don't attempt to waste my time by having me repeat myself. Instead I encourage you to save your energy, and/or read Off The Grid for some real world technologies that reduce energy consumption in ways that we know are less efficient than they have to be.

See my reply to Denis about why Exxon has "greed" as you call it.

The thing is, "big oil" has no part in the development or sale of automobiles. Your DRM/MP3 player analogy falls short because there is not any type of proprietary "big oil" gas formulation that requires a certain design of engine. The gas from the local pump will work as well in a hybrid Prius as it will in a conventional Yaris or even in a decades old domestic. There is nothing the gas companies are doing that forces the auto makers to develop their engines in any specific way (except that they must run on gas or diesel).

I would also ask, if there is some collusion between "big oil" and "big auto" why have we seen such a variety of hybrid vehicles coming to market? Is "big auto" spending millions or billions in R&D and production re-tooling as some sort of smoke screen?

The fact is, when it comes down to it consumers have many choices available to them which can greatly help them reduce their consumption of gasoline. This is the crux of it, simply put most individuals simply haven't made that choice.

A huge, hUGE change has taken place in the It-Is-Mans-Fault global warmming- no climate change- no climate injustice debate thing.

During the last year on many, many threads like this, the alarmists are becoming fewer and farther between. Why ? Because their arguments have been exposed for what they are, a Hoax. Read, Al Gore.

Some of the Media hasn't caught on yet (do not want to) because the media is an ass.

It really is a case of the Hippy Crowd losers realizing they have opted-out, poted-out and flunked-out and are desparate. Cult-like clinging to a myth, gone too far down the path and do not want to eat the inevitable humble pie. Not to mention losing their cushy jobs and pensions.

And, as in all cults, the Climate-Alarmists want all debate to end because they know they will lose. Did you ever see the leaders of End-of-the-World cults allow their followers to engage the outside world ??

The contrast in the whole Kyoto Hoax debate is best seen by the principles of two Canadians. Seek out their comments, their policies, but most importantly their track record. Have they talked the talk or actually walked the walk.

Dr. Patrick Moore
greenspirit.com
co-founder of Greenpeace International

And

Dr. David Suzuki
davidsuzuki.org/
The Suzuki Foundation

One of the above was partly resposible for the DDT ban. DDT, when used properly, is safe. However, the Ban itself killed millions of people during the last few decades.

One of the above is largely credited with reversing the Ban and many African Nations are now saving their children from a brutal death due to malaria.

Saskboy, your comments re: what about real pollution identify the problem. You are right, CO2 and real pollutants are emitted by internal combustion engines, particularly carbon monoxide (CO). Therein lies the contradiction of Kyoto. We are facing catastrophic consequences if WE don't do something about human-induced warming. That is, the ones that caused it. It isn't quite as bad a problem for China, India etal to modernize using the same resources we used, ie oil. Instead of going after the real pollution problem and the threat to the environment, CO proliferation (and deforestation too), we are focussing on CO2, essentially taking our eye off the ball. Let's develop transition technologies, understanding it may take 50 years to get off oil. Instead, we let the victimed third world pollute away, making precisely the same mistakes we in the developed world did. We should focus on pollution with the side benefit of reducing emissions. I will support any politician who can put a workable plan together, provided we are prepared to share our energy technology with the Kyoto-emempt countries.

The Boxer is off her chain.

Katrina is on Boxer's *hit list, too.

Ass Press aids/abet with mucho coverage.

It's over.
...-

AP Interview: Boxer says no to further environmental rollbacks

ap on Daily Comet ^ | 12/5/06 | John Heilprin - AP

Environmental rollbacks from the Bush administration "in the dead of the night" are history, the Senate's incoming environment chairwoman said Tuesday.

"That's over. We are going to bring these things into the light. " Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in a wide-ranging interview laying out her agenda with The Associated Press. She cited concerns about a host of new Bush administration rules on air, land and water quality.

"Some of the things are so outrageous that when they hit the light of day, you'll see people back off," she said. "And that's something I do, and I will do. The oversight function of this committee is going to be very important to me."

Boxer, who takes over the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January, anticipates fireworks as early as Wednesday when the outgoing chairman, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., holds a last hearing portraying the news media as fanning global warming alarmism.

Her first hearing next month will focus on ways to address global warming, including her goal of imposing the nation's first mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"This is a potential crisis of a magnitude we've never seen," Boxer said.

Several world leaders have called Boxer expressing their hope for a new day in U.S. environmental policy, she said, adding that "we want to send a signal to the world."

To help pay for Superfund sites that are the nation's worst contaminated, Boxer said she will push to reinstate a special tax on oil and chemical industries and other businesses. Congress that levy expire in 1995.

