"Who did they get to write this stuff - Decima??"

No. Jason Cherniak. In a red sweater vest. In our cities. In Canada.

I am going to scream if I have to hear anymore of this global warming nonsense.

Incredible. That's like the old example we always use in Statistics and Scientific Methods classes of the INVALID question:

"When did you stop beating your wife'?

It's invalid because there's an unstated assumption that you DO beat your wife. To make it valid, you first have to ask:
'Do you beat your wife'?

The CTV question falls within the same fallacy. It sets up two axioms as indisputable 'givens'. It is assuming that (1)global warming is a fact; and (2) that it is caused by human activity. And, the only question it asks - is when did YOU become convinced of these 'truths'? It never doubts the validity of these two axioms.

By the way, removing those two axioms from doubt, immediately removes them from the scientific realm and moves them into pure dogma.

Kate...check out the TO Star's survey. http://www.thestar.com/default. It's about 1/2 way down on left. Almost as much fun as the CTV's!!!

"When did you become convinced..."
It's almost as though they are asking, "When did the poison start to take..."? or, "When did you start to believe this crap"? or "In the future, what do we need to tell you in order to have you drink this kool-aid"?
It's so presumptuous, it isn't often that I "just walk away" from a poll, but this does it for me.

The poll doesn't scare me. This does:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/02/03/3515674-ap.html

The picture is fitting.

This is the poll i got a chuckle out of:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?&tf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNewsSub.html&cf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNews.cfg&id=51012&pollid=51012&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=CTVNewsTopStories&hub=TopStories&subhub=VoteResult

Prince Charles decided to fly commercial airlines rather than private jet for enviroment reasons.Some moron at ctv who never did their homework thought it was about him flying first class.Brilliant!

"When did you become convinced..."

Is a religious question for new converts. In the hierarchy of the religion, those who converted earlier are wiser and more powerful.

See how they use this question on Harper (ie. "The road to Damascus"), always with the assumption that he's lying, that he's not really a convert, that he's a spy in the church.

If like the Heavens Gate cult, all the faithful of this new eviroreligion would commit mass suicide, GHG would be solved. And the rest of us could get on with our lives.

Top this one. I guess some people just don't appreciate the anchor businesses supporting their town. Note that the poll will change daily so look for Feb 2.

ET, excellent post. It states the case in a rational, concise manner that one seldom sees in this sort of debate.
Thank you.

Try this.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/generic/generated/polls/pollResult.html

Here’s a few more points on CO2 I haven’t heard anyone mention.

As far as I know CO2 is heavier than air so it sinks straight to the ground where it is absorbed by plants and turned back into oxygen.
Why hasn’t the govt. announced a massive tree planting campain and an end to all forestry for the good of the planet if this is such a serious danger? Trees and plants should be flourishing now with all the extra CO2 that they need to grow.

How can CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere if it sits BELOW the atmosphere right at the ground level?

Has anybody ever showed a lab test where they proved that CO2 can trap heat in a controlled experiment? If not shouldn't that be the first thing to do to prove global warming?

If CO2 is trapping sunlight from bouncing back into space causing the earth to be warmer ( greenhouse effect), then wouldn’t it be blocking the same amount of light on the way in?

If the earth does warm up won't the oceans and lakes just evaporate faster and produce more clouds to block out the sun? It seems to me the earth already has a natural system in place to prevent global warming that's been working for millions of years.

Bart: i just went & read that, your right
France Pres.Chirac wants to creat "A new World Order"
Now that is Scary
BTW: Remember back in the 70's 80's we were being bombarded with,the planet is going into another ICEAGE, Do you ever here of Ozone Depletion anymore?
Well lake effect snowsqualls here in Grey/Bruce counties & Gust's up to 60, -18windchill now i know thats not as bad as outwest but could we Pleeeeaaase get some global warming here.

number one concern for voters today is the enviornemt/global warming

when buying a car,38500 people ranked the enviormentle impact as 23'd of 26 considerations for the purchase of their choice

don't lieberals buy cars?????

Another thing I find alarming that has arisen out of the climate change debate is less obvious:
the attack on science itself as a viable and reliable means of making determinations about reality.

Anyone who has perused some of my posts realizes that I consider a lot of matters to be outside of the scientific realm. And in fact I challenge the idea that science can be an arbiter about everything that exists as a human concern.

However, even I am quite content to recognize that science is our primary method of addressing questions about reality in our present era.

Science is our contemporary mode of epistemology (how do we know what we know), and it is vitally important that we all have some kind of common agreement that the yardstick we use to determine what is real can be agreed upon. And even though I don't believe that the scientific yardstick can accomodate everything that humans need to know, I do agree that it is the very servicable yardstick we use most of the time.

Cognitive dissonance haunts our societies and cultures like schizophrenic ghosts. The glue that holds our ability to negotiate reality together has been shatttered into a million pieces.

We used to have pretty universal agreement about religion, and now religion is a hugely contentious subject with exponents from every point of view. We used to believe that government was a sane and wise and intelligent and conscientious guiding hand, and now we know government to be a source of endless stupidity, malevolence, and opportunism. The family used to be the unit of which we could all depend, and now people wish to redefine the entire nature of marriage, etc., etc., and I could go on like this through one reliable pillar after another that has been shattered from its place of being a touchstone we could depend upon.

Today it might almost be possible to say that if you're in the middle of the bell-shaped curve, you are probably insane.

With science we used to be able to say that even though it might not be able to address everything that humans need to know, what it did address was reliable so far as we knew.

In health care, space science, biochemistry, on and on through the huge number of subjects that science addresses, we could be secure that the best judgements about the reality of these subjects was delivered to us by science. One of the last bastions of reliability in a schizophrenic world.

Today this climate change BS is demontrating that scientists can be as manipulated and delusional as every other factor we used to rely on. Apparently, scientists are just as willing to submerge their results to accomplish some trendy political football as anyone else.

Massage data, non sequiturs for conclusions, delusional outcomes offered up as fact, dishonesty offered as substance... this is what the subject of climate change is teaching all of us.

If our societies were people, they would have to be institutionalized for their own safety.

Another thing I have thought about this. The CO2 we are releasing through burning fossil fuels is not "man made " like they are telling us. It is natural CO2 that was trapped underground at some point in history. We know the earth used to be warmer (dinosaurs once lived in Alberta) and it wasn't a desert because the dinosaurs had to be eating something(and a lot of it) What if the same event that wiped out the dinosaurs trapped every plant and tree underground trapping the NATURAL CO2 underground and causing the earth to be LOW in CO2 and artificialy cool? Maybe we are just starting to restore the earth back to its natural balance now and it is turning back to the tropical paradise it is supposed to be. Just a theory I came up with that's worth debating.

The high in Toronto today is -8 Celsius.

You know, thank God for that global warming, I would hate to think how we would get by the next few days without it.

Morons. Killing an idiot should come with a citation, not a jail sentence.

After heating my home, my personal carbon footprint is largely governed by how fast I drive my vehicle.

I really p*ss off a lot of GTA latte-SUV-liberal drivers because I drive the limit. Why? Because, I save money, and it's safer. I am the sole earner in my family.

If you really believe in the athropogenic global warming BS, then reduce the speed you drive on the 4xx series roads in the GTA. Or shut up. One of the two.

i'll jump on board this nonsense when pepsi and coke stop carbonating their drinks. lol

Aren't those smoke stacks in the Red Star the same coal fired generating staions that McAsswipe promised to close four years ago.Then of course he got elected dictator.

My answer to the poll - about 6 months ago.
Do a little research of your own.
Try www.realclimate.org for starters
Read the article by Kerry Emanuel for a good overview. Read the IPCC report for yourself.
Read the forum discussions for the last couple of years. Check out the links.
Educate yourself on the history of our planet over the last 4.5 billion years.
Do I think that there may be other factors not yet understood that might mitigate some of the modeled outcomes? Yes - because our climate is a complex system but keep in mind that life on the planet is part of the feedback mechanism that stops the planet from becoming like Venus or Mars.
Why would you think that humanity wouldn't be part of that feedback? Did you think that acid rain or lead pollution were fantasies?
Do I think that global warming is being used by some to further their own agenda - of course it is and the part that really bothers me is that the global effort that will be required to address the issue is a perfect stepping stone for a new world order. I take it that most of you here think that it is the other way around.

so according to G&M polls, 50% of respondents attribute Global Warming to "human activity is to blame"; yet, 86% answer "but only if governments and industries around the world also join the fight" to the latest question "...are you prepared to make some sacrifice in your own standard of living to help fight global warming".

Doesn't anyone see a disconnect between these 2 questions?

Poll #1:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/poll/pollResultHub?id=51553&pollid=51553&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

Poll #2:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/poll/pollResultHub?id=51692&pollid=51692&answerid=63393&poll=GAMFront&save=_save51692&show_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult&vote=63393

doug newton - what do you mean by a 'new world order'? It sounds rather utopian and totalitarian to me. That is, it sounds as if it would be imposed from above (by the Wise Men).

A lot of people on this and other blogs ARE educated; they know the history of the planet since its emergence (4.5 billion ya).They understand the complexities of climate change, and far better than the apocalpytic hysteria that we are now seeing in our MSM. And in the NDP and Liberal parties.

Pollution and carbon emissions are not the same. Furthermore, you are ignoring the role of adaptive evolution. Biological species adapt; they don't simply 'go extinct'. (eg the infamous Pepper Moth adaptation, adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics, etc). And for every species that goes extinct, another species (or more) emerges to use that energy.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'new world order' or that 'most of you think it's the other way around'. What is 'it'? And what are you implying? Don't be ambiguous! Speak out!

How many drivers on the 401 ignored all weather warnings and storm warnings about what was going to happen that day, and got in their cars and drove, causing accidents, death and road closures. Yet, these same liberal drivers believe what some idiots of kyotology say will happen in 100 years. Pay more attention to today, not in 100 years when your foolishness will be discredited.
We should all prepare a time capsule for our families to open in 100 years, containing all the fear mongoring re climate. We have had climate change every year. It is called winter, spring, summer and fall. Business depend on these changes, and when they don't happen as soon as they are supposed to, or last longer, they suffer profit loss. Wasn't Ont in a fit because the ski season might not happen, and how about skating in Ottawa. They did stories on that voice of truth, the cbc, showing retailers bemoaning they were not selling snow shovels, parkas, skates etc.
CO2 is a necessity of life, for animals, humans and plants. Dion wants to eliminate CO2, to kill all plant life.
I also notice he is wearing a green ribbon, is that to show support for the Hezzbolah terrorists, isn't their color green. Didn't Codere march in support of Hezzbolah. Isn't a green head covering what suicide bombers use, with a red (liberal color) headband. Is Dion sending a message to all terrorist supporters in canada that he is with them, vote liberal.

Well tried, Doug Newton, well tried. No one here is interested in finding out whether or not global warming is happening. They already know it isnt happening. And you know why it isnt happening? Because if it is, then policy changes will have an adverse impact on American industry. Trust me when I say that there are a number of people here who would rather fly the American flag. Just observe this boards obsession with the Iraq war/crisis.

And yes it true, people here are against a global effort. However, they are all for American self interest, so if you can get Bush to endorse this report, everyone here will become such rabid environmentalists that they would probably make the green party look like moderates. Its not a matter of what is being said, but rather who is saying it. Remember, Bush and the Republicans have a monopoly on "the truth". Scientists dont know what they re talking about. Bush knows everything. Like Chuck Norris.

Jeremiah,
I fly the American flag.

My landlord knows Chuck Norris.

You know, one of the things that's always weird to me is that Canadians would object to the idea that it was getting warmer.

Down here in Texas and in Arizona the summers get so hot you could fry an egg on the sidewalk, so you would expect all the gripes to be coming from us.

But in Canada if you could start selling tropical real estate developments up in the Yukon, I would think that everybody would be all for it.

Doug Newton:

I'm not disputing that the climate is warming...it probably is; climate has been cyclical for apparently millions of years. What I am skeptical of is the notion that it is all man's fault, and even more, the utter conceit that man can do something material to actually change climate.

I also have problems with the fact that the data about climate change in the Kyoto process reportedly used to include the medieval warm period as well as the little ice age, and, when that didn't produce the results the researchers wanted, was deleted and *presto* the now infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph resulted. And allowed the Kyoto-ologists to shriek that it was all man's fault. I've ripped of the Wikipedia discussion about the warm period for illustration purposes:

"The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[1]

Palaeoclimatologists developing regionally specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP".[2][3] Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events rather than strictly warm events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.

The Medieval Warm Period partially coincides with the peak in solar activity named the Medieval Maximum (1100–1250).

[edit] Climate events

[edit] North Atlantic and North American regions
During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain[4][5][6] although less extensively than they are today[7] (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards, for example wine is made in Alaska today; and the time of greatest extent of medieval vineyards falls outside the MWP). The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. The MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century when the current period of global warming began."

UN Report on Global Warming...AKA...The Nostrodomus Report on Global Warming. All that's missing are the stanza's.

Global is no better. Last nite Harper was being interviewed by the Sweety repalcing K.N. and it was more of an inquisition than anything.

I have complained a number of times regarding thier CBC-like slant and I get no response whatsoever.

CRB

Doug and Jeremiah - As ET says we are educated on the topic. I've read the reports and concluded that even if I accept everything they say as gospel itself - I'm still in favour of global warming.

I don't need to deny a single word in an IPCC report to come to the conclusion that the most likely result will be a gentle warming that will produce more benefits than harm. Longer growing seasons, less cold winters, vast areas of uninhabitable tundra becoming productive land, the Sahara greening, all traded against a minor loss of coast. This is supposed to bother me why, exactly?

And if you read the reports as I have, you'd know how pointless all this shrieking is. If I ignore all your shrieking and carry on business as usual I can expect a meter of sea water in my oceanfront beachhouse by the time I retire and have my grandkids visit. If I follow you into your brave new world order and it works out as well as your blessed reports predict I'll reduce that water level to a mere 95 centimeters!!!! Imagine my enthusiasm.

