I knew that there was a reason why I bought my Trailblazer in January. The crappy thing is that all of that snow will have only 10 days to melt and evaporate before my first round of golf for the year on May 1st.

Snow is forecast in Vancouver and on the Island this weekend....the blossoms are out, but it sure doesn't feel like it. This Global Warming thing is hard on the gas bill.

So much for Gullible Warming.

This Y2Kyota phenomena has hit the Artic too - Whitehorse had three inches of snow last night , blustering winds, -17 C. this A.M. Parkas and big winter coats were seen on the streets of the Yukon capital, in Canada, in late April...I am not making this up.

Can Al Goricle/Davy Sazzukkie hear my cry: "I want my Global warming."

Sorry Sask, we seem to be sending that weather to you, like always. It was 15C today, but the wind is howling right now, making it feel like -5C, worse to come and it's coming your way too.

The old saying in the prairies, wait five minutes, the weather will change, and it always does! Just not always for the better.

I wish Al Gore and David Suzuki would hurry up and get that global warming happening! Time to batten down the hatches....

Henrick Svensmarks theory that solar cycles have much to do with temperature on earth due to the effect the solar wind has on deflecting cosmic rays away from earth (and thereby reducing cloud formation) seems to be getting a strong validiation.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

Solar cycle 24 has yet to begin, and appears to be stalled for some reason, and here we are seeing record low temperatures across the globe.

This is the kind of connectivity between theory and reality that the Gore/Suzuki crowd just wish they could get.

Hey, instead of everybody going to the trouble of writing a bunch of posts and having a long thread about it all, why don't I supply a representative comment that you can all just sign onto?

Something like:

"Yeah, dem low tempratoors shure so prove all dem idiots like Suzuki and the Goracle are assholes and Globbal Warmin's a hoax designed by the Left and all dem stuppid Nobel Laureates are Leftards too who think Globbel Warmin's real cuz it snowed last winter and Bush is really a Great Prezident too!" (slobber, slobber, drool).

There. Will that do it?

Remember, it is NOT global warming.

It did not rain last year on this date so the climate is changing.

Even though snow in April is rare, and some weather events are rare, it did not snow last April so the climate is changing.

Climate change... Global warming... the Emperor has no clothes.... the sky is falling...... WOLF!

All the same to me.

Ummmmmmm.....not bad zolik.....maybe there is hope for you if you meant what you said!

At 10 p.m. it is 18 degrees in Toronto, 19 degrees in Montreal and 12 degrees on the Atlantic coast. It was as high as 18 on the coast earlier today. That's the EAST coast.

Want me to send you some???

Hugger

Zolik.. Turn of your lights and computer. Sit in the dark. Do not go anywhere do not do anything.

You are part of the problem, no matter how many carbon credits you have.

Maybe if we all leave our cars idling, we can stop it in its tracks.

I just read this thread to a greenie. His response: "What's your point?" LOL!

(To be screamed in mimicry of William Shatner)

"GORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE!!!! GORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!"

Anyone with a pile of tires somewhere on the back fifty - please burn them.

Thanks

Does this mean I can go outside and let one rip ?

It's mid-April, I'm in Yellowknife, and it's -9C right now, looking forward to a low of -20C over the weekend, and it's been the coldest winter in 10 years. I've had about enough.

and our forecast in Vancouver is for . . .

snow showers this weekend :)

Al Gore, you bugger, your scam is falling apart.

Alberta to get hammered too. Looks like a week of January is about to get grafted onto Calgary's usual wet and miserable spring.

Gaia is sticking it to me for all my small minded chortling about the snow dumps in eastern North America last month.

The Kyotoists, as always, will have an "explanation".

Today's below-seasonal temperature in Regina no more disproves the existence of climate change than today's above-seasonal temperature in Ottawa proves it.

The "Look, it's snowing, so climate change MUST be bogus!" argument only reveals how ignorant you actually are of even the most basic parameters of the issue. No doubt you'll carry on with more of the same, but do recognize that you just come across looking like a fool.

