Skip navigation

Are scientists evolving into climate crusaders?

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Warnings of warming dangers have become increasingly dramatic ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes: Story: 'One of the reasons he speaks out, he said, is that global-warming skeptics, or "denialists" as he calls them, get so much attention from the media even though they are a minority -- perhaps 5 per cent -- among climate experts.'

    Which media would it be that provide so much coverage of those who question the notion that CO2 is the prime cause of global warming / climate change? Which Canadian media would it be that provide any coverage of the subject at all -- other than running propaganda from Kyoto-ists that never quite gets around to stating any facts (like the astronomical costs for barely noticeable achievements)? And it's not difficult to suggest that a majority of 'scientists' are Kyoto-ists when only Kyoto-ists are published by the key IPCC-anointed 'science' journals, so only the notions of Kyoto-ists are considered by the all-wise, world-travelling, luxury-loving bureaucrats of the IPCC.

    And -- to the point -- if scientifically illiterate mediots choose to publish only apocalyptically awful bad news, who can blame a 'scientist' who wants publicity and concommitant funding for playing the mediots' stupid game?
  2. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Finally, an article questioning the zealotry and cult-like fear mongering of these new "Crusaders". It is time for a calm and reasoned debate instead of fanatical hijacking of the agenda. I believe this was beginning to backfire on them anyway. The more they screamed "wolf" the more people started to question their motives. This is a good thing.
  3. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: A lot of the "Crusaders" will use their "children" and "grandchildren's" future as a poignant reason to sway the argument. We should ask ourselves, "How is this affecting children now?" Being constantly bombarded with apocalyptic scenarios and one-sided brainwashing must surely be having an effect on many.
  4. jiri Z from Canada writes: As people gradually turn away from the notions of God omnipotent and towards atheism, they need to fill the "I believe" void. The global warming has given these poor souls another belief system to worship.

    Like traditional religious zealots they have crossed the point where any real proof is needed to believe. Equivalents of Lourdes, blood-weeping Madonnas and visions of all kinds are now coming to new priests of the envirocult.

    The witchhunt is already in progress.
  5. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Whatever you do......don't publish CARTOONS about them, or we'll have rioting in the streets, 'Extreme Weather' Fatwas, and 'Deniers' having the throats cut on video.

    Hey...Wait up....that sounds oddly familiar.
  6. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Why is it that the group of 20 Canadian scientists plus the 40 scientists from other countries who cautioned the Canadian Government about squandering billions on global warming are dismissed in this article as " skeptics ".
  7. Max Nemo from Ottawa, Canada writes: I believe no matter what we do (read: our political leaders do) our great grandchildren are doomed. The decision makers (CEO, politicos) must understand this: their offspring will be affected too and there is nowhere to hide from it. We ALL breath the same air.
  8. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Mike Bellows: The answer to your question why the 60 scientists are labelled "skeptics" can be found in their co-signed letter:

    "... there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change ..."

    www.desmogblog.com provides some insight on the individual signers and the stakes they each have in their position.
  9. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: It's truly boggles the mind (of citizens, including myself) at the degree of complacency shown when it comes to taking action to slow down events that could cause climate change. So when we hear scientists speaking out, don't they as concerned citizens have the right to do so?
  10. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Lets get some reason into this "charge over the cliff" by the sheep about Global Warming. It doesn't really matter as long as Governments clean up the planet. I like the thought that Global Warming new religion is waking up the public to a world pollution problem. Now the failure to act is being hijacked by discussing whether it exist or not. This discussion is similar to the stupid discussion about religion, and probably has about as much science involved, but I digress.

    Everybody will agreed 100%, that pollution of land, air and water is very harmful. Let us, government, clamp down hard on POLLUTION of all types with strong deterent action. Clean up; and the Global Warming issue will be addressed by default. Stop the stupid discussion about Global Warming.

    My thrust is not to dispute the media driven Global Warming agenda, but to force the issue about cleaning up pollution. Start with Canada's coal fired generating stations, and direct attention to the Alberta Tar Sands. Then start working on the automobile.

    This must be a plan and legislation consistant with good economic planning. Cold calculated planning with the removal of the public hysteria should be the route taken.

    Durgan.
  11. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: I hope that the doomsayer are wrong. If they are right then I am glad that they are talking out about it openly. If they aren't wrong then I am, as I have been doing, going to make sure to push for the reductions that are required. There are twenty five years of driving that I didn't put into the atmosphere. I still get around with public transportation. I am hoping for the day when people's attitudes will be such that "drive to work on Fridays" becomes the norm and not the exception. Anyone that says that we can't do it just wants to drive their cars around to show off their style in the suburban neighbourhoods that they live in. Glad they're speaking out. Hope they're wrong but things don't look like it.
  12. Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, United States writes: "But he isn't an advocate, he said, because he isn't telling governments how to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, only that cuts are necessary." Actually, cutting greenhouse gas emissions isn't a solution, because soon the warming earth will start emitting far more than humans. Carbon sinks will become carbon emitters big-time. If you doubt this, I suggest you investigate "methane hydrate" (400 billion tons in the permafrost, 10,000 billion tons under the ocean, a sudden release of less than 30 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 in the air). Instead, I advocate removing the greenhouse gases from the environment after they've been emitted. Nature already removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions, although that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030, while mankind's CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2050. I suggest bio-sequestration, using microbes to "eat" the CO2 and CH4, perhaps enhancing them using genetic engineering, and seeding them into the ocean. By the way, I doubt it is realistic to expect mankind to so dramatically cut their greenhouse emissions so fast as to avoid runaway global warming. What you'll probably see is governments cutting the increasing rate at which they pollute, not real reductions but reductions in the rate of increase. Too little, too late.
  13. Luft Isanidiot from Canada writes: Its sad that scientist have to put sooo much effort to inform us when the rest of the world likes to accept facts about global warming. We in North America have to continue to show our stupidity over all as a population and buy into Oil company funded scientists. We need to do something...ITS A FACT that global warming is happening and you poor cons are just going to have to accept it very soon.
  14. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: "I hope that the doomsayer are wrong.".......... If it's any consolation, they haven't been right yet. From the new "ice age" to the "Y2k scare" to just last year's "hurricane season".
  15. mondo pinion from Canada writes: There is a 99 percent probability that in only 150 years
    everyone alive on earth today will be dead.
    Humour aside, I wholeheartedly agree with James Young. Yes, it is sad to watch the lemmings being herded into a politically-correct weather watch, but if it leads to a general environmental awareness, well and good. I believe we have much more serious problems to deal with than climate change. The chemical storms which are assaulting all life on earth scare me a lot more, and I would rather see my grandchildren die of a weather event than of cancer. Worse yet than chemical poisons, the potentials of genetic engineering in the hands of corporations, immune to democratic controls, are simply horrifying. Frankly -- and I know I will be vilified for this -- I see the climate changes as hopeful, as they hold the promise of waking people up to greater threats.
  16. David Brubacher from Canada writes: Why do the "global-warming scientists" ignore the 1000 year warming/cooling cycle? It indicates that the warming will peak in the next 100 years and that the Earth will then start to cool. It also indicates that to date this cycle is more moderate than in the past.

    Do you think it has anything to do with that many of them would need to find new jobs if this self-feeding "industry" burst?
  17. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: I wonder what those crusaders (including some media you know well) will say in 15 or 25 years if this warming cycle stabilizes and turns around, proving it is yet another micro-cycle in the Earth's 4.6 billion years climate history. Ha, I know: they will say 'thanks to our action'... or they will just stay mum or even more probable, they will start a new religion based on some new smoking 'evidence'.

    By the way, the first few comments today are delicious. You made my day.
  18. J G from Whitby, Canada writes: If people don't agree with global warming then let's at least agree dumping raw sewage from cities like Toronto, Halifax, Victoria etc into our waterways is wrong and dangerous; let us at least agree that large commercial farms polluting the land and underground water systems is stupid; let us at least agree that the air we breathe is toxic to a similar extent that second hand smoke is dangerous... (I can avoid second hand smpke but must breathe) and let's agree asthma and thousands of prmature deaths due to poor air quality are some of the many problems we face when it comes to pollution. Assuming we agree...let's do something.
  19. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: One more time. More than 80% of the "green house effect" is due to water vapour. The increase in the sun's output causes evaporation to increase and causes the "green house effect". We should all send an e-mail to the Sun God to protest the inevitable. As much as we see ourselves as important in "global warming" we have to acknowledge we are insignificent. All the Al Gores, Elizabeth Mays and Jack Laytons can't turn off the sun. We can throw billions of dollars at this supposed problem and get nothing in return. Why is the auto industry exempted from Kyoto? When you see a beautiful clear blue summer sky destroyed by "con-trails" of jet aircraft, do you wonder if this may be contributing to "global warming"? Apparently, 3.5% of all green house gasses are produced by aircraft. Guess what, aircraft as well as the Canadian auto industry is exempt from the Kyoto Accord. Just as the majority of Federal civil service jobs are designated "bilingual imperative" there is no such designation for any political position anywhere in Canada. The reason "minority rights" are so important in Canada is that the "rich" and "politicians" are a minority.
    It's time to re-write the dictionary, "Scammed",def. to be Enron'd, Nortel'd, Kyoto'd
  20. Brian Lowry from Fredericton, Canada writes: Clem Brown -- if your facts were any more misguided, you'd be claiming the Earth was flat... yes, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, but as you may have noticed, there is a fairly quick water cycle on this planet (takes months to years to adjust to changes), with vast stores of liquid and solid water. So long as Antarctica is cold and covered in ice, it would be very difficult for the atmospheric levels of water vapour to rise much (and so long as the oceans are warm they won't fall much, either). The same is not true of carbon dioxide, with no significant stores (certainly not of pure solid carbon dioxide), and with a very slow cycle that takes centuries to adjust to changes. Get your science right before shooting your mouth off ignorantly.
  21. george carlin from Houston, United States writes: Gee, does this mean the G&M has figured out that some people might, um, exaggerate, or even (heaven forbid) make stuff up to push their agenda? You'd think when that work of fiction An Inconvenient Truth was made by the ol' serial fibber Al (I invented the Internet) Gore, a lightbulb would have gone off.
  22. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Reminds me of the scientist who said living near electrical wires, electrical fields results in two-headed cows and other serious side effects. Well that guy turned out to have falsieifed his data.

    This Global Warming BS will go down with all of the Lefty Liberal bogus events that never happened. The Looney lefty liberals want to scare you into accepting a Nanny state that they will run. Don't forget liberals still approve of how Stalen ruled Russia. Don't let it happen hear.

    Also, global warming would be better for Canada:

    1) longer growing season
    2) less fossel fuels spent on heating homes in the winter.
    3) less people dying in the winter due to flu, colds.
    4) less people dying due to a lack of exercise, warmer temps would allow more people to be outdoors.

