It's odd how the WMO described 2006 as the "sixth warmest year" when they could have described it as "the coldest year in five years."

Was there a spike in sunspot activity or something starting in the mid 90's that could have led to 98 being the highpoint?

ET said:
"So, it's quite the script that has been written for us - and it's a real problem when the information about reality is so difficult and hard to come by. Dissent and questions aren't tolerated readily in our Canadian Stage. We've been programmed; it's unCanadian to question and dissent."

Well I stopped believing the script long ago. I may be Canadian but I sure as hell don't buy the script.
Bit by bit perhaps others won't buy the script either. Like "Animal Farm" we have the 'pigs in the trough' LIEberals using the apparatus of the state for personal advancement purposes. Democracy? Represent the people? Only in your wildest Adscam dreams. We have been sold a "True-dopeian" reality which proffers the illusion of democracy built on a house of taxpayer theft.

Kyoto addresses no environmental problems but merely removes wealth from the taxpayer base and transfers it elsewhere.

If one wants to help the other countries then say so. We don't need Kyoto, a wealth transference program which fixes precisely nothing, to masquerade at the 'democracy ball' like a cheap tart whose only eye is on one's wallet.

It is in short, an environmental fraud. Kyoto purports to fix the environment, the greenhouse gas problem, but never directly addresses it by setting up a system of transfer credits to 'stay on side' fictitiously. Another grand farce brought to you by the people of the LIE.

Kyoto purports to identify a problem and sets up a system of credits that circumvents the problem. Exactly, how is the central 'problem' addressed if one can habitually circumvent it?

Now people like Jack & Olivia actually take the environment seriously, and live in an environmentally friendly home. A practical personal demonstration of commitment to environmentally friendly living which, as Kate has shown, before you can download and tour on your own. Even a low volume water toilet for your viewing pleasure.

Alternately, we have Prime Minister Steve who recently approved a hydroelectric power dam to go ahead in Quebec. Hydro-electricity the cheapest, cleanest most renewable energy source known to man and doesn't have a CO2 footprint.

Yep, those conservatives are mighty environmentally unfriendly. NOT.

Time to get off the SCREED of the environment, the Kyoto LIE, and back to doing something practical.

Environmentally friendly homes and hydroelectricity what a great place to start.

If I want farce, I usually turn to the Comedy Channel not the LIEberal channel.

So if we are 'suffering from global warming' does this mean we get to see more bikinis and the dinosaurs come back to life?

It is statistically invalid to look at the mean temperature of a couple years and extrapolate out 50 to several hundred years. Any mathematician worth his salt would tell you the same. As the old saying goes:

"There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

If there is global warming, can this be attributed to other activities like say more pronounced solar flares on the sun which would have an effect on our planet beyond whatever us mere humans are doing.

Further, we know from geological analysis the earth has had periods of warming in times past.
If the earth is in indeed warming then the need for heating one's home would necessarily decline, thereby reducing C02 emmissions. Multiply this effect by several million consumers who have natural gas furnaces.

So one has a multi variable system that has n factors. How does one reasonably 'blame human beings' for the excess production of CO2 other than breathing.

Is it possible that the Kyoto model isn't fully reflective of a multivariate system of analysis and needs further refining?

The 6th hottest year is still an issue do we not think? Why is it the wording that has people on edge? Out of all recorded temperatures, it is still the 6th hottest year. Is this a good thing? We may not all be Al Gore supporters, but i dont understand why so many view this as a political issue. There is no way that anyone can think what is going on in the environment is a good thing. Is there?

The message that I take away from this is that, in four of the six years that George W. Bush has been President, average global temperatures have been lower than in the previous year. Wanna bet that more or less the reverse is true of the eight years in which Clinton was President?

W - the environment's best friend

"A panel convened by the National Research Council reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific studies, reporting that the evidence indicates “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years.”

So why was it warmer 400 years ago?Damn it,must be Harpers fault.

I remember in the sixties having snow in April.I remember in the sixties wearing a t-shirt in December.Nobody,Harper included doubts that all the emmissions humans pipe into the air effects weather patterns and air quality.What is pathetic though is this huge global warming diatribe put out by some,usually the ones profiting from pushing this agenda.