Now, if I factor in the possibility (certainty) that the Chinese and the peasants of all the Trashcanistans of the world are going to carry on with their lives no matter delusions you have about imposing a new world order, and add to the fact that no serious scientist can really claim to be able to predict a chaotic system like the climate with any precision - I'll just pass on your new world order.

But what's your excuse? I fill up my tank without guilt, knowing I've studied the topic and I can live with the consequences of my actions.

You, however, think you're participating in a Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-Exxon planet-baking conspiracy when you fill your tank or heat your house. Why not just stop?

i've just read "a canary in a chinese coalmine"
Todays G&M, are they finally getting it?
Now before everybody gets their dandruff up because it's the G&M, go & read this article. Iam not a great fan of the G&M But this article will open your eyes as to what has been going on in China just as ET & others have been saying for some time now. Also read the comments section i think you will be surprised, Many agree that there needs to be a solution and Kyoto is not the way when China as one of the worst pollutors in the world will not clean up their act & is not compelled to be part of Kyoto. After reading this & other good articles iam more convinced that Dion, Mark Holland & other Pro-Kyoto supporters are taking us down a garden path to Economic ruin, I just don't get it Why would we send Billions to the one of the worst pollutor's in the world and soon will be the worst.

The Star poll currently has 53% of responders saying that they shan't be changing their lifestyle.

Onward march, deniers! Persevere, interiasts!

Greg in Dallas,

On another thread, Jeremiah argued the point that it's legitimate to compare the behaviour of Islamist barbarians in the 21st century with the behaviour of some Christians in the barbaric 13th century. Disallowing historical context and suspending disbelief in order to justify his brand of moral relativism, thereby giving terrorism a free pass until they catch up in 700 years or so.

A person displaying a moonbat ability to reason like that is hardly worth debating with.

It looks like that's another poll going horribly wrong :-) 54% will not make changes

Actually, I want to make changes. Dribve around more and heat the place up a bit.

Libranos seem to have a very strange affinity for all things China. Now, why is that? Is it China the Model? Is this the real Librano secret agenda?

jeremiah. Don't be arrogant. And ignorant.

Most people here know about 'global warming'. Now, I'll only speak for myself because to do otherwise is non-argumentative.

So, intelligent rather than theistic analysis doesn't buy into the reductionist view that warming is linear. The best science is that climate change is cyclical. For that, you can check out research since the planet began about 4.5 billion ya. Check our, for instance, the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum phase; by the way no humans were around then - about 55 mya.

Check out also the various phases of cooling and warming on this planet in the Holocene (when our species appeared); it was an interglacial phase. A previous phase, the Miocene was warm; a next phase the Pliocene was cool..and moved into the Ice Age of the Pleistocene.

The point is, to conclude that there is only ONE cause of climate change (man) and that it is LINEAR (one directional) is ignorant. The climate is complex; there are many causes of climate change, and you ought to check out solar causality. The sun and the earth's relation to the sun existed long, long before humans. And the climate changed then.

Now, to conclude that our current phase of warming is due to and only to humans - apart from its ignorant rejection of cycles of climate change, assumes that the cause is industrialism. That's quite an assumption. Industrialism has only been around for less than 200 years. That's years, not mya (million years ago), not thousands of years. Years.

To assume that our planet's atmosphere is so unstable that a 200 year slight change in SOME parts of the globe can move the entire planet into a one-way rush to apocalyptic hell, well, it's 'stuck in stupid'.

Now, with regard to your 'global effort', you are again revealing your ignorance. Kyoto is not a global effort to reduce emissions. It's a transfer of massive amounts of MONEY from the industrial nations to the non-industrial nations. These latter are EXEMPT (got that?) from emission standards. They will, as China is now doing, use that money, which is not a loan, to build many, many new factories, cheap factories, that will increase both the pollution AND carbon emissions.

I'm sure you are aware that our atmosphere doesn't give a damn about political boundaries. So, the pollution and emissions in China, and all of the other 'developing nations' who are exempt from emissions reduction standards, will rapidly find their way..all across the world.

Could you explain how sending vast sums of money to 'developing nations', to build pollution and carbon emission loaded factories - will help this 'global warming'?

As for your comments on Americans and Bush - that's pure stupidity on your part. Try, try, as you might, but climate change isn't due to The Americans and Bush. Grow up - and check out some science. That's science, not dogma.

meanwhile, has the Mop & Pail found some common sense (consensus?)

This will make Suzuki, Dion and Taliban Jack Laydown shit their collective pants.

Harper was right . . Kyoto is NOT an environmental treaty. Its a Trade/Economic treaty, all about transferring wealth and using WTO methods to punish trading countries.

The Globe and Mail is onto climate change

Global warming is a reality. Canada must join the global effort to curb greenhouse gases. But it has to be smart in the way it does so, and Stéphane Dion is advocating an exercise in futility.

The federal Liberal Leader wants the government to reaffirm Canada's unrealistic commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. There is no way, short of an economic disaster, that the nation can meet its treaty obligation to slash greenhouse-gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels in the period from 2008 to 2012. Despite their good intentions, Canadians would not accept the ensuing reality of drastically lower living standards and diminished government services such as health care. Worse, because Canadian officials apparently did not understand exactly what they were signing when they committed themselves to Kyoto in 1998, it is not even clear that it is in Canada's best interests to remain a party to the treaty.

So why are all three opposition parties supporting Mr. Dion's House of Commons resolution calling on the federal Conservative government to meet those targets and to impose hard caps on industrial polluters? Although the resolution is non-binding, the Liberals are also pushing through legislation calling for the implementation of the accord; the bill will be put to a final vote in two weeks. Either Mr. Dion is naive or, more likely, he has disingenuously placed politics ahead of common sense. What can he be thinking?

Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions in 1998, ratifying it in 2002. It became legally binding in February of 2005. Last May, after years of Liberal inaction, Ottawa conceded the level of emissions in 2004 was 34.6 per cent above the Kyoto target of 563 million tonnes. The level is even higher now, probably 780 million tonnes. But, under the treaty, energy-exporting Canada has promised to cut emissions to an average of 563 million tonnes a year in 2008-12. It is virtually impossible to meet those targets….

The Kyoto Protocol is essentially a trade treaty. Other nations, such as the United States and Britain, sent financially savvy negotiators. Canada sent aid and environmental experts. The terms reflect that imbalance. Energy-exporting nations such as Canada are held responsible for 60 per cent of all emissions from exported products such as natural gas….

Any nation that falls short of its commitments must carry a deficit multiplied by 1.3 onto its post-Kyoto balance sheet. If Canada does not meet its commitments, if it does not buy credits from other nations after 2012, Europe and Japan can impose sanctions on Canadian exports under World Trade Organization rules. "Essentially the treaty is operating against us as a permanent wealth transfer to other nations," Ms. Donnelly concludes….

Those are serious issues that Canadians have to discuss openly and rationally. The former Liberal government had earmarked funding to buy emissions credits abroad. But surely any federal funding would be far better spent on the development of better technologies or more stringent auto-emissions policies to curtail greenhouse gases. As a staunch environmentalist, Mr. Dion knows the extent of the challenge -- and the expensive risk of failure. Yet he is pressing the government to adhere fully to a treaty whose terms Canada cannot hope to fulfill.

The answer lies in improved technology, not in a poorer society. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday, there "are no quick fixes to this. You can't just snap your fingers" and solve the problem. That doesn't give the government an excuse to ignore the calamity of global warming, but trying to meet the unattainable goals Canada set within Kyoto is not the way to proceed.

Another prophesy of Nostadamus has come true. The coming of the anti-christ, from the east. He is here now, and it is called Kyoto, led by dr did little.
Fact global, environment, climate has been changing for eons,. Maybe some problems have been the result.
Fact: Kyoto kicks in 2008 and ends in 2012.
Question: How in hell do all these experts expect to cure all ills in four years, that took eons to produce.
What happens after 2012, can all industries ect go back to what they did before 2008.
Harper said that first we should stabilize emmissions, you can't tell cdns to quit driving working and eating overnight. It will take years to get the technology in place to really do something concrete. Can't be done overnight.
As for carbon trading. Think of this.
Your wife bakes 5 dozen cookies a week, causing emmissions. Your neighbors wife bakes none, so has emmission credits. You pay your neighbor megabucks for not baking, but your wife continues to make cookies and you continue to pay. (don't share the cookies)
Where or how has this reduced any emmissions.
That is what carbon credit trading is all about, only the billions are going to go to Strong and the liberals. How much emmission is produced by printing money.
And, if CO2 is trapped in the air, how come there are so many carbon sinks in the world.
I think every scientist that is pro kyoto has forgotten a lot if not all the basic scientific facts and theorys we learned (used to learn) in school and invented new ones.
The Clean Air Act makes more sense every day.

The following snip is from an editorial/demand by Mr. Dions'. I notice Mr. Dion does not mention that Goldman&Sachs and Morgan&Stanley etc. etc. are all set with the carbon market. Isn't this new 'commodity' called CERs already being 'traded' in Chicago and London? I think that any 'green ribbon' person, such as Mr. Dion, who passionately believes, can certainly 'indulge' themselves, and buy Cers to cover their own emissions right now and they do not need permission from PMSH or Pres. Bush to do it.
Also, the new buzz 'slur' for the Libs/Bloc?NDP, is Climate Change Denier. It has a nice negative ring to it that really suits the Libs agenda. It sorta like calling someone a 'holocaust denier' instead of a Nazi. I wonder if an ad consulting company made a mint off the Liberal Party coming up with the term 'Climate Change Denier'. /half sarc.

Stephen Harper, Build a Carbon Market Now

STEPHANE DION,
National Post
Published: Saturday, February 03, 2007

Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,000 leading scientists from around the world, released its latest report. The report concluded that the evidence of climate change is "unequivocal," and that human activity is the cause of that change.

Canada has the resources, skill and ingenuity to tackle this problem. Moreover, as one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, we have the responsibility to do so.

When Stephen Harper became prime minister, he inherited a government and a country ready to lead the world in the fight against climate change

-snip

What a difference a few polls can make. In the past few weeks, the Prime Minister has engaged in a desperate game of catch-up. By reinstating a pale imitation of some of the Liberal climate change programs he cut a year ago, and wasting time on a redundant Clean Air

Act, he hopes to hide his true stripes: those of a climate change denier.

Tj...I don't know all the answers to your Q's, but the one about CO2 blocking heat coming in...the radiation reaching earth from the sun is of an extremely short wavelength(think UVB A and B,responsible for sunburns,skin cancer etc). The heat that is re-radiated from the earth is of a much longer wavelength(think Infra-red) CO2 can block long wavelengths,not short ones. You could compare it to a sieve. Certain sized holes pass some materials,but block others. That is also why the sky is blue as white light is scattered in a prism effect from the atmosphere. Some speculate that if the air was composed of just 1% more nitrogen, our sky would be green!

I liken the Suzukis and Gores and Dougs and Jeremiahs of this world to King Canute, with even greater ego problems.

Canute only wanted to change the tides, these people want to change the climate.

Actually, what they really want to do is change industrial society - reduce it to some romanticized mediaeval technological level, where they will be the priests and bishops.

another really interesting factor in all the Paris Climatapalooza is how the MSM has completely blown the story.

MSM says: IPCC report has been released

Fact - The IPCC report won't be released until June. The document released yesterday is the SPM - Summary for Policy Makers. Don't know how you release the summary when the main document is not finished but go figure.

MSM says: the most peer reviewed scientific document in history.

Fact - The SPM is written by a very small select group, they won't even say who does it, but most/many of the suspected authors are known Gaia Believers and are still part of the Gaia High Priesthood even though their work has been discredited - i.e. Mann the "Hockey Stick inventor"

A very level analysis of the whole thing is at
3w.climateaudit.org/.

MacIntyre is one of the two who blew the whistle on the last SPM, the one that was doctored up at the last minute, the one that featured numerous instances of the hockey stick graph, even though it wasn't part of the actual report.

he slices and dices all sides of the debate.

Jeremiah said:

"Well tried, Doug Newton, well tried. No one here is interested in finding out whether or not global warming is happening. They already know it isnt happening. And you know why it isnt happening? Because if it is, then policy changes will have an adverse impact on American industry. Trust me when I say that there are a number of people here who would rather fly the American flag. Just observe this boards obsession with the Iraq war/crisis.

And yes it true, people here are against a global effort. However, they are all for American self interest, so if you can get Bush to endorse this report, everyone here will become such rabid environmentalists that they would probably make the green party look like moderates. Its not a matter of what is being said, but rather who is saying it. Remember, Bush and the Republicans have a monopoly on "the truth". Scientists dont know what they re talking about. Bush knows everything. Like Chuck Norris."
----------------------------
Note to Jeremiah:

Not everyone who disagrees with those hysterical environmentalists about Kyoto and climate change is

a. A Republican
b. Flies an American flag
c. A supporter of US. President George Bush
d. Oppose Kyoto because of its effect on American industry

In fact, many of the people who disagree do so for the following reasons

a. Implementing Kyoto in Canada would have a devastating effect on our industries, our economy and cost thousands of Canadian jobs.
b. Even if Canada, which is responsible for only 2% of the world’s GHC emissions, achieved its targets, this will be negated by countries such as China, India, Russia and other third world countries, who do not have any targets set and are steadily increasing their emissions.
c. Kyoto’s emission credit exchange is nothing but a money transfer scheme designed to transfer billions of hard-earned tax payer dollars from developed countries to third world countries, while doing nothing to stop the growth in GHC.
d. Cutting Canadian GHC emissions by a third by 2012 would mean shutting down many industries, closing down many power plants, closing down many factories, preventing many people from driving cars, crippling our airline industry and pushing our society back to the pre industrial age.

If these environmentalists want to live like the Amish, they are welcome to do so, but don’t try to force everyone to adopt your lifestyle.

