Saskatoon Star Phoenix – June 15, 2006
Following is the opinion of the writer, a geography professor at the University of Saskatchewan and director of the centre for hydrology. He holds a Canada Research Chair in Water Resources and Climate Change.
Streams, sloughs and wetlands may not be sustainable under climate change, and the slightly milder winters anticipated under global warming may dry out the Prairies.
[…]
On June 5, the United Nations Environment Programme announced a study that shows the world’s desert and arid regions are at risk of becoming even more parched. Research at the University of Saskatchewan supports this, showing the Canadian Prairies could be drying out due to more moderate winters.
As evidenced by the following desert photographs:
…but it’s a dry cold.
Ken (Kulak)- phil and his ilk are sorry nobodies. If and when the time came that food and sustinance became a dire issue, you’d see these pathetic, no-talent misfits groveling at the farmers’ door.
Truth be told, there’d likely be some bounty proffered….unless his first words were: ‘Hi, I’m Phil…’.
Checked the phonebook. No listing for Phil Douchebag, but spelling could be wrong(?)
Alex. You are no Richard Feynman. Good night from soggy Alberta.
If you are as really really smart as you blab on and on you will know what that means.
You don’t need to be smart to remember old quotes; you just need to be old. Here’s a better one, just for you:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.
Good night from soggy Alberta.
My back yard is spongy.
I’ve got about a 2 inches of topsoil and underneath is yellow clay.
I haven’t been able to cut my grass for over 1 1/2 weeks* because the ground is so wet and spongy.
It’s been 3 years since I’ve had to water my grass.
* mostly it’s been raining every day all day long this “summer”
“Following is the opinion of the writer, a geography professor at the University of Saskatchewan and director of the centre for hydrology. He holds a Canada Research Chair in Water Resources and Climate Change.”
I would probably get a F- on any paper given to this enviroMENTAL Global Warming/Climate Change supporter – with the pictures as evidance. I would feel deep shame on being such an unbeliever to even question his/her professor, trying to show the facts that do not agree with his.
Too bad the Federal Government of Canada believe sush “facts” as proven by giving him grants to support his theory of Climate Change/ Global Warming.
“The photos are from the Estevan area of SE Saskatchewan.” Posted by: Kate at June 20, 2011 7:06 PM
I dare this “professor” go there and tell the farmers that we are in the middle of a drought – only Alex would believe him (so he could get a an A++ on his paper, and try to prove photos as fake.)
Alex – “Except, of course, that it CAN. It all depends on what solution you’re looking for. We can easily model long-term trends without being able to define each individual factor.”
_________________________________________
Yes indeed, it all depends on what solution you’re looking for and then you can enter the data that will give you the result you want.
Very good point Dirtman, that is exactly what the Global Warming/Climate Chane people do. They do not even look at the present conditions that counterdict their ideas or are proven without a doubt to be false.
Don’t provoke GOD! Understand?
Very good troll Dirtman, that is exactly what the Global Warming deniers do. They do not even look at the present conditions that ‘counterdict’ their ideas or are proven without a doubt to be false.
Alex
At least quote my words correctly, can you even do that right … is that how you get your facts?
I suggest you go and worship your god Al Gore and one of his prophets like Dr. Fruit fly, and ask them why their “science and prophecies” are NOT coming true. When you are finished, come back and tell us what you learned. I still think you’d get An A++ from them, just for believing them
(sarcasms on)
I suggest you go to a Global Warming/Climate Change site and refresh your position, I am quite sure you do not look at the links on SDA proving you live in La-la Land.
By the way, the best contribution you can make towards Climate Change/Global Warming is to stop your carbon footprint:
Cut off your electrical power;
Do not use any internal-combustion engine car/van/truck;
Do not fly anywhere
Stop using gas/propane as a source of heat in winter. And DO NOT burn wood – it pollutes and gives off carbon.
The best thing you can do is to stop breathing [or doing exercise, because after that heavy breathing you contribute more to carbon output than a couch potato] … that alone will cut your carbon footprint.