    The list goes on and on why even if the BS Global Warming was real it is in Canada's benefit for it to be allowed to happen.
  23. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: I'm still waiting for scientists to explain why there is global warming on other planets in our solar system as well...like Mars. While man made emissions contributes to the problem, it may be simplistic to say it is the only factor. There are no coal fired plants or automobiles on Mars and yet it's polar ice caps are also melting at a rapid pace.I suspect that the Sun is playing a role here as well by warming up the planet and with additional CO2 in the atmosphere, we are seeing the greenhouse affect accelerate.
  24. d w from Canada writes: The glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. Why are people so alarmed about global warming, when its been going on for thousands of years. The so called link to increased production of CO2 by humans is extremely suspect.
  25. Dark Green from Holguin, Cuba writes: This article is a masterpiece on ATTITUDES and MOTIVATION. 1. "And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?" the minister asked. "Why would we do this?" -- Can one make oneself in any way more despicable? 2. "... he felt strongly that researchers -- especially those working for the government -- could explain the science of global warming, but not push a course of action. " -- Are there still not Canadians prosecuted for neglecting to assist people in danger? What if a guilty motorist alleged, in court, that he thought his responsibility, on the scene, was limited exclusively to "explaining" to the passer-bys how the accident happened?... 3. "The letter the three helped draft and circulate was signed by 90 scientists and sent to Mr. Harper in April, calling on him to develop a national climate-change strategy.... there was some unhappiness among senior bureaucrats that the letter advocated action -- As a citizen, "think" (and talk) all you want, but do not act. Never advocate (never call for) action. I submit it is such a neurotic attitude that can lead to the destruction of nature and of societies. 4. He says it feels good to speak his mind. "It feels like the right thing to do." -- Feels good to read that. There is indeed humanity and courage here to celebrate.
  26. Grant Parr from St. John's, Canada writes: In response to Alexander Dryden, it is a fact that half of articles printed in mainstream media deny the effects of global warming while only 5% of those in scientific journals deny the effects of global warming. I do not recall exactly where I read or heard this fact, it may have been from Al Gore's film.
  27. Grant Parr from St. John's, Canada writes: In response to d w from Canada, it is so alarming because a vast majority of the human population live within a few short miles of the ocean. The melting of the Greenland ice cap alone would cause a rise in sea level of 20 feet. Imagine the people displaced by this event and the infrastructure destroyed. If you looked at a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere verus time for the last 2000 years you would probably be alarmed too.
  28. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: George Carlin: The scientists over at realclimate.org have verified the science behind An Inconvenient Truth. As one put it, "this is an advocacy movie, not a journal article, and Gore clearly believes something must be done and is going to present the science in as compelling (while honest) a way as possible in order to make that case." And as an American, I'd think you would know that Gore never stated "I created the internet". What he said was "I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
  29. J Tittle from Canada writes: Pete Kauchak ; Your gonna wait a very long time for them to explain anything. Heres a few more questions you can ask. Did these guys pass high school chemistry??? Don't they know that the primary "green house" gases are heavier than air and fall? A green house has to be above the ground to work... not at ground level. Also, there is a known and proven method of reducing climate change that will show results in a matter of days. Remember when the grounded all jet travel after 9/11??? Well, there are some scientists who suggested that eliminating jet travel would correct any greenhouse induced problems. On 9/11, it started to have an effect within 3 DAYS!!! But heaven forbid you cancel air travel. How will the "environmentalist" ( driving his out of tune Volvo belching more smoke in one day than a 1 ton diesel truck in its working life ) get to his next vacation ... er I mean conference... without jet travel???
  30. Barry Davidson from Peterborough, Canada writes: Mike Bellows asks: Why is it that the group of 20 Canadian scientists plus the 40 scientists from other countries who cautioned the Canadian Government about squandering billions on global warming are dismissed in this article as " skeptics ".

    Mike, go to http://www.desmogblog.com/ and find out.
  31. harper scares me _ from Canada writes: people who thought the earth was round used to be viewed as skeptics.
  32. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: The reason the 60 signatories of the letter to Harper are dismissed as 'skeptics' is because its those 60 against the 2500 reviewers and 800 authours who contiributed to and approve of the finding in the IPCC report on climate change.
    It is this tiny group who are hanging on to their religion in a cultist manner. The concerned majority of logical thinkers who recognize the science behind global warming caused by greenhouse gas emmisions and who are calling for sociental changes to combat this danger are not the one crying wolf as Dave Medich would have you believe. How many times have I heard "we can't reduce our emmisions without destroying our economy"? It seems the hlobal warming deniers have there own chicken little.
  33. Mark Peters from Nova Scotia, writes: Nobody denies that our planet is undergoing climate change. There is significant disagreement as to the source of this change, however, and it is here that the media in particular have been complicit in presenting only one side of the story -- the one that argues human activity is the catalyst -- and promulgating the hysteria flowing from the likes of "climate crusaders" like Dr. McBean.

    I don't believe for a second that Dr. McBean is on his crusade simply for the future of his grandchildren. He and his ilk are on their warpath because they have dollar signs in their eyes, and ramping up hysteria about the possible effects of climate change and who needs to be punished for it can only serve to line his pockets. If governments take on global warming or the environment as their primary focus, environmentalists and climatologists stand to make a literal fortune.

    And, yes, even scientists have a price.
  34. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Of course they've got to be more dramatic. The only way to get people to do anything is to scare them - people are going to make money off of "climate change" intiatives, whether it's the governments through carbon credits and new taxes, or industry looking to jump on the bandwagon. No one is doing this for free - question that.
  35. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Glen Murtz from Vancouver......... Bravo! Your post is as good as any to prove that the new "Crusade" can turn people into raving lunatics. Reverse psychology maybe?
  36. Ed Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: I gave those liers about global warming a name. GAS! Global Alarmists Society. If you want an intesting read, go to: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00306.htm or, http://epw.senate.gov./fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711. I strongly urge all reporters and editors of newspapers to read it too.
  37. expat living in Japan from Canada writes: The lack of scientific understanding and number of personal attacks regarding political motivation expressed by a majority of the posters in this forum is astonishing. I'm almost embarrassed to be Cndn. How many posters here can say that they have read, much less understood, even ONE scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal prior to making statement such as "who can blame a 'scientist' who wants publicity and concommitant funding for playing the mediots' stupid game", "global warming has given these poor souls another belief system to worship", "Why do the "global-warming scientists" ignore the 1000 year warming/cooling cycle?", just to name a few? Scientific debate and belief in scientific conclusions is remarkably similar to generating beliefs about anything else. Why do you believe that company X is the best investment? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that company to recognize that it is going to be profitable in at least the near future. Why do you believe that vehicle Y is the best vehicle to purchase? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that vehicle to recognize that it's going to satisfy your needs. Why do you believe that political leader Z is the best leader to vote for? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that leader and his party to recognize that they have goals and propose means to achieving those goals that are agreeable to you. Would you invest all of your money into a company merely because someone states that this is the best company to invest in? Would you purchase a vehicle merely because someone states that this is the best vehicle to purchase? etc. etc.? Scientific beliefs are no different. I beg all of the posters here. Please, 1) do the research, 2) understand the science, and then 3) voice your opinion/skepticism against the science, not the people. Attacking an argument in the other direction (3 to 1) provides absolutely no reason to accept your belief.
  38. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: To Ed Martin - so a US politician is the best source of information you have? How about getting some real research from real scientists? I know you could start by reading the IPCC report.
  39. c b from Canada writes: Wow, first global cooling, then killer bees and next the apocalyptic phrophecy of Y2K, I'm not sure that I can handle the consequences of this killer CO2 cloud. Back into the bomb shelter for me until the MSM sounds the all-clear horn.
  40. Duncan Luciak from Canada writes: It's laughable that there is talk of reductions of carbon emissions in 2050. Somehow, I don't think that will be a problem. Check that. By then, we will be chewing our way through our coal supplies.
  41. Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: I love how people point to http://www.desmogblog.com/ as reason to ignore the letter that 60 scientists wrote to Harper regarding climate change. I went through their website. They have 17 of the 61 people who signed it listed. I wonder whatever happened to the other 44 people. They must not have found enough info on Dr. M. R. Morgan, who is a climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization, and previously a research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K. - to include him on their list. Regardless, out of those 17 people on their website I found 8 with some kind of tie to the energy industry. 8 out of 61! And we are told that the group that signed this letter is filled with people funded with oil money? Perhaps we should go through the scientists that are claiming climate change is 100% human caused, as see where they are getting their money from. Or perhaps people think scientists can't be influenced by the hand that feeds them? (unless it's oil money that feeds them of course) Let me say, I fully support getting off of fossil fuels. I fully support minimizing environmental degradation. What I disagree with is science being misrepresented in order to fulfill a cause (even if it is a worthwhile cause). I do not believe the ends justify the means, and it's no different here.
  42. M. I. AM from Guelph, Canada writes: Are scientists evolving into climate crusaders?
    No, they are just playing follow the leader. try this website and you will see..

    www.businessandmedia/specialreports/2006/fireandice
  43. nicholas clague from Truro, Canada writes: Burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem. We are cutting down too many trees! Trees are a huge resevoir of carbon. I walk past my neighours gardens and wonder why they don't plant trees in their gardens if they have the space. Particularly if they have children and grandchildren they care about. Don't expect the politicians to solve this problem. We are all responsible .
    To coin something Bill Clinton might have said "PLANT A TREE STUPID!"
    So start a campaign in your own neighbourhood. Get your neighbours involved now.
  44. Mathew Smith from writes: Whether I agree with Kyoto or not, or with the Conservative Government's policy towards greenhouse gases or not; I will say this, it deeply concerns me that we have a politician high enough in position that they attended the retreat and actually said "Why would we do this?".... like global warming is not their problem. Far too many people share that sentiment.

    How can it benefit me should not be the sole reason for acting, particularly by an elected representative of the people who should do what is deemed best for the people even if the people don't know it and it means they do not get re-elected. An idealistic view but imagine possibilities.
  45. Mike McFee from Ottawa, Canada writes: Not to mention the media spin that is put on every environmental issue on radio, tv and paper..... According to the media, "the sky is falling"...... Maybe they should do a little research before spouting off....
  46. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, ON, Canada writes: I can only shake my head and muse that these 'denialists' are as short-sighted, narrow-minded and right-wing as those who fought against Universal Health Care in Canada, opposed feminism, denied the harm of tobacco, labelled as looney those of us in the 1970's who advocated recycling, denied the threat of fascism in the 1930s, and warned against the extremism of abolishing slavery ( " It will cost the economy billions!")

    Follow the money. See who is behind those who deny global climate change and its dire consequences. Those who make money from oil dependency, nicotine addiction, expensive treatment but no cure for AIDS, are teh people who will destroy the planet tomorrow for a buck today.

    In whose hands will you place the future? Dr. David Suzuki or Conrad Black?
  47. mogens bay from Canada writes: At 76 I have ben told about 15 times, by the media, this is the end.
    Bird flue, mad cow, Y2k, starving to death supposedly in the next 10 years, and on and on. Now with Canada polluting amounting to about 2 % and with China and India not under any obligations, it seems we must be extra hard at work. No airplanes, cars, factories, power plants and so on. Or like me, I gave up listening to 90% of the news.
  48. Ian in Ottawa from Canuckistan, Canada writes: If envirofascists are so convinced that humans are a direct cause of Glo-bull warming, why does every solution envolve the purchase and selling of carbon credits? That just red flags it for the scam that it is.

    If these envirofascists want to be taken seriously, come up with real solutions that don't involve sending taxpayer's money to such "developing" countries such as China.
  49. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I am not sure what the point of this article is. It has a "shoot the messenger" quality about it.

    I think the reason the scientists have become "dramatic" about the problem of climate change has more to do with the inaction of politicians. Why would a politician risk putting pollution controls in place and accelerating the rate of research for energy alternatives when the impact on reversing global warming delayed by decades?