Oh, and Jeremiah:

Check your facts...Kyoto adoption by the US was sewered by Clinton, not Bush...

I love it... "Climate Change Denier".. Obviously a new mental disorder that needs "treatment". The solution will be to ignore input from any person or organization afflicted with this disorder. Maybe we can create a new term along the lines of "homophobic" or "Islamophobic".. I know "Climachanaphobic"...

I have all the symptoms. Having added to the liberal propeganda machine... where do I pick up my brown envelope?

wouldn't that big hole in the ozone set all these bad gasses out and keep us safe from the boogieman that steven harpet has given us. this is the start of a bedtime story I am writing for david suzukis grandchildren, he talks of them so much as he flushes his untreated shit into the ocean off victoria and spews his untreated shit over the canadian bullshit coocoobirds airwaves.

All this talk just makes me want to pollute more, actually.

And shoot a few polar bears or something.

I wonder what it must be like to be a timid, sheep-like conformist. Never tried it myself.

and who are those who deny economic ruin at the altar of Kyoto

"economic chaos skeptics"

"reducing our standard of living by 30% deniers"

"they are all paid by socialist think tanks" ( I know its oxymoronic, but work with me here)

"they do not accept the science of economics"

Two can play this little verbal game.

If economic ruin happens, lets save closing the hospitals until the last, until we have de-funded all the Faculties of Equality Studies, the Enviro Self Interest Groups and the tens of thousands of fart catchers holding down desk space and counting the days until their pension.

This kyoto thing might be a really good back door way to de-fund all the Trudeaupian socialist crap that the Lieberals have foisted on us.

Woooo Hoooo . . . I'm starting to think all this Kyoto nonsense might have a silver lining.

That's exactly it. Kyoto has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with emissions, climate change..etc. It's a front for a money transference scheme, which will take money from industrial nations and hand it over, loan-free, to so-called 'developing nations'.

Of the 169 odd nations within the Accord, only about 35 are required to REDUCE emissions. The others, and these including the massive populations of India and China, with their equally massive pollution and emission spewing old and new, many new, factories --they are exempt. Exempt from reducing emissions. They can build and pollute and emit..as much as, and even more, than they are now doing.

Why? Because the 'bad guys' are deemed by the Accord to be the Developed Nations, such as Europe, the USA, Australia, Canada..which are deemed as 'causal' of global warming.

The utter stupidity of this is immediately apparent. First - this is essentially ignoring, utterly ignoring all science, which affirms that climate change is a FACT, that our planet's climate operates in cycles since it began and that these cycles are natural and not caused by man. To claim that this warming has NO natural causes but is only caused by the Western Nations is untenable. Why? Because it ignores scientific reality - those natural cycles; and because the time span is too short and narrow for these nations alone to cause such a global phenomenon.

Second, to claim that the tactic to reduce emissions is to fine those western nations that can't reduce their emissions in X-time and then send those fines to nations who are exempt from emissions...to build many factories that both pollute and emit. ..? Is that insanity or what?

The developed nations of the West have long, long provided international aid to the developing nations. In some cases, it's a LOAN. Repay it. In others, it's not a loan.

Kyoto is a massive fraud, a tactic to FORCE the industrial nations to pay huge sums (not loans) to the developing countries..so they can industrialize. And build polluting and emitting factories. Insane.

Now, industrialism does produce pollutants and emissions. Most certainly, we can and must reduce both. But - that means that we get to keep our money and use it to carry out the expensive research to develop other fuels, to build different energy-systems, different factories. WE keep our money and WE use it to reduce pollutants (Harper's Clean Air).

But Kyoto wants us not to be able to do this. If we follow Kyoto, we'll be an economic wasteland. We won't pollute or emit, that's for sure. We won't have an industrial economy. And we won't be able to develop an industrial economy because we won't have the funds to develop non-polluting technologies.

And Kyoto will increase global pollution and emissions - because our money will be used by developing countries, exempt from Kyoto, to build cheap new factories. To pollute and emit.

What stuns me, is why and how, can anyone support Kyoto???

One of the best pieces of Kyoto fraud is that Saudi Arabia is considered a "Developing Nation" and can sell GhG credits.

Un frik'n real considering the wealth and amount of GhG its oil industry puts out.

The UN brought us the Oil for Palaces scam and now we have the Kyoto Money for Hot Air ponzi scheme.

"What stuns me, is why and how, can anyone support Kyoto???"

I've often wondered the same thing when it comes to voting liberal.

Seem to have started an avalanche of sorts. Must really have struck a nerve. Some have taken exception to my statements. Alas, a Republican by any other name ...

No, I m not a proponent of Kyoto. In fact, I dont even think I mentioned it.

The developing nations thing is also interesting, because India and China's combined emissions are less than the US, but thats besides the point. Developing countries objections are based on the argument that there is a greater cost associated with building environment friendly industries, an extra cost that the developed countries didnt incur, which has created this situation in the first place. And that is what the funds are for, and not for creating more polluting factories. Its to put in the environmental safeguards.Oddly enough, I think you know that as well as I do, and your queries remind me of high school debates (Cambridge style, not Oxford). A lot of bluster, but no real substance. Sounds sensible, but has no basis.

I havent read any evidence of China using the funds earmarked to account for this to build cheap factories, as you allege. Some proof is warranted.

China doesnt need money earmarked for global warming to build cheap factories. American consumers provide it quite willingly. And Canadian consumers for that matter. Its funny how personal savings are so important to American and Canadian individuals, that they re willing to fund the one nation that can potentially rival them in the not so distant future. But I digress.

Your argument about 200 years being too short for change is little more than a politician's flourish. Perhaps it would be helpful to restate a famous chinese saying "Every journey begins with a single step". At this point there are those who think theres danger, and those who dont. A change in policy now may seem to be too little to make a difference, but in the long run it could be crucial.

Interestingly enough, you first denigrate a global effort, which you incorrectly identify as Kyoto (yes there are some of us who believe that Kyoto got it all wrong, but that there are other options that have to be explored. Also you might note that I never mentioned Kyoto in my original post, nor the term "global effort". That said, I do support a global effort). Of course the biggest obstacle to resolving the issue is the US, my stupidity notwithstanding. Apparently we have "ignorance" in common.

Two years ago I was in L.A. the air seems a lot cleaner than it was when I was there in 1978, could have been a good time or their efforts to clean up the pollution is working, in any case I read the papers and came across a story about the coal burning power plants. The (evil) George Bush said to clean up your emissions, and the process would be a sort of in the U.S. Kyoto plan whereby the operators that sat on their asses and did nothing would end up having to buy credits off the ones that spent the money on clean coal technology to reduce their emmissions. This process would keep the money in the US and provide incentive to clean up. Have you heard one peep from the morons that are behind this Kyoto hoax about that program, NO, and you won't hear about the 50% subsidy paid to people that spend the money on wind power or other energy saving devices. Our pathetic media is so in the pocket of the stinking Lieberals you only get force fed lieberal shit like this shit poll.

Oh oh, what's this?

I believe that the Americans are actually doing something as you stated Bartinsky, while the liberals blabbed on and on and our emissions went up.
Jeremiah, what is this fixation that you have with the US? If we don't agree with you we are Republicans? Are you that stupid?

Shaken,

I dont know if you can say Libranos have an affinity for China. After all, everyone shops at Wal Mart and other stores that sell cheap Chinese goods and fuel the growth of the Chinese economy. Apparently a rich China will become a democratic one. I m not holding my breath.

"Your wife bakes 5 dozen cookies a week, causing emmissions. Your neighbors wife bakes none, so has emmission credits. You pay your neighbor megabucks for not baking, but your wife continues to make cookies and you continue to pay. (don't share the cookies)
Where or how has this reduced any emmissions."

It may not reduce, but at least it puts a specific limit on the quantity of emissions. In other words, by buying the credits, you force your neighbours wife to not cook, thereby ensuring that more emissions arent added.

Wilson,

Perhaps you understood me. I believe there is a need for a new policy. I never once voiced my support for Kyoto. I do believe that the US continues to ignore the problem and thwart any attempts to do anything about it.

Bruce,

The US is continuing to thwart any attempt to do anything. Kyoto may be a dead duck, but for a country that loves calling itself the world's leader, the US hasnt done anything to initiate an alternative to Kyoto.

Kathy Shaidle,

"OOOh, look at me, I m a non conformist who just conforms with everyone who is against conformists"

For a non-conformist, you re doing an awfully good job of conforming with every liberal hating gun toting Republican in America. In fact, you sound just like them too.

ET,

Again, the funds are to offset the cost of building environmentally safe factories. Developed nations didnt spend that money in the first place, which is what has led to this build up in the first place. Are you really this thick, or is it a front?

"Jeremiah, what is this fixation that you have with the US? If we don't agree with you we are Republicans? Are you that stupid?"

Pointing out that a) most people here blindly support the republicans and b) that America is not only not providing any alternative to Kyoto (or leadership in this regard), it is actively ignoring the problem, is not equal to an American fixation.

The war in Iraq is a major talking point on this board with people here often taking a harder stance in favor of the Republicans, than the Republicans in America themselves, hence the jab about the Republicans. Besides, who do you think has an American fixation - one who brings them up with regard to Kyoto, or a board that follows minutely every detail in Iraq?

Are you stupid?

The report I pointed to is the "Summary for Policymakers" not the full report - my bad

There are some interesting lines in the report like this one at the end of the discussion on the Special Report on Emission Scenarios

"The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that
explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions
targets of the Kyoto Protocol."

I wonder why the Kyoto protocol was handled this way?

and this one

"Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust)
together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an
indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at
the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more
comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence
cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

cooling effect!

My reference to a new world order comes from my belief that there are groups of people that are working toward global governance as the only viable solution to our long term survival. Which may be well and good but I worry that the resulting government won't be a democratically elected body. That we are being manipulated by special interests seems obvious to me.
I am saying that it seems as if many on this site believe that the global warming debate is a product of this manipulation with the science behind it being hopelessly compromised while I think that the science behind the IPCC report has credibility but the information is being used to further manipulate us for both power and profit. The kyoto protocol is as a good example.

I don't see EVERYONE fixated on the Iraq war, you're the only one bringing it up on a climate thread.
Again, are you truly that freakin dumb?

Has anyone spotted "El Nino" lately?

I have not seen covered anywhere in the MSM that the earth is undergoing an El Nino effect in 2006/7. The last one occurred in 1997/8 with a brutal winter on the North American west coast and the "hottest year ever" in 1998. Stating that we are going through El Nino ( as we do naturally every 7-10 years) would of course be an inconvenient truth in the global warming hysteria.

I fonund another outrageous poll just like this at CBC last year. It went:

When did you learn the earth was round?
a) When i was younger than 3.
b) When i was younger than 10.
c) After I was 10
d) I'm still not convinced the earth is round.

Communists. Where's e? The earth isn't round? Scientific valid findings my a$$.

Also I think CERs are much, much cheaper in China than in London or Chicago right now. They are doing a bit of hording I think, just waiting for jeremiah and co to put their pension funds in, thereby driving up the price and demands for the all new carbon 'commodity'. A commodity that, as near as I can figure, is really the opposite of a commodity. The less you have of it the wealthier you are. It is a plus to be in the minus column. Yup. A whole new math. Math for Progressives!

Fred, devious minds think alike. I think the jet set crowd needs to put their money where their mouths are. I wonder if the Suzuki parade has paid for all the carbon they are emitting on the tour. And I think we should ban private jets too. Everybody has to take commercial airlines. Then maybe, with the jet set flying commercial, the airlines would stop treating the rest of us like cattle.

"the US hasnt done anything to initiate an alternative to Kyoto."
Funny Jeremiah. Then how come their emmisions went DOWN 12%, while ours rose 36%? Oh right. I forgot. That evil Bush secretly siphoned all their emmisions north to us,twit.

I'm a Canadian that that lives and works in the US and Mexico. I also travel extensively. This global warming nonsence seems to only get media play in Canada to the extremist degree that it does. One can only conclude that the Canadian media is easily led by it's liberal handlers and that they have lost their balance in having a wholistic world view. It is also stunning that the people of Canada are so easily led by the media. What ever happened to thoughtful and sobering consideration of evidence and coming to effective conclusions? If it were not for alternative news sources such as SDA that brings to light the hypocacy of the liberal-left and it's media prostitutes I fear Canada would be would be worse than Cuba.

"As far as I know CO2 is heavier than air so it sinks straight to the ground where it is absorbed by plants and turned back into oxygen."

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measureable, and their existence shouldn't be a subject of speculation or debate
http://www.uigi.com/air.html#Carbon%20Dioxide%20Concentration:
(the debate is over whether the observed elevated CO2 levels have a causative effect on climate change)

"Why hasn’t the govt. announced a massive tree planting campain and an end to all forestry for the good of the planet if this is such a serious danger? Trees and plants should be flourishing now with all the extra CO2 that they need to grow."

That statement is based on the erroneous belief that forests can be stockpiled. Forests in temperate and boreal regions are actually neither a source nor a sink for CO2 over the long term, since they take CO2 from the atmosphere while actively growing, and then release CO2 into the atmosphere when they eventually burn or otherwise die and decay. Industrial forestry might actually tip the balance by sequestering carbon for long terms (e.g. wood in houses etc.).

"If CO2 is trapping sunlight from bouncing back into space causing the earth to be warmer (greenhouse effect), then wouldn’t it be blocking the same amount of light on the way in?"

Different wavelengths, with different reflectance/abosorbance properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Here's a Canadian "true believers" website.

http://www.desmogblog.com/

Their mission.......

"DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.

An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming - the world's climate is changing - and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable.

Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet."

I have just spent 2 hours on the roof trying to get rid of a major frickin' ice dam.

I have those stupid heater cables, but did I put them up last fall? Noooooo.

So I took out my steamer (!) and tried to melt the ice. Guess what? Ice wins. I managed to melt enough of a channel in the eaves trough so that I could force the cable in there. Then I froze my frickin' hands trying to pry up the edge of the shingles so I could attach the cable to them.