She also plans to hold field hearings in Louisiana on the environmental effects of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1748795/posts

Shamrock, I don't think the Conservatives are that party to put together a plan, it just isn't on their radar to do so.

==
"if there is some collusion between "big oil" and "big auto" why have we seen such a variety of hybrid vehicles coming to market?"

Because in places like Japan, and Europe where the automakers have done differently from GM and Ford, consumers have better access to efficient vehicles. (And gasoline costs much more than it does in North America.) It's inefficient to make vehicles overseas and float them and spare parts over here when we could be making our own. If we were at war with Japan or Germany, there's no way we'd settle for them having superior energy saving equipment for so much longer than we do. We don't have the leadership to say "Us too!"

saskboy - you are making claims on this blog, and I think you'll have to refute them or prove them, on this blog.

Your answer to Denis about Exxon 'greed' is inadequate and illogical. You claim that the reason we don't have alternative energy systems is because the 'Big Oil' companies are greedy and want to sell their oil. Your data base and logical error is that you are assuming that the innovative product comes from the old product. That's false.

For example, newspapers and television didn't develop the prime competitor to themselves - the Internet.
Libraries didn't develop the computer.
Electricity wasn't developed first as a source of energy.
etc, etc.

New systems are not developed by old systems; that's a basic principle, not only biologically, but also, cognitively. A new system will develop in 'bits and pieces', moving out from a theoretical exploration which may have a completely different focus on what might eventually be its applied uses. You'll see that in a lot of medical, physical, chemical research. The people who move the theory from its first theoretical to various applied usages will, in most cases, not be the same person and often don't know each other - and so on. It takes years - and tests - and lots of input from different fields.

But, the innovative product doesn't emerge out of the old - it moves in from the margins, from the periphery..and will, if it is viable, gradually take over the field from the old product. That's how it works.

Therefore, your anger at Exxon for 'not developing a different energy system' is illogical. They aren't the ones to do it; the innovation comes from the periphery - and moves into a centralist domination. IF, it's viable.

It's easy to be emotional and in a state of rage and assign blame to The Satan (whoever is defined as such). But, it's illogical.

Nuclear... Guess what? The world's consuming 500,000 pounds of uranium every day, right now. Anyone who thinks nuclear power is the magic solution had better consider the necessary uranium mining proliferation and the inevitable scarcity of the resource.