    If by being "dramatic", these scientists have raised awareness that our current economy will poison and damage our own environment, they have done their duty as scientists.

    The problem is that re-engineering the economy to be less polluting will take time. But the time to start the process is now. Delaying the action adds to the cost of repair in the future. Most reasonable intelligent people should see that.

    I can see from the board that there are are a certain percent of people who have a dodo bird mentality though. They don't care about the future of humanity, as long as they can drive their Humvees now, but I think the public opinion polls make it clear that the dodos are a minority. If it means we have to deprive the dodos of their humvees, so be it.
  50. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Like the old snake oil salesmen, when no one is buying your useless product, the level of claims about the power of the product and the claims about what sorts of evils will befall you if you don't buy the product become more and more shrill and absurd. It is the same with these chicken littles....of course, they also don't want their funding to dry up so they can continue with their "research". The biggest scam in human history (with the possible exception of the concept of communism).
  51. Susie Q from Canada writes: I'm surprised that so many Canadians deny the affects of our over-indulgent lifestyle on the planet. You cannot possibly believe that our wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, devestation to our land and poisoning of our fresh water will not affect quality of life on this planet. Whether serious climate change happens in our lifetime, or 100 years from now, it will happen.
  52. r z from Edmonton, Canada writes: Lesson to all.....the first reports are "sensationalistic"-driven.

    The truth is boring, so it won't get printed until everyone is driven to distraction by someone else's fear-mongering.

    Take everything you read and hear with a grain of salt.

    Never in mankind's history has man been able to determine the future. Nor do we have the capability now.
  53. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: There are LOTS of scientists who say that NOTHING significant is happening -- who agree with the right-wing position . . . . right ? It's just that the Evil Godless Heathen Librul Media is PREVENTING them them from being heard. . . . right ?
  54. Peter Van de Reep from Vancouver, Canada writes: The amount of people who think they know the science behind global warming and climate change is baffling. How many of you get your "science" from the Globe and Mail or other less reputable newspapers? Read some peer-reviewed journals. Your local university or college should have a bunch.

    I am afraid for the future as a student at UBC's Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences. My only hope is that my generation understands the situation. Older generations will pass and halt their ignorant influence over the ways of the only world we have.
  55. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: To r z from Edmonton. of course we are not able to predict the future. That however is no reason for inaction. We know from the past that at no time in the last 400 thousand years has the level of CO2 been this high (380 PPM). Scientists suspect that the same is true for the past 30 million years when it may have gone as high as 500 PPM. Now at that time crocodiles swam off the coasts of Greenland and Antartica was a pine forest. However, the natural carbon cycle takes millions of years to do what human activity will accomplish in a couple centuries.
    So if we continue on this course what will the earth be like when CO2 hits 1000 PPM? Of course no one knows, but it is unlikely that any surprises will all be good news.
  56. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: There's a saying, from the Talmud, I believe.......... "If you want to leave something behind, write a book, have children or plant a tree" ......... I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would have a problem with a national "tree-planting" project. It could be a collective effort which could actually unite all sides for a common cause. I would be interested to know how big an effect this would have on CO2.
  57. Brian C from Canada writes: With Y2K in our not that distant past, I find it alarming that we've gone from one global disaster prediction to another without skipping a beat. Anyone remember the experts' predicitions? Satellites could lose their guidance systems, crashing to earth. Ocean liners could lose their steering systems, causing them to list and tip over, spilling their cargo of oil and causing an environmental disaster. Financial systems could incorrectly calculate interest, wiping out billions and trillions of wealth, leaving ordinary workers unable to cash their paycheques. Water pumping stations could shut down, leaving major urban centres without water, and hospitals unable to care for the sick. Hydro-electric plants could also shut down, leaving millions of people without heat or a way to cook their food. Many people stored up food, water, clothes, diesel, and bought generators and guns to protect them and their families from their neighbours who could attack them when the power went out and they found themselves freezing to death. My work place even had shelters set up for their "critical" workers so that they and their families had a safe place to live while they worked to bring the companies computers back from a potential crash. All this because many many "experts" were all in agreement of the global repercusions from the world's computer systems crashing, and the naysayers were ridiculed and scorned for their unenlightened, uncaring, and ignorant viewpoints. At least Y2K had an end. I'm afraid this global warming/climate change debate will go on past the next ice age.
  58. Frankie @^_^@ from hamilton, Canada writes: We know what to do
    Make cars as small and efficient as possible----but no
    ban incandescent lighting---but no
    ban lighting and idle computers in offices at night---but no
    make it illegal for stores and office buildings to run air conditioners under a certain temp---but n0
    Replant trees everywhere---but no
    One person in a car,then have to take a bus-----but no
    make city transport free-we are going to give billions away for credits anyway---but no
    charge a yearly enviro tax on cars over a certain horsepower, say 2000, which would go to subsidize free city travel , or those who buy super small cars like the SMART---but no
    Make it illegal for malls to have parking, wanna go,take a bus--
    WE CAN DO LOTS< BUT I THINK IN THE END IT WILL BE----IF IT AFFECTS ME well no
  59. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: I find the opinions of the climate change doubters espoused here sound very much like blind faith. It is analogous to the strident rallying of religious zealots. Must be something about blind faith that leads to peoples need to defend it. Could it be a nagging sensation way down low that, in the face of the evidence, you are wrong? Let me say I believe the consensus opinion of the vast majority of scientists must be given the credence that such an overwhelming accord deserves. Given the lack of substantive evidence to the contrary I have to side with the vast majority of people actually studying the topic. It is plain and simple logic; not blind faith.
  60. Brian C from Canada writes: One other comment. I agree with Ian in Ottawa. If these predictions turn out to be true, which of course they won't, I'm still baffled by this Kyoto solution.

    Here's an analogy. Dion's dog Kyoto poops in his yard. Dion becomes concerned with all the poop collecting in his yard, and he's convinced that the average level of poop collecting in people's yards around the world will cause ocean levels to rise, wiping out billions of peoples' homes and arable land, leaving no clean water to drink or food to eat. Dion's solution is to pay his neighbour so that Kyoto can continue to poop in his yard. Can somebody who's much smarter than me please help me to understand?
  61. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: Ken DeLuca asks: 'In whose hands will you place the future? Dr. David Suzuki or Conrad Black?'

    My answer: neither of them, I resent extremism. It is called BALANCE, mr DeLuca. Any idea of the concept?
  62. Paul F from Toronto, Canada writes: The irony in all the climate-speak is that climatologists keep saying: "reduce ghg's for your childrens' sake". However, if we were really willing to do something for our climate, we'd encourage a more dramatic decrease in the birthrate, because ultimately it is the human footprint that is causing damage to the environment.
  63. B Halton from US, Canada writes: Of course scientists are moving into advocacy. This is not a negative development, given how much resistance they are still meeting.
  64. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: If we do something and we are wrong then we only waste some money. If we do nothing and we turn out to be wrong then the result is extinction. I would rather err on the side of caution. And I would not mind paying more to do this.
  65. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If Industry has to lobby for softer legislation on environmentally dangerous products and production methods, then why is the electorate ignored, except at election time? It seems to me that the Parties themselves should ask Canadians what the election issues should be. The dumbing-down by the Liberals, when they had the opportunity to really drive this beast into a manageable monster, and then the Conservatives, who had no intent in their latest electoral platform to address environmental issues are the authours of this situation. The environment doesn't give a fig about Political Will, but they better give more than a fig-leaf to the Environment. Trust individual Canadians to find ingenious ways to resolve many contaminating elements of our lifestyles. We can make old cars Environmentally efficient, but the Emission Standards are authoured by Industry. We can reduce our dependency on chemically endangering cleansers and thinners, but the safety codes are drafted by the Chemical industries. We can make safe, light-weight enclosures with cellulose fibres without using petroleum-based plastic resins. But Industry has written the standards. What do the politicians do? They give us pablum motherhoods, rather than announce just how deep they will dig down to take these obstacles out of the way, so new, safe, not safer, methods and materials can be developed. These standards were written by scientists and I find it facetious of them to come forward now, when the very same sector was the key driver to set these old standards and institutionalize them in almost every major Code system we rely on. From Vehicle Emission Standards to the Building Code, specifying dangerous insulation and sealants to coatings and paints. Even medicinal safety standards for the Pharmaceutical industries are practically enshrined into every regulation that addresses even the types of storage equipment. Good that they get concerned. It isn't to perpetuate this mess decades later?
  66. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: To P Martin from St. John's, NL: Thank you for you post. Finally a succinct, clever and rational comment.
  67. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: To Brian C: Y2K was indeed a predicted disaster waiting to happen. Why was it not? Because people listened to the warnings. Governments and industry spent millions and millions to fix the problem before the critical date, and a (possibly mild) disaster was averted. Was it wrong to heed the warnings? The only thing for sure is that it is much more difficult to fix a chaotic, non-linear and complex system such as the Earth's temperature by dealing with our societal energy consumption than to punctually convince all of our computers that 2000 is not 1900. Why were government and industry so eager to advance a Y2K panic but not to promote the ideas of global warning? Probably they are manifold: (1) it is easier to deal with a punctual problem, (2) governments listen to industry because it carries economic weight, and industry was concerned for its profits which is the reverse of the current situation, (3) resolution and consequence happen within a single administration, again, climate concern is not in the short term politician's interests. Talk to any scientist or even tourist who has been to any of the more severly affected areas of the world and they will tell tou how appalled and scared they are. Rent the movie 'an inconvenient truth' for a smattering of insights into how the climate is changing. Bottom line: more than any quantitative data amassed (and there is a huge amount of that), it is the extremely rapid qualitative changes which we can euphemistically call 'alarming'.
  68. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: J Owen from Calgary.......... "Could it be a nagging sensation way down low that, in the face of the evidence, you are wrong? "............... Actually, in my case, it is a nagging sensation in the face of "all" the evidence and propoganda that "they" are wrong. Face it, they're track record on being "right" isn't that impressive.
  69. FLUVIAL SEDIMENT from Port Alberni, BC, Canada writes: What do you mean, "evolving"?! Scientists have been saying this for decades; it's the big money boys who want to make even more money, quick, that are blocking the initiatives needed to mitigate the effects of climate change. Yes, some of the causes are natural and beyond our control but the way we're managing ourselves we're making it way worse for ourselves.
  70. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States ............ "To Brian C: Y2K was indeed a predicted disaster waiting to happen. Why was it not? Because people listened to the warnings"................... I don't know about that. All I know is that when I turned on my computer on Jan 1, 2000 it was just like any other day. And that was the case for many of the smaller businesses, individuals and even countries that made no effort on the Y2K panic. Unless, of course, somebody logged onto my computer and fixed it while it was "off".
  71. Matt H from Utopia, Canada writes: The end is nigh! The end is nigh!

    The sky is falling!

    Do something for the CHILDREN!!!! For the GRAND CHILDREN!!!

    The gods are angry! Our mother is angry! Let the virgin sacrifice begin.

    Good grief. Another frightened man doing his best to frighten all the other frightened men.

    This is about fear NOT science.

    If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of shrill people doing their best to scare the general populace. Remember this: governments of reactionairies over-react and make dumb decisions. Think of this as our own generation's new Red Scare. Call it "global climate change McCarthyism".

    Years ago, it was over-population. Last year it was the bird flu. This year, global weather patterns. Next year, red dye #7?