It is likely that will have some flurries this week-end on Vancouver Island. I currently quite chilly. Yes the blossoms on are on the trees, but it's like November.

La Nina is happening in the South Pacific and that means the westerlies will be cool for the next couple of years for sure. Buy some natural gas and oil stocks demand will be high for some time.

The climate has changed for sure. It's a lot colder now.

Environment Canada is lucky to predict YESTERDAY correctly... I'll believe it if I see it.

Looking like a fool....
Yep especially when you chirp in with that kind of crap after the 20,000 previous posts and comments on this site alone ... all of which pretty much DO understand the principle of SATIRE !

Can you say carbon tax? The earth could cool by 10 degrees but the fixation on a carbon tax will not go away. It will be "revenue neutral" i.e. it will cost at least 50% of the revenue collected to launder through the government this year, 80% next year due to higher output of BS to counter the climate change scam and to justify an unjustified tax increase.

Another environmental move will be to divert all gas taxes to general revenue from highway construction and maintenance to encourage people to go nowhere slow(enacted years ago).

Yet another environmental move will be the demand that the DDT ban continue so another million people can die from malaria this year.

And yet again another environmental policy will cause starvation in poor areas of the world because it is more profitable to burn food (even though there is a negative energy input) than feed the poor.

Yep, them enviro whack jobs have it all figured out. If another politician stands up and goes on about how "green" they are they should be shouted down and voted out of office at the next opportunity. I'm sick of this shit.

This must be remembered when they start blaming hot days in the summer on global warming.

Dan: But at some point after billowing out c02 since the industrial revolution we should be seeing warmer tempertures no? otherwise what's the problem, we are already half way through our fossil fuels.

If its so dire, why no evidence of the problem? Doesnt it put a shadow of doubt in your mind?
Maybe they are wrong?
Maybe its an agenda?
Maybe everbody made a big mistake? It's not like in human history that hasnt happened before.

Dan:

Could you please enlighten us?

When, in the entire history of the earth, has climate NOT changed?

Dan,

You speak of ignorance.
No doubt because you know it so well.

Since I doubt you could ever really comprehend the
point of this thread, let me instead clarify it for others who may be interested in this topic.

IMO anyways,we here are simply having FUN by mimicing the Kyoto crowd/MSM's countless and ridiculous claims of singular weather events being PROOF OF global warming.

How f*cking narrow-minded do you have to be to attack us for playfully doing what the MMGW proponents regularly do seriously?

Dan....that is why your God the Goracle changed it to climate change, not GW. Even leftards know the climate HAS been changing since day 1. As usual,you guys will try anything to prove you are right,even when anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together knows GW is a ponzi scheme. But then logic and discernment never was very high on the list for leftards.

Dan: Fooey.

You and yours have spent the last decade citing every 0,1C uptick as ABSOLUTEPROOFTHATWEREALLGONNADIE!!!!!111!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!

This is all just payback for all the OMIGODKATRINAPROVESGLOBALWARMING posts we've had to endure. Unlike you, we DO know the difference between "weather" and "climate". My very favorite is citing la Niña as the reason the latest data shows cooling. Ocean currents move the heat around, but they don't make a damn bit of difference to the greenhouse effect. My second favorite is citing longer growing seasons in high latitudes as an Absolute Disaster the Race Cannot Survive.

Be of good cheer. Summer is coming, and you will once again be able to return to "It's only noon, and it's already ten celsius warmer than just this morning! By tomorrow we'll all be dead!" just like last year.

That's if summer does come. It has no doubt escaped your notice, but the Sun has gone out. Unless it comes back on pretty soon, "global warming" will be a wistful wish, not a political football.

Regards,
Ric

There was ice 2 km thick over our heads only 10000 years ago.
There was forest on Baffin islan at one time.
The very tips of the rockies were ocean bottom at one time.
Its ridiculous to me that we somehow are going to "manage the climate" even more preposterous is that the political left can somehow "do a better job"

Where are all the scientists? If there are 1000 scientists that believe this ,I want to be able to access a file on them. I want to see employer,political affiliation,country of origin,credentials,photograph,etc.

