Read Sheila Copps in todays Sun: She states that the argument re kyoto is over. I say it is just beginning, as more people learn what it is all about. She said that Harper should have embrased the kyoto bill as their own, even if targets can't be met. I guess she thinks it is better to lie to cdns than do anything.
Ask her, how many laws etc did she endorse as a liberal in govt, in a majority, that she and all liberals knew were lies, but sounded like good policy to please the voters. I think her stmts show the voters once and for all that liberals lie, big time.

Global Warming has very little to do with the environment and everything to do with the government ...

In North America both the liberals and democrats believe that they can convince (read scare) enough people about Global Warming that they will be successful in the upcomming elections. It seems to me that the liberals have positioned themselves rather poorly; by being so hardline on Koyto the liberals have enabled the conservatives to take the stance "We will do everything in our power to reduce green house gasses as long as it won't destroy our economy" and the conservatives can simply state "In order to meet koyto, we have to reduce energy consumption on the level of shutting down ontario".

"The war on climate change"

The banner these brain dead leftoids have chosen to fight under shows just how low they are on an evolutionary scale.

As anybody knows, climate change is a constant.

- The Earth's climate was very warm during the Miocene (about 17 million years ago) and when forests extended up to the Arctic about 2 million years ago.

- There have benn 33 glacial advances from 1.5 million years ago to the present and the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago.

- The Arctic was warmer during the Holocene (about 5,000 years ago) by up to 5C than present.

- The Arctic was as warm starting in the 1920's (up until 1940) as it is today, and the Canadian Prairie climate was dominated in the Dust Bowl years by recurring droughts and strong windstorms.

- From 1940 through 1975, the Earth's mean temperature declined by about .25C before starting to climb by approximately 0.35C from 1977 to present.

As a call to include the truth in the Ontario school curriculum, this information was brought forward in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, under the Star's chosen title (to ridicule), "Life has its ups, downs."

It seems the truth does as well.

Anyhow, the writer was one, Madhav Khandekar. A scientist with 50 years experience in weather and climate. He is also one of the scientists being shamelessly attacked by the fruit fly pseudo-scientist.

But as with all the filthy left, they can't attack facts, as facts inconveniently stand against their agenda. Rather, they attack the person, his family, friends, career and life work.

Suzuki has the onset of ALzheimers, saw it in the neighbors, paranoid about everyone and everything. A man has to be crazy to think our activities on this planet can alter it. There a places we need to clean up, like stop flushing raw sewage into the ocean in Victoria Suzuki, but to think we are that powerful, god go wach a Mt. St. Helens show or Krakatoa or look at the power of the Boxing day earthquake you flake david. Nature has power, and you whacko Suzuki Gore types are to stupid to see nature uses it everytime you self hating liberals plan a global warming meeting, like in Washington yesterday/ GLobal Warmiing rally canceled because of huge ice storm. Go back to jerking off fruit flys you pathetic fool.

LIBERALS CREDE

"If the facts dissagree with your theory, believe the facts and invent a new theory."

Sheila Copps is "lowest common denominator" in human form.

I think we need to counter-balance this "war against climate change" under the banner:

The war against climate change hucksters and shysters.

It's at least specific. Especially against Suzuki, who has no more academic credibility on this topic than any commentor on SDA, and perhaps a lot less than some.

A stunning revelation Kate...even though it confirms suspicions I have had about the vindictiveness of science tyrant/evangelists like Dr. Fruit Fly, it's still startling to see how far their mendacity will take them.

I'm not as disgusted as I am saddened by this kind of political smear and immoral public manipulating becoming typical of Canadian leftwing activism.

Like it or not this is what the left believe to be "Canadian values"...political smears and character assassination of any dissenting opinion....and I'm sure the collective national morality will be judged accordingly in global opinion.

The biggest problem with Kyoto and the general public , is the PERCEPTION that it was lovingly put together by a group of wise climate scientists to save our ailing planet . Nothing could be farther from the truth . Instead of Mercers' One Tonne Challenge , how about Don Cherrys' Two Hour GOOGLE challenge ; every Canadian old enough to vote searches 1. Kyoto 2. Maurice Strong 3. Power Corp. . Yes these three searches lead to many other interesting things , but would be enough to at least get your average uninformed Canadian thinking for once .

We note that Richard Littlemore, the author of the smear job and Suzuki PR spinner, has NO science background or any credentials to recommend him as a credible critic of scientific papers or opinion. He comes from a background as a hack reporter and PR spinnner...certainly nothing there to give any scientific credibility to his opinions of other scientist's work.

As a matter of fact there does not appear to be a single person in this Suzuki PR blog who has a science background or technical background that would recommend them as credible in deciphering the spider's web of data compiled by climate science. They are all either "sociology" feelers or failed hack journalists who went into marketing and PR.