    I'm sure the natives reacted the same way when they first saw Halley's Comet. The real inconvenient truth is that we will always have people filled with fear doing their best to convince others to be afraid of something and sometimes they succeed.

    Remember Y2K?
  72. V ADS from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Climate change is driven by powerful natural forces that are still poorly understood, such as solar cycles. Keep in mind that Canada looked like Greenland just 8,000 years ago. What causes huge ice-sheets over most of North America to advance and retreat on fairly predictable 20,000-year cycles? This is climate change -- not measuring a few years as "the hottest" of the past century.

    Natural drivers of climate change are almost totally ignored in public debate over this issue. We need more good (dispassionate) science and more debate, and less advocacy and rhetoric. We need to examine the geological history of our present Ice Age and apply that knowledge to better understand the natural variability of climate.

    Advocacy scientists betray their profession. Another problem is advocacy journalists who lack balance and write stories based on emotion instead of reason. But the worst disservice to the debate are public relations hacks and their media pawns who label scientists who don't agree with them as "deniers" or in the pocket of oil companies.
  73. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: To Dave Medich from Windsor, I would like to tackle your comment “they're track record on being "right" isn't that impressive.&8221; from several angles. First, who are &8220;they&8221; that have this horrible track record? I doubt there is only one group of scientists. Secondly, why do you say scientists have a bad track record? We now have cars, airplanes, computers, refrigerators, heart transplants and polyester because scientists were right about something. We know that the Earth is not the center of the universe (or is it from a relativity standpoint?). And lastly, from a grammatical standpoint I believe you meant &8220;their track record&8221; and not &8220;they&8217;re (they are?) track record&8221;.
  74. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Alexander Dryden;
    Your link between kyoto and AGW is not clear. I for one believe the data reflects the latter but thinks the former is a waste of time. You want to do something about it? convince the US (and the rest of us) to incorporate the true cost of environmental degradation into the prices of products (a la Preston Manning). If selling goods in the North American marketplace (and to a lesser extent the European one) is dependant on certain environmental behaviours (or subject to stiff tarriffs) I think you will see a quick improvement in environmental practices. Of course another advantage is that companies would not be able to ditch their manufacturing plants in the USA and reopen in the third world to avoid the EPA or similar regulations.
  75. Darrell Carrigan from Bentley, Canada writes: For many years "End of Days" advocates were little old men with long beards bearing sandwich boards proclaiming: "The End is Near". It is not surprising that they have evolved into ivory tower academics and their acolytes who have taken up the banner, er, board. Also, if we humans, who are so arrogant as to believe we are totally responsible for climate change, are to change back to another age, what point in our history are we trying to revert to and what sacrifices are necessary?
  76. Self confessed curmudgeon from Toronto, Canada writes: To J Luft and Brian C, please keep writing. The harder you try, the closer you will get to actually contributing something intelligent. It's just a matter of time.

    To P. Martin from St. John's NL, thank you for the concise and reasonable statement.

    Even the most short sighted should recognize the damage we have done to the planet in so many ways; the land, water and air is fouled in very obvious ways. Scientists have used data to confirm the damage with sewage in drinking water, air pollution around cities and PCBs on land. So why then, with the majority of scientists with expert status agreeing on climate change do those opposed suggest the science is all wrong?

    To those that think the kool-aid is bad, find someone that can read for you and do some research. Disprove the science and publish.
  77. John D from Canada writes: That we are experiencing global warming is not in question, but the reasons for it are still in question. Green house gases likely play a part in it, so it would be prudent to try to curb output of them. However, as no one knows what the outcome of global warming will be - perhaps global temperatures will stabilize or drop again - does it warrent spending tens or hundreds of billions on this while we have other global issues, like the lack of clean drinking water for over a billion people? If there are issues where we know that we can save thousands or millions of lives, should we not try to address those before we spend billions on issues for which we don't even know what impact we can have?
  78. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: My last post is all wrong! My quotation marks all came out as &8221s. They did not translate from my word processor. Further proof these damn scientists can't get anything right.
  79. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ahhh if this is all about our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grand children, then all is fine: let's add the elderly, the disabled... And guys even if the Global warming is in the end a natural occurrence, there will be global cooling and yes, for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grand children and the elderly, the disabled, we will impose sacrifice then... until it warms up again... Who said the perpetuum mobile did not exist?
  80. Dave L from Kingston via Cranbrook, Canada writes: "Global warming is media propaganda." What an ignorent stance to have on an issue that we (each generation since the industrial revolution) will be looked at by future generations as the people who destroyed the planet. It had taken millions of years for life on this planet to evolve (yes, i'm an athiest, i don't believe god created the world) and in a few short centuries we have completely ravaged it. How can anyone believe that reducing our negative outputs into the environment could possibly be a bad thing??? The answer: dense, dim-witted, dodo, dull, doltish, dumbo, dummy, feebleminded, foolish, moronic, numskulled, simple-minded, stupid, thick, ignoramous, dunce, or simpleton; take your pick. If there was a god he'd be thanking the scientists for taking a moral stance on this issue.
  81. mondo pinion from Canada writes: Brian C: The idea is that Dion's neighbour takes the money and shoots his own dog, so Dion's dog Kyoto can keep on pooping but the total global poop rate is stable. And maybe Dion can even pay his neighbor to have buckets of poop trucked from Dion's back yard to his.
  82. Brian C from Canada writes: To Hugh Campbell: Try reading some contrary opinions before claiming you are an expert. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34b2c4eb-1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7
  83. Canuck Expat from United States writes: As a scientist the GH effect and subsequent global warming theory appears to have merit and doing something to curb emissions would appear to be a good idea. Even if one doesn't agree with the theory, reducing emissions and general pollution is good if it leads to cleaner air, cleaner water, and a healthier econsystem. In fact, reduced emissions could have a positive impact on the economy as well as reduction in consumption of fossil fuels would bring the commodity prices down in most sectors of the economy. Our friends in the Alberta oil patch woudn't like that but the reality is a high price of oil, although good for economies that depend on it, is actually bad for most other sectors of the economy because it means higher prices for inputs, supplies, and general business costs (travel, production, heat, etc). Despite this, though, we still have to respect the economy and ensure a sustainable approach to reducing emissions. The solution isn't a heavy handed implementation of a Kyoto style plan that isn't adoped by the top three polluters (China, India, USA) nor is it the obscene 2050 plan that the Cons came up with last month. There are responsible ways to approach this that include increased gov't funding towards greener technologies, or simply reducing travel. Why not encourage businesses to allow people to work from home once a week? That alone would reduce CO2 emissions dramatically. A balanced, responsible, and sustainable approach has to be taken and improving the environment should be looked at as an opportunity, not a burden of which the Canadian economy could benefit, not suffer. The media also has to take an objective view (imagine that, objectivity in the media - what an original idea!) and publish stories backed by evidence that either support or deny both sides of the story. Sensationalism sells, but all it does for me is muddy the waters to the truth.
  84. Wayne Patterson from Ottawa, Canada writes: My father-in-law is a Canadian who has never done without. He feels hard done by whenever gas prices rise or if the local restauraunt serves him mashed potatos, which are not as warm as they should be. He scoffs at global warming claiming that it's a huge hoax. My father-in-law is an icon of sorts for all the over indulged who have enjoyed a life style which is the best in the history of the human race. Maybe it wouldn't hurt them to give something back for other generations.
  85. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: The possibility of climate change is a question of risk. Are we willing to take the risk that we could change our climate to our detriment or speed/augment some natural cycle? If the science points in the direction that we are doing harm then we work to repair our previous actions in an attempt to lower the risk instead of continuing to run an uncontrolled experiment. It's like wearing a seatbelt or avoiding cigarette smoke. Society will choose come elction time where this issue ranks and either way we'll then have to live with the consequences of that decision.
  86. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Self confessed curmudgeon says "To J Luft and Brian C, please keep writing. The harder you try, the closer you will get to actually contributing something intelligent. It's just a matter of time." Gee thanks curmudgeon....although I'm not at all sure you would be the best person to determine what is intelligent and what isn't.
  87. Don't Hate Me because I'm a Pro Satirist and you're not from Victoria, Canada writes: Funny how cutting the deficit on the backs of the vulnerable "for our grandchildren"was done with extreme urgency - but cutting gas emissions to save the planet for our grandchildren is a minor matter. But the rich and powerful are hard at work figuring out the solution to the pollution and will implement it soon as they work out how to make the poor pay for their next trip to Puerto Vallarta. How ya' gunna' keep 'em down on the organic farm once they've seen Bangkok?
  88. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: Wayne Patterson - I do not understand the linkage between your father-in-law's comfortable lifestyle (that he may have earned), his liking of warm mashed potatoes, your deflection of guilt upon him and acceptance of global warming as a human caused phenomenon that will bring catatstrophe for all. As for Dr. McBean, I would hope that his scientific credentials carry more weight than the presence of grandchildren to justify his role of advocate. Does the presence of grandchildren make theory of human caused global warming more valid? I was wrongly educated that the best science and logic were not affected by emotion - especially sappy guilt.
  89. Brian C from Canada writes: To self confessed: Thanks for clearly illustrating my point. Anyone who disagrees with environmental activists like yourself are not intelligent. As long as you continue to ignore all the contrary evidence, you can continue to sit on your pedestal in complete bliss.
    To Robert Hobbs: Thanks for the laugh. The Canadian government was to build a database to manage our national gun registry, budgetted at $2M, which actually cost over $1 Billion. And it still had problems after delayed implementation. And you would have me believe that this same government, all departments included, not just one, were able to avert a global catastrophe by reprogramming all of their mainframes, LANs, WANs, satellite systems, navigation systems, security systems, etc., all while running a budgetary surplus. That's funny.
  90. J K from Canada writes: Planet Earth is becoming Easter Island.
  91. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: What I find unfortunate is that while most of the people who post comments here are clearly literate, knowing how to choose their words but many are innumerate.

    There are cycles in Earth's history. Never before, as far as we have seen from verifiable evidence, has the rate of change been so dramatic and in step with the changes we have made. Deniers, get some calculus (it's a branch of math that helps you to understand "rate of change") and then come back with your denials. You'll have an impressive weight of evidence to try to deny.

    But those among us who understand and support your right to be skeptical will look for numbers, not just opinions.
  92. Alan Padington from Canada writes: All I need to know about climate change science, I learned from Conservative hacks on the G&M forums...

    It's amazing how climate change has become a political issue. Somehow both the people on the Left and the Right feel qualified to speak on the science. In reality, climate science is so complex we can only listen to those who have actually studied it. What we have been doing is equivalent to arguing the enzyme mechanics of retro-viral drugs in an AIDS discussion.