A reasonable request if going to make such a monumental shift in our society.

Oh, no, no...global warming only happens in the summer, you see.

And in other news, Al Gore has arrived in Saskatoon...

"and our forecast in Vancouver is for . . .
snow showers this weekend :)"

And this would be why I am off to Beaver Camp with my seven year old for two days of unheated cabins and a sleeping bag.

I blame Gore.

OMMAG: all of which pretty much DO understand the principle of SATIRE !

Canadian Observer: we here are simply having FUN by mimicing the Kyoto crowd/MSM's countless and ridiculous claims of singular weather events being PROOF OF global warming.

Ric Locke: This is all just payback for all the OMIGODKATRINAPROVESGLOBALWARMING posts we've had to endure.

Oh, I got the idea behind these posts. My point is, all you've managed to do is counter the climate change hype--and I happily acknowledge that it exists, and deserves countering--with your own satirical hype. But that's all rather low-hanging fruit. Hence my point about failing to grasp the actual parameters of the issue.

The problem is, you conflate the hype (which, for me, includes the Gore Show and Suzuki's media machine) with the underlying body of research (which has holes but is still far more solid than you'll ever realize/care to admit). You think that by discrediting the former (which is easy enough to do), you've somehow also managed to discredit the latter (which is a task beyond your skillset, or Kate's). Hence, fools, fools, the lot of you.

How about some facts Dan?

Look We're all doomed why if Canada becomes as warm as India over as billion people might be able to live here and who would want that? Better most of us eke out our existence in semi tundra.

Because if the temp goes up a degree theres no farmers in South Dakota to learn how to farm from.

you've somehow also managed to discredit the latter (which is a task beyond your skillset, or Kate's)

Global sea Ice, 1 Million square KM above the mean, were saved!

So Dan using your "skill set" what climate model predicted that this year? How does the amount sea ice go up when the hockey stick says it should all be melting

Do grasp the parameters of that issue by the horns eh.

Why satire?
I wonder why the Global Warmests cannot have even an ounce of humility when it comes to predicting mother nature? The pompous, proud and piously green have latched on to this issue with a vengeance because it gives them a cause to fight for.
Will they still be beating this drum in ten years when the planet is not in a meltdown? Imagine then, how hard it will be for future Suzukis' to convince a hardened and skeptical public about anything their "science" tells them!

The "Look, it's snowing, so climate change MUST be bogus!" argument only reveals...

In the same way that any "odd" weather *anywhere* in the world at any given time elicits a, "well, there's global warming evidence again"-type comment from newsbots on TeeVee?

It is effing amazing how the "deniers" are ridiculed for Not Understanding Science on this topic. It's the new epithet from the brainwashed (for whom the science is settled - no further discussion. No, really - Shut Up! [covers ears] La-La-La-La-La...not listening!)

"Today's below-seasonal temperature in Regina no more disproves the existence of climate change than today's above-seasonal temperature in Ottawa proves it."

Dan, you might even have a point, if just two days ago we weren't treated to media coverage where "global warming" was cited over a record breaking warm day in Regina.

Gore ---- you magnificent leftard.

Suzuki ---- you magnificent dipper.

Dan,

If you had been following various threads on this site, you'd know that the majority of temperature stations are in the US, southern Canada, and Western Europe. There are hardly any in South or Central America, Africa, or Asia. You might also know that the amount of concrete in the US, Canada, and Western Europe is far higher than in the rest of the world. Finally, you might have seen the numerous posts here which show actual pictures of temperature stations that are located on concrete or asphalt, or near the heat exhaust of air conditioners. Yep, that's unbiased measurement! Mann's hockey stick theory has been repeatedly and thoroughly trashed. All the "models" that I have seen consistently predict higher temperatures, higher sea levels, and smaller polar ice caps than we actually see.

Now, I'm just a stupid engineer, so when physicists said "it's impossible for bumblebees to fly according to aerodynamics", I thought the physicists were idiots. And when the GW people constantly predict results that NEVER show up, I think they're idiots too. And when, like Al Gore, they have a home that uses ten times as much energy as the average Tennessee house, a carbon footprint bigger than some African countries, and a personal stake in the largest carbon trading firm in the world - well, I think they're stinking hypocrites to boot. By all means, swallow their drivel if you like; just don't try to cram it down my throat.