Of course on the upper roof there's an even bigger dam - it's really the source of the problem - but there's no way I'm going up there and getting out alive.

Could someone bring on this stupid global warming. I need it right now!

I'm all weepy and nostalgic. Saw the PBS documentary last night on the great Milton Friedman which included some good clips of the Gipper.

Er,

WHAT HAPPENED TO ACID RAIN???

Is the Star poll another one that has gone horribly wrong?

jeremiah - don't get into ad hominem. Ever. Stick to the issues.

If you don't promote Kyoto, whether/not you mentioned the name, then why are you promoting its ideology?

The fact that China and India's combined emissions are less than the US is irrelevant. China is the second most polluting country in the world. Then Russia, and then India. So, what's your point? Why are they exempt?

Now - the fact that YOU don't know anything about China's building new factories that pollute, doesn't mean that they aren't doing so. They are. Just google the words 'China, new factories, pollution'..and you'll find out what is going on. It's a mess- and uncontrollable.

You are quite wrong to claim that the new factories that are going up are pollution and emission-'friendly'.

First, we don't have the technology for building such systems. It requires research and new engineering technolgoy. Second, such factories, even with our current techniques, are extremely expensive. No developing country is going to do this. And China most certainly isn't. Check out google.
We require new technologies that are inexpensive (you can't make your costs more than your returns); that are relatively simple; and that can even be used on old factories. We aren't there yet.

You are also incorrect when you claim that the money from the developed countries must be spent on pollution/emission free factories. There is no system of accountability. There are NO environmental safeguards in Kyoto. NO sanctions for building five cheap, polluting factories instead of one non-polluting one.

Your argument that 'it' (global warming?) is due to the industrial development of the industrial countries - a cost not born by the non-industrial countries (who don't have factories) - is an empty tautology. That's like saying that someone with an apple is different from someone without an apple.

China most certainly requires funds for building cheap factories. Otherwise, why would it define itself as a 'developing' rather than 'developed' nation? China is also undergoing a massive population movement, from the rural to the urban. This requires industrialization on an equally massive scale, and it can't afford expensive factories.

I'm not sure of the reason for or the meaning of your 'American consumers provide it quite willingly'. Other than 'Bash America'- which is juvenile. Are you saying that because the Americans, and the rest of the world, purchase Chinese goods, this pays for cheap factories? It could equally pay for expensive factories. Are you suggesting that the world stop purchasing Chinese goods?

Or are you talking about foreign investment in China - and much foreign investment - including Canada's eagerness to invest in China - would be reduced if the cost of the factory construction and operation - became too expensive.

What's wrong with economic competition? That's the basis of a robust economy - and goods that are accessible - and good products.

My argument about 200 years being too short a time span to conclude that human activity is the primary cause of global warming - is basic science. Your quote of Confucius (a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step) is not relevant to this argument. Are you saying that the end result of an apocalyptic inferno (aka Dante's scenario) is the result of these 200 years? Prove it. It's too hypothetical for science.

Again, 200 years of an action, over part of the globe, and not at the same level of intensity for those years, is not enough to provide a data base for ANY CONCLUSION. Especially when you are also, unscientifically, excluding all other variables.

No, I don't incorrectly identify a 'global effort' with Kyoto. That's exactly what Kyoto is - a global 'effort'. The fact that you support a 'different global effort', which you don't outline, isn't relevant. I was talking about the inadequacies of Kyoto. You are moving into a red herring tactic - introducing Another Global Effort - which you don't discuss.

Why is the biggest obstacle the US? Yes, I think you are ignorant. You are ignorant that the US has increased its emissions to less than half that of Canada. And it didn't sign Kyoto. And it has signed the Asia-Pacific Accord, which does include China, while Kyoto doesn't.

Bashing the US without cause is, yes, it's stupid.

You DID mention 'global effort' in your original post.

You still haven't addressed the science of 'global warming'; you stated that people on this blog don't accept global warming. I told you this was untrue; that we are very aware of climate change - and asked if you were aware of the long cycles of climate change, which include both warming and cooling, of this planet. You didn't reply.

You state that 'American industry' is a key factor in people's rejectiong of 'global warming'. No, this is just your own prejudice against the USA. A key factor in the rejection of the conclusion of global warming is any statement that it is ONLY caused by humans, and that it is linear rather than cyclical. To accept these two axioms (warming is linear rather than cyclical and it is only caused by humans) is unscientific.

The arrogance of these 'world-leading climatologists' just boggles the mind. There seems to me to be enough 'credible' evidence (so-called 'hard' as well as circumstantial) on both sides of the argument for a reasonable member of the quizzical public to conclude that these scientists have absolutely no idea at all as to what is causing warming of the planet: just like those living here before us. If we cannot be certain as to cause then what on earth can be said about so-called corrective measures? For anyone who is attemptng to sell me that they know what will happen everywhere on earth decades from now I have one simple question: Please tell me, within plus/minus one-half of one degree what the high temperature will be here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada two weeks from this day!

I find it implausible that:

a: any computer model exists that is able to crunch all established-as-relevant inputs when we do not know what all the relevant inputs are,
and
b: we have complete understanding of input relationships with each other
and
c: would-be readers of the IPCC report really understand the conditional language the writers must use because of the inexact-to-say-the-least science, so-called.

Given the high degree of uncertainty surrounding their apparent claims of doom, and given that the report message to the UN confounds the media (no surprise there!)and, maybe intentionally(!), confounds the politicians and public alike, the IPCC should be required to explain what they really mean by their use of the conditional language employed. It is not good enough to say that skeptics just don't understand the science. If they claim to be scientists it is their job to sell what they think they have found. So far, they get a failing grade.

Hey Mississauga Matt: Whatever you do don't come up to the Grey/Bruce Penninsula today because it's now -21W/windchill & you can't see out the frggin window now Blowin so bad
BTW that's only 2hrs north of you
Iam bailing everyone have a great weekend

Bryan,

I rent a cottage at Sauble Beach (the world's best beach, but we'll keep that quiet) each summer. I love Grey/Bruce.

The Star poll is actually measuring something quite different - i'ts sifting the honest voters from the ones who like to clickety-click little internet buttons to demonstrate their environmental superiority - before going back to booking their vacation tickets to Mexico.

You know, that would be easy, too. Make it illegal to sell vacation packages to warmer climates. Do our part to slow down the doomsday clock.

‘Your argument about 200 years being too short for change is little more than a politician's flourish.’

What nonsense. You ask for proof about China but fail to produce any proof for your own argument. Instead, as usual you have simply shown yourself to be a bigot when it comes to Americans…. your parents must be so proud.

You socialist/commie automatons really need your batteries changed. You lost, live with it.

RE: This global warming nonsence seems to only get media play in Canada to the extremist degree that it does...

The MSM and the Democratic Congress led by Ms. Pelosi are just 'warming up'. And I think big 'traders' like Morgan&Stanley and Goldman&Sachs, who get a cut on 'transactions', are backing the Dems. Some of the RINOs might go along too.And when it comes down to spending money, there is not that much difference between the two parties, especially in the US Congress. Pres. Bush would veto any legislation requiring the purchase of CERs, if this Congress were to ever get that far with it but would President Rodham-Clinton or President Obama? Picture Secretary of State Kerry making a US carbon purchase commitment to 'the world' while sporting a green ribbon on his lapel? Yikes. There is a small possibility the tarsands really could be 'hooped' by this carbon trading deal. And OPEC would be ever so pleased. A short term pain for a long term gain. Their NA competition would be stiffled and/or bankrupted. Again.

Decima it's gotta be. Sure bet they'll can the polls, desired results not forthcoming. In the Red Star at that!

shaken - thanks for the link.
The Chinese are indeed, the world's second largest carbon emitters and probably the largest polluters in the world. Their air and water quality are abysmal.

The Chinese claim that they are a 'developing country' and that their PER CAPITA emissions are low. Note how they've dealt with the problem. Their full emissions are 14.5% of the global total. That puts them second to the US. BUT, the Chinese lower the stats by claiming that, if you divide that total by their population, it's low.
Who cares about the population? The global air doesn't give a damn. It's the total emissions you, with your low or high population, emit. And China is 'right up there'.

Jeremiah - the US has done far more about emissions and pollution than most countries. As I said, in comparison to Canada, it put in place controls that increased its emissions by only 13% while Canada's increased double that. For you to claim that it has done nothing is sheer nonsense.

Equally, your assumption that a 'rich China' will not move into democracy is irrelevant to this argument. I, myself, think that a capitalist China, and it is certainly that, will most certainly move into democracy. But, again, that's not relevant to this discussion.

Your argument with regard to the neighbour's wife not doing any baking is specious, because of your claim that IF only one does the 'emissions' rather than two - that lowers emissions. Fine; that's hardly an argument. But, why not leave the emissions/baking/industrialization to the industrial countries? Why force them to stop production so that the current non-industrial countries can do the 'emitting'? Are you, as Global Boss, only allowing some countries to be industrial?

Are all who disagree with Kyoto also 'liberal hating, gun toting and Republican? Would you provide some proof? Or is it just juvenile name-calling? Again, the ad hominem isn't relevant.

Again, there is no accountability within Kyoto. The money need not be spent on 'environmentally safe' plants. And, the fact that the developed nations didn't build 'environmentally safe' plants isn't relevant. Are you seriously saying that BECAUSE they didn't build 'environmentally safe' plants they should NOT be punished by sending vast sums of money out of the country????

First- we didn't know the effects of industrialism, just as we often didn't know the effects of man's other interactions with the environment (agriculturalism had and still has disastrous effects in many parts of the globe). Second - the suggestion is senseless. Why not spend that money within the country to change the current factory to make it 'environmentally safe'????

Now- could you provide some proof that when someone supports the Republians, it is an act of blindness?

How is it that you don't know what the US is doing about pollution and emissions? I'd say that it is you who has the American fixation. A hostile fixation that prevents you from concluding that the US does anything right. That's your problem.

Thanks for your reply, doug newton. Now, if I understand you correctly, you are against global governance - and I fully and strongly agree with you. It would be extremely dangerous, simply because a complex system, which is what our planet is, cannot operate from a central authority but must be decentralized and enable local adaptations.

Then, with reference to the UN's Kyoto/global warming IPCC agenda, you say that some of us consider that the IPCC is linked to a global governance agenda - while you consider that the science of the IPCC is valid. I consider that the IPCC science is not valid and my concern is that it, and the cultists about climate change, reject dissent. That's a serious flaw.

As for whether Kyoto is linked to an agenda of global governance - I'm less convinced of that. I think it's linked to an agenda of governance by the UN. And the UN does indeed think of itself as a global government. But, I don't think Kyoto is about global government but about power. The UN's power base does not rest within the industrial developed nations but within the undeveloped nations. The agenda is to move power from the industrial to the non-industrial nations who would be controlled by the UN. That's slightly different from your outline, I think.

me no dhimmi

"Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust)
together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an
indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at
the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more
comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence
cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}"

Wouldn't it be ironic if our attempts to clean up acid rain and our air quality in general have contributed to global warming.

Many thanks ET for your refreshing and thoughtful input.

dd

Many thanks ET for your refreshing and thoughtful input.

dd

ET
Fair enough
I am not a scientist. I have tried to educate myself on the subject as best I can with the time and resources at my disposal as any informed voter should. I was recommending that everyone else do the same.

Doug...right you are. So get out there and start using those CFC's again.Damn.What about the ozone? Ummmmm. Seems to me that the more we insignificant humans try to screw with Mother Nature,the more she slaps us upside the head. Talk about arrogant twits we are!!

"You are also incorrect when you claim that the money from the developed countries must be spent on pollution/emission free factories. There is no system of accountability. There are NO environmental safeguards in Kyoto. NO sanctions for building five cheap, polluting factories instead of one non-polluting one."

The Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in and Kyoto actually encourages China to build really cheap coal fired electrical plants - they will commission one a week for the next ten years . . 532 of them !! so they can then sell the "credits" that can be used to clean them up.

So they flog each plant multiple times to multiple UN licensed CO2 credit sellers, get billions of foreign currency cash, and still emit CO2.

they are just richer for it.

Kyoto . . . just another way to spell "UN Boondoggle"

Remember. All you people are just children in whom the LPC whom they must save against their own will. Besides all money belongs to them . So too any power or change. We are not worthy of our Masters. They are the peek of human evolution. Much more above us. At least in their own minds.

Our wages have now become a source of loot for Social engineers & where left with an allowance from our own labors. Wages sundered, means destroying more families to implement their communist policy of no child at all. While they who do nothing but meddle in our lives, than reap all the gravy. While with malicious glee make honesty a byword for mockery. Hard work an insult to their delicate sensibilities.

Its disgusting. Now the ultimate in what I am calling an environmental dictatorship. Married to a Nature worshipping Religion of a Mother Goddess, in harmony with the varied acolytes in Ottawa. To con us all for more power, money, social change, all ending in third world status.

Why should these crooks care. This is only a bank to them to further World socialism & anti-Americanism. Least anyone remembers what freedom really is.

This is a con game with transfer payments to mobsters for riches by an elite. See Oil for food scandal for references of this technique. While undermining our defensive capacity, social stability, & hope for any better future but red dawn thinning into a gray gloom for generations. While the killing machine of liberty the LPC cleans up in the instability.

We are dealing here with major crime. With a political cover. Socialism always ends up in the killing fields or the poor house. Usually both.

Scientists & other go along because of funding, agenda’s & some just out right traitors to their Nations or western ideals. Democracy they loath as much as they have contempt for individual liberty. This nice Global solution to forced economies will speed up their march to as an absolute State dictatorship by Philosopher kings as they believe themselves to be.. Look where the money goes & you have your answers.

Global warming is a natural climate change being used as a con job on people to further Regressive laws on individuals while elites gain immunity to any law by virtue of status not morality or effort. Least of all not polluting. They seek to help our enemies With consolation while decimating our political, economic & social fabric.