I wonder if the environmental-activists have informed Jack Layton on their plans to destroy GM, Ford and Chrysler ????

~~~ $ FOUR MILLION, KATE !!! ~~

Saskboy:

Good. As I see it, we're not being creative enough yet with regard to the nuclear power debate.

Some thoughts:
"Not big enough load" - This is based on erroneous assumptions that all nuclear power can only be produced by huge CANDU type plants. We should design and build small, pre-fuelled, "pocket reactors" whose components could be mass produced and shipped in containers to anywhere. Canada (and Sask.) is in a unique position to do this. We build 'em, fuel 'em, lease 'em, and replace them when they're spent. Big battery. Single units for small third-world applications, string 'em together in series for big cities.

What about that horrible nuclear waste?
All the nuclear waste produced in Canada over the decades fits into what is essentially a large swimming pool. Build a few more swimming pools. Or put it back into the mine it came out of. All of which is much better than the huge piles of poisonous (and mildly radioactive) coal ash around Estevan.
We don't want to throw it away. When the petroleum industry was in its infancy, one of the waste products of coal-oil production was gasoline-they burned it off as a by-product. As technology goes forward, we'll likely find a good use for the stuff...In the meantime, cast it into concrete blocks, stack it up in any unused piece of desert, and put a fence around it, just like you do with any dangerous substance you don't want to eat or sleep with.

Weapons proliferation? BS. Too many people have visions of mushroom clouds dancing in their heads as soon as you mention the word "nuclear". Turning spent CANDU type rods into weapons-grade stuff is virtually impossible. It would take the resources of a national government- and those governments that want to, already are, without the help of a bunch of spent fuel rods sitting in a swimming pool in Ontario.

Sure, most of us would like to see a wholesale reduction in our carbon-fueled society. But, NOT until the alternatives appear.
Exxon is not your enemy. Anti-nuke liberals and ignorant enviromentalists are. We could have been using clean, locally produced energy years ago if not for them.

Sorry about the rant, Kate. ;)

Saskboy. With respect, my central argument - CO proliferation bigger problem, is precisely what the Conservatives are proposing, along with realistic Kyoto-type programs. Don't expect the MSM to tell you this, they would prefer the Dion (8 years)did nothing, but neither did the Conservatives (9 months). Maybe it's the Liberals who are wanting here - after all they've made no progress on CO2 emissions or pollution, other than decleare CO2 a pollutant (O look! Problem solved!)

I almost gagged when I read the original letter and came across the words, "climate change denial confederacy" to describe skeptics of the global warming claims.

"Confederacy???"

What kind of images are they trying to dredge up here? Is it just me or is there an implied link between those who challenge global warming theorists and those who were against freeing the slaves?

"We don't have the leadership to say "Us too!""

Who is "we"? Should the government dictate to industry which technologies must be developed & pursued? Or maybe they should simply bend us lowly tax-payers over the oil barrel like the European states and jack taxes until we make the "correct" choice of automobile en masse?

Like I said earlier, the consumers have the choices available to reduce their usage of gasoline. Trends in the industry seem to indicate that the market is indeed moving in a more fuel efficient direction. However we are not going to eliminate the desire by some to have their Expedition, Charger or whatever other flavour of politically incorrect "gas guzzler" they choose. I guess you'll just have to work harder with them to remove Exxon's mind meld and free those poor souls so they can make the choice you deem best for them.

The bottom line is consumer choice exists and their demands drive the market.

"They aren't the ones to do it; the innovation comes from the periphery - and moves into a centralist domination. "

ET, that's a fair enough perspective. Then why defend them, when your argument shows that their interest is NOT in finding a solution to a problem they enable?

==
"CO proliferation bigger problem, is precisely what the Conservatives are proposing, along with realistic Kyoto-type programs. Don't expect the MSM to tell you this, they would prefer the Dion (8 years)did nothing, but neither did the Conservatives (9 months). Maybe it's the Liberals who are wanting here - after all they've made no progress on CO2 emissions or pollution, other than decleare CO2 a pollutant (O look! Problem solved!)"

Maybe you didn't mean that? You just said Conservatives proposing that CO is a problem is a solution, but Liberals proposing that CO2 is a problem, isn't a solution.
Neither is a solution, they are only hypothesis. There's no action from either of them.

Let's say for the sake of your intended point, the Conservatives intend to take action on CO & other emissions that poison things. They aren't packaging their solution in a way that people interested in the environment, accept as a solution. The Liberals had better packaging, but still no action. If the Conservatives want Canadians to get behind their "action" on pollution control, stop missing committee meetings (I'm looking at you Rona), and get an environment minister that can speak without checking first with Stephen H.

Shamrock wrote:
"...support any politician who can put a workable plan together,..."

Would not this be a definition of an oxymoron?

Then Barbara Boxer claims:
'Her first hearing next month will focus on ways to address global warming, including her goal of imposing the nation's first mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.'

I can hardly wait to see how she plans to legislate a cap on the next major burp from Mt. Saint Helens. Of course a little resurgence at Yellowstone would make all that a mute point, wouldn't it.

"Who is "we"? Should the government dictate to industry which technologies must be developed & pursued?"