Dan~ CO2 is up 5% since 1998. yet the Earth's temperature has Fallen nearly a full degree in the past 16 months. Why is that?

Hurricanes were supposed to get more numerous and more powerful, yet in 2006 they fell 66% from 2005, were down 50% in 2007 from 2005, and despite hysterics will be down again this year. Why is that?

The oceans have been cooling since 2003. Why is that?

I've asked these questions of rolik also. Still no answer.

The Conservative Party of Canada acknowledges the reality of global warming.

Are they lying to you?

I know! You are getting all that nasty weather cause God is getting even.

Send us your huddled masses, and tell them to bring the suntan lotion..

Hugger

Kate: Dan, you might even have a point, if just two days ago we weren't treated to media coverage where "global warming" was cited over a record breaking warm day in Regina.

Yes, and that would be the low-hanging fruit, Kate. All you've done is counter the hype machine, not the science behind it. Maybe that's all you're interested in doing. Or maybe that's all you're capable of.

KevinB: Finally, you might have seen the numerous posts here which show actual pictures of temperature stations that are located on concrete or asphalt, or near the heat exhaust of air conditioners.

Which could lead to a consistent overestimation of the recorded numerical temperature, but cannot explain the observed upward change in average temperature readings over time. And it's that change that's most important here.

Dan, are you John Cross in disguise?

John's been touting the same line of warming denier denying forever. He does it better than you.

I don't believe him either. He ignores the impact that "scientists" deliberately jiggering the measurements must have on the available data.

Garbage in, global warming out.

Dan:

Has it been settled that the poorly placed stations produce consistently higher readings, thus rendering them still accurate for the purposes of showing changes over time, or has enough been done to call into question their fundamental accuracy, meaning that the date taken from them is simply not reliable?

I can't figure out whether you are inviting someone to disprove the scientific arguments for global warning or challenging them to do so because you don't think it can be done. Could you do it?

So much for just the lefties engaging in conspiracy theories.

Tin Foil hats anyone? I have them in Ruby Red, Flaming Orange and Indigo Blue.

Hugger

Jay Leno called global warming: "spring".

Kate - always look at the positive side! This just might prevent 'Worn' from wanting to move to Delisle.

I want to see Al Gore and Suzuki move into condos, thats leadership not endless talk.

Oh my, Dan. You're late to the party and didn't bring your own beer...and you're insulting the host of the party, too. You are a cad.

So, you are relying on "experts" eh? Similar "experts" claimed that:

- lizards were the descendents of dinosaurs and that the science was settled...until someone showed more compelling evidence that BIRDS are the descendents of dinosaurs
- ulcers were caused by stress and the science was settled...until someone proved that they were caused by bacteria
- and so on ad nauseum (boring...we've been through this before...every month, you'll hear stories from scientists that exclaim "this completely changes our understanding of...")

Human understanding and science never stops changing and improving. The science is never settled. You are a complete moron to think otherwise.

Dan,

You don't seem to be stupid, so can't you think of the many reasons why temperatures have risen by a whole 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last *ONE HUNDRED YEARS* - a period during which atmospheric CO2 doubled. Urban sprawl increasing the heat island effect; air conditioning was relatively rare before WWII, and very common afterwards; old temperature stations were often out on grassy fields, whereas now they are often placed over paved surfaces. Study after study has shown the Antarctic ice cap is still roughly the same size as it was nearly a century ago.

So what I want to know is "Where's the beef?". We aren't seeing the dramatic rises in annual temp that most models predict; we aren't seeing the rising seas that are constantly being predicted. Like I said, I'm just a stupid engineer, but when you have a theory that doesn't predict what happens accurately - and often predicts the reverse of actual events - I think the theory is flat out wrong.

When your banker tells you to be fiscally responsible, he in fact is acting as the agent of the CEO of the Bank, right?