I've seen scientific arguments put out by both sides,and imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

As soon as someone mentions Kyoto, Al Gore or Global Warming, their credibility drops close to zero in my books and I promptly offer to sell them a nice bridge in Brooklyn. All three are over-hyped con games perpetuated by Media outlets seeking more circulation/ratings. Serious scientists and mathematicians have questioned these conclusion since their inception and have been ignored or ridiculed. If you ask for a grant to support Global Warming it is much easier to get than one to disprove it, the same with getting your study published.

All this has done is to tarnish the good name and reputation of science and scientists. They will never be looked at the same since their work has been either misrepresented or intentionaly skewed and they have remained silent, some have spoken out but they appear to be voices in the wilderness.

The other institution which has past its best before date is the UN, its promotion of Kyoto - hopping on the environmental panic bandwagon - just to transfer wealth from the Western nations to the despots, dictators and tribal leaders who make up the majority of the voting block has been dispicable. It is now apparent that Global Warming and an increase in CO2 will allow us to feed more of the worlds starving masses and decrease the death rate world wide - how is that a bad thing?

I now take everything I read with a grain of salt and perform the "due diligence" check myself, something that the Media Outlets should have done to maintain credibility. I have always thought that a course in Logic should be a requirement before graduating from high school and mandatory in University, especially amongst those in liberal arts programs.

I have notice more meteorologists have started to mention that any "unusual weather" has also happened before and has usually been more severe in the 60s or earlier. This is promptly followed by the the newscaster who murmurs about Global Warming or the new Buzz Word - Climate Change - now that Global Warming is not really happening... I really dislike manipulation - on any scale...

Sorry Kate, that theory is over 30 years old and it didn't fly then.

A must read - the April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." However, the Newsweek article did not make "environmentalist" claims regarding the cause of that drop. To the contrary, it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Rather than proposing environmentalist solutions, the Newsweek article suggested that "simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies" would be appropriate.

Huh, scientific alarmism has a track record! Gee whiz, whod'a thunk it.

Another 'inconvenient-fact' that Al the-yank Gore hides, is;

Maurice Strong, arguably the most influential man in the whole world. From Oak Lake, Manitoba.

His "ideas" explain how the Kyoto Hoax came about. Two of the most important ingredients in the scam ?? The Canadian Media and Quebec. If either of those were missing, Canada would not be spending $billions on scams and frauds. Can you think of any ways the money would be better spent here in Canada ??

Maurice Strong makes up a chapter in Ottawa broadcaster(CFRA Radio) Lowell Green's new book "How The Granola-Crunching Tree Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country"

Volumes could be written on the multi-billionaire Strong. From Ontario Hydro's Costa Rican Rain Forest scam, to UN Fraud, to Oil For Food scam, to Petro Canada, to South Korean Tongsun Park's $million check to MS, to UN's IPCC fraud, to Kyoto carbon 'credit' scam, to Canadian taxpayer wealth transfer to China scam, to Paul Martin's CSL involment, to One-World-Governance, to The-Earth-Charter, to Fringe-Religion-Preservation, to a Colorado Cult, to .... perhaps a whole bookshelf !!

Why does the Canadian media hid this story ?? Who owns the Canadian Media anyways ??

'Global Warming' has almost "jumped the shark", it's getting stale and boring. It's time to start cashing in on a new environmental scare with global consequences that can be blamed on humans.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are entirely the fault of the oil, gas and mining industries - and unless North Americans stop driving their SUV's we're all gonna die.

Do I see apt male symbolism in the graph?

Talk about following a script. You guys follow the script of people paid by oil companies to trick people into thinking that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. Do you guys not find it at all funny that Dr. Frederick Seitz, the dude who directed tobacco industry efforts to hide the health impacts of smoking is now involved in discrediting climate change?

Fact: CO2 if is a known greenhouse gas.
Fact: We are dumping billions of tonnes of the stuff into the atmosphere every year, and it continues to increase.

Do you think it will have no impact?

I've said it once before, and I'll say it again. A few hundred years ago, you were the guys that people had trouble trying to convince not to shit where you eat.