    As a scientific person, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the overwhelming majority of scientists on this issue. Somehow it seems more likely that the scientists are right, and not that there is an enormous academic/industry/government/media conspiracy. And somehow Luft's burning hatred for anything Left of his views, and his well designed tinfoil hat have kept him immune from falling for this massive conspiracy.
  93. M G from Canada writes: I was hired as an atmospheric scientist at a Canadian university a few years ago. I have successfully found a more ecological niche. My decision to do this was partly based on the fact that my peers are mostly climate change crusaders. They have no idea that I am not. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the oil and gas industry (in fact, I see myself as somewhat of an environmentalist), and would like to see reduced emissions of pollutants (ground-level O3, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, volatile organic carbons etc.) that are emitted through combustion and a move toward clean fuels. However, I think the net effect of rising CO2 is largely positive (positive impact on plant growth, in terms of rate, water-use effciency and nutrient-use efficiency). The dangers of global warming include sea-level rise and biodiversity loss (which would result from any fast, directional change), while its benefits would likely include higher agricultural productivity, colonization by flora and fauna of new environments and higher ecosystem productivity. Soil moisture depletion may occur in certain areas where precipitation increases are less than evapotranspirative increases, but this may be offset by improved plant water-use efficiency. People need to be reminded that the current world (Quaternary Period) is CO2-impoverished, by comparison to all other times in the Earth's history, except the late Carboniferous Period. This forces plants to use more water to photosynthesize. Current concentrations are near 380 ppm. During most of Earth's history (with the exception of the late Carboniferous), levels have ranged from 1000 to 7000 ppm. The recent gain from 280 to 380 ppm is likely of major benefit to plants around the world. There is little correlation between CO2 concentrations and climate, except when greenhouse gas concentrations are very low, which makes sense, because eventually, at high enough concentrations, its effect can saturate somewhat.
  94. Bart Farquart from Cowgary, Canada writes: The Globe and Mail, in this case, walks the talk on it's claim that it examines issues from various points of view. Kudos!

    The apocalyptic rhetoric used by members of the global warming community has reached almost religlious proportions. Complete with the shunning of alleged "heretics".

    Dave L from Kingston via Cranbrook, Canada is a great example: The classic symptoms of quasi-religous Kyotomania complete with childish name calling directed at those who disagree and the confusion of CO2 with industrial pollutants.
  95. fedup taxpayer from Ottawa, Canada writes: "whats in it for us, why would we do that said an unnamed Liberal minister" Yup typical Liberal attitude, how many votes will it buy us. While I am not entirely happy with the present government they are just so much better that the gang they replaced. Still room for improvement.
  96. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: James Young 'Durgan' - i have to admit that although i may not see eye to eye with you on everything, you almost always have a very resonable post based in fact on here. im quite appreciative of that, and i would tend to agree with your current post. i have a few areas of difference in my views, but considering we're traveling down the same path (albeit for different reasons) you wont get an argument from me.

    we need an open, factual debate about this. everyone screaming at everyone else rarely accomplishes anything.
  97. Allan A'Dale from Canada writes: Why does nobody from this "scientific community", mention the real solution to all this pollution. BIRTH CONTROL!

    Very cost effective. Not necessary for transfer of credits. Painless in that we can keep what we have in toys and just decrease the population. A decrease of 10% in population would result in a decrease of 10% in pollution.

    Is there no one who is worried that the number of people alive today is more than the total number of people who ever lived in the history of the world?

    Of course, we could accelerate the drop in pollution by added programs such as banning dryers and bringing back laundry lines. The clothes smelled better back then anyway.

    How about outlawing all plastic bags at retail outlets and everyone having to bring their own non-disposable ones?

    How about no more V-8's for cars and pickup trucks? Sixes for trucks and fours for car will get you there anyhow.

    Let us formulate some real plans instead of arguing on whether there is a global crisis or not.

    Time to get to work. Enough talk but then if you are a Liberal - - - -
  98. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: In the 1970's the Club of Rome gave dire predictions on the end of humanity due to the world running out of natural resources. They advocated (along with various leftist organiztions) leaving resources in the ground for future generations. This myth has now been debunked due to the introduction of innovative concepts, new ideas and technology into their equations. Climate change is a metaphysical fact of nature; it will happen. Imposing Kyoto-style taxes on people will not help one iota to influence climate change. The answer is to reduce or eliminate pollution, and to bring on line alternate energy sources. Predicting the end of the world from incomplete climate change models is sensationalist and irresponsible and should not be done by either scientists or the media. Rather, the objective evidence for human interference in the climate should be given. As an example, I find it hard to accept the claims that carbon dioxide is building up world wide. CO2 is used by trees in the formation of oxygen. It does not sit in the air, it bonds with other elements, and is flushed out of the air by rain. It is heavier than air, and will tend to sink to the ground and be dispersed. There may be areas where CO2 buildups can occur due to local atmospheric conditions. What I would like to see is the media publish the actual evidence for human involvement in climate change and not just the subjective sensationalist results.
  99. M G from Canada writes: James Cyr: CO2 concentrations are, indeed, building up world-wide. Local effects are generally minor, as the atmosphere has a large volume. See my previous post.
  100. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: Alan Burke: your very use of the word 'denial' says it all. Beign 100% sure of something that hasn't been 100% proven (MAN-CAUSED climate change, and in what proportions if any) is what makes you sound like a religious believer. When it comes from some lunatic I don't even bother, but from an intelligent person like you, it is somewhat scary.
  101. D K from Canada writes: To proud Canadian from United States: Stay in the states bub. In regards to the benefits in Canada:

    1) longer growing season

    -Not if it is drought conditions. A longer growing season will also mean a longer season for invasive species.

    2) less fossel fuels spent on heating homes in the winter.

    -More fossil fuels used to cool homes in the summer

    3) less people dying in the winter due to flu, colds.

    -More people dying in the summer due to heat stroke\smog

    4) less people dying due to a lack of exercise, warmer temps would allow more people to be outdoors.

    More people dying due to skin cancer. People excercising less because of more smog days. People can't go outside beacuse of allergies
    You can still exercise in cold weather. Not exercising because of 'cold weather' is a poor excuse.

    Whether Global Warming is happening/not happening matters, but should not be the only argument. The real issue is are we finally going to clean up after ourselves and reduce the pollution in our environment?
  102. Alan Padington from Canada writes: I don't understand the call for 'public debate'. What are you going to debate? The carbon cycle? Measurement methods for the variation in temperature of the troposphere? Maybe the validity of various computer models of estimating global temperature rise based on changes in average albedo in the Arctic? You can't 'publicly debate' science.

    Here's an idea though. How about everyone who's qualified on the subject, could debate it. We could use peer reviewed scientific studies from various academic institutions, to review conclusions based off the data. These people could collaborate and release their findings to the public and government! Sound like a good idea, eh?

    Oh wait, that's already happened. That's called the scientific community and they have already told us what they found. And it's bad.
  103. M G from Canada writes: D K: You're confusing issues. CO2 does not lead to skin cancer, as it has nothing to do with ozone depletion, which is a largely separate issue from global warming. CO2 is also not really a contributor to smog. We exhale about 44000 ppm CO2, so it won't bother us. It is true, however, that our attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will reduce other pollutants and this is a good thing.
  104. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Dave L from Kingston via Cranbrook............ "It had taken millions of years for life on this planet to evolve (yes, i'm an athiest, i don't believe god created the world) and in a few short centuries we have completely ravaged it."............... We've completely ravaged it already? Could have fooled me. However, you have given some credence to my theory that this "new religion" is really an attempt by the godless to find something in their life to believe in.
  105. M G from Canada writes: Dave: We already have something to believe in. Ourselves!
  106. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: To Mr. Luft...The only snake-oil salesman right now are those trying to convince people to buy or use their product with NO facts to support it. The FACTS on global climate change are enormous. The herbalists and naturopaths come to mind as snake oil salesman but also any religious leader who has a huge personal investment in convincing people of his/her "faith". If there was no religion, then they would be out of a job. The main difference is that science presents FACTS and is not based on "faith" or "trust" or "hope". I have read the facts on global climate change and I think they are solid and valid (as do the scientific reviewers of this data). I suggest you pick up a Nature or Science issue and read it. There is other science information in there too, not just stuff on climatology but data on evolution and novel genes that cause human disease (but you probably doubt those things too). How sad.
  107. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: I am somewhat amused although saddened by the number of comments which refer to past or potential hazards as proof of why we should ignore the current situation. For one thing most of our current or potential problems (Y2K aside) are related. Bird Flu pandemics, over-population, climate change, even (very likely) increase in cancer rates are all directly or indirectly related to the undeniable fact that the population and civilization of human beings on this planet has advanced to an order of magnitude such that it affects the planet itself. From a relatively stable population of several hundreds of thousands to several hundred millions over the course of millenia we have jumped from 1 billion to close to 7 billion in less than 100 years. More than sheer population numbers alone, the amount of natural resource consumption and environmental manipulation results in our affecting the world as a whole. How can we sit and ask for more data, explain that we cannot be sure that warming cycles are not natural, when we disgorge billions of tons of diverse pollutants into the atmosphere and waterways of the world and amputate the Earth of millions of square kilometers of forest every year. Surely we cannot be so naive as to think that we are not affecting anything? We know from history that humans can destroy habitat to the point of killing their own civilization (read 'Collapse' for more details, the most vivid example being Easter Island in the South Pacific, which used to be a completely forested island before the arrival of humans). In many cases humans have merley been contributing to an acceleration of natural climate evolution for thousands of years (cedars of Lebanon, anyone? Fertile Crescent? Great forests of Europe?). With advancing technology and numbers the process has accelerated to critical levels with increasingly drastic and dramatic global effects. to be continued
  108. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: I know the intent of this story is to examine the motives of the climate change "crusaders", but CBC's Fifth Estate program recently had a very interesting story on the motivations of the "skeptics". Turns out that many of the prominent ones are the very same people the tobacco industry hired to deny the health effects of smoking. You can watch the program at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
  109. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: To Alain S.: Please read the last sentence of my posting. I, like most people who can do math, understand the need for skepticism; it is the root of the scientific method. On this issue, unusual claims from the deniers require unusual proof.
  110. Helen Troy from Calgary, Canada writes: Scientists who speak up in the face of propaganda are worthy of applause. Next time you read about a global warming "denier", look at them closely. Most of them belong to some very dodgy "institutes", subsidized by the likes of Exxon Mobil, as the Federation of American Scientists has recently pointed out. Follow the money is good advice; and in the case of global warming denial, the money points straight to the oil and gas industry, or the automobile industry. They are quite happy to let the rest of the world's population pay for the ravages on the atmosphere that these industries perpetrate, so that they can continue to make obscene profits.
  111. David Gehring from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada writes: Yes, global warming is for real. Yes, there many serious impacts to global warming. But do we have to be part of this Kyoto accord that has such soft targets and is more of an economic mechanism to transfer wealth to developing countries that can sell us their emissions credits? Some real action is required and that means passing legislation limiting/banning the use of so many everyday luxuries that we now assume are essential to our materialistic lives. If you want action, start taking the bus or riding the bike instead of driving. Stop buying so many useless products that require heavy industrial practices.
  112. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: I am somewhat amused although saddened by the number of comments which refer to past or potential hazards as proof of why we should ignore the current situation. For one thing most of our current or potential problems (Y2K aside) are related. Bird Flu pandemics, over-population, climate change, even (very likely) increase in cancer rates are all directly or indirectly related to the undeniable fact that the population and civilization of human beings on this planet has advanced to an order of magnitude such that it affects the planet itself. From a relatively stable population of several hundreds of thousands to several hundred millions over the course of millenia we have jumped from 1 billion to close to 7 billion in less than 100 years. More than sheer population numbers alone, the amount of natural resource consumption and environmental manipulation results in our affecting the world as a whole. How can we sit and ask for more data, explain that we cannot be sure that warming cycles are not natural, when we disgorge billions of tons of diverse pollutants into the atmosphere and waterways of the world and amputate the Earth of millions of square kilometers of forest every year. Surely we cannot be so naive as to think that we are not affecting anything? 2 b cont...
  113. Canuck Expat from United States writes: M G the atmospheric scientist says: global warming could lead likely to higher agricultural productivity (amongst other things)" As an agriculture economist myself, I constantly monitor the impact of climate on agriculture. There seems to be a misconception amongst some in the general public that if what we are experiencing today is indeed global warming then it will mean more production because environments that normally can't sustain ag due to lack of heat, will now be able to (i.e. wheat crops in Nunavut). This premise really isn't feasible as there are many factors other then heat that will dictate where crops are planted. These include soil quality and depth, days of sunlight, and of course moisture, not to mention infrastructure in place for humans to actually farm the land. Furthermore, the earth is near capacity as far as arable land available for agriculture. Sure, we could continue to clear rain forest for soybean production but that certainly isn't going to solve any problem as it relates to the environment. The reality is, most in the agriculture industry believe that we are essentially at capacity for land use and that percieved increases in the temperatures isn't going to change this. If anything, some believe the climate may become more erratic leading to more droughts, floods, off-season frosts, mild winters leading to over-wintering of harmful pests that normally die, and other factors that will generally decrease ag productivity, not increase it. Agriculture certainly contributes it's fair share to greenhouse gas emissions and it's likely to be the most impacted negatively by the climactic effects brought on by global warming. Ag is one industry that has an incentive to make changes but don't expect farmers to volunteer on their own. They are already squeezed tight enough and only with assistance from the gov't will changes occur.
  114. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: The idea is not to create panic but to help people realize the potential consequences of our actions. Is this really a bad thing? After all for most of our collective existence the average life span was about 30 years. Only fifty percent of humans lived past the age of 5. Was it fear-mongering when scientists started to address the issues of sanitation, vaccine, and disease treatment (If you don't get vaccined, you might die!)? Was it scare tactics to try to awaken people to the facts that smoking could lead to lung cancer and severly limit the quality and length of life for many (possible not-so-obvoiously related) reasons. We already are aware of the options we have to maintain the quality of our individual lives through personal choices; we have simply reached a time in history when we must start making similar choices as a civilization, as a collective human race. The idea is not to create panic but to help people realize the potential consequences of our actions. Is this really a bad thing? After all for most of our collective existence the average life span was about 30 years. Only fifty percent of humans lived past the age of 5. Was it fear-mongering when scientists started to address the issues of sanitation, vaccine, and disease treatment (If you don't get vaccined, you might die!)? Was it scare tactics to try to awaken people to the facts that smoking could lead to lung cancer and severly limit the quality and length of life for many (possible not-so-obvoiously related) reasons. We already are aware of the options we have to maintain the quality of our individual lives through personal choices; we have simply reached a time in history when we must start making similar choices as a civilization, as a collective human race.
  115. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: The idea is not to create panic but to help people realize the potential consequences of our actions. Is this really a bad thing? After all for most of our collective existence the average life span was about 30 years. Only fifty percent of humans lived past the age of 5. Was it fear-mongering when scientists started to address the issues of sanitation, vaccine, and disease treatment (If you don't get vaccined, you might die!)? Was it scare tactics to try to awaken people to the facts that smoking could lead to lung cancer and severly limit the quality and length of life for many (possible not-so-obvoiously related) reasons. We already are aware of the options we have to maintain the quality of our individual lives through personal choices; we have simply reached a time in history when we must start making similar choices as a civilization, as a collective human race. The idea is not to create panic but to help people realize the potential consequences of our actions. Is this really a bad thing? After all for most of our collective existence the average life span was about 30 years. Only fifty percent of humans lived past the age of 5. Was it fear-mongering when scientists started to address the issues of sanitation, vaccine, and disease treatment (If you don't get vaccined, you might die!)? Was it scare tactics to try to awaken people to the facts that smoking could lead to lung cancer and severly limit the quality and length of life for many (possible not-so-obvoiously related) reasons. We already are aware of the options we have to maintain the quality of our individual lives through personal choices; we have simply reached a time in history when we must start making similar choices as a civilization, as a collective human race.
  116. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: To Brian C: again, consider the source of the 'panic' and what needed to be done. The only people really worried were in industry for wont of possible lost profits. The only thing needed was to change 1900 to 2000. I'm glad you think it's funny, but arguing tangentially relevant (at best) trivia does not an argument make. You only hear what you want to hear and no more. Sad.
  117. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: Sorry for the spamming, the submitter kept informing me that my entries were to long, but apparantly they all succeeded anyway.
  118. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: The un-named minister said the whole story when he requested something for the next election.
  119. Fred Heff from cowtownCalgary, Canada writes: Can this scientist tell me if the recent picture of the waterfall on Mars is interplanet warming or is it just Earthlings