In the case of the CIBC, in 2006 the published figure for the CEO's compensation was 9.42 million. So he can lavish himself with luxuries while preaching beans and wieners for the masses.

So how is the size of Gore's and Suzuki's house relevant?

It's like yowling about Suzuki's bus. How's he supposed to get around? Buy a bike? Might need a few mods to get to some places.

Bus bus bus...fuss fuss fuss...

Hugger

Why is it that the scientists against AGW are more visible, senior and credible than the so-called "vast majority" who agree? Why do these vast majority of scientists remain anonymous? Why don't Al Bore and Dr. Fruit Fly publicly debate anybody? Why does Wikipedia strictly police their climate change articles, eliminating factual counter arguments, making sure that only lying propoganda prevails?

How can leftists demand that Canada cut back greenhouse gases, while at the same time supporting population increase through immigration?

Why are leftists against Nuclear energy, which produces zero greenhouse gases?

Why do most leftists refer to a vast amount of pro AGW evidence but never reveal it?

Why is Al Bore still showing his discredited charts and graphs?

Dave Britton, a [British] forecaster, said: "We are back to good old sunshine and showers over much of the country. We have gone back to traditional British weather."

Last April was the warmest since records began 350 years ago. There was also only 39 per cent of the usual rain.

However, this year, the showers are back and spring rainfall is already 25 per cent above average.

Last spring, the average 24-hour temperature was 48F (9C) but this year it has plummeted to 41F (5C).

Mr Britton said present conditions were not consistent with the warmer temperatures predicted by global warming models. But he added: "One year on its own cannot prove or disprove climate change."

Got this from the Telegraph.

Note that these arrogant meatheads are puzzled over the fact that the weather isn't what their models predict. It's not puzzling to anybody who isn't fanatically motivated by a single issue; to them, it proves that the models are hopelessly inadequate -- and what else could they be, when climate is so complex and poorly understood?

Note also that Mr Britton acknowledges quite openly that global warming has been neither proved nor disproved.

Ok, enough of this gup gup.

For those who would like scientific evidence, I suggest you begin at David Suzuki's sight then google to your hearts content. It should keep you busy for a while.

Going outside of that box, let's look at this in other ways.

First, are all the people and world leaders who have stated their support and belief in Global Warming idiots?

I asked earlier, is the Conservative Party of Canada lying when they say they accept this as reality? Nobody answered.

Moving on; what are the benefits and negatives?
Long list. Everything from more mass transit in times when fuel costs are going through the roof, to new technologies and the incentive to pursue them. There is housing, heating, alternate fuel, there are even people who have come up with engines that run by virtual perpetual motion to the discovery of how to make salt water burn to temperatures sufficient to run steam turbines. Tata motors of India, the ones who recently acquired Jaguar and Rover are going to build a five seater that runs on AIR! I found this link quickly;

http://www.topnews.in/now-tata-come-out-five-seat-concept-car-runs-air-220805

We have ZENN electric car manufacturing here in Canada who are trying to market their LSV's here, but no go thanks to our governments. They are marketing in other countries. Not to be deterred, they are working on a broader range and faster vehicles. I hope their money doesn't run out on account of government stonewalling.

I could go on, but will move to the next consideration.

It's going to cost some money, ok. Everything costs money and if it’s spent on developing another gas guzzler, that’s ok by some. But if it’s spent on windmills and moon shine apparatus' (bio fuel distilling mechanisms"), well that’s not so good to them. In many European countries, they don't bury trash, they don't just compost human waste, they actually use it to power things like Electricity plants. They are so far ahead of us in these areas, its scary.

Now, I could argue for pages, but lets just consider what harm this save the planet program is going to do, or rather what good will come of it.

Cleaner air. People like me won't be using twice the med's to breathe if they live in some urban areas.

Cleaner water and natural habitats. Lakes, rivers, groundwater and such.

Renewable, easily accessible and cheap sources of energy.

Oil companies become just another company instead of puppet masters.

Home heating and cooling systems that cost virtually nothing to operate.

Reduction in highway usage, construction and maintenance costs.