John,

Why is it that the government funding agencies will only fund scientists who are global warming propagandists but you don't consider them biased but do when it's the oil companies doing the funding? Is it not true then that the problem you have isn't bias but which bias?

Climate "science" is not science. It's a cult. And it's a cult that is growing less believable as it becomes more hysterical.

The self proclaimed 'inventor of the internet' and the person who recently stated that global warming caused by humans is effecting the universe (thus the explanation for the ice caps on Mars melting, I assume) makes Dan Quayle look like a genius.

I'm sure that Dr. Sietz, George Bush and big oil are all attempting to end life on earth, if not in our lifetime, in the very near future. It's in their best galactic interest.

I am sure it is no ones ultimate goal to destroy the earth... but it is a presence of ignorance and laziness that attribute to many of the issues caused by large industry and mass wastage of our society. Climate science being a cult is also an extreme claim. There are a lot of people concerned with the climate, so that makes it a cult? There are massive calculations and speculatuions that are a part of the science yes, but most sciences begin with predictions based on trends, and it would be catastrophic to see these predictions come to fruition in the next few years. It seems like no issue can be presented without conspiracy theorists running rampid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Gee, Ice Age Temperature variations show geological evidence of variability of a delta in temperature + 3 or - 8 degrees celsius and somehow humanity managed to survive 450,000 years of ebb and flow in the geological record.

Now the temperature has risen in mean temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius and we are all hysterically going to run off a cliff like the lemmings in Greenland?

Notice the extremely steep spikes in temperature during glacial retreat, and equally precipitous drops during periods of glacial growth.

So somehow humanity had the ingenuity to survive through a net delta in temperature variation of some 11 degrees celsius over 450,000 years but we have to get freaked out about a 0.8 degree rise in temperature since 1860?

Spare me the alarmism.

So lets extrapolate 0.8 degrees over say 146 years all other things being equal means that the temperature should exhibit no greater variation of a delta of 11 degrees in approximately, 1635.2 years. But in the meantime mankind will remain as stupid and not invent or think of anything new under the sun. Gee an 11 degree rise in temperature would mean I have to wear less heavy clothing. On the other hand an 11 degree drop in temperature would mean, I better keep an eye out for a method of heating myself in the future, should solar flaring activities decrease substantially.

On the other hand we have Mr. Ahmadinejad who would like to 'solar flare' certain nations off the map; which to me would be a more immediate concern in terms of survival.

Irwin Daisy

How can anyone take you seriously when you quote on of the greatest myths of the Right. Gore never said he "invented" the internet. Go here
http://sethf.com/gore/ and check out the sordid story.

Kate's little graph just demonstrates another myth of the right...that nothing is wrong with the climate. From http://www.wmo.ch/meteoworld/archive/en/feb2006/2005.htm

The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Why did Motl start at 1998? Was it, perhaps, a propoganda attempt to make appear that the problem is going away, and therefore not so bad? They are still the warmest years on record.

The Right seems to be claiming that dealing with the problem now will cut into profits. How much will profits be cut in the future when the climate changes be come more significant?

Short term thinking...The conservative forte.

Murray Rennie:

Solar flaring is hardly short term thinking, the sun has only been around for approximately 4 billion years.

Yep, why look for the obvious causes of 'global warming' when one can irrationally blame mankind instead?

Solar flares result in an energy release of a "million hundred-megaton nuclear explosions, in just moments"

But nah, this has no effect on our climate!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_max_sidebar_000131.html

The sun is always belching globs of its inner self into space, but every 11 years or so, changes in our star's magnetic field bring on an increase in sunspots, solar flares and events called coronal mass ejections. The result is a barrage of charged particles hurling toward Earth.

The peak in this cycle is called a "solar maximum" or "solar max."

Solar flares, one type of "space weather" associated with solar maximums, release tremendous amounts of energy, equivalent to a million hundred-megaton nuclear explosions, in just moments, scientists say.