    Or is it "whats in it for us" crowd and why shouldn't he tell us which politician said that, but I guess it really doesn't matter as we know which party it came from and should tell a lot about the Liebranos who govern for the party and not the country.
  120. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Here's a post I copied and pasted from another discussion here. I was interested in the computer models they were using for these predictions and came upon a quote from one of the "pro" scientists involved.

    I'm interested in the "computer models" they've been using and came upon this explanation by Kerry Emanuel from MIT ............. "there are not too many ways to test the model, and projections of future climates must necessarily involve a degree of faith. The amount of uncertainty in such projections can be estimated to some extent by comparing forecasts made by many different models, with their different parameterizations (and, very likely, different sets of coding errors). We operate under the faith that the real climate will fall among the projections made with the various models;"

    I don't know........... when they start using the word "faith" I think of religion, not science.
  121. P W from Canada writes: I love how those who disagree bring up the Y2K error as an example of something major which had little effect on people. It seems they forgot that this problem was though of some 15 years before 2000, and the computer companies worked their tail off to fix it. That's right they had foresight, and went out spent some money and fixed it before it happened. So to say the Y2K bug is another example of global warming fear mongering, they're message couldn't hit closer to home.
  122. One Canadian from Canada writes:
    This is a media created frenzied lunacy. I will not deny that we should take better care of our planet but this is insanity.

    Co2 is plant food not pollution. If the levels have increased, perhaps the planet is adapting to meet our needs for more plant food.

    For those nut jobs that want me to get rid of my trunk and by a Honda

    -Hondas are not safe, especially in a head on with a truck

    -Hondas are not environmentally friendly. It would take me no less than 6 round trips to haul a moose out of bush with a Honda but only one with my truck.

    -You can’t pull a 5th wheel trailer with a Honda in fact you can&8217;t even reach the take out window at the fast joint in a Honda.

    Tongue in cheek aside, I need a truck for my business and my family depends on my business. Hondas are for you pizza delivering liberals who only work 4-5 hours a day and latch on to the pogey nipple 6 months out of the year.
  123. M G from Canada writes: Canuck Expat: We agree on one thing - land use change (especially that related to agriculture) and soil conservation are extremely important environmental issues. The degree to which this is being addressed varies spatially, and is one of the most worrisome environmental problems in the tropics (if not the most worrisome). In my opinion, soil erosion issues are perhaps more important than global warming, which, in its own right, could affect cycling rates.
  124. A J from Canada writes: One Canadian, why is owning a fuel efficient vehicle something to ridicule. Wouldn't a greater public interest in conservation and gas mileage eventually lead more fuel efficient trucks. Would a day you can still use your truck to survive head-on collisions, haul a moose in one trip, pull your 5th wheel, and reach the takeout, on a fraction of the gas you are using today be such a bad thing?
  125. Don Adams from Canada writes: JG from Whitby. Now THAT I can go along with. I've BEEN saying similar things for years. But you're talking common sense. So many of the posters, both right and left, do nothing but spout garbage. Grant Parr from St Johns. So? So PLAN for the seas to rise. maybe, just maybe, cities, towns, villages etc in low lying areas need a system of dikes, or should even be moved altogether. Unfortunately, too amny people are either way left or way right on this issue. One thing I sure do agree with though..... Go Plant A Tree.
  126. M G from Canada writes: Canuck Expat: Upon closer reading of your post, I realise that your argument is that edaphic factors (and others) may make agricultural expansion impossible. I agree with this and certainly hope these areas (and the tropical areas you refer to as well) are not turned over to agriculture. My point was with regard to the effect on CO2 on photosynthesis. In the absence of further negative impacts on soil (ie., poor management) or net moisture balance (due to warming), I would expect either higher productivity, or increased water-use efficiency with more CO2. Hence, by implication, I was referring to productivity in existing plots. I am a conservationist myself.
  127. V ADS from North Vancouver, Canada writes: The gentleman who suggests that it is impossible to "debate science" is wrong AND missing the point. Science is not dogma. It is a process that has always been subject to challenge and scrutiny.

    Canadians are being asked to accept the Kyoto Protocol as a potential solution to "stabilize" or "combat" climate change. Aside from the absurd notion that a constantly changing climate can ever be stabilized, scrutinizing and even questioning the "science" asserting that "man-made" climate change "is the biggest threat to mankind after nuclear war" should be encouraged, not suppressed.

    And yes, it would be helpful if people understood the carbon cycle. It would be helpful if they understood that carbon dioxide is a minute greenhouse gas, and that without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen ball. It would help if people understood that Earth is still in an Ice Age, or more properly a relatively short inter-glacial respite of this present Ice Age. It would help if people understood that earth had no ice on either pole for most of its geological history, which is why we have huge oil and gas reserves in Alaska and the NWT.

    And it would really help if people read the IPCC reports, and not just the Summary for Policy-Makers. Especially the media.
  128. gord winters from Canada writes: the problem with scientists taking point is that this is no longer a scientific problem, it is a socio-political problem.
  129. Montreal Guy from Montreal, Canada writes: Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: To Ed Martin - so a US politician is the best source of information you have?

    Keith I trust your comment would be identical if referring to Al Gore?
  130. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: M G from Canada....thanks for the informative post. It is true that CO2 concentrations were high during Carboniferous times. This resulted in an abundance of plant formation and the formation of extensive limestone deposits.
  131. Simon Goring from Vancouver, writes: You know what, I've given up. First off, I'm not going to bother responding to the climate-change deniers because it's obviously futile.

    Second, I'm going to keep on making the changes in my life that can help reduce emissions immediately. I'm going to keep taking public transit, I'm going to keep turning off lights, I'm going to keep asking my elected officials to promote energy conservation.

