Skip navigation

Welcome to the new climate

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Climate change is no longer a vague threat. A new Globe polls finds that 4 out of 5 Canadians say they've seen it first-hand. We fear for our children and our grandchildren. We want action. We're ready for sacrifices. But what action? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. BJ Shellac from Quebec City, Canada writes: My heart breaks for the polar bear and all the other majestic beasts that we are threatening with extinction. My heart should break more for us, humanity, but we are the ones doing the damage. And there is no forum where the polar bear can plead his case.
  2. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Good science requires consideration of all alternative hypotheses, and sequentially excluding them (all but one ideally) through testing. I think that alternative hypotheses for climate warming are not given the attention they should have, instead we villify the people proposing them as sell-outs to Mobil oil. Very sad. Test and eliminate the hypotheses not the personalities. If we can prove the link between CO2 and warming, we are in trouble indeed. If not, we are about to engage in the largest boondoggle in history, whilst worthwhile caused like elimination of malaria and provision of safe drinking water will be ignored. If post-Kyoto means we involve China and India and the USA in the solution, then I would agree to it.
  3. BJ Shellac from Quebec City, Canada writes: We need good science, but we need to be human first. Science has already taken us far enough from our humanity. I don't trust methods that appropriate the language of whatever it is they are trying to overcome. A fresh start is what we need.
  4. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: At least Canadians are waking up, and i am sacrificing part of my way of life for makingthe environment a better place... EVERY CANADIAN, EVERY GOVERNMENT should do the same... This is a collective effort for all Canadians, and for all countries of the world...
  5. Don Adams from Canada writes: Bill,agreed. There's just no 'proof' that global warming is caused by humans. Yes, a lot of science points to the fact human activity contributes to GW, but my argument is similar to yours..... the key words being Contribute and Cause. Yeah, we could be facing a large boondoggle over this so I hope the saner heads prevail. Absolutely nothing wrong with expanding technology, going GREEN, over time, and in a way it won't kill our economy. My biggest problem is with the chicken littles who jump on the bandwagon, they want to move way too fast, but my secondary problem is with the ones 180' opposite, who won't even accept the idea that warming is taking place. These 2 extremes are the ones us centrists have to fight against, ATTEMPT to make the 2 extremes think rationally. This is going to be a hard fight though.
  6. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Here comes the green taxes.
  7. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Unbelievable. . . . Mr Stephen ('Canada LAST') Harper is going to alienate the core of the Conservative-Republican Annexationist Party if he caves in to reality on this or any OTHER issue.
  8. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: If the scientific community is correct, then global warming is being caused by human activity and we can slow it down, or reverse it. However, if we do nothing, and they are correct, we will be responsible for severe changes to climate that may kill billions of people and create a wave of extinctions. We don't have 20 years to debate the issue as the current rate of warming just doesn't give us that luxury. The people who are paid to do the science, tell us that Global Warming is human created. We have to listen and to act accordingly.
  9. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: Thanks Stephen Harper and G.W. Bush, perhaps two of the last people on earth who don't understand the dangers of global warming (or the fact that it even exists!!)
  10. Jeff Peterson from Calgary, Alberta, Canada writes: I would just like to mention the great passage I read the other day in a novel written by Farley Mowat in 1967 entitled 'Top of the World Trilogy Vol-2 Polar Passion'. It is very interesting how he discusses a period about 5000 years ago called the Holocene Optimum where the treeline advanced well into the tundra and the polar ice sheets nearly vanished completely. If you are interested this is on page 20 of the book. Then on page 21 he quotes a paper from the UNESCO Symposium on Climate Change in Rome in 1961 that says 'The arctic pack ice had melted so far back that the appearance of drift ice in the waters near Iceland and Greenland south of 70 degrees was rare in the 800’s and 900’s and apparently unknown between 1020 and 1200 when a rapid increase in the frequency of pack ice began.” Then on page 46 of the book Mowat also discusses when Henry Hudson set out to sail across the arctic ocean to Cathay in 1607, he carried sailing directions with him written for Arctic waters written by Ivar Bardarsson a Greenland Norseman in 1350 which indicated the existence of an open ocean to the north. These are just a few of the references in the book to an ice-free polar sea. Interesting indeed….. Maybe this has happened before????
  11. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What exactly do these opening lines from the article mean:
    'Paris is forecast to be unseasonably warm next Friday. The current long-term prediction is 8 degrees, significantly above the historic high for early February of closer to 5.'?

    Does the author mean that the February 1st all time high temperature for Paris is 5 C and that forecast of 8 C therefore a record high?

    This is highly unlikely since a google search for Paris Climatic data reveals that the February AVERAGE high temperature for Paris is approximately 8C ( it increases gradually throughout February from approx 5 C to 11C) , and the RECORD high for February is 20 C . And precipitation graphs show that Paris actually has quite small variances in average precipitation from month to month, with February's average being slightly below other months. Slightly. The article makes it sound like rain is unheard of in February. Good golly.

    Never let facts get in the way of a good story.
  12. sean wood from vancouver, Canada writes: By all means Canadians, get yer sexy pollution, green house gas climate warming leotards on now and kick the c**p out of Canada's 2%contribution to climate global warming change.Some may say 2% so what, but if ordinary Canadians just went out of their way to cut back on their own little contribution to GHG or pollution or whatever then that 2% would be reduced dramatically.Resist the temptation to turn on the AC in a TO summer.You won't die, honest. Ride that bike hiding in the garage, get rid of your gas guzzler, throw away your electric hedge clipper, mower, weed eater that you have been using on your postage stamp property.Take a bus once a week!! It's not up to some useless politician to look after you and the earth. It's up to you and you alone comrade.
  13. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: There have undoubtedly been periods of warming in the past, but the big problem is that temperatures have already exceeded the average temperatures during these warming periods plus the % of green house gases is higher in the atmosphere now than then. This all points to a scenario where the warming will accelerate and the temperature will peak at a much high levels than during recent (IE within the last 10 - 100 thousand years. This kind of warming is unprecedented in the geological record and pushes the planet into uncharted territory so to speak. The loss of the Icecap, in Greenland could cause dramatic rises in sea levels, while the rapid melt of freshwater into the Atlantic could disrupt the gulf stream current, leading to extremely unstable weather.
  14. Donald White from Hong Kong, Canada writes: Could someone at the Globe and Mail please respond to r b's comment above? If he is correct then you have some explaining to do.
  15. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Donald, the average temp for Feb 1 is likely to be a lot different from the average for the entire month or the extremes for any day in the month.
  16. Steve S from Western Canada, Canada writes: Living in Saskatchewan I have to say that I've really enjoyed the last 3 mild winters, however, I do realize that they have to stop and go back to normal.....cold and nasty. Before we screw this planet up totally we have to grow up and act responsibly. Unfortunately the all mighty dollar seems to be more important to some than survival. I've never been able to understand that but it's the way this world works. Not all is bad, we do have a new species of bear from what i understand. A grizzly and a polar bear mated and made 'Grizzlar'. Usually their territories don't cross but the grizzlies have been venturing further north and the polar bears have been forced more south looking for food. Hopefully the new bread will thrive and we can also save the polar bears and the grizzlies.
  17. Mark Denis from Canada writes: So who was fooled by the picture at the start of this article that it was taken in the artic. It could have been taken anywhere on this world or country that has mountains. Possibly ??????
  18. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: This Globe-CTV poll is so loaded, I'd like to know how these questions were asked. As discussed in an article yesterday, pollster Alan Gregg indicated that 20% of this sample were somewhat or very likely to vote Green in the next election. This number is wildly out of line with every other poll conducted, which show the Green party with a maximum of 10% support. Nearly half of the respondents felt Canada can make a significant contribution to climate change and more than 65% want to stick with Kyoto. There is no indication those polled were asked if they know Canada's GHG contribution (only 2% of world emissions, decidedly insignificant), or have a concept of what it will cost or require to meet our Kyoto targets (over by 33%, meaning we need to cut our current level of consumption/economy by one quarter in less than four years, *very* significant). Yes, the environment is an important and emerging issue, but let's not forget the media has been pushing it hard for months (some might say the G&M daily since Dion won the leadership, but I digress). I agree with Don Adams...we need cooler heads to prevail here (pun intended), not the deniers and doomsayers. Let's move forward prudently with informed decisions instead of knee-jerk reactions from an uninformed public or by throwing money aimlessly in an attempt to buy our way out. Our entire society will not change overnight and neither will the planet; this is going to take a generation or more. And to repeat what I said yesterday, along with all the griping about global warming, let's at least be thankful we have a booming economy, low unemployment, and such a high standard of living that a quarter of Canadians can now espouse the weather as the biggest concern in their lives. Goodnight.
  19. Rohit Dixit from Montreal, Canada writes: Canada is making efforts in the right direction to stress on the importance of environment.But the question is Canada's effort in isolation in the world is enough.I am an immigrant from India,and it is a fact that any polluting industry from North America and other developed country driven out gets its foothold in India.India and China is quickly emerging as the biggest consumers of oils and other polluting things.There is no firm environmental plan in India nor is it an important political issue.Global Environment cannot be sustained by Canada alone.The full world must be involved.Just remember the biggest polluters in the years to come will be China and India.Evironment has become a polital issue in Canada for only vested political purpose.Liberals feel that only they can curtail global warming and Conservatives believe they can.Worse on top the extremist and seperatist parties like Bloc and PQ ,which would have been easily banned in other stronger democratic countries beleive that having their dream baby independent Quebec will turn world green.Environment must be a global initiative pushed stongly by United Nations,with severe sanctions on those countries deviating from set rules of the world.
  20. dave srigley from Toronto, Canada writes: Are Canadians really willing stop using clothes dryers? Stop cutting their lawns? Will they compel the gov't to ban SUVs? Ban suburban development? Stop eating exotic foods shipped from around the world? Stop selling our oil to the USA until they sign Kyoto?
    No. doubt it. heck No. nope. no. and HA NO! The only thing that will be accomplished is more Harper bashing and complaining.
  21. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: Extremes in temperature on any given day were recorded as the exception to the rule and not a day by day reporting of the event. Global warming is a reality and all the hiding from it that the car manufacturers and the oil men want to do is not going to change the fact that the environment is warming up today. The standard dilatory tactic is that of claiming that the scientific work is not up to par. Now if they could only find scientists to agree with them then they could corroborate, effusively, their point of view. Their biggest mistake is not realizing that the population is as smart as they are. They can't pretend to lead because of some superior breeding anymore. They now have to contend with people not subjects.
  22. Robb Stevenson from Kelowna, Canada writes: Given the sheer volume of variables, it is highly unlikely that science will ever prove, with 100% certainty, that the current climate change trend was caused, for the most part, by human activity.

    There are periods in the Earth's history that experienced climate change equivalent (if not greater than) to what we are experiencing now. The difference? Climate change then occurred over thousands of years - now, we've managed to cause a drastic shift in under a century.

    Unfortunately, we've run out of time for more study. We know we're causing an impact - to measure the size of that impact so 'we can know for sure' is simplistic and naive. Did the crew of the Titanic need to study the size of the crack in the hull to know the ship was going to go down?

    Climate change is only one part of the need for a drastic change in how humans interact with our environment. We are directly responsible for habitat distruction, species extinction, and the poisoning of our planet (Tuna once a month now, is it?)

    While sitting around talking, studying and being 'sure' we're causing some sort of global catastrophe would be nice - it's too late. We've simply run out of time.
  23. Mark Denis from Canada writes: Rohit Dixit from Montreal,

    I, as a born Canadian and could not agree with you more. Thank you for your post. It makes to much sense for the doomsday sayers.

    Welcome to Canada.

    Dave Srigley, They want you freezing and walking while their warm and driving your SUV.
  24. A West Coast Opinion from Vancouver, Canada writes: Guys - it doesn't make a darn bit of difference what we do. Sure - i think we should do what we can, but even if we reduced emmissions by 100 percent, globally china alone will be putting out more ADDITIONAL pollution over the next 15 years than we produce in Canada now - so we won't have made any headway.

    It's important to do what we can. But it's also important that we look at other ways to adapt to what's going to happen. Because like it or not - human caused other - it's going to happen.
  25. Frank Luzten from Canada writes: Once again, I see the armchair climatologists are out in force. 'Maybe it hasn't occurred to the global scientific community that they should subject their hypotheses to tests!' 'Maybe the Earth's climate has varied before!' What stunning insights! I can't believe the constant stream of comments from those who apparently think that thousands of researchers worldwide have somehow collectively ignored the basic tenets of the scientific method. Scientists who aren't selling themselves to the highest bidder have not ignored alternatives that they find inconvenient - these alternative explanations that are continuously trotted out have already been considered, and have been rejected as false. Being ignorant of the research that has been done does not mean that it doesn't exist!

    Jeff Peterson: So the polar ice caps vanished at the peak of a previous climactic cycle - does that really make you eager to see what will happen when we reach a global temperature that has no precedent? Nobody is questioning that the climate has changed before - people are worried because the climate is changing faster than we've seen in over half a million years of data, and that in the past 100 years CO2 levels (which have historically been very strongly correlated with global temperature) have shot way above the historical maximum. The fact that the relatively minor swings in the past have caused huge changes is not reason for comfort, it is reason for even greater concern.
  26. F Luzten from Canada writes: Bill Johnson: It's not all that unreasonable to label somebody who publicly denies the existence of global warming as a 'shill for the energy industry' if they actually are in the employ of the energy industry! Next time you see one of these alleged 'scientists' spouting off in a newspaper article 'alternative explanations', I would strongly suggest you try typing their name into Google. I've done so a couple of times (although admittedly 'a couple of times' isn't a huge sample) and each time I've found very strong evidence of their connection to the energy industry. The fact that the only scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change are those who receive money from the oil companies should perhaps tell you something. The CBC had a program on recently called 'The Denial Machine' that was quite interesting - I'd strongly recommend you watch it. It's available for free (your tax dollars at work) - check it out at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html.
  27. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: ' Are Canadians really willing stop using clothes dryers? '
    These can be increased in efficiency to cut energy consumption
    'Stop cutting their lawns? '
    Yes, I only cut mine once or twice a year. If you don't water it and set your mower on a high position, then you don't need to cut it very often. Keeping the lawn long protects the roots and soil.
    'Will they compel the gov't to ban SUVs?'
    From 1939-45 this country banned all auto production. There is no reason why vehicle size and weight cannot be regulated. Jimmy Carter's CAFE plan would have cut fuel consumption by about 1/2 had it not been scrapped by Reagan.
    'Ban suburban development?'
    We should be reverting to row housing (with individual yards) on a much larger scale as an alternative to the single family dwelling (SFD). However a SFD can be fitted with solar panels and re-engineered to dramatically decrease energy consumption. A national program to produce and install solar panels would cut the cost per KwH to the point where it would be quite economical. The point is , is that it must be done on large scale so that mass production can drive down the unit cost.
    'Stop eating exotic foods shipped from around the world?'
    sure.
    'Stop selling our oil to the USA until they sign Kyoto?'
    By re-tooling the North American auto industry to mass produce lightweight, hybrid technology vehicles, both countries would reduce fuel consumption while Cdn petroleum reserves will be available to future generations
    All these things can be done, and quite easily too. We have the technology now we just need the will. In 1939 Canada had barely any military production, yet by 1945 we were supply 10% of the military needs of the entire Commonwealth. This country has almost unlimited potential, if we are willing to harness it.

  28. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: A pol gets up in the morning, wets his finger, sticks it in the air and one side of the finger feels cool and the other side warm. He gets up next morning, wets his finger, sticks it in the air and the side that felt cool now feels warm. 'Hmm,' he says, 'looks like 'Climate Change.' I'd better get someone to create a few statistics so I can build a bridge where there is no river.'
  29. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: If Canada re-engineers its economy, if will also drive down the unit costs of things like solar panels, which in turn will allow for their widespread use in emerging economies like India. Similarly the need to access our economy will also drive design into energy efficiency.
  30. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: dave srigley: 'Are Canadians really willing stop using clothes dryers? Stop cutting their lawns? Will they compel the gov't to ban SUVs? Ban suburban development? Stop eating exotic foods shipped from around the world? Stop selling our oil to the USA until they sign Kyoto?'

    It may be easier to get your head around these issues, one at a time, by thinking in relative terms, instead of all-or-nothing absolutes. For example: an electric lawn mower likely uses less energy/generates less emissions than a two-stroke gas mower; a push-mower uses less than an electric mower, and gives you more exercise; clover lawns are lower maintenance than grass lawns.
  31. Hokey Dokley from Calgary, Canada writes: JD Wood, 'Thanks Stephen Harper and G.W. Bush, perhaps two of the last people on earth who don't understand the dangers of global warming (or the fact that it even exists!!)' Could you please explain the dangers of global warming. Smart scientists are actually worried about the next global cooling... but let's live in the moment and discuss your current worry. The affects of short term global warming are....?
  32. wolfram dressler from BNE, Australia writes: To the skeptics. Do you actually now how consensus on the factors that contribute to global warming are demonstrated? We're not talking about conspiracy theories, a tilt in the Earth's axis, a heating spurt in an interglacial, or extra flares being emitted from the sun. Most of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists – many of whom work for the ICCP – have long said that increases in greenhouse gases cause micro and regional level atmospheric warming that affects the health of ecosystems of which we are part and dependent upon (sorry to say). Why do you still look for credible evidence when the world’s leading scientists are in agreement on the immediate causes and consequences of global warming? We have had audiences be skeptical of nearly every environmental issue that scientists (those who aren’t sponsored by the petroleum industry) have warned us about. First it was the decline in whale stocks (and the ensuing anti-whaling campaigns in northwest pacific), then the acidification of our soils and water, then the collapse of our Cod stocks, now Pacific and Atlantic Salmon, soon Snow Crab, then use of phosphates in water in the Great Lakes. The list is much longer. It was largely those who profited from industry that ignored ALL of the warnings that accompanied each of these major environmental issues. Do we only move forward once the skeptics lead us to act on the basis of environmental brinkmanship? If California and Europe can act quickly on environmental threats, then so can we. On top of all this we hop upon and smother other countries in order to suck oil, while our continent's permafrost slumps and city air and water gets soiled. We should be ashamed!
  33. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Hokey Dokley' has requested a 30 second speed lesson on global warming. It is unfortunate that people do not receive the necessary education in school.

    Global warming will lead to:
    - floods/droughts
    - rapid species loss, due to seasonal changes
    - collapse of arctic ice shelf (more species loss)

    Now these are just the bare basics. There is no single reputable scientist who disagrees that humans are the cause of global warming.
  34. Terrence Punch from Halifax, Canada writes: Having read a good deal about World War Two and Canada's part in it, I have failed to detect that there were such things as a Liberal war effort, a Conservative war effort or a CCF war effort. The issues were too large for partisan bickering. If an ecological crisis truly looms, as I think we generally agree it does, it is time to surmount partisan ambition and get our act together.

    When one party promises to throw a 10-metre rope to a person drowning 100 metres from shore, what is the good of another party claiming to be preferable because it will toss out a 15-metre rope? Like the bubonic Plague, climate change affects us all and it is far too pressing a matter to squabble about. We need solutions, not slogans, and every Canadian has to become part of the solution, even if it does mean giving up luxuries such as overpowered SUVs, and stop overheating our malls.
  35. Brad Buss from Toronto, writes: So if we cant get the wonderful Chinese to have human rights, do we think we can get them to stop destroying the world environmentally? They will be the ones who make or break any of this on pure numbers alone.
  36. Jeff S from Calgary, Canada writes: how arrogant are we humans to actually think that we have an affect on the environment that we are witnessing in today's global warming. Global warming is not caused by humans.
  37. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: You are right Jeff S from Calgary. It's caused my JD Wood and his ilk.

    JD... you are usually on ignore, but 'No single reputable scientist'?? Give me a break. You have outdone yourself.
  38. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Nice to see that based on today's Globe Poll.... 41 percent of us still pass for inteligent life on this planet..... well, at least on this web site.
  39. G Smith from Canada writes: I'm still looking for 1 reputable scientist against the 1000's that say global warming is reality. I'm sure that the naysayers will post 1 name each that says it isn't happening. Try posting 1000 names. My analogy is this:

    If 1000 experts tell you one thing and 1 expert paid by the oil companies tells us the opposite, who are you going to believe?

    These are the same people that told us smoking didn't cause cancer, that Saddam had WMD's, etc.
  40. Robert Dryburgh from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada writes: B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States. Your absolutely correct. Show us the poll in it’s entirety. Polls and surveys can be rigged to obtain desired results. I use to work for a Crown Corp. that routinely had pollsters take “stacked” surveys to compile the figures the way they wanted.
  41. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: G Smith. Look a little harder. just a little.

    Why is it called Greenland and how did the Vikings manage to farm it under all that ice. Maybe the ice didn't use to be there?

    How much gas was there going into the air when millions of buffalo roamed free in North America? Our current bovine population contributes 20 percent of our GH gasses. I believe it is third on our list after coal burning plants and diesel vehicles.

    Concentrate on pollution of the environment if you really want to be an environmentalist...... quit being a sheep following junk science.
  42. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: The Deluge
    The cause of this judgment was the corruption and violence that filled the earth in the ninth generation from Adam.

    God in righteous indignation determined to purge the earth of the ungodly. Amid a world of crime and guilt there was one household that continued faithful and true to God, the household of Noah. 'Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.'

    Let us pray and get back to God.

    Durgen.
  43. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: James Young.... it's Saturday, not Sunday, stuff your sermon and go back to bed.
  44. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: The environment is the number one issue due to sensationalist articles published by the media. '56 % of Canadians support fossil fuel rationing' is the height of ignorance and stupidity and is a perfect example of people knowing NOTHING about the topic. I doubt that anyone has thought through the consequences of fossil fuel rationing. Steps should be taken to eliminate pollution and to bring on line alternate energy sources. Climate change will happen regardless of what we do. At any rate, Kyoto is NOT the way to do it!
  45. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: I hope the new 'cult' doesn't get out of hand and create eco-terrorism where the brain-washed zealots take matters into their own hands. I'm sure an 'inquisition' would prevent this by punishing the 'heretics'. They'd better be careful about the selling of 'indulgences' (carbon credits) which forgives all sins. This brought down the Catholic Church and led to 'Protestantism'. However, it looks like the new 'cult' is growing rapidly but we must be prepared to 'de-program' in the future. Many may discover that the new 'cult' is not filling their spiritual needs and is really about enriching the church's hierarchy.
  46. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: The health of the global population requires that we take global warming seriously and deal with it responsibly. I don't agree with Don Adams on his presumption that the environmental band-wagon is tracking with reckless abandon towards the future. It is labouring, rather, with the present gov't refusing any action for a year, and finally picking up policy from the past and applying it, again. That's a start. But to give the notion that environmental concerns are blinding us to all is is foolish. Compare the yearly outlay of monies for the military to what we are spending on the environment. The environmental concerns are health concern, sovereignty concerns and future enterprise opportunities. We need to lose our sun accellerated cataracts and adapt. That includes an acceptance that the problem includes man-made habits that are emphasizing our destructive pattern of over-consumption and damage.
  47. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Please Catherine Wilkie, it's bad enough that you are on the band wagon, give it up on taking shots at a 1 year government when the previous 13 year government not only signed Kyoto..... but then ignored it. (Rightly so on the ignore, shame, shame on the signing).
  48. Silly Putty from Whammo, United States writes: Global Warming...ooooh sorry Manmade Climate Change...will be seen 50 years from now as the biggest swindle in the history of the world. Go to Google Images and punch in Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo or Mt. Insertyourfavoritevolcanohere. There's your real culprit - the Earth itself.
    Human's are but mere specks on the Earth; how silly and egocentric of some of you to believe we can actually reverse what is a completely natural cycle, if we all just ride our bikes to work or buy a Prius.
    Get over it, and enjoy the mild winters.
  49. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Whatever Glen Murtz, what are you saying? The only intelligent life in Canada is in Alberta?

    As I said before, 1000 years ago there was no ice in Greenland and millions of buffalo roamed North America, spewing gas at 100 times what our current cattle put out (20 percent of Canada's GHG). BTW, the rest of the world burned coal.

    Today, the northern pole is melting and the southern pole's ice field is growing.... natural cycle. note natural.

    40 years ago these same scientists were warning of a new ice age. Read Farley Mowat.

    You want to be an environmentalist? Start caring about pollution of every kind, especially our air and water..... and give this global warming/climate change/Kyoto crap a rest.

    Cute line about flat earth.... I believe that was junk science as well, just like you and your flock are following now.
  50. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Scot Loucks: If you're looking for thoroughness, why not go all the way:

    1. 'Kyoto' has never been considered by anybody to be the sole solution to AGW, except perhaps by those opposed to it;

    2. The Liberal government did indeed sign Kyoto, and did little towards its goals.

    3. The Liberal government introduced dozens of minor programs which were at varying stages of implementation when the Conservatives took over;

    4. The Conservatives eliminated most of those Liberal programs almost immediately, and replaced them with nothing ... they've announced more programs but details won't be available until spring;

    5. Scientific consensus on AGW has been increasing annually for the past twenty years.

    It seems to me the Liberals did the minimum possible. When the Conservatives pulled into town, they should have started improving and expanding programs, and introducing alternative solutions where appropriate, rather than eliminating them.
  51. Don Adams from Canada writes: Rohit, excellent post. I agree, welcome to Canada. We need more middle of the road thinkers like you who are willing to listen, compromise, yet still move forward. One other thing we need to do is send people like Duncan Munro to India. They sure need him more over there than we do over here.
  52. PATRICK TREMBLAY from Montreal, Canada writes: This global warming propaganda is getting out of hand. Weather is and never was in a static state. Even if proof can be found to convince me, solutions like Kyoto are useless. China is building 500 coal burning electric plants, what difference would it make if we reduce here a little and emissions grow big elswhere?
  53. Don Adams from Canada writes: Jeff, you're as bad as JD Woodiot, except you're 180' opposite. I agree that global warming is a natural progression, but I also have to agree it's been speeded up by human actions. It hasn't been CAUSED by humans Woodiot, but we CONTRIBUTED to it Jeff. There is no one answer to what we can do, lots and lots of good ideas here and on yesterday's post though. Two things we CAN'T do.... blindly follow Kyoto and send $$ out of Canada, or move too fast and totally disrupt our economy and our lifestyles, as the ultra idiots would do. Somehow, sane people have to meet in the middle, and come up with compromise solutions. We also need to round up the idiots on both extremes and either send them out of the country or pack them away into institutions until the sane people have agreed on action and gotten started on it. We're sure not going to be able to slow down GW, but there are things we can do, eg clean up the air in our cities
  54. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell.... can't disagree with what you are saying.

    Would like to add one thing though.

    When the PC's cancelled the programs, they stated that each program would be reviewed and decisions made after the review.... most were money wasters.

    They have actually reimplemented some of the Liberal programs, with some tweaks to make sure they are cost effective. How can you complain about that?
  55. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Don Adams; I thought that was exactly what the PC's were trying to do with their Clean air act.

    Pollution of all kinds, especially air and water, should be our attack points. Unfortunately, the cult of Kyoto has taken over.
  56. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: Previous comments have referred to the CBC's Fifth Estate documentary 'The Denial Machine' which stars Vancouver PR man James Hoggan. Mr. Hoggan made a number of disparaging remarks about a group of 60 scientists who signed a letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper urging him to review the science of climate change. According to Mr. Hoggan, the scientists who signed are not to be trusted. 'We looked into the folks who were on that, and all but 19 were Americans and most of them are kind of infamous characters from the states who worked for the tobacco industry.'

    In fact, only 12 are Americans and at most two have done past science work on tobacco. About 20 are Canadians, while others are from about a dozen other countries, including France, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. So Mr. Hoggan's statements on the scientists are dead wrong.

    This is no small matter of incidental fact. Mr. Hoggan's statement, along with a few others, formed the basis for The Denial Machine's major theme, which was a claim that scientists who are skeptical of official global warming theory are part of an oil industry front that is made up of the same hack scientists who acted in the tobacco industry debacle a decade earlier. (From the National Post.)
  57. Erin Ballantyne from Canada writes: I think we should do what we can to limit pollution--and that includes pressuring the Chinese and the Indians to follow 'green' routes to prosperity. But some drastic all-out program? As has been stated many times before, our paltry 2% is meaningless unless everyone else in the world does the same. Why are we being constantly harangued by this journalistic enterprise? When I was in journalism school many years ago, my professors would have called this sensationalism 'yellow journalism.'
  58. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: This is reading like the script for a B grade movie. This media obsession and the resulting hysteria is reminisant of War of the Worlds ( the famous 1938 incident kids , not the Tom Cruise movie ). The climate is changing , the climate is changing. Of course it is. It is dynamic and in a small way humans influence climate change. However , I share Dave Medich's concern that this obsession is breeding some extremists and turning into a cult. Lawnmowers of the world beware.
  59. Grant Samuel from Nanaimo, Canada writes: We owe a debt of gratitude to Stphen Harper. His ineptitude and caviller attitude to the environmental file has helped to bring the issue to the forefront. His recent environmental epiphany is pure political opportunism. He can not be trusted.

    Thank you to poster Luzten I saw CBC's Fifth Estate program 'The Denial Machine' it was excellent and well worth another watch.
  60. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: J.C. Davies; It's the CBC.... what do you expect? Liberal propoganda machine since Trudeau.

    Erin Ballantyne; are you trying to use logic on this current crop of sheep and their mesiahs... the media? Good post and good luck.
  61. Sue W from Canada writes: I'm expecting spam in my inbox any day now encouraging me to buy shares in Save the World Hedge Fund.
  62. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: LOL Sue W. 8:30 in the morning and i'm laughing... good stuff :)
  63. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: This article is unbelievable. Canadians don't take the climate as serious as this article states. The Christmas lights still came on and burned in every house. Nobody sold an SUV for a Moped yet. All the climate change whiners are just that - whiners. They want somebody else to foot the bill on change, rather than start taking personal responsibility for what they nag about. When will these environmental couch-potato NAZI's give up on trying to get us to all to conform to their wishes, when they cannot even do it themselves. Lies and exaggerations.
  64. Don Adams from Canada writes: Catherine, Catherine, Catherine. You're getting to be ALMOST as bad as JD Woodiot (but he's in a class by himself) I suggest you read Scott Loucks post re Cons and cancellation and re-implementation of programs. Global Warming and Clean Air are just NOT going to besolved quickly. Reality. Face it, as much as you hate it. With one year in power, and the immense amount of work that has to be done, programs re-viewed etc. is just not enough time. The Libs were notorious for bringing in programs that were complete money wasters. Also notorious for bringing in programs that were useful at the time, but are no longer useful, but of course, Libs would never include sunset clauses. Since the Cons had no real information while in opposition, they need time for review. Some programs will be cancelled, some will be brought back, and some will be re-worked, improved on, then brought back. But it can't all be done in one year.
  65. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Times are changing, and mankind can get use to anything. Think even the most harden criminal can live in cell. It nowl become the will of the goverment to inforce good rules. Kyoto is the starting point for the world, if Stephen & George think they can divide the world for their self-interests with cowboy oil men who believe big profits will save their grandchildren then let them try. A new generation is taking hold 'Senior Boomers' and they want their grandchildren to have a planet to live on. Think, and Think, then Think again the next time you hear your grandchildren breathing when you hold them and think about their future. Ladies and gentlemen we have had a reality good safe life since WW II. The NDP has chosen to jump in bed with the Conservative and by doing so dumped Kyoto and that leaves only Mr. Dion, his pal Kyoto and Liberals who can put a respected foot forward with the world. Can Stevie & Co eat crow and admitt thier mistakes, sure, but will they or will they continue to talk about yesterday's news?
  66. r bruce wareing from BOGOTA, Colombia writes: CAN YOU EXPECT PRIME MINISTER STEVEN HARPER TO FIX A 100 YEAR PROBLEM,GIVE HIM TIME AND HE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING THIS IS A WORLD WIDE PROBLEM,LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN BRAZIL.
  67. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Don, Don, Don
  68. A Pragmatic Realist from Toronto, Canada writes: And the saddest part of all is that Margaret Wente now thinks she's an expert on climate change. But then, she did support Harper in the last election.
  69. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Keep drinking that kool-aid David Bakody from Dartmouth.... I'm guessing you were born in the 80's.
  70. Grant Samuel from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Don Adams says, 'Since the Cons had no real information while in opposition, they need time for review.'