Our pollution problems are worse than the government is letting on. It's even causing the polar ice caps on Mars to melt and is raising the surface Temps on Venus!

"...It's even causing the polar ice caps on Mars to melt..."

RA...the melting of the Mars ice caps is CLEARLY due to the high levels of CO2 that those two suitcase-sized Mars Rovers are emitting...

Damn you, George Bush...it's ALL your fault...

If you have the time - this is an amusing video about our friends that are convinced - about 1/2 hour.

Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t! Environmental Hysteria

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213

I just got back yesterday from Hong Kong and the pollution there is staggering. A sunny day yet you couldn't see more than a couple of kilometers the haze was so thick. Lots of people wear masks and I can see why. Was there in 1992 and can not believe the change, at least 5 times the number of buildings, apartments and people. The new airport must be at least a kilometer long under one roof, could not see the end of it yet it functioned as smooth as Chinese silk. The infrastructure of roads, rails and subways reminded me how shabby and poorly conceived ours are in Toronto. The pollution is far worse in Shanghai and other cities I am told. But once China solves the pollution and they will, using our Kyoto money of course, they will be the power to reckon with. A real concern with their leaders is despite the one child policy their population is still growing by 8 million net a year.

Spent January in New Zealand, what a magical country. Zero pollution, air is clean and clear. They, like Canada, had clear cut almost their entire forest but according to the paper former farmers are receiving a carbon credit in dollars to allow their land to revert back to the former forest. The whole of the Queen Charlotte sound area that I visited is now reforested in only about 30 years according to the captain of the tour boat and is unbelievably beautiful and primordial. Birds that haven't been spotted in that area for 120 years have returned. New Zealand has a small population, well educated and environmentally concerned leading to a super life style.

Forget Kyoto the real concern in the world is the exploding third world population. Unless a way is found to reduce or stop it all the effort to improve our way of life will mean nothing as resources like water are overwhelmed.

Where will one recharge their electric cars. During the katrina evacuation with all those cars out of gas on the highways, I wondered, how many of them were hybrid, how many were electric, and how many had gas tanks that held enough gas to go 200 miles only. Should we buy shares in extension cord companies. I also wondered how far any of those electric and hybrid cars would get if travelling in Alberta, where it can be up to 60 miles between gas stations, or 40 miles from the farm to the nearest town. Will our greatgrand kids be facing a reverse kyoto, and demanding credits from China so canada can build factories and modernize. As for baking cookies and the neighbor not being allowed to cook, does that mean jerimia wants to starve his neighbors so he can eat at the trough.
I, like the majority of cdns will not change my lifestyle, in fact, I plan to start baking again. Something I haven't done in years since the kids grew up.
Went to a ladies 100th birthday party this p.m. What changes she has seen in her life. She was proud of the fact that when her family come to AB in 1915, they had a car. Interesting things happened in 1907. Someone printed out 5 pages of events from that year. Nothing on climate change in any of them.

I sit in awe at the power of this concerted 3 week media effort to propagandize leftist agendas about climate change.

It's frik'in everywhere and the BS is piling up so fast you need wings to stay above it.

One meda misdirect or repropagated factual arror after another....now the screed of the day is that we are guilty of climate change....when the most credible report available sys human activity is responsible for sub fractional amounts of climate changing responsibility....how did 0.029% grow into a hyterical screed of mankind bearing all responsibility for climate change???

I swear to God anyone who believes a corporate media statement has putty for brains.

Was the NYT publishing in 1932? Before the Dodgers won? Mrs. O'Leary's cow levelled Chicago in 1932; the culprits were Al Capony and Alfonso Gagliano.
The ice sheets melted on the clotheslines that year, too.
Walter Duranty reported there was no Stalinist man-made famine in Ukraine; Walt's informant was lberia; the mule was Jose. ...-

New York Times: Continuing end of last ice-age, not human activity, cause of warming trend
The New York Times Archives | May 15, 1932 | SPECIAL SECTON SUPPLEMENT

Posted on 02/03/2007 1:25:07 PM PST by nwrep

From a bygone era when reasoned scientific analysis held sway:
*************************************

NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE

WE still speak of "the Ice Age" as if it belonged to the remote geological past. Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several ice ages. What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers.

Very slowly, the great ice sheets in the Arctic and the Antarctic regions are melting and pouring their torrents into the ocean.

The earth must inevitably change its aspect and its climate.

How the change is slowly taking place and what the result will be has been considered by geologists, physicists, and meteorologists.

In the course of about 700,000 years, the glacial sheets that now cover the North and South poles have melted down to their present area of 6,000,000 square miles from 12,000,000 square miles in extent.

The earth is steadily getting warmer. As all the ice at the two poles melts, a stupendous volume of water will be released. Professor Edgeworth David of the University of Sydney conservatively estimates that the sea level will rise fifty feet.

Such floods are nothing new, as we see from the marine fossils found on the tops of the Rockies, Andes and other mountain ranges.

So within 30,000 to 40,000 years, there will be another deluge. Salt water will sweep over the continents, leaving only the higher lands dry. Holland will be inundated. Fish will swim in the Buckingham Palace. The desert of Sahara will be a great inland sea. Palms and alligators will flourish at the poles, as they did millions of years ago.

No one can tell what would happen if a new carboniferous era should follow the warming of the earth. Man is about as old as the present Ice Age. It is a question if he will survive it...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778730/posts

David Hand, you've got it exactly.
Hoards of people in third world countries, cheap labor, industry powered by pollutants, equals a recipe for disaster.
Kyoto is OK with that. The air will clear by magic if we send them carbon credit bucks to go on polluting.
The stupidity astounds. Kyoto is the worst farce ever concocted in memory.

Yes 790 41%

No 1112 58%

As of 7:20 Saturday night.

Justthinkin

Funny Jeremiah. Then how come their emmisions went DOWN 12%, while ours rose 36%? Oh right. I forgot. That evil Bush secretly siphoned all their emmisions north to us,twit.

Ummm, what part of "initiating a global response" do you not understand. As I recall there are several state level programs in the US, but given the global scale of the problem here, it might require more than that, and that is where US leadership is lacking. Moron.

ET,

Where is there evidence that money earmarked for protecting the environment is being used for polluting factories? Nor do I support Kyoto, but there is an underlying fundamental problem in that regard - the one that compares the cost incurred by developing nations as compared to developed nations.

I support a global program. Kyoto happens to be one.

Yes, I am saying that the surge for Chinese demands is fuelling Chinese growth. Not funds earmarked for the environment. I never said theres anything wrong with foreign investment, but I did say that money earmarked for the environment was NOT being used for building cheap factories. You re simply manipulating things I say.

The rest of your arguments are irrelevant. The US has great domestic policies but for a problem you yourself acknowledge as "global" (something about politicial boundaries), a global response is required.

Also, most developed countries have moved to services based economy, so I m not sure where you re going with that.

Also that was a tongue in cheek remark aimed at the indomitible ms Shaidle. It wasnt directed at you.

And yes I msaying that they took their toll on the environment without paying the cost, so they should help offset some of the new costs caused by a problem they created. Semantics on your part arent going to blur it. WHy not spend it to the factory to make it safe? Because the factory is now in a different country.

Anyway I shall be occupied for the rest of the evening, so have a good evening.

Jay:

"I find it implausible that:

a: any computer model exists that is able to crunch all established-as-relevant inputs when we do not know what all the relevant inputs are,
and
b: we have complete understanding of input relationships with each other
and"

EXACTLY.

Also, and this is the one that gets me, the models are using nonlinear equations--partial derivatives and integrals. Problem is, computers CAN NOT explicitly solve nonlinear equations--they can only make approximations. So each iteration of the model's timestep takes the error from the previous timestep and multiplies it through the model run. So the farther you go into the future, the more wrong the solution is.

Further, many of the atmospheric properties and processes cannot be explicitly solved within the model because of computational limits--yes, even on supercomputers today--so they're parameterized--that is, approximated.

And finally, even if we COULD explicitly solve these equations without parameterizations, in order to know the future state of the atmosphere ad infinitum, you have to know the current state of the atmosphere at every point above the earth's surface to an altitude of 75 to 100 km. And that's just impossible.

In other words, the models that are touted as "knowing" only give one potential solution. And any scientist worth his/her salt knows that this model solution is going to be wrong. Guaranteed.

To "Quaecumque vera":
I went there too. Were you a Wamickan?

I forget the author of the post..this thread is getting long...but there was mention that a few of the previous IPCC climate reports which were proven bogus ( the peer-disputed hockey stick graph) were gaia worshippers from Moe Strongs's creepy new age paganist global religion....This latest global media-political push to propagandize climate hysteria politics is taking on some truely frightening dimensions...with some real creeps coming out of the woodwork on the climate hysteric side.

Looks like a final battle for the public mind is shaping up...I suspect the global socialist elite are still pissed off at their temporary set backs in the cold war era and are going for broke now....there is truth to the fact that Kyoto and climate change legislating is ir at least could be a stepping stone into the new world order...a global bureaucracy that uses fraudulent science and mass hysteria to make us render up our sovereingty, freedom and wealth to the control of an international elite of creeps like Moe Strong...who will profiteer on our economic enslavement to a restrictive global regimine who controls our use of energy.

The very real implications are unnerving...I usually don't jump at every loud noise but the seeming success this global media phenomina is having in pushing the politics of climate hysteria is really becoming alarming

I realize that ignorance abounds in Canada and around the world these days, and that perhaps explains why so many people have swallowed this Kyoto and human caused global warming crap hook, line, and sinker. I think it reinforces the theory that socialism makes people stupid. Anyone who buys the Suzuki et al line on this without some personal investigation, really has given up the responsibility to think and reason for themselves.

A couple of thoughts:

Let's suppose for a moment that global warming IS occurring and it IS mostly our fault. If it gets warmer in the Northern hemisphere then theoretically we will consume less GHG emitting products to heat our homes, etc. (Now, on the flip side warmer weather in warmer climates would lead to more A/C usage). It would be interesting how this balances out.

Second, global warming deniers are in a nearly unwinnable situation. I figure there are six possible outcomes: we do nothing and it cools down; we do nothing and it warms up; we do nothing and it does not change; or we do 'something' and similarily it either cools, warms, or does not change. Only if we do nothing and it cools down do the non-believers win the debate (if you want to call it that, to many there is no debate anymore). Think about it, if we do nothing and it does not change or warms up there will be continued hysterics and sensationalism. If we do something, the believers win regardless of what happens. If is cools down they will take credit, if it stays the same or gets warmer, the hysterics and sensationalism will only increase since what we are doing obviously isn't enough.

By the way, this is sounding more and more like a religion/cult every day.

What seems to be missed in a lot of the newspaper and TV verbiage is that this document that has just been released is not actually the IPCC report, but rather the executive summary. The report itself will not be along for several months. The executive summary seems to be just material to be used by the MSM for a scare campaign. It seems to me that this is what happened with the previous IPCC report, and IIRC, a number of scientists involved in producing that report objected to the fact the the executive summary ignored some of their findings and distorted others because they didn't conform to what the politicians wanted. I expect that the same is true this time. The media people don't have the right background to enable them to understand the scientific findings in the main report, so they are being fed a simplistic version in advance with the intent of firing them up to induce panic in the populace.

Happygilmore said:"I figure there are six possible outcomes: we do nothing and it cools down; we do nothing and it warms up; we do nothing and it does not change; or we do 'something' and similarily it either cools, warms, or does not change. Only if we do nothing and it cools down do the non-believers win the debate (if you want to call it that, to many there is no debate anymore). Think about it, if we do nothing and it does not change or warms up there will be continued hysterics and sensationalism."

The "debate" is now controlled by the nedia who are in alignment with the sensationalism of climate doomsdays hysteria that the creepy global regulators are selling.

I understand your premise in the these varying scenarios but what happens when the truth is controled by fraudulent science and a controleed media? In most people's reality, the media IS the truth...whoever controls that controls the truth...they can make the truth wahever suit their needs...this is why I m unnerved seeing the sycopated media push this last 3 weeks for the politics of climate hysteria...if someone isn't pulling media levers, then this is the biggest coincidence in human history.

ET, there is more at play here than simply transfering wealth to 'developing' countries. The UN corruption is so vast and a group of Canadian liberals seem to consistently be in the middle of it all (Maurice Strong, Paul Desmarais). Think Oil-for-Food in Iraq or Kash-for-Kim in Korea.

These men are actually brilliant in the schemes they have cooked up (CIDA, Kyoto) and effectively marketed. Why do you think all the push for trade with China by Paul Martin? How many companies do you think have been created in China by these people to be the beneficiaries of the hot air cash? The US obviously realizes this, too as they also realize the pragmatic realities.

On a side note, Europe is for Kyoto for the simple fact that the adoption of Kyoto by the US and its subsequent implementation would cripple the North American economy since much of Europe is already below their so-called targets.

WL, you are absolutely right. I should have clarified by saying 'PR war' not the 'debate'.

I don't know what it will take to get the truth out, and that is what scares me.

Extreme Cold Weather Alert in force

TORONTO, Feb. 3 /CNW/ - Toronto Hostel Services has issued an Extreme
Cold Weather Alert, effective immediately, to help get homeless people in from
the cold. This is in effect until further notice.
An Extreme Cold Weather Alert is a public service announcement issued
when extremely cold weather is forecast. This type of severe cold weather is
hazardous to homeless people who are sleeping outside....-

A Necessary Apocalypse (man made global warming)
American Thinker ^ | February 02, 2007 | J.R. Dunn

A man who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing; he believes in anything.
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
The apocalyptic vision of global warming serves a deep need of the environmentalist credo, the dominant pseudo-religious tendency of our age in the prosperous West.

For good or ill, human beings are constructed to believe, and faith has its demands....

The global warming program has been in play for a quarter of a century. It has been quite successful, convincing a small majority of the population that such warming is in fact occurring and is caused by manmade emissions. It is not a fad of the decade like overpopulation or nuclear winter. Nothing, not scientific evidence, not common sense, not the fact that much of the United States is basking in subfreezing temperatures as I write this, will be allowed to overturn it. The environmentalist movement has staked everything on this program. ...