Littlemore's opinion and that of most posters to the site are the antithesis of "peer reviewed science". In point of fact, it is "crank reviewed science" by all objective accounting. Political and PR cranks trying to spin scientific findings into useful hysteria.

We further note that they never publish the doctoral and scientific credentials in the names they publish as "deniers"...as if these people should be stripped of their hard earned scientific credentials because they have considered scientific opinion which differs from that of the Suzuki-paid PR hacks running the site ...sad truely sad.

Kate this site is the epitome of junk science and hack journalist hysteria, why not automatically hot-link it every time "junk science" appears in text on SDA ;-)

tip of the day- now global warming is causing plate tectonics

http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_global_warming_results-3.html

cal2: "global warming is causing plate tectonics"

AH HA!!!

...I knew it! I knew it!

(adjusting tin foil hat)

Over the last few days the cbc has been running a segment on the northern lights. Be prepared for a segment that will somehow link the lights with global warming in the next few weeks.

Unfortunately I don't Suzuki is suffering from dementia yet , but my guess is that he and the other so called "environmentalists" greatly fear a real scientific discussion over the global warming / Kyoto issue , as they would largely be excluded from the discussions , since their organizations are almost totally devoid of any scientific representation.

... so expect them to try and turn up the volume and increase the smear campaigns.

Joe McCarthy would be proud of Suzuki. Perhaps the blogspehere should give Suzuki a "joe McCarthy" award.

Suzuki is no more than a 21st century snake oil pedlar.

and this perpetual motion machine.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_power_21stcentury-8.html

dont stand under this one without a tinfoil hat.

Cardinal Suzuki needs a more prominent (and televised) platform to preach from.
Provide an audience of mostly adoring disciples with a sprinkling of hecklers.

Given his enormous ego, short fuse and a few loudly placed challenges it could drive him into a podium pounding spittle dribbling caricature of that dude from Nuremburg.

If he could only be labeled Kooky Suzuki in the eyes of the public!

I know it's cruel and certainly unnuanced, but here goes.

I want some action on the global warming front. What I propose is enviromental hari kari. We know nobody is without a carbon footprint, that we are all a blight on the planet. Can't some brave soul - yes I mean you David S., and you Al G. - show us the leadership we all need in these desparate times and take his own life. It's for the good of the planet people. (Until such a time I will remain a sceptic.) It's up to you. Your carbon shoe size is bigger than mine. And even if it weren't it's still the right thing to do. It's for our childrens children. Oh, and my peace of mind as well.

I have to admit, after googling Uncle Mo and other names, it's becoming more and more obvious that they have a "hidden?" agenda.

Al Gore, Suzuki, U.N. ICCP, Earth Charter, Kyoto ...

There is only one reason why you don't allow someone else's opinion.... and that is to have control.

Oscar: well perhaps Tail gunner Joe McCarthy was a poor equivilency match to Dr. Fruit Fly.

As the years played out, history records McCarthey as being correct in his overall message that there were comminists in high places in the US government/media/Hollywood...and that this was detrimental to America;s security. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, Elia Kazan and other public trials of soviet spies proved him correct in theory although unAmerican in method.

Conversely Suzuki will be proven by history to be one of the premier fraud artists of the century as his assumption that man made CO2 will bring about a climatic/environmental cataclysm. The glacial and geological records show that in times before industrial man there were long periods of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere (from vulcanism and forest fires) far in exces of anything we have today and these produced short cooling trends...certainly nothing cataclysmic.

Time is the great definer of wise men and fools. McCarthy was right but a fool in method ...Suzuki is provably wrong and a fool in method and political intent.

someone should ask dr fruitfly how much he is getting from mo and co for his BS.

Something like "So Dr Kooky Suzuki whats your % of the skim off the top?"

So I guess the Koyoto debate is over,the one about climate change not about whether little Stephan"s doog is the one that craaped on the carpet well according to the scribblings of Sheila Coop anyway. I would sugest it is just beginning, I think when it becomes apparent to the "great unwashed" just how much of a wealth transfer device this muddled piece of garbage is the will turn on little green stephan and his fruit fly buddy suzuki. Does anyone know how the transfer of wealth from successful countries, such as ours to loser countries is to be handled?? Is there a power corp,creithen,mo strong foundation set up to do this? Who indeed is bankrolling Suzuki? Tinfoil hats are expensive! Oh OH is the money going to be put in plain manila envelopes.... aka lieberal past practice, just asking.
Bubba the hard working boilermaker wrote this.