    Well they had access to the same information as everybody else but chose to ignore it and slashed programs on solely ideology, whilst gleefully marching off to the precipice of their flat earth brains.
  71. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: I wonder when travel agents will see a rise in trips to the 'Mecca' of the new religion. I'm sure many new converts would like to visit 'Kyoto' to worship in the holy city where their religion was founded. Maybe they can have big rallies of the converted with sermons from the Reverend Al Gore and his peer-reviewed Apostles. They could also introduce a 'tithe' where adherents give 10% of their income to advance the new communion. We have found the new Messiah!
  72. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: I will be interested in how the Prime Minister will handle this issue. Many of his supporters, here, are certainly unbelieving in the science of global change and unforgiving with others who believe gov't's must make changes to address the problem. Will an election be forced if the NDP does not come to an agreement with the gov't on the environment committee? Will you people attack the NDP for their position? Or, will the Prime Minister actually do the flip-flop and appease them? I have seen posters make the 180 degree change with this gov't before (income trusts, not dealing with China, soft-wood lumber...) The spin will be a sight to behold.
  73. Derek Holtom from Swan River (Only cowards don't use their real name on here), writes: Here's the media playing up global warming doom and gloom to sell more papers.
    and once again, the idea someone could come on here and say Kyoto is garbage, and that there must be another way to cut greenhouse gases, will get you branded a knuckle dragging neo con
    i suggest everyone who buys into the doom and gloom sell all your electical toys, your car, don't use anything not recyclable, and live in a mud hut.
    after all, visiting this site on a computer is adding to greenhouse gases, isn't it?
    sarcasm aside...
    perhaps when the media quit whipping the public into a frenzy, some sane debate can be had on how to reduce ALL our pollution, and we can forget the garbage that is Kyoto was ever created
  74. Ed H from Williamsford, Ont, Canada writes: I'm still waiting for someone from the G&M to answer rb from Calgary who asked (way back in this post) what is unusual about 8 degrees C in Paris on Feb 1st? This is so typical of the enviromental movement. If they would simply state the facts instead of giving us a heap of exaggerations, clumsy anecdotes, & confusing different issues we may begin to understand the issues. This reporting is at the same level as Waterworld!
  75. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Grant Samuel from Nanaimo, they didnt' know exactly how much money was being wasted..... being as they were liberal programs.

    They have re intstated more than one of these programs (of course, Dion and his kool aid drinkers accused them of stealing their ideas). But with something callled checks and balances.

    The only ideology that was going on was the idea that wasting Canadian taxpayers money was wrong...... you have a problem with that?
  76. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Reading the posts this morning about global warming made me think of a quote from the poet Rene Char who said, 'Lucidity is the wound closest to the sun.'
  77. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie; Your NDP are irrelevant.... if Taliban Jack actually achieves anything within this minority government, I will be impressed.

    Derek Holtom from Swan River; Right on.

    Ed H from Williamsford, Ont,; Good luck on that one. (I agree).
  78. G Smith from Canada writes: To Quote:
    'As I said before, 1000 years ago there was no ice in Greenland and millions of buffalo roamed North America, spewing gas at 100 times what our current cattle put out (20 percent of Canada's GHG). BTW, the rest of the world burned coal.

    Today, the northern pole is melting and the southern pole's ice field is growing.... natural cycle. note natural. '

    Really?

    I guess the ice core samples frome the ice sheets on Greenland dating back 10's of thousands of years are phoney?

    The ice field at the south pole is shrinking, not expanding. Recent NASA satellite measurements show a loss of 36 cubic miles annually.

    The bison that roamed the plains were not fed farmed grains as is today's practice and their environmental impact per capita was much smaller than today's animals.

    Your sources are incorrect and therefore your conclusion is flawed, Want to try again?

    ;
  79. David Niemczycki from Hamilton, Canada writes: Global warming, fact or fiction? That is the question. If it is fact then we have to look at the major contributing factor to this problem. The major problem here is the uncontrolled population growth that is going on in the world. We are spreading like a cancer through out this world consuming it like there is no tomorrow. If it is fiction, then there is no need to worry.
  80. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Good morning Scot:
    I've printed your response about the NDP. It will be nice to replay back to you, in the near future.
  81. Grant Samuel from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Listen Scotter Thought before action is always the best way to proceed wiping something out and then rebiulding virtually the same thing costs way more. They had no intention of doing any of what they are doing now until Rona at the behest of 'The Harpy' crashed and burned.
  82. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: 'Canada's GHG contribution is 2% so what' the point in changing?'

    According to this argument, since less than 2% of the population is homeless or in hospitals, why bother with heath care or homeless people?

    While we're at it, since probably less than 2% are affected by crime, let's get rid of the police force as well.
  83. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: G Smith; Really. My sources are not incorrect.

    Catherine Wilkie: I look forward to it... but I'm not holding by breathe.
  84. Don Adams from Canada writes: Geez Grant, how can you be so dense. While the Cons may have had the same information everyone else had, NONE of us had any decent, truthful information. NONE of us knew of the actual costs, only what the Libs decided to tell us! Ahh, Catherine, you just don't get it do you? Yes, there are some ultra right idiots who reject the idea global warming, global change, whatever you want to call it, but they are a real minority. Far less of them than the ultra left idiots that want to destroy our economy, and dipsticks that think change can be effected overnight. Will the Gov't be brought down over this? Nope. No sane individual in Canada wants an election right now. Especially Dion after his gaffe last week. hehehehe. Will all other party's be after the Cons to bring in decent climate policies? Of course, and so they should. Will the Cons bend to the Kyoto types? Not a hope in hell. Will they review past Lib legislation? They're doing it now... some has already been brought back. Will they come up with good legislation that both addresses the problems we face, but, maintains a steady hand on the rudder of the economy? I think they will. Just remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. Even if we did NOTHING, as the Libs did while in power, the glaciers won't all melt away in the next 10 years.
  85. emil mysko from Yorkton, writes: Its do or die. We better start cleaning up our act now.
  86. jeanne labelle from Ottawa, Canada writes: One small solution to stop polluting would be to have a national ban on chemical pesticide use on lawns. This should have been addressed long ago but continues to go on, against the advice of most medical professionals. Chemical pestisides were first introduced after the world wars when the industry tried to figure out how to get rid of these poisons and here we are still using them to avoid a dandelion on our front lawn...
  87. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: Dave Medich - you haven't even looked at the history of global warming politics. Rio would be the Mecca not Kyoto. Just do some real reasearch and consider your sources.
  88. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Grant Samuel from Nanaimo; Huh?

    Agent Smith from GTA,: That's not the point of the 2 percent comment. Kyoto suggests we buy carbon credits from countries like China and India. The same countries that are building 400 new Coal powered power plants (China) and who are second in GHG in the world (India).

    Should we obliterate our entire GHG emmissions (all 2 percent of them) we would have zero effect on the (junk science) problem.

    If we really want to do something about this, and if we really believe the junk science behind it...... we don't need laws, we need diplomats putting pressure on China and India....

    I don't get how this is so hard to understand.
  89. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: > 'How arrogant are we humans to actually think that we have an affect on the environment that we are witnessing in today's global warming. '

    Today, it's common knowledge that CFCs destroy the ozone layer. The ozone layer was pretty big, yet simple human activity such as areosol sprays have a tremendously damaging effect.

    So why is it so difficult for some to believe that pouring tons and tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can't have an effect on temperature?
  90. Grant Samuel from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Don Adams,
    The Cons had no plan?
    'cause they had their head in the sand.
    Tell me what their environmental plank in the last election was? Their paln was to get into office and adopt the Bush doctrine on the environment, but they never told us that was the plan. It kinda blew up in 'The Harpy's' smug face.
  91. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Global WARMING? Bring it on! Its been -20 here along the St.Lawrence for a week. This is turning into the most massive con job in the history of the planet.
    When the ice cap covered most of North America 10000 years ago and started to melt into Lake Agassiz was this the start of global warming? No human produced green house gases then, only the occasional volcanic eruption. Why did the world warm up to melt the ice? The remnants of Lake Agassiz are the Great Lakes and all the lakes in the Canadian Shield.
    The Global Warming industry is having a field day. Something for them to scare the puplic and also make a buck. Hybrid cars that will get you killed, wind generators and solar collectors that pollute the visual environment are being hyped.

    No mention that Canada's large cities are the major polluters, discharging raw sewage into our rivers and oceans. Out of sight, out of mind. This will kill us faster than a 1 degree rise in temperature over the next hundred years.
  92. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: I don't get your point, Don Adams. Are you a believer in climate change, or not? Is it the place of a national gov't to lead according to polls to try to gain a majority, or should they lead? The media is commenting on a global anxiety re climate change and you seem to be miffed about the 'bandwagon' effect. I find it hard to respect a gov't that 'kinda' is dealing with it to appease some people. I find it difficult to realize that some people will follow the dictate of this gov't no matter how much they spin a discussion.
  93. Martin A from Regina, Canada writes: The fact that climate change is at the top of the political agenda may not be a good thing. It's likely that we'll see politicians working on short term stuff (because their ultimate goal is to win elections), while climate change is a 'long term' thing.

    On a side note, I didn't like the 'starving polar bears' picture illustrating the article. I have Inuit friends from Baffin island and they have seen polar bears starving for a very long time: it started to happen when the government put quotas to the bear hunting by the Inuits. Polar bears in Baffin island have been starving for many years but not because of climate change.
  94. Don Adams from Canada writes: David Niemczycki, so what is your suggestion re overpopulation of the world? Mass sterilization? A one child policy? Scott, Cathy won't be able to reply it to you in the future.... I sold her to France, remember?
    Jeanne labelle from Ottawa. Pesticides control dandelions? I really thought it was herbicides. :-) In any event, I partially agree with you. I wouldn't cut out herbicides altogether, lawns would be taken over real quickly and there'd be no grass. I dig the dandelions out of my lawn by hand.... pleasant pastime at 5:30 AM in the summer, coffee in one hand, long handled digger in the other. Unfortunately, just no way to keep on top of them all, and about every 3 years use herbicides to really whack them, then back to digging. ie. COMPROMISE
  95. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada ............. Forgive me for I have sinned! I will repent by holding my breath for 60 seconds and saying 10 'Hail Al Gores!' to the 'Climate Gods' and rejoice in my new found spiritual awakening.
  96. John Claremont from Canada writes: If you truly believe that global warming is fact and not fiction, the only true solution is world population control. How do we as a society decide which 2,000,000,000 are eliminated and how do we make sure the world population stays in balance with nature?
  97. Matt Blakely from writes: G&M really needs to implement a rule that a single person can only post once per day per article. Because some people spam these comments over and over with their propoganda and it really pollutes these boards.

    Give it up people. Let us all have our say.

    Those who are so selfish that they want us to clean-up YOUR mess, and then try to justify it by saying that no one is willing to make changes or give anything up - shame on you. You are utterly selfish. Most of us are willing to change and give up taxes, etc. Alot of us already have. Just because you are too selfish don't you dare try to make it out like everyone is. IT'S JUST YOU!!!
  98. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: jeanne labelle from Ottawa,; My neighbours hate me because of my dandilions and wild flowers. :)
  99. jerry johnson from ottawa, Canada writes: To the Globe and Mail: PLEASE ANSWER TO r b's MESSAGE! IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
  100. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: Scot Loucks: The penalties under Kyoto are simple: you either spend X dollars to reduce CO2 internally, or spend the equivalent X dollars in credits through the carbon market. The penalities are to ensure countries are serious about allocating resources to reduce CO2 emissions.

    I don't want to be setup as a defender of Kyoto. But I do believe in the science of climate change, and even believe it could be an economic plus since Canada is at least as good as Europe in innovation. However, Europe is ahead at this time.

    For example, they're selling home furnances in Japan and the UK that will generate about $1000 in electricity at the same time they heat your home. Why can't we buy ( or manufacture ) things like this here?
  101. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: Would the G&M be promoting 'climate change' if Dion had not declared the 'environment' to be the basis of the next Liberal platform? This article and the rest in today's G&M are nothing more than liberal propaganda. See Edwad Greenspon's for the most blatant example.
  102. Don Adams from Canada writes: Catherine, you appear to be pretty dense as well. YES, I agree the earth is warming, the climate is changing. YES, I agree humans have, are, and will be contributing to the changes. YES, I agree that human action has sped up the change. HOWEVER, I also feel the warming in general is a natural cycle that CANNOT, will not, be stopped. Just too much evidence from history that the earth changes. Is there something mankind can do to stop global warmimg? Nope. Is there something mankind can do to slow it down? Yep. Is it going to happen? Nope. Not with China, India etc. Should we in Canada destroy our economy on do good, feel good projects when it's not going to matter in the end anyway? Nope. Are there things we can be doing in Canada to clean up OUR part of the environment? Yep. Should we? Yep, but slowly, so as to not bankrupt the country. eg. clean up the air over our cities. Stop polluting our waters with untreated effluent. Encourage research into clean fuels, and force changes to clean fuels.....but over TIME.
  103. Tim Hearn from edmonton, Canada writes: I suggest everyone read both Margaret Wente and Rex Murphy's columns today in the G&M. Both give a realitively sane examination in what has become an increasingly insane preoccupation with climate change.
    The earth is not a static enviroment, it is constantly in flux. We are either getting cooler or we are getting warmer, and whatever cycle we happen to be in, changes will occur and we will have to adapt.
    If unspeakable catastrophes are the eventual outcome of climate change, I think we, in the '1st world', will adapt. However, I do not think the poorest nations(third world) will be so lucky.
    This brings me to my point...All the money that will be spent trying to reduce GHG's to produce a result that may or may not have an effect on our childrens' childrens way of life, would be better spent on our poorest nations trying to give them a quality of life much like our own. Enabling them the ability to adapt to whatever changes may lie before them.

    I believe we should all try and leave as light a foot print as possible on this planet, however, that responsibility begins with the individual, and that individual should 'teach thier children well'.
  104. eric fortin from London, Ontario, Canada, Canada writes: There has been vey much said in this discussion on the potential to 'damage' our economies, as we race fanatically to act on a problem 'not scientifically proven to be true.' Ugh. Firstly, free market economies such as Canada's are opportunistic. No matter the political or social or environmental climate, free market economies will seek out and develop profitable sectors. Thusfar, in a few thousand years of human history, despite the millions of predictions for the end of the world, none has come true. This is not to say that humans are not impacting the environment, we certainly are, and negatively so. Our scientists can demonstrate that human activity is speeding up the natural climactic cycles on earth. This is not even to say that the human acceleration of global warming won't kill us, it could, at least some of us, indeed, many of us. The truth is that the global climate is governed by various natural phenomena: free carbon pool/constrained carbon sink, teperate age/ice age cycle, mantle pressure build up/mantle pressure release, tectonic generation/tectonic subduction, etc., etc. The scientific areguement is padantically misunderstood or decontextualised. The danger of human inputs to the process of global warming, which ironically lays the foundation for the advance of the next ice age, is that we are speeding up the warming with the potential to precipitate a cataclysmic climactic rebalanching, where we have no means of predicting the outcome, or preparing ourselves. Climate change is inevitable, it is cyclical. But humans have evolved for continuous adaptation, which takes time. We know that the climate will change independent of human activities. But we know we're speding it up, and in ways that undermine predictability, and thus our capacity to prepare and adapt. It's worth spending a trillion dollars to buy ourselves the time to pursue the technologies that will bring us through the next age, and limit negative hman impact on the global environment.
  105. Fred Stirring the pot from Kitchener,ON, Canada writes: 'Canadians feel so passionately about the topic that they say they don't want half-measures'. What a load of baloney. What Canadians say and what Canadians actually do are quite the opposite. WAKE UP! The goverment can't fix this problem. Individual Canadians acting on their own free will to change bad choices and lifestyles is the only thing that will work. Choose a smaller car, ride a bus , take the train, recycle, walk.....
  106. Paul Griffiths from Kingston, Ontario, Canada writes: This sudden concern about climate change is the largest media invention I've ever seen. The people at The Globe and Mail are going to look like a bunch of fools when this issue drops to the bottom of the heap six months from now.
  107. Greg Dong from Waterloo, writes: Don brought up an important point which I believe no one else has mentioned; that humans do not solely cause global warming, but that we do contribute to global warming. Furthermore, I think people should realize that global warming is natural (to a certain extent). What we're (likely) seeing is the effects of enhanced global warming caused by anthropogenic sources.

    I wanted to add that there's a disconnect between what should be done and what is being done. Bandwagon jumpers can say that they will make 'major' sacrifices for the benefit of the environment, but talk is cheap and often is full of hot air (pun intended). I think that many people see global warming as this massive mountain of an issue that they feel they can't touch or that their efforts will not cause an impact, which in turn leaves them helpless and in the meantime, not doing anything at all to curb their contribution to AGW/EGW. Sure the numbers say that Canada contributes 2% to climate change, but it's the effort to reduce which opens the eyes of those around us (I hope). The phrase 'Think globally, act locally' seems to be lost in the maelstrom of economics, terrorism, and political snafus. I've got to ask though, what good is an economy if no one's around to contribute to it?
  108. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: So all parties agree that action must follow. Two options have been tabled: 1. Kyoto 2. Made-in-Canada. Can someone explain why Kyoto is superior?... So far Kyoto has allowed us to do nothing since we had a long term goal. Now the deadline is approaching and we would have to cut about 1/3 of our emissions or pay up. Only Putin has credits on the scale we need. Realists on these pages have admitted that there is no real chance to meet the target, but assure us that international treaties can't be enforced and that displaying good will will suffice. The precedents for this would be, I suppose, Iran and Sudan. I have another precedent in mind: remember the Auto Pact?... Moreover, since Kyoto has been ratified and therefore is the law of the land it doesn't even take international pressure to make us pay up. How do you think Canadian courts will respond to a complaint? Kyoto is the ideal vehicle to handle this issue if you don't really want to act: pay and move on.
  109. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: dave srigley from Toronto, Canada writes: Are Canadians really willing stop using clothes dryers? Stop cutting their lawns? Will they compel the gov't to ban SUVs? Ban suburban development? Stop eating exotic foods shipped from around the world? Stop selling our oil to the USA until they sign Kyoto?

    My answers:
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Working on it through participation on my municipal council.
    Working on it through participation on my municipal council.
    Yes, to a minor degree - could do a lot better.
    Would love to see it happen.
  110. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: I hear you Agent Smith from GTA. The lastest bit of envirofriendly legislation ticked me off.

    Why can't they remove taxes from high efficentcy furnaces, solar roof tiles, anything that is enviro friendly?

    Why did they bring back the old Liberal program that requires an energy study by somebody charging you a few hundred bucks?

    Make enviro friendly product cheaper.... no tax would be a good start.

    I don't believe in Kyoto or global warming (man made). I do believe in climate change (natural... plan for it) energy saving, recycling and anti pollution.... and I will vote for Mr. Harper in the next one.
  111. Malcolm Thistle from Toronto, Canada writes: We all want to stop climate change, don't we! It's a motherhood issue. But in my opinion it's also 'everybody elses' issue. By that I mean that we'll all spend our time blaming someone else for the problem so that we don't have to accept responsibility for it. It's already started with the 'get the oil companies' pitch from Stephane Dion and others will follow suit. Canadians love to blame others for things because we don't have any real power in the world and don't stand up for ourselves. We can't agree on ANYTHING - Afghanistan, healthcare, Quebec, etc. so how are we going to agree on something as complex as the environment. We don't have a strong national identity so we look for scapegoats to justify our inaction. The truth is that most pollution comes from automobiles. We think we want to clean up the environment but are you willing to pay more for cleaner cars, take more public transit, pay higher taxes, let grubs and animals take over your front lawns, etc. We'll take government grants to pay for new windows or otherwise improve our house because it benefits us directly. But ask us to make real changes or sacrifices and we'll start complaining and arguing like we always do. One other thing to keep in mind. Kyoto is a European invention. I'm sure they have some decent intentions but the point that they don't have a resource base or an oil industry and that hampering Canada and the United States in developing these industries would give Europe a competitive advantage, was not lost on them. Don't under-estimate this. Kyoto is a battle for whose going to dominate the new world economy - the nations with the resource wealth or the nations who are consumers. Mark my words, Canadians have no chance of winning in this battle because we can't agree and because we don't stand up for our country. Canada is a shell of a country with no real guts or soul.
  112. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: A number of people in this conversation have indicated that it should be up to the individual to make the changes needed. That can't work as a solution. From a an individual perspective the only reason for society to exist is so we can accomplish more than any one person or small band could.
    This is why we have moved from those small bands to a group of people who can sit around on Saturday morning drinking hot latte's and discussing the politics of polsters, climate change, etc.
    We need to have coordinated international efforts to combat this problem. As an example nuclear power generation has received trillions of dollars in government assistance to get it were it is, in terms of cost/kwh and safety. It is still much more expensive than coal power but cheaper than solar. However solar power has been funded almost exclusively by independent interests. I can't improve on solar power in my basement but if my society works together we could reduce the cost of solar power closer to that of coal and at least better than nuke.
    If we can get the costs of solar down we can immediately help China stop from building all those coal power plants.
    That sounds alot more effective then trying to pack my kids into a prius.
  113. Frank Enstein from Canada writes: The global warming problem will not be solved in Canada, it's an international problem which requires global solutions. I am not denying that we should be doing our share and take measures to cut emissions , but if at the same time China is building 500 coal power plants and is intent on operating those for the next 50 years pretty well offsets any measures other countries may attempt to undertake. I'm not just blaming China, many newly developing countries , the so -called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are determined to rapidly grow their economies , and there are lax environmental and other standards in these countries. The reality is, the world will continue to increase energy use, and countries like Canada and Venezuela with vast tar sands will contribute to global warming with the process of converting these tar sands to bitumen , then into synthetic crude oil. This process generates substantial green house gases and is a major factor in Canada being unable to cut emissions. As for Canadians planning to drive and fly substantially less than they do now, I'll believe it when I see it it, I'm very skeptical on this one. Let's see in 5 years when the numbers come out, I would not be surprised to see the opposite. On that note, good morning and good luck.
  114. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Always nice to have my 'Don' put-down of the day. So, what you're really saying is that this gov't should invest in ethanol fuel, pleasing the farmers and controversial in itself, and pay homage to those with a more grave fear of the future than yourself. But they have your support anyway. So, maybe the bandwagon effect will look towards other parties to quell their personal concerns. That's how a democracy works and the media is correct in keeping up with the times.
  115. Rob K from United States writes: According to the gLOBE, Climate change is no longer a vague threat. A new Globe polls finds that 4 out of 5 Canadians say they've seen it first-hand. wow. Yeah and a lot of Canadains have an imagnary freind they call God does that make it real. We need scientific proof not polls to make things worth acting on.
  116. al goguen from Victoria, B.C,, Canada writes: We have to continue pressuring our official elected to do more.
    They have the key to the success of the reversal of the global warming. We cannot wait tomorrow wither, today we have to act and quickly and efficiently. So let's write to our federal, provincial and municipal representatives as odten as it takes, and let's get started.
  117. The Objectivist from Canada writes: most support the social goal, to stop the destruction of the planet, the problem is getting buy-in on any sort of plan that would actually make a difference. Those who support Kyoto are the real culprits. Why? you are the political escape hatch, the easy way to make most happy without much pain...but if you'd educated yourself you'd know other make people feel good not much is accomplished - it doesn't address the problem. The groundswell demanding change stops with the sweet I'm-a-good-person placebo; they feel good again. Opportunity lost but problem not solved. Instead insist the problem's dealt with; population growth and consumption levels. The government trying grow the population - this is what should be protested. you want to help the environment, you think its OK to add 500,000 new consumers a year, but you protest SUV's??!! ARRGG! Its very simple, the trend will only be reversed by having less people consuming less. no one wants to deal with that because its pain, think it through (and no lying to yourself now) its the only thing that will work Do you want to alter the path we're on, to change? It'll mean doing more with less, less buying power, less ease of travel, no easy demographic solutions like growing the population, and taking a stand against countries that won't shrink their populations? Or do you just want to feel good?
  118. Jimmy Jensen from Toronto, Canada writes: Maybe we should all just take a pill and chill a little here...global warming? The earth has had a least ten such cycles in the last 2 million years oscillating between tropical swamps in the NWT to massive glaciers reaching down from the north as far as New York State. This all took place without any SUV's or cows farting. Thirty years ago all the professors at university were chanting their mantra about how we were entering a new ice age and total destruction was just around the corner. Now it's global warming. The earth will do its thing pretty much regardless of this latest fear mongering. This is really all about politics and vacuuming up votes from people who didn't major in the sciences.
  119. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes:
    Reading the first few posts is enough. As a scientist and citizen who is involved to some degree in the debates and work around climate change it is disturbing to see that many posters (for whatever reason) still think that global warming is a hoax.

    Two points:

    1. We stopped arguing (and giving equal time) to people who wanted to argue the world was flat centuries ago.

    2. Climate change and global warming are real, here now, and a threat to our economies, environment, and way of life (even Bush finally admitted it in his recent State of the Union address).

    No more equal time for skeptics (who have no supporting evidence). The world is tired of arguing that it is round, not flat, and we all, the media included, must now ignore and give no position to the skeptics.

    Global warming skeptics are entitled to the percentage of time (in arguments and debates) equivalent to the amount science that supports their claims, which equals somewhere between 0 and <1%.
  120. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Don Adams.... why are you trying to change the mind of and NDP'er like Catherine Wilkie? Are you flurting with her? :)
  121. Fred Stirring the pot from Kitchener,ON, Canada writes: Keith Whelpdale from Calgary you missed the point. Sure we need to work together and invest in things like solar and wind or hydrogen. But that does not negate a person's individual responsibility to do the right thing. Before we start asking other's to change their ways, we should look in a mirror and clean up our own act.
  122. Langdon Aulder from Canada writes: The Sky is Falling!!! People are so gullible to think that any government can effectively solve this problem. Get ready for more taxes and a ton of subsidies to corporations, and it won't make a lick of difference.
  123. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: > at the same time China is building 500 coal power plants

    There is newer technology clean-burning coal power plants. Of course, they are currently more expensive to build. However, with the right govt incentives for innovation, they can be made cheaper. Then perhaps a country like Canada can sell 500 of these clean burning coal power plants to China and everyone wins.

    I don't want to be setup as a defender of Kyoto, but I believe one of the its goals was to provide a framework to spur just this sort of innovation. This has been happening in Europe, but could easily happen here too.
  124. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: This really is becoming a new religion. And the sheep falls for it without seriously questioning its rationale. Like the human race always did anyway. It is easier, isn't it? You can't be wrong, so it is really comforting and you live happier, like a real believer. If you say 'not so fast, keep your cool, it is not all black or white', you are dubbed an heretic, a non-believer or an infidel, or a 'denier', the latter word I already saw several times on this climate hysteria forum. Can I move out to another planet? Please, ETs, if you are out there, take me with you.
  125. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Setting aside for one moment the importance of the protecting the environment, and examining this report purely from the perspective of newspaper journalism, does anybody else find the start of this article kind of funny (like something you would see on a campus newspaper at a university)? This report begins by announcing 'Climate change is no longer a vague threat: A new Globe poll finds that 4 out of 5 Canadians say they've seen it first-hand' (end quote). Well, for comparison, an Angus Reid poll found that 70 to 80 per cent of Canadians believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and over 50 percent of Canadians said they thought the planet had already been visited by extraterrestrials. Might we soon expect a Globe front page blockbuster headline of 'Space Aliens are no longer a vague threat: A new poll finds that 4 out of 5 Canadians say they're convinced first-hand that they are out there'? Or is the Globe and Mail extremely selective about which '80 percent of Canadians' polls they are going to make into front page headlines?
  126. grealy ted from Canada writes: I personally don't believe the extent to which global warming is being caused by humans claimed by certain environmental goups. That being said, I and my family practise an environmentally conservative lifestyle. While recycling etc. is a very important part of this I feel it is time to truly rigorously investigate alternatives to carbon-based fuel dependence.
  127. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: If I understand them correctly, Scot Loucks and Don Adams are pretty much promoting the Clean Air Act as originally proposed by the Conservatives, and encourage some individual responsibility as well.
  128. Don Adams from Canada writes: Cathy, what are you still doing here. I sold you to France yesterday! Ethonal can help, as a temporary stopgap measure. What about biodiesel? Hydrogen power? Increased solar power? (but costs have to come down, technologies expanded) What about nuclear? Not just fission, but fusion? Again, technologies, PLUS the complaints of the anti nuclear crowd. How about technology to incinerate our waste with no emmissions, and the heat from incineration creating electricity to be fed back into the system, thus cutting down on the costs of incineration? All good ideas, could be part of the solution, but all will take time to develop the technologies and to implement. It's the Do-it-Today crowd I don't agree with.... the idealist bandwagon jumpers, ie. IDIOTS on the left. (also don't agree with the idiots on the ultra right... the ones who don't want to do anything) Jaspar The Black Lab, I just put you on my list of potential sales to France.

    Agent Smith.... can you give us more detail on those furnaces in Japan and UK? A website perhaps? Thanks
  129. Durward Saar from Coquitlam, Canada writes: I don't dis-agree that climate change is happening, it's been happening since the birth of the planet, it's the shoddy science, secret re-writes, and the fact I know why this was proposed that make me think all you chicken littles are fools. Do yourself a favor and look into Mr. Maurice Strong and his aims. Maurice is the guy who came up with the Kyoto protocol, is an honorary member of China's communist party, is hoarding the largest underground water supply in the USA, buys up coal mines in China(while telling us to shut ours down), envisioned a plan to collapse the western economies by holding the leaders hostage so markets can't close, was involved in the oil for food scandal with Saddam Hussein, is one of the big pushers for us to sell bulk water . Oh yea he's a Canadian and a Liberal , Paulie Martin's adviser, Chretin's buddy,Trudeau's UN commie plant, plunderer of Ontario hydro(that's right he bought a rain forest with your money), head cheerleader for a UN one world government, has stated that individual states must be crushed in order to establish the one world government and he's an all round communist . Yup we can bet on ole Maurice having pure aims eh..NOT. Hey enviros...here's your hero laid bare of the bull. Communist Economic terrorist in my humble opinion. Remember please that before the Chretin signed this ON HIS OWN, not even the Liberals supported it, they were as shocked as anyone that he did, and just as a present to Maurice Strong.
  130. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Population grows will not be much of an issue. The UN has a group that tracks vital stats. At this point the Earth as a whole is still above raplacement rate, but dropping fast. Whole regions like Europe, Russia, East Asia are all far below replacement levels, as are Brazil, Iran, and Thailand. The Earths population will peak in the next decades due to momentum only, and will start a rapid decline after that. If global warming can be solved with population control, then let's declare victory and move on.
  131. Corey Hynick from bridgewater, Nova Scotia, Canada writes: I am not one for the politaical side of this 'issue' if you will, but rather someone who looks at the current state of us humans on this planet, and the condition we are now left to face. In regards to global warming it is just that, GLOBAL. If we are responsible for the cliamte changes we observe on a daily bases, (which we as a whole, we shoulder some of the responsibiltiy) to think that such a small % of the now 6 billion inhabitants on this plante we call home can make a difference, or some how miraculessly stop global warming, IS OBSURED. I dont mean to have nay-sayer intentions, however it does not matter how green your thumb is, WE as a species are consumers, and it has become our nature to destroy things that are beautiful, no matter how un-intentional our nature is. There will be no solution to this situation, no matter what organization, or comittee, government, or world organization, sanctions, or free lanced group attempts. The reason being: Money, everyone loves it, and the struggle to obtain it on a individual basis drives consumption, which in turn plugs our landfills, it creates the drive to burn fossil fuels, (cars, even energy effecient ones still burn fossil fuels, mass transit, waste removal, right down to the paper we write on created from pulp mills) here is another exaple in the disguise of 'recycling' taken right from the news paper itself: 'The province’s recycling board wants to allow a cement company to burn nearly a million tires a year, most of them in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Resource Recovery Fund Board announced Friday that Lafarge Canada has won the bid to take over the collection and processing of every tire discarded in Nova Scotia.' You see no matter how much one can discuss the situation about global warming, is there really going to be a solution? Only time will tell. But I do have a suggestion for eveyone: learn to swim. those are just my thoughts on the situation.
  132. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: BJ Shellac says 'My heart breaks for the polar bear and all the other majestic beasts that we are threatening with extinction. My heart should break more for us, humanity, but we are the ones doing the damage. And there is no forum where the polar bear can plead his case.'