Past disruptions

During the last maximum in 1989, a power surge triggered by solar energy damaged transformers of the Hydro-Quebec power system, leaving 6 million people in Canada and the northeast United States without power for more than nine hours. The event also knocked satellites out of orbit and disrupted radio communications.
Other effects

Scientists increasingly suspect that solar cycles affect more than just satellites and power grids. An active sun, known to heat the Earth's outer atmosphere, may also alter our climate. Scientists say a small ice age from 1645 to 1715 corresponded to a time of reduced solar activity, and current rises in temperatures might be related to increased solar activity.

For northern residents, more solar radiation means an increase in the aurora borealis, or northern lights. The solar wind sends charged particles crashing into Earth's atmosphere every day. These particles are attracted to the poles by Earth's magnetosphere, where they excite molecules of nitrogen and oxygen and create the colorful displays of light. The displays should be more pronounced over the next two years.

Daily observations of sunspots began in 1749 at the Zurich Observatory, according to NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. Other observatories began contributing later, and continuous observations began in 1849.

The current 11-year cycle, the 23rd to have been measured by modern scientists, is called Solar Cycle #23.

Kyoto is a socialist scam to transfer wealth to poorer countries, as voted on by the majority of poorer countries. If it were true that man-made CO2 was causing the impending global catastrophe, then EVERY country should have been made to participate, not just the 'wealthy' countries. For that reason alone, common sense tells you something is fishy. And then when you look back at the report which studied the problem, and the political manipulation of the recommendations within it, all alarm bells go off. "Kyoto" will in future be a word used to describe a scam which generates hysteria in the ignorant / progressive socialists. It's like spending trillions of dollars to fight the monster under the bed, or the boogeyman. Unfortunately, the gullible and uninformed can still vote.

And AL GORE and his freinds in low places are still running around yammering about GLOBAL WARMING in their private jets buring up all that fossil fuels and putting all that CO2 in our atomshear what abunch of liberal eco-freak hypotcrits

Philanthropist: "It's time to start cashing in on a new environmental scare with global consequences that can be blamed on humans."

The high and the low of humanity:

Read what astronomer James Hansen has said: "humans have replaced the sun and other natural forces as the primary cause,", aka Man, the Destroyer.

Mirandola (1483) said: "here indeed is neither a creature of earth nor a heavenly creature, but some higher divinity, clothed in human flesh.", aka Man, the demi-god.
...-

Climate ideology control
The Washington Times ^ | December 20, 2006 | Paul Driessen

America's vital traditions of free speech, association and debate are under assault.

Al Gore bristles at anyone who raises inconvenient truths about climate alarmism. Greenpeace calls us "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials" for climate disaster skeptics, probably followed by hangings, since burning at the stake would release greenhouse gases.

Climate catastrophist Ross Gelbspan told a Washington, D.C., audience: "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what those scientists say."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, shamefully treated physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton like a child molester during a congressional hearing, for suggesting climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine. And Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia have issued a "gag order" against ExxonMobil. "Its message: Start toeing the senators' line on climate change, or else," said the Wall Street Journal.

Earth-centered-universe dogmas have been replaced by a far more intolerant Church of Gaia catechism of cataclysm. We have entered an era of climate McCarthyism and eco-Inquisitions, whose goal appears to be slashing energy use and economic growth, by making activists, politicians and bureaucrats the final arbiters of every energy and economic decision.

Yes, Earth's climate is changing -- again, though far less than it has repeatedly throughout our planet's history. Yes, people influence our weather and climate -- to some degree. But few scientists have joined astronomer James Hansen in saying humans have replaced the sun and other natural forces as the primary cause, Climate Armageddon is nigh and drastic action must be taken immediately....-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1756334/posts

Why did Motl start at 1998? Was it, perhaps, a propoganda attempt to make appear that the problem is going away, and therefore not so bad? They are still the warmest years on record.

Ummmm. That was the point of the graph. Motl was showing that any graph can be made to look scary (or pleasant) by changing it's start point, scale, omitting periods etc.

This is what most AGW propagandists do to make global warming look more dramatic than it really is and fool unsuspecting sheeple. This is why most global warming graphs "conveniently" omit the medieval warm period when crops were being grown on "Green"land and grapes were being harvested in England.

