the yellow square, you mean the yellow peril. seems patently obvious that its worth destroying half the economy over that little yellow peril.

What yellow square?

The yellow square represents the total anthropogenic C02 produced each year by Canadians.

I, uh, can't find the yellow square. Surely Canada must be more important than THAT!

I think the media, which is the left hand of the Liberal Party, adding millions in free publicity to that Party every year, wants to make Dion's Green Shaft a key focal point to define the Liberal Party.

Harper is refusing; that's why the media is working so hard to make it an issue.

Remember, Dion's plan isn't about the environment. It does nothing about emissions other than use them as a fabulous source of money for the Liberal Party - to behave as the Liberal Party always does. Use the taxpayer's money to bribe other taxpayers to...Vote Liberal.

That's the only agenda of Dion's Plan. To get money from..somewhere...to bribe voters to Vote Liberal.

I think there is a yellow dot between the red and black lines.............or that may just be a dead pixel on my LCD. ;)

having the second coldest country in the world with the one of the lowest population densities wouldnt make Canada an obvious energy user would it. any idiot could see signing up for kyoto style deductions in a country with a growing population would be folly. couldnt they?

There are some warmer places in Canada , but we cant all live in 7 million dollar mansions by the Kitsalana yacht club like Dr. Fruitfly Suzuki. Some of us have to heat our houses .

1007 cdns were polled re the debate. 70% said yes.
That is a total of about 705 cdns want a debate.
Sort of changes the panic of needing or wanting a debate.
And if the poll was taken across canada lets see the provincial results.
And just maybe some of those wanting this debate is to see PMSH annililate Dion and his plan.
Wanting a debate and supporting the greenshaft are two different things.
Dion took 2 yrs to come up with this plan, shouldn't PMSH have 2 yrs to study it.
He will make mincemeat out of dion in a debate. Be careful what you wish for.

Of course they're thinking, Kate.

What they're thinking is they want the Liberals back in power, ASAP. Because they miss their $300 per person schmoozes with government VIPs, juicy leaks from the top, and being On The Inside.

So naturally they just spew Dion talking points as hard and as fast as possible, while frantically scrabbling at smooth, glassy sides of the Harper Cone of Silence.

Lots of evidence of hard thinking. Just thinking of themselves, is all.

Now put that CO2 blue square into a much larger square representing H20. The water vapour in the atmosphere is responsible for about 95% of the “global warming” effect.

Now put that CO2 blue square into a much larger square representing H20. The water vapour in the atmosphere is responsible for about 95% of the “global warming” effect.

The human component of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be overstated here. The planet has been going through two centuries of warming from the LIA. As the oceans warm, they exhaust carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. As they cool, the reverse takes place. I believe the human component here may attribute all increase to human activity, when a far larger proportion may be due to natural causes. Throughout geologic history, changes in carbon dioxide concentration have followed, not preceded, changes in temperature. The pattern of the 19th and 20th C is no different.

Don't forget those six-figure Liberal communications director jobs that so many former reporters seem to find.

The Liberals are working for China now. Canada, a sacrificial lamb no less. Carbon Tax = China's Tax. Canada to sacrifice. China, carry on gang.

The article below outlines the views of Bill Robson,C.D. Howe Institute president.
He estimates that the Dion plan could hit consumers for close to 3 times what the libs project. No mention of costs that will also get shuffled on to consumers.
The last line in the report is a 'winner'.
(Isn't this already the case?)

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=8f480c64-321f-4c68-bed6-b8b9277a9675

...Meanwhile in Canada's great outdoors below average temperatures are recorded daily. Watch for a cooler than average July and August too.

I also predict a brutally long, cold and snowy winter ahead too because I am a solar cycle believer.

In early spring all the weather "experts" came out and predicted a stiffling hot summer to come...Maybe I'm ahead of myself but with the solar minimum having been happening for 2 years now, the oceans have theoretically cooled off for the jet streams to bring colder winds. The June temps may just be a reflection of that and if solar minimum persists it will only get colder as the oceans keep cooling.

Is'nt it the IPCC that put GW on hold for the next 15 years or so? With energy prices eroding the world economies it's a wonder any western politician has not yet come out and denounced this sham or at least repeat the IPCC's current position which is not an MSM front page by any means. Cowards. That's how powerful this religion has become. Scary. Revolution comes to mind.
Are the politicians using GW because of a potential global conflict over energy soon coming?
Just preparing people to get use to having less?

Kate: where are you getting your CO2 numbers from? The relative proportion of the lines does not look correct if it is representative of what you describe. The black portion should be about 1/4 the length of the line (i.e. about 100 out of 380).