    Such unmitigated nonsense is pretty hard to take so early in the morning. Completely unsupported crap but if you want to feel so guilty, go right ahead. And the secularists complain about 'Catholic guilt'.....it has nothing on the guilt perpetuated by the Kyoto and Climate Change religion high priests. Unbelievable.
  133. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Members of the Conservative-Republican Annexationist Party (aka: 'The Canada LAST Party') . . . HOW are you going to handle your upcoming 180-degree switch on this issue ? Oh, wait: (1) You're going to call the phenomenon 'climate change' instead of 'Global Warming', and (2) You're going to claim that 'all of the scientific evidence was not yet in' while you were lying about it . . . thus giving yourselves an 'out'. (WOW . . . how clever). . . . Wait 'til you find out that the world is NOT flat, and that the Universe was NOT created in 4004 B.C.
  134. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell; Don't know about Don.... but I am... without a doubt. Not to impressed with anything they have announced since though,
  135. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Here's a little review of the international haggling: Per-capita carbon emissions in developing nations continues to be far below the levels found in industrial countries. Developing nations, such as China and India, believe the wealthy countries are using climate change policy to limit their ability to improve living standards and compete in international markets. Thus, developing nations have resisted any limitations on their emissions until the developed nations show significant progress in reducing theirs. But some developed nations, such as the U.S. and Australia, are reluctant to implement a reduction policy until developing nations have agreed to some commitments. This is where negotiators start earning their pay.
  136. Don Adams from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell, yes I support the clean air act to a certain extent. I would also like to see a clean water act. But, would like to see the time frames shortened, and the clean air act act expanded. Yes, I encourage individual responsibility. Some things I'll do, some I won't. I'm totally against Kyoto, totally against the lemmings who want to rush blindly into the abyss of Global Warming..... destroying our economy, our country, our heritage to our children, over something that is totally natural, even if it is sped up a bit by human action. I am also in favour of adapting to changing circumstances, and PLANNING for the future. If we totally followed what the ultra left idiots want us to do, or what the ultra right idiots want us to ignore, we'd really be in trouble.
  137. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: D Adams, Here are 2 micro CHP systems I seen. They designed the whispergen to resemble the size and shape of a dishwasher. It's just been launched in the UK I believe. The second is by Honda.

    http://www.whispergen.com/main/products/

    http://www.hondanews.com/CatID5065?mid=2005042628647&mime=asc
  138. james castle from Canada writes: Has anyone proved that global warming isn't caused by there being too much sand around. I think we should get rid of the sand. But then where would we get a beach?
  139. J K from Canada writes: World population control is the answer - there is just too many of us creating too much pollution.
  140. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Cup of Tea from National, Canada ....... Hallelujah!! The non-believers must be shunned and scorned! We must force them to watch 'The Gospel of Al Gore' so they may repent before the coming Apocalypse. The new 'ice age'....... uh, I mean...... the new 'meltdown' is upon us! They must be assimilated.
  141. BJ Shellac from Quebec City, Canada writes: Grealy Ted says he practises 'an environmentally conservative lifestyle.' This is a large part of the solution. But the problem has to do with our runaway economic system. Growth, growth, growth is the only mantra. I doubt that we will all become responsible citizens in time to prevent the coming train wreck.
  142. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Scot Loucks has 18 posts on this one article . Scot , perhaps time to reflect on your obsession with this topic and get out a little more.
  143. Frank Curry from Canada writes: The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is due out Feb 2, 2007. Their third report in 2001 produced the famous hockey stick graph of time versus temperature and used it as a key piece of supporting evidence. This graph has been shown to be incorrect by Dr. Ross Mckitrick of U of Guelph and others. Dr. Michael Mann, who produced the hockey stick graph, is a Lead Author at IPCC. If the Fourth Assessment drops or relegates the hockey stick, it will improve their credibility. If they keep it up front, their credibility will be in serious doubt.
  144. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: BJ Shellac, here is a fact for you, the Polar Bears are not endangered, the world wide population is actually very health and showing NO signs of decline. The media has driven this myth.
  145. Don Adams from Canada writes: Agent Smith... thank you very much, I'll look into them. Great timing, as I'll be building a new house in 2008.

    Well boys and girls, it's been another fun morning at the G&M post...sure do love seeing those global warming ultra lefties and ultra righties squeal and squirm. U know who u are :-)

    But now, it's time for me to do something constructive... going out to my bush, clean up wood deadfalls and cut up into firewood. Gives me exercise, helps clean up the bush, cuts down on the amount of oil to heat the house, yet allows me to keep the place at a comfortable 72'F. Sends some carbon into the atmosphere, but since I plant new trees every year, what they absorb more than offsets what I put into the atmosphere. But first, I'll hop into my van and go to town to shop, since I haven't been there in 4 or 5 days and have quite a list of stuff to buy. Lots of excess packaging of course, but I'll burn it for heat. Oh yes, the ash from the furnace..... it gets spread over the land.... but I won't be doing that today.... got to wait for 2 weeks so I know there's no live ashes.

    Anyway, have a good day y'all :-)
  146. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello Mr/Ms Globe storytellers. As many have asked already, how about an answer to rb from Calgary question? It is a simple question. Don't be afraid.
  147. Mike McFee from Ottawa, Canada writes: junk science...... Unless they have seen temperature trends from the past 1000 years one would see 'MAYBE' a 1 degree difference, other than that, people have NOT seen any evidence of global warming..........
  148. Allan A'Dale from Canada writes: As an educator, I used to teach a progam (actually for a competition) entitled FUTURE PROBLEMSOLVING. This consisted of a 'fuzzy situation', for our puposes the plight of the polar bear, killer whales invading the Hudson Bay, etc. The students would then be instructed to identity 10 causes, choose the primary cause and generate 10 solutions. Innovative thinking was encouraged and no idea was rejected outright. Then, to choose the best solution out of the ten.

    I am confident that the problem chosen would be global warming and the best solution would be, REDUCE THE WORLD'S POPULATION.

    Walking, getting rid of the SUV's, turning down the air-conditioners would have made the list of possible solutions but not THE solution. REDUCE THE WORLD'S POPULATION is the one and obvious solution.

    Has any government except for the Chinese, the guts to implement this?
    I doubt it. Instead there will all kinds of band-aid proposals to try to stem the haemorraging.

    'Much ado about nothing' comes to mind.
  149. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: D Kearney, the Clinton administration even commissioned a study on polar bear population and weight in the 90's when rumours of starving polar bears first started. It was published, eventually, but not well publicized; I wonder if the findings have anything to do with that? (Psst, the bears had gained weight compared to a previous study from the 50's; but don't take my word for it: look it up). On the other hand, I've heard people argue that the bears had gained weight because ice floes were so much smaller, which made it easier to catch seals. Maybe seals are the ones we should look out for...
  150. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Mike Bellows.... actually on four different blogs... 18 on this one? nice? you counted them .... and I have an obsession? Does that mean I am bothering you? (19)
  151. howman howman from thornhill, Canada writes: 'Clear majorities also say they would be willing to pay more for fuel-efficient cars,'

    How about paying the same for fuel-efficient cars and lots more for gas guzzlers? It just doesn't make sense to buy a more fuel efficient car if it costs more than a gas guzzler. I like the idea of a yearly engine size tax, like in Japan, on all cars. While there, I learned that the smaller engine cars, 600cc or so were charged about $47 a year tax while the largest, think SUV, were charged about $2500 a year tax. This tax also extended to commercial vehicles.
    I drive a Yaris during the winter and a motorcycle in the summer, and almost always have a passenger, while the majority of those around me bomb around in massive SUVs alone.
    Something else I think is wrong, is the new multi person lanes. How about making them a percentage of your seating? I can't use them when I am alone on my motorcycle, yet the guy with his wife in their 14 passenger SUV can? How is it they are being rewarded for 'car pooling' and supposedly doing something for the environment, while I am not?
    Lets get our priorities set right. If you want to drive a massive vehicle, whether alone or with 4 people, YOU pay the price, in higher gas taxes, higher yearly taxes and NO use of multi-passenger lanes no matter how many people you are carrying.
    Lets reward people for choosing smaller cars or motorcycles by letting them get there first, have preferential parking, think small spots for small cars, pay double for large cars. After all they take up twice the space.
    We have a good start with free parking for motorcycles, how about the same for micro cars? You drive a smart car, you park for free.
    There is lots we can do, we only need to stand up and offer reasonable options. Stand up and then actually do something about it. Pawn your SUV, get your motorcycle license, complain to large store managers that small car parking up front gets more people closer the store front.
  152. true maple from Canada writes: .. and I still maintain that the earth is flat!!
  153. R. Carriere from Canada writes: I was somewhat disappointed with the article and the 'between the lines' criticizing of the present government while totally ignoring how and why we actually arrived to where we are today. Fairness and balance would be appreciated. As for the poll, it was a complete joke as B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States has clearly stated. The G&M states it is number one area of concern. I see it as 76% of the people DO NOT see it as the number 1 priority....and as for 20% of the people will, or probably will vote green, .......19 times out of 20 right? This is probably that 1 out of 20.

    No other paper I have read in the last year has the coverage of this topic like the G&M. Sometimes I have the feeling the G&M is making the news and not reporting it-and if so, why?

    On topic, we can do very little on the world stage. Until the US, China, India, Brazil,....are on board, whatever we come up with will be in vain.

    Sorry to say, but before I sacrifice more through decisions or tax dollars, I want the rest of the world on board and on the same page!
  154. Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: For those who say there is NO reputable scientists out there that oppose climate change, as it is being represented in the media, here's a letter to Harper signed by 60 scientists, professors and researchers, who strongly disagree with it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf Here's a sampling of signatories, I find the last one particularly interesting. Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
  155. t m from Guelph, Canada writes: Can somebody please do a survey with a clear question on this Kyoto farce? 65% in this quoted poll believe we should follow through on this.

    Does anybody understand or has read this entire agreement? Please educate people before scaring them out of their wits with misinformation.
    That is all I ask, educate before you inflame.

    Have a great day and God bless you!!!
  156. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: You thought 'separatism' and 'national unity' were a good guise to fleece taxpayers out of their hard earned dollars...you ain't seen nothin' yet folks. Bring on Kyoto!!!!
  157. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: B. Littmann: 'Psst, the bears had gained weight compared to a previous study from the 50's'.

    Please show some respect for the polar bears. If you put on a few pounds would you want it to be front page news. After all as post #1 pointed out: 'there is no forum where the polar bear can plead his case'.
  158. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Loucks, there was no ice on Greenland 1000 years ago??? Gimme a break, are you high or do you just make this crap up for fun. BTW, the Vikings called it Greenland to entice settlers to move there, its been covered in ice for 10's of thousands of years. I'm sure you'll try to cite some Viking scientists next.
  159. MIchelle Hruschka from Hamilton, Canada writes: There many things that as individuals we can do to help solve the problem. One of which to invest to local economies, which would help eliminate some of the trucks on the roads hauling from long distances. Air pollution, here in hamilton some is releasing black, greasy stuff into the air, yet no one from the government on down can find out who??? Corporations should have the responsibilty to ensure that they are doing all they can to make the environment as clean as possible. What about toxic waste dumping?? The use of pesticides?? Instead of paying the CEO's and such hugh amounts of money, maybe then money can be went spent into R & D for safer, cleaner ways. Sosme people are just way too greedy and wear blinders, cause it don't affect me yet.
  160. Peter Rembrandt from Hamilton, Canada writes: Nothing beats a good dose of fear-mongering on a Saturday. It's only been apparent for the last 15 years.
  161. Bob MacMillan from Hamilton, Canada writes: I think Canada's role in reversing climate change can be approached with a bit of value engineering. This is used to identify what it is you value, ways you can accomplish this, and making sure your efforts are kept in proportion to your results. Start with the goal or value - is it improve Canada's climate, improve the well being of Canadians, or being just seen to be doing something that is popular for the moment? If well being is the goal, improved healthcare and pollution control may be the way forward. If it's improving Canada's climate, that is more or less out of our control, so you have to ask yourself 'why bother?'. If you want to just be seen to be doing something, go ahead and knock yourself out. Just keep in mind what it is you will be accomplishing - reversing climate change, making yourself feel good, or making yourself morally superior to your neighbours? If you really think you can change the climate, go ahead and try. Make sure you calculate what it is that will be most effective and proportionally spend the most money in that area. Most posters here talk about doing things without much thought applied to any positive effect it will have. The way I see it, the Harper government's actions have been pretty much in line with what can be accomplished, and what will do the most good for Canadians. However, they wouldn't stand a chance of being re-elected if they didn't develop more green policies, so they are belatedly coming into line with the religion of Kyoto. If you're still reading this and doubt any of it, recall that the 'Why bother' approach is applied by the Liberals to the Canadian Armed Forces. They believe we don't need much of this, so little money goes there when their in power. I have a hard time understanding why so many people in Canada are clamouring for action on GHG when the situation is pretty much the same. It all goes back to what it is you value.
  162. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr/Ms Globe storytellers and World Saviors - We are still waiting for a simple answer to rb from Calgary's question. Is this how Kyoto was debated and created? Hahahahahahahahahahaha
  163. Don Adams from Canada writes: True Maple, if the earth IS flat, could you do us all a favour, grab a bunch of the ultra lefties and ultra righties, drive them to where the earth ends, and dump them off? It'll help global warming by getting rid of their hot air. :-)
  164. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Governments have a responsibility to set environmental policy, however unpopular the decisions may be. One would hope that policy is based on the best scientific information available, notwithstanding the notion that waiting for a consensus is waiting for a day that may never come. As for asking people as individuals to do their part, I prefer to see the government force individuals to do their part through legislation and strict penalties. For example, if you pass regulations that say this or that trout stream is catch and release only, and you will never fish again if you take even one, then anglers will comply. If you say please don't take any more trout out of this stream, you will not get the desired result. And the stream will be enhanced through regulation. So I guess that I'm saying that regulation has some kind of track record that is more credible than beseeching the masses. During the decade of the 1990s,for example, I shot and killed (by my wife's actual count) more than 350 game and migratory birds. And then I stopped. And how much difference has my tiny bit of light added to the sum of all light ? (to paraphrase Tolstoy). Zip.
  165. johnny canuckler from Canada writes: 8/10 have also seen ufo's and 5/10 have spotted Elvis. This is not science, it is hysteria, and like many other hysterias, it will cost us big bucks.
  166. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Good Morning

    Call me what you may, but PLEEEAASE not a 'lefty!'
  167. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary: R. Carriere is not a lefty... he is a disenfrachised Conservative... there is a difference.

    B C from Calgary: the vikings were farming on greenland 1000 years ago before the ice covered it. google it dude. But I guess archeologists don't count in your world eh?

    BTW, I'm sure the viking scientists would have thought about that.
  168. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary, You state, 'I look forward to an election fought on this topic. How about you? '

    I do, but I hope that other very important issues such as health care costs and waiting times amongst a host of others, do not get relegated to the back of the pack. Contrary to the G&M, I still believe health care is the number 1 issue! Can you just imagine the environment debate, Dion to Harper: You do nothing! Harper back to Dion: You never did anything...
  169. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Loucks they farmed the edges of one or two fjords, on the southwest coast. Yes those farming vikings, a couple of pastures doesn't really add up up to anything. Your claim that Greenland had no ice is absolute BS, and why they called it Greenland... check facts I guess they don't count in your myopic world.... you're a clown 'dude'. What they mean by 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
  170. M M from Canada writes: Can we please understand the truth - while generating only 2% of the world-wide problem, will Canadian action on greenhouse gases have any measureable impact whatsoever? We can buckle our own economy with cut backs and have virtually no environmental impact... Any reductions in Canada will only have political results.
  171. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: Climatologists get ther knowledge from their education and their peers.
    Canadians get their knowledge from the media. The opinions of thes 4 out of 5 Canadians is formed by the media. I am one of these 4 of 5 Canadians worried about the environment.

    I mostly get my knowledge from the media. I feel manipulated and set up by media hype. This is propoganda people. The G&M is setting the stage for another pole.

    If I want real accurate information without bias I won't find it here. I will have to study the matter myself.
  172. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Scot Loucks from Pickering-Thanks for the clarification.

    Rick McNaulty from Calgary-Thanks, Rick
  173. Alberta Dennis Notso,redneck from Canada writes: Climate change has been happening for millions of years. The problem is too many people on mother earth.
  174. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Sam B from Cambridge: For details on the 60 letter signers, please refer to http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1242
  175. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello R. Carriere - I see my clarification to you was deleted, I can't imagine why? Here we go again, I meant to say: I am striving to be more tolerant like you when I respond to the Left.

    I agree totally with your last post however if the Liberals fight an election on the environment they will surely lose. The Conservatives will then get back to health,energy stategy infrastructure, pollution in OUR cities everything important to Canadians.
  176. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Don Adams - are you still upset about my tongue-in-cheek suggestion yesterday of a $1.00 a litre tax on gas? If you still want to send me to France I'm ready - just send me the ticket. My European passport is ready! Seriously though, this morning's article is way off when it suggests that people are ready to make sacrifices. Even a 10 cent 'green' tax on gas would be electoral suicide for any party.
  177. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: A few points - anybody who says that the scientific method has not been used to reach the conclusion that present dramatic climate change is caused by humans had better get in for a fun ride from dreamworld to reality in the immediate future. When a doctor tells me my arm is broken, I tend to believe him. Scientists from all countries and across the polictical spectrum agree on this issue - all you armchair/barstool scientists spend too much time blowing air and not enough time admitting what you don't know. Oh, I know it's a big leftie plot right? The Russians are coming the Russians are coming!!! Give me a break.
    As for the argument that climate change is natural and has happened before - well yeah sure, but over TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. We're talking well less than a century in the present case. This is unprecedented, as any geologist will tell you.
    I'm in my early thirties, and will (hopefully) live long enough to see the results of detractors' self-serving ignorance - and I don't intend to stand for it, nor does my entire generation or the ones beneath us - believe me.
  178. louis silvestredrive from Canada writes: Funny...we talk alot and do nothing. Canada should match fuel ecomony and pollution controls. of the best countries and meet those in the next 5 years and up keep every 10 to renew to the new stanard. the kyoto credits wouldn't work because its easy to take advantage..but instead tax the energy component---it will reduce it..make gas prices the same as europe and use the money wisely for the long term for the enviroment and the animals that can't say anything..thanks
  179. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: We the public deserve the best information available. I know your business is to sell newpapers and that fear sells papers, but come on.

    Anyone who has paid attention to this issue knows that there are significant numbers of world class climatologists on both sides of this issue, including those within Environment Canada. We want climatologist's ideas and opinions, not those of unqualified 'climate experts'.

    I challenge you to put both sides of this debate, in an unbiased fashion in your upcoming articles on the matter. I know that this somewhat divides us down partisan lines and that your paper is famous for it's partisanism, but this is serious stuff, not political fluff.
  180. Weston trott from Montreal, Canada writes: Look outside ... Can you really tell me that everything you see (and don't see) going into the sky has no effect. We are in trouble. Canadian businesses should take advantage of this and invest and create new technology which will help and as more of the world comes on board we'll be ready to sell them what they need.
  181. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: If there is ever any hope of cleaning up the environment,the solution lies in a smaller world population and less consumption. Unfortunately, the challenge of minimizing population growth or encouraging a decline is hampered by culture and religion. Birth control and abortion are condemned by powerful religious leaders - men who exert great influence in the political affairs of many of the world's poorest countries. In many such countries, birth control and abortion are illegal. A good example is Nicaragua,one of the poorest countries in the Americas,where abortion was recently outlawed. While population growth continues to soar in many poor countries, consumption continues unabated in the richest ones. Big business, with its emphasis on needless consumption, shares the blame with retrogressive religious institutions. In order to maximize profits, big business needs a steady supply of consumers. A population freeze or a decline would put a dent in profits. As a result,we cannot expect big business to do more than pay lip service to environmental issues. Companies that tell us they are producing 'cleaner' gasoline continue to work hand in hand with others that pump out gas-guzzling,polluting vehicles by the millions. Two other institutions that share in the blame for environmental disaster are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They continue to suck the financial lifeblood from the poorest countries, forcing them to divert food production from subsistence crops to cash crops for wealthier consumer societies.While population growth continues unchecked, their externally imposed agricultural infrastructure, with its accompanying increased use of combustibles and insecticides, forces them into the ranks of the polluter societies. Perhaps the solution to the worldwide environmental crisis lies in worldwide revolution. Capitalism, with its blatant disregard for life - both polar bear and human - is not working.
  182. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael Leblanc....thank you, its the rapidity of this change that is the issue.
  183. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael LeBlanc from Toronto - You sound like a resonable guy, looking for answers. Two posts above yours is Dave Medich, who supplies a link for Canadians looking for answers. I just read it, you go read it. Very interesting indeed.
  184. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Dave T from midwest: 'waiting for a consensus is waiting for a day that may never come'.

    Scientific consensus has been solidifying since before the last IPCC report in 2001. Scientific unanimity will never come. With the scientific consensus, the ball moves to the court of public policy. As we can see from this blog, policy consensus is a pretty long shot, but that's where democracy is supposed to come in. Unfortunately, democracy is often perverted by profit-seekers and paid PR hacks.
  185. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: At least the news here in this forums is to notice and count how many people are getting paid by oil corporations to debunk climate change... And the good news is that all this money is being spent for nothing... The silent majority of Canadians now know the truth... Whatever these deniers say!!! Good sense is finally winning!
  186. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Michael 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming!!!' Leblanc, the Russians found out even if they don't come, we'll send them the money. Buying into Kyoto is like signing up with a health club -- and never going there. Costs a bit of money, makes you feel good, doesn't really change anything.
  187. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary-Got it Rick-much appreciated!
  188. Wayne H from Victoria, Canada writes: Global Warming is Nonesense ( Have a look at this)

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169489629/

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169659066/

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169617908/
  189. Mike laroche from Burlington, Canada writes: If the Globe and Mail wants to get the definative opinion of the people on the topic of Global Warming.....then they should create a NEW section in the printed paper and here on the NET to gather our opinions, suggestions, and gage the desire of the pople to 'sacrifice' and modify their behavours.
    Each day can explore a different topic from Coping, to taking advantage of. It will give the inventors and the crack-pots a place to exchange and learn.
    Hopefully it will drive the politicians and city planners to spending our money for our benifit.
  190. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: A lively discussion on this overworked topic again today I see. Climate change does happen naturally and yes, we are part of nature too so we are part of the process n'est ce pas ? Why does Kyoto not also deal the threat of asteroid impacts - serious 'climate changers' that give rise to ELE's (exstinction level events). You can bet the dinosaurs wish they'd had the technolgy to detect and deflect these pesky little space rocks. We have the technology and are doing nothing about it. If the world was suddenly cooling and ice sheets advancing would that make some of you feel better ? Polar bears staring to head south to feed on your children and pets maybe ? That would be another reason to shout from the rooftops that we must change our behavior. The fact is you feel compelled to have a cause to save the world. Just like the Nazis did and the Islamic Fundamentalists do..ideology is what you are being drawn toward and dogma. Be careful and thoughtful and don't let this mob mentality overtake you too quickly. Change is a constant in nature and the external world - and change presents challenges. We'd all love to live in a beautiful still photograph where everything is predictable but the fact is we live in an action packed movie where anything can happen at any time. Like an asteroid impact.
  191. John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: 'In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration, total greenhouse-gas emissions spewed out of all the world's smokestacks, chimneys and tailpipes was a staggering 27 billion tonnes, or about the weight of 1½ Hummers for each man, woman and child on the planet. Canadians do a lot more damage than the average planet dweller because they consume so much more energy, releasing about 758 million tonnes in 2004, or just under the weight of eight Hummers apiece.' Just what I need - good constructive, objective and balanced information, devoid of any spin and placed in context. I'm sure that I can use this in altering my daily activities to be more climate friendly.
  192. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello Dave Medich from Windsor - Thank you for suppling the link regarding the realease of the EXPERTS report on Climate Change in Paris. I just read it. It sounds more like politics than science, what do other Canadians think? Sounds like a handful of scientists edit these reports much like Kyoto, written and researched by thousands of scientists, then editted by a handful. This does not look good for the EXPERTS. What about the EXPERTS that disagree with the final edit that were involved in the research? As many have said this is politics and transfer of wealth nothing more.
  193. Durward Saar from Coquitlam, Canada writes: How are China India and Russia clasified as developing nations?
    All three are nuclear powers and have existed as civilizations far longer than either the USA or Canada.
    Everything about Kyoto is fiction, propaganda custom made to fleece the west and enrich the commies.
    While we lose ice in the Artic we are gaining it in the antarctic, polar bears are far more numerous and healthy everywhere but hudson bay(suggests the problem is local)
    None of the enviro 'facts' can be verified except by the high priests who are not truthful and driven by grant funds, facts would kill the goose laying the golden egg of funding.
    Scam scam scam
    Oh by the way, to anyone at all I have a trillion dollars from your late ancester all I need is 1 million to get it to you LOL.
  194. b mac from Canada writes: Climate change has been going on for 16 Billion years. There is not much we can do to stop it or slow it down. I'm sure when the Eskimos settled in the Far North the weather was much warmer then it is today. The Sky is Falling is just the new slogan for the Environmentalist that depend so much on charity donations. So what'seally new?
  195. R. Carriere from Canada writes: M Horon from Calgary, Canada: Good Afternoon.

    I really like what you had to say about,'I challenge you to put both sides of this debate, in an unbiased fashion in your upcoming articles on the matter.'

    I believe that would be a great idea. A ballanced debate hearing both sides of the story and also, WHO is funding these scientists.

    Maybe, just maybe, we can become well informed of both sides of the issue. How can we not become better with more information. While it appears climate change-global warming is upon us in some form or fashion, this would be welcome. Interesting
  196. Alfred James from Gull Bay First Nation, Canada writes: The environment? The growing immigrant voters vote with their walllets as do most Canadians, so, this issue environment priority (while nice sounding) is not an election issue unless of course your grain farmer buying your corn seed from Archer Daniels Midland or Pioneer. That said, I enclose something that might be worth considering which puts Global Warming (Presidential Priority, too) at 2% of the public mind. So, is the tail wagging the dog, or what? Campaign 2008 Emerges as a Major Talk Show Topic Barack Obama’s move toward a formal White House bid last week may have unofficially kicked off the 2008 presidential campaign in the talk show universe, according to the PEJ Talk Show Index from January 14—January 19. With the election still a daunting 21 months away, cable and talk radio hosts were much more fascinated with the prospect of an Obama candidacy than were the media overall. Talk shows devoted 11% of their air time to the subject, the second biggest topic of the week. (Hillary Clinton’s announcement of her candidacy January 20 should further stoke the talk show fires.) Top Ten Stories in the Talk Show Index 1. Iraq Policy Debate - 20% 2. 2008 Campaign - 11% 3. Kidnapped Teens - 7% 4. Domestic Terrorism - 5% 5. New Congress - 5% 6. Immigration Debate - 3% 7. Iran - 3% 8. Global Warming - 2% 9. China Tests Weapon - 2% 10. Execution of Saddam's Aides - 2% Top Ten Stories in the broader News Coverage Index 1. Iraq Policy Debate - 14% 2. Kidnapped Teens - 8% 3. Snowstorms - 6% 4. Events in Iraq - 6% 5. 2008 Campaign - 5% 6. New Congress - 4% 7. Domestic Terrorism - 4% 8. Execution of Saddam's Aides - 2% 9. Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday - 2% 10. Art Buchwald Dies - 2%
  197. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Too much, too fast..... not right if Kyoto believers take over the vote.
  198. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Beatriz Perez-Sanchez: Thank you for the excellent holistic description. Mankind will either evolve to a more stable relationship with nature, or we'll be turning the lights out when we leave the room.
  199. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: What I noticed from the polling is that people seem very in favour of voluntary measures e.g. driving or flying less, turning down the thermostat etc. But when it came to things like higher gas taxes, things thet aren't voluntary, people were opposed. Hmmm. Gas taxes in Canada are very low by most industrial world standards, and this is probably the single most effective policy lever that governments have to influence behavior, and reduce consumption. Same with road tolls; here in Toronto, people love platitudes about the environment, and then in the same breath they'll rage against tolls on the 407 - are they really suggesting we should use scarce public resources to build suburban freeways that are free to use? I'm not convinced that people are REALLY willing to change the way they live; I know far too many people who say one thing at the dinner party but haven't been on a bus since they were 22. By the way, I'm in favour of the feds tacking about 10 cents onto the federal gas tax, and using this money to fund Kyoto and clean energy initiatives as well as public transit. Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is on this?
  200. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: To Beatriz Perez-Sanchez. I applaud you. As usual, you have the guts to make provocative statements. This time, you have also backed them up with some good examples and a concise analysis - as well as can be allowed with a 2,000 character limit. Your comment about the need for a worldwide revolution, however, is perhaps too much to hope for. As Andrew MacGillivray noted, 'we live in an action packed movie where anything can happen....like an asteroid impact'. Given the basic conservatism of human nature, I believe that there is probably a greater chance of that happening than there is of a worldwide revolution any time soon. Beatriz, great post anyway. You always succeed in getting a reaction. I sometimes suspect that that is your real aim here. At least it gets the troglodytes thinking.
  201. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: Canada's 2% or so contribution to the global warming problem is troubling to me.
    We can go back to the horse and buggy here, we can devote all of the GST to the problem, we can all buy smart cars, shut down the oil sands, and the ice shelves will keep collapsing, Paris will still be hot and China will keep burning coal.