Essentially, the short answer is yes. Countries at war have governments that dictate to industry what they will do to be most efficient, and for the good of the country. And I needn't remind a person reading SDA that Canada is at war in Afghanistan, and the USA in Iraq/Afghanistan ;-) What good is government if it doesn't work to ensure its citizens are safe, and healthy, along with being as free as competing countries allow us to be?

Question;
Which countries have a better track record on the environment,

USSR, Russia, Eastern Block

OR

North America

So why do the our Hippy Socialists want Socialistic-Kyoto-Style so called solutions ???? With the UN and Koffi Annan running the show ?? Go figure.

In times of disaster (Tsunami, financial, Balkans, ect) which countries provided the most help(per capita). ??

Ukraine
France
Sweden
Canada
Russia
Brazil
USA
Iran
China

I see saskboy is still living in mis moms basement and buying everything the eco-terrorist feeed him. What a dolt!!!!!

"Essentially, the short answer is yes. Countries at war have governments that dictate to industry what they will do to be most efficient, and for the good of the country."

I see 2 problems with this suggestion.

The first is this would likely stifle innovation rather than encourage it. For example, if the government mandated the auto makers to develop & build cost-competitive hybrids where would the incentive be to continue improving the efficiency of conventional automobiles like the Yaris, Jetta TDI or the Smart car? Likewise if the focus was on 40 mpg or lower, why improve the efficiency of minivans or other vehicles families with more than 2 or 3 kids need? To cover all the areas of fuel efficiency technology that are possible, the government mandate would have to be so broad to be meaningless or so narrow that good, fuel saving alternatives fall to the wayside.

The second problem is assuming the government did force the automakers to focus on the technology it deemed best, you still have to make the consumers buy it. Unless we are reduced to a government mandated selection of "acceptable" cars, people are free to purchase what they desire. As I said earlier, we do not lack from a choice of fuel efficient cars we lack from wide scale adoption of fuel efficient cars.

saskboy - Since the oil producing companies should not be expected to develop different technologies, then, I defend them for their current excellent ability to provide us with our energy requirements. You denigrate them, stating that their actions are pure greed - which they are not, --and that they ought to develop non-oil technologies. Wrong.

And no - no government should dictate to industries which technologies should be developed and pursued. That's the death of innovative development. Canadian research in the social sciences and humanities, for instance, is a postmodern mess of nothingness - both because of the popularity of postmodern vacuity in these areas, and because the gov't actually set up the areas of research!

Research has to develop from the 'bottom up'; it can't be top-down controlled.

What a gov't can do - and it has to be very careful, is suggest to research centres that they are, for example, interested in robotics and artificial intelligence. {I'm in that field and I know some of what's going on in the US]. BUT - it can't do more than explain its interest and fund the research. If you go to the NSF, National Science Foundation, an independent gov't agency which funds research - you'll see the broad areas of interest and funding. Take a look, for instance, on Environmental Research. It's a lot broader than the Climate Change evangelists.

A government has no business acting as the Supreme Mind of a population. It governs, which means that it establishes an infrastructure in which the individual can freely think, analyze, explore and live. That's the limit of a good government. It has no business telling individuals what to think, explore, analyze.

Freedom doesn't come from a gov't telling its citizens what to think about.

Freedom has nothing to do with 'competing countries'. How does economic competition - which is what I presume you are talking about - lessen our freedom?

During the last year on many, many threads like this, the alarmists are becoming fewer and farther between. Why ?

Maybe it's because the so-called alarmists (I would not call myself an alarmist but rather a realist) have realized that commenting here in favour of personal research and personal responsibility does no good. It just stirs up more chanting of anti-conservation pseudo-science. Oh, sure, you talk like you want to get Kyoto scrapped, but what are the real results of this blog chorus? You haven't stopped the feds from talking about CO2 emissions. As far as I can see, all you've done is convinced a lot of individuals that they can go merrily along buying that new SUV and revving the engine. ExxonMobil's influence is nothing compared with the power of blogs like this.

Step back and look at the results of all your talk. You're not working against Kyoto. You're working against conservation. You're working against individual action and responsibility, against Canadian citizens getting to work and doing what needs to be done instead of waiting for some government to force it on us after the harm becomes brutally obvious.

What motivates you people?

You say people like me are depressing doomsayers. Well, I don't comment here as much as I used to because I finally realized how depressing it is to even come here and read. And it does no good. I probably do more good every time I walk downtown with my toboggan for the groceries - and smile back at the folks who stare - than I've ever done by commenting here.

"defending pollution and environmental destruction will not preserve our western wilderness."

That's a great statement from a prairie boy, but leaving saving 'western wildnerness' up to us who live in the west. Get a big map of B.C. and you'll see vast regions (more than 12% of the land base) reserved as 'wilderness'. In fact much of it is inaccessible to the common folk - unless you're able to charter a bush plane.

"Let's continue to develop the resource"

Isn't that statement kind of at odds with your preserve our western forests" outlook - or does it only apply to the big, bad oil industry?

"As I've heard, part of the reason we don't go nuclear in the land of uranium, is that we don't have a large enough load to justify it."