    Seriously folks, is a little bit of conservation too much to ask?
  132. M G from Canada writes: James Cyr: These plants and deposits are the reason for the low concentrations by the end of the above period (almost as low as today).
  133. David Macdonald from Burnaby, Canada writes: Ms. Mcilroy is to be commended for an article that is so much more balanced, so much better researched and, therefore, so much fairer than that of her colleague, Ms. Wente, in her Focus piece of Saturday (27/01/07; "A Questionable Truth").
    It would seem Wente and her ilk (Murphy et al) want to shift the "debate" to one of "how bad is it?". The former "skeptics" [I'm being generous] will now have us believe that any who talk in terms of "catastrophe" are sensationalists just out to cash in with best sellers or to win academy awards.
    The coming IPCC report will show that we have a problem, a very serious one. Inaction (Liberal) is unacceptable. Delayed action (Conservative) is unacceptable. Sustained action is what is required and it is required now. Immediately.
  134. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: I was hoping someone could answer how effective a "tree planting" strategy would be. Does anyone know how much CO2 a tree would use in a year? The reason I am asking is because I'm firmly against buying "carbon credits". They are too much like "indulgences" which would forgive environmental sins while harming our economy. However, maybe something along the lines of a "fine" or an "obligation" by industries who go over their limit to plant as many trees it will take to offset it. Canada, being as large as it is should have no problem finding the space to do it with very little impact on the economy. Is it possible? Just asking.
  135. Patricia D. Maurice from Guelph, writes: Cognitive dissonance reigns. We try to discredit or deny anything we hear that does not fit with our preferred view of the world. We get very uncomfortable with talk about global warming because it means we will have to drastically alter our habits and by drastically I mean cut or eliminate automobile use (and how the heck are we going to do that when our communities have been built around the automobile?); it would mean we would have to learn to live in the winter months being considerably cooler than we are now; we would have to buy local in-season produce (what? no strawberries or lettuce in December?); we would have to stop buying stuff even if we felt we really needed it; and, we would have to take our hard-earned dollars and invest in alternative sources of energy for our residences just to get by. And maybe that still wouldn't be enough.

    Recent scientific discoveries, for instance the ice shelf that broke away last June and was just discovered in December, are proving that things are far worse than we had originally thought. These are not scare-mongering or dooms-day reactions. Asthma affects over 30% of our kids. Cancer affects more and more people we know. Folks, humans are the worst thing to have happened to earth. Our life style is killing us and the planet. Yet, we cling so stubbornly to the idea that we are entitled to our comforts and to the belief that we are very clever and that technology will save us. Technology is the culprit. The more complex our toys the worse off our planet. The way we live is completely and totally unsustainable.

    So, Scientists, please continue to bring on your articles and your studies. Speak out about your findings. Continue to tell us what we don't want to hear. Because maybe enough of us will listen and actually start to do something. Or then maybe we won't.
  136. Byron Rottweiller from vancouver, Canada writes: As Durgan comments 'this must be a plan and legislation consistant with good economic planning. Cold calculated planning with the removal of the public hysteria should be the route taken.'

    I agree 100%. But that will mean no hysteria either for or against developing a n effective government policy. Let's get on with it.

    Several polls in recent years show that about 75% of Canadians either support the original Kyoto targets, or support a 'made in Canada' plan that would meet or exceed those targets.

    The main debate would appear to be over. The next step is for government to implement the public's wishes, in a sensible way. That is what the next election will focus on, IMO.

    No one in this forum would argue against working toward sustainable development, which is another related and very vital issue. Part of the challenge of sustainability will be to develop new energy sources to eventually replace fossil fuels, and another to minimize the impact of human development on natural ecosystems.

    This is going to be a global effort, and a mighty challenge for us. We must focus and work diligently toward these goals - nothing less will do. The minority of obstructionists and naysayers in our societies must no be allowed to hijack our national interests.

    Why shouldn't Canada become a world leader in sustainable technology? Sounds profitable to me....

    As my wife said today, we cannot trade short-term gain for long-term pain.
  137. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: Was it not "Nuclear Winter" the threat of thirty or so years ago? Global warming is here, seems to be measurable and fits all the criteria the scientific community require to look at it. Now, without destroying Canada's economy to stop a small percentage of greenhouse gasses etc. What will be done? This might include suggesting the large exempt under Kyoto contributers to help. The solution will require an upper level of government to act, why didn't Dorthion and little dog kyoto do something years ago when they had a chance?
  138. Anne Onymous from Swalwell, Canada writes: Seems to me that anything that everyone believes so passionately MUST be wrong. I recall being taught in school that the area presently occupied by the Great Lakes was, only 10,000 short years ago, buried under a glacier. How could we have gotten from that state to present without considerable warming, and why should that warming have stopped just after a suitable site and climate for Toronto wa established? Those of us who recall from history lessons that there were farms in Greenland a few centuries back and who also recall the media publicized fear, not so long ago, that we were about to enter another ice age, tend to take everything with a grain of salt. For those who are not offended by conflicting viewpoints and a different selection of facts, a vist to http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayArchiveArticleWwnk.php?id=229 might be worthwhile.
  139. Ian in Ottawa from Canuckistan, Canada writes: How about instead of lobbying the government for more "research" money with fear mongering and spin, the envirofascists use that brain power to come up with inventions such as the energy-saving lightbulbs? Instead of crying wolf, come up with solutions that everyone will want to use.
  140. Charles Rowe from Calgary, Canada writes: First off, I agree something must be done about pollution. On the other hand no scientific evidence presented to date a drawn even a strong link between carbon dioxide and global warming. I agree the planet is getting warmer, but am uncertain on the cause. This Scientist has definitely presented one of the things I am most concerned about....Scientists. They never stop to ask the question "should we do this" they only ask "can we". In my mind they are the group of people most responsible for all the close calls that humanity has ever faced...and they will be the cause of the ones to come. Internal combustion engines, atomic bombs, cloning, etc. etc. all the work of scientists. So let me ask a question, what gives this person the right to use this standing as a "scientist" as someone the general public should put more faith in then the average "joe Canadian"? I think the major problem with this person and people from his profession adding editorial to their evidence is that they have no accountability. Governments would not be re-elected, businesses would lose customers, even the media would have to issue an apology. But scientists....they don't even have to say oops let alone I'm sorry I was wrong. The effect of this is that everything that comes from the lips of someone with no consequences should be taken under consideration with extreme caution. That goes for both sides of this arguement.
  141. Kyle A from Waterloo, Canada writes: What the hell do you expect the scientists to do? Say that Global Warming is no big deal and that we should all just keep doing what we're doing? Scientists are speaking out so dramatically because IT IS A BIG DEAL!!! Global warming warrants the drama, and will most likely have huge implications on people's lives if it has not already done so. Talk about shooting the messenger, sheesh.
  142. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Brian C: "To Hugh Campbell: Try reading some contrary opinions before claiming you are an expert".

    I did not claim to be an expert. I have directed others to the opinions of experts at realclimate.org, and not to a newspaper with a specific agenda such as the National Psst.
  143. Evan Davies from Canada writes: Nice to see so many expert opinions (as usual) on the comments page. Those of you who doubt the existence of climate change, may I suggest that you do a little reading on the topic? And no, reading the media daily doesn't cut it. Try reading a bit of science rather than propaganda. Go to www.ipcc.ch. (Unless you're seriously concerned that the IPCC is run by communists or nasty liberals -- in which case I suggest you seek medical help.)
  144. Montreal Guy from Montreal, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell

    I don't believe the IPCC is run by communists or nasty liberals but as an organization with UN ties well ... to suggest it would be anything but liberal in its outlook would be a bit of a stretch no?
  145. mondo pinion from Canada writes: I have a question which should have occurred to me before but did not: If we can trace the co2 percentage in the atmoshere back through the millenia, and high c02 coincides with the warm periods, how do we know co2 is the cause and not just a side effect of something else, like peaks in solar cycles? And if, just if, co2 is merely a side effect, then how can we know the artificial increase of co2 by humanity will cause anything similar? Of course it may cause something even worse. Gaia has her own amazing systems of balance, but earth has not been through this before.
  146. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Y-a-w-n! Wake me up when all you clever scientist politicians come up with a WORKABLE, EFFECTIVE plan to save the world. In the meantime stop frightening my kids.
  147. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Whether this Climate Change is one of those naturally occuring ones from millenia past or prompted by our collective denial of our own effluents, it does demonstrate how inept we are at adapting and modifying our industries and habits. Maybe all of this will help us address these changes before they address us. The city of Athens, population 4 million produces 6,000 tonnes of trash, daily. I imagine most big cities have to deal with similar loads. What has the scientific and packaging community done to address that? We're moving massive amounts of packaging materials from anywhere in the world to our cities, and vice-versa, and have not considered the impact enough to change our ways. Victoria, BC had the sweetest tap water anywhere before the late 60's. Not anymore. Toronto's skyline used to be clear, even when I worked on the CN tower in the mid-70's. That's gone. The fishing in Northern Ontario was already being screwed up with pulp effluents in the late 50's. Forget it now. City water systems are bad in most Canadian cities. But damaging the air makes it almost cost-prohibitive to install a Rain-Harvesting system where you get frequent SMOG Alerts. We don't need to look at this mess in scientific terms. Canadian Aboriginals gave us an entire country without one City Dump. Since then, we've marginally improved our age expectancy, and added more 'modern-science-derived diseases' than they ever found a medicinal herb to address the few they had. Demand that Manufacturers ship their goods in responsible packaging. Demand that diapers be made of materials that will decompose in less than a generation. Allow drivers to tweak their cars to be cleaner, even if they use non-factory equipment. Have we come to the point where we rely entirely on the Scientific and Political Priesthood or Witch Doctors that niether we can bring our own commonsense to address these daily aberrations right in front of our noses?
  148. Canuck Expat from United States writes: M G: Thanks for candid and intelligent posts and response to earlier posts. I understand your point on CO2 and potential for increased productivity. This is a good example of a so called "sceptic" (no offense intended but that's what some or your peers do and will refer to you as, I'm sure) who is making his point clearly without resorting to immature name calling and insults from many other posters (although I must say, it's entertaining!!). The reality is, the global warming issue requires a serious debate that encompasses all sides of the story. Too many times Canadians are forced to make a decision on imperfect information, usually provided to them by a bias or mis-informed press. If there was more objectivity in journalism, debates on issues such as this would be more educated and fruitful. Too many times a journalist with a preconcieved agenda or view slants his/her writing to reflect that view. Freedom of the press is essential in a modern, democratic, society but I feel this right is abused when objectivity is removed in the reporting. Thankfully, blogging has allowed more accountability to come into journalism because more peoples voices can be heard. I'm not trying to attack the G&M here as the entire media needs to ensure that their reporting looks a all views with a critical eye and any conclusions are based on thorough fact finding and investigation. And, FYI, I'm a believer in global warming. Although I am interested in the views of so called sceptics such as M G that have thier reasons to be sceptical. The G&M and other mediums need to focus on this view as well.
  149. Snafu Fubar from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Andrew Pearson, I couldn't have said it better! I remember, as a child, being terrified for the world's (and my) future. Back then it was all about a coming ice age. The evidence was irrefutable. Crop failures, mass starvation, and weird weather. We were doomed.