    If this is Canadian's main issue now we should be more conserned with what is happening in Asia, we should boycot their cheap goods and make our sacrifices by paying more for our goods than choking our economy with internal cuts.
  202. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: Just Google 'Kyoto Scam' or 'inconvenient truth lies' for the other side of the argument. There are thousands of scientists that dispute we are causing the minute rise in the earth's average temperature. Kyoto was cooked up by the same gang at the U.N. that was responsible for the 'oil for food' rip-off of Iraq except this time they tried to involve the whole world. Al Gore is soon to don his cape and profess to be the only person capable of saving us from ourselves. Quick send him money, he knows how to save us. Wasn't it a lot warmer in Alberta when the dinosaurs (whose remains have been discovered there) walked the land. I don't think they had man to blame for the tropic climate. If the great lakes were scraped out by glaciers, then I'm of the opinion that the glaciers have been receding for a pretty long time. Apparently atmospheric water vapour contributes about 85% of the green house effect. Other gasses like methane also contribute. Canadian are responsible for 2% of CO2 that contributes to less than 10% of the total green house effect. 2% of 10% is a 0.2% total contribution by Canadians. China, India and the U.S.A are the biggest net producers. Until we see them taking action there is very little we can do. However, we can reduce smog by reducing airborne pollution and that is where our focus should be. Before jumping on the 'Gore Train' please do some research.
  203. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell: Your point is well taken vis-a-vis scientific consensus and scientific unanimity. To me, what is subject to debate are the effects that policy and regulation may have. Will policy change achieve their intended results and what unintended consequences might occur? My experience has been that this is where consensus begins to unravel. For several years, I was the Chair of a Federal sponsered Committee examining the merits of scientific data on the question of enhanced protection for part of Lake Superior. The data had some ambiguity, but what drove policy was the principle of erring on the side of caution. Hence, the case for greater protection. And the idea of unaniminity was laughable at the time, so really consensus translated into policy recommendations that everyone could live with. Perhaps that is what happens because there is no absolute paradigm.
  204. Green Mile from Canada writes: We know emphatically that humankind is responsible for global warming. Anyone who denies this fact should present research to the contrary, not simply speculate. The question that we now face is, what do we do to prevent a global catastrophy (think melting ice-shields and the resulting rise in ocean levels and think of a shift in extremes of weather, among other potential problems). If the issue of climate change is not approached with the same vigour that we approach war, we may well achieve our own destruction. I am hardly one to espouse such actions except when they have considerable merit. However, it is time that we bring in line those who deny, possibly, the most pressing issue of our time. I want everyone to try a mental exercise. Pretend you are looking back at the world 200 years from now. What do you wish that people of this era had done knowing that a problem of this magnitude existed? What does the world that you are living in look like? What types of animals exist? What type of foods do you eat? How has the earth responded to the stress that man has placed on it? Of course, the answers will vary but, we know that humankind is putting considerable stress on the only habitat that we will ever know (there are no space as final frontier answers as of yet). We know that humankind does not like abrupt change. We are the proverbial frog in sitting in a slowly heating pot. In this instance, forcing change may be the only alternative - we need to curb our appetites. I am all in favour of restricting the use of ALL vehicles on the basis of need, the implementation of smart communites, as outlined by the chap from Langley, and manditory environmental education. I am typically not an extremist, nor do I usually subscribe to imposing paternalistic measures on society but, as a whole we have not approached this issue with the heart that it requires. This is a moral issue that will command the course of humankind. The question is how we approach it
  205. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello Mr Ms Globe storytellers and Planet Saviors - You have been given an opportunity to explain yourselves but you have not. Why? rb from Calgary asked you a simple question somewhere in the first ten postings, we are now in the hundreds of postings. Your silence on this question Mr/Ms Globe storyteller is an answer in itself.
  206. Douglas Prest from Dundas, writes: Finally, the popular news media are starting to 'get it' on the global warming issue. For this, I applaud the Globe and Mail. Having extensively read on the extent and dangers of global warming, including a number of books & scientific articles, I have realised it is a critical and urgent issue that needs to be addressed NOW, and I have found it dismaying that the newspapers, radio & TV media have been continue to ignore the issue, until very recently, and until this series of articles.

    Global warming is real, it is happening now, species of plants and animals have already gone extinct, the barrier reef is largely dying from higher ocean temperatures, every glacier on the planet is melting, and the arctic ice cap is half the thickness it was 30 years ago. When it is gone, which could happen as early as 2016 by a recent projection by the US Navy, we can expect global climatic consequences as that huge area starts absorbing sunlight rather than reflecting it.

    Globally, we the human race, and the rest of the species on the planet are in big trouble, and the sooner the majority of people realise it, the sooner we can start the massive changes we need to make to address it.

    On behalf of my children and their children, thank you, Globe and Mail.

    - Doug Prest, Dundas, Ontario
  207. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Don't feed the trolls.... ie. B-Mac
  208. Canuck Expat from United States writes: 1. Amongst scientists there seems to be an overwhelming support of the Greenhous effect theory and subsequent global warming. 2. Canada needs to take initiative on curbing emissions and reducing pollution. Even if you disagree with global warming there are other benefits such as cleaner water (i.e Walkerton), cleaner air, and a healthier overall econsystem. 3. Environmental initiatives need to be feasible and rational. I.e., we have to be careful not to devestate our economy. For us to try and implement a strict policy whilst the leading polluters, US, China, and India don't would be a mute point. Despite what many people on this blog feel, Canadians are not very important in the world. I see this movement as an opportunity for Canadians to take a lead in creating 'greener' technologies that are profitable that we can then export to our huge emitters and trade partners to the South. Like the Green revolution in agriculture in the '60's, it's an opportunity to offer improvements to the world that are profitable. It's only with this premise can we an influencer. 4. Judging by the diverse responses on this story, I question the G&M survey results suggesting a majority of Canadians feel the environment is a top priority. The opinions in these comments suggest otherwise. Also, how was the question asked? If you take a persons 'free' access to health care or employment away, where does the environment rank then? 5. If any of the environmental boosters on this blog are urban dwellers and drive an SUV, you are the definition of a hypocryt.
  209. Michael Jahonneson from Victoria, Canada writes: The Guardian is reporting today that the U.S. is proposing giant space mirrors to minimize global warming by blocking sunlight.

    'The US response, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each IPCC report. It says: 'Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.'

    Further, I have still not heard an adequate discussion on why the polar ice caps are shrinking on Mars also. My point is that if warming is occurring in other places in the solar system, then it is probably due to increased solar activity, not human activity.
  210. Adri k from Toronto, Canada writes: Since I am originally from Europe I have been talking about polution and climate change all my life. I always thought Canada could do more about polution before it was too late like it was for Europe. Now, however I think it has come to the point where it is too late unless we all decide to contribute. Recycling already makes a difference. I am on the environmental committee of my university residence and I know how tough it is to get people to cooperate. But now things have gone so far that people have no other choice then to work together to find a solution to this problem. So let's all work together, let's all do our own bit and this time let it not be like a new year's resolution which is forgotten within two months but a change in our lifestyle.
  211. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Industrialized countries have little moral authority to chastise China, India, etc., when they are only doing what we did for a century or more. Once we more fully develop cleaner technologies, we can show them the better way, and export these products and ideas around the world at great profit.

    Those who whine that we will destroy our enonomy by 'going green' would have done well in the buggy-whip business...prior to about 1910.
  212. H B from Canada writes: Lead just like sheep. Lets see how much government is going to bleed out of us this time. Everybody forget about the Ozone hole and the billions that were spent on removing freon. Read junk science and get a understanding. Everybody also forget that this is a elnino year again or do accept blame for a natural ocean cycle too. All I can say is wake up people and don't just be lead down the garden path.
  213. Bond James Bond from Calgary, Canada writes: Did you know that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer crest over all other toothpastes.

    If all of you simple minded G&M gobbling goof balls would just gather in the north we could solve the starving bear problem.
  214. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: We may not have the luxury of deciding how we handle climate change anyway ...

    Baltimore, MD - Perhaps the most critical aspect of curbing our appetite for oil is decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. But if we are ever going to get serious about it the question then becomes, where will we make up the shortfall? The answer may lie with our neighbor to the north [...]

    http://www.energyandcapital.com/editorials.php?id=349
  215. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Australia has the highest output per capita of CO2. They had the brains to stay out of the Kyoto accord.....we had Chretien.
  216. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: The G&M along with all other media outlets in the free world are in the business of selling their product. There is a fine line between selling product and influencing public opinion in the newspaper business. The more partisan the media, the greyer the line between selling papers and influencing opinion goes. It is kind of like developing your own reader base by developing their opinions for them and then serving them their favorite lunch.
    The global warming debate is a perfect example of thow this happens in Canada.
  217. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: As a scientist (not an environmental one) I am always fascinated about people's misunderstanding of science. Science is constantly evolving (sometimes very slowly), one experiment at a time and one more data set at a time. As data accumulates, theories are proposed, tested and re-tested by other scientists. Right now the vast majority of scientists believe in global climate change. The data supports it and is constantly being updated. Of course, experiments on climate change are not easy to do since you can't do them in a small lab at a bench. To make matters worse, you have to rely on people, societies and countries to try to change the parameters of the experiment. I am not optimistic that a true global effort can combat this very real problem. I do my part for energy conservation and would like to see even stricter regulations but what about China and India whose economies are just starting to gear up? Read Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' for previous environmental catastrophes throughout human history. We are simply now repeating history on an even more terrifying scale. Finally, for all the non-believers of climate change who point to the last ice age and other prehistoric events as evidence against human mediated change. Please remember that the earth does go through natural temperature cycles but also remember that the planet used to have rain forests, large tracks of forests in most areas (acting as a CO2 sink) and volcanic activity that all added to global temperature fluctuation. Most of these natural systems are now gone or markedly reduced. The planet cannot heal itself because humans have destroyed most of the balancing systems. Having just experienced essentially 19 of the last 20 warmest years on record since 1850, we should at least think and debate what to do. I think putting limits on non-renewable energy sources is a first start. It can't hurt. We will all benefit.
  218. jennifer sydenham from Vancouver, Canada writes: If anyone wants to skip the flat earth debate and get going on DOING something no matter how small, www.onedayvancouver.ca has some suggestions about things that you can do on a personal level while waiting for the rest of the gang to stop chatting about it. How about taking the bus to work once a week? If everyone did that I expect it would make quite a difference. Lets start thinking about some small things that we can do on an individual basis and get GOING! And for the debaters - Stephen Hawking endorses the science behind climate change. Until you can present someone with more credibility than he has to argue the other side of the issue I think I will believe him and move on to the next stage of the process.
  219. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Australians have John Howard... had the brains to join the 'coalition of the willing' should we send troops to Iraq too?
  220. Out West from Calgary, Canada writes: People say they are willig to ration fuel or pay signficantly higher, but then complain when the oil companies make profits, and when gas goes up a few cents, they all cry conspiracy and demand the government do something to lower taxes on it and prices. Changing in Canada will not do anything in the grand scheme of things. Focus more on the rainforests being destroyed.
  221. Adri k from Toronto, Canada writes: It's a question of changing your lifestyle.
  222. Out West from Calgary, Canada writes: I just came from a trip in northern Alberta, the fields were full of snow, drifting snow really deep. No problem with the climate up there.
  223. Ed H from Williamsford, Ont, Canada writes: tm frThe Sceptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, and that was one of the first links I came ...
    om Guelph asks whether people really understand Kyoto. 99% have no idea & are confused between Climate Change & Clean Air etc. A key issue is what would be the result of a fully implemented Kyoto accord by 2012. The answer is that it achieves no more than a 6 year delay in the warming trend. i.e. it is merely a delaying tactic not a solution. This is according to the Intergov. Agency for Climate Change (ie the UN). Their own graphs show this! I recommend everyone to read The Sceptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Much discedited by the enviromentalists - but I don't understand why. He tells it like it is. We need a solution - Kyoto is not it!
  224. Bond James Bond from Calgary, Canada writes: M Horon you are 100% on the money.

    Today the sheep are commenting on the environmental impact of a man and his hummer. Two months ago they were all commenting on the fact that it is now legal for two men to share a hummer.
  225. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Well said M. Haron. One would think that would make Canadians angry. Obviously thier are many Canadians that do not have an original thought weeks on end and this country's media finds them to be simple tools. It is a true shame that eastern businesses cannot let democracy run its course. Imagine a Canada with a media that reported news not created it to sell papers and create friction throughout the country?
  226. Ed H from Williamsford, Ont, Canada writes: Sorry let me re-edit: tm from Guelph asks whether people really understand Kyoto. 99% have no idea & are confused between Climate Change & Clean Air etc. A key issue is what would be the result of a fully implemented Kyoto accord by 2012. The answer is that it achieves no more than a 6 year delay in the warming trend. i.e. it is merely a delaying tactic not a solution. This is according to the Intergov. Agency for Climate Change (ie the UN). Their own graphs show this! I recommend everyone to read The Sceptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Much discedited by the enviromentalists - but I don't understand why. He tells it like it is. We need a solution - Kyoto is not it!
  227. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Bond James Bond - That was priceless. Signing off. I want that quote in my head all day. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
  228. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: I agree with poster one B. Shellac from Quebec. It breaks my heart we are destroying our majestic creatures as the polar bear from our excesses. Humans I think are actually at the bottom of the food chain. We seem incapable of our own survival as greed and power take priority. Perhaps the earth will be a better place without us and let the animals inherit the earth and nurse it back to health.
  229. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes: The following is a good example of 'skeptic' propaganda (i.e., outright lies) that need to be debunked and not given equal time.

    Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: There are thousands of scientists that dispute we are causing the minute rise in the earth's average temperature.

    Clem, there are no active climate scientists (i.e., climatologists) or any other credible (active, peer-reviewed, publishing) scientists that dispute global warming.

    There have, and continues to be, a core group of retired, non-active or non-subject-related scientists (i.e., scientists from other fields) who are funded directly or indirectly by special interest groups (i.e., big oil, industry, conservative lobby) with a goal to confuse the issue, or 'cast doubt,' and in so doing influence public opinion and slow necessary reforms.

    DeSmog is thoroughly investigating the 61 signatories to an anti-climate-change petition sent in April, '06 to Canada's Prime Minister. Supporters claim it is signed by '60 leading scientists' just like Clem says in his post. They are reporting daily on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries. It's worth a read.
  230. marlene gregory from Canada writes: My children sincerely believe that their grandchildren will not possibly survive this planet...their sense of future is not the same of their parents. Protecting the planet from destruction is more important than another other issue. To the younger generation it is the only issue that really matters, as it will effect them and their children much, much more.
  231. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: The G&M has an article titled, 'It's crystal clear: The environment will be the single most important issue of 2007' ......... I am impressed. They can even predict the future. I wonder, if there were simultaneous terrorist attacks in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver killing thousands, would it still be 'crystal clear'?
  232. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Beatriz dreams of a revolution that will rid the world of the capitalist demons. Osama dreams of a revolution to rid the world of infidel demons. George Bush dreams of a revolution to rid the world of terrorist demons....to all these dreamers I say that you..... 'reve en couleur' (dream in colour). What you don't see is that the demons are all the same. One man's/woman's god is another man's/woman's devil. It's the ideology that creates the conflicts. Despite all the mayhem induced by conflicting ideologies and theologies, this planet of ours is still a wonderful place to be every day. I personally try to enjoy every day here on our magical little water planet and avoid these ideologically motivated and often vexated people who would have me believe in their demons and feel that this is not a good place to be. This is Way I have found to live and deal with the reality of impermanence. I am a capitalist I suppose Beatriz because I enjoy the many privileges and private property that I have here in the first world and I feel no guilt for the good fortune of my circumstances. As I stood atop Whistler mountain the other day looking at the splendor of the coastal range and preparing for an exhilarating run down 'The Saddle' I was glad I could drive my car to such a magnificent place to spend another day in paradise. I was glad we had the technology and the energy to create such a place and that this year we have had more snow than any other year on record. It's a lot more fun to live this way and I believe in the scheme of things it's not such a big deal. Live it and enjoy it because it will most certainly pass more quickly than you realize.
  233. D C from Canada writes: It is not about Climate Change ...it is ALL about whether humans and indeed first world humans are responsible for Climate Change (I capitalize because it is a 'new religion') and what you wish to happen is that everyone in Canada who has More than Most of You is somehow crushed by most of you into having less.

    People in China and India on the other hand, welllllll we'll leave them be OK ? OK. Russia too. Ignore them .

    I am not going to have less. It is almost to the point where I might simply go burn some of my old tires off the 3,000 pound 10-year old car I drive in the yard. That's my idea of giving you toffs the toss.

    Sadly at a more intellectual level, you all are what the world is coming to these days, after 30-40 years of an increasingly lazy and profit ridden media which refuses to do what schools should have done --- give you actual & perceivable critical thinking skills !!!

    All of what mankind has done since Caesar Augustus, to the climate does not match a single eruption from Mount Pinituba, the volcano.
  234. Jennifer Jilks-Racine from Muskoka, Canada writes: re: 'Climate change is no longer a vague threat. A new Globe polls finds that 4 out of 5 Canadians say they've seen it first-hand.'
    I have questions...
    Is this poll the basis for the newspaper's conclusions? One could disprove the other. These are opinions, not facts. Where are the experts?
    I am wondering if polling citizens is a newsmaking device?
    I could probably find that 4/5 Canadians will say anything I want them to say if I phrase the question correctly - or hype it my way. Why are you using this information to lead a news item. I want to hear what experts say. I want to read about the news - I don't want pollsters to survey the public.
    Since when did 'man-in-the-street' type interviews become facts?
    Has polling become the new print media reality-news?
  235. Bond James Bond from Calgary, Canada writes: Marlene Gregory tell your children not worry about the fate of their grandchildren. If world do not address the relentless advancement of the islamic cult in this generation, there will not be any grandchildren.

    Unfortunatey the cowardly liberal media refuses to discuss the immediate threat and chooses to focus on environment as a way to get the thieving liberals back in ottawa. Don't be fooled by the G&M manipulating the simple minded in ontario to get votes.
  236. fedup taxpayer from Canada writes: I can't believe how gullable people are. They read something in the Globe and right away they swear they have seen a difference in the climate. That cherished body part we all sit on is not a scientific instrument. Further correlation is not causation (stats 101), something lost on may climate change scientists. Finally not all scientists agree that we are the cause (remember when the majority of scientists thought the world was flat).
  237. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Cup of Tea, below is a link as an example of the 'special interest groups (i.e., big oil, industry, conservative lobby)' casting doubt:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PCVZDB5RDAJV3QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/27/do2701.xml

    They are obviously overpaid, pls rip them up for us...
  238. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: McNutjob, well thought out, its knuckle draggers like you that provide the entertainment here, back to your cave.
  239. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: Marlene Gregory: 'My children sincerely believe that their grandchildren will not possibly survive this planet...their sense of future is not the same of their parents. Protecting the planet from destruction is more important than another other issue. To the younger generation it is the only issue that really matters, as it will effect them and their children much, much more.'

    Unless your children live in Dufar tell them they have nothing to worry about. Too many parents and teachers are frightening young children with tales that the 'earth is dying'. Meanwhile thousands of children a day die from lack of clean water.
  240. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I am glad I am not the only one who cringes at the lack of journalistic integrity apparent even before you start reading the article. The fact that the Globe and Mail believes that polls constitute fact is extremely disturbing. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, nor am I saying that it's not a threat. What I am saying is that the Globe and Mail needs a refresher course on journalistic integrity and elementary stats. I want evidence and experts, not polls and leading questionnaires.
  241. Austin So from BC, Canada writes: Those that suggested reading Rex Murphy's or Margaret Wente's article as injecting 'sanity' into the argument don't realize that they like to fashion themselves as 'erudites' by writing incoherently (Murphy) or by being the blind skeptic (Wente). Both are characterized by their inability to admit they are wrong because. Yes, the earth's ecosystem is in constant flux. And you cannot capture that fluctuation by looking at average changes. Like a rubber band, you can stretch it a little or a lot and it will go back. But if you keep on stretching it to it limits, it no longer returns to its original elasticity, and eventually as you continue to stress it, it breaks. This is where the science is, and the demarcation point of whether one is being intelligent about their analysis or being armchair scientist. You cannot look at average global temperatures. You have to look at local fluctuations. If people complain about China and India, then boycott their products or place tariffs on them unless they meet environmental criteria. Boycott manufacturing industries that move their operations to these countries and flout environmental standards that we demand. These are precisely the reasons why they are able to produce cheaply, because they have no health, no environmental, no industrial standards. In the end it is about how unable one is to endure even the slightest amount of financial cost for the long term benefit of the planet. Find any reason you can to continue your selfishness, greed, and apathy, but don't call it 'being objective'.
  242. Don Adams from Canada writes: Andrew Pearson, no PK and I decided on yesterday's postings re the environment not to send you to France.... you know how to spell, which so many people posting here don't. It's quite refreshing. And I quite agree most Canadians aren't willing to pay. I know I'm not. However, I do things that do help the environment, mainly because it makes me feel better to do them. But I'm not willing to give up my van. Douglas Prest from Dundas. I have a solution to your problem. 1) dog a big hole in the ground. 2) climb in, 3) pull the earth over top of you. From your comment, you're one of the chicken littles. But Doug, don't take your kids into the hole with you.... leave them out, they'll grow up, adapt to a changing world. Hopefully though, it will be in a world where the smog and dirty air has been cleaned up from our cities.
  243. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: I think even most skeptics will agree that man's footprint is at least affecting the planet in some sort of negative fashion.

    In the west we have the money, technology and desire to clean up the results from our past development. Indeed we are doing it. Remember the Love Canal and Lake Erie?

    However we are paying the emerging econoimies of the world to destroy the planet. What are we doing about that? Nothing. We are critical of our government for not taking better advantage of China's skyrocketing economy. Meanwhile we are critical of our governments record with the environment. Indeed we are either stupid or hyprocrites.
  244. Geri Dalsin from Canada writes: Some great posts here. Wish I could express myself as well as some. Good 'food for thought' from Scot Loucks, Jeff Peterson from Calgary, 'Silly Putty', EJ Ravensbod, Jimmy Jensen & Don Adams to name a few. For myself I think pollution is a more serious problem and I have to wonder what will happen to the land fills etc when we dispose of all our SUV's, ATV's, Motor Boats, etc and replace them with whatever. And, the cost to replace them ... will the manufacturing of these 'replacements' also create more GHG? I see a huge 'boondoggle' in the making. To quote Calvin in the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon: 'Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us' !
  245. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: Duncan Munroe - You live in Langley in the Fraser Valley, which could be almost self-sufficient in food production if it weren't for the insane pressure to develop agricultural land. However, most Canadians require transportation systems for food. Ban suburbs? Land prices are already doing the job. Townhouse and condo development are the biggest segments of the market. And what of the energy required to heat individual homes? You've missed the obvious - North Americans don't have extended families living under the same roof. The current temperature rises are unprecedented in geological history? I find that hard to believe. Climate change is a permanent feature of this planet since it was a bubbly soup pot. There have been some excellent posts this week explaining the effects of solar activity and reduction in size of the Mars frozen CO2 cap. Very little coverage because its outside the realm of egocentricity and human guilt. I once researched the prevelance of cancers in airline flight crews. The hot issue was second-hand smoke, however NASA virtually confirmed that cosmic radiation at high altitudes on polar routes was a hazard. European airlines built their blocks around total radiation exposure. The theory was dismissed in North America - egocentricity. We believe we control everything and always look for somebody to blame. And what about our children? Enjoy them, have fun because if you all keep running in circles screaming the sky is falling, you will guarantee the extinction of the human race - by neuroses, not global warming.
  246. W. Gazard from Edmonton, Canada writes: If all the dopes who let their vehicles idle while sitting in them, shopping, waiting for the car wash and using the bank machine etc would just turn the key and shut them off, it would make a significant difference. I agree with jennifer sydenham - LET'S STOP YAPPING ABOUT IT AND START DOING SOMETHING!!!
  247. John Rowell from Nelson, B.C., Canada writes: I've seen evidence of global warming in the Nelson area. There is now a huge waterfall coming off the MacBeth Icefield north of here. I met hiker up there who said that the waterfall did not exist twenty years ago. The New Denver Glacier, also north of here, barely exists any more.
  248. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty, I've read a couple of your posts. You're an internet troll. Your personal attacks contribute nothing to swaying anyone's opinion. Stop acting like a loser.

    fed taxpayer, I have no idea what you're trying to say. By far the majority of scientists and peered scientific review over the last 20 years disagree with you. Is it your opinion that standard scientific methodology is statistically unsound, and your 1st year stats course allows you to grasp what thousands of practicing scientists over 2 decades cannot?
  249. The Objectivist from Canada writes: many here are posting re the lack of proof. first off scientific proof is a bit of colloquialism, you can't actually prove something (testing it in a places in the universe sort of thing) you can support it or disprove it.... ...beside like trying to see the top or bottom a market, once you have the visibility you want, isn't it too late?..... ...but really, it doesn't matter. global warming, if affected by man's activity, is just a symptom. picture a graph of the planet's population, pretty much flat line until the far right side of the page when the line goes almost vertical. only an idiot would say this increase in population won't affect the planet. 6 Billion of us! but we no longer walk behind a plow or travel by our own two feet. the technology the allowed our population to explode also exponentially increased consumption. You know the entire world is desperately trying to achieve our life style, our rate of consumption? where does this take us? One u of t study estimates it would take 4 planets to provide enough resources if the world had our standard of living, its just for a period of time, its not sustainable. Population and consumption levels are the problem. The actual thing that does us in; global warming, oil running out, poisoned drinking water, whatever, doesn't much matter. high consumption nations must lead by example and demand negative population growth from their trading partners. yet our government policies are all toward population growth. this is why Kyoto is a useless placebo that simply obscures the real issue.
  250. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: For those living in Ontario at least, who want to DO something, but don't know exactly what, you can now purchase your electricity directly from a green supplier.

    Feel free to check out their website: www.bullfrogpower.com.

    It does costs more, but it makes a real contribution for the future growth of renewable energy in Canada, and your air-con at least is guilt free.
  251. Bond James Bond from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow John Rowell, a water fall where there was not one 20 years ago...that is some irrefutable evidence of global warming.

    Next time you see that hiker ask him to keep an eye out for bigfoot.
  252. Steven Sherill from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I have been wondering how Canada will be affected by global warming. I made a list of possible negative effects:

    1. Vancouver, Victoria and other coastal areas may be submerged under water.

    2. Polar bears may be extinct (or they may become grizzlies).

    3. The inuits will have to change their lifestyle.

    Anything else?

    Positive effects: All non-coastal areas will enjoy warmer winters.
  253. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Agent Smith, plenty of trolls around agree 100%. Then there is Medich, smells like a Pat Robertson fan or maybe Falwell, extolling the virtues of ignorance.
  254. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: Bravo Dave Medich - The whole concept that we control the climate is primitive civilization at its best. Build some belief structures, windmills and energy panels, start a cult of behaviour modification and pay your dues to the leaders for good crops. The only thing missing is ritual sacrifice. It all plays perfectly into a privileged generation that has been raised by an egocentric society. In the meantime don't mention that pipe of raw sewage going into the Pacific Ocean off Victoria, or the amount of pollution from jet engines carrying the believers to their conferences. This will be the biggest political boondoggle of our time.
  255. John E from Calgary, Canada writes: Might as well get used to the heat.

    I'm not going to worry about it. After all, no one is really going to give up their SUV or trip to Hawaii just because of global warming. Why should I waste time and energy doing my part when my neighbours won't?

    Still, it's too bad about those polar bears.
  256. S Foley from Canada writes: I'm looking out the window and it's -22 celsius. But the global warming fanatics will ignore that because it doesn't fit their hysteria. Instead they'll just talk about someplace in the world that happens to be warm right now.
  257. BJ Shellac from Quebec City, Canada writes: I agree with Austin. Rex Murphy's column was incoherent. First- he seems to be making fun of Placentia Bay residents who either commit suicide or suffer and die from ill health, due in both cases to the bad weather there! And I am not able to summarize Mr. Murphy's argument. Let me try. 1. He suggests that there are those who link every social, natural or political crisis today (including his introductory example) in some way to global warming. 2. It is crazy ('There's something askew here') to do something about the problem, because it is too big for us to do anything about it, or we are arrogant enough to think we can do something. (Big logical problem here- It simply doesn't follow that there is nothing we can do. Perhaps I'm not making a strong point here. Is there a global warming problem or isn't there? I can't help but think that Mr. Murphy is going in circles.) 3. He trivializes the problem by noting that politicians have trouble on many other fronts, including the pothole crisis. So why saddle them with this problem? 4. Politicians will, unfortunately, try to address global warming. I can't unpack this argument. Anyway, I think his article has some irrelevant rhetoric, trying to score an emotional point ('alas, they will') rather than a substantive one. He says there is nothing to worry about and I am a fool for trying to find more or for trying to understand the link between his rhetoric and his main idea. I believe 'ridicule' is his main weapon, never a strong argument. Point 2 above is a problem. If he acknowledges our arrogance, then he acknowledges the problem. Thank you, Mr.Carriere, for reading this far. You joined me on a futile endeavour. Mr. Murphy should strive for greater clarity and he should consider the other side of the coin- How can we make our society better? Don't forget Candide, Mr. Murphy. There is a big difference between 'le meilleur des mondes' and 'cultiver son jardin.'
  258. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Austin So: 'If people complain about China and India, then boycott their products or place tariffs on them unless they meet environmental criteria. Boycott manufacturing industries that move their operations to these countries and flout environmental standards that we demand.'

    YES! And reward a reliable production stream.

    Perhaps we should only be consuming what we ourselves can produce. Is there, like, an accessible skills inventory out there or something?
  259. V ADS from North Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Climate Change' is the new mantra of the aging touchy-feely left who have transplanted their fears of death onto the planet. These people mean well, but have an aversion to science and reason and don't even understand that the climate has always been changing, and always will. Canada looked like Greenland 8,000 years ago, and the world didn't end when the ice-sheets melted, now did it?

    And what a disappointing series of articles on climate change by the Globe today. It's absurd to link recent weather events to climate change, which occurs over centuries and millennia, not day to day and year to year. The long-term trend (over recent millennia) shows a gradual cooling, which will continue as this inter-glacial respite ends, because we are only halfway through our present Ice Age.

    There have been dozens of glacial advances and retreats in this Ice Age, with about 20,000 years between glacial retreat and advance. This cyclical pattern is driven by forces far more powerful than man-made carbon dioxide emissions, such as solar cycles. These are facts that a grade-school kid can look up in a science textbook.
  260. M D from Halifax, Canada writes: What a great article. One place in the world, on one day, is forcasted to be 3° above average. The world is indeed heading to hell in a handbasket. LA has lows of around 6 predicted this week, about 3° below thier normals. Looking at the data for last week from weather.com, on the 22nd there it was actually 7°F (3.9°C) below average. This isn't some prediction off in next week like for Paris, this actually ALREADY HAPPENED. So even if this disaster of a day 3° above normal comes to fruition in Paris, it will have already been discounted and then some by this data from LA. Global cooling is here and I weep for my children's children. (BTW, checking Paris today shows a predicted low of 21°F, 13°F below avg). Sorry for the F, American site, didn't feel like changing.

    The point is, the vast public isn't aware of the science of climate change. Hell I'm not and I'm actively trying to learn and have done university ourses in it. When the vast majority of the public is forming thier opionions based on the published nonsense above, I don't give a lot of credence to what 4/5 say.

    Newspapers are in the business of selling papers, honest factual reporting does do that, but proclaiming the end of the world does it better. Take these things with a grain of salt.

  261. David B from Whitehorse, Canada writes: ' S Foley from Canada writes: I'm looking out the window and it's -22 celsius. But the global warming fanatics will ignore that because it doesn't fit their hysteria. Instead they'll just talk about someplace in the world that happens to be warm right now.'

    It's not about 1 day's temperature. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

    Why is it so hard to believe the scientific community and environmentalists? They aren't the ones ripping the earth apart for profit. I'll side with them for now.

    Even if we are only 90 percent certain that humans are causing this catastrophe, does it not make sense to be prudent?

    If you were 90 percent certain that a substance you were about to consume, will cause cancer, would you take it anyway on the 10 percent chance that it doesn't?