I call b.s. Ever hear of an electrical grid? The reason Saskatcheway doesn't develop nuclear energy is because you keep electing NDP gov'ts that are ideologically opposed to just about everything. Build a plant, use what you need and sell the rest to help develop your province.

According to a USDA study an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day. Lets make it a 1000 grams to make the math easier.

Over a year a each person emits 365 kilos (.365 tonnes) of CO2. The population, say of Toronto is is 4.5 million. That means that this population emits around 1.65 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Now I have a modest proposal. Lets phase out the population of Toronto. This would reduce Canadian emissions by 1.65 millions tonnes per year, without even counting the reduction from people not driving, or using electricity that used to do this before they were phased out.

I am sure that the first people to participate in this voluntary action program would be the ones that hold most firmly to the anthropogenic warming theory. If there aren't enough volunteers we then need to move to a non-voluntary voluntary action program to meet the targets. We could also encourage people from outside Toronto to participate on a voluntary basis; this would lead to even bigger benefits.

Today's Calgary Sun has a small Reuters story that starts...
"The average temperature in 2006 is likely to be among the hottest since records began nearly 150 years ago."

'Likely among the hottest' - well there's scientific certainty for you.

'150 years' - Wow!, that's like, what....point zero zero zero something of the planets history.

Ah heck. Why bother with facts and science when we can indulge in Global Warming Hysteria!

jamesincalgary - assuming your calculations are correct, Toronto's population also takes in roughly 1.65 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, in the form of carbon in food - unless they're gaining weight, in which case they are net carbon sinks and therefore part of the solution.

(This is a recapitulation of one of ET's points, however previously I've made the point elsewhere on a couple of other blogs so I don't believe I'm being an intellectual thief). The scientific method requires that any theory posited as a scientific theory must be in some way disprovable. If the theory cannot be questioned then it is in no way disprovable and therefore is not a scientific theory by definition. Since the proponents of the theory of anthropogenic CO2 emission as a cause of global warming (unproven assumption) do not wish the theory to be questioned then it is not a scientific theory but rather a pseudo-religious dogma.
To saskboy: since you clearly see anthropogenic CO2 emission as a dire threat to mankind and the Kyoto treaty as the remedy to this most dire threat, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have invested at least as much effort in informing yourself as you have in advocacy and read the IPCC scientific reports upon which the Kyoto treaty is based. Having read them, as I have, could you please clear up a basic but fundamentally important point i.e. did the "little ice age" occur or not occur? I await your most enlightening answer.

Tomorrow the US Senate will hold hearings on the influence of the msm on the global warming hype. Drudge has time and where one can watch it. Actual scientists will be called. Gore and Suzuki not on list of witnesses.

DrD, amazing !! You have defined the difference between pseudo-religious dogma and peer-reviewed scientific fact. I have read Mann's Hockey Stick and the IPCC and they are truly ficticious.

Of couse the dog-manias say their work has been reviewed by other dog-mainias and so ok. In their minds.

Accepted as true in their own minds, eh. Sounds like a belief or a myth or something. And it can remain so as long as it cannot be disproven. Bermuda triangle, Y2k, Martians,...

The Myth's esential element of INITIALLY being unprovable is the point our own Dr. Patrick Moore, greenspirit.com makes. However the research into the Sun's forcing role in Earth's climate change is close to squashing Al Gore's myth.

Randy, don't tell me that, talk to the SaskPower bigwig who explained it to me like that.

==

Well said arcolaura. IF Kyoto isn't working, where's the Made In Canada solution Conservatives tell us to wait for? Oh it's only 6965 days away from starting??? Good job on the action, Conservatives.

==

DrD, I never mentioned Kyoto. At least it tries to do something though, instead of stalling on the pollution problem further.

==

ET, the government wouldn't be telling industry, the people have been telling industry, they just don't do it with their pocketbook for various reasons (some of which I've mentioned today). The government should give a nudge, not turn the economy into a state run one forever. Hold a vote of people that would take a 100MPG car over a 22MPG car, and you'd find much less than half that would want to pay about 5 times what they'd have to for gasoline. Why aren't car makers given consumers what they'd obviously want? It's for the reasons I said, again I'm not repeating myself in this thread.

saskboy - actually, Kyoto doesn't try to do anything about CO2. Again - Kyoto is NOT about pollution; it's about CO2; that's not pollution. Kyoto is a money laundering scheme to transfer money from the so-called developed to the so-called developing countries.

The format is, that you, the Developed Country (1) agree that your industries, as do all, emit CO2. This has nothing to do with any acknowledgment that CO2 harms/does not harm the environment. It also has nothing to do with any proof - either way. And it has nothing to do with any correlation of CO2 with human causality.

It's the variable that a group of money-launderers at the UN have selected as 'prime time'. They could have selected paper clips or soda pop cans. They selected a variable that is invisible, is a result of a basic industrial process of energy-use..and..that's they key. The energy use and the energy-users.

(2) You then set a horizon to reduce these CO2 emissions. But to do so, will reduce your energy supply and therefore, your economic viability. Hmm. It might be extremely costly to re-engineer the factory to change emissions - and, it can't be done overnight. Construction projects take years.