Reduced noise levels.

New jobs to develop and implement new technologies and their usage.

OPEC becomes a small player.

George Bushco. goes hunting with Cheney.

So what do we have to gain and what do we have to lose?

For me, its not so much the science as it the common sense and what I can see, feel and touch. I know in the past 5 decades the weather has shifted greatly and I've lived across an expanse of 2000 klm during that time. I lived through multiple winters that were consistently cold, heavy snows, started early and finished late. Not like now. Not like this past decade.

Hugger

All politicans believe in Climate Change because it is always changing...hot, cold, hot, cold. They also believe in global warming-because they have to!!

Today, 18 April 2008, the usually useless Blub and Wail has an obituary of Ed Lorenz and his work on chaose theory. In essence he showed why weather is not predictable for more than about tthree days in advance.

It's well worth reading - it's not political, and Ed Lorenz struck me when I met him 20 years ago as a decent sort of person as well as a good scientist.

Kyoto is NOT about polution ! Never was.

Google 'biofuels" - even fanatic greens are admiting the mistake.

The Hudson Bay Company's weather data (couple of centuries) shows many decadal climate swings (Read; CLIMATE CHANGE)

Sorta puts our ego-centrist 'but-the-last-decade-was-warm-blah-blah' into context.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 1:09 PM

Do you want to address the points or do you prefer drive by smears? Keep up your subscription to the Farmers Almanac.

Hugger

Hugger/Glen: As with Dan, you are late to the party. We've been over this at SDA a thousand times already.

Yes, good, agreed...let's reduce pollution, let's increase the use of alternate fuels, let's use more nuclear, let's improve transit (but our population density is NOT enough to warrant it except in the biggest of cities)...all that good stuff, just like you said. We've argued that and agreed to it before whole-heartedly (although petroleum will STILL be the most cost-effective fuel for many years to come).

BUT...we will NOT pay carbon taxes and we will NOT pay carbon indulgence fees to China, India and Russia so that THEY can pollute the world and get paid to do it. Kyoto is a ponzi scheme.

Okay? Are you up to speed yet? And if you think we're unedumacated, then hows about you mosey on to Kate's posting about "Reader Occupation Survey" in her best-of list. Engineers, geologists, scientists, etc. are a significant number of the posters here...me, I'm a Professional Engineer.

By the way, what is YOUR education and professional background?

But don't try suggesting that we consult a fruit fly geneticist for information on climatology...that's just silly.

Hugger and Dan,

Endorsement by politicians proves nothing.

To politicians, "global warming" means more -- more and bigger Government, more and nastier police, more and more expensive patronage, and more more MORE taxation to cover it. All of these are Good Things to the political class.

What puzzles us (to put it mildly) is the enthusiastic response. The very same people who shriek in agony if $1 is spent on military equipment, who scream like stuck pigs at the slightest hint of intrusion on "indigenous folkways", who gather by hundreds to march in the streets protesting "illegal wiretapping", are slathering for it. More cops! More taxes! More intrusions! More, better, and and more forceful intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens! Let us have Government committees to decide whether or not people can have blenders -- certainly a waste of perfectly good energy! And are not merely willing, but anxious to the point of paranoia, to cherrypick data, misrepresent scientific results, and viciously attack, misrepresent, and flatly lie about anyone who questions the dogma.

"Climate" has always changed. A thousand years ago people were farming in Greenland, growing wine-grapes in Thuringia, and living in large numbers in Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat; a few centuries later the Thames froze, with people ice-skating under London Bridge. There are still polar bears, and there is no record of Acre being inundated by seawater, so even if global warming is real there is no reason to expect catastrophe. And accurate thermometers were invented, and accurate records began to be kept, during the Dalton Minimum, a time of low solar output that resulted in ten-meter snowbanks as far south as Kansas; the record is biased by that. The situation is not "unprecedented", and Mann is a damnable, palpable, bald-faced liar.

We get accused of not being "concerned". That, too, is DPBFL. What we are not is sufficiently panicked to turn our entire lives and fortunes over to people not fit to manage a Queen Street bar-fight. Why are you?