    It's time to work together to mitigate the damage we are doing, and help maintain the Earth as a place for all species to live, not just ourselves.
  262. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Medich's... thought process...Forget all the science mumbo jumbo, Pat Robertson says God told him the East Coast of the U.S. was to be wiped out by a Mega Tsunami last year... Well, didn't happen, but Boston got heavy rain... Robertson retorts. This year a nuclear or biological weapon will kill millions in the States, again he quotes God...
  263. mike sharp from writes: In Gore's 'Truthy Ruthy', he claims that the reduction of polar ice will lead to decreased solar reflection and a subsequent increase of global heating.
    The Gulf Stream will be diverted and Europe will be plunged into an Ice Age says Gore-baby.
    He brushes by on the fact that if Europe is in a new ice age, with a subsequent increase in winter snow, won't there also be an increase in reflected radiation and a subsequent decrease in warming?
    Ipso facto, no global catastrophe?
    That wacky Gore.
    What will he get up to next?
  264. R S from Canada writes: All one has to do to check the facts is check into the weathernetwork.com and review the record temperatures for each day. Record for today was 10.6 in 1944, record for tomorrow is 10.6 in 1876. Only difference now is that we have too much media, I'm sure no one thought about global warming in 1876.
  265. peter c from Whitehorse, Canada writes: Medich,

    Your a pompous, condescending, young little twirp who really doesn't know what he is talking about.
  266. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Hey Medich mine are actual quotes whereas yours.... well made up as per usual... better get your checkbook out Robertson needs more money... to build another mansion for his Ministry of Hate... Maybe you were a parrot in a past life...
  267. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: R S - You're confusing weather with climate.
  268. Randy Murray from Canada writes: It's not much of a mystery why the polling numbers measuring concern about global warming have gone up dramatically over the last year. This subject has become an obsession of the Canadian media elites. Obviously, after two hundred years of of heavy industrialization, our climate has been effected. There are not many left who argue that we should do nothing to address this problem. However, there is disagreement over what to do about it within Canada. Looking at the stats on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector from the federal government's Natural Resources Canada it can be clearly seen that there is only one way to achieve the fast track greenhouse gas emission reduction that the Globe and Mail is advocating in this article: close down southern Ontario and stop Alberta oil production. Ontario and Alberta are driving greenhouse gas production in Canada. No other provinces are even close. The data from 1998 shows that Alberta produced 201 metric tonnes while Ontario came a close second with 198 metric tonnes. Quebec comes in a distant third place at 90 metric tonnes. The other provinces aren't even contenders. So come on Ontario! Get on board, get out your candles and close your coal powered electrical generators. Shut down the factories and manufacturing plants and take 'early' retirement. Take it easy on welfare and relax. You do that and I'll ride a bike to work!
  269. mike sharp from writes: Today in Victoria, a high of 8 and a low of 0. Average temps for this day, highs 7.3 and lows of 0.8. Highest temp ever recorded, 13.8 in 1984.
    I, too, have seen evidence of global warming, today is 0.7 degrees higher than average!
    Somebody sell me a carbon credit!
    I have seen the light.
  270. Walter Robbins from Kingston, Ontario, Canada writes: New climate?? These days, my dog and I are freezing our respective butts off during our walks around the neighbourhood. Parka, scarves, long johns, tuque, boots, gloves. No end in sight for this deep freeze. The climate goes through cycles, people or no people; always has, always will as long as there is a planet earth. Can anyone really explain why the north pole was a hot bed of tropical flaura and fauna, way back before people showed up on this planet? If we really want to do something attainable and realistic and truly measurable, let us start by cleaning up the mess that we made of our air and water quality, especially around the big cities. It is indeed the height of arrogance to believe that puny humans can do anything about the overall climate or the weather. (Should we go back to seeding clouds to divert storms; that effort was a big bust!) If mother nature decides to turn the far north into the tropics once again, we better get used to it and adapt.
  271. Andrew Taylor from Canada writes: We can debate all we want, but Big Money will still dictate where this planet heads. But I find it sad that political conservatives are denying a tsunami of scientific evidence because of their aversion for anything that might impede economic development. I hope they live long enough to feel shame when even they cannot deny what most people already understand.

    I think it's correct for us, as individuals, to do what we can to help, but I personally believe there is almost no chance the changes that need to be made will be made by those in power (and by the Big Money that stands nearby in the shadows). Some of them might put on a green shirt for the cameras, but they are still following the same selfish path they always have. My pessimism might lead to depression, but it's sunny today, and I'm going for a walk by the Fraser.
  272. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: For all of you coming up with excuses against global climate change, here is what you should be reading: Dr. Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse'. Read it and then come back and give some more excuses. You are like the person on Easter Island who cut down the last tree on what used to be a completely forested island. And the whole civilization perished. Easter island is a small microcosm of what the planet is going to go through. And it IS our children and grandchildren who will experience the effects first hand. The human population will get what is coming to them and it will be OUR fault. And for all of you who say it is cold outside today so global climate change is a joke... please, please open up a book and actually read the facts and the theory. Your complete ignorance is showing.
  273. Roger Freel from Canada writes: Gee, there goes a big blast of hot air. People without faith are the only ones who believe in global warming????? Of course, those who exclude global warming out of hand are likely those who believe in intelligent design, too. And that dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago; and voted for Stevie Harpercrite because they believe he's a grand thinker and a grand democrat. '

    Oh give me a cave,
    where the neo-anderthals roam,
    and the sky is not blue all the day'
  274. Coco Motion from Canada writes: As I have mentioned before in my belief each side of the political world has their own way of scaring up potential voters for themselves.

    Conservatives / Republicans = Terrorism and Threat of personal Safety

    Liberals / Democrats = Global Warming and the destruction of the Ozone.

    Gotta get a way for people to vote for you so play on their fears as much as possible. I do not deny each is of some concern, but the way it is portrayed is extremely overboad.

    C.
  275. jeff mactavish from Canada writes: Why do we always need to have some sort of impending doom to occupy our imaginations. Not too long ago it was another ice age on its way spell our end. Then came the bird flu to wipe us all out. Now its global warming. When did people stop thinking and just blindly take the garbage the media feeds us for gospel? Thankfully global warming's 15 minutes will soon be up, then on to the next looming disaster. Any guesses what's next, Aliens? Killer asteroids?
  276. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: >Let us get rid of nuclear weapons. And while we're at it, let's
    tear down the nuclear reactors. Let's remove escalators and
    automatic doors. Let's drastically reduce the numbers of jets and
    automobiles. Let's give up traveling abroad (and that goes for
    trips within the country as well -- being one with the land also
    means that we remain stationary). Let's cancel the construction
    of airports. Stop using moving walkways and walk with your legs
    instead. Stop using pulp to make idiotic comic books, handbills,
    and wrapping paper. Let's stop the manufacture of cigarettes,
    detergents, and food additives. Let's stop taking so much
    medicine. Reduce further the amounts of agricultural chemicals
    and chemical fertilizers. Let's stop building so many roads.
    Let's leave the seashore in its natural state. In order to shrink
    the cities let's send the extra labor to the farms. Let's promote
    the redistribution and further division of land. Let's all work
    hard for the production of food that isn't poisoned. Weed the
    fields and gardens by hand, and return compost to the soil.
    http://xrl.us/uhao

    Durgan.
  277. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: We can re-engineer the Cdn economy to use a fraction of its current non-renewable energy. If we try and do this individually, it will fail - this is why we have a social security programs, why we have government planning and regulation, because to some extent, all economies have to play from the same play book. In North America, we standardized on 110/220v home appliances with standardized wiring and outlets, ditto for plumbing, this has resulted in an enormous cost saving through mass production. Now we have to do the same with energy efficiency. A concerted effort to mass produce solar panels will drive unit costs to very low levels. Look at LCD panels, a few years ago they were extremely expansive, but mass production and innovation has caused prices to fall rapidly. Again if we mandate size, weight and power plant options to the auto industry we create a level playing field and a stable market, so that the economies of scale can be brought into play, manufacturers can make the investments needed, while consumers will be presented with a variety of incentives to discard, older inefficient vehicles. This isn't left or right, it is just Economics 101. We can greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels, relatively easily and cheaply, if we do it on a large scale to bring down the unit costs. Alberta will get to sell its oil, but over a longer time frame as demand for oil will still exist even if we reduced consumption by 8O%. Ditto for BC Coal, etc, etc
  278. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: One thing is clear here: there are a lot of opinions and no one capable of critically evaluating either side of the argument. A lot of name-calling as if simply being belligerent strengthen's one's argument. There was a statistician posting on this about a week back who clearly was capable of critically evaluating the mathematical arguments and debunked the claims of Mann that challenged the so-called hockey-stick graph. That was the first intelligent and informed comment that I have seen on this debate. I employ a surrogate criterion for the validity of the arguments-where they are published. Important papers supporting the man-made hypothesis of global warming were published in Nature and Science. These are the top two peer-reviewed journals in the world. These journals embrace contrarian views on research that is of broad interest to the science community. If there was a strong credible argument against the man-made hypothesis that could withstand peer review, it would be published in one of these two journals. Since it hasn't happened, I have to conclude that to date, no such argument exists. It may exist in the future, but these icons of the contrarian view haven't come up with it. When it happens, I'll take the responsibility upon myself to tell you in these forums. If you don't hear from me on this issue, you can assume that the contrarian view has not met the standard of good science. As for the rest of this dialogue, it's simply unqualified people filling space with emotional arguments based on their own views of what's important and what is not important (typically environment vs. economic growth). These forums are not debates on science and the participants lack the qualifications to comment on the science.
  279. jeff mactavish from Canada writes: Coco Motion, I agree with you, each party needs some issue to get votes.
    The only thing is that terrorism has been happening and continues every day. It's not a threat it's real. The rallying cry for Conservatives/Republicans is not terrorism, it's the fear of the looney Liberal left and thier crackpot ideas that would lead to financial ruin of our country.
  280. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Funny how the first paragraph of this story sums up the entire story: the weather in Paris in February when they all meet is predicted to be 8degrees etc... Meanwhile, and unreported of course, France is undergoing a cold wave with snow and ice even in the western regions NOW. That's not a prediction that's the fact. ooops!
  281. j.r ewing from vancouver, Canada writes: The article is very interesting in how it represents its argument. No mention of the extreme cold this winter on the west coast, or how it ruined the citrus crops and other. Of course, it is El nino, which also explains the mild weather in the east. There is a pattern of warming, but there is no tool or formula to differentiate between human induced, and natural global warming. Not one 'reputable' environmental scientist can dispute that. Not one, because it is an impossibility. Consider ourselves lucky that the earth is not currently going into a cooling period, which is much more dangerous to life on earth. Remember to, the earth isn't here for us. We will not be able to survive one day, just another genetic mutation expelled by the planet.
  282. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: I want to point out one logical flaw in one of the arguments that we commonly hear. It CANNOT be concluded that the current rise in temperatures is not due to man-made causes simply because temperatures have been both warmer and cooler over the long history of this planet. This argument is analagous to the following: starving your pet will cause it to die therefore all pets die of starvation. There is an absolute relationship between starvation and death but that does not mean that all death is caused by starvation. In other words, the earth going through cycles of warming in no way undermines the argument that man-made influences are altering temperature today.
  283. Michael Peters from Toronto, Canada writes: Throughout history, civilizations have had priests, medicine men, soothsayers, oracles, and they and only they had the answers to the mysteries of the universe. The people revered them as holy men. Ladies and gentlemen, your holy men of the New Age: scientists. Heed what they say, or face the doom.
  284. B R from GTA, Canada writes: When you look up Environment Canada you'll see that it is all about Baird and the Conservatives. No mention of anything in the years since Kyoto Protocol was signed in late 1997 (not 1993)

    Then just go to : www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/#s4

    And you'll see what are the facts accordoing to CBC.

    Harper has disovered that Envoronment can be a goldmine as far as votes are concerned as he has with the Jewish, Chinese, Muslem communities. His latest forray in the latter community is a measly $ 12.5 million for Mr Arar (I agree with the payment but not with the motivation)

    The newest targets are the Japanese and Ukranian communities and if he can find any more Harper will get to work on those right away.

    The Liberals did nothing about Climate change for 13 years, according to the conservatives, and the Liberals they will say and do anything to get votes. But the conservatives are continuing to stand up for Canada. Yeah Right !!

    Canadians, please don't be fooled.
  285. Duncan Munro from Canada writes: Steve Sherrill: 'Anything else?'

    The desertification of much of south central BC. A rapid increase in the pine beetle kill and the spread of other damaging insect species.

    A increase in infectious disease through an increase in the insects that carry them leading to an increase in, Lyme Disease, West Nile, Malaria, etc, etc.

    An increase in temperature plus reduced runoff, and reduced snow cover will lead a a rapid drying of soil, which will reduce crop yields in a big way.
    much lower streams and rivers in the summer.

    A massive increase in forest fires on both sides of the country.

    An extension of the range that hurricanes can exist leading to more severe weather in Canada, which in turn will mean more storm surge damage. Look what a rise in sea levels and a full hurricane would do to PEI!

    Massive damage in the north through permafrost melts.

    More red tides and algae blooms. Reduced cold water fish harvests.

    Greater variability in the weather. Peak high and heat waves will be more severe, leading to an increase in heat induced mortality.

    the above are just a few problems that come to mind.
  286. Bart Farquart from Cowgary, Canada writes: Most polling consistently shows a couple of things:

    1. Global warming fears are a 'leisure issue'. Fear of global warming would quickly be supplanted if the economy went into the tank or some other major adverse event occurred.

    2. People are demanding major sacrifices to halt global warming. As long as someone else is taking the hit. Stephane Dion, for example, loves to carp almost exclusively about Alberta's energy industry. People in Alberta know why: He is passive-agressively pushing the canard that Kyoto can be implemented by only hurting Alberta.
  287. Don Adams from Canada writes: Duncan Munro from La La Land. YOU, and other idealistic yahoo's go ahead do everything you advocate to try to stop global warming. I don't mind, it's a free country. But will I or most Canadians buy into this idiotic scenario of yours? Not a hope in hell. You know it, I know it. Mind you, there are the idiots on the other side as well, who won't do anything. OK. Free country for them too. The rest of us, in the center, will continue to do as little, or as much, as we personally feel we want to do to help out. Up to our comfort level. But will we ALLOW wingnuts like you to destroy our society? Nope. THAT would be one sure thing to cause a revolution in Canada. What most of us DO recognize, is we want things done that are closer to home. We want the air quality in our cities to be better. We want water quality in our lakes and rivers to be better. We want crime reduced. We want an improved health care system. We want increased security of our borders, our Country in general. We want to continue the War against Terrorism (ie. the fight against any and all fundamentalist religions that seek to destroy us) We recognize there are many, many problems. We know that relatively little was accomplished under the last few years of the Liberal regime. We know there's only so much money to do all we want. We recognize and accept it'll take time and money to accomplish everything we want to do, but we don't want to destroy our economy, our lifestyle, doing it. We're prepared to push whatever Government is in power to accomplish these things, realistically. WE ARE CENTRISTS! OUR DAY HAS COME!
  288. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: For what it's worth, one of the predictions of climate change due to global warming is that weather patterns will vary much more widely.

    So, the fact that the citrus crop is being destroyed by frost in California, or that there 0 hurricanes last year and 10 the year before, is evidence that more supports the theory than contradicts it.
  289. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Agent Smith says 'For what it's worth, one of the predictions of climate change due to global warming is that weather patterns will vary much more widely.

    So, the fact that the citrus crop is being destroyed by frost in California, or that there 0 hurricanes last year and 10 the year before, is evidence that more supports the theory than contradicts it.'

    For what it's worth? It's worth nothing. Your comments about the citrus crop or hurricanes is proof of absolutely nothing.....except that you are able to see boogeymen where none exist.
  290. Don Adams from Canada writes: Oh yes, Duncan Munro, one other main thing, not necessarily connected to global warming. Idealism. We're totally fed up with idealism, political correctness etc. For years, we've put up with idealisic, politically correct rubbish, had some sort of guilt complex, didn't want to hurt others 'feelings' and in the process, subjugated our own feelings. We've sat back and watched while the squeaky wheels got the grease, done nothing about it.... from the Trudeau era at least, but this is ending. The pendulum is swinging back thank goodness. We CENTRISTS will have to be careful, of course, and not let it swing too far to the right, but we'll be able to do that too. So I'm now saying to all idealists, political correctness wingnuts, dingbats, idiots, (what other insulting comments do you want me to use.... I don't give a sweet god damn if your precious feelings are hurt) go to hell! We don't buy your 'theories' or your stated ideas of how we should address the problems. They're all total BS.

    But, we WILL ensure environmental problems get taken care of, but REALISTICALLY.

    Now, go ahead and whine to the editor
  291. Sarah Matthews from Canada writes: 'J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Here comes the green taxes. '

    EXACTLY. I see a global tax coming 'for the environment.' More taxes for more government waste and bureaucracy.

    Our winter was much colder and snowier than normal but it wasn't freakier than I've seen since moving to BC in '75, which was THE worst I can remember because heavy rains washed out a highway. Media hype has become dopey (the start of this article sounds juvenile). Let's get serious about the harm huge cities are doing to the environment. Vancouver's skies are BEIGE now and Toronto's are toxic. Deal industry by industry and allow big tax incentives for their leaders to invest in research and development to come up with greener alternatives. Scrap Kyoto which lets some of the WORST polluters off the hook and has created an industry buying and selling carbon emission credits. Canadian industries should develop the best facilities and products they can, for a cleaner environment, but we should not be paying for big polluter China to clean up ITS act.
  292. John P from Vancouver, Canada writes: Do people really think that changing all of their lightbulbs to energy-saving units, turning down the heat a little, driving smaller cars, catching transit, and reducing their consumption will lead to the end of our society?

    Wait. Don't answer that. Clearly they do.

    What the deniers fail to see is that there have always been people like them throughout history. Only a few centuries ago, they were to sort of people who reacted with distain to the 'activists' who told them not to poop where they eat, due to bacteria.

    'Bacteria!' They would scoff... 'you're going to tell me that there are tiny creatures that I can't see making me sick, and not demons? A likely story!'
  293. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bart Farquart-If your argument is true (and I certainly don't hear what you are hearing from Dion), then Alberta has nobody to blame but itself. Alberta has had ample resources and time to build a diversified economy. These resources have provided enormous opportunities to become world leaders in many things besides resource extraction. The Klein government failed Albertans miserably in this respect. So, if Alberta's economy tanks with the oil industry, thank Klein and co. and stop trying to blame the rest of Canada or the world for Alberta's failings. An equally significant threat to the oil industry is global action on CO2 emissions, which would lead to significant reductions in demand for oil. In turn, that could reduce oil prices to below where they are able to contribute significantly to the Albertan economy. To prepare for that challenge, Alberta could have been using it's vast resources to build a strong 'Green' industry. The absence of anything that qualifies as vision and foresight on the part of the Klein government is what has made Alberta vulnerable regardless of what the federal government does or doesn't do.
  294. edwardo plazinski from Maple Ridge, Canada writes: It's rather fascinating that everyone seems to focus on what might happen if we don't stop 'global warming' instead of what might happen if we do stop it. Global cooling which is just as inevitable will cause way more disruption than a brief extended period of warmer temperatures. Contrary to popular belief the sky is not falling, just being it's variable old self. To be on the safe side though don't buy any property in Richmond BC until they promise to raise the dikes.
  295. Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada writes: Mr Fijne from Calgary: You know you used to (and maybe you will still will annoy the cr*p out of me with your banging on about Income Trusts), but I am totally onside with you regarding the hysteria about this new religion, The Latter Day Saints of Climate Change. Climate change is happening!!!!! That is a fact! At issue, is what the cause is!!! Anyway, I love to see you fundamentalist who are not open to alternative views! You guys are the new Taliban of Canada!!
  296. Michael H from Canada writes: To listen to the CPC posters here we would have to conclude that the right has become the new center in the political spectrum. Certainly, there has been a steady migration to the right of what is perceived as center on the political spectrum. In this revised, right-shifted political spectrum, however, Liberals are the center, the CPC is right, and the NDP is left. According to the more traditional view, NDP is center, the Liberals are right of center, and the CPC farther right of center. That said, all of these flip-flops (as the right likes to call them) on the part of Harper in the past two weeks has certainly moved them a lot closer to the center. In fact, he's adopting Liberal policies so fast that by the time the next election comes it will be impossible to differentiate the two parties.
  297. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: I didn't know that 4 out of 5 Canadians were scientists qaulified to comment on this matter. I really wish the newspapers would just report the facts!
  298. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: J Luft, You're going the conservation pretty late in the day for an internet troll.

    I've read several of your posts in the past, and I can't help but feel if you were a more financially successful individual, you wouldn't be so bitter.
  299. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Don, the government made the same arguments as an excuse not do do any serious spending and planning on WW2 prior to the fall of France. Go back and look at the Globe in 1939. It was the same arguments, we only have so much money, we don't want to interfere with the market, yada, yada, yada...After France fell and we and the Brits were on our own these arguments were quickly forgotten and military production went from a trickle to flood very rapidly. Contrary to the opinions of a lot of right wingnuts, at the time, this did not destroy the economy but transformed it, and Canada, into an industrial and agricultural powerhouse. Sometimes the times call for drastic action in warranted. THIS IS ONE OF THEM!

    In any event how would the plans I outlined change your life? Would it be a particular hardship to drive to work or on a trip in a smaller Hybrid rather than your Humvee? Would the fact that your home solar panel is cutting your electrical bill by 10 to 20% be a hardship. Would restrictions on the use of city water really destroy your lawn?. In short you might not even notice these changes nor would it have any drastic effect on your life style. When you go to the hardware store do you curse the fact that the 'leftist conspirators' have conspired to limit your economic choices because you can't buy UK style outlets for your home, nor use 50cyle 220v appliances?

    As for terrorism, I have constantly provided information as to how the neo-cons created this problem in the first place, so I'm not surprised that you're concerned about it, in any event this is a fairly minor problem in terms of cost. If we can restrain Dubya and Steve from creating more Iraqs
  300. j.r ewing from vancouver, Canada writes: agent smith. It was a note on the connotations of the article. Pay attention please. Like if article started off by saying,-- record cold snaps in arizona, nevada, new mexico and california are preceeding a meeting on global warming.-- brings a different connotation to the article. I wasn't talking about the theory, which is precisely my point, and why the article is so bias and humerous. I know for the uneducated like you, the theory covers all ground; colder, warmer, more storms, less storms. All the bases are covered. You should read some of the scientific journals available, and learn about the theory.
  301. M D from Halifax, Canada writes: Agent Smith, Thats pretty conveinient reasoning. Last year saw lots of hurricanes, so this year unless results were spot on average all over the world, human caused GW was to blame.

    The 4/5 people who've seen global warming first hand is a laugh. I'll agree temps over the last few decades (as per the data) have been a fraction of a degree warmer on average, but to say you can first hand observe that its lately been 0.3° warmer? When its above 0 in Jan all of a sudden its evidence of global warming, despite the fact that theres plenty of record highs from the 40's still standing all over the country. People don't understand fundimentally what climate is, and every time a temperature isn't spot on average (as per the nature of statistics) all of a sudden its hard and fast proof of GW.

  302. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Global warming is real, but the effect of global warming is pure speculation. Poster #1, BJ Shellac, took the bait hook, line and sinker. The photo of the polar bears, taken last summer, implies that the arctic is not freezing this winter.

    The seal hunts were reportedly threatening to wipe out the seal population not long ago. Today the huge population of seals is allegedly threateing the fish stocks in a large way.

    Keep your panties on people.

    Global change is required to impact global warming. New Scientist reported that spring is coming a week earlier due to global warming back in 1996, and the issue is going to be with us for many generations.
  303. Matthew A. MacDonald from Canada writes: To 'r b' from Calgary: What on are you going on about?

    You ask 'Does the author mean that the February 1st all time high temperature for Paris is 5 C' (even though next Friday is actually February 2nd, not the 1st). You then ask if the author means to suggest that the forecast of 8 C therefore constitutes a record high?

    I refer you to the opening lines of the article, in which the author states: 'Paris is forecast to be unseasonably warm next Friday. The current long-term prediction is 8 degrees' - meaning that normally the temperature in Paris on February 2nd is colder than 8 C. To defend this claim, the author alludes to climactic data indicating the historic high for 'early February' is closer to 5 C.

    I suppose the author could be mistaken. Perhaps the historic high for 'early February' (however you define that, but presumably the first week of February, and certainly not the entire month) is in fact higher than 5 C, perhaps even close to 8 C. Lets see if the data you cite sheds any light on this issue:

    You state that the 'February AVERAGE high temperature for Paris is approximately 8C,' presumably meaning that the average of all the highest temperatures for EVERY day in the entire month of February is 8 C. You then state that 'the RECORD high for February is 20 C,' although you do not say whether this is February 1st or 28th. But the temperature, as you yourself mention, increases over the month, and you did not cite any data for just 'early February' and thus have failed in your attempt to refute what the author has written.
  304. David B from Whitehorse, Canada writes: It's funny that humans can't even deal with the man-made causes of climate change, when it's only one of many man-made environmental disasters that were currently in the midst of.

    In addition to climate change, we have habitat destruction, water supply contamination from industry and farm run-off, invasive species, deforestation of the Amazon which produces 20 percent of he oxygen that just a few species need to breath, and... we're already in the middle of a massive extinction.

    It really isn't the end of the world, life will go on. The climate has always been in flux, but never this much, this fast - and when it has been rapid, there has been massive extinction.

    Our greed will be the downfall of humanity, I really don't have a lot of faith in this species of 6 billion that we can collectively turn it around. But who knows, perhaps we can. It will take a major paradigm shift and judging from some of the comments, it really isn't going to happen soon.

    Depletion of resources, as an earlier poster mentioned, read 'Collapse'. It's food for thought. In by-gone eras, civilizations collapsed because they depleted all local reachable resources. We're not doing this on a global scale.

    Hey, but let's not talk about changing our ways - capitalism is the only thing that works. It's the economy that sustains us!! or is it the environment?
  305. fedup taxpayer from Canada writes: Agent Smith,

    Obviously all that polluted water from Lake Ontario and the garbage piling up in Toronto is shrinking what limited grey matter you possess. We have only been studying the climate for a very short period in the life of this planet. Time will tell but the chicken little set like you do nothing but spread panic and unproved theories, I stress theories. Please look up the meaning of the word.
  306. Don Adams from Canada writes: Duncan, you're comparing apples to oranges again. Typical ploy of idealists. Yeah it would be a hardship. I don't drive a humvee, don't like them, plus they're too expensive, but I do love my van. Lots of space, comfort, safety, speed when I want it. I'll admit, I'd prefer to have a diesel engine, but they don't come with one, and I do want this particular van. Drive a small puddle jumper? ME? HAHAHA. You're out of your mind. I'm 6'4'... don't fit in them. The cost of the solar panels negate the savings, so wouldn't bother. However, we do turn off lights when we're not using them..all electric items that aren't being used are off.... we want to save money :-) Our electric bill is quite reasonable compared to many. Oh yes, we use our dryer. Sure not going to hang clothes out in the winter. But, we dry full loads. We don't use fluorescent light bulbs. Too expensive, and don't give as much light. We do use 100 watt bulbs, but again, only the lights that are necessary. Nope, I'm quite happy with the variety I find in my local hardware store. I don't water my lawn, just let nature do it. When it dries up and turns brown in July, oh well, it'll come back. I do have oil heat, but usually try to burn wood.... deadfalls from my bush. Do I turn down my heat in order to save money? Nope, we like it at 72'. Besides, the wood doesn't cost me much, mainly my labour, and that's good for my health. In short, would I make further changes to my lifestyle to accomodate your thinking? Nope. I like my lifestyle the way it is thank you very much. But would I support my tax dollars being paid out to other countries via Kyoto? NOT A HOPE IN BLOODY HELL!
  307. Don Adams from Canada writes: Duncan, you're comparing apples to oranges again. Typical ploy of idealists. Yeah it would be a hardship. I don't drive a humvee, don't like them, plus they're too expensive, but I do love my van. Lots of space, comfort, safety, speed when I want it. I'll admit, I'd prefer to have a diesel engine, but they don't come with one, and I do want this particular van. Drive a small puddle jumper? ME? HAHAHA. You're out of your mind. I'm 6'4'... don't fit in them. The cost of the solar panels negate the savings, so wouldn't bother. However, we do turn off lights when we're not using them..all electric items that aren't being used are off.... we want to save money :-) Our electric bill is quite reasonable compared to many. Oh yes, we use our dryer. Sure not going to hang clothes out in the winter. But, we dry full loads. We don't use fluorescent light bulbs. Too expensive, and don't give as much light. We do use 100 watt bulbs, but again, only the lights that are necessary. Nope, I'm quite happy with the variety I find in my local hardware store. I don't water my lawn, just let nature do it. When it dries up and turns brown in July, oh well, it'll come back. I do have oil heat, but usually try to burn wood.... deadfalls from my bush. Do I turn down my heat in order to save money? Nope, we like it at 72'. Besides, the wood doesn't cost me much, mainly my labour, and that's good for my health. In short, would I make further changes to my lifestyle to accomodate your thinking? Nope. I like my lifestyle the way it is thank you very much. But would I support my tax dollars being paid out to other countries via Kyoto? NOT A HOPE IN BLOODY HELL!
  308. Brian Jantzi from Oakville ON Canada, Canada writes: The RISK is too great, of doing nothing while we wait for the ever elusive definitive science (i.e., smoking gun) to say that global climate change (the effect) is caused by human activity. Clearly, human activity is contributing to the effect, and human activity needs to be mobilized to help mitigate AND adapt to the effect. Immediate international mobilization is needed of the myriads of no-regrets actions that can be taken to help mitigate and adapt to this effect - actions that make sense anyways, but sit stagnant waiting for the financial energy to kick start them into action. Economic tools like emission reduction trading or emission removal trading, creatively and imaginatively implemented, will help ease the pain and spread out the financial burden, perhaps even create profits. Greenhouse gas policies and actions, creatively implemented, do not have to harm, and in fact may boost economies. Money will flow towards the least cost actions that will produce the maximum benefits. Old ways of doing things will more quickly evolve into new ways of doing things. There are so many projects out there that can help (e.g. look at tist.org in Africa and India) and they are stalled, waiting for the green light of some greenhouse gas reduction cash from somebody. May Canada finally get off the decades-old fence and actually green-light doing something real to contribute to the mitigation and adaptation to this effect. Internationally, Canada may be a relatively small actor on this stage, but the world needs the example of leadership to get truly engaged on a global basis. Enough waffling and enough of these endless Issue Tables and policy studies (more talk talk talk); it is time for united action and leadership from our Federal Government, irrespective of Party.
  309. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: JUST IMAGINE - we cut back totally, radically, reducing our lifestyles to acheive a 30% lower CO2 emmission here in Canada. Just IMAGINE we are sucessful at that. What happenes when Canada's population doubles in the next 60 years? Do we have to cut back another 50% per capita in CO2 emmissions over those 60 years as Canada doubles in size? Imagine our kids lifestyles 60 years down the road, with CO2 emissions regulated to about 25% of todays output, per capita. Then what happens again over the next 60 years as Canada's population doubles again. WHAT A JOKE. We can only delay the inevitable without a cull of the population.
  310. joe shea from Canada writes: The science is solid. Climate change is occurring because of human greenhouse gas emissions, which are a direct effect of our profligate habits of consumption and waste. Problem is, as posters above have noted, is that changing our lightbulbs doesn't really make a difference. We're still stuck with what we've put up in the atmosphere over the past 150 years, and . The not-so-easy solution: curb your consumption. Use less. Spend less. Hey: this even means you save more! And tell the government that they need to make sure everyone does the same thing. Not only does this reduce GHGs, but it might also help reduce the millions of other problems we've created (pollution, environmental destruction, extinctions, etc., etc.). Sustainable development is an oxymoron, and the planet we all live on is finite. The scientific debate is over, and its time to talk about the national and global policies needed to reduce how much we use.
  311. Glenn Hawley from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: ...anybody who says that the scientific method has not been used to reach the conclusion that present dramatic climate change is caused by humans had better get in for a fun ride from dreamworld to reality in the immediate future. Scientists from all countries and across the polictical spectrum agree on this issue...'

    Well, Michael, you'd better read what the scientists are actually saying. There is a consensus that the earth is warming, there is a consensus that humans contribute to that warming, but that's all.

    There is no consensus that humans are the sole or even the dominant cause of the observed temperature changes. Only sleazy politicians and propagandists extrapolate such a claim from the actual science. The climate models (extremely complex algorithms) are incomplete and known to be deficient, and the mechanisms for temperature change over the last 150 years are not clearly understood.