(3) So, the developed countries don't need to reduce their CO2. They can 'purchase' vouchers from countries, defined by the UN as 'developING' - and these 'ING countries' are exempt from Kyoto. They aren't involved in reducing any CO2. In fact, they can increase and increase their CO2!!! They can also increase their pollution. Wow.

(4) The ED (developED) country than hands over the money (aka The Voucher) to the ING country. Wow. This Is Not A Loan. No repayment. Nothing. Found money.

5) In case you haven't noticed, CO2, is a gas; that means it disperses all over the planet. That means that China, which is busily engaged in both heavy pollution and CO2 emissions, gets money from the ED countries, to increase its industrial devt (and pollution/CO2). And the planet continues to produce..both even more pollution and more CO2.

Sakboy - you yourself stated that the gov't should dictate to industry what technologies should be pursued. You answered 'yes'.

"Essentially, the short answer is yes. Countries at war have governments that dictate to industry what they will do to be most efficient, and for the good of the country."

Now - are you denying you said this? Now, you are saying that 'the people have been telling industry'. Really? Do you think that any individual, writing a corporation, declaring that 'you should develop this or that'...should be taken seriously? Are corporations mechanical weathervanes - push it one way, push it another way?

Sometimes, referendums are useful; sometimes they are not useful. Ever heard about the dictatorship of the masses? Because a majority of people in X-year felt that women are witches and cause disease - doesn't necessarily mean that this consensus is a reliable measure of truth.

Car makers DO provide options - 100mpg vs 25 mpg, and by golly, those SUVs are sold in great numbers, aren't they? And, they provide hybrid cars - and few purchase them.

"Hold a vote of people that would take a 100MPG car over a 22MPG car, and you'd find much less than half that would want to pay about 5 times what they'd have to for gasoline."

Why not just look at the roads and new car sale stats - they'd show that people aren't as quick to make the change to fuel efficient vehicles. There are quite a few cars currently available in the 40 MPG + range (some even getting close to your hypothetical 100 MPG). For example:

Insight 72/86 (city/hiway MPG)
Smart ForTwo 61/74
Beetle TDI 46/61
Civic Hybrid 60/66
Yaris 41/51
Prius 71/67
Escape Hybrid 43/40

Based on what you have stated I should expect 50% of car sales to fall within this range (note there is even a range of vehicles from 2 seater to mid-size sedan represented - even an SUV) - after all who would want to pay 3 times what they'd have to for gasoline? However, as a society, we aren't there yet.

When people start buying these vehicles in greater numbers the compilation will drive the automakers to get better - maybe then you'll see you're 100 MPG car.

The 100 MPG+ plug in hybrid exists, people get their standard hybrids modified, because inexplicably, automakers don't sell them from the factory.

Man, winning the Kyoto debate should be the easiest thing in the world.

-Concede that the earth is getting warmer.
-Concede that there is a cause/effect relationship between human activity and global warming.
-Canada's population will increase by 30-35% during the Kyoto implementation period 1990-2012
-Kyoto binds us to decrease GHG emissions by 6%
-This means an effective per-capita decrease in GHG emissions of 35-40%.
-We don't have the technology to decrease GHG emissions by 35-40% and maintain a first-world lifestyle, not by a long shot.
-If we take every car and truck off the road we still won't be close to making our targets.
-The greatest GHG emitters are power generation plants; we'll need to ration electricity to 8 hours a day per household like they do in third world countries.
-Logically, if we are to meet Kyoto targets then we will literally be freezing in the dark and travelling by horse and buggy, seriously, because we don't have the technology to do so otherwise.
-Etc., etc., I can't believe this debate is actually taking place.

Sorry Saskboy, can't help you with your oral comprehension problems. You'll have to sort that out

Saskboy, you still haven't answered my question about the IPCC reports and wether or not the "little ice age" occurred or didn't occur. Please don't tell me that you didn't actually read these documents bearing on a matter of the most profound import for mankind and planet earth!!

The whole world is also waiting on Al Gore. To be exact, 11 mths 1 day 4 hrs 34 mins 56 secs, .. and counting, since he was asked to debate man-made-global-warming.

The first rule of cults. Do not debate. The world IS ending. And don't let others talk to the already duped. As Senators Rockefeller and Snowe are demanding.

Rockefellers ?? Did Maurice Strong not work for them as a kid ??

It would not surprise me, if Moe Strong had worked for the Rockefellers, as a kid- Mackenzie King got a monthly paycheque from John D., while he was Prime Minister of Canada.

It's ironic that while there's been tremendous resistance to the idea of AGW from christians in the US/Canada/Australia (not unsuprisingly since the whole concept runs against the grain of certain christian dogma) one of the main objections that gets voiced is that "it's a religion".

But intelligent design? Heck that's good science!

Saskboy has been successful in showing that, for the masses, a complete lack of any scientific integrity is the same thing as emotional environmental politics. Long live the lawyers!

Saskboy - google - Trofim Denisovich Lysenko

I have been suggesting for months that to reduce co2 all residents of TO should stop breathing for 10 minutes several times a day. Perhaps they could co-ordinate there stop breathing with muslim call to prayers. Of course all those prayers would have to stop also. If they don't do this voluntarily I suggest all liberals and ndpers be the first to forced to do it. Poor saskboy, he just drives to get from A-B, not to pollute. Hey that driving causes pollution, so walk or snowshoe. Kyoto is the new religion of the kooks, and we know how cdns treat those that believe in any religion. Every action causes a reaction. Someone mandated car seats for kids, and that meant families had to get bigger cars. Wonder how hybrids would have made out evacuating during Katrina. Cars ran out of gas because they can't go many miles on a tank. Where would the batteries have been re-charged. Would they manage driving thru Sask potholes.