Regards,
John

Now put that CO2 blue square into a much larger square representing H20. The water vapour in the atmosphere is responsible for about 95% of the “global warming” effect.

That solid black line looks a little intimidating. Almost like a roof that that traps solar radiation and fries us like ants under a magnifying glass. Now if the red, black and yellow pixels were evenly distributed, as they are in the atmosphere, then we’d have a good start on a new Procol Harem ditty.

We trapped the light fandango
And turned cartwheels across the floor
They were feeling kind of seasick
The crowd called out for more
The room was humming harder
As the ceiling flew away
When they called out for some more koolade
The waiter brought a tray
……
And so it was that later
As the Swindler told his tale
That her face at first just ghostly
Turned a darker shade of pale

It is interesting to note the number of times Warren Kinsella hypes National Newswatch, while slagging Bourqe. Hmmmmm.....

We in BC received $100.00 cheques in the mail to supposedly make it easier for us to swallow the onerous Carbon Tax that the Provincial Liberal Party is imposing starting July 1/08. I propose that those who receive the cheques, endorse them and send them to the opposition party of their choice, or better yet, send them to the The Conservative Party of Canada to help Steven Harper get the majority that we so desperately need. Mine is in the Mail!

Kate: where are you getting your CO2 numbers from? The relative proportion of the lines does not look correct if it is representative of what you describe. The black portion should be about 1/4 the length of the line (i.e. about 100 out of 380).

Regards,
John

I see the National Newswatch list includes an op-ed by uber-moonbat Frannie Russell in the Whiningpig Free Regress. Franny's op-eds never change, the same themes - even the identical words - appear again and again: "Conservatives evil"; "Harper scary"; "more social spending required"; "capitalism killing the environment"; "state must protect individuals from their own bad choices" ad nauseam.

Today, however, a single new twist: Franny bashes her own boy, Tommy Mulcair, because he won't eat Dionsky's "Green Shi*t".

Sounder: "The Liberals are working for China..."

China doesn't need our charity anymore. Clearly China would benefit somewhat but when western economies tank there will be much less money to purchase their manufactured goods. Kyoto will be bad for China because it is bad for China's customers.

Choking free markets with fraudulent taxation and unreasonable regulation does not enhance it. It poisons it. The NEP taught Alberta that lesson well. Now it's being foisted again upon us, albeit the NEP wolf is now wearing granny's clothes.

Beyond the yellow square, yellow science:

James Kerian, Yellow Science

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of “an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure.” Global warming may or may not be “the greatest scam in history,” as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an “item of physical knowledge.”

Can someone tell me:

WHAT THE HELL LEFTOID ENTITY HAS TAKEN OVER "NATIONAL" NEWSWATCH!!!!!!!!!!

What in the hell has happened over there??
It used to be a conservative flavored news aggregater but in the last few months the news story lineup list gone absolutley raving leftard.
Does anyone have any idea what has happened and more precisely WHO is invloved?
Discuss.....

As an individual, bombardion's green shaft will not affect me very much. I have already made the upgrades to furnaces, windows, etc.(with zero gov't money, thk u very much)

It is the seniors on fixed incomes, in their older homes with the oil fired furnaces. And the working single mothers heating with electricity. And the struggling students eating kraft dinner to pay their heating bill. Etc, etc, etc.

And lets not forget those who are getting hammered by the high Canadian dollar(Ontario's declining manufacturing base comes to mind).

One can only hope that this leftard, and his merry band of moonbats never gain power.

VOTE REFORM1
GO ARMY!

One other thing, vis-a-vis the whole light bulb thing. Why

population of canada 33+million 639.4 tons co2
population of UK 60.7 million 587.2 tons co2
i find it kind of hard to believe we produce more co2 than the UK that has almost double the population.

Sorry, mistake!

Young Cherniak has a new banner As influential as The Mainstream Media . Someone please assure me this isn't a sign of the apocalypse .

John - source is Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 2004

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

But I worded that poorly, and have updated to address that. I should have written "burning of fossil fuels" instead of "human activities". Thanks for pointing it out.

Don - I backed away from NNW when he started linking to Big City Lib. Who's next? Canadian Cynic?

Kate,

The math may be wrong in your pic. I get a 500x500 pixel image (250,000 pixels) ... which means 95 pixels in total for CO2 (given the 380ppm) ... I count 52 for black and yellow.

I have been questioning who the pincipals were from day one of their blog.

My suspicion is that it's backed by a MSM corporate entity, and the headlines are tilted left.
Meanwhile remembering that MSM have been the enablers of decades of Liberal government corruption.
Bill O'Reilly says the American MSM are "corrupt", I agree Canadian leftist MSM are also (leftist ) and corrupt.