    Drill down through the hype and hyperbole.
  312. Don Adams from Canada writes: Brian Jnatzi, your eyes are brown. Also there's a line half way across your eyes.... you appear to be down a quart. Send money OUT of our Country? What are you smoking? Our tax dollars going into a 50/50 split with industry in R & D to come up with new technology that'll cut out a bunch of effluents being spewed into the air over our cities. Sure lets spend some on it. Alternate technologies? OK, if we're going to get more bang for the buck. Tax dollars going to help industry convert? Sure. They can't and won't do it on their own, and we need the jobs they provide. Tax dollars to HELP industry stop sending effluents into our rivers and sure. But what you're advocating? Not a hope in hell!
  313. Jack Daswani from Delta, BC, Canada writes: Who cares what the poll says. Talk is cheap. Just look at all the SUV's around. We Canadians are not seriouds about climate change. We just like to think we are. Much like our Natural Governing Party. Sign the Kyoto accord and then do nothing. Heck even the former Liberal Environment minister (Dave Anderson) drove around Victoria in an SUV.
  314. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Don, but if all the car makers were forced to offer diesels and high efficiency engines you could still get your van but it would be far more economical, but it might not do 0-100 in 5 seconds. With proper gearing a Van or P/U with even a small engine can be very economical and have very high payload and carrying capacity. My point about solar panels is that, currently they are too expensive and always will be without a mass market. Mass production, though would bring the cost down to where they are competitive with the grid, thus allow you and I both to fit them to our home, or allowing BC Hydro to do it for us and simply adjust our bill accordingly. Dryers and other appliance efficiency can be be increased, a simple example would be waste heat recovery in the winter, while in dryer climates like the Okanagan, in the summer hot dry outside air can be run through an air filter and then through the dryer - no added heat needed. An energy efficient society does not have to look very different from the one we live in, in fact you might not see a perceptible difference without taking a hard look.
  315. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Alan A Dale----as an educator, you scare me! Your solution is no solution at all. If your solution is to reduce the world's population, would you be the first to volunteer? I say this to reduce to utter absurdity your 'solution' (reductio Ad Absurdum).
  316. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: If I were Martin Mittelstaedt, I might consider phoning in sick on Monday. It's a tough crowd here.
  317. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: fedup taxpayer,
    You should go back to your university and ask for a refund. You made a dumb comment about statistics, as if this were not accounted for in peer reviewed scientific journals like Nature. This is research that stretches back over 20 years and for which there a broad scientific consensus. People on this board who accept the science are trying to spur action not panic. You should own up to your mis-statements like an adult, and stop trying to denigrate everyone who doesn't share an opinion exactly the same as yours.
  318. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: I want to replace my Canadian built 97 Geo Metro (at least lets pretend I do) what are my options. When I bought it new, it was the least expensive and most economical car available at 66 hwy/50mpg city. My local Chev deler offers the Aveo but even though it is the same size it only gets 48hwy and 32city, a quick search reveals a similar scenario. My 7 year old metro would be the most economical non-hybrid car for sale in Canada if it was still in production! A quick search .on the web reveals that auto makers in Europe are selling the same models there, as here, but with much more economical engines. The Toyota Yarus is available in the UK with a 3 cylinder 1 liter engine (same specs as my Metro) and it gets 75mpg hwy versus 52 for the model sold here with the 1.5 litre 4 cylinder engine. Why is this allowed to happen? The automakers have progressively cut off consumer access to low cost fuel efficient vehicles. A simple switch of engines would have a huge impact on the fuel economy of autos sold here.
  319. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: People talk of sea levels rising as much as 20 feet as the icecaps melt. Try this experiment in your gin and tonic folks. Put the ice in and mark the level of liquid in the glass. Then wait for the icecubes to melt and check the level again - it will be the same. The ice simply displaces it's own volume in the water when it is there and becomes that same amount (actually slightly less) once melted. So the melting ice that will cause sea levels to rise will only be that ice which is now on top of land. The sea ice is a non issue. Did Al Gore mention this ? Has anyone established how much of the ice is actually on land ? Since the weight of the ice will take pressure off the land mass, will this not make some more room in the sea as well ? All interesting questions but not dealt with in any material I've seen. The water/ice thing is like grade 8 science class stuff. Nature has nutured us and brought us here and nature will take us where she will. We're all passengers in this fascinating universe with it's billions of galaxies and limitless time and space - enjoy the ride folks. All this strutting and fretting your hour on the stage won't amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things. It's OK to just enjoy life and TRUST IN THE FORCE LUKE.
  320. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Mike MacDonald - I see that you have difficulty reading what is plainly in front of you. The article's opening lines clearly try to create a 'hook' by leading the reader to believe that next Friday's forecast high of 8 C in Paris is 'significantly above the historic high.' . A whole 3 degrees. Is the author saying that 8 C is an alltime high temp for February 02 in Paris? It could easily be construed that way, which would be even more outrageous. How do you interpret that? Of course the author would not have struck nearly as emotional a chord had he simply written 'Next Friday is forecast to be a nice warm day in Paris, slightly warmer than normal. This is further proof of climate change.' Perhaps the most outrageous part of the opening paragraph is the clear implication that 3 days of rainfall in February in Paris is unprecedented. Yet a simple search for data on precipitation patterns in Paris shows that February is hardly a dry month. Like I said, look up the graphs for yourself. If they are too difficult for you to understand then perhaps you should remain mute on this topic. The issue is accuracy of data Mikey, plain and simple. You are being spun by the Globe and Mail, spun like a top, to manufacture a sense of urgency within your mind. Then of course, you will vote the correct way, for the correct green candidate, in the upcoming federal election. Good boy Mikey, good boy.
  321. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Andrew, why don't you see Al Gore's movie ' an Inconvenient truth' before you comment on it? He uses a similar example as you do to explain sea level increases. yes, the amout of ice on land has been established and it is causing an increase in sealevels as it melts. Do you think that climatologists are unaware of such simple facts? I challenge you to see Al Gore's presentation so that you won't make such simple errors in the future.
  322. Job of the book from Canada writes: I know I'm afraid that my children will never know the 'joy' of shovling 3 feet of snow from the drive way...

    I'm sure there's a downside to global warmingg. When it comes up, let me know.
  323. Don Adams from Canada writes: Duncan, ok, I'll compromise, no problem. Except, I won't pay the higher prices needed for these new technological items. With mass production, you're right, the prices would come down, and once the prices come down to reasonable levels, yep, I would. But until then, nope. Thus my comments, instead of sending money OUT of the country, direct it to R & D and industry IN the country and get the prices down from the get go. I COULD go along with forcing the auto companies to offer better engines ( like a diesel for my Montana van)
  324. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Job, at the risk of repeating myself:

    The desertification of much of south central BC. A rapid increase in the pine beetle kill and the spread of other damaging insect species.

    A increase in infectious disease through an increase in the insects that carry them leading to an increase in, Lyme Disease, West Nile, Malaria, etc, etc.

    An increase in temperature plus reduced runoff, and reduced snow cover will lead a a rapid drying of soil, which will reduce crop yields in a big way.
    much lower streams and rivers in the summer.

    A massive increase in forest fires on both sides of the country.

    An extension of the range that hurricanes can exist leading to more severe weather in Canada, which in turn will mean more storm surge damage. Look what a rise in sea levels and a full hurricane would do to PEI!

    Massive damage in the north through permafrost melts.

    More red tides and algae blooms. Reduced cold water fish harvests.

    Greater variability in the weather. Peak high and heat waves will be more severe, leading to an increase in heat induced mortality.

    the above are just a few problems that come to mind.
  325. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Let's use the words of Sylvie Joussaume, climatologist at the LSCE in France, extract from the CEA Effet de Serre Special file: « We understand poorly the small variations that occur over few decades or hundred years, notices Sylvie Joussaume. We must, for instance, better simulate the 'Little Ice Age', a period especially harsh from the XVII to XIX century. We also need to better predict extreme weather evenst such as storms, floods and droughts' In French: Nous comprenons mal les petites variations, qui ont lieu sur quelques dizaines ou centaines d’années, remarque Sylvie Joussaume. Nous devons, par exemple, mieux simuler le “petit âge glaciaire” , une époque particulièrement rigoureuse du XVIIe au XIXe siècle. Il nous faut aussi mieux prévoir les événements extrêmes, tempêtes, inondations et sécheresses. » MY COMMENT: don't understand small 10s or 100s year variations hey? Industrial era=150y. From the same report: 'All these informations from the past combined with present day measurement allow for better understanding of the climate. They show that this very climate was not as stable as initially thought: very brutal episodes of warming or cooling have been recorded, of about ten degrees over less than a century, especially during glacial eras. Are interglacial eras more stable? Nothing is for sure.' French original text: 'Toutes ces informations recueillies du passé s’associent aux mesures actuelles pour améliorer notre compréhension du climat. Elles montrent que ce dernier n’est pas aussi stable qu’on le pensait : des épisodes de réchauffement ou de refroidissement très brutaux ont été en registrés, d’une dizaine de degrés en moins d’un siècle, surtout lors des périodes glaciaires. Les périodes interglaciaires sont-elles plus stables ? Rien n’est moins sûr.' IF ANYONE CONSIDERS THIS TOP SCIENTIFIC ADMINISTRATION CONCLUSIONS AS A DONE DEAL, CLOSED DEBATE, THEY CAN APPLY RIGHT NOW FOR A TOP POSITION IN ONE OF THE MOST RENOWN LABS IN THE WORLD!
  326. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Don , now we're getting somewhere! However, if we meet or exceed the Kyoto targets we can actually get the money to flow in, not out. I agree with you on the prices, right now I can't afford to do as much as I'd like but if things are done on a large scale we can all afford it, especially if we produce national targets ansd use some creative financing.

    Let's take your van. We take a similar sized van equip it with a hydrid diesel electric drive put and solar panels on the roof for all out economy, or simply put in a 4 cylinder diesel and a 6 speed transmission, for a more economical package. With proper cooling and HD transmission you could still two a small boat or travel trailer. It is does not have the acceleration but it will still get you there at legal speeds.
  327. Dave L from Canada writes: It constantly surprises me how much people are willing to allow global change to threaten our living conditions, and use science as a vessel to procrastinate action.

    Proponants and skeptics of the Global Warming theory both agree that the earth is going through a 'warming phase' despite mankinds effects on the environment. The question I ask those who want proof that 'Global Warming' exists (as it relates to mans effects) is: Why does it
    matter? We know we contribute, even if just a minute amount, and that we can work towards negating, possibly even reversing our effect.

    Even if we, ourselves, are not causing the earth to warm, it is STILL WARMING, and threatening our standard of living. Wouldn't you want to do something about that??

    Regardless of the cause, why aren't we doing something??
  328. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Duncan - I did watch the film and I did see him suggest sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet which is utter hogwash. What I did not see was a carefully detailed methodology from Mr. Gore. I have seen good science that suggests only a very slight increase in sea levels would result from the non sea ice melting. Common sense tells us that only a small fraction of the earth's surface is covered in ice, and only a fraction of that is on land. 70% of the earths surface is covered in ocean in three dimensions much of which is very deep. The film was very interesting and could likely been made in any era of history to document changes occuring in climate and environment because change is constant. So the argument becomes 'rate of change' as if somehow slow is better than fast. I personally find it arrogant and myopic to assume we humans are such a big factor in things such a climate change or plate techtonics for that matter. These are natural systems that are in constant flux and while no one likes to have to cope with change, that is basic challenge of life is it not ? Live with it and more importantly, don't waste too much valuable time fretting about it because you and everyone else posting here will be gone in what is tiny blink of an eye in the scheme of things. It's not your fault that change is constant. We know our sun will inevitably burn out as will all the suns in the universe, only to be replaced by new suns emerging from the mystery of time and space. There is no such thing as permanence in the external world - so you'll have to find the peace and stability you seek somewhere else. Might I suggest you read a small book called 'The Art of Peace' by Morihei Ueshiba. I think you may find it more insightful than Gore's movie.
  329. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Marlene Gregory raises a point that concerns me. Our children have been subject to a great deal of scare-mongering that, at their stage of life they are ill-prepared to handle. I read recently that the anxiety level in today's adolescents is comparable to that of the average adolescent psychiatric patient of fifty years ago. Think about that. Admittedly there are other factors at play here but the constant barrage of apocalyptic scenarios, that they are exposed to, must contribute to their insecurity. The media are irresponsible in this respect - they shamelessly exploit the fears of all of us.
  330. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Dave L says 'Regardless of the cause, why aren't we doing something??' Uh.....what? Don't you think we need to know the cause before we 'do' something? Amazing.
  331. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Andrew, Al Gore suggested that the melting of the Greenland Icecap, not the melting of sea ice would cause a 20ft rise. The rate of melting is unknown but the current rate would suggest a 1 metre rise by 2100, but as the 'hockey stick' graphs of temp change indicate, the rate of melting could increase rapidly in the near future, if temp change increases

    Andrew do you use the same arguments when your own personal or family member's safety is concerned? Do you say 'my loved one will be gone in the blick of an eye' so I won't be concerned when she/he walks on thin ice or plays with fire?
  332. god bless canada from Canada writes: global warming is real and the earth is still flat. those are two scientific findings from different time .and to look at the pole g&m are doing i see a lot of canadian dont think it real. mother earth controlls the world man does not if she wants to stop something she does .
  333. Dave Baird from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Scott Loucks your logic is truly amazing. My favorite comment of yours is 'Why do you think they call it greenland, it used to be green.' Haha yup that's amazing. Unfortunately for as long as greenland has been in the northern hemisphere it has been covered in ice with the exception of certain parts of the southern coast in summer, and the real reason its called greenland is because it was dicovered by Danes who called it Groenland, which means BIg land, we anglophones just misunderstood. But don't worry as long as people like you are around it won't be long until it's present name greenland will be a fact. You really are ahead of your time. It takes courage to discount evry credible atmospheric scientist, and then present bogus facts that you just made up in your waning defence of natural earth cycles.
  334. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: Andrew go have some more gin, the Greenland icecap is on a foundation of rock as is the majority of the South pole ice sheet. Gotta love these purported facts. Not much to counter willful ignorance.
  335. Jamie Cool from Moncton, Canada writes: In some parts of Canada people worry a lot about the soundness of the science behind global warming. I see at least 2 possible reasons for their anxiety:
    1) the scientific method is dear to their heart
    2) actions taken as a result of the findings may hit their wallets

    I'll put all my money on #2. That's why discussing the science of global warming with them is pointless. The most effective action we can take is VOTE appropriately in the next election.
  336. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Duncan - It is you that thinks we are on thin ice or playing with fire somehow, not me. These fears you harbour are your demons not mine.
    I see no reason to protect my childrenb from these fantasies that haunt you and the others here who share your doomsday book dogma.
  337. Bob MacMillan from Hamilton, Canada writes: A number of posts today mentioned the use of diesel engines as a way of reducing GHG or pollution. While being driven through Milan on my one and only trip to Italy, I noticed that many of the cars were similar to those you'd see here, but most had diesel engines. I mentioned this to my driver and he commented that 'in Italy, only a rich man can afford to drive a gas engine car'. If the diesel engines are cleaner and the cars cheaper, you'd think you'd see more of them here. The few people I've asked about this have commented that they thought diesel engines polluted more, and were favoured only because diesel fuel is much cheaper in Europe. Anyone who can shed light on this please comment. About today's back and forth about climate change: If you buy into the theories, you have to keep an eye on world wide production of GHG. Until this levels off, there is little Canada can do that will improve the situation. We can develop new technologies, new ways of living and doing things, and they will all be useless if other countries simply take over where we have cut back. We are simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if the planet cannot stand to have China and India reach our level of industrialization. You may as well start keeping journals about how the planet looked in your lifetime so that your ancestors can read about it.
  338. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: OK BC before I pour myself a scotch and go to watch the hockey game (don't like gin) please provide me with precise volumetric data to support the case that sea levels will rise 20 feet if that portion of the ice that happens to sit on land melts. The facts please - the data. It is measureable. The science please.
  339. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: You folks are unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.

    Where do you get your information from Dave Baird?

    Groen means 'green' in Danish and most other Scandinavian languages. Stoy, or close derivatives thereof, means 'big' in Scandinavian tongues.

    The Vikings named Greenland because they wanted to entice settlers to go there. Same reason Newfoundland was named Vinland - conjures up visions of grapes and all that.

    Really, I think that a person could post almost anything here and you numbskulls would believe it. You are very clever and should continue to post your pearls of wisdom.
  340. John Miller from Toronto, Canada writes: A lot of churn on this climate change topic today. It is truly reassuring to see folks expressing skepticism, not a shred of which troubles the brain trust at the Globe and Mail which seems to have swallowed every alarmist cant in the Global Warming bible. Clearly they're all climate scientists from Greenspon on down at the GM, right? The Globe's dubious poll is strangely unreflected in most of the posts here and probably few other places in Canada outside David Suzuki's Wednesday night tree-hugging cabal. I expect the Harper government will do some serious polling before shutting down the tar sands, closing all coal-fired power plants and jacking up the price of gas to $5.00 a litre to keep our climate change fetishists happy. This whole push to 'do something .. ANYTHING!' - even while Canada contributes a measly 2% of all GHG's - is being driven by what I call the 'neo-coms' (ie the new commie totalitarians) who love central-planning and authoritarian government and telling other people what to do. These folks have always hated personal freedom and free markets and think they've hit on a new way to strangle both - with the help of their synchophants in the media. Give them the control envisioned in Kyoto and the soon-to-come Kyoto 2 and you won't be able to fart or touch a thermostat without checking with the local climate commissar.
  341. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: Andrew - 'The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets cover 10% of the Earth’s land area and contain 77% of the world&8217;s freshwater. The ice sheets comprise 99% of all the glacier ice on earth. The average thickness of both are approximately 2100 meters, but the Antarctic ice sheet (14x106km2 in area) contains about ten times the ice volume of the Greenland ice sheet(1.7x106km2 in area). Ice sheets rest on land that is relatively flat in comparison to the ice thickness; glaciers are bound within channels that allow variation in thickness. Although the Earth&8217;s crust is depressed hundreds of meters by the tremendous weight of the ice, the bases of the ice sheets are ,on average close to sea level. The exception is the West Antarctic ice sheet, comprising 12% of the total that is grounded as much as 2500 meters below sea level. If all the fresh water ice locked in ice sheets and glaciers were to melt it would cause a sea level rise of nearly 80 meters.' This is from a NASA that simply talks about ice sheets and nothing about climate change.
  342. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Clean air in our cities makes sense just as not smoking makes sense. Natural Gas burned in an internal combustion engine is 70% cleaner than gasoline or diesel, is 130 octane (your Porsche will love it) and produces so few residual impurities that your engine will last much longer. We have the technology to retrofit engines (ergo like the taxicabs) and with new high tech storage tanks produced by companies like Dynetek in Calgary, you can get about the same range out of a tank of CNG than you can from your gasoline tank. So why start adding ethanol to gasoline when it takes four units of energy input to get one unit of energy output from ethanol, and we still end up with a lot more toxic emmissions than if we simply switch to CNG.
  343. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Andrew here's a link to the facts about the greenland ice sheet. just replace the dashes withunderscores:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland-ice-sheet
    or else just google :greenland ice sheet

    there is no dispute as the the volume of ice and its probable effect of sea level if it all melted.
  344. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: From the NASA study footnotes.

    Qualifiers: (a) There are approximations and uncertainties in several of the numbers used in the calculations, and hence the answers should be considered as only roughly correct. (b) Strictly speaking, the calculations assume that the oceans and seas have vertical sides, with the area covered by water remaining constant throughout the process of sea level rise. Instead, as sea levels rise, the area covered by water would increase, which would reduce the magnitude of the rise.
    Still, in spite of the cautions of (a) and (b), the calculations outlined above provide a reasonable first-order estimate of the sea-level-rise response. (c) No knowledgeable person expects the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to disappear completely within the lifetime of anyone alive today, or within the lifetime of any of their children or grandchildren. Hence, the threat of a 79.6- meter sea level rise should not be seen as an immediate concern.
  345. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: Andrew - Just giving you the calculations you asked for. I made no claims about climate change.
  346. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: No one has suggested it will all melt in a lifetime, but even a 1 metre rise will cause big problems, plus it may melt within several lifetimes, to threaten future generations.
  347. Silly Putty from Whammo, United States writes: Hey Duncan Monroe - do your homework! That tired old 'hockey stick' graph has been completely disproven.
    But then again, anyone who takes Al Gore's word at face value doesn't live in this universe...
  348. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: 'Instead, as sea levels rise, the area covered by water would increase, which would reduce the magnitude of the rise.'

    The coastal regions are so shallow that they make a very small contribution to the overall volume.
  349. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Silly, I'm afraid that just not so look at this report produced by your own government: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

    The report in brief shows the hockey stick very clearly.
  350. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Impermanence is the fact. There is no avoidance.

    They call them the Big Five -- a handful of unfathomable mass extinctions over the past 500 million years, each estimated to have obliterated somewhere between 50 and 96 percent of all species on the planet.

    That much we know, because Earth recorded the mass deaths in layers of ancient soil, where crowds of miniscule corpses and other evidence show wholesale destruction of the smallest critters, on which larger animals depend.

    What we don't know, except in one case, is what caused these five mass extinctions. Nor is there solid evidence showing how rapidly the catastrophes occurred.

    Such knowledge would be a window not only to the past, but to the future: How likely is it that future Earth dwellers will meet with an inescapable catastrophic fate, much like the dinosaurs did? And how much time will there be to adjust or perish?

    While there are no firm answers, a three-page study in the May 11 issue of the journal Science adds modestly to a mounting stack of reports suggesting that asteroids and comets are the leading cause of terrestrial death, delivering immensely fatal blows every 100 million years or so that wipe the slate of life frighteningly close to clean in remarkably rapid fashion.
  351. snow lander from Edmonton, Canada writes: dear moronic america friend from Whammo-hear this you bird brain. the hockey stick graph has not been disproven. do real research and you will see that it quite correctly shows the trends in carbon dioxide from human sources over the last 200 years. we are not taking Al Gore's words but the word of 1000s of climate scientists all over the world. hacks like you make this earth a sad place to dwell. your president an idiot in his own right finally had a bit of time to dwell on the 10000s of reports sitting on his desk and now has decided that yes humans are a major contributor to climate change. If the climate data is clear to a complete moron and idiot like GWB it shouldn't be so diffucult to comprehend for an average moron such as youself. sheesh- americans like you make me want to puke.
  352. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: I personally would like to see us put a plan in place to detect and deflect asteroid impacts before we get too excited about our carbon emmissions. We are in my opinion literally farting against thunder here.
  353. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Perhaps people with a vision may find it prudent to contact their Real Estate Broker to invest in Arctic land at the 'entry' level.

    Sounds far-fetched? Think again!
  354. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: 'rb from Calgary' - Thanks for straightening out Dave Baird. Maybe he could explain his apparent attempt at deliberate misinformation. How many other posters resort to the same tactic?
  355. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: Andrew - The difference between previous extinctions and the present is that at our current level of technology we are capable of detecting threats from asteroids or comets (although we don't spend the amount necessary to do so for the entire sky). We might also be capable of destroying a medium sized threat or building an underground arc that would survive the impact. Perhaps we might not be able to do it but at least we have the intelligence necessary to try.
  356. Ed Sears from Derbyshire, United Kingdom writes: There already is a programme to detect likely asteroid impacts.

    Diesel cars are only rare in USA and Canada because of historical reasons: they are cleaner nowadays compared to petrol.

    Attribution for climate change from 1860-1999 (from university climatology textbook Weather, Climate and Climate Change by O'Hare et al 2005) is volcanoes negligable (last big one was Tambora 1815 which was 100x Mt St Helens), solar input moderate and stable warming effect, ghgs strong and increasing warming effect, aerosols (means large particles in smoke) moderate and increasing cooling effect.

    China and India have lower emissions per person and less income to play with so we need to lead on emissions reductions and new technology development. They will adopt them because they are far more exposed to the consequences of climate change: damage to water, available agricultural land, air quality, and they know it.
  357. John Longshot from Canada writes: The media and the G&M are so full of S**T! Show me the science. Of course you can't. The only voices that are heard through your paper are the voices of activists. Not much second sober thought here. However, you continue to pump the hype and confuse the public. This is the essence of the Canadian news media.
  358. Andrew MacGillivray from writes: Ed Sears - of course we can detect them, but deflecting them is the real issue. Space based nukes are the only viable answer and we have no plan in place to establish these platforms as yet.
  359. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: I'd hoped to start a discussion on raising the federal excise tax on gas. As mentioned, this is the single easier policy lever the government has to influence consumption. In fact we know that $1/litre gas did not cause the collapse of the Candian economy. Beyond creating an incentive to drive more fuel efficient cars, this tax would add a couple billion to federal revenues to fund a national transportation plan that could finally help fund major transit investments in our largest cities (and some highway projects in East Overshoe Saskatchewan to placate voters, I guess). How would people feel about this?
  360. acacio trigo from Canada writes: It's great that we here in Canada want to do something to help slow down global warming.The thing is we have a small popullation.You have to look at countries like China,India and the U.S.A.to come abord.Without them,and other highly popullated countries,what we do here will not much matter.
  361. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Why don't we all act like conservatives, watch the morons on Faux News, and just pretend that there IS no problem.
  362. Glenn Hawley from Calgary, Canada writes: Some people have asked about why diesel engines are more prevalent in Europe. Because of the higher temperatures and pressures in the combustion chamber, oxygen and nitrogen in the air supply combine to form NO2 and NO3, which are contributors to smog and are therefore limited under the widely-followed California emission standards.

    This is unfortunate, because producing biodiesel is much less energy intensive than producing ethanol to supplement gasoline. It can also reduce disposal costs, since (for example) cooking oil no longer fit for frying food can be cleaned up a bit and reused in diesel fuel. Having stuff do double duty is always an attractive scenario.

    Since biodiesel is a threat to the ethanol industry (which hopes to make fortunes off their approach) I don't doubt that they have done what they could do keep diesels limited.
  363. james castle from Canada writes: As everyone knows science is about proving something to 100%, unquestionable, forever set in stone certainty. We should do nothing about the changing climate until we reach that goal.
  364. Don Adams from Canada writes: Duncan, slower acceleration? Forget it. I like fast acceleration. Also useful to get me out of trouble when some dingbat on the road does something stupid. No way I'll give it up. Legal speed limits? WAY too slow. 80 KMH? Very few want a speed limit that slow... I sure don't. 95 - 100 is acceptable to me..... and that's what I drive at. Majority of people seem to feel the same. Seems to be the mean average speed of the traffic on Hiway 7 around here, and the mean average speed is the safest speed at which to drive. People driving at the so called speed limit are part of the CAUSE of traffic accidents.... they frustrate other drivers. Wir Sind. Forget it...I don't WANT to pay an extra tax. Just not worth it to me. Hey I have a great idea..... institute the tax, but you and your ilk pay the extra tax... plus mine and that of anyone else who doesn't agree with your proposal. Now THERE'S a fair compromise.
  365. Gisele Theriault from Montreal, Canada writes: Wir sind das Volk, excellent idea, but the most significant part is investment in infrastructure, and I don't mean highways. A high speed rail link between Montreal and Toronto would reduce pollution significantly as air travel is one of the worst polluters. It could also reduce car travel between the two cities and the trucking of goods.

    City transit also needs major improvements. One of the major reasons people don't use public transit is the inconvenience. Also, accept that people won't give up their cars, and will resist paying for parking at metro or train stations. We need to close more high congestion streets in city cores while providing free transportation within the core.

    Geo-thermal heating and cooling could offload energy systems tremendously and they aren't expensive to build in new developments. We need to update building codes to require them. As better insulations were developed, building codes were updated to require them. There is a strong resistance from builders to changes in the building code because they have to retrain, but it's high time they be updated.
  366. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: F Luzten...sorry for the late reply. Odd program that you requested me to watch on CBC. Perhaps you are not aware that the 'star' pf that show recanted one week later in the National Post, stating that many of the people he alleged were tied to the oil industry were, in fact, not. Until recently, Environment Canada did the exact same thing you allege big oil did. They are committed to this 'religion' of climate change and anyone who takes their money is, in my eyes, bought just like those who take oil money. This is exactly why i said we need to focus on evidence for each hypothesis - it either exists or it doesn't - rather than focus on personalities. I hold a research chair in a different field and don't feel strongly on this issue, but I can see rampant advocacy on the part of the climate group. We need dispassionate science. By the way, some of the people who argue in favour of alternative ideas are members of the most prestigious societies and are not oil funded. How shall we discount or discredit them? Let's discredit their hypotheses if they cannot be scientifically supported. If they are wrong, it will become clear - perhaps next Friday. If CO2 advocates are wrong, close scrutiny of that hypothesis could save us billions. I suggest you read work by Lawrence Solomon (Urban Renaissance Institute) and look at the campaigns waged against people who dared stand up to orthodoxy. Truly scary. Cheers.
  367. Ron Eh from Halifax, Canada writes: There has been enough hot air in these post to heat up a couple of planets. God save us!!
  368. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Those refusing to help mitigate AGW don't want to risk what they deem to be their personal entitlements. They can't see that they're claiming them from our shared future. They may be Conservative. They're certainly not conservative.
  369. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Michael H.. we missed you in the debate earlier this week when Dion wanted to bring Sopranos characters back into the Liberal party.

    You seem to hold a very high opinion of the editors of Science and Nature. Well cited journals to be sure, but not all they publish is factual. My lab took apart one of their papers a couple of years ago, which of course they would not publish. Looks bad to admit you published BS science. Of course, you realize as well that these journals favour certain themes at different times, and running against that tide is difficult.
  370. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: On the G@M survey about how canadian rate the climate change issue. After a total votes of 35831
    34% said that it rated in top 5 issues and 31% rated as a not that big of an issue and only 14% said at the very top. Sure looks to me like the media are the ones trying to make this a big deal out of this. Canadian might just be waking up and starting to think for themselves again.
  371. Ed Sears from Derbyshire, United Kingdom writes: Bill Johnson, the joint National Academies of Science of the G8 countries and China, India and Brazil in 2005 issued a joint declaration that there was sufficient consensus on human-caused climate change to act. Frontline science does not originate from Environment Canada: it seems bizarre that you suggest that the IPCC process does not consider alternative hypotheses: skeptics who are active climate researchers can contribute to the process. It's just that their views are marginal: you won't find the views of websites such as CO2science in climatology or earth science textbooks or the IPCC reports (they reckon increased CO2 will all be absorbed by increased plant growth - nice idea but doesn't hold up if you have studied plant behaviour, ecology, the oceans, composition of the atmosphere etc).

    BTW all this GW religion stuff is a load of rubbish. I think dinosaurs used to live on the earth but it's because of evidence i.e. fossils not because I've joined a dinosaur religion. Give me a break. The sense of panic comes from watching the most powerful person/country in the world delay action for 10 years: we're hoping the USA will come on side before Bush leaves office rather than the day the next president comes in.

    Several people were trying to chase the G M about the first lines of the article about weather in Paris. Paris along with the rest of Europe has had an exceptionally warm winter which IS a reasonable piece of evidence in favour of warming. The exact temperature on a particular day is insignificant except in so far as it may be above average and therefore fits the longer trend. The forecast for rain is irrelevant to AGW. The journalist is stretching a point and should have rephrased.
  372. spicydoc redux from wherethehellis, Kiribati writes: I remember seeing this same dynamic on The Simpson's. One day a bear wanders into town. The populace freaks out and demands action. Stealth fighters and other extreme measures are instituted. Lisa asks Homer if the measures aren't a bit over-the-top. Homer states that there are no more bears, so the measures are working. Lisa points out that this is specious reasoning and creates an analogy by suggesting a rock she just picked up has magic anti-cougar properties. Homer offers her money for the rock. A little later, the enormous tax bills come in, and the populace freaks out again. Mayor Quimby asks the townspeople if they are morons. They say yes.
  373. snow lander from Edmonton, Canada writes: Mike you are not so Sharp. Polar ice cap is 30 million km squared
    Europe is 9.8 million km squared. So no the reflective value of a frozen Europe will not exceed that of the polar ice caps.
  374. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Ed Sears from Derbyshire:

    The scientists are singing from the same hymnbook are they? Why not google 'Kevin Vranes' for his editorial following the AGU convention in San Francisco in late 2006, for a different take on the word 'consensus'.

    People commonly mistake GW for as evidence for AGW. But lately there hasn't even been GW. Between 2002 and 2006 inclusive the mid-troposphere cooled. Linear regression of the surface temperature network is flat, no warming, no cooling.

    So if panic is your thing, by all means have at 'er. But it appears the earth is taking a breather on all this latter day 20th century warming.