Suzuki and others follow the Marxist totalitarian model to a tee. Pronounce from on high, don't bother to prove your case, and destroy anyone who dissents in any way. Luckily, he hasn't the power. Imagine if all the socialists of the world had a conference, and agreed socialism was the only acceptable ideology, declared consensus for their arguments and labelled anyone anti-social who disagreed. The extreme environmental movement is modelled under and run by marxists. That's why Patrick Moore abandoned them. They are responsible for untold death and suffering in Africa (DDT ban) and their support of terrorism (sorry, anti-americanism). One hundred Dubyas couldn't do the damage marxists have done to this planet and humans.

Suzuki, get off you high horse, stay within your qualifications (genetics), and show why the "deniers" are wrong, on the science. IOW, debate them rather than slag them as oil lapdogers. I'm sick of personal attacks in science (it's bad enough in politics); this is about proving hypotheses, not agreeing with your buddy and wrecking anyone who doesn't see it your way. Enough!!

BTW, just heard Craig Oliver, and was pleasantly surprised by his view that Dion has had two very bad weeks:

- cynical Kyoto bill
- party revolt around anti-terrorism measures; and
- allowing an attack on the most popular General in fifty years

Nobody was waxing positive about Dion in QP today; the best they could come up with was that he was new and had some things to learn. They acknowledged that this was the worst start in a long time for a new Liberal leader.

Oh, but they DO have power, Shamrock. They have done a very good job. Just think of the teachers, politicians, media, hollywoodites that they have spewing out their gospel... all for the betterment of the world. Who wouldn't buy their pleas for peace, a clean earth, high morals.... doesn't that sound just wonderful. And poor Joe public...? While we're busy trying to earn a buck to feed the family, who has time to check into the big guns at the top to make sure they're on the level?

Think Cardinal Kooky Suzuki in this role, replace wienerschnittzell and sour kreut will spotted owl and the Quadra Island salamander.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuZKm2m44P8

When I came across desmogblog earlier in the year, it seemed, not quite right.

Being the attack dogs for the Suzuki Foundation explains alot.

Is there no breach of ethics or honesty these zealots won't commit to get people to slurp on their kool-aid?

It seems more and more like the Liberal Party of Canada has become the farm team for entrance to the big leagues of the new world corruptocracy . Mo gets the ball rolling a couple of decades ago with Montreal , Rio , and finally Kyoto . Cretien spends 13 years in the minors learning the finer points of kleptocratic governance . Gets caught a couple of times and refines the " ... so a few millions got stolen.. " line .( remember that one by the way if Kyoto ever does get enforced , just have to change millions to billions and eventually trillions ) Cretien , not being satisfied with stealing just from Canadians , takes his talents to the global level , to Bejing of course , helping Mo set up the infrastructure to deal with these new carbon markets . Martin is over there as well , despite his bungling . All Power Corp guys , all Liberal Party members , all poised to accumulate unimaginable wealth . Cretiens' signing of Kyoto and subsequent non-action as far as compliance ,should be seen for what it is . Conflict of interest on a global scale . Dions' support should also be seen for what it is , a last ditch effort to keep this " scheme " alive , and a share of the spoils .

Is climate change affecting your life? Are you tired of the fear mongering? Will this be just another poll gone horribly wrong?

ctv.ca wants to know.

beside dumb-assed libranos and stunned dippers, could someone please enlighten me to who else on this planet are going to be paying for these carbon credits?....It sounds like this is going to be one large tax slapped on Canada, because I surely do not see the Americans as being that stupid.....maybe it is time to revisit fortress North America, rebuild our manufacturing capacity to support 300 million people, and give the flying finger to the chicoms, alqaida ragheads and euro weenies....F T A!

Speaking of CTV polls , here is the one asking if you would buy a green car. I wonder what the response would have been to ask "would you support Kyoto if it meant a reduction in your standard of living?"

Will your next car be ‘green’?
Yes, I want to do my part 849 votes (16 %)
Only if prices come down 2898 votes (54 %)
No, it makes no difference 1175 votes (22 %)
Even better, I’ll take transit 426 votes (8 %)

I was thinking black or red....not really partial to the color green....reminds me of 2 many retards.....min 250 HP, as well

I see Maurice Strong is also an honourary board member, which indicates right of the bat that the Suzuki foundation is an honourable org.

I agree with you, Linda, that these nuts have inordinate power v.v. their numbers. My point was that the bloom is coming off their rose coloured glasses because public is somewhat engaged on Kyoto issue and, more importantly, will reject its costs. Dion can hold off as long as he wants, he has already lost that debate.

You know what? It would be a real unique expierience for you rednecks to open book for once than try to learn what's really causing global warming. If you're not going to do it for yourselves how about doing it for your kids.
try The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery.
Somehow I think reading something other that the Calgary Sun is pretty tall order for you rednecks.

Hey albatros39a how come MARS is having the same thing happen to it?