ural, that google on Lysenko is SO relavant !! The Canadian Media of today is acting just like the Pravda of old. Subsitute MSM for Pravda and Kyoto for USSR's Lysenko. Voila !! History repeating itself.

Now, how do you pronounce Al Gore in Russian.

My favorite recurring mantra is "doing something is better than doing nothing". If the problem isn't properly defined, and theory cannot be critiqued then it is quite possible that doing something might be worse than doing nothing.

There is a serious problem with critical thought, in that Garble Waremenering advocates do not seem to use any. It is, as has been noted, a religion. The amount of faith required is easily on par with folks waiting for the Rapture. The big difference is that Rapture folks don't want to sell me indulgences to assure my spot in the great beam up.

saskboy , is that you Jay?

saskboy , Jay ,
Sorry I , got in late ,however could you please explain this war/global attack on the environment meme you seem to be floating . Who and what are we as Canadians presently at war with?

More to the point -- rather than Kyoto being "a money laundering scheme to transfer money from the so-called developed to the so-called developing countries.", I think it is a money laundering scheme to put money in certain individuals pockets. The credit trading marketplace is already underway: http://tinyurl.com/y7rwe7 . Interestingly, one of the banks mentioned in this article is BNP Paribas -- and were they not the bank involved in laundering the Oil for Food money? . . . and if I am not mistaken, I think this French bank also has ties to Power Corporation (I'm pretty sure I read previously that they are a subsidiary or something.)
I am getting REALLY worried. The Kyoto issue does not seem to be going away and voices pulling for Kyoto are getting stronger. Dion is practically hysterical about it. We may soon be having an election on the issue. And yet -- the voices questioning the science and the potential for abuse around Kyoto are simply not being heard. There is underway a Parliamentary Committee dealing with the issue -- Kyoto is a big aspect of what the Clean Air Act Committee will look at as it is high on Layton's and also Dion's agendas. And yet -- not one witness questioning Kyoto and anthropogenic global warming is scheduled to be heard by this Committee. How can a report coming out of this Committee (with recommendations for amending the Act) have any credibility?
There is an excellent radio interview with Dr. Tim Patterson (FriendsofScience.org) -- a convincing scientific view that global warming is NOT being caused by people. The Patterson interview is at http://cfra.com/interviews/index.asp. Scroll down the page to Nov. 21st. The program is in 8 segements. REALLY worth listening to. This guy knows his stuff -- including some of the deceptive tactics of IPCC. What is to be done?

Arcolaura. Thanks for letting me clarify. After the carbon content of the phased out inhabitants has been safely sequestered out of the carbon cycle, we would restore the deciduous forest (much more carbon per tree than the average human).

"The 100 MPG+ plug in hybrid exists, people get their standard hybrids modified, because inexplicably, automakers don't sell them from the factory."

And since the PHEV mods are available for Prius', it probably won't be too long before Toyota starts offering the option (is Toyota also a part of 'Big Auto'? I assumed you were alluding to a NA conspiracy, not a world-wide one). Also since GM has announced a PHEV for 2009 maybe they are rebelling against 'Big Oil' and 'Big Auto', brining about the change you desire. Of course, there is still the question on whether PHEVs will actually reduce pollution or just split the pollution between the grid providers and the automobile itself.

Back to my point, there are options 2-4 times more efficient than a "22 MPG car" currently on the new car market. But as things stand right now, people just aren't choosing these vehicles in overwhelming numbers. Not enough people right now truly desire high-efficiency vehicles.

That said, obviously the market sees a growing trend in this direction, hence developments like GM's PHEV mentioned above. What exactly will government meddling provide again?

Becuase of the ban on DDT the worlds biggist mass murderers are RACHEL CARSON,DAVID SUZUKI,GREENPEACE,SIERRA CLUB and all those who support the DDT ban

Jose, uou make the argument for the Kyoto-skeptics. Rather than make valid and RELEVANT arguments, you launch into a bigotted anti-Christian tirade and nonsensical reference about intelligent design. After all, dem Christians all look the same anyway. Don't you know when you make personal attacks, you give the other side leave to win the arguments. That goes for protagonist and antagonist BTW.

Linda - I think there is valid concern that IPCC has become too politicized BUT - it is an "intergovernmental" panel, after all; it is a political body in the first place. The deceptive tactics we hear about are a concern, but so are Dr. Patterson's own deceptive tactics. For example, in the interview he again brings up one of his favorite examples, the Ordovician, 450 million years ago, when CO2 levels were 16 times higher and there was an ice age. He doesn't mention that the location of land masses and the circulation of oceans was totally different; nor does he mention that there were no land plants yet! Of course the climate operated differently at that time! Then he talks about more recent cycles of glaciation, when there were correlated cycles of CO2 levels and temperature, and he points out that each rise in CO2 lagged behind the rise in temperature, so it couldn't be the driving factor. He implies that either this is news to global warming theorists, or they are suppressing this information. Not true. CO2 was never claimed to be the driving factor, but rather an amplifying factor to explain how small variations in solar radiation received at the surface of the Earth could produce the large climate changes from ice ages to warm periods. Increased radiation --> increased temperature --> increased biological activity --> increased CO2 levels --> further increases in temperature, until something else limits biological activity and the cycle reverses. Dr. Patterson dismisses the whole role of CO2 by saying it didn't trigger the start of any of those warming cycles (and leaving it up to an uninformed listener to assume that it therefore cannot have any effect on temperature at all). Then he has the gall to mention the very problem I just mentioned, of finding an amplifying factor to explain how small solar radiation changes lead to large climate changes - and he brings up the new experiments with cosmic rays and cloud formation. This is interesting research; a new possible amplifying factor is being proposed; but even if it is found to be correct, that doesn't mean CO2 has no role at all. Both factors could be operating side by side.