Regards,
Ric

Eeyore at April 18, 2008 2:15 PM

My credentials. That would take a while. It encompasses everything from the Military to Computer Networking specialist. Also farming, taxi driver, auto and industrial mechanic, long time business owner and more. I think if you really read my post and absorb it, you will realize that its basis is common sense. Where do you go to get certified in that? Once you figure it out, kindly let them know in Ottawa.

You say many of you have credentials. I say that's nice. I'm pleased for you. I graduated Summa cum laude from the University of life, so don't try switching the train. I worked for the Railways too. Where in my post did you find a reference to Kyoto?

I began working when I was 16. Actually before that if you want to include family farming.

Oh, and I'm pleased to be afforded the opportunity to debate with such distinguished people. I guarantee, you will find it interesting.

If you are as you say, a professional, why do you feel it appropriate to refer to Suzuki as a fruit fly geneticist and engage in being condescending? Do you feel your qualifications allows you such latitude? Do you feel your experience and knowledge is so superior?

I am also pleased that you have had this discussion, and arrived at a destination which encompasses 29% of the population. The other 71% seem to favor the other position on this matter.I find, that once those who can be easily lead, are, the debate degrades to a chorus of head bobbers. You wouldn't include yourself in that description would you?

You refer to limited population base, and then say except for the cities. Well, other than some mega projects, where does the offending pollution/Co2 come from in appreciable quantities other than the cities? Let's not argue China and India ok? The money didn't sprout on trees. It came from disgruntled corporate interests who saw the opportunity for the South to rise again. Ponder that.

Having said that, I'm going to show you how a critical thinker operates. It's hard road lad. The social degradation of North America and Europe have brought this about. The result is money moving away. That does not excuse those who profess patriotism, and pursue unbridled greed. It's just an assessment of reality. Common sense. This is not the first time in the annals of History, that this sentiment has existed.

As I said, University of Life, Summa cum laude.

Please post a link to your references, I would very much like to read them.

Hugger

What we are not is sufficiently panicked to turn our entire lives and fortunes over to people not fit to manage a Queen Street bar-fight. Why are you?

Regards,
Ric
Posted by: Ric Locke at April 18, 2008 4:19 PM

Ah Grasshoppa, you misunderstand me. I agree with you in respect to the erosion of our freedoms. I understand the morass of bureaucratic indulgence. I have felt the steel of the apathetic, condescending and lazy bureaucrat. And now that I am empowered with the free speech of the Internet, I will not let them forget it, until the reaper comes for his debt.

Unlike many, I will not be duped by false idols, regardless of political orientation. I refuse to follow the ideology professed by a puppet like George Jr, who can't even manage to quote "fool me once" properly. I understand well the effect of the influence from the US government and its purveyors of propaganda.

I also understand that our political situation in Canada has declined in step. Studying the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada is what has lead me to this conclusion.

Hugger

Greg/Hugger: "why do you feel it appropriate to refer to Suzuki as a fruit fly geneticist?".

Umm, gosh, Mr. Life Experience, I guess I would call him a "fruit fly geneticist" because he is a geneticist who made a name for himself studying fruit flies. Please note that he is NOT a climatologist and did NOT study climatology.

If I want to know about genetics, I would talk to a geneticist...when I want to know about climatology, I would talk to a climatologist. Or did you not come to that realization in your Summa Cum Laude of Life Experience?

I am NOT going to post my references...they are readily available in Kate's archives from dozens, if not hundreds, of posts she has done on Y2Kyoto and Settled Science. Tell you what...you show me yours first. You are the one who started talking down to us SDA-ers first, so you must be speaking from a position of knowledge and authority...so go ahead, give 'em up. I'll warn you though...we've seen and heard it all before.

I questioned your education only because you were posting in a condescending manner to us...and I'm aware of the wide variety of education and professions of the SDA commenters. I am fully aware that education does not guarantee intelligence, so the quip about education was just a bit of a backhand against your condescension.

First, are all the people and world leaders who have stated their support and belief in Global Warming idiots?