MORON

Albatros39a, what I would like to read is the scientific proof of AGW, rather than the pseudo, junk science. Can you cite the proof, not consensus, for me? I also invite you to read Patrick Moore's recent writings. Maybe then you will understand the argument, rather than labelling people rednecks, which, BTW, is Kate's point.

Dear albatros39a,

It's safe to say that we bumpkin rednecks who dare to question climate change hysteria do much, much, more reading on the topic that a kool-aid slurper like yourself.

It would be better if you don't write anymore on the topic until -you- get educated.

Robert,
Sadly it is not that albatros needs to get educated but rather that he has been overly educated in the modern way - i.e. blind unchallenging acceptance of the consensus "climate science" pushed through in the high schools and colleges of the country. Or as George Bernard Shaw said better: "A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence, University education."

Thanks for the hat tip, Kate.

Great blog, btw. And as a Brit, can I just say a big thank you to the Canadian troops who are fighting side by side with our lads in Afghanistan. Even though our leaders want to align us more and more with the spineless EU, most of us in Britain recognise who our true allies are.

Shamrock: ...what I would like to read is the scientific proof of AGW, rather than the pseudo, junk science. Can you cite the proof, not consensus, for me?

Well, is there any amount of scientific evidence that would convince you that AGW is real? True, there are plenty of gaps in current knowledge, but then there are still gaps in, say, our knowledge of the physics of fire, or the chemistry of water. It's also true that the AGW "consensus" isn't 100%, but again, there are skeptics and dissidents with any hot-button science issue. A small body of scientists (including Nobel Prize winners) continue to refute that HIV causes AIDS. I doubt many here would join their camp, but why not? After all, it's true that no scientist has ever actually "proven" this link, insofar as nobody's yet to inject a subject with HIV within the confines of a randomized control trial and then document at the biomolecular level as the virus leads inexorably to the development of AIDS.

My point is, it seems like what you're demanding is incontrovertible, causal proof that human activity contributes signficantly to global warming, and that action now can prevent future environmental calamity. Well, that's not gonna happen--ever. There will never be proof of the kind you require. By definition, science doesn't work that way.

So, you can read the full IPCC report, acknowledge the endorsements of the various national science academies and the National Research Council, scan the position statements of the AMS, the AGU, the GSA, etc, and dismiss it all as "pseudo, junk science" because a small minority of scientists (many acting in good faith, others with claims that are undermined by their funding sources) have highlighted the gaps in knowledge. And you can also dismiss the fact that major industry players (including Exxon-Mobil), the Conservative Party of Canada, and even the Bush administration all now agree that human activity contributes to global warming, and that action is needed if we're to preserve our planet. And you can even dismiss me as a typical kool-aid drinking, moonbat, liberal leftard, even though my views are not much different from those of the majority of Canadians.

But you might want to ask yourself what your own reasons are for siding with the minority. Because with any given issue, if the scientific/general opinion is split, I dunno, 90-10, one would need a pretty compelling personal reason for siding with the 10% camp.

albatros39a
I presume you are referring to the Dr Tim Flannery who "... has received international acclaim as a mammologist and paleontologist, ..." Whose "early scientific research focused on the evolution of Australasian mammals. During his doctoral studies, he described an astonishing 29 new kangaroo species (including 11 new genera and 3 new subfamilies) and discovered and described the world's oldest kangaroo fossils. Subsequently, he described and named the entire known fossil record of the phalangerids (the dominant living Australasian possum family)." More of his bio is at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation site her: http://www.abc.net.au/science/future/abouttim.htm . Unfortunately, the bio fails to detail the sources of his expertise on climate change mechanisms.

Further discussion on Dr Flannery's commitment to Gaia can be found here: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/cant_stand_the_heat/]Flannery

Cheers

Also, how is the work of Desmogblog any different from what goes on here?

It points out that many of the more vocal climate change skeptics either work for or are allied with organizations that receive funding from the oil and energy sector. Fair criticism--how many people here would accept the word of, say, a pro-Kyoto scientist if you found out her bills are paid by Greenpeace?

Desmogblog also likes to point out that many of the scientists who deny the AGW thesis have no specialized training in climate science, while people here like to point out that Mr. Suzuki's training is in genetics, not enviro science (and that Mr. Flannery's training is in mammology, not climate science...). Desmogblog paints its opponents as "deniers", while people here paint their opponents as kool-aid-drinking cult members. Desmogblog mostly believes that there's absolutely nothing left to debate, many people here believe that nothing much has been settled...

Shamrock
Unfortunately, there is a severe shortage of reliable sources to explain the mechanisms of AGW. Most references tend to focus less on showing the evidence and more on the academic stature of those proponents of AWG. Dr Suzuki is a good example of the generally quoted AGW experts. There are also reference sites which specialise in debunking the Climate Change "deniers"; their experts tend to lack sufficient analytical skills to support their "debunkings". They can be included in the point noted by 'A' above, concerning 90% are in support of AGW and 10% against; this obscures the more interesting point that those who specialise in the study of climate changes are generally found in the 10% group.