Ural - it's a really difficult graphic to create. I started with a 1000 x 1000 pixel image, and when I was finished, reduced it to 500 x 500. Otherwise, it doesn't fit the page! The limitations of the web. Fixing the blurring effect probably fattened the lines somewhat, but I simply couldn't reduce them without cutting the lines in half.

I should probably reconstruct it in the larger size and post it as a link.

Why is it so hard to find out who is in control of NNW ??

I removed National Newswatch from my Favorites months ago and now never go there.
Can,t stand all the Don Newman, Don Martin, James Travers, Craig Oliver etc. i.e. Libby Davis, Ralph Goodale type spin

Sorry, don't have the link but this is from an OXFAM press release that was sent to me:

Biofuels are responsible for 30% of the increase in global food prices, pushing 30 million people worldwide into poverty, aid agency Oxfam said in a report today. The use of biofuels is soaring as developed countries try to reduce their dependence on imported oil and cut emissions of carbon dioxide, but critics say they have led to a shortage of grain, pushing up commodity prices. "Rich countries' demands for more biofuels in their transport fuels are causing spiralling production and food inflation," said Oxfam biofuel policy adviser Rob Bailey, who wrote the report. "Grain reserves are now at an all-time low," he said. Oxfam called on rich countries to dismantle subsidies for biofuels and reduce import tariffs.

"Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security," the report said, Reuters reported. The aid agency also urged rich countries to scrap biofuels targets, including EU plans to get 10% of its transport fuel from renewable sources like biofuels by 2020.

The EU plans strict criteria to ensure biofuels do not do more harm than good. Some member states want targets to be conditional on the commercial availability of second-generation biofuels from farm waste, timber waste and domestic waste.

Oxfam estimates that by 2020, carbon dioxide emissions from land-use change in the palm oil sector may have reached over 3.1 billion tonnes, largely as a result of the EU target - and it would take over 46 years of biofuel use at 2020 levels to repay this "carbon debt". "Biofuels are taking over agricultural land and forcing farming to expand into lands that are important carbon sinks, like forests and wetlands," the report said. "This triggers the release of carbon from soil and vegetation that will take decades to repay."

Don: as I mentioned above, Kinsella has been hyping NWW a great deal lately (yes, I read him so you don't have to).

Even Cherniak has noticed this. So, putting 1 + 3 together...I would have to presume that Kinsella, or those like him, are running things there now.

A thin line, linoleum or whatever - the fact remains;

[“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote in an Aug. 15, 2007, blog on his Web site www.IceCap.US.

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent). Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45 percent/year). We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.]Hawaii Reporter

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6

Kate,

Or you can leave it at 500x500 blue and create a 5x19 pixel image and color it, then paste it on the 500x500. Unfortunately there is no way to show Canada's contribution without a very large image.

In a similiar vein as Ron in Kelownas 11:57 post, it appears to me that Dions Carbon Tax would optimistically achieve a reduction of atmpospheric C02 of about 1/50th of 1 part per million annually.

I have sent the following to quite a few journos, but generally they do not respond, or ignore the overall point.

Have tried to post it to the comments of a number of MSM articles. Cant seem to get it past the moderators though.

"A question I do not see being asked by any media is "how much would
atmospheric
C02 levels be reduced by implemeting Dions tax? "

After all if the point of the tax is to get Canadians to reduce thier C02
output, then shouldnt it be measurable as to its effectiveness?

(also bear in mind that C02 is not a "pollutant" as many in the media refer
to it. Its a naturally occurring trace gas that sustains life on earth)

I think if people new how little we actally contribute, and the miniscule
amount that Dions Tax might reduce that already small number by, they would
be astonished.

Total atmospheric C02 .038% or 380 ppm

Mans contribution to atmospheric C02 = 3% of total or 11.4 ppm (I have
seen figures for mans contribution as low as 6ppm but will use the higher)

Canada's contribution is 2% of man's 3% or .06% = .2ppm or 1/5th of 1 ppm.

That is Canadas total contribution of C02 to atmospheric C02, and is the
amount that atmospheric C02 levels would be reduced by if Dions Carbon Tax
successfully eliminated 100% of the C02 we currently produce. Since that is
impossible, what reduction of C02 might Dions plan achieve?

We still have to run our economy, drive to work and heat our homes. The
markets have priced in a 2.25 per gallon (and rising) "tax" since Dion was
elected Liberal leader. People are still using fossil fuels, so I think we
can assume they will continue to do so after Dions Carbon Tax.

If Dions plan were able to create a 10% reduction in current C02 emmissions,
which I think is highly optimistic, the resultant reduction in atmospheric
C02 would then be 1/10th of 1/5th of 1 part per million, or about 20 parts
per Billion.