    Regards, BRK
  375. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: why will the policy recommendations of the smoking gun document be made available long before the actual scientific document on which it is based? Fend off criticisms?
  376. peter c from Whitehorse, Canada writes: Interesting how we see the same old neo-con groaners in these posts trying to score points - `trying` in the sense that they can`t even articulately make a point. Luft shooting off about water vapour; Medich making allusions to cults; 20 posts on one article. Tiresome indeed!
  377. mike sharp from writes: Actually Mr. Lander, Sharp is my last name. I must admit Snow is an unusual name but combined with your last name of Lander, quite evocative.
    Are you then agreeing that the Death of the Gulf Stream will plunge Europe into an Ice Age? And your Europe, does it include Russia?
    And while the formation of an ice age in Europe is consistent with 'climate change', it's entirely inconsistent with global warming.
    The point being, it's something Mr. Gore conveniently forgot to expound on in his other claim of inconvenience.
    Perhaps it was an inconvenient truth for him in his politically biased, self-serving shlockumentary.
    What say you pseudonym-boy?
  378. mike sharp from Victoria, writes: The most important aspect of Global Warming to Canadians is that one year ago it did not exist on our radar screens.
    Now thanks to a man's dog, we can all claim that yes indeed, the sky is falling.
    Is not anyone alarmed at just how faddish this whole hysteria is?
    A jaundiced eye should be cast at it's claims of planetary destruction.
    We are not so civilized that we didn't think Y2K or SARS or Avian Flu or Mad Cow wasn't going to kill us all either.
    Whoa everybody, take a deep breath.
  379. Bryce Richards from Calgary, Canada writes: Global Warming Will be A Major Problem well before 2020 . Threshhold Levels have already been passed and will not continue to impact weather for the next 30 years. Even if Major reductions in Kyoto Protocols were implemented today it would still take 30 years for these measures to have a major impact on global cooling. MY Example! If 50% of the greenhouse gas was created in just the past 20 years of industrialization of our global environment then a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses will be required over just the next 20 years to just make sure that global threshholds can be maintained thru 2020. The Global Climate Threshhold has already been overshot and will continue out of sight. A global climate model is one of most difficult models to control once the elements required to keep it in check have been abandoned. So what happens when all the large carbon sinks including the ocean algae and the large rain forests of the world die off? Time scales in the range of 10 to 30 years are no longer available to correct climate change because climate change it taking place on a exponential scale. Global Industrialization is now on the scale of a large volcanic erruption or asteroid impact event. I don't think that anyone can remotely take an educated guess as to how bad things will be by 2020, 2030, 2050.
  380. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: mike sharp: 'We are not so civilized that we didn't think Y2K or SARS or Avian Flu or Mad Cow wasn't going to kill us all either.'

    Y2K didn't bite us only the risk was acknowledged and 1000's of programmers, including myself, reviewed and rewrote code for months to ensure it wouldn't happen. I don't know about SARS, but Avian Flu and Mad Cow are still threats, and loom larger as globalisation and monocultures advance.
  381. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: Okay, Bryce, since you postulate that we may not have ten years, I don't have to save for a new car. There's my contribution. And we are in an event equal to an asteroid collision? Wow, sounds pretty hopeless to me. I'm going to walk down to the beach and watch for that cloud of impact dust as I sip my coffee.
    Now of course if we agree to that Kyoto thing, the asteroid collision will go away, right?
  382. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: During the Bubonic Plague 'Flaggelants' carried a scourge, a wooden stick with three or four leather pieces attached to one end, with a sharp iron spike about an inch in length, and whipped themselves as penance.

    Get YOUR very own whip now on E-Bay!
  383. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Typo: Flagellants
  384. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: For those who believe in human caused climate change it must be encouraging to see the world's birthrate drop, thereby reducing the evil human footprint on the planet. If that's not fast enough the believers will eventually realize that literal suicide is their only effective option.
  385. Scot Affleck from Prince George, Canada writes: Hey, you all! Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up. If the next twenty years of my life goes as fast as the last twenty did.......I am in trouble. Half of you are chicken littles and the rest of you are wasting your time casting your pearls before swine. God I love euphemisms and cliches and sayings. Sure wish I had a thesaurus. I could go on forever.
  386. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Well some may remember as I being rasied in Wentworth county in the late forties and early fifties seing nothing but seas of deep snow that covered the fields with nare a fench post in sight. And yes my dear Scott we even had to shovel a tunnel in the hugh snow drift for the horse drawn milk and bread wagons to make their way down good old concession #5...So for all who think this is just a cycle, when is coming back? Next year dude!
  387. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: Dear snow lander from edmonton, I hate to pop your bubble but the hockey stick has been debunk long ago. see the following link http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
    Please do tell who is the most moronic. Spare us your venom. It is not because some disagree with you that he is an idiot.
  388. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: For more interesting insight into this whole Climate change, you could also read this:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/#more-199

    Facinating !!!! The more a read about this, the more questions I have.
  389. Sue W from Canada writes: ' ....We want action. We're ready for sacrifices. But what action? ....'

    Over at the Toronto Star someone has one solution to helping solving this mess even after you're long gone: ... 'If you choose cremation ask that your teeth be removed to avoid mercury release in the air'.... Wish I were a dentist, or at least married to one. ChaChing.
  390. Don Adams from Canada writes: Ahhh. A gorgeous winter Sunday morning. Clear, sunny, crisp (-12'C) fresh dusting of snow on the ground. No evidence of global warming here. Guess I'll take my grandkids sliding today. Polar bears are real happy with this too :-)
  391. Derek Holtom from Swan River (Only cowards don't use their real names on here), writes: THE END IS NEAR! REPENT! REPENT!
  392. Gizella Oehm from Toronto, Canada writes: It's hard to know if, with the change now in full swing, that we can do anything to stop it. But if we're causing global warming, I guess we can stop certain practices to slow it down. My recommendation: reduce packaging, especially the plastic variety. It would kill 3 birds with one stone: slow petroleum consumption (required for plastic manufacture), stop putting something non-biodegradeable into the environment, and stop the noxious emissions arising from its production.
  393. Weekend Warrior53 from Orleans, Canada writes: I question the accuracy of the Globe and Mail poll when people were very angry when the cost of gasoline went thru the roof last summer. The poll found that higher gasoline prices was a solution acceptable to majority of people. Seems I recall the NDP coming out (in typical fashion) against the increases. Take a flight lately ? Are people flying less? Have you priced one of those 'smart' cars (sardine cans on wheels!). Pretty expensive 'second' car ! It's been pretty cold in theis area of late. Anybody here turning down the thermostat to around 15 - that would come out to around 30% drop)? I've read many kudos to couples who decided to not have any car. I noted that most did not seem to have any children, since they didn't mention them in their testimonials. Please don't depend on others with vehicles for rides . To those with kids: too bad they'll miss out on many valuable life experiences. If you really want to know what people are ready and willing to do, check out the economics of what is happening instead. Not to say global warming is not a concern, but talk is cheap, especially the emotional type !
  394. John Miller from Toronto, Canada writes: On balance, it seems to me from all these posts that the Globe's attempt to begin a lemming-like stampede over global warming has utterly failed. The front page picture of those three 'starving' polar bears that look perfectly fat and healthy didn't help the cause. Nor did that silly poll which supposedly found Canadians want to see gas rationing and a bunch of other things that would wreck the economy throw millions out of work. A more accurate take on the public mood, in my view, is their online reader poll that asked where they place climate change on a list of issues confronting Canada. 73% say among the top five or it's not a big issue at all. Face it, folks, with Canadians responsible for all of 2% of global GHG, it's challenging to convince the lemmings to join the Globe’s editors in jumping off a cliff.
  395. J Kay from Canada writes: A Canadian from Cole: I hate to break it to you but the 'hockey stick', that is Mann et al's work has not been debunked at all. The only thing debunk in that whole process was McKitrick and McIntyre's work, which is the only thing denialists point to as the debunking. The fact is M&M's paper was specious, poorly researched and quite frankly wrong. There were gaps and egregious errors in much of their work, simple interpolation issues, a outright faulty understanding of thermodynamics on McKitrick's part especially, which given he's an econometrician and not a climate scientist or thermodynamicist isn't overly surprising. The employed pink noise, with a high degree of autocorrelation, which alone will show hockey stick like behaviour but they passed it off as random noise (which it technically is) to the layman who doesnt know any better and doesn't know about Fourier Analysis or power spectrum analysis of noise patterns, hence while it was noise, it wasnt random in the sense that most people think of, hence it was as presented to the public, misleading.

    Mann's (MBH) work has be validate by a number of other temperature reconstructions from other proxy data and other sites, all of which supports Mann's work. McKitrick and McIntyre's work has been thoroughly answered and refuted in the academic journals, the was a response by Mann and others in Nature even though McKitrick and McIntyre's work was refused publication in Nature and for good reason.

    Regarding the Khilyuk and Chilingar paper, well that's been laughed at by the academy as well and the journal itself - a very low level low impact factor journal that's primary focus is water resources - has a scathing rebuttal of their article. Their paper is not taken seriously, it has only one citation, by themselves. Seeing as they are petroleum engineers with no climate science training or background again I'll instead defer to the experts, such as Dr. Andrew Weaver et al.
  396. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: John Miller;
    If the G and M online poll is an indication of how Canadians fell about the climate change issue then another way of stating it is that 81% of canadians think the climate change is among the top 5 issues facing this country today.
    As for a canadian from cole harbour. Manns hockey stick model was not 'debunked' it was mostly affirmed by an NAS committee which reprted to congress. This fact was printed in the journal Nature among others. Here is a link, http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html

    Here is the title:
    Nature
    Published online: 28 June 2006; | doi:10.1038/4411032a
    Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
    But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.
    Geoff Brumfiel

  397. John E7 from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: According to Mr Gore's documentary, Canada contributes about 3.xx% to greenhouse gases. Yet we do more damage than others because of our 'individual' energy consumption? Ok then, what weighs more - a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
    The other problem with global warming is 'thermal pollution' - its not just green house gas alone that is causing this problem.
    Speaking of SUV's, why doesn't the government bring their emissions standard on par with other auto's and trucks?
    And, unfortunately our livestock - bovines, sheep, pigs & chickens - add a substantial amount of greenhouse gas.
    Drive less, eat less meat and don't heat your house as high nor cool it as cool as you did before.
    But oh wait, I have transgressed upon the holy alter of Consumption!!
  398. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: I wonder if 'The Church of Scientology' is considering a lawsuit for infringement. They hold the rights for new 'religions' based on scientific theory.
  399. Austin So from Canada writes: Interesting take on Vranes, Brian: '...We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric...But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in...None of this is to say that the risk of climate change is being questioned or downplayed by our community; it's not. It is to say that I think some people feel that we've created a monster by limiting the ability of people in our community to question results that say 'climate change is right here!''. Seems like he was spot on about people such as yourself. http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/12/sowhathappenedatagulastw.php#more
  400. J Kay from Canada writes: A Canadian from Cole: and anyone else. I forgot to point out that the site you directed everyone to, World Climate Report, is a propaganda site funded by the Greening Earth Society, which itself is a front for the Western Fuels Association, whose mission is to promote the positive benefits for the planet of global warming. Hardly an unbiased or objective source of scientific criticism or information.

    After looking at the linked article you gave, I decided to look at the front page to see what the newest news was and it was gobsmacking let me tell you. Apparently global warming will help you quit smoking. The entire article was laughable in it's absurdity and shear audacity to try to link the two. The start with an utterly specious argument that a google search of tobacco and global warming brings up millions of hits and imply some anti-tobacco agenda among those who accept anthropogenic global warming. What they dont mention is that those million hits point out that many of the people who are global warming denialists were also employed by the tobacco industry (Philip Morris, etc.) to confuse the public about the evidence linking cigarette smoking and cancer by questioning the science and the motives of those scientists involved in researching cancer and smoking. People like Fred Singer, like Steve Milloy, et al. They used the same line of attack. Scientists who are 'pro' global warming are in it for the grant money, as the cancer researchers before them who linked smoking and lung cancer were. Nothing like an entire article that not only says global warming is good because it will help you quit smoking but then uses utterly specious argument and out right duplicity in doing so. And yet somehow people actually believe this crap.
  401. Subhadeep Chakrabarti from Edmonton, AB, Canada writes: Global warming IS here, and it is here to stay. Maybe we should just stop pointing fingers and adjust our lifestyles to live with it. Btw, I'm yet to see evidence that the changes climate is actually a BAD thing for Canadians.
  402. David E from Canada writes: No, no, no!

    There can NOT possibly be global warming. As all good conservatives know, the Earth is FLAT. There is no globe to be warmed.
  403. goofy fathead from Canada writes: speak for yourselves. i for one am loving the warmer weather and am not worried. sure there will be a transition period where we have to adapt, but in the long run the benifits of global warming could far outweigh the the problems. we could wind up with antarctica thawing out and opening up the last terrestrial frontier for colonization, the northwest passage may open up for year round shipping, and who needs to shovel walkways ? it was warmer during the triassic period, and there was a higher density of life on the planet. second, theres no definite proof that the warming trend is not a natural occurance.. like on mars, the warming could be a mostly natural phenomenon. if it were natural and not man made, should we really interfere and try to stop it? this is a non - issue among the normal working class ppl i know in calgary, and a blessing to just about everyone who didnt have to shovel their driveways every second day this year. its only an issue because dion decided to make it one, and the newspapers as usual champion the liberal pipe dreams just because its not conservative.
  404. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: peter c says 'Interesting how we see the same old neo-con groaners in these posts trying to score points - `trying` in the sense that they can`t even articulately make a point. Luft shooting off about water vapour; Medich making allusions to cults; 20 posts on one article. Tiresome indeed!' No, what is tiresome, peter, are people like you who bring absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you have nothing to offer the debate (and it is clear you don't), then turn off your computer to save energy and the planet.
  405. Dog's Best Friend from Canada writes: Whew. The amount of hot air generated over this topic is truly amazing. I didn't read all four hundred comments though I did periodic stops to gauge the commentary and it didn't take long to blame global warming on either Stephen Harper or George Bush. The increases in greenhouse gases were occurring long before Harper was Prime Minister and Bush was President. I guess the people who attribute the repsonsibility to these two men believe that once they're out of office, everything will go back to the way it was, when the air was sweeter and cleaner, there was no pollution to be concerned about and the glaciers will magically restore to former thicknesses. This problem is a global problem and North Americans can do their part for the planet. We can go back to an agarian society, rid ourselves of fossil fuel energy generation and industry, unless we adopt nuclear energy as an alternative (but that gets the hippie types upset) but should we take those steps, we should remind ourselves that neither China or India will follow suit. Global warming is a global problem and unless all world partners are part of the solution, there will be little change and al that will be managed is to put off the problem for a little bit longer. So governments legislate and people get ready to live a simplier life and exercise the three R's. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Let the environment games begin.
  406. Edward Thomas from Kingston, Canada writes: Mr./Ms. Fathead, I would not want to destroy the coastal homes of one to two billion human beings in order to avoid shovelling the driveway, or swamp the cities of Vancover, St. John's, etc. for the opportunity to colonize a bare piece of polar rock. But if such tradeoffs are convenient for you, then by all means ... I'm sure the folks in Manhatten will understand their survivial is less important than your comfort.
    Beware your assumption that average warming will make all local climes more temperate. I suggest you research how the North Atlantic current affects European climate. Perhaps you will then understand how unpredictable the consequences of climate change really are.
  407. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: Thank you so much for the feed back. Like I said, very fascinating.
    My own research into this subject continues, thanks to the posted link. In the end, I will make my own decision into this Climate change.
    There is no doubt that the earth is going through changes. I am at the point now where I am debating whether humans can change this or even slow things down. If this whole climate change is bound to happen no matter what, then wouldnt it just be better to put whatever technology and energy we have, in adapting to the changes instead of just delaying it or even trying to fight it so that a segment of the population feels good about themselves. So far, this winter has been very mild in Nova Scotia, personally I love it. I burn less wood pellets and save a bundle in the end. Even my electricity consumption is down. Wrongly or righltly so, I still believe that Kyoto is a waste of resources and efforts but that is another issue by itself.
  408. View from the West Coast from Canada writes: I normally only scan these conversations for sheer the amusement of reading the polarized views from the fringes. With this article we are lucky in that many have decided it necessary to repeatedly state or defend their knowledge on the subject with the top contributors/offenders being;

    Name Count
    Scot Loucks 22
    Don Adams 20
    Duncan Munro 18
    Hugh Campbell 11
    Andrew MacGillivray 11
    Dave Medich 10
    Agent Smith 10

    Not being a subject expert as those above I can only provide my personal views. I believe mankind over decades and centuries has accelerated Global Warming/Climate Change, but that there is very little we can do to decelerate this in the short term. Those demanding radical changes to our lifestyles are definitely smoking too much of BC’s cash crop. The only likely changes we will see from the Government are stricter pollution laws and grant money for new clean technologies. Canada by itself will make little difference in this global phenomenon and recent events show how much influence we have on the world stage.

    The sky is not falling and planet earth is taking us along for the ride whether we want this or not.
  409. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Austin So:

    Turn your left wing filter off and re-read Vranes. The monster he's discussing is an uninformed public that has begun to stampede in a direction that was originally desired but has somehow gotten out of control. When he talks about limiting the ability to question that 'climate change is right here', he means that climate scientists who express doubt about the level of immediate risk are treated with hostility.

    In other words the monster he's talking about is not me, he's talking about you.

    By the way thanks for your compliment on my 'unassailable arguments'. I basked in a warm glow for hours afterward.

    As for my 'unassailable arguments' when are you believers going to answer my hypothesis on the current 5 year cooling trend? So far all I've gotten is incoherent rambling dissertations on 'variability'.

    Regards, BRK
  410. Sue Rowan from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: While Canadians may be getting the message on global warming, I fear that our governments and courts are still lightyears behind us. Betty Krawczyk, a well known environmental activist who has been involved in blockading the destruction of old growth forests in British Columbia for years is currently facing Contempt of Court charges in BC Supreme Court for peacefully and non-violently refusing to move for construction crews hired by our government to build a highway to Whistler in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Why are we continuing to see massive highway expansion projects in BC that will inevitably contribute to global warming through increased car/truck traffic and urban sprawl? Why is the public not making this connection and speaking out? Why are we accepting the worst possible options for highway expansion that destroy precious habitat? Why are our courts determined to support the status quo and penalise those peacefully trying to raise awareness? Betty Krawczyk will likely be sentenced to significant jail time (upwards of a year) for her crime of standing up for nature. I think all Canadians should be ashamed of where we stand as a nation on the environment. It is time governments start acting in humanities' best interests, recognising that quality of life reaches well beyond unending economic growth.
  411. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Well, well, well, there you go again, J Kay. Poopoohing McKitrick and McIntyre's work and credentials flows easily off your keyboard; how about your own credentials? Number of publications in the field etc.?

    A rejection by Nature doesn't mean that much; this happens when you go against the consensus. Columbus had trouble getting funds, Einstein had problems getting his research published. If dissent is completely muzzled there will be no way for scientific breakthroughs. I think you would agree with me on this last point. So please bear with us little while longer. Even Big Oils pockets, while deep, are limited :)

    As researchers added dots on Mann's temperature chart from their own research they found Mann's chart consistently retraced the lower estimates. They also noticed gaps, which coincided with higher temperatures. Finally, one wonders why the chart doesn't start a wee little bit earlier in climate history, say 400 years? Around the time when Vikings grew grain (wheat or barley, not sure) in Greenland, which to this very day (despite genetic engineering) is impossible. Can you give us a refresher on these findings?
  412. Prashanta Dhakal from Canada writes: Here's the wiki entry of the scientist who questioned human involvement in global warming and is part of the article Canadian from Cole Harbour points to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeorgeV.Chilingar

    Would he have unbiased opinions? You decide.
  413. Jim Cohoon from Chilliwack, Canada writes: The primary issue is not science. It is ethics. Do we really care about this planet, or care enough to be responsible for our actions? If not, the science ultimately doesn't matter anyway. It will be evaded or cherry-picked to suit pre-determined ideological positions. Possibly the most significant result of this debate is having the debate at all. If more people are encouraged to become responsible world citizens, we are all winners - regardless of the science.
  414. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: One of many, many, many sites that contradict the global warming high priests and priestesses. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
  415. Me and Mr Magee from cold wild north, Canada writes: welcome to the new climate, same as the old climate... harsh and unforgiving. Nothing but politically correct posturing by interest groups here.
  416. Rex Shoop from Hazelton, Canada writes: WHETHER THEIR IS GLOBAL WARMING HAPPENING OR NOT ONE THING WE DO KNOW FOR SURE: HARPER HAS SUDDENLY JUMPED ONTO THE BANDWAGON NOT BECAUSE HE CARES OR EVEN BELIEVES IT IS A PROBLEM BUT FOR VOTES ONLY. HOW SICK IS THAT?
  417. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Brian Klappstein: Perhaps because I am unsure what cooling trends you are referencing? could you indicate the primary sources? The subject of the temperature of the troposhere is not one that has been ignored by scientists regardless of what you think. For example here is an article that discusses measured trends in the troposhere and attempts to reconcile them with other data. It was published in Nature back in 2004. Abstract posted. Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends Qiang Fu1, Celeste M. Johanson1, Stephen G. Warren1 and Dian J. Seidel2 Top of page From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1−3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of approx0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is approx1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate
  418. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: BRK - Keep up the good work!
  419. Bob MacMillan from Hamilton, Canada writes: Glenn Hawley, Thanks for the info on diesel engine emissions and bio-diesel. A simple Google search turned up two bio-diesel producers in my area - Rothsay Biodiesel and Biox Corp. I will seriously consider a diesel engine for my next vehicle - maybe something simple and positive out of all this bickering.

    Some of the posts this weekend covered one of the other extinction scenarios - an asteroid strike. Saw a really good program on this on a PBS HD channel in the last few weeks. The conclusion of a lot of good research is that trying to blow up an asteroid in space is not a real option. The major fragments would still impact and do more damage over a wider area than a single major strike. If one of these things comes our way, there's no way to dodge it.

    I'm off to get some fresh air. Maybe next weekend we can go back to to talking politics, or some other less depressing subject.
  420. s tesla from vancouver, Canada writes: What happens in Canada, has its imprint on other countries in the world - effeting millions and millions of people, creatures and plant life. Thus, what happens in other countries in the world has its effect on us. The 'ego' needs to be set aside and an acknowledgment all of the suffering that occurs because of Global Warming needs to be made. This is not a made up problem. Are skeptics so afraid to take personal responsibility? Don't think about yourself - think about your neighbour - all the billions of them, that span the planet.
  421. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: The Financial Post has been running a series of articles on 'global warming skeptics' called The Deniers. The Jan. 26 issue features a profile of Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project. His claim - the earth will enter a period of global cooling starting in 2012 to 2015, which will 'inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60' lasting some 50 years. Dr. Abdussamatov is an expert on solar radiation, and is one of the leading critics of the hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of the observed increase in the Earth's temperature. He postulates that an increase in the amount of solar energy resulting from cyclical variations in the Sun's radiation of energy are responsible for global warming on Earth and a parallel warming trend on Mars that is causing an increase in that planet's temperature and a shrinking of its polar ice caps: 'Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians...These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance. The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.'
  422. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: To: Aaron Treacher

    The data I am referencing is from the NOAA website and also the CRU website. It is a set of global monthly temperature anomalies of different 'flavours' for both the mid-troposphere and surface data. One of the MSU flavours I'm using is in fact from Dr. Fu of the University of Washington. So it is adjusted for the effect described in the abstract quoted above.

    And it shows the same 5 year trend as the University of Alabama dataset. Both show the mid-tropophere cooling of about 0.1 degrees C in the last 5 years (based on linear regression).

    But it gets worse. You could argue since the stratosphere is cooling the most over the same 5 year period, that we are just seeing a enhanced greenhouse effect, but where then is the warming at the surface?

    There is none. Linear regression of the GHCN SST data set of monthly gobal anomalies is basically flat, maybe a very slight raise in the global temperature anomaly, but the CRUHADd3 data set shows that even the surface is cooling slightly. The only place left to look for any warming is the oceans.

    And here it is even worse yet. The latest analysis of an improved ocean depth temperature monitoring network shows a cooling of the oceans between 2003 and 2005. In fact as much as 1/3 the gain in ocean heat between 1955 and 2000 may have been lost in this period.

    The abstract quoted above notes that AOCGCM computer analysis shows the troposphere should warm faster than the surface. But the exact opposite is happening. The logical conclusion is that there is something wrong with the physics models incorporated into the GCMs.

    Regards, BRK
  423. Iso Quant from Canada writes: Dave Medich - It is true. You do not have to live in fear. That is why religion was created in the first place - to appease those who can't come to terms with the reality that when you die - it's over. People like you have trouble accepting that all you have is your own little pathetic life in Windsor and therefore you must cling to the belief that in an after-life you might actually amount to something. You are the one drinking Kool-aid my friend. The only evidence I see of Adam and Eve being at the top of the family tree is that after thousands of generations of inbreeding, off-spring such as yourself are created - a genetic bottleneck indeed. Unfortunately that can't explain 99.9% of the human race that is more intelligent than you.
  424. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: View from the West Coast from Canada, if you want to critique my posts go ahead, but don't criticize me for having something to say when all you can do is post more 'there nothing we can' drivel and then try and use pseudoscience to back it up. This planet is in BIG trouble, and Canada's position in the global economy means that we can provide a massive impetus to a more energy efficient global economy - if we want to, and that means having a government committed to action, not coverups, as the failure to release the NAFTA enviromental reports, indicates that Harpo is covering up damaging reports.
  425. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: J Luft from Calgary, Canada ....... Good post. I've been following that series in the NP and many of the skeptics are not uneducated loons but real scientists with real scientific concerns. A few of the 'deniers' were actually involved in the original U.N. reports but got turned off by the censoring of certain data that didn't fit the 'political' agenda. Unfortunately, papers like the G&M, the Toronto Star and the TV medium are not interested as they have arbitrarily decided the issue is 'closed'. They are acting like 'Pravda' and toeing the leftist, party line.
  426. j.r ewing from vancouver, Canada writes: It is amazing how many people pretend to care. I mean nobody really cares. How arrogant, we are going to control and manipulate the climate by cutting back on our greenhouse gas emissions. Human meddling is what gets us into trouble every time. This is a political war, nothing else. Environmentalists want political power and global warming theory is the most conveniant because it lends itself well to fear mongering and is very elusive.
  427. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Duncan Munro says 'This planet is in BIG trouble' No it isn't.
  428. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Brian,
    Well I'll go look at it when I have time (later tonight) but why do you think it would be adjusted data? As for Dr. Fu, don't you think it is a little strange that she would collect data indicating that the troposhere is cooling and then publish that she thinks it is increasing as predicted? Do you have a link to the MRU data?
  429. Iso Quant from Canada writes: Dave......I challenge you to find a post of mine where I express a view on climate change or Al Gore's documentary. Quit trying to paint eveyone who disagrees with your nonsense with the same brush. Not all issues are black vs white, east vs west, or left vs right. In fact, many people evaluate issues such as climate change on a case-by-case basis and continue to re-evaluate as new information becomes available. This is in contrast to those who merely parrot information that supports their strongly preconceived and ill-informed view.

    Someone aptly described the oversimplification of issues by several posters on G&M boards by suggesting that, 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem you face will inevitably be perceived as a nail'....I believe that poster was referring to individuals like you. Even J Luft makes an attempt at logic.
  430. Iso Quant from Canada writes: ....oops. I take that back about Luft.....see two above my previous post...
  431. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Iso Quant ...you wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face with a shovel. Dolt. By the way.....the planet is NOT in big trouble.
  432. Iso Quant from Canada writes: Luft, didn't you mean 'hammer'?

    As for the planet being in big trouble, please refer to a single post where I suggested this was the case. Like Dave, you're so busy parroting that you forgot to read my post. I was condemning your unwillingness to make an argument, not your views on the state of the planet. Now give Dave his hammer back.....
  433. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Iso Quant.....absolutely nothing you have posted moves your argument (whatever it might be) forward. You might want to read my posts where I have made an argument....unlike you.
  434. Paul Jones from Canada writes: wow, hot topic apparently. well, i can imagine the drivel thats been spewed out on here when Luft is claiming to have actually made a point. sure there Luft, hope it was a good one. be happy im not scrutinizing too much today. i still havent seen any of you actually contest my views on why we should support Kyoto. but im sure someone is going to attack me for that one. ill give you a hint on how best to attack my stand: READ THE TREATY! otherwise its obvious no one on here knows what theyre talking about and shouldnt be spewing ignorance. oh, and everyone, hypocricy is as close as home. we're all hypocrits. stop trying to prove youre not, THATS being a hypocrit.
  435. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: To: Aaron Treacher

    RE: 5 YEAR COOLING TREND

    Read carefully. I am talking about a cooling trend between Jan.2002 and Dec.2006 (5 years inclusive). Not earlier.

    The link is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

    As for my belief the data are corrected as discussed, it's because the description of it at the NOAA website is accompanied by this comment:

    '**Fu et al. (2004), developed a method for quantifying the stratospheric contribution to the satellite record of tropospheric temperatures and applied an adjustment to the UAH and RSS temperature record that attempts to remove the satellite contribution (cooling influence) from the middle troposphere record. This method results in trends that are larger than the those from the respective source.'

    Regards, BRK
  436. Carl Hansen from Canada writes: Why is it still snowing?
  437. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: No change can happen until we can see clearly what is happening. Until we are able to confront the widespread ideology and brainwashing that has instilled a belief in the necessity of cars, we will remain blind. Psychologically weather changes impact our psyche. However, it is an abstract problem of quantities of atmospheric gasses and complicated agregate fluid dynamics. It is only our super-sensitivity to light and colour [weather] that has forced this problem into our brain. What is more astounding is that more immediate, more viscereal impacts in everyday life, go unnoticed. How can we have a street within only a few metres of our doorsteps - where is is unsafe to simply stand still. We accept these impositions on our safety and person because we are brainwashed. Cars are not progress. Cars are not necessary. Cars are not safe. Cars are not sustainable. Cars elevate social status. That is the culture of propaganda. Have you ever tried talking to someone or hugging them in a car? In public? You will get run over. It is absurd and inhuman, but we think it is normal. That is why when we address the issues of atmospheric poisoning in our everyday lives - cars, energy consumption. We cannot see clearly what is happening. Cars can not be run on green-bio-sunshine fuel. That is called greenwashing. Cars require the energy of moving 2000lbs of steel to carry a 150lb load[person]. If we used biolfuels as we now use fossil fuels, we would not have enough land to grow food, what we grow we would burn in our gas tanks instead of eat. Solar and wind power are promising. But they are not superconcentrated like fossil fuels or nuclear. You cannot waste so much - the way that cars REQUIRE. Aluminum and other ultra light materials for constructing cars are energy intensive, more even than steel. Replacing all the steel cars in the world with hybrid would burn so much fuel it would negate any benefit.... I could go on. There is a simple answer, but it is to simple to see for you.
  438. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: J Luft: Regarding the The Financial Post article and Habibullo Abdussamatov. Apparently Abdussamatov has no peer-reviewed publication. There is no connection of solar cycles to the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet. Anything the sun does is on top of the rapidly increasing base level of forcings associated with CO2, CH4, N2O etc. The changes in solar would need to be 5 times as large as they are currently estimated to be to even cancel out the GHG forcing let alone lead to a cooling. And isn't it odd that 3 years of melting glaciers is enough to convince people there is global wamring on Mars, but the much more extensive evidence on Earth is not sufficent to show global warming here?
  439. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: The BIGGEST SOURCE of the EVIL CO2 is HUMAN! So only breathe half as much. Running and 'exercizing' should be OUTLAWED! IT IS FOR THE CHILDREN! HELP SAVE THE WORLD! The .ooooo1 percent change in CO2 is going to END LIFE ON THIS PLANET AS WE KNOW IT!
  440. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: Hugh Campbell

    Hugh buddy, you are so yesterday on the solar thing.

    You are talking about solar irradiation, not the currently proposed cosmic ray modulation theory of solar influence. The basic theory is that the solar wind 'sweeps away' incoming cosmic rays, which in turn has the effect of lowering cloud seeding, clouds of course having a huge modulating effect on climate.

    So it all depends on variability in the solar eruptive activity not changes in the net W/m2 of solar irradiation. Not that the cosmic theory is really new, it's just been avoided by institutions like the IPCC.

    As for your comment 'There is no connection of solar cycles to the impact of greenhouse gases'. You didn't really mean that, did you Hugh?