Note also that the IPCC report (aka AR4) released in early February is the "Summary for Policy Makers". The full report with its full suite of documents is due to be released in May. Evidently, the Committee needs to vet the supporting docs to ensure they accord with the now-published Summary.

For more information, you might check here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/

Cheers

What's the difference?

I'm interested in genuine scientific fact. I have no vested interest in fanning hysteria.

I have no vested interest in smearing or attacking anyone who is interested in genuine scientific fact.

That most certainly is not desmogblog.

Here's what the desmogblog says is its mission

(my favourite parts are where it talks about 'poisoning the climate change debate' and where the word 'integrity' shows up)

"About Us

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.

The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada's leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.

The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.

Editorial Assistance on the blog is provided by renowned author Ross Gelbspan and by Richard Littlemore, an award-winning science and magazine writer, a speechwriter and a senior counsellor at Hoggan. Kevin Grandia oversees the project as a whole, Sarah Pullman manages the online aspects, and both make valuable contributions to content."

hmmm... surely they don't mean John Lefebvre who was recently arrested on money laundering charges?? google his name and Netteller.

That would be a shame.

I have read plenty of refutations, some of which make sense; my point is how to you reconcile the contradictions around the theory? Nobody will answer that. Don't get me wrong, this is a nice debate. But, really who cares? The reason Harper and Bush have jumped on this bandwagon is they can sail a ship of convenience. Our prosperous society has created a popular momentum for the environment, and collectively understands it is a good thing to get rid of pollution. Wo betide any politician who doesn't get this. Harper understands the concept of clean air - freer of carbon monoxide (oh look CO2 too), metals and radion "emitted" from our tailpipes and smokestacks. That's what's driving the technological push and the diligent search for a non-carbon fuel solution. The macro is here already, and it is nuclear; we don't know yet what the micro (ie-drive your car without an extension cord)is.

I don't really know why Suzuki is getting so upset; we are becoming greener than ever. I hope he doesn't actually believe Kyoto for Canada is achievable.

J.M. Heinrichs: ...those who specialise in the study of climate changes are generally found in the 10% group.

Oh, and is this a "genuine scientific fact"?

Why the balance of evidence leads the thoughtful to conclude that the impact of man on climate is an open question:

A thought experiment (I'll spare you the German)...

Suppose a big corporation has a market opportunity for a nifty piece of tech. What do they do? After the exec bs (ahem, that's brain storm, of course), they task a product manager to map out everything that impacts on the final deliverable. This is ruthlessly torn to bits by all interested parties, reconstructed, rebuilt, revised, redone, repeated, ad nauseum. A number trickles out of the end - cost per unit. Boss goes "this is cheaper than our competitors - build it"

Now, think of the process by which we have been "convinced" humans are driving global climate change. Would a VC put money behind this "product"? It depends on the "exit potential"...i.e., whether the company is to be flipped for a fast buck and the product is irrelevant, or whether the goods really have to be delivered.

Now imagine that you are a scientist who has spent 20 years doing quantitative physical measurements on complex systems, with the math and modelling ability to correlate the results with hypothesis. Imagine the stunned realization that serious people actually believe the science to be settled. With apologies to my colleagues who are careful scientists…the field is dominated by narrow-minded, and narrowly educated, twits.

Do NOT get me started on Kyoto...

Tenebris: I think you've got it. How about the Chery? Nice new car.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover021607.htm

And the careful scientists?? They're the ones who will say, "This is what we know or think we know." and the rest will be open to debate. That's science. If they close the door to discussion, that's totalitarianism.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." Dr.Richard Feynman , Nobelist Physicist, teacher, storyteller, bongo player.

Perhaps Richard Feynman would have found Al and David quite boring.

What a wonderful quote.

Yeah, quotations are fun.

"We're very pleased with [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers]. We're embracing it. We agree with it...Human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate." ~ Dr. Samuel W. Bodman III, chemical engineer, US Secretary of Energy, Republican, grandfather

Perhaps Dr. Feynman would find "Sam" quite tedious as well.

A. I would have to call JM Hendrix 10% number is as much of a scientific fact as your 90% 10% number

Because with any given issue, if the scientific/general opinion is split, I dunno, 90-10, one would need a pretty compelling personal reason for siding with the 10% camp.

In other words, it's easier to be a follower.

Re:9:29 p.m. Are Al Gore and David Suzuki embracing all of the IPPC 4th. Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers ?

Does Al Gore's movie " An Inconvenient Truth" dovetail with the above report?