Think about how miniscule those numbers are.

And China or the rest of the world are not going to stop their expansions
due to our "setting an example".

When looked at in this fashioin, I don't think that the Tax can be justified
as contributing to a reduction in "climate change" . Big reduction in
pocket change though.

Campbell's carbon tax in B.C. will be rescinded just before the next provincial election, because it's one and only purpose is the tax grab that it is. Once enough money has been collected to cover the convention centre expansion and the anticipated cost overruns for the winter olympics the tax will cease to be.

This "revenue nuetral" tax brought to B.C. by a government that claimed to have a balanced budget, no deficit, but at the same time adding over $2 BILLION to the provincial debt. Provincial Lieberals are exactly the same as the federal Lieberals. Fortunately for Canada Dion will never be PM.

Why is it so hard to find out who is in control of NNW ??

It's not. You just need to pay better attention while you surf.

Actually, I read somewhere,another blog, that the total "GHG" in the atmosphere makes up only about one percent of the total atmosphere.
I know that nitrogen makes up the most and oxygen most of the rest and that doesn't leave much room for "GHG".So I think your graph may be off on the totals though the percentages may be accurate.

cgh, are you referring to BC?
The Agit-Prop Deluge has reached BC.
The Answer: more More "beef up".
Old coalworkers' union leader John L. Lewis had the Answer when asked by reporters what he wanted this year: "More". Lewis knew coal was the crux.

Here is the tax money quote from the Goose Plucking FinMin: "The government has defended the tax by noting that it is revenue neutral and will be used to finance tax cuts."
FinMin stole that line from Talleyrand.
...-

"BRITISH COLUMBIA: THE CARBON TAX
Liberals to beef up tax campaign
Province hasn't done enough to explain controversial levy, Finance Minister says"
http://tinyurl.com/6gpd7p (g-m)

Happens to me too !! Many Journalists do not respond when my email topic is Global Warming.

They pen article after article on GW - but will not discuss it. (Afraid of loosing their job or something ?)

However, these same non-responding ones are often happy to take the time to discuss other topics with me, mere citizen :)

About NationalNewswatch's swoon to the left and who may be hiding in the weeds... I guess enough said!

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:VDDfEXwWc7MJ:warrenkinsella.com/index.php%3Fentry%3Dentry080528-082705+national+newswatch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8

I find Lorrie Goldstein of Sun Media is pretty responsive to Global Warming issues.

He's a voice in the wilderness in presenting what this scam is all about.

Further to NNW's source:

http://www.who.is/whois-com/ip-address/nationalnewswatch.com/

The only good thing about NNW is Lorrie Goldstein.

Lawrence Solomon, Peter Foster, Terrence Corcoran and a few others are well worth the read also.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20080625.RREYNOLDS25/TPStory/TPComment

"Kate: where are you getting your CO2 numbers from? The relative proportion of the lines does not look correct if it is representative of what you describe. The black portion should be about 1/4 the length of the line (i.e. about 100 out of 380).

Regards,
John"

John, on what basis do you attribute all of the increase in CO2 to human activity?

Ron in Kelowna, no, it's not that they're afraid of losing their jobs, it's simply that they have no understanding of the subject. To be critical of the theory, you have to have some understanding of it and the evidence for it. To accept it, you merely need faith. It's just as relevant to ask them why they believe in General Relativity. Not a one of them has any significant understanding of the science behind it. Hence the views of journalists on science have no more relevance to truth or falsehood than the views of my pet cat, excepting only that they act as a filter of information going to the public.

But 'why' do they 'not' look into it ??

Lawrence Solomon, for one, was also a believer at one time - looked into it and wrote a whole series of well researched articles, 'The Deniers'.

So what is wrong with the others ?? Indifferent, stubborn, brain dead or just afraid of loosing their jobs ?? Toe the Reuters, AP, Thompson line ?

I noticed that CTV uses NNW in their URL for some stories...ya think maybe?

www.ctv.nationalnewswatch.com/CTVNews_019291019_TopStories_.htm

If CTV and CBC are giving free advertising to the Liberal party, that advertising has a fair market value and should be of interest to CRA, CRTC and Elections Canada. Giving platforms for the party not in power to advertise their propaganda without payment does not change what it is considered. Also, this would appear to be the case with the Block not having a representation on CTV's Question Period every Sunday thus discriminating against the third largest represented party in Canada. Also, other Liberal pundits from other media outlets also appear to have been given a forum as well. The public has noticed this for years. Why has not Elections Canada?