The banning of DDT in 1971 resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people in the developing world, most of them children, from insect-borne diseases such as malaria. (This despite the fact that the use of DDT to fumigate homes could have no serious effect on the environment.) Yet no environmental group has ever made note of the fact, and all oppose the reintroduction of DDT for any purpose. The DDT ban places Rachel Carson in an exclusive circle shared only by Karl Marx as a writer whose work alone caused vast amounts of human misery. ...
For a third example of bloodymindedness we need only mention the environmentalist and animal rights "direct-action" groups that have utilized terrorism, sabotage, arson, assault, everything short of murder in their campaigns against offending companies and even innocent third parties.

Increasingly strident rhetoric of the kind being heard from public figures such as Heidi Cullen and even Prince Charles may well result in a vicious circle in which public frustration leads to violent action leading to more frustration and on to the inevitable climax. Up to this point, environmentalist violence has been held in check by force of law - and only by force of law. How long this will remain the case depends on how much power the Greens are allowed to accrue.

True believers, a millennial creed, and easy targets - these have always and forever made for an unholy mix. Nothing about environmentalism suggests that it won't follow the same ugly path. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778182/posts

Happy Gilmore - remember, that the only reason Europe is below their Kyoto targets is because Europe insisted on being defined 'en masse' and the industrial nations of Germany and France benefited from the closure of the old, communist era coal fired plants in Eastern Europe.

I agree that Kyoto is a corrupt scheme, and that Canada's Maurice Strong and his buddies are deeply involved.

And it is indeed a cult, a theistic dogma. Dissent is not allowed - which means that it has moved outside of science.

Jeremiah - where is the evidence that the money 'earmarked for the env't' is being used for the env't? Prove it. Prove that the money for the env't is NOT being used to build cheap factories. How about doing some reading on the actual massive pervasive pollution and emissions in China? Even the Globe and Mail of today has a seciton on it. And China has no intention of stopping this.

Do you realize that you are not making any sense? Money is money. It doesn't have a 'mark' on it. There's no firewall around it. It's just money.

So, if China receives one billion in Kyoto transfers - and spends one billion building cheap factories - are you actually going to claim that the Kyoto money was NOT used for those cheap factories because....well - why? Prove that the Chinese kept the Kyoto money safe in the bank and used 'different money' to build those factories.

And what's wrong with Chinese economic growth? So what if it produces cheap goods; we require them. Not everyone can afford a Rolex.

So- if a global response is required, then, China and India and all the other developing nations ought to be involved. Right?

The US IS involved. Don't be naive and bigoted. Because the US doesn't support the money scam that is Kyoto, and remember, you don't approve of Kyoto, doesn't mean that the US isn't involved. As I've pointed out before, and which you are determined to ignore, the US has signed the Asia-Pacific treaty which DOES include China, and has also done far more to reduce emissions than many other countries - including Canada. Your antagonism to the US prevents you from dealing in facts. You prefer your fictional hatred. That's quite a problem.

Kindly explain how US leadership is lacking, when the US has accomplished far more than other countries in both dealing with pollution and reducing their emissions.

And no- don't cop out with the 'I'm too busy to answer any questions'.

Jeremiah - you said: " there is an underlying fundamental problem in that regard - the one that compares the cost incurred by developing nations as compared to developed nations."

What's this supposed to mean? The costs of building an 'environmentally friendly new factory'? What are you talking about?

You haven't dealt with my arguments about climate change, about cyclical vs linear climate change, and about multiple rather than single causes. I don't think that they are irrelevant to the discussion of climate change.

Jeremiah - you wrote: "And yes I msaying that they took their toll on the environment without paying the cost, so they should help offset some of the new costs caused by a problem they created. Semantics on your part arent going to blur it. WHy not spend it to the factory to make it safe? Because the factory is now in a different country."

Let me understand this. Are you seriously saying that BECAUSE the developed nations..developed industrialism..with its attendant pollution and emissions, THEN, they must be punished? And the punishment must be that they must send billions of dollars to 'developing countries'? Why? That's unsound - both industrially, logically and econmically. And it's environmentally unsound. Do you actually make political decisions based on malice? How about solving the problem?

As I said - agriculturalism also created and creates enormous environmental problems. Every people are agricultural. Do you plan to punish them? Do you know the effects of agriculture on the env't? It can be very bad - ever heard of salinization, dust bowls, droughts?

New medicines create biological problems too. Do you plan to punish the innovators? Or solve the problem?

The only viable tactic to deal with unforeseen situations is to - solve them. Not punish them. Solve them. Therefore, the monies should remain in the industrial nations - so that they can develop the technologies to build 'environmentally safe' industries.

Instead - your insane plan, and it is insane, is to both reduce the industrial production of the industrial nations, thereby moving them into a depression or near destruction of their economies. Then, you want them to pay fines (ahh, the malice) to the so-called developing nations. of course, with the loss of production in the industrial nations, there won't be any money to send to China and India and..

Oh - and again, there are NO sanctions, NO requirements for China, India etc - to build environmentally safe plants. None. None. And why should they? These countries are interested in rapid, cheap and massive industrialization. Not expensive 'environmentally friendly' industrialization. China and India don't give a damn about pollution. They are interested in only one thing - industrialize as fast and massively as possible.

Also - it's utterly untrue that the developed nations have moved to a 'service economy'. If that were true, they wouldn't have to be concerned with any industrial emissions and pollution, would they?

Do you know what's the biggest CO2 emitter in Canada? It's the Ontario Power, the coal fired plants at Nanticoke. Are you suggesting they be shut down? Or should we Ontarians pay billions to China because we heat our homes?

Now - are you going to again, cop out of answering these questions? So far, you haven't dealt with any of my questions.

The Hegelian dialectic:

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

You're seeing it front and center stage with the trojan horse, otherwise known as Kyoto.

Wasn't Jeremiah a bullfrog?

If humanity engaged in a nuclear war, those few that survived would face a changed world. A "nuclear winter". This would be temporary. Perhaps a few hundred year. Regardless, humanities actions would have fundamentally altered the climate on earth. For a time.

In Canada, fisherman on the east coast have had a miserable few years after fish stocks were virtually depleted. Again, human activity fundamentally changing the environment in which we live.

I fail to understand those who suggest that humans are somehow incapable of fundamentally changing the environment in which we live. We can. We have. If you want to say, 'ok, but we're not responsible for this' then that's one thing. But to say it's impossible we're responsible is...well, wrong. Just like it's wrong to say that the globe is not getting warmer. It is. It has been for the last little while, and will continue to do so for the next little while as well. You can say, so what, it doesn't mean much. But you really can't say "it's not getting warmer". That's just wrong.

That's why there's nothing wrong with that epoll question. The globe is getting warmer. True premise. And as to when you became convinced it was by human activity, well, you can say "I'm still not convinced." That's why ET's example, writing "when did you stop beating your wife" is wrong. That question relies upon the premise that you beat your wife, which might not be true.

Good heavens, oomithr...etc. What a strange comment.
I said that the 'beaten wife' example is invalid. And it is. Because, as I also said, it relies on the premise that you do indeed beat your wife.

The poll question is also invalid. Because it relies on the premise that global warming exists; and that it is caused by human activity. That's invalid.

First - global warming has to be understood as a natural process within climate change - and our global climate is cyclical not linear. The question doesn't include either the attribute of 'natural' and 'cyclical'. Those are important attributes to this event. If you exclude them, you are distorting reality.

Second, it implies that the global warming is caused by humans and that's not proven. What about the other causes - Remember the planet has warmed and cooled many times - and has done so before the appearance of humans and most certainly, before industrialism. Therefore, to conclude that 'global warming is due to humans' sets up a fallacious premise- ie, for it ignores the many times our planet has warmed, within the absence of both humans and industrialism.

oomithrandir00,

Can you accept that, no matter what you think (or thousands think), that an orange is still an orange ... not a banana?

oomithrandir00 , dude,

Look, most that post to this site are conservatives, CONSERVATION being the key word. To that extent, most agree, in a progressive sense, that less is more.

Less pollution for example.

The difference is that the truth has once again become a kidnapped victim to extort change. What's wrong with the Kyoto argument, for example, is the rhetoric and consensus. Why is it not ok to challenge the man made global warming scheme with sun cycles, water condensation (ghg), or historically proven cyclical periods? Well, fascist rhetoric. For example: "Climate change denier!" has been invented to shut down thought, dialogue and more importantly, a quest for real answers.

In my mind, a lot of good can come from humankind assuming its God given role as global steward, or 'keeper of the park.' As long as that's what it truly means. Rather than some socialist make over and money transfer scheme, under false pretense.

Why do people even care so much about these silly online polls? Everyone knows they're unscientific, and their results are never reported as anything but (if they're reported at all). They're there purely for entertainment value. You might as well complain that the daily horoscope isn't accurate enough.

Actually, I use my gas guzzling V-8 truck to tool around town. I have two other FAR MORE EFFICIENT cars parked in the garage (one small 6 and another small 4). When I found that I was taxed a penny for plastic carton of mild I consume I changed my recycling behavior and just threw them away.

Defending Kyoto is like defending those newspaper recycling programs where consumers sort their papers into separate bins for pickup by the truck that dumps them, with their garbage, into the same landfill.

Or the entrepreneurs in Eastern Europe who manufacture plastic jugs for deposit refund - because the government subsidized deposit refund is higher than the cost to make new ones.

Ural, thanks for posting the link to:
Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t! Environmental Hysteria
Excellently done and I especially liked the petition they circulated at an "environmentalist" rally asking for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned. That not a single individual clued in to what the petition was about speaks volumes about the level of scientific knowledge among "environmentalists".

There is a very good article in the April 2007 issue of Analog (which is the latest) entitle "The Ice Age that Wasn't" by Richard Lovett. He describes a number of climactic cycles that occur at intervals of 41,000, 26,000 and 100,000 years and right now we're headed for the cold phase of all of the cycles. Early human agriculture may have changed the earths environment enough to stave off another ice age. This would imply a much greater effect of humans on climate than previously thought, but I find the prospect of another ice age to be a lot more worrisome than a slightly warmer earth.

Perhaps the stubborn reluctance of the earth to warm up as much as the global warming hysterics predict may be the result of a gradual cooling trend. Rational debate on this topic now appears to be impossible that the environmental agenda has been hijacked by statists who are using the spectre of global catastrophe to realize their dreams of global domination. The best solution to the earths problems would be the release of a virus with a 90+% mortality rate that targetted only politicians. This would finally allow for a balanced debate on this topic.

Kate,

Who's more dumb, us, them, or God?

ET wrote:

[i]I said that the 'beaten wife' example is invalid. And it is. Because, as I also said, it relies on the premise that you do indeed beat your wife.[/i]

Agreed.

[i]The poll question is also invalid. Because it relies on the premise that global warming exists; and that it is caused by human activity. That's invalid.[/i]

Disagree. The poll question does rely on the premise that global warming exists, but does not rely on the premise that it is caused by humans. Thus, you may choose "I am not convinced", in other words, I don't believe global warming is caused by human activity.

[i]First - global warming has to be understood as a natural process within climate change - and our global climate is cyclical not linear.[/i]

That's fine. Which of course implies that you agree global warming is occurring.

[i]The question doesn't include either the attribute of 'natural' and 'cyclical'. Those are important attributes to this event. If you exclude them, you are distorting reality.[/i]

So answer, I am not convinced that it is caused by human activity. Or I am still not convinced.

[i]Second, it implies that the global warming is caused by humans and that's not proven.[/i]

What about the last option? Where you get to say I am still not convinced.

[i]Remember the planet has warmed and cooled many times - and has done so before the appearance of humans and most certainly, before industrialism. Therefore, to conclude that 'global warming is due to humans' sets up a fallacious premise- ie, for it ignores the many times our planet has warmed, within the absence of both humans and industrialism.[/i]

Fine. Again, why isn't answering "I am not convinced" sufficient to repudiate the question, when did you become convinced that human activity... blah blah blah?

Then Irwin Daisy wrote:

[i]The difference is that the truth has once again become a kidnapped victim to extort change. What's wrong with the Kyoto argument, for example, is the rhetoric and consensus. Why is it not ok to challenge the man made global warming scheme with sun cycles, water condensation (ghg), or historically proven cyclical periods? Well, fascist rhetoric. For example: "Climate change denier!" has been invented to shut down thought, dialogue and more importantly, a quest for real answers.[/i]

Perhaps. But I haven't made that argument. I say, go ahead and question whether the climate change we're seeing (aka. global warming) is man made. Say it's temporary. Say it's cyclical. All fine. A climate change denier is one who says "climate isn't changing, it's not getting warmer."

So, to my original post, there's nothing wrong with the poll question. It has only one premise, that global warming exists. It allows you to say "I am still not convinced" it's caused by human activity. So what's the problem?

Yes. But what I meant to say was:

The differnce is that the truth has once again been kidnapped to extort change.

Mithandiroo00: Why do you agree that the "beaten wife" poll is invalid? One of the responses could have been: "I don't beat my wife". In your logic, this would make that poll question valid.

But the point is, the poll is not asking an open and neutral question...it is asking a question that assumes an answer and, although it may allow you to disagree, to disagree you have to select the response that invalidates the entire poll question. Whether you believe so or not, THAT IS MANIPULATIVE.

And for clarity...and for the umpteenth dozen time we've had to state this for leftists with reading comprehension problems...I think that its fair to say that the VAST MAJORITY of SDA contributers agree that the climate IS changing. Got it?! The climate IS CHANGING...we agree. We DISAGREE as to the CAUSE of the climate change...NOT that man's activities have NO effect, but that man's activities ARE NOT THE SOLE CAUSE and NOT A MAJOR FACTOR.

Man's activities may be affecting the climate, but the impact is small compared to other natural occurences.