Does the above report jive with David Sukuki's contention that "things are worse than we thought"?

"human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth's climate" Is there no wiggle room in that statement?

I heard a rumour that Suzuki's son Troy lives in taxpayer subsidized housing in Dawson City, Yukon. Not easy to verify probably but if by chance anyone knows someone really in the know on social assistance in the Yukon and does not mind confirming or denying this it would be interesting to have the real scoop on this rumour.

A
I really don't think I stated what you appear to assume I said; you diminish yourself. And your subsequent quote reinforces my point.

Cheers

A. I would have to call JM Hendrix 10% number is as much of a scientific fact as your 90% 10% number

I agree. That's why I prefaced my "numbers" with "I dunno." I've heard it's as high as 95-5. Would you have preferred 80-20? 70-30? For sure it's not 50-50. Can anybody here name a single independent scientific body, as a proxy for a peer-reviewed locus of knowledge, that argues that the AGW thesis is without merit?

I'm not saying that there's no need for further research, nor am I saying that there's no need for further debate. I'm saying that while the academic research and debate continue, governments and industries and society need to start acting. Why the precautionary principle? Because scientific debates never end, especially as what's being debated are the conditions of the future. In other words, if you insist on incontrovertible positive proof before implementing policies, then you're in effect insisting on a permanent state of inaction.

A,

Don't worry ... sometime, somewhere, someone will snap their fingers and bring you out. You won't be clucking like a mindless chicken forever.

I really don't think I stated what you appear to assume I said; you diminish yourself. And your subsequent quote reinforces my point.

Sorry, too many comments; I've lost track. What were you trying to state? I thought you were claiming that those who specialise in the study of climate changes are generally found among "the 10 %" who're against the AGW thesis, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Don't worry ... sometime, somewhere, someone will snap their fingers and bring you out. You won't be clucking like a mindless chicken forever.

You know, Ural, when you post stuff like this, it only gives credence to the claims that places like SDA are nothing more than far-right ideological echo chambers populated by folks whose knee-jerk response to contrary opinions is ad hominem attack.

In other words, if you insist on incontrovertible positive proof before implementing policies, then you're in effect insisting on a permanent state of inaction.

To paraphrase scripture, follow a blind man and both will fall in the ditch.

A,

Sorry. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Run do something, run, run, run. The sky is falling.

See, I'm with you now.

Gordon, re 11:28: That's prurient and stupid and threatening.

Gordo, I can verify for you that Troy, Kooky Sazuki's son, was in the Yukon two summers ago working on the SS Klondike - an old sternwheeler. I think he worked on the Keno in Dawson City also. I will check his housing stats and get back to you. The re -outfitting of the sternwheelers cost all you taxpayers a small fortune - it was a Liberano project(federal) and it took forever.

A, for the most part, SDAers are asking that the valid concerns with the "very solid science" of climate change be addressed in a thorough and thoughtful manner. What we are getting is that anyone who challenges the current FACT (it is only a theory) of AGW are "deniers" and in the pockets of oil companies. This is smear and intimidation, not debate.

If there was an open and honest debate, if there was a clear explanation / refutation of the competing theories and questions related to the current FACT of AGW, I doubt we'd be as upset with the science. I'm SURE we'd still be upset with the transfer of wealth associated with the carbon trading, but more of us would be satisfied that the science is solid.

But what we see is extrapolations based on qualitative assessments of imprecise computer models that are built on incomplete data using assumptions of poorly understood climate mechanisms and discounting other potentially competing theories (methane production by plants, carbon sinks provided by "picoplancton" or whatever, solar activity, etc.).

You have to forgive us for being skeptical. Thousands of years ago, over 90% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth. A hundred years ago, 90% of scientists believed that electrons, protons and neutrons were the smallest particles. Scant decades ago, "many" scientists believed we were headed for another ice age.

Address our valid scientific concerns, stop trying to silence us with intimidation and smear and we will "drink the kool-aid".

By the way, A, regarding your question as to what the difference is between SDA and DeSmogBlog is:

DeSmogBlog is a blog run or funded by an established Foundation (I'm not sure of the funding or charity status) and is using smear tactics to besmirch the reputations of "climate change deniers" and, essentially, close down debate.

SDA is a blog run by an individual (funded by herself and contributions of readers through PayPal) and is pointing out holes in the science of AGW, questioning the solidity of the AGW science and, essentially, trying to open up debate.

DeSmogBlog wants to shut people up and SDA wants to get people talking. The former is negative and goes against scientific debate and the latter is positive and is in the spirit of scientific debate. Smear and intimidation is bad, debate is good.

A said: "Can anybody here name a single independent scientific body, as a proxy for a peer-reviewed locus of knowledge, that argues that the AGW thesis is without merit?"

Therein lies my chief objection to AGW. The supporting studies published in journals ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. That is my understanding; please correct me, and cite references, if I am in error.

The IPCC is a political body created to confirm AGW. The latest report was written by bureaucrats and politicians. I understand they took the worst-case scenarios of their comprehensive report, to be released in May. So, if we accept AGW as proven theory, or at least having substantial scientific support (which I would accept), we know it has become politicized and some of the conclusions, especially concerning temperature and sea level rises, represent worst outcomes, and my understanding is they have been "sexed up."

Stern's report, again from what I've read, has made some serious methodological errors which taint his conclusions.

Al Gore has taken this exaggeration further, amplified it, to produce ridiculous conclusions.

Again, I'm not saying AGW is complete bunk, I'm saying it has not passed the science test yet; I am willing to stand corrected on this. I just get suspicious when anytime an objection is raised, someone is smeared as an oil lapdog or we get a pat on the head from Suzuki and are told everything is OK. Please enlighten me.

Eeyore, thanks for not calling me a moonbat leftard. I genuinely mean that as a compliment.

I hear what you're saying about the lack of debate on the AGW theory. There are certainly environmental advocates out there who're rather disturbing in their desire to silence the skeptics. I won't try to defend them too much here, but I do understand why they're doing what they're doing.

What we are getting is that anyone who challenges the current FACT (it is only a theory) of AGW are "deniers" and in the pockets of oil companies. This is smear and intimidation, not debate.

Two things. First, true enough about desmogblog, but what is referring to, say, David Suzuki as "Dr. Fruit Fly"? Light-hearted humour? In earlier threads, certain folks had taken to calling Dr. Andrew Weaver over at UVic and other IPCC scientists the usual ad hominem anti-'left' slag. Again, how is that not also smear? It's certainly not scoring any points with moderates. So long as SDA condones and engages in this childish name-calling, it won't be taken seriously as a legitimate and sober voice of dissent in the climate change debate.

Second, desmogblog may not be a legitimate source of scientific information, but they're good at what they do, which is use PR strategies against their perceived opponents. They're merely applying the same sort of tactics and logic that industries have long used to spin issues and shape public opinion in their favour. Think of it as fighting fire with fire; desmogblog is necessary so long as industry players continue to engage in greenwashing, astroturfing, front-grouping, etc.

Surely you have to admit that when a group like the Friends of Science, who may or may not comprise disinterested scientists, admits they receive funding from oil companies, it's bad optics. And that when its latest incarnation, the National Resource Stewardship Program, imposes a restriction on its members that legally bars them from saying whether they do or do not receive any funding from oil companies, it's bad optics. And when it's revealed that the World Climate Report is funded by the Greening Earth Society, which itself was created by the Western Fuels Association, it's bad optics. The scientists involved may or may not have pure motives, but surely they must recognize that their perceived empirical impartiality is completely undermined by allying themselves with such groups.

Anyway, I think debate is good--RealClimate has received due praise for their non-partisan analyses. They have a pretty good FAQ that begins to answers burning questions, like why predicting climate and predicting weather are not the same thing; or why it's erroneous to claim that the "global warming" observed on Mars provides de facto proof that earthly AGW is a crock; or why climate models have merit; or why water vapour is not as important as you might think; or what the lag in CO2 behind ice core temp increases means; or what the MWP is all about; or what the role of solar activity is...Their comments section usually attracts thoughtful responses too.

By the way, SDA is positive and in the spirit of scientific debate? Not with its blatantly partisan, anti-'left', anti-environmentalist, anti-NDP/Liberal rhetoric. Would you like to have a climate debate aboard Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior? How about the petty ad hominem comments, like Ural @ 12:12AM? Even SDA's anti-Islam stance, admittedly not related to the environment, makes this site far too toxic for genuine debate of any kind.

Also, I thought desmogblog was funded by John Lefebvre, who has his own problems these days. Perhaps this is untrue.

Shamrock: Therein lies my chief objection to AGW. The supporting studies published in journals ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. That is my understanding; please correct me, and cite references, if I am in error.

I thank you as well for not calling me Chicken Little, or some such. Actually, the supporting studies are almost all in refereed journals or other peer-reviewed arenas. Oreskes' (2004) study of 928 journal abstracts with "climate change" as a keyword, none of which diverged from the "consensus" view, is often cited (you can find it by googling "Oreskes 2004"). The formal statements put out by the national academies, the US National Research Council, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meterological Society, etc. are vetted by members, which may or may not be stringently peer-review. Despite being an intergovernmental group, the IPCC's reports are written and reviewed by scientists, and summarize data primarily published in peer-reviewed sources. I encourage you to download the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report and peruse the references yourself.

The IPCC is a political body created to confirm AGW. The latest report was written by bureaucrats and politicians. I understand they took the worst-case scenarios of their comprehensive report, to be released in May. So, if we accept AGW as proven theory, or at least having substantial scientific support (which I would accept), we know it has become politicized and some of the conclusions, especially concerning temperature and sea level rises, represent worst outcomes, and my understanding is they have been "sexed up."

That's not quite the case. The science behind the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) report is fundamentally sound. From RealClimate (link provided by JM Heindrichs, above): "The process of finalising the SPM...is something that can seem a little odd. Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report. The key here is to note that what the lead authors originally came up with is not necessarily the clearest or least ambiguous language, and so the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists. It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence...

"The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they 'own' part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else. This gives the governments a vested interest in making this report as good as it can be (given the uncertainties). There are in fact plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists present) to ensure that the report is not slanted in any one preferred direction. However, the downside is that it can mistakenly appear as if the whole summary is simply up for negotiation. That would be a false conclusion - the negotiations, such as they are, are in fact heavily constrained by the underlying science....

"Finally, a few people have asked why the SPM is being released now while the main report is not due to be published for a couple of months. There are a number of reasons - firstly, the Paris meeting has been such a public affair that holding back the SPM until the main report is ready is probably pointless. For the main report itself, it had not yet been proof-read, and there has not yet been enough time to include observational data up until the end of 2006. One final point is that improvements in the clarity of the language from the SPM should be propagated back to the individual chapters in order to remove any superficial ambiguity. The science content will not change." [emphasis mine]

Gordon: I heard a rumour that Suzuki's son Troy lives in taxpayer subsidized housing in Dawson City, Yukon. Not easy to verify probably but if by chance anyone knows someone really in the know on social assistance in the Yukon and does not mind confirming or denying this it would be interesting to have the real scoop on this rumour.

This is possibly a new low. Gordon, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish with the info you seek? And you think there's somehow honour to be found in smearing David Suzuki by delving into the private lives of his family?

To Jema43: Shame on you for indulging and abetting Gordon.

To EBD: Kudos for being the only one to call Gordon's scheme for what it is.

To Shamrock and everyone else on SDA: Shamrock writes that "[SDA] is positive and is in the spirit of scientific debate. Smear and intimidation is bad, debate is good." Is it? Then why is nobody else condemning Gordon's comment, and Jema54's follow-up? Digging up "dirt" on David Suzuki's family members, especially those not even involved in the substantive issue being debated? Do you abide this? Do you condone this? Surely non-interested family members are out-of-bounds. Or are standards of decency around here even lower than I thought?

I am not qualified to give a scientific opinion on the the truth of man-caused global warming. But then neither is the Lord of the Flies, David Suzuki.

I am qualified, however, to make a political assessment of it from my perspective as a voter and a tax-payer. This assessment is based on gut feel (when your gut is as big as mine you have to trust it). Gut-feel tells me something is wrong when there is so much certainty about an uncertain outcome and so much hysteria when somebody suggests that they don't know enough to act on this certainty. Also when nobody can tell me who the winners and losers are in the climate change game if we do nothing and why I should trust models about climate years hence when I can't trust weather predictions for next week or next winter.

I read a lot of books of all types. Last winter I read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

(http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/sr=8-2/qid=1171926977/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-1975078-4118539?ie=UTF8&s=books)

One thing that struck me in reading this history of science was the pure nastiness and pettiness and academic shunning of dissenting opinions in historic debates about various scientific theories.

We have this mental image of "scientific" debate being a rational and emotionless and fair search for truth when in reality in historical terms it was petty pedagogical politics at its most vile and vituperative towards the politically incorrect. It was also interesting to read of the many times that the "truth" as defended came to be debunked and the dissenters vindicated. Usually posthumously.

Without having a scientific basis to assess the facts I have assessed the tone of the "debate" and am reluctant to commit my tax dollar or vote for any politician to save me from global warming, unless the planned action has some other direct benefit worthy of the cost e.g. more efficient industry or development of clean energy (e.g. nuclear).

As noted in a comment last week, I am reluctant to place too great a value on consensus when it comes to truth. When walking through a project a few years back I noticed that somebody had painted an arrow on a gear pump so that the electrician would know how to wire the motor so rotation would be correct. I noted to somebody that the arrow was wrong. He said: "six of us decided that it went that way." My comment still stands "It could have been a hundred. That wouldn't change the physics of the pump." If that unit operation is still running the pump is still going against the original arrow.

Thank You "A" . A breath of fresh air. I wish all posters on this blog tried to discuss things rationally and without the name-calling like you.

Les

David Suzuki is a big time eco-freak he is just like such others like JAMES LOVELOCK who came up with this GAIA poppycock AL GORE a big egotisyical blabber mouth lets put them all on a slow leaky boat and send them to china