Ron, they don't look into it because the philosophy suits their world view. They want to believe that industrial society is inherently unethical. Being mostly from the arts, they espouse the philosophy of Rousseau in their view of nature, not that of Thomas Hobbes or Voltaire. It is a common and frequent failing of romanticism (in the philosophical sense) to idealize the past. Just skim through the cover spines of the Romance Novel section in any bookstore, and you will see what I mean. All of these highly coloured depictions of beautiful earlier times when life was simpler, more idyllic. You see none of the reality in any of this: dirt, filth, disease, hideously polluted drinking water, lethally hard manual labour, massive deathrates in childbirth.

A second aspect to why they do not question this is because of a massive failure of most arts types to understand technology. Despite many of them claiming to have watched James Burke's Connections TV series (something I highly recommend), they seem to persist in thinking that technology is like a supermarket; you can buy what you want. By starting down the road to technology our species launched on a path of unlocking all the ideas and concepts which we could imagine or devise. We don't get to pick and choose which we will invent or think of and which we don't; we get the whole contents of Pandora's Box. Just as the Pope said there's no supermarket catholicism, there's no supermarket technology either. If you want advanced medicine and sanitation and a balanced diet, well a host of things come with that, including nuclear power and pesticides and water chlorination and lots of other things the Rousseauians claim to hate.

I wonder how much of that CO2 since the industrial era is due to CO2 outgassing by the oceans due to the end of the Little Ice Age? Or would it be better for us to starve in the cold as a species?

spike at 11:25 am:

"population of canada 33+million 639.4 tons co2
population of UK 60.7 million 587.2 tons co2"

Perhaps it has something to do with those 60.7 million people living in a temperate marine climate on a surface area less than 2.5% of that of Canada and not being a major energy producer.

Have the Liberals ever started up any program which has run within a country mile of the projected cost of operation?
Why is Mr Dion not being asked why he is planning to fund non carbon footprint reducing programs?

Oil reserves in Canada - pwwwLL@#$$$!!#2
Oil reserves in UK - plwwwwph@%-0

http://www.mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=312

-that shows the atmosphere of the earth is only about one percent total "GHG" and most of that includes water vapour which is "more heat retaining than C02 and other "GHG".
sorry to contradict your very pretty graph m. Kate
:{

cgh: I would say that attributing the increase since pre-industrial times is a safe bet, but I did not say that it was all due to anthropogenic sources.

I will say that as long as we have been keeping relatively good records (i.e. for the last 50 years or so) it can be shown that we are responsible for all the CO2 increase.

Regards,
John

felis, the answer is much simpler. Britain has no significant heavy industry any more. It has no primary industry with the closure of the coal mines, it has had little mineral mining for decades, it has no significant forestry industry, and its chemical industries have been contracting since the 1980s. Its secondary industry has been shrinking for most of the past century; it has no significant steel industry or any other large forging industries. In short, Britain has no industry any more that demands large quantities of low cost energy. Most of its automotive and vehicle manufacturing has been lost or merged and downsized. That's why consumer demand forms a much higher proportion of Britain's energy consumption than it does in Canada. In short, Britain is essentially a service economy dependent upon the manufacturing capacity of other nations.

To put the graph in its proper proportion you would need to shrink the black and red lines and yellow square down to approximately 0.4 % of the total blue area.
only trouble is the pundits and media won't be able to "put that in their pipe and smoke it".
Though maybe if they use a crack pipe?

John, those are assumptions that have not been substantiated. It is known that CO2 outgassing follows warming. So, if all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is of human origin, where is the CO2 released by the oceans from two centuries of warming, most of which occurred before the large rises in CO2 from industrialization?

Second, I believe your assumption can only be valid if we have a thorough understanding of both natural sources and sinks of CO2. Based on the science presented by AR4, that understanding is not thorough.

cgh: I have long argued that in fact we do not need detailed assessment about what the various sources and sinks are to determine if we are responsible for the increase. What we do need is knowledge about how much CO2 we produce and knowledge about the atmospheric levels of CO2 (knowledge about both is displayed in Kate's graph).

We can then structure an analogy like this. Imagine the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a bank account that many people have access to. Some people put money some take money out (this represents the various sources and sinks). Now, over a year we contribute $7 to the bank account and at the end of the year we notice that the amount in the account is $3 more than it was at the start of the year.

My question is what would have been the level if we had not contributed that $7? If you believe it would be the same or higher please provide the basis for such a mechanism that would allow this change in the real world.

regards,
John

Darn it, the color in my monitor is off. I can't see the yellow square! Time to buy a new one.

"I have long argued that in fact we do not need detailed assessment about what the various sources and sinks are to determine if we are responsible for the increase."

This is the flaw in your position. If you do not know all of the natural sources and withdrawals of CO2, then you cannot possibly know what can be attributed to human origin. CO2 molecules do not carry little signs saying "I was made by Acme Steel Company".