Of course there is more of everything in our air today than many years ago. There are more people, more industry, more wants by consumers, more cars, (wanted by consumers) more food, more of everything, including more idiots who believe all the scams re kyoto, global warming, climate change etc. We have 4 seasons in Canada, and each season brings a climate change. Listen to the retailers cry when the change they expect never happens, till late in the season. How much inventory are they left with, or don't have, when expected change doesn't happen. SPRING, SUMMER, FALL AND WINTER, each bring a climate change, no matter how many people are born or die. Look in the malls, already spring fashions are in, preparing for the next climate change.

Although it seems improbable, yet it is apparently true that SDA has managed to fall behind even its primitive leader, Stephen the Unready. SDA is still dredging up unreconstructed AGW deniers to parade them in all their tattered rags of rejected theories. But Harper, who only a few days ago was talking about "so called global warming" has apparently experienced his blinding light on the road to Damascus and now startles his familiars with talk of global warming "that has to be taken seriously". Is this the guy who gave us the clean air act that is intended to confuse us by mixing up pollution and AGW, the guy who is debating the hugely important issue about whether to re-name it the "healthy" air act.? And he did not even tell the faithful, like the hard working zealots at SDA that there was to be a very large program change? Not even to invite them to the funeral for Rhona who is a gona? Oh, the horror! Next there will be a Federal environmental statute that does not stop at
the border of Alberta. You just can't be sure of anything anymore.,

The last time I checked the sun doesn't vote left or right, nor is it a sentient being; it is just a fact, a rather large one!

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, the climate was appreciably warmer; why is this something to be petrified of?

Just because some ill considered politicians have invested their political capital without bothering to investigate deeply enough themselves? All I can say is do your damn homework and stop demanding political orthodoxy from an empirical inquiry.

But of course if the hoax is exposed they will look not to be so wise. Too damn bad.

The laws of physics do not adapt themselves to political convenience; nor should they.

http://www.wooster.edu/physics/JrIS/Files/english.pdf

The Stephan-Boltzmann equations of thermodynamics are as true today as they were when first discovered.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6f.html

So far there is no Stephane-Dion equation in thermodynamics.

MaryT, are you serious? we should listen to the retailers cry as an example of changing climate? You say of course there is more of everything in the air, and then list the reasons for it... umm... humans? is that not the issue at hand.
Of course there are some shortcomings with Kyoto, the redistribution of funds to poorer nations being one of them, but if we subscribe and adhere to the guidelines then there is no loss to our economy. There are countless reasons why the temperature is rising, and that isn't even the only issue. they recently found traces of toxins in human breast milk, our land pollution from landfills is eating away at the earth's natural nutrients, there are many issues at stake here. But i think we all need to agree that the principle contributor to all of these issues is MAN (and woman) made toxins and pollutants. Open your eyes, it is way to easy to sit back and take it as it comes. This is a political website, but this should not be a political issue. It is a humanitarian responsibility issue.

Wow. The world must be ending when a leftie tells us to listen to the retailers.

As for Harper agreeing with global warming...this is one of the things that I don't like about Cdn politics. In order to gain power and make meaningful change you have to appeal to the masses no matter how ill informed they are. Democracy may not be a perfect form of government but it's the best there is.

As long as there is an MSM that is incapable of, or not wanting to, tell all the truths and a voting public of sheeple that are willing to believe what is fed to them by the CBC then rational leaders will have to take irrational positions to gain their votes.

Let's face it. There are a lot of voters that think getting money from the government is a GOOD thing and are unable to see the downside of socialism as it relates to them immediately or in the long run.

Ad ,
...." humanitarian responsibility issue " ? On the side bar go to best of SDA , click on All Your Weather Are Belong To U . Your humanitarian responsibility issue line goes nicely with " Climate Injustice " . Calling Kyoto anything OTHER than a wholly political document is simply false advertising .