This is generally the view that most contributers hold (if I may speak on their behalf). So, we...like PMSH...are NOT climate change deniers...we are ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING deniers. And we are CRIPPLE THE NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMY BY SENDING GUILT PAYMENTS TO CHINA AND INDIA deniers.

Then of course there are some in the northern countries, that HOPE the climate is changing... no no, those of us in the north that hope for global warming. not change... WARMING.
I think it'll be nice. pleasant even.

mithand - no, the question remains invalid. Eeyore's excellent post says it clearly. The question has hidden assumptions and connections. Just like the 'beat your wife' example.

The reason is, as Eeyore as pointed out, that the disagreement to the question requires you to invalidate the whole question. The question is not asking you whether or not you think the climate is warming. It is asking you WHEN you became CONVINCED that it is. The key words are 'when' and 'convinced'. Not whether/not you think the globe is warming.

A valid question on this requires clarification. Another hidden assumption is that the cause of this warming is human activity. A valid question on the theme would have to clear up this ambiguity.

The question ought to be multiple and branched.

1) Do you think the climate is warming?
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

2) If '4, 5' to the above, do you think this is cyclical or one-way; that is, has it happened before or is this a one-way process?
cyclical
one-way

3)What do you think are the causes? Please rank order
. solar irradiance
. anthropogenic greenhouse gases
. natural emergence from the Little Ice Age
. urban heat centres
. other - please state

The above format would remove the two unstated assumptions in the poll - that global warming is caused by man's actions.

Climate change denier does not, in common parlance, mean a proponent of cyclical and natural climate change. It has one, perjorative meaning - someone who rejects the claim that man's actions are the primary and basic cause.

The climate is always changing.

And the climate operates on cycles that are thousands of years in scope.

Some people have concluded that human activity is -THE- cause of climate change.

Is there clear and concise scientific evidence to back this conclusion? No.

Look up the articles that talk about how Mars is warming up.

Is human activity causing that warming? No.

Look up the articles that talk about the Sun putting out more solar radiation, perhaps for decades. Might that be a factor?

It's 5800 degrees at the 'surface' of the Sun. How much of a change would be required to have an 1 degree increase on Earth?

Here's the rub, admitting that the Sun is the number one factor tends to cut the "OH MY GOD, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING NOW!" people off at the knees.

And they do not like that.

http://www.tdhstrategies.com/2007/02/this-is-why-mark-holland-is-right.html

ET, I've always respected your opinions. What do you think about the link I provided?

I'll say it again.

Humans are a result of global warming not the cause.

without a thaw in the iceage the collective we would be stuck in Africa. maybe around a million of us. dismal times of storms and a pretty rough go. No ivory towers for the likes of Dr. David or Dr. Borat Dion to pontificate from.

multirec. I checked your link, as usual with these types of websites the numbers dont add up. 2900sqkm is not 8%. and 21%of Alberta is not underlaid by recoverable oil sands. dont I wish- then it would be byebye Saudi as numero uno.

2900 sq km.is .4% of Alberta.- these guys spout absolute lies as facts.

cal2 - actually, 2,900 sqkm is .004% of Alberta, not .4. The geographic area of Alberta is 661,190.

To my understanding, the actual area of the oild sand reserves is about 140,200 sqkm - which is about 21% of Alberta's terrain. This is according to the link of energy dot gov dot ca slash 89 asp. It makes it second to Saudi Arabia.

About$10 billion in invested in these - which carry a high technological risk, in opposition to Dion's claim that it's 'easy money'.

Now, if Dion's agenda is to grab the money from Alberta and use it for his socialist health care - whose costs he utterly ignores, and for Quebec's socialist lifestyle which they can't afford - he's got 'another think coming'.

ET,

Of course China is polluting. But theres no reason to believe that the China is using funds that are meant for environmental purposes to build pollutive factories. China doesnt need these funds, because consumers such as yourself are pumping funds into China regardless. Now I dont see any point in proving that they DO NOT use these funds for said purposes. Of course asking you for proof is warranted, since you are the one who made the claims. Your attempt to wriggle out of it is laughable at best, pathetic at worst. If funds are being used as you claim they are, the onus is on you to prove it.

"Money is money. It doesn't have a 'mark' on it. There's no firewall around it. It's just money."

Again, this isnt a high school debate, and you dont get points for making statements that seem to make sense but have no substance. Money can, and is, earmarked for specific things. Suitcases of cash arent being flown into China. The money is made available after a proposal has been put in on how it will be used, and the implementation usually has monitoring devices attached. Nobody's been handing over suitcases of used cash to anyone. Grow up.

As regards your comments on China, well firstly, its blatantly obvious that you ve never been to China. Only someone who has never been to China can believe that wealth will bring democracy. The atmosphere there is actually repressive. As for cheap Chinese goods, if you really want to know where the money to build those factories comes from, then go look in a mirror. Its your cash that pays for those pollutive factories, not Kyoto credits. A number of those factories predate Kyoto credits.

The debate on the cyclical vs linear models is entirely warranted, though I strongly feel that even if we accept a cyclical model, human made problems are fairly apparent.

"Are you seriously saying that BECAUSE the developed nations..developed industrialism..with its attendant pollution and emissions, THEN, they must be punished?"

Admittedly, I took the more cynical approach. The more appropriate approach would be to state that since this pollution affects everyone, it would be in the developed countries interests to help developing nations that lack the technology or financial resources. Of course, one of the reasons developing nations are so indignant is because they feel that the west is trying to put financial constraints on their industry by pointing to an environmental problem that developing nations themselves contributed little to. The funds go a long way in overriding these objections. These are but the most obvious reasons. Of course, I half suspect you can see the logic behind it, but you will probably resort to another debators flourish.

And yes I know agriculturalism can bad, but the impact of it is usually more immediate, forcing an immediate response from the local population, if nothing else. Quite unlike the larger environmental problem.

Also, I dont see why you are so convinced that implementing environmental safeguards will result in a decrease of industrial capacity. They dont all have to be done in one go, so theres no danger of a system shock, and industries can be less pollutive, albeit at the cost of a reduction in profits over a decade or so. I dont see why its such a zero sum game. Industrial houses can afford to put the safeguards in place. They just dont want to spend the money.

"These countries are interested in rapid, cheap and massive industrialization. Not expensive 'environmentally friendly' industrialization. China and India don't give a damn about pollution."

ET, honestly, when was the last time you left the country? Firstly, let me put it on record that I believe both nations have to be part of any meaningful global agreement.

Secondly, both countries suffer from such chronic pollution that one need only look at their capital cities to see that action is being taken. Beijing is cleaning up its air in anticipation of the Olympics. Of course, China, which apparently is on its way to becoming a democracy, is shrouded in mystery making it hard to guage what the administration is doing about the problem at large. India provides a lot more transparency. For instance, public transport in major cities like Delhi have gone green to the extent that they use compressed natural gas instead of petroleum, producing a lot less pollution. The Indian Prime Minister has gone on record as saying the biggest threat India faces is not China or Pakistan, but the environment. India also has an active civil society that has shown its ability to intervene in the creation of cheap pollutive factories - to the extent that it has got the supreme court involved. Nobdoy in either of those countries is living in a fools paradise. You cant afford to, when the temperature tops 50 degrees celsius.

"If that were true, they wouldn't have to be concerned with any industrial emissions and pollution, would they?'

A debators point deserves a debators retort. America and Europe are no longer an agriculture based economies, but the few farmers are around have so far succeeded in undermining any trade talks that would compromise the government subsidies they recieve. Theres only a few of them, but they have disproportional power over decision makers. Is it so hard to believe that the same might be true of Industry - that the projected cost of environmentalism might be exxagerated by industrialists?

As for coal power plants, they have a shelf life. Let them run out their shelf life and build less pollutive methods of energy. Its not rocket science. There are other cleaner ways of producing electrcity.

multirec - the statistics used in your link are irrelevant. They are 'scare stats'.

To say that 'the amount of the boreal forest to be cleared IF ALL the oil sands are extracted'..is
To say that 'the length of the roads built IF ALL the oil sands...is.."11 times the circumference of the earth'

And so on. These are scare stats. First, they are potential rather than actual stats; right away, that moves them out of reality.
Note - the measurements are IF ALL the oil sands are extracted. But they aren't - and it would be a 100 and more years to do so.

Comparing the length of the roads to the earth's circumference is irrelevant. I bet you could say that the thread count of all the sheets used in the Four Seasons Hotel is equal to the circumference of the earth. So what?

The article is fear-mongering, with its adjectives of 'reckless abandon'm 'frenetic pace of extraction'.

It's use of 'buzz words' like 'environmental footprint' are guilt-inducing tactics. There isn't an activity by anything on this planet, including ants, bees and trees, that doesn't have an effect. To call it an 'environmental footprint' belongs to the latte crowd.

The implication that the Royalty scheme is 'flawed' is up to and only to, the shareholders to decide, not this TDH opinion-writer. Furthermore, the writer is deliberately using it to set up his argument that the oil sands extraction is 'unjust'.

So- it's pure propaganda. Not facts.

jeremiah - again, I disagree.

First, to get the personal issues out of the way - which don't belong in an argument, by the way, since my research is in artificial intelligence, cognitive processes and societal structures, then, I've travelled a lot. OK?
And my first degree, by the way, was in Chinese.

Now- with regard to Kyoto and the handing over of billions of dollars, there are NO safeguards in place to ensure that the money is spent on 'environmentally friendly' factories. No safeguards. None. Got that?

It's extremely expensive to build such plants and the pace of China's industrialization far outstrips that desire for 'friendly plants'. Check out what is being built, now, in China - and you'll see that what is being built, are heavy polluters.

So- if China doesn't need Kyoto money and can build those new plants and industrial requirements just on the basis of exports alone - then, why are we sending the money to them? Why are they defined as 'undeveloped'?

I realize that you are removing yourself as a consumer of Chinese goods. How do you manage to do that?

I also disagree with your assumption that the only reason industry doesn't put in the safeguards is just 'money'. The safeguards are economically unfeasible. In order to maintain an industry, you have to make enough to produce those goods - and not go into a deficit. Not just a slight reduction in profits. Those safeguards are not economically feasible.

No, agricultural results are NOT immediate but are generational and multigenerational. Read any basic book on ecology and human geography.

Right, Beijing is cleaning up its air - which is notoriously bad, for the Olympics. For the Olympics, not because of any environmental concern. And it isn't doing it anywhere else.

The explanation that the 'developing nations' are 'indignant' because they feel they should not be obliged to set up expensive environmentaly friendly plants - when the 'blame is all on the West' is pure specious nonsense. It's a political tactic, called 'Guilt Tripping' simply to extract money.

That's like saying that we should get China to pay for all our costs of bird flu disease because their poulty practices have contributed heavily to the rise of that disease.
Or that the costs of SARS, also originating in China, should be paid by China.
How about Ebola from the Congo?
How about the cell phone? Should the US inventors pay for the assumed hearing loss of heavy users all over the world?
Oh- the computer and 'carpel tunnel'. Should Turing and the UK and the US pay for all of this?
Ridiculous.

Now wait - America and Europe are no longer agricultural based economies? No kidding? So - where does your food come from? I presume you live in Canada - how are the vegetables, the corn, the oranges, lemons, and so on in the dead of winter? Since, according to you, American and Europe aren't agricultural - then, who produces their food? Africa? China? India?
Again, ridiculous.

Again - you are kidding..just let the CHinese coal plants 'run out'...Have you seen the results of their pollution???

ET - Your own questions on the poll are much better than the one that was actually posed. It's often the case that we can find better ways of doing things, which doesn't necessarily mean that the way we originally do things was "wrong".

In this case the danger posed by the current phrasing is as you say, that it is a leading question. The fact that it is a leading question, doesn't necessarily invalidate it, it allows you to call into question the generalizability of the finding.

I supposed the argument would have to go along the lines of "people feel pressure to believe that global warming is caused by humans", though how they could feel that pressure in an anonymous online poll is beyond me. But still. There is a point to be made. It pales into comparison, however, to the overall problems with online polls themselves. I think the standard by which you are judging this question is unreasonably high.

Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful responses.

Best,

Drudge has a link to a Nat Post article, Against the Grain, by a scientist debunking global warming. He states there is no proof humans cause it, or that it is happening. Everything is based on ASSUMPTIONS that might happen.
I am waiting for the next climate change in Alberta, it is called Spring and has happened for zillions of years. Then will come summer, fall, and again that global warming phase called winter.

All this blather about global warming, and precious little attention is being paid to our collapsing magnetic field, which some theorize could lead to a complete loss of our entire atmosphere, stripped away clean by the solar wind.

The solution, of course, is to buy magnetic credits from China, a deal to be brokered by Chairman Mao Strong.

Thanks Cal2 and ET for reading the links, I read them as well and came to the same conclusion, fear mongering

O/T. Kinda. The volcano cam is showing Mt. St. Helens emitting a fairly massive blue plume this evening. It looks lovely. Like a big tailpipe. /s

ET,

You are good at twisting words, but there doesnt seem to be much evidence to back you up. I will admit that you are a master of expression, but closer scrutiny of your claims reveals many a flaw.

With regard to money going to China, I simply dont buy the argument that they re being given briefcases of money, and free rein to do whatever they want with it. It is simply inconcievable given the experience countries have had with providing aid of any sort.

It is indeed expensive to build such plants, but that is precisely what the money is being transferred for. And it is being used in that context. Its true that the Chinese need to industrialize faster is overriding economic concerns and that is why they need to, as I said before, be included in any agreement for the agreement to be worth the paper it is written on.

All your literary prowess cannot hide your apparent ignorance. No one in the world has called China underdeveloped. Its a developing nation. Somalia is an underdeveloped nation. Even within developing nations, China and Pakistan are at opposite ends of the spectrum. And even that nomenclature has been the subject of some controversy. Pascal Lamy, the EU Trade Commissioner, offers some interesting thoughts on where China stands:

"Lamy said China's economy is growing very rapidly. The country shows two faces to the world, and the view that China has become a developed country is false.