Hence, you have no idea of the answer to your question "My question is what would have been the level if we had not contributed that $7?"

As to this statement, "If you believe it would be the same or higher please provide the basis for such a mechanism that would allow this change in the real world."

You are the advocate of the hypothesis. It is up to you to provide an answer. You might begin by dealing with AR4's claimed lack of knowledge regarding sinks at least to the extent of indicating whether or not human CO2 is a mere rounding error to natural exchanges.

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
Maurice Strong

"A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns."
Maurice Strong

If a tree falls in the forest ......?
hello hello
Kate's lines are way off ..
The blue area needs to be much, much, bigger to put the lines in their proper proportion.
Much bigger, in fact you would need a Zoom just to see the line and some possibly even Google Earth Satelite to see the yellow square of Canadians contribution.
really the hoax is that big

Greenpiece,the Sierra club,the Canadian wildlife assn.and countless others should be up in arms about this movement.It wants to STARVE plants of much needed CO2 thus decimating the worlds animals and forcing more into extinction.The UN knows of the worlds burgening population and they are on the side of STARVING plants and therefore people.IT makes me wonder if Ruwanda and similar countries are a situation engineered by the UN for population control.

John Cross, is he not drunk on Maurice Strong's Kool-Aid? Say it isn't so.

"Now if the red, black and yellow pixels were evenly distributed, as they are in the atmosphere,..."

I tried 'de-constructing' the line and re-distributing it pixel by pixel using Photo
shop, but quickly noted that without a HUGE image that nobody would even see the individual black, red and single yellow pixels.

That's how small they are in relation to the whole.

But I'm going to rotate the image to a more typical 'graph' style and send it to all of my global warming friends.... with a brief explanation of course.

"My question is what would have been the level if we had not contributed that $7? If you believe it would be the same or higher please provide the basis for such a mechanism that would allow this change in the real world."
If you have billion dollars in the bank and you put in another $7 how much difference is the extra interest from the $7 going to make to your life.

I'm curious about the 100 "scientists" who re-released a 2 year old press release demanding the government follow the green shift.

apparently yes. unless you happen to be on the give side of the give and take equation, or in western canada, or old, or poor , or rural , or have a job.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2008/06/how_will_carbon_trading_work_f.html

CBCpravda , All Lieberal ,All the time

at least this guy is a somewhat credible witness, it must have pained Pravda deeply to seek him out when Dr. Mengele Suzuki , who advocates letting the third world live in poverty, lives so tantalizing close in the mansion on kitsalano beach. (down by the yacht club and across the street)

What's the deal with reports of the IPCC "losing" all of the working documentation that led to their Glo-Bull Warming theory?

Oh dear God. Frances Russell, who's political leanings come in a little to the left of Jack Layton in my opinion, has written an opinion piece on Dion's Green shaft plan.

While I don't have a link, I read it in the Wpg. Free Press online edition under "Opinions". Don't read it shortly after eating however, or you will lose whatever you had to eat.

I truly wonder how some of these people can breathe unassisted given the low level of their brain activiry.

Did anyone else notice that NNW started about the same time that Liberals started complaining about paid headlines on Bourque?

Has anyone noticed that while Bourque is known, that NNW remains top secret as to who owns it?

Why?

Check this out.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3061

NoGuff,

Just tell them that if they had a whisker 1 mile long on their chin, Canada's total CO2 output per year would represent 1 day of growth (Assumes the average of 1/2" per month). It would also take 10,560 years to grow that 1 mile whisker.

I can find McBean, but no "open letter" so I guess it wasn't that open. But it is just a repeat of the 2006 letter.

From 2007 Globe & Mail via cristindal.ca: "..Dr. McBean briefed the federal Liberal cabinet on climate change in 2002. He told them then — five years ago — that the Kyoto targets were only a first step, and that much deeper reductions in carbon ..."

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF McBEAN'S beano ideas

Check out his resume at UWO. He's a died-in-the-wall self-interested bureaucrat who would be out of a job without the Global Warming Scam.

No coincidence, I'm sure, that it came out the day after Hansen goes loco.

Cgh: you make my case for me!!! You are correct that CO2 molecules do not come with tags saying where they are from so there is no way to tell if a molecule is from burning fossil fuels or from another source. However a molecule from the burning of fossil fuels that is taken up by a sink will reduce the number of “other” molecules taken up. In other words the anthropogenic molecule displaces a potential sink for a CO2 molecule from a natural source. Which is my exact point! We are responsible for all the recent increase. The exact molecules from the burning of fossil fuels may not be floating around in the atmosphere but if they have been taken up by a sink they have displaced other CO2 molecules that are floating around. So you point is – in fact – moot and my analogy still stands.