Terms and definitions can be nit-picked apart however people so choose fit Bill. It is a very interesting idea, and i DO agree that kyoto has it's downfalls. Just because one person says "injustice" does not discount the idea and the fact that people really have to try and be more environmentally concious. No the world is not going to end today or tomorrow, but there will be large issues facing a lot of us in our lifetimes and our childrens lifetimes. Clean air and water and usable energy sources being major ones, but all of these problems tie into one major factor that no one seems to want to comment on. Everyone wants to nit-pick the minor details and ideas of definitions, but no one has argued the contrary to mankind destroying our own home.

Ad: "It is a humanitarian responsibility issue."

Eco-warriors, wackos, eco-sexuals, and horses. What do they have in common? Read on, if you dare...

Documentary puts Activists In Their Place

Peter Foster, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival has always been at the bleeding edge of liberal causes. The event of this year's festival was Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary about the former veep's moral crusade to fight climate change with all the disinformation that he could muster.
Next year it could well be Zoo, a film based on a "humanizing look" at the 2005 case of a Seattle man who died after attempting to copulate with a horse.
One movie that will definitely not appear at next year's Sundance is Mine Your Own Business. The glaciers will reach L.A. before Robert Redford is associated with any movie that threatens to expose "the dark side of environmentalism."

"The film is devastating because it combats prejudices and fantasies with pictures that refute thousands of weasel words."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9f765779-d4d5-4825-ab9e-e6a1f94600d3

Will a tinfoil hat protect me from a falling sky?

Global warming isn't the only issue is what i am trying to say! Even though many don't see it as an issue at all, it is hard to discount that we are using up our resources at an alarming rate (oil, natural gas, water, etc...)and putting far too much waste back into the environment.

(just wanted to add this in, and forgot on the last post)
I'm out!

I do not represent the views or opinions of all here . Having said that , I truly doubt there are any commentors who are pro-pollution . This argument always spirals out of control . If I question or disagree with the climate change "consensus" , I'm branded a " climate change denier " , whatever the hell that is . Sending vast amounts of taxpayer loot elsewhere makes us LESS capable to do anything about this issue here . Kyoto is a scam , period .

Kate!

You must stop this now!

You are making Gaia angry!

She will wreak vengeance on us all...

O High Priest al-Gore - save us!

Yo John!

Is there any room for the Sun in your environmental world view?

Try doing some genuine research on the topic first.

So how do all of you Al Gore admirers explain how Mars, Jupiter, Saturn's moon Titan, and possibly Pluto are all undergoing global warming?

Was it the Mars rovers? Did Bush and Rove secretly send SUVs to Jupiter?

Gore's inconvenient fact is that the sun is in a measurable, undeniable, warming cycle. When the sun finishes its current warming cycle -- it could be next year or it could be in 100,000 years -- planetary temperatures throughout the solar system will begin to drop.

What Canada needs is a made in Canada global scare. Something we can take full advantage of. I suggest that SDA be used as the catapult for a new made in Western Canada global scare. Why should the UN be allowed to come up with all the good fear mongering. What can we come up with that will scare the world into sending all their money to the western provinces of Canada?

Golly... and I was just starting to understand "Acid Rain". Oh please bring back the 70's

Kyoto's not a made in Canada global scare ?

Ad is right when he says that we should be getting serious about pollution and the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources. It's a shame that environmental activists, sidetracked by human induced global warming bullshit, are putting the entire environmental movement into disrepute. Clean air and water are objectives for which almost everyone would willingly make sacrifices, but when they are addressed in the same breath as Kyoto, people tune out and turn off.

I agree with you Zog. There are many legitimate environmental concerns in this country that should be addressed. With all the noise over anthropogenic global warming and now we are beginning to see what a hoax it is people are ignoring many other TOXIC environmental concerns. We only have the likes of David Suzuki, Al Gore and the CBC to blame.

" ..Kyoto's not a made in Canada global scare ? "

Google 'Oak Lake Manitoba Kyoto' and get it from the horse's mouth.

bigshityglib, It is bad enough that Gore, Suzuki use only a hundred years of temps for their fraud sqaud scam of global-warming. What Kate meant is, if, IF Gore was to try and scare us with Ice-Age-Panic, he would probably only use the last 8 years of cooling trend data.