    I have no doubt that the earth is now warming, but both sides have their own agendas.
  150. james p from toronto, Canada writes: the planet is going to rebalance itself, with or without our help. we are currently the ingredient in the fix that's compromising the integrity of the whole. all the talk, science or religion in the world won't mean a thing when the islands start sinking.
  151. J Luft from Canada writes: Interestingly, often these phony scare monger reports are almost always written by bureaucrats. The real science is buried and the executive summaries, etc., are twisted beyond reality by the bureaucrats. It is nothing more than propaganda.....pure and simple.
  152. olivier bihl from Montreal, Canada writes: mmmm ... yes , we're gonna kill ourselves ... but who cares ... we deserve it . The earth will survice our stupidity, not humans ...
    Euh Rick ... what a REAL Canadian is ? a redneck-farmer-oiler-man drivin his pickup and voting Harper ? mmm i'm not sure everyone agree ...
  153. Stringer's Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes: mondo pinion :

    Your questions and many others posed here on global warming have been answered at: www.realclimate.org, a site operated by professional climate scientists.
  154. Joy Young from Venice, CA, United States writes: It's a good idea to trust the word of the scientists who specialize in the investigation of climate trends. In fact, it's a good idea to trust the word of the scientific community as a whole. Scientists, by education alone, have a common thread: a complete dis-interest in the outcome of the data they gather. They don't care, for the most part, what is actually proven to be true. Yet, they have a sincere interest in the process of compiling that data and proving SOMETHING. It's like solving a complex puzzle, and many find it a fun past-time. If you're a scientist, you will see "Global Warming" as a theory based upon some pretty strong empirical evidence, and you will probably trust your fellow scientists (who specialize in the field) to tell it like it is according to the available data. When I was young (in the mid 60s), one prevailing theory in my small community was that pollution was "washed" from the atmosphere when it rained. And though it rained an awful lot in Texas, I suppose it just hasn't rained enough worldwide! The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a serious warming trend. Even if its an atmospheric fluke that this theory of Global Warming is tending to prove itself true, we can only help ourselves by living "green" lifestyles: recycling, using alternative energy, driving less, walking or biking where possible, and planting things wherever we can plant them. It never hurts to plant a tree in the wilderness & hope it grows. And why not toss some wildflower seeds out the window while driving in the country? They might grow & eat up some CO2. Meanwhile, they'll look pretty! The other side of the Global Warming "coin" is stress, otherwise known as WORRY. It isn't healthy. We all should take immediate action in any emergency of course, but be "cool" otherwise & just do all we can realistically do to participate in the solution... We'll survive as a species, no doubt about it.
  155. Byron Rottweiller from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'J Luft from Canada writes: Interestingly, often these phony scare monger reports are almost always written by bureaucrats'. Ignoring the redundant 'often and almost always', can you give an example of such a report?

    I'll look forward to reading it.
  156. W M from Canada writes: It makes my blood boil, when I see accusations of scientifically illiterate "mediots" alloting too much time to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who believe that climate warming is happening and human induced. The fact is that if coverage were based on the number and scientific credibility of the pundits, there would be virtually articles by deniers, such as that noted scientist Rex Murphy. As for accusations that the consensus that exists in based on self-interest, please explain. The current federal governments of both Canada and the US have made it clear that it does not want any of its employees to admit that climate warming is happening. In Canada, government scientists have been cautioned (and gagged in at least one case) and in the US their reports have been edited by non-scientists, who had been working as lobbyists for the coal and oil industry, prior to being appointed to government. In other words, stating that climate change is real and action is required is at best career limiting and at worst a potential career ender. As for money, Exxon made almost $50 billion last year and is funneling money to any scientist willing to claim that climate change is not occuring or that there is no need to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, they are using some of the same lobby companies as were used by the tobacco industry to challenge the idea that tobacco harms health. Moreover, they are even using some of the same scientists. If you can tell me why I should believe someone who was previously claiming expertise in sub-cellular biology (not to mention completely and utterly wrong) when they now challenge true experts on the issue of the global climate? Clearly, of dipsticks like that can get $ from Exxon, of greed were the motive, scientists would be flocking to Exxon.
  157. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: This debate has become polarized, and because of that, the point will be lost. The issue is that our environment is a trust. We can do things to preserve it, such as limiting ecosystem destruction in the tar sands, Asia and South America, and take positive steps for clean air and water. However, if we are rational beings that inhabit earth as a planet in a solar system, we must accept the unknown, and possibly major, contribution of our sun and the planets. To postulate that earth is alone and human beings control the environment is the realm of wacko religions and primitive societies. Surely our egocentric omniscience should be parked at the door and our effectiveness will become more realistic in light of our cosmic vulnerability and irrelevance. Unless somebody wants to scream that mankind is destroying the cosmos.
  158. R Harris from Canada writes: Anne Onymous - thanks for the reference to the site. It makes for some interesting reading. Unlike the majority here, I am not an expert on Climate Change but have seen enough articles like this one that cause some doubt and confusion as to what is really happening. The most compelling point is that temperatures have not risen since 1998. If we are on a man made path to doom, why are they not continuing to rise? Can any of the proponents of impending doom answer that or otherwise say what is wrong with arguments made in the casey research report?
  159. rm r from Canada, United States writes: I only have a short lunch break so often I only skim G&M articles of interest then skim the reader comments. But this time I was surprised by the content of the first 4 postings (Alexander Dryden: "apocalyptically awful bad news", Dave Medich: "zealotry and cult-like fear mongering", Dave Medich: "apocalyptic scenarios and one-sided brainwashing", jiri Z: "religious zealots"). So I re-read the article more carefully to see what I'd missed. I found a lot of phrases like "doesn't think it is wrong for experts on either side of the issue to air their views", "don't exaggerate the risk or play down the uncertainty" (of global warming), " you won't see words like catastrophic or chaotic", "stay away from apocalyptic terms", "tries not to use the word catastrophe", etc, etc. Hmmmm, I wonder if the first 3 posters read the article at all, or just zeroed in on the word "crusader" in the headline?
  160. Sam Courtney from North, Canada writes: Dave Medich from Windsor.
    It seems that all you can do is insult people who are better educated than you on this subject. In a former post you stated that I got my information from MS Magazine and Flair, typical of an ingnorant person. I am a scientist, schooled in the Earth Sciences. Over 25 years ago, I and my Graduate School collegues were indroducted to the facts, and yes these are now hard facts. You sir are not a scientist, but a self deluded simpleton. Your usual rebuttal is to call into question one sexuality, or convictions- calling Al Gore reverand as to imply that he is stating something on faith not on science.
    Look in the Mirrior Father Medich, get you facts straight and your head out of the sand. Perhaps if you had invested in a better education you would be able to read some or the scientific articles on the subject instead of relying on bogus inormation put out by non scientists. Are you being paid to post your information? Seems that's all you do on this site, every day. Are you working for that bastion of science" the Fraser Institute or perhaps the auto sector.
  161. Sam Courtney from North, Canada writes: M G From Canada
    "During most of Earth's history (with the exception of the late Carboniferous), levels have ranged from 1000 to 7000 ppm)."

    What the hell are you talking about? For most of the Earths history, there was very little oxgen in the atomsophere. Life began 3.5 billion years ago, but it was not until the development of Photosynthesis that oxgen began to be produced. The Carbonaceous - when major coal deposits were laid down ended 300 million years ago. The most life lived in the seas, and was about as intelligent as a Trilobite. There were no mamals or dinosaurs, a few fish.
    The earth has not seen as much C02 in the atmosphere since the rise of mamamals following the extinction of the Dinosaurs 66 million years ago. At that poin there was more C02 in the atmosphere due to exentsive volcanic activity in what is now India. These changes happend over millions of years, not a 150 years as we are witnessing today.
    I suggest you bone up on your geology before you make such erroneous and misleading statements.
    Of course C02 was higher in the past 3.7 billion years- but there was no land life during that period, unless you know something I don't.
  162. Misty Blue from kelowna, Canada writes: Alan Paddington: I have noticed the same escalation, in particular since the UK published the Economics of Climate Change, which G&M commented on. It wasn't all that long ago. Since then I've seen a huge jump in environmental stories and debate. Since then the environment has come to the top of political isssues in Canada, it seems, almost over night. Until then I hadn't read of any legitimate government commenting about the environment insofar as dire consequences to profit and loss statements and national economies. This seems to agree with my feeling that only when climate change effects the bottom line will powerful changes start to happen. What those changes look like is yet to be seen. If corporations begin to take climate change seriously, and not just suck up to public concerns with cute advertising, but enough to change their policies, then this would definitely benefit everyone. I'd always wondered why those 'biggies' who currently ignore this global problem seem to be bent on "killing the goose that lays the golden egg." (The resources and public who earn them money) Maybe that official report is what they needed, but who cares how as long as the environment lunges to the top of the list in importance.

    How can government and business bring the topic of overpopulation to the table when they continue to see bigger populations equal to increased tax bases and increased sales and more votes?

    Allan A'Dale and Robert Hobbs, totally agree with you on the expanding population being ignored. It is of course at the root of the whole mess.

    Brian C.: try downloading a free program called "tiny url" for those long links. Cuts them down to about 10 digits.
  163. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: QUOTE FROM ARTICLE..."It feels like the right thing to do."

    well, I guess that's a wrap!
  164. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: The example of Y2K is indeed an interesting one and may hold some relevance to today's issue of global climate change. The experts in the field knew that storing 2-digit years could be a problem right from the beginning, but it was felt to be a reasonable trade-off. In the early 80's these same experts began to sound warning bells saying that we were going to have to fix this old code, but no one listened.

    It wasn't until the mid-90's when systems, mostly small and less important ones, started breaking and people started asking a few questions. But really though it wasn't until the credit card systems started breaking due to post 2000 expiry dates that the proverbial brown stuff really hit the fan. It was only then that industry realized they had been caught with their pants down! Business needed to spend BIG-$$$ in a short period of time to avoid problems.

    The end result was that all the important systems were fixed. Small systems still broke, but mostly they were known and had back-ups put in place (mostly pen-and-paper backups). Those who had played little to no part were left wonder "what was the big worry?" simply because so much money and time had been spent to fix the problem.

    The moral of this story though is that people are VERY bad at recognizing problems until they become really serious. The sad fact is that if human-caused global warming is happening (and the vast bulk of the data says that it is) we aren't going to do dick-all about it until there are some real OBVIOUS disasters caused by it. Until something happens where 100,000 people are killed due to a DIRECT result of global warming, no concrete actions is going to occur. It seems to be human nature that we need to be hit over the head with a BIG hammer before we sit up and take notice. Credit cards systems breaking was that hammer for Y2K, but I'm scared of what it might be for climate change.
  165. M G from Canada writes: Sam Courtenay: I wrote you a detailed response to your comments, but it didn't get past the moderators due to length, I suppose (though I was under the limit). In short, I feel that it's important to point out that I agree with you that CO2 is irrelevant before the evolution of land plants. I think you know I was only referring to photosynthesis arguments, so by definition I was only referring to the past half billion years (or even less, if you want to look only at the period with widespread vascular land plants). However, even if you restrict analysis to the past 400 MY, it would take you very little research effort to notice that everything I stated is true for this period as well. Perhaps, in writing haste, I should not have written "Earth's history," but "since plants evolved." Point well taken, Sam. Furthermore, I am not a climate change skeptic! I think global warming is caused by GG's and that there are some problems associated with this. However, I think there are also some benefits to additional CO2. This is, of course, heresy, but countless studies show the beneficial impact of CO2 on photosynthesis. No biologist in her/his right mind would question its positive impact on water-use efficiency (some argue it augments photosynthetic rate and nutrient-use efficiency). From conversations I have had with people, I think it's fair to say that most did not realise this, because this goes unreported. Good news is not news at all, is it?
  166. M G from Canada writes: Sam: You wrote: "The earth has not seen as much C02 in the atmosphere since the rise of mamamals following the extinction of the Dinosaurs 66 million years ago. At that poin there was more C02 in the atmosphere due to exentsive volcanic activity in what is now India.
    I suggest you bone up on your geology before you make such erroneous and misleading statements."

    I am right. You are wrong. 150 years ago, CO2 was at its LOWEST point since the extinction of the dinosaurs. When dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, concentrations were near 1000 ppm. There has been a conistent decrease ever since, until humans inadvertently began enhancing concentrations. 380 ppm is a lower than average concentration during the period you quote above, though it is higher than it has been during the past