In regards to your point about my being the advocate so the proof is up to me, I agree. My point was that I have provided a proof and if you do not agree it is not enough on your part to say it is wrong without being able to show why it is wrong.

Regards,
John

John Cross - are you asserting atmospheric CO2 levels are governed by linear response?

"Canadians want TV debate on Liberals' carbon tax, poll finds"
"Can `green shift' alter Quebec climate?"
"Dion's carbon tax the fairest option for Canada"
"Canada deserves green debate"
OK, Alberta oil producers, start thinking carbon taxes"

THINK CANADIANS, THINK...

last year the auto dealers in TO give out a questionair to those who bought a car,after 38,500 , enviorment came in 23'd out of 25 places. So if dion keeps beating his gums about "another" tax, he's apt to lose a lot of big city voters.

John Cross----- there is NO way to be certain that the increase in co2 that appears to be man made actually is. I'v read your accertion before about how they can show ( chemically identify ) the percentage of certain types of co2 that are of human origin, it's just that it is impossible to determine if the distribution is "even" , thusly garbage in, BS out, as far as this is concerned

as I recall, you'v claimed to be an enigineer or scientist, and I always shake my head at how bglind peaple such as you are. When I worked with educated and intelligent individuals I'm always amazed at the the number of questions they have while having few or no answers. People like you (and leftards) always have answers, just never the rite ones.

I'm agnostic on the whole topic of AGW, but not on the proposed actions, which are will have no noticable effects as far as AGW is concerned, but can have a huge negative "human" effect in kanada and world wide!!!!

Tenebris-

Excellent question! I have such a list of questions that these "climatologists" can't seem to address without changing the subject that it drives me absolutely nuts. If the carbon cycle is "closed", why is the radius(diameter, pick a metric) of the Earth not static? How is the ionization of the atmosphere from the "Solar Winds" related to water vapor and cloud formation?(Closed Energy Equations Only)

Here's the toughie....

Is the "carbon sink" you are so up in arms about (John Cross, I'm looking at you) more of a concern because it's release will spike temperatures + 0.6 degrees C in the next 100 years, according to Algor's propaganda, or that it's release will react with the 26% of the atmosphere that is Oxygen, and therefore, take away your air?

Make.Up.Your.Mind.

(By the way, that was forty years of environmental atmospheric science history zipped into a retort for one)

And it wasn't aimed at Tenebris. (Sorry, if I was fuzzy about that).

Finally - It takes a person like Carol Goar to reveal the true vision behind this "Green" Shift.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/448663

Any regular visitor here knows Kyoto is a scam and AGW theory is so full of holes, a thinking person wouldn't put actual cash from their bank account into fighting it. (some would, but P.T. Barnum said it first). It never was and never will be about the environment. If you believe that you are the cause of the end of the world, don't be ashamed, there are millions of other nuts out there too!

Porter - "Is the "carbon sink" ... more of a concern because ...it's release will react with the 26% of the atmosphere that is Oxygen, and therefore, take away your air?"

You want to unpack that a little further?

Did anyone catch this news item on the Obama view of our tar sands?

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=8daa1fae-0944-44f1-a0cd-c08dcd1ee218

Every tree that is cut down to turn into pulp to be turned into newsprint is a Green Crime. Suzuki will be after the newspaper folks anyday now - he already wants to throw some politicians in jail. Think of what he will do to those who murder precious CO2 sequestering vegetation?

Your very product, newspaper editors, represents a horrible environmental blight on our planet. And all that gasoline and diesel to distribute it! And the landfill space! Mon dieu, your carbon footprint is bigger than your brains!

Do the Right Thing for Humanity, would you please, and just go out of business already? I won't exactly be missing your product.

"A question I do not see being asked by any media is "how much would atmospheric C02 levels be reduced by implementing Dions tax? "

Why would they? They know its not about being green, its about wealth redistribution. Its about making the slice of the pie bigger for those who aren't getting any now. When your income is limited by your intellect, tax breaks are about it for you...

Skip ,

dat his not fair , it his snot hizzy beink green.

it his da izzy money we har hafter. da western pipples 'ave too much money. being lieberal we cannot stand for earn pros pair hitty.

Borat Dion.

Tenebris-

I'd be happy to "unpack" that for you. It was an "overwhelming" concern in the early 80's that the elimination of the rainforest with the reversal of the "Carbon Sink Effect" of permafrost would unleash so much carbon (enter your reagent choice here) that the "new" carbon in the atmosphere "could" react with enough O2 and make the atmosphere to harsh for humans. Nature turned out to have a little too much "looseness" in that version of the carbon cycle and other elements of the Earth (ecosphere, to the rest them) took up the slack somehow, (funny how those things never quite get publicized when disproven, isn't it?).