No (not all), but they can see a way to soak us all for more money and usurp more power for themselves.

Eeyore at April 18, 2008 8:46 PM

Speaking of condescending, I mention again fruit fly geneticist. And in your humble and expert opinion, that summarizes Suzuki's accomplishments and expertise. I would also note how Mr. Suzuki's detractors like to refer to the size of his house and that nasty bus he travels in. Convincing arguments indeed.

Quote from yours;
"I am NOT going to post my references"

Then we have nothing further to discuss at this time. I gave up fishing when I lost a good part of my knee.

I will post further supporting material incrementally. Please feel free to post yours to rebut. No farmers Almanacs please.

You might want to have a gander over on the blog entry of April 18, 2008
Y2Kyoto: Bomb Kyoto!
and read a post by Samuel; Samuel at April 18, 2008 8:10 PM

Hugger

The climate change/global warming debate is not a science debate but a political/economic debate. The IPCC are non-science bureaucratic organ whose mandate is to find a relationship between carbon and global warming and then build a case for nuclear power.

The non-governmental members of the IPCC, i.e. scientists are pissed that they are being manipulated into supporting the "cause' or lose funding.

It's politics and control - not science.

It's a scam supported by ignorant people who think the sky is falling because of the exploits of the Goreacle and fruit fly experts.

Trolls, spam - same thing. Perhaps trolls can be eliminated the same way google's gmail virtually eliminates spam from your inbox. (with trolls, you'd think embarasement alone would do it)

sda, and millions of others, would belong to a master troll registry. When ever one blog site bans a troll, that troll would also be baned from the other millions of sites. One delete would be worth a million. Problem solved.

Never allow truth and common sense to stand in the way of your head bobbing. Couldn't have that, now could we?

Hugger

"Quite right.... and that's why "greenhouse gases" play such a huge (to us) role. Those "minor greenhouse gases" have the ability to apply a tiny, fractional increase in radiative forcing.

Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 8:10 PM"

The global warming advocates place so much credence into the computer models that they believe them to be true. The above statement is an example of that.

The smugness of these people know no bounds. We are all just a bunch of dumb fucks for not buying into the line.

The earth was warmer before, the earth was cooler before, there was less CO2 before, there was more CO2 before.

I don't trust the advocates. They are agenda driven politico's pushing this, not scientists. I would not let an environmentalist run a popsicle stand for the public.

Any politician who stands up and says that they support Kyoto is irresponsible and is not looking after the public interest. A "green" politician is chasing a tax increase and looking for justification.

"Quite right.... and that's why "greenhouse gases" play such a huge (to us) role. Those "minor greenhouse gases" have the ability to apply a tiny, fractional increase in radiative forcing.

Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 8:10 PM"

The global warming advocates place so much credence into the computer models that they believe them to be true. The above statement is an example of that.

The smugness of these people know no bounds. We are all just a bunch of dumb fucks for not buying into the line.

The earth was warmer before, the earth was cooler before, there was less CO2 before, there was more CO2 before.

I don't trust the advocates. They are agenda driven politico's pushing this, not scientists. I would not let an environmentalist run a popsicle stand for the public.

Any politician who stands up and says that they support Kyoto is irresponsible and is not looking after the public interest. A "green" politician is chasing a tax increase and looking for justification.

Glen/Hugger: All you have done is talk in a condescending manner, as if you know better. You have not explained the physics or the chemistry...you are just promising to post links to other "believers".

I don't have the time to search through Kate's archives and post the relevant links to the "skeptics"...I have a job. But all we would do is trade links between "believers" and "skeptics" and neither one of us would be convinced by the other's links.

So, the upshoot to this whole discussion, we're wasting our times trying to educate each other.

And I still don't understand why you don't like referring to a fruit fly geneticist as a fruit fly geneticist. Don't like the truth?

Eeyore at April 19, 2008 8:40 AM

I attempted to post the Battery technology information, twice, but it may have been caught in a filter as a message saying it will be reviewed came up.

You can read it at your leisure and do with it as you choose. If your mind is closed, then that is your choice. There are others who may take an interest.

Hugger