On one hand, China is highly dependent on the international trade to drive the domestic economy, which is a typical feature of a developing country. But on the other hand, China now is also a big economic powerhouse to the world, which makes many people, most of which are Westerners, believe that China has became a developed country."

Read that quote carefully. International trade drives the domestic economy. Foreign Direct investment is behind the country's economic prowess. Money is flowing in. Also, China is beginning to make the transition from developing to developed - hence the whole superpower talk.

I maintain that in the long run, any implementation of safeguards will amount to little more than a dent on industries. The short term ramifications may be a little more, but it doesnt have to be implemented in one go - it can be spread out over a certain time period to spread out the costs. We live in an era in which flying is taken for granted, and you expect me to believe that all the brains in R&D cant come up with a feasible way to implement safeguards? Why is it such a zero sum game?

Beijing is cleaning up ostensibly for the olympics, but other cities are cleaning up as well. The reason is lung infections, asthema etc and their impact on the healthcare system, efficiency etc. They arent cleaning up only for the Olympics, they re cleaning up for their people too.

Of course its guilt tripping. It is a political tactic. I never denied that. At the same time this is a global problem and everyones in the same boat. You can continue to hold on to your precious dollars, but if absolute pragmatism were to prevail, you might as well pay them off and clean up the environment, than pay the cost for a bad environment at a later time. Environmental impact spreads globally and sooner or later theres going to be a monetary price on controlling the damage. Why not preempt it? With strict safegaurds and implementation mechanisms if you re so inclined.

And here we go again. Another debators point for you. Well done. You would really flourish under the Cambridge system. The Oxford system would tear you to shreds.

The analogy between bird flu/sars et al do not stand because action was taken promptly to rectify the situation. The same cannot be said about pollution. I can give you many reasons why Canada cannot hold CHina responsible for the spread of SARS. Canada could have banned travel temporarily between the two nations, but the cost of that was deemed to be higher than the cost of a couple of cases of SARS sneaking through. It was a choice on Canada's part.

"Now wait - America and Europe are no longer agricultural based economies? No kidding? So - where does your food come from? I presume you live in Canada - how are the vegetables, the corn, the oranges, lemons, and so on in the dead of winter? Since, according to you, American and Europe aren't agricultural - then, who produces their food? Africa? China? India?
Again, ridiculous. "

How old are you? Ten? Twelve? Do you know anything about the world. Apart from, you know, travelling a lot (to the US presumably).

Do you know what an agriculture based economy is?
Here let me spell it out for you:

Composition of GDP by Sector/ Labor

United States
Agriculture: 0.9%/ 0.7%
Industry: 20.4%/ 22.9%
Services: 78.6%/ 76.4%

Canada
Agriculture: 2.3%/ 2%
Industry: 29.2%/ 22%
Services: 68.5%/ 76%

India
Agriculture: 19.9%/ 60%
Industry: 19.3%/ 12%
Services: 60.6%/ 28%

Bangladesh
Agriculture: 19.9%/ 63%
Industry: 20.6%/ 11%
Services: 59.5%/ 26%

Now I hope you understand what those statistics mean but I ll explain anyway. 63% of Bangladesh's labor force is involved in Agriculture - it accounts for 20% of that nations GDP.

COntrast that to the US or Canada, where 0.7% and 2% respectively, of the labor force are involved in a sector that generates 0.9 and 2.3% of the nations GDP.

Bangladesh is an agriculture based economy. The United States is a service based economy.

"Since, according to you, American and Europe aren't agricultural - then, who produces their food?'

And that, sir or madam as the case may be, is the single most idiotic thing I have ever heard on this board. How much food is actually grown in Canada and how much is imported? Countries like Inida produce enough to feed themselves, no small feat in a country with a billion people and not nearly as much agricultural land as the US. And yet the US is tangled up in subsidy issues that bring WTO talks to a halt. Less than 1% works in that particular sector, and they can put an end to trade talks at any time. The same stats apply to many western countries.

Sure the US produces enough to feed itself, but only through a system that is heavily subsidized. If it wasnt, then food would have, in fact, been coming from surplus producers like India and China. But that is global economics, and you clearly have no interest in anything that constitutes facts.

As for letting the coal plants run their shelf life.. I was talking about the ones in Ontario not in china, though I suspect the same can be applied to China too.

It reminds me of the joker whose statistics regarding the "global footprint" of Americans add up to a sum greater than all of the dry land on the planet.

Jerimia: When the liberals can't trace the millions stolen thru Adscam, by their own people, what makes you think anyone ,especially a liberal) could trace the billions going to Strong, probably as a broker, to purchase carbon credits.
The entire liberal caucus practise, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. (unless it is anti Bush or Harper.
Is it true that Dion is an atheist.
Citizen of France, and an atheist, wont sit well with the majority of cdns. No wonder he wears green to support the hezzies.

Brilliant posts from ET and Jeremiah and others. But in my view Jeremiah's condescending comments trying to belittle anyone, particularly ET, who dares question his responses weakens his points beyond redemption.

Anyone who has to use name-calling or pompous comments has already lost the debate and any information they are trying to convey becomes irrelevent.

Concerns are mounting that factories in China and carbon traders are exploiting a loophole in international climate change regulations that allows them to make billion-dollar profits from the greenhouse gas emissions trading markets.

– The Australian

-------------------

China now accounts for one third of global coal consumption, devouring 2.2 billion tons last year to generate 80 percent of its electricity and 75 percent of its home heating. China's heavy industry would be lightweight without coal.

Nearly half the coal plants built in China between 2001 and 2005 were small, old-fashioned models erected by local officials.

China is already enveloped in a toxic cloud that's visible from space. Virtually every day in December, Beijing looked like a film negative of itself—spectral and acidic. And coal emissions do not respect borders. Sulfur dioxide discharges from China are being blown across the Pacific, causing acid rain in South Korea, Canada and Europe. Experts say that sulfur dioxide emissions from coal combustion (25 billion tons in 2005, tops worldwide) kill about 400,000 Chinese prematurely annually.

- MSNBC

--------------------------

"With regard to money going to China, I simply dont buy the argument that they re being given briefcases of money, and free rein to do whatever they want with it. It is simply inconcievable given the experience countries have had with providing aid of any sort."

- Jeremiah's feelings.

As I warned earlier, don't bother debating anything with this moron, he has proven that he posesses no faculty for reason.

I agree Irwin.

"And here we go again. Another debators point for you. Well done. You would really flourish under the Cambridge system. The Oxford system would tear you to shreds."

Doesn't this statement reek of self importance.

jeremiah

Because something is inconceivable to YOU, does not mean that it does not and is not, happening. There are far more accurate criteria for judging reality than your opinions.

I'm not into semantic games; the issue is not whether China is 'underdeveloped', 'developing' or 'developed'. The issue is whether it deserves to be sent billions by the West, as 'sin money', which it can use to industrialize - as it sees fit. Not as the Environmental Pundits see fit. As China sees fit.

Did you know that 'international trade' drives ALL economies? Did you know that Canada's 'international trade' - which is 85% to the US, drives its economy? So, your image of China as dependent on international trade is irrelevant.

China is NOT cleaning up its pollution. Check out a few links on pollution and China. As I said, even the leftist Globe and Mail had an article this week on China's massive pollution problem. The pollution problem is serious in China and China is only slowly starting to deal with it - and it doesn't affect its construction of new plants.

Ahh- so now, your definition of guilt money to be paid by the West for having the brains and need to develop an industrial economy long before the rest of the world - your definition of guilt money is that the ACT had to be carried out long ago, ie, a century ago.
Remember, the harmful effects of X-chemical on the env't aren't seen immediately; it can take years. That's why it was 'long ago'. But don't let that bother your opinions.

If it was carried out NOW, as in SARS, then, and China didn't inform the West and hid the information about the emergence of the disease (which I'm sure you know that it did)..well, according to you, they are Not Guilty. The fault is all Canada's because it didn't ban travel from a country where the disease was being hidden. Hmm. So much for your logic and ethics.

I can read the CIA Factbook too, and I know all about the nature of economies - probably far better than you do. You said that America and Europe were no longer agricultural based economies. I disagreed and continue to disagree; we weren't talking about proportions but base - and agriculture remains an important and vital component of both areas.

You then moved into a false analogy, where you tried to set up a scenario claiming that agriculturalists had a disproportionate power over gov't - and that, 'likewise', industrialists might also, according to you, exaggerate the costs of environmentalism. Prove it. It's a false analogy which tries to denigrate industrialism by comparing it with a 'low income generating factor of the economy (agriculture), suggesting that this sector is biased...and claiming therefore, that the industrial sector is biased to the point of fallacious statistics.
Prove it. Again, it's a false analogy.

And a debate is a debate is a debate. Drop the Cambridge and Oxford junk - your claims are ungrounded and both formally and informally fallacious.

Well ET,

I dont think I have much left to add to this particular thread. We can go on with, what in my opinion, is a thoroughly interesting debate, but I see no shame in conceding that you've quite thoroughly gotten the better of me. We come at it from different angles, as is probably natural, and I suppose we have no choice but to agree to disagree. As valid as your points are, I shall adopt them only once I have sufficient reason to do so.

I should, as David Hand pointed out, apologize for the condescending language. They should have been directed at Irwin Daisy, but, due to my carelessness, began to appear in my comments aimed at you. In light of Daisy's comments, I think I owe you thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Cheers.

"They should have been directed at Irwin Daisy, but, due to my carelessness, began to appear in my comments aimed at you. In light of Daisy's comments, I think I owe you thanks for keeping the debate civil."

Check your calumny and insults in every thread, you condescending troll.

Irwin Daisy

"A person displaying a moonbat ability to reason like that is hardly worth debating with."

"Wasn't Jeremiah a bullfrog?"

"As I warned earlier, don't bother debating anything with this moron, he has proven that he posesses no faculty for reason."

You were saying...

I want to follow up on reference to the TDH Strategies website mentioned in the thread (http://www.tdhstrategies.com/2007/02/this-is-why-mark-holland-is-right.html).

It points to some freely available documents from “notres bons amis” at the Pembina institute, specifically to a document entitled “Death by A thousand cuts: impacts of in-situ oil sands on Alberta’s boreal forests”, available here: http://www.pembina.org/pubs/pub.php?id=1262.

The report does an in depth study of the Nexen/OPTI in-situ lease at Long Lake Alberta and it’s impacts on the boreal forest and extrapolates the numbers from that lease to all of the in-situ oil sands in Alberta. It looks at the footprint of the upgrader facility, the well pads used to in inject steam and recover bitumen together with the grid of access roads and pipelines. It estimates that about 900 hectares out of the total Nexen lease of 10,600 hectares (see page 23) will have to be cut down for the in-situ operations, arriving at a percentage of 8.3%. The methods seem reasonable enough but I believe are inflated:

1. The total footprint of the well pads seem to be overestimated at 457 hectares. Using the studies own figures of 48 pads by 4.4 hectares each (which I believe is grossly inflated to begin with) gives a footprint of 211 hectares. Now an area of 4.4 hectares represents a square with dimensions of 210 metres on each side or 2 football fields end-to-end. I can assure you that none of the pads on the Nexen lease have dimenions of anything like 210 metres.

2. The length of pipelines and access roads on the lease seems reasonable. However, one has to allow a cut width of 30 metres for the access roads and pipelines to make sense. This is at least double the actual width required for the access roads and still lower for the pipelines.

3. I question whether the upgrader and co-generation facilities will occupy the quoted 99 hectares. That represents a square kilometer – that’s a lot of real estate!!

The report extrapolates Long lake to all Alberta oil sands and it’s then that the numbers get really really funny. It states that the total of in-situ leases in 2005 is 3,568,000 hectares (35, 680 km2 or about 5% of Alberta’s land mass). Now a lease is just an agreement between the province and the producer as to the sub-surface petroleum rights. Producers are willing to pay for these rights if there is even a small likelihood that the resource can be developed. It certainly does not mean that the lease will actually ever be produced – only the commodity price and technological developments will determine that but if you’re not in (i.e. holding the lease rights) you can’t win. However Pembina proceeds to extend it’s 8.3% deforestation rate to the entire leased area and comes up with a timber cut of 2,960 km2 (0.45% of the Alberta land-mass).

Still not content with the extrapolated absurdity of it’s numbers, the study proceeds to look at the entire land area which contains oil sands of any sort. The extent of the Oil sands is absolutely enormous, covering 140,000 km2 (21% of Alberta land mass). However the vast majority of these reserves are not economically recoverable even allowing for future commodity price increases and technological developments. Undaunted, Pembina applies it’s magical 8.3% deforestation rate to arrive at a “clear-cut” of 11,000 km2. Talk about ecosystem carnage!!

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you have Google Earth installed take a look at the Nexen Long Lake site (near Anzac, SE of Fort McMurray) at latitude 56.376, longitude -110.947. See for yourself how sparse the pads and access roads are relative to the overall lease.

On final point - bear in mind that the expected life of the Nexen lease is 40 years. As wells complete their expected production life (10 years or so), the well pads and access roads and pipe-ways leading to them will be reclaimed and retuned to their original pristine boreal state. At the end of the useful life of the lease I would expect the upgrader would be disassembled and some of it moved to another lease.

Jeremiah,

As I said, go back and read your own posts.

And BTW, I meant every word.

Daisy,

I ve apologised to ET.

"And BTW, I meant every word."

And here I was under the impression that you had been saying things without meaning them to impress your ladyfriends.

I came across this humerour link by fellow blogger "Doggerel" regarding Kyotology

http://www.doggerelparty.ca/2007/02/alternate-services-book.html

Here is a quote from it

"All: Almighty Kyoto, we confess and bewail our exhaust manifold sins. We are heartily sorry and repent of all our SUVs. Look not on the size of our carbon footprint, but on our platitudes and vague pronouncements and grant that we may serve you in elected office when the fat guy leaves. Amen."