Dr. Patterson never directly said that CO2 has no role, but by his careful selection of examples, and his neglect of the obvious explanations we already have for those examples, plus his willingness to let the interviewer say things like "global warming fallacy" without clarification, he deceptively manipulated uninformed listeners.

The question is, now that we have increased atmospheric CO2 completely out of the historical range, how will the climate respond? Could CO2 levels become the primary driving factor now that they are completely outside the natural range for the past 800,000 years? Dr. Patterson doesn't address this question. Instead he talks about negative feedbacks that will control CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, such as increased temperature causing greater humidity allowing greater absorption of CO2 by plants, or causing more rapid formation of carbonates. He doesn't mention the known fact that disproves his soothing hypothesis: CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is already out of control of these mechanisms. The levels are already far outside the historical range, so obviously plant absorption is not keeping up. The ocean is absorbing CO2 too fast for carbonate rock formation to keep up, so instead the ocean is acidifying, faster than it has for millions of years. Sure, CO2 is a plant nutrient, but too much of it, and the ocean acidifies. It is as if we were just pouring acid into the ocean. Is that pollution? You tell me.

Let's face it: Kyoto is nowhere near a solution, and there is huge potential for corruption. So why not reject it on those bases, and come up with a better plan, instead of going after the global warming hypothesis itself, and using deceptive tactics? Do Patterson and Harris really want to get Canada out of Kyoto, or do they want to keep Canadians from even thinking about conservation?

Acrolaura --
Thanks for your comments. Lots to think about there. I may get back to you once I have sorted it all out. Your comments confirm for me that the issue re the degree to which humans contribute to global warming is still to be sorted out.

Patterson is not the only scientist questioning the legitimacy of the global warming hypothesis,and I think that this is a fair thing for those involved in climate science to do. I also think that you are a bit unfair to Patterson in suggesting that he is deliberately deceptive. In the radio program that I listened to he was involved in a kind of spontaneous give and take -- he may not be on top of all the facts or he might disagree with some of your points, however, typically everyone selects arguments that support their own theories and reduces the significance of or dismisses arguments that do not support their views -- I believe that scientists on both sides of this issue do that. I know it is not exactly scientific to do so, but I also do not think that in the course of making general statements about an issue or in the context of academic one-upsmanship, scientists are any more objective than the rest of us. Ultimately this is not an area where there should be a concerted effort to shut down either side of the argument. One would expect that if arguments are weak, they will sooner or later collapse on their own. Unfortunately, in my view, there is currently an attempt to shut down the voices of those questioning the theory of global warming.
Regarding your other point about addressing the issues around Kyoto directly. I do not see that this is an either/or situation. Indeed, Kyoto should also be looked at critically. Moreover,
questioning the theory of global warming does not mean that there is no concern for conservation. Actually, I believe that if we were not quite so hung up on the question of CO2, we could focus more effectively on a broad range of environmental issues. Here is one of my favourite critiques of the whole global warming /Kyoto zeitgeist, though it may not speak to your interest in this issue:
Impossibility of Prediction (third article down) -- it won't let me copy exact URL: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html.

Oh, he's deliberate. He has been talking this same line for years - and I did listen to the radio program you mentioned, the whole thing. If you asked him about the points I raised, I am sure they would be no surprise to him. I am not a climatologist, just a biology graduate with a keen interest in this area, so my information is pretty basic. I found it curious that there were no callers who could challenge him with even these basic arguments - as I recall, the only callers who attempted to argue were the first one whose real concern was forests (not climate change) and then that guy with the funny idea that heat can't escape from the Earth at all. The only direct challenges (and they were weak) came by email; thus there was no chance for back-and-forth discussion. On the other hand, there were several callers eager to agree with Patterson and Harris, and one was feeding them lines so smoothly he sounded like he was reading from a script. Makes me wonder if they were screening callers to make sure he wouldn't have to discuss the points I raised.

Linda - I looked at the Crichton speech too. Wrote a novel in response, but decided not to use Kate's bandwidth. Please email me if you want me to send it.

Sorry, I guess email addresses don't show up here anymore. koelmac at yahoo daht ca.