This is my favorite example. Remember how dire the ozone hole was? Well, in actuality, it was very serious and deserved the attention it got in ending the fluorocarbon gambit as a coolant. The cessation of the use of fluorocarbons (remember that second root for the future) gave the nature of the Earth a chance to heal itself magnificently, in the manner it always has, if given the freedom room to do so.

Oh, I'm sorry, has Dr. Hansen's side project (Ozone Holes) never been explained as to how it is being resolved? The Earth is beautifully doing what it has always done when things are out of balance. It took the injection of new energy (unblocked Solar Wind) through the holes at the poles and put it right back to use where it would do the most good. Making ozone the old fashioned way. With its own electrical system. Lightening. Surprisingly enough, the holes are almost completely repaired now. Just imagine how wonderful a system a multiple of billions of years old that we inhabit, can repair itself within a mere blink of an eye to its own existence. Pretty humbling, if you ask me.

I hope that covers it.

Oh, and the one hat really digs at me.

"The Sun doesn't do anything."

Can I get a ruling on that please?

Maybe off topic but.....

CBC with Peter Mansbridge at 10:30pm. On the price of gasoline eventually going to three dollars a litre. Voices droning on and on, almost with a perverse delight about different families and what it would mean to their budget.

Someone even suggested faintly about the anger and resentment of those without automobiles against those that have. This in the future.

Once more for the umpteenth time, my liberal spouse (small l) said about what can we do? I almost lost it. This when the voice droned on about the unfortunate ones with oil heating. It is us too.

One long drone as if with some sort of vague satisfaction. It is not me that has on CBC. Sure, it might be a case of shoot the messenger but, it is all doom and gloom.

Oh, now we go to the eleven pm news. Dear old Lloyd Robertson and the now revived Bernier case. If it bleeds it leads.

GYM: What you appear to be thinking about is the analysis of the carbon isotopes. This is a good and valid idea, but it has nothing to do with my current argument.

Regards,
John

What a bunch of junk. No not the chart . The idea that humans could destroy the planets atmosphere by burning a gas that tree's need to survive. The utter insanity of these eco-freaks is becoming more evident each day, as the Universe that was theres begins to rebound on them with to many lies.They panic now at the thought of this paridise without man slips from a greedy grasping paws of the misathropes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LdwGUXoXyA

I've always wondered is CO2 weighed?

I figured if a 1 square inch column of air weighs 14.7 lbs.....

I figured that one square mile has just over 1 million tons of CO2.

One mega ton.

Some .036 % of the total weight of the atmosphere over a square mile.

But I am having trouble trying to picture the mega mega mega! tons of carbon emissions, that are above and beyond the CO2 levels, that we are spewing into the atmosphere....

Maybe if the stuff was visible.....

My head hurts....

John Cross - you don't have an argument. You have a plausible-sounding assertion.

I am still giving NNW the benefit of the doubt for now. They are an aggregator. When the media is as one-sided as it is in Canada it's hard not to have a slant in what is aggregated.

However, they do come across in general as more neutral than usual suspects. They pick up Taylor and Janke as well as BigCityLib, and do show whatever the few Conservative columnists write, along with the avalanche of Liberal bootlickers.

I do note however that the coverage seems more Liberal slanted than before. Not sure if this is a NNW "editorial" decision, or if it's just because most of the media have been on the warpath against Harper.

Tenebris, regarding your 8:27 pm post, John is indeed assuming linearity, and that is precisely what is wrong with his entire construct. Please note throughout, that he offered no evidence of his contentions, nor did he challenge the statements I made regarding the claimed (by IPCC) limitations of the AR4 report.

john g:

But the questions are abounding;

WHO OWNS NATIONALNEWSWATCH?

W-H-O ???

Yes Kate should print a correction showing this graph an exaggeration for those without telephoto eyeballs.Or Satellite zoom imaging on their keyboard.
Really the line is way too long and leaves a wrong impression even in the update.
Great blog post though.

"380 ppm" -
the line shows what appears to be 380,000 ppm or 1000 more than actual amounts in the atmosphere,
in other words not only is the yellow square irrelevant the other lines are insignificant, literally though the graph is well meaning by intention I'm sure.
Would be no easy fix for this graph since the lines would be invisible to the naked eye in their proper proportion.
Really that gives some idea of the nonsense being promoted about greenhouse gases and especially since water vapour is "the greatest amount of ghg".Nobody can blame humans for the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere,?.

cgh: been travelling - still am. I don't follow your argument but if you wish to explain it a little more then I would be pleased to look at it.

Tenebris: Can you find something wrong with the logic?

Regards,
John