(sarcasim off)
Now, about those pictures, are they photo shopped? If not, why do you not believe your eyes and facts that do not support of Global Warming/Climate Change? What more proof do you need to show you are wrong – yes it is ok to be proven wrong with facts.
Please give your facts, I think more than 80% of readers of SDA will be watching. We all want to believe as you do, but so far there are no facts to support your position.
Clown
At least quote my words correctly, can you even do that right … is that how you get your facts?
I suggest you go and worship your god Sarah Palin and one of her prophets like Dr. Light bulb, and ask them why their “science and prophecies” are NOT coming true. When you are finished, come back and tell us what you learned. I still think you’d get An A++ from them, just for believing them
Who is Sarah Palin?
Dr. Fruitfly is a real person named Dr. Suzuki (in case you do not know) – who has a burger we should name after him:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/017108.html#comments
We could change it to “Dr. Alex Fruitfly Burger” because you both are full of it. Only a Global Warmer/Climate Changer enviroMENTALists would eat it to save the world.
Who is Dr. Light bulb?
Are the pictures real? Looks like water to me.
You must hate facts that prove Gloobal Warming/Climate Change a big lie.
(sarcasim on) Though I do give you credit, the Federal Government seems to agree with you by their policies.(sarcasim off)
Alex – Very good troll Dirtman, that is exactly what the Global Warming deniers do. They do not even look at the present conditions that ‘counterdict’ their ideas or are proven without a doubt to be false.
_______________________________________
This is supposed to be what kind of point?? First of all, you seem to be replying to someone else’s post, but then your comprehension level is rather low.
Let me see if I can spell it out to you so you understand.
AGW alarmists claim that we have been experiencing the effects of global warming for some decades now. They predict that global warming will make us increasingly arid. If that were the case we would already be experiencing a dryer climate. Obviously we are not. Notice the contradiction?
For someone who claims superior intelligence and to understand science, you sure tend to embarrass yourself a lot.
Islamism-alarmists claim that we have been experiencing muslim terrorist attacks for some decades now. They predict that global muslim terrorism will increasingly target us. If that were the case we would have been attacked yesterday. Obviously we were not. Notice the contradiction?
Pro-tip: you need to understand how statistics and trends work before you can comment on statistics and trends. When you can come back and explain to me why your argument was ridiculous, I’ll start taking you seriously. Until then, you can join Clown on the sidelines.
Global warming will result in a dryer climate, but only after the same process procuces a wetter climate for 50 years.
Yeah, right.
Muslim terrorism will result in more innocent American death, but only after many years of less deaths.
Yeah, right.
For someone of such vaunted intelligence I can only assume you’re being intentionally obtuse. Oh well, at least you seem to have grasped the idea that a process that results in a wetter climate won’t suddenly produce a reverse effect (drier climate).
Here’s a little more education for you. Your statistical predictiion scenario was correct, however when applying that process to climate you don’t get the predictiions of aridity as claimed. What you can predict is, there will be drier climates, but we don’t know where or when. There will be wetter climates, we can’t predict where or when. There will be warmer climate, there will be cooler climate, and by extrapolating trends from climate change cycles of past millenia we can predict general climate shifts.
But the modelers ignore past cycles and trends and also ignore data that contradicts their preconcieved viewpoint and build models based on incomplete and biased data that attempt to predict predetermined outcomes.
Of course, being the highly intelligent and educated individual that you are, you’re very aware of all this and only pretend to believe in AGW because it suits you ideology.
“Of course, being the highly intelligent and educated individual that you are, you’re very aware of all this and only pretend to believe in AGW because it suits you ideology.”
You just don’t get it, do you? My ‘ideology’ has more in common with you than it does with Suzuki and the environmentalist quacks. What you and the rest of the troglodytes fail to get is that science isn’t about ideology. For YOU ideology is all that matters, so you assume it’s the same for everyone else. That’s why you don’t have a hope in hell of actually understanding what’s going on, or taking part in the discussion; you’ll always be stuck at the fringes, yelling and screaming and waiving your signs, while people who actually care about what’s true continue to improve our collective understanding of the universe.