Why would cooling not be more convenient ?? Because then the eco-nuts would have to tell us to use more hydrocarbons to warm up the Earth and prevent another ice age. Get that. ANOTHER ice age, like the one only 10000 years ago when ice 2 KILOMETERS THICK covered Canada.

And don't laugh eco-nuts, Time had articles in the 70s trying to scare us of just that. Canada was completely inhabitable only 10000 years ago.

As other, eco posters have stated, the Eco-wacos have hyjacked a well intentioned non-Kyoto adgenda. This is PM Harpers intention. To get the NON-Kyoto-Hoax agenda back on track in Canada. Perhaps Mona has been a little too taken with the Kyoto Carbon-Credit Scam.

BHA ,
That was my point exactly.

I'm not going to beat you guys over the head on the Global Warming hypothesis but keeping an open mind might be a good thing. The debate has to be elevated above the "it's all a conspiracy" partisan food fight level.

If 20 years from now you turn out to be right you can and will proudly say "I told you so" but if not I wonder if you'll have the guts to own up to it and do the right thing?

Jose,

I think the point is that hamstringing your economy in a purely symbolic gesture is stupid no matter which way things turn out. The partisan stuff starts because like so many left/Lib things this is a "feel good" issue, with no practical benefits. Canada produces less than 2% of so-called GHG's, meeting our Kyoto target amounts to a rounding error. Countries like China will do what is in their self interest as they see it, climate change will not be on their radar anytime soon.

What a farce this global warming. Anything to steal money from the working person and give it to the useless of society, called communism and it has failed miserably everywhere it was tried. What is the downside, we will grow more crops, save trillions of gallons of jet fuel not having to go somewhere warm in the winter. Best of all just think, if another ice age came along and how many good little environMENTALists houses would be wiped off the map along with us intelligent folks.

First of all,the last ten years havent been the warmest in history.In southern sask we have had glaciers and dinosaures.Whats normal? There seems to be an idea that the present generation is the most important in history and should be protected.What for?Humans cant be the most perfect evolution.The last ice age was caused by some monumental happening like a meteor and it will happen again.The world cools because of the dust thrown up then slowly warms and melts the glaciers.Its about time for another one.

Anybody got temperature and rainfall data for the Americas and Africa from the 1650?

I thought not.

How did you know I was left handed johnboy. As for Ad, apparently he does not understand what he reads, so of course will follow the envirowackos. Today there were two stories on the news, one interviewing a tourist operator, complaining of lack of snow for the skiers, and trying to find other things for them to do. Another one had a store manager complaining he had not sold his winter boots and parkas etc. These are retailers complaining not getting the climate change usually associated with winter. Cold springs and summers, they complain about not selling suntan lotion etc. We have climate change at least 4 times a year, every year, and kyoto credits and wackos can do nothing about it. Sometimes it happens sooner than expected and other times much later. For the greens, ndpers and dion trying to scare us with the term climate change shows how ignorant they are all, along with all of you that think it is a new thing. In 1953 we had no snow at Christmas, or cold weather till Jan. 1954. The world survived. I would ask johnboy and ad this, what have you personally done to implement the kyoto accocrd in your own life. Did you buy any new electrical appliances, any electronic goods, turn your heat down, quit driving, or what. And even if you bought sweaters to wear instead of using your furnace, production of those sweaters used energy. Do you have a christmas tree, do you have lights on it. Did you buy presents. Somebody or some industry had to cause emmissions so you could enjoy your life.

A good primer on CO2 levels.

So if 500 million years ago CO2 levels were considerably higher than now, some 20 times current levels, why is it suddenly a "bad" thing when C02 levels are rising now?

Something the CO2 alarmists haven't accounted for is there were considerably less humans on the planet then yet somehow we managed to 'evolve' to the present form.

So we get bigger date palm trees and larger fern forest vegetation. In what way is this catastrophic? Hey, I like dates anyway.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

Carbon Dioxide through Geologic Time

Introduction
Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

Carbon Cycling, Plate Tectonics and Organic Matter Burial
Most scientists agree that carbon dioxide has decreased over the last 200 million years because of speeding up of the passage of carbon atoms from their volcanic sources into sediments. As we learned in the last section, to lower the CO2 content one needs fresh rocks to provide calcium, and it also helps to bury organic matter.

Fresh rocks are provided through plate collisions and mountain building, that is, uplift of land and a drop in sea level. On the whole, there has been a trend to make more mountains during the last 100 million years, and especially since the last 40 million years. This is seen in the strontium isotope content of marine carbonates. The type of strontium derived from igneous rocks on land has increased relative to the type of strontium from other sources.

Organic matter is buried in swamps (plant remains turn into coal) and in continental margins (marine algal remains become hydrocarbons). The climate cooled as the planet acquired mountain ranges (like the Himalayas) and as sea level dropped. Trade winds became more vigorous. Coastal upwelling of nutrients in coastal waters increased. Thus, more organic matter was buried along the coasts of continents. Also, an increase in the amount of mud from the rising mountains helped to bury the organic matter.

As time went on carbon dioxide was more readily turned into sedimentary carbon and the planet cooled some more. Methane hydrate could have formed on the sea floor, trapping methane and denying another source of carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system. (The exception might perhaps have been during sporadic release of this methane, followed by strange jumps in climate.)

Carbon Cycle and Computer Models
So many processes have to be considered in the carbon cycle that it is extremely difficult to keep them in mind, and impossible to calculate without building a computer model to simulate them. Scientists interested in the carbon cycle have built a number of such models over the years. Such models can have between 50 and 100 interacting equations describing all the different processes of the carbon cycle that are relevant to the problem of how carbon dioxide changes through geologic time.

To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand, and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more. Now you can appreciate why the range of errors plotted in the figure above are so large.

back to MaryT for what i have done, yes i have turned down the thermostat, i ride my bike, and now i am forced into public transport due to the weather in the cold praries, i buy organic products, i try my best. Kyoto being a Hoax to somehow "steal" money from our pockets and give it to complying nations, i just don't know if i can buy into it. I agree that we should not be taking money out of our economy if penalized for complying to the standards, we should reinvest it into our capabilities to produce cleaner emissions. I know there a lot of extremists out there on either end of this spectrum, and i would just hope that everyone could settle down and look at each argument reasonably. There has got to be some middle ground, and it seems apparent that Kyoto is not the answer. If every other country buys into Kyoto and Canada does not, then we have to prove that we can do it without the Kyoto regulations.

Ummmm. MaryT.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. If you look at all my posts you will see that I am against Kyoto, although I think that there are things that can be done to reduce our impact on the environment. I just don't think it's a doomsday scenario.

Oh, and i don't have a Christmas tree with lights on it either! hehe.
I live with my two friends, we can't afford those kinds of luxuries!

Ad,
With all due respect. There a many people like you in Canada who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing and for the most part are. However, the problem lies in what is deemed a pollutant. There are serious problems involving noxious gases that pollute our air, water and earth and they need to be addressed. However, the issue facing us here is the massive fraud of climate change politics. I have studied both sides and have found that the evidence the UN used to build its infamous hockey stick curve is based on pure and unadulterated fantasy with variables that are impossible to predict and then entered into a computer to produce a exaggerated outcome.
Junkscience.com has been a proponent of exposing faulty science like the DDT Ban fraud which caused the deaths of millions of poor people from malaria over the years. This horror was caused by the "consensus" of Scientists who had falsely claimed it was bad for the environment. DDT is now back in use, however, the damage these people caused is immeasurable and all in the name of Environmental protection. Junk Science is now working hard to prove how the science behind the global warming hysteria is false before economies and resources are diverted to the wasteful endeavor of controlling a non pollutant and set back the world economies by decades. The real crime here is it also diverts attention from real problems like the deaths of millions from TB and Malaria.
It has been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions and in the case of DDT and now the Climate change hysteria nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't quite get why anyone reasonably educated in at least high school science would insist on denying that by cutting down an enourmous amount of trees and burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels would have an effect on the earth's atmosphere.

Kate knows it's true, she's not that stoopid.

So why is there the denial anyway?, because the Lefties say it's so?

PS- I don't think the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere cares who is president. (I say as my full size V8 SUV sit's in the driveway)