    Regards, BRK
  441. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell says 'J Luft: Regarding the The Financial Post article and Habibullo Abdussamatov. Apparently Abdussamatov has no peer-reviewed publication. '

    What nonsense. Habibullo Abdussamatov is the head of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project. Yeah, a real layman.

    Abdussamatov goes on to say 'Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and 'will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60' lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again....'There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from now,' Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. 'A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse-gas emissions'.'
  442. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Ed: I do trust the National Academies reports much more than Joe Blow publishing in Science/Nature. They screen their committees for lunatics of all types, so their panels are trustworthy. IPCC is not. Lawrence Solomon describes how their hurricane expert sat in disbelief when the chair of the committee gave a public talk equating global climate change with increasing frequency of hurricanes. When he later corrected the chair that no such evidence exists...he was removed from the panel. Easy to dean with dissenters. Test the hypotheses dispassionately. If we railroad a program, and make people pay billions for the programs, ecologists will never again be listened to if they cannot deliver the goods.
  443. Austin So from Canada writes: Brian, I'm not sure how your reasoning works, but clearly if that is the conclusion you get from Vranes' blog, then I can see why you believe all that you write about. Yes, he is concerned now that climate change has become politicized, but he clearly recognizes that decades of science did little to spur a change in policy, and so the politicization of the issue is a necessary evil to combat people like you. Vranes states that the risk of man-made climate change is real. This is in direct contradiction to what you advocate, namely that is it not. Any little snippet, eh Brian? Not the hallmark of good science. Does make one wonder about the quality of data and the references you utilize, if you cannot even get this right.
  444. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: We should make sure we set aside a few billion dollars for child psychologists and therapists in our environmental plan. It's unclear how many innocent children have been affected by the fear-mongering and paranoia shoved down their throats. We should plan for the worst case scenario.
  445. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: Austin So:

    Actually I believe what I write because, unlike most people who post here, I take the trouble to look at the data. I would guess this whole '5 year cooling trend' hypothesis has got the AGW believers such as yourself a little rattled, but are you seriously suggesting that the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are suspect data sources?

    Regards, BRK
  446. Russ Charlton from Canada writes: Industry and government need to get their collective heads out of their as...s, stop polluting, stop dicking around and do something positive that oh yeah indeed will hit their bottom line. hey the alternative is no business at all so you think there might be some incentive? Alternative energy needs to be engaged full speed ahead, ditch the fossil fuels people, tar sands the whole stinking polluting mess, the time is nigh. A whole new economic base awaits the brainiac who can dump fossil fuels forever. As a collective soul surely we can do this now where before there was no impetus.
  447. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: BPK, I don't see the cooling trend in the Mid-troposphere although I just just counted anomolous events in the UW analysis of the RSS data set. Unlike you're suggestion, however scientists aren't ignorant of the data nor are they ignoring it. excerts from the discussion: Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. science 2005. ... The real conundrum in Fig. 4 is the complex behavior of the observations. On monthly timescales, the amplification behavior of models and observations is consistent. On decadal timescales, however, only the RSS-based T2LT and TFu trends have scaling factors that are in reasonable accord with model results (Fig. 4, C and D) (25). Despite sustained warming of the tropical land and ocean surfaces, the UAH T2LT trend is negative—i.e., Rß(z) < 0. The UAH Rß(z) value seems physically implausible (14, 15). Prolonged surface warming should destabilize tropical temperature profiles, thus enhancing conditions for moist convection and readjustment of atmospheric temperatures to an MALR. In contrast to the model results and theoretical expectations, both radiosonde data sets used here have Rß(z) ratios << 1.0 (Fig. 4, C and D). As in the case of the satellite data sets, there are large structural uncertainties in radiosonde estimates of tropospheric temperature change (4-7). ... The RSS T2LT, T2, and TFu trends are physically consistent (all three layers warm as the surface warms), whereas the UAH data show trends of different sign in the lower- and midtroposphere. These results support the contention that the tropical warming trend in RSS T2LT data is more reliable than T2LT trends in other observational data sets. This conclusion does not rest solely on comparisons with climate models. It is independently supported by the empirical evidence of recent increases in tropospheric water vapor and tropopause height (26, 36), which are in accord with warming but not cooling of the free troposphere.
  448. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: What about the report that NASA has discovered global warming is also affecting the planet Mars?
  449. snow lander from Edmonton, Canada writes: To the morons on this forum that actually believe EVEN ONE word in the worldclimatereport. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
    You guys just made my day! HAHAHAHAHA!
  450. Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: It is amazing how 'R B from Calgary' castigates people for their lack of accuracy in their posting of the facts or interpretation of them, yet when it comes to other issues that 'R B' has commented on other G & M articles, the information he has provided suffers from the same lax standards he accuses others of. How selective.
  451. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: How come this topic has been open so long? Are the Liberals funding this? This is irregular for the G&M do do this.
  452. Mark Denis from Calgary, Canada writes: Will the G&M give this story a rest already, your own poll showed that only 30% thought it was in their top 3 priorities.

    You had had a great post on earlier about the Conservatives ads, but chose to shut it down because it did not agree with your Liberal spin. You knew you guys were toast because the adds said the truth. Represent the public's view and respect it will you.
  453. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Aaron Treacher:

    One final comment on this thread.

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'anomalous values'. Graph up the whole data set. Linear regression shows that between Jan-2002 and Dec-2006 the mid-troposphere cooled in the RSS (HW) dataset, the UAH dataset and the UAH (HW) dataset. Slopes vary between -.024 and -.027. But you don't need to resort to linear regression. Depending on the vertical scale, you can see the decline in mid-troposphere temperatures with your eye in this time period. They all show the same cooling trend.

    As for your long winded cut and paste, its pretty clear the authors don't like the UAH dataset, isn't it? But lately the trends from the other datasets can't be much to their liking either. As for their comment on tropospheric warming, sure that's true if you look back to the 90's. But something different is going on lately, and that's been my point all along.

    The alarming part for the scientists has got to be, that after troposphere temps tracked surface temps through the 80s and 90s (less so for the UAH dataset), in the last 5 years they've begun to diverge.

    I can see how AGW believers feel a little blindsided by this. A good question is why hasn't anyone from the climate science community told us civilians that GW has stalled for the moment.

    Regards, BRK
  454. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Brian, Out of 360 datapoints in the RSS data set (Fu correction) 56 are negative (below the mean) and 304 are positive (above the mean) and you are suggesting this is a cooling trend? If you examine only the graph presenting the uncorrected data you can see that http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif while these years are cooler than 1998 they are also warmer than any point previous to that they are also warmer than 1999, 2000 and 2001. Therefore your "cooling trend" is only returning the temperature to an elevated level previously unseen outside of 1998. You can also observe that the graph throughout the period of 1980-2006 does not move in a straight linear line but moves instead in a series of curves. If you are only interested in parts of this graph then you can also easily state that the troposphere has seen similar trends in the years between 1980-1986 and 1991-1994, and in each case the subsequent rise in temperature folowing these years reached a new height. If you were to make a prediction it would be tempting to suggest a similar cycle is about to take place and we will also see new heights reached before the close of the decade. This is similar regarding the blended global temperature over the land and sea as posted on the NOAA site. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif Again because all the post 2000 years are at a similar elevated temperature compared to the mean for 1961-1990 that this is global cooling?. If so I hardly think that 5 years that are all significantly warmer than than the mean are an example of a "cooling trend". The cut and paste was due to your continued assertion that scientists are unaware or sweeping data under the so called rug. Clearly they are not. Yours, AT I
  455. Karl Lauten from Nipawin, Canada writes: Mass hysteria.......and helped by this kind of reporting!
  456. ronald46 Byers from swift current, Canada writes: Who Am I I am all of the things which you see, touch and hear I am part of all of you who have yet to learn That you must care and have respect for me So that I can provide life for you If you continue to use and abuse me Then I will rid myself of you And after a while When there is no sign of you left I will begin again, a new start But you will never know Because you were blind and could not see Until to late The wonders around you that are all part of me
  457. D H from Canada writes: Hmm. So much has been said already. I think I'd be willing to sell our 2nd car (4cyl Mazda) and maybe just use the small SUV (4cyl) that we bought to carry our 2 wee ones around, as our main means of transportation. Sure, it would be inconvenient, but at least I would be doing my part. I would hate to see our need for convenience (why do so many of us needs cars in cities), and unending pursuit of material goods (hands up anyone who has not bought completely unneccesary items in the past week) and almost complete disregard for the environment (why do some areas have statutes preventing people from hanging clothes on lines to dry in the sun). We can all do our part, every little bit helps. I would rather aid an effort like this, than be a hindrance to it.
  458. Susie Q from Canada writes: Mark Denis - read the poll again. 85% of G&M readers think it's a Top 5 issue.
  459. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: If we are having,"Global Warming", and glaciers on Greenland, Antarctica and everywhere else are melting at alarming rates, then how come ocean levels are not rising at the same alarming rates? Please explain!
  460. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey, looks like Canadian's may have finally got climate change religion. However, for the 60% of you who said you are willing to drive HALF AS MUCH to help curb climate change... Please, stop lieing to the pollsters, you are confusing everyone and messing with public policy.
  461. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Great name calling website. Utter garbage from alpha to omega and A to Z. J. Luft and Scott Loucks lead the pack.
  462. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: response to [J Billins] absolutely, looks like we're going to get hit hard with more taxes... the people who run this country (the 10% with power and money) must be laughing pretty hard, I mean all that hard work it took them to coral all the "sheeple" into believing this. As the general population scurries about saying oh me ..oh my... the rich get richer while the middle class gladly fork over millions more money to them...what a scheme, if only the snake-oil salesmen had thought of it first. ha ha ha
  463. Rick Drysdale. from Sidney BC, Canada writes: Welcome to the new religion.
    Public perception drives the biggest boondogle in history. If the people believe it must be so.
  464. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: Aaron Treacher

    Assuming you've actually graphed this (and I suspect you haven't, 5 years at 12 months per year equals 60 data point not 360), look closely at the monthly data for the last 5 years. Are the squiggly lines trending up or down? The inescapable conclusion is that there has been a cooling trend in the troposphere over this period. By the why, if your so convinced I'm wrong, what is the slope of your linear regression over the last 5 years?

    As for the scientists, I have a theory on why these recent trends are not discussed with the public which I'll describe by analogy.

    When a publicly traded company has an issue which is considered "material to the operation of the company" they are obliged to report it But what if they have, say, a cave in at a mine. Sounds like its a material issue alright, but if they can get cleaned up quickly, its kind of like it never happened. And so why trouble investors with niggly little details that they'll only fret needlessly about.

    Likewise in the climate community, since the models must be right, the recent trends must only be "temporary". The warming should resume any year now. So why trouble the public with niggly little details that will only confuse them.

    Regards, BRK
  465. Mark Van Buren from Trenton, Canada writes: The government, media, and scientists need to look at this issue from both sides. The assumption is that global warming is bad - that's all I ever read about. Surely there are benefits to global warming? I can think of quite a few myself - cheaper heating costs, the opening of the north west passage, keeping snow birds and their money in Canada longer, a longer growing season for farmers, and my favorite - a longer golf season!
  466. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Brian,
    The 360 datapoints comes because the RSS mru measures 6 different locations of the troposphere providing measurement for all. Therefore 6 x 60 =360. The slope of the line is irrelevant, especially if you are only graphing over the mid troposphere over the cont US and I am only over the tropics, or if I incorporated all of the 12 points in a year to a single number /- SD then graphed that relative to the other 5 points and found it to be flat. Besides which I am not debating that 2006 and 2004 were colder than 2005 or 2003, nor am I debating whether 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 were all warmer than any year, outside of 1998, in recorded history.
    The link I provided shows the NOAA graph of this line.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

    As you will see, this 'cooling trend' also happened in the early portion of each decade and was followed by a more vigorous warming trend afterwards. Why do you think this is more significant than these previous ones? If you acknowledge that the 80s and 90s saw warming why is this cooling irrelevant and why is everything is ok when the coolest point in your data set is warmer than any other year except for 1998.
  467. Proud Canadian from United States writes: If all of the polar bears disappeared right now, who would notice who would care? Enough with this BS global warming. I'm all for cutting down pollution, but please enough with the BS global warming.

    If the Liberals didn't see any need to act on this file over 13 years it surely doesn't need to be acted upon now.
  468. marlene stobbart from mill bay, Canada writes: The earth has been warming for the past 50 odd years judgin from the rockies glaciers. Edward Casey, seer, warned the planet shift and ut's consequences would happen.
    The far north of Canada, particularly, Saskatchewan would be the most habitable area. Stephen Hawking, appears to put little credence to mankinds changing the weather pattern - it's a natural occurence over millinieums. Never do I see a mention of the atom bombs or the nucelar disasters which have occurred. However, any changes to our air quality would be of great benefit to people and animal health. It starts at home - less use of by-products of oil and more natural use of natures goods. Less use of cars and more use of electric transit - is a good beginning for all. Kyoto was exchanging our real money for monopoly money. Best to control our own emissions; which now perhaps the U.S. will also agree with. Canada is a lessor polluter then most.
  469. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: OK...enough of the hyperbole, the rhetoric, the hysteria, the panic, the embellishment, the guilt trips, etc, etc.......I have a SERIOUS question.

    How do I make a buck or three from the True Believers?
  470. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Aaron Treacher:

    You mean 6 different zones right? But the most important one is the the latitude 85/-85 right? Since the global number is what really counts (not tropics/northern hemisphere etc.). So the datapoint count should be 60 not 360. No matter, lets just focus on the global numbers, since that's what I've been talking about all along.

    So you found that the trend in the annual average for the last 5 years was flat. I get the distinct feeling you didn't actually graph this up since even the annual chart of temperature anomalies in the troposphere you referenced clearly shows the last 5 years going down for both datasets presented.

    I will repeat why this is significant, which I've mentioned a number of times before. The troposphere temperatures are supposed to follow the surface temperature; that's clearly noted in a number of references you've posted up. If anything the GCM models indicate the troposphere should heat FASTER than the surface.

    But now the troposphere is cooling and surface temperature is flat. And it's not just the University of Alabama dataset that's showing this problematic trend, its the Fu-corrected UAH and RSS datasets too. Believe me looking at annual charts does not do this issue justice, you should plot all these data sets up on a monthly (global) basis to see the devil in the details.

    Regards, BRK
  471. Ryan Hamilton from Fredericton, Canada writes: godbless says:

    "mother earth controlls the world man does not if she wants to stop something she does"

    Who needs scientists when we have this prophet. Dear me.
  472. February 3, 1959 - 'The Day The Music Died' Remembering Buddy, The Big Bopper, Ritchie Valens from Willowdale, Canada writes: Global warming may be a threat, however, Mother Nature has a way of adjusting things..and I hope she will do so soon. It's odd how 4 out of 5 Canadians bleat and moan the global-warming situation but then 4 out of 5 will jump into their cars to drive to the corner to pick up a carton of cigarettes or a loaf of bread. All one has to do is, during rush hour', stand by the side of any major road leading into a large Canadian city and count how many vehicles go by with one or two occupants only. Plus the fact our local governments tend to put traffic lights every fifty feet thus causing idling vehicles to sit and wait for the green signal, is also a cause for global warming. Sometimes it seems as though Canadians give the appearance of 'holier than thou', but in the next breath, continue to do their part in polluting the atmosphere.

    '.....I was a lonely teenage brocin' buck
    with a pink carnation and a pickup truck
    but I knew I was out of luck
    the day the music died......'

    (February 3rd, 1959)
  473. Kate Slater from Penticton, Canada writes: My tipping point was my visceral reaction when the vaunted Harper environment plan was announced and said its goal was decades away. the amount of rage I felt surprised me.
  474. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Brian, I think your data range skews the data so that you get to say what you want. As an example I calculated the linear regression from 2000 to 2006 the linear equation is 0.0177x 0.12 so as you can see a positive slope. Now if I only examine the years 2002-2006 I can get the equation to read -0.0218x 0.2921, however if I decide that this is too much cooling I only need to bracket to the years 2004-2006 and sanity is restored as the equation is 0.0324 0.1273. Whew we are warming again. This would all change, of course, if we could only change the 2002 numbers.. if they were low then we'd be warming even over the 2002-2006 period. Given the variabilities involved in satellite determination of temperature.. and then the further inconsistency of comparing them to a combination of satellite and ground station determined temperature I think there is enough built in error to account for your trend. Of course the other problem with all of this is that these numbers are not absolute figures, they are relative to the mean which is the time frame over which all of the years (1979-2006), and I don;t know about you but I didn;t take the raw satellite data and use it. Again though, how is it that you can accept the previous cooling periods as being consistent with an increase in temperature but suddenly this one proves that these scientists are stupit heads, or liars, or guilty of scientific misconduct. Face it the "cool"years are hotter than anything we have ever seen before and we have every reason to think the troposopere and surface temperatures will be jumping up again in the near future.
  475. mike clark from 7 Islands Quebec, Canada writes: poor us all canadas fault,do you go to work so you can pay taxs to keep the citys roads in all the provinces in good condition and don't forget all the other taxs you pay because you own a automoble and use fule so city bus's and trains can be cheeper for the people using them to get to work and not pay the fule and automotive taxs the rest of us do, i think we should stay home pick up our welfair checks and free meds. and day care and become richer because we don't have all the expences of going to work including clothes and lunches, and if we run out of food go down to the local hand out and get some, oh and for those that take drugs go down and get a free government shot.
  476. Bryan Bolan from Toronto, writes: everyone's a critic...now let's all be hypocrites and drive home in our gasoline cars, throw cans and plastic out the window, buy yet another computer, and cell phone and throw out the old, buy even more clothes and throw out the old, use plastic bags for our groceries etc etc etc etc etc etc. you all talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? we are pigs of consumption! and I'm one of them, just like all of you.
  477. Brian Jantzi from Oakville ON Canada, Canada writes: Don Adams. Get Smart. Coincidence? I think not. ;)
  478. Thomas Smeenk from Oakville, ON, Canada, writes: The "Percentage who ranked each factor 'life threatening' as opposed to 'not life threatening'...[of the] factors in terms of the threat they pose to Canada..."and the fact that 61% of Canadians in this survey rate "Toxic chemicals linked to human health" as more significant than Global Warming and climate change (52%) means our collective consciousness is in the right place. Let's reduce our toxin and chemical in-take levels by reducing dependence on chemically laden products we eat, drink and breathe in our homes, so that we can live long enough to tackle the systemic manufacturing and consumptive processes that may impact global warming. While I don't know how the 400,000 years of global warming/cooling data was derived, I do know that it is compelling evidence that suggests there is as much impact to Global Warming from sun/nature/other processes humanity has little or no control over. Let's continue to intelligently utilise the resources we must to continue to increase the standard of living for as many people as possible. In concert, let's complete the science behind global warming. Lastly, we need to seek products such as the TOXBOX and LOTUS SANITIZING SYSTEM that enable us to live well with clean air to breathe in our homes; clean water to drink; clean fruits and vegetables to eat; and, to clean our homes without the harmful chemicals and toxins we startlingly use via our home cleaning products. Sandy & Thomas Smeenk
  479. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Aaron and Austin:

    Bit by agonizing bit.......

    You noted a warming between 2004 and 2006. Actually you are only partially right on this one, as one of the datasets still has a negative slope. In fact you cherry picked pretty much the only way you can get a warming trend out of the data for the last 5 years. Pretty much any subset of the last 5 years (i.e. 02 to 05, 03 to 06, 03 to 05) shows a cooling trend on all 3 datasets. So while you and Austin are right about the ability to cherry pick for trends, in this case the data are resisting your attempts to pull out a warming trend.

    My next points depend on whether you've taken the trouble to actually plot the data up, which I suspect you still haven't.

    If you have look at the graph carefully and follow my logic. With all three MSU flavours plotted I can divide the temperature history of the troposphere between 1995 and now into 5 distinct segments:

    1 a very slight cooling between 1995 and early 1997
    2 a very strong warming between early 1997 and early 1998 (inclusive)
    3 A strong cooling between early 1998 and 1999 (inclusive)
    4 A strong warming between 2000 and 2001 (inclusive)
    5 and a cooling between 2002 and 2006 (inclusive)

    I make these breaks based on visualizing where I could put straight lines and capture most of the noisiness. Its not perfect but I think most observers would agree this is a succinct and substantively correct description. Of course 1998 was the big El Nino.

    Lets move on. The net trend between 1998 and 2006 is cooling for all 3 datasets (although not by much). This is for a 9 year interval. Breaking that down, in that period there have been 2 cooling "periods" and 1 warming "period".

    Ant the point in this is that the cooling trends we have been seeing are significant enough that they may not just be "blips" . They may in fact be the start of a new cooling cycle (which some solar physicists predict is coming).

    Regards BRK
  480. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: response to [Bryan Bolan] calm yourself...breath...in ...out...slowly

    now before you go to bed tonight, reassure yourself that the sky is not falling, most things in life take time and change is not instantenous.

    Society is currently working on programs to reduce waste, and use non-renewable resources more sparingly. These are good things, do your part to reduce poolution, and talk to others. But most of all, don't dispare, we're all doing our part...but it takes time. And the next time someone starts blathering on "warning Will Robinson...DANGER", smile and wish them a happy day.
  481. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Bit by agonizing bit.......

    You noted a warming between 2004 and 2006. Actually you are only partially right on this one, as one of the datasets still has a negative slope. In fact you cherry picked pretty much the only way you can get a warming trend out of the data for the last 5 years. Pretty much any subset of the last 5 years (i.e. 02 to 05, 03 to 06, 03 to 05) shows a cooling trend on all 3 datasets. So while you and Austin are right about the ability to cherry pick for trends, in this case the data are resisting your attempts to pull out a warming trend.

    My next points depend on whether you've taken the trouble to actually plot the data up, which I suspect you still haven't.

    If you have look at the graph carefully and follow my logic. With all three MSU flavours plotted I can divide the temperature history of the troposphere between 1995 and now into 5 distinct segments:

    1 a very slight cooling between 1995 and early 1997
    2 a very strong warming between early 1997 and early 1998 (inclusive)
    3 A strong cooling between early 1998 and 1999 (inclusive)
    4 A strong warming between 2000 and 2001 (inclusive)
    5 and a cooling between 2002 and 2006 (inclusive)

    I make these breaks based on visualizing where I could put straight lines and capture most of the noisiness. Its not perfect but I think most observers would agree this is a succinct and substantively correct description. Of course 1998 was the big El Nino.

    Lets move on. The net trend between 1998 and 2006 is cooling for all 3 datasets (although not by much). This is for a 9 year interval. Breaking that down, in that period there have been 2 cooling "periods" and 1 warming "period".

    Ant the point in this is that the cooling trends we have been seeing are significant enough that they may not just be "blips" . They may in fact be the start of a new cooling cycle (which some solar physicists predict is coming).

    Regards BRK
  482. Ed Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: I'm dissapointed to see Mr. Harper bend his knees to GAS as I call them (Global Allarmist Society). Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of you people to log in to: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711. Many reporters at the Globe and writers who write about global warming should also link up to this site.
  483. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Aaron and Austin:

    I responded to your latest but for some reason the G&M kept pushing it back up the stack, you can find it by looking for the "bit by agonizing bit" lead.

    Regards, BRK
  484. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Aaron Treacher:

    Well that wasn't so hard was it? So you agree that over the last 5 years there has been a cooling trend in the mid-troposphere. You must since you calculated a negative slope yourself.

    I suppose you could be right about my sinister choice of the "last 5 years". Pretty hard to argue there's been much warming though, in that period, given that pesky little negative slope, eh?

    As for day dreaming "if only 2002 would go away", if you take 2002 out the slopes are still negative for the troposphere on all 3 datasets.

    You never did answer the issue of the divergence between the GHCN SST and the tropospheric temperatures which I think is a problem for the credibility of the models.

    Also I never said the scientist are liars or stupid, I just noted that some climate information appears to be withheld from the media domain. I think the reason for that goes back to the Vrane editorial. Scientists have "filtered" the information since they don't trust us to understand the difference between inherent variability and long term trends.

    On your final point, though, you may be right. Right now we're in a "sunspot count trough", and the sun will be getting more active in the years ahead.

    Regards, BRK
  485. The Mick from K-W, Canada writes: As a kid I remember winter, spring, summer and fall.

    Recently it has been short winter, spring, summer and long fall. Very long in fact.

    People. It's not rocket science. CO2 builds up and the atmosphere gets warmer (check the historical data).

    We take C compounds (oil/gas/coal) out of the ground and burn to make energy and CO2.

    Add it up.

    And do it quick.

    Or tell your kids/grandkids "sorry".
  486. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: It wasn't hard Brian, it just wasn't necessary. Yes there was a "cooling trend" if you choose the right set of years, as there has been every decade. Of course if you analyze the last 7 years the trend is gone. Which doesn't make me think of it as a very valid "trend", more a question of selective data analysis. The problem with any data set is this will always occur immediately following a spike in whatever it is you are analyzing. Regardless of "cooling trends" each succesive decade we see higher temperatures both on the ground and in the troposphere, and therefore the "cooling trends" clearly aren't working well. Or to put it another way, we are in the midst of a "heating trend" (2004-2006).

    I am unsure of what problem you intimate. There are a number of studies that indicate that when the surface temperature heats so do does the mid troposphere. I was under the impression that this was not a climate model, but a physics one. Now if certain datasets are indicating that this isn't happening (fpr example UAH pre-2000) this may indicate a problem withthe dataset. There are, of course, other indicators that the troposphere is heating and as always the physics could be wrong too.
  487. Jackie Pelot from Clarence Creek, Canada writes: Here is another website to check out:

    www.greenspill.ca

    It is a free "webzine" featuring interviews and videos about people who are making small changes to try to improve the environment. It's a welcome change from the current widespread feeling of pessimism!
  488. Austin So from BC, Canada writes: Hi Aaron, what you have done nicely illustrates how sampling from noisy data, particularly those which have been transformed in some way, can lead to spurious data analysis. This is the kind of game that arm chair science plays, by picking and choosing from a data set and arbitrarily setting data windows and claiming significance. A "blip" can only be understood in context of the full data set, not "rolling averages", or "5-year windows" that just happen to give you the desired outcome...
  489. Lee Thompson from Sarnia, Canada writes:
    Wayne H,

    Get a life. Really.

    Damn Trolls...
  490. Wayne H from Victoria, Canada writes: Global Warming is Nonesense ( look up the links and read)

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169659066/

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169489629/

    http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1169659066/
  491. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Wayne H from Victoria, Canada writes: Global Warming is Nonesense ( look up the links and read)"

    Reality is not subject to the opinions of the ignorant.

    If you really want to learn something, read the facts as determined by science.

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
  492. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: Austin So from BC, Canada writes: Hi Aaron, what you have done nicely illustrates how sampling from noisy data, particularly those which have been transformed in some way, can lead to spurious data analysis."

    This is why cherry picking endpoints and using short sequences is part of the 'playing with numbers' game of the denialist camp. Real data has signals at all periods from DC to the nyquist.

    The 'signal of interest' must be chosen carefully. For climate, there are many 'periodic oscillations' of around ten years (decadal, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation).

    For conclusions about climate science, the period of the 'signal' must be 10 to 30 years, and this is what science papers use. As Aaron points out, "analyzing noise' serves no real purpose.
  493. Better to light a candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Conservatives hate change. What the heck do they do now?
    I know. Deny, deny, deny. Conservative posters in this space must be looking for a sharp knife with which to cut their throats.
    Don't do it, friends, we need an opposition to make the system work.
  494. Better to light a candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: There seems to be a discussion as to whether GW is "caused" by greenhouse gases or is "contributed to" by greenhouse gasses.
    This is a moot point. If my basement is beIng flooded, is it because the basement walls leak or is it because the sump pump quit?
    The argument runs "if it is because it is raining and the walls leak then no human intervention can help" a counter argument would be,"we can't stop it raining but we could fix the sumppump or even put in an auxiliary pump". Lowering greenhouse gasses may not cure the problem but it would help to alleviate it.
    CYMRO
  495. Mike McFae from Canada writes: 4/5 Canadians have witnessed climate change. Of course , we have . Almost 500 posts to this story. Wow. It was nice to have a break from these recycled ' news ' stories but here we go again. The climate is always changing. Adapt , respect and deal with it.
  496. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Mike McFae from Canada writes: 4/5 Canadians have witnessed climate change."

    Or what they have become convince is climate change. Of course, the story is not about climate change itself but the causal factors and possible extremes. is an F5 tornado in canada just a natural change, an observational bias, or a result of a warmer planet. Opinions may vary, but nobody can say for sure.

    "Of course , we have . Almost 500 posts to this story. Wow."

    So you decided to add to the pile?

    "The climate is always changing."

    That is like saying vehicles all travel on highways so there is no difference between a Porche, VW bug, or Kenworth.

    "Adapt , respect and deal with it. "

    Also stop messing with it before you have to adapt to a hostile planet.
  497. Fred van der Velden from Langley, Canada writes: It is sad that 4 out 5 Canadians apparently have not looked at the science. Most Journalists have not researched it either. The change in climate we see is mostly natural, to call CO2 a "pollutant" as is so fashionable these days, is a big mistake and to think that we can stop the climate from changing by cutting greenhouse gases is a myth. If you take Al Gore's movie as something serious i.e. supported by science, then go ahead, get rid of your cars and throw out the air-conditioning. He's made meanwhile a cool $ 100 million on the subject and he's not going to stop charging $ 175,000 for a request to have him jet in and show his dreaded slide show. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas at 95% Of the remaining 5%, humans are responsible for 4%. So 4% of 5% is no more than a tiny 0.2% CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently a whopping 0.038% of the total. That is all.. There is ZERO empirical evidence that concludes that CO2 is the driver of climate. There is no scientific consensus either. The world has collectively spent close to $80 billion on this non issue and still no conclusive evidence exists anywhere. The graph that Gore parades in his movie, temps during the last 1000 years: for the first 900 years temperatures show not much of a change and finally at 1910, temps shoots up like the blade of a Hockey stick. It was already proven to be fabricated to look like this in 2004. Gore nonetheless decided to make it the centre piece of his movie, and for more drama, even used a scissor lift to show us viewers how hot it had become in the 20th century. Bogus science. And we all were made to believe all that. Remember it was Uncle Albert that was doing the presentation, it must be correct! The IPCC has quietly removed this graph from their reports. Disagree? OK, be a sport, go to www.junkscience.com and sign up to win a cool $100,000. Prove that CO2 is indeed the climate driver that alarmists want you to believe.
  498. Bah No from Canada writes: The IPCC alarming temp graph is inaccurate, and constructed to be a scary as possible. Recent Arctic warming is not due to AGW. Most of the alarmist AGW predictions, more powerful storms, temperature increase, have not materialized. Computer models of climate are not accurate past a month, and typically the alarmist models are tweaked until they return the desired scary result. Alarmists discount the impact of the Sun on warming the earth.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
  499. Robert Skibniewski from Buffalo NY, United States writes: While I have only read a small portion of the comments posted I feel some are going in the wrong direction. Instead of proposing higher prices for energy efficent autos we should be lowering prices to make them more accessable to everyone. If there is a financial advantage people will take advantage of the lower prices at a much quicker rate. Give people tax incentives for lowering their home energy consumptin. You have to have incentives for people to change their life style.If not the haves will continue their same life styles and nothing will change. This is just basic human nature. Stop suburban sprawl which only makes people build farther out from the city core and with that comes more paved roads, malls,etc, and all the energy it takes to build those things and all the energy it takes to go from place to place and heat all those buildings. Maximize all vacant land closest to the city core first.Stop paving over farm and forest land for yet another Wal-Mart. Mandatory recycling of everything that can be recycled not just certain items.These are just a few ideas I have and if we sat down for a few hours we could come up with many more. It all starts at the top and our politicians have to make many of these ideas mandatory. Thank You Bob Skibniewski Buffalo NY
  500. Lawrence Davis from Denver, United States writes: Great blog with lots of useful information and excellent commentary! Thanks for sharing.

    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Direct-TV.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Dish-Network.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-Radio.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/T1-Internet-Service.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-DSL.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-Internet.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/VoIP.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Phone-Systems.html
    http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Affiliate-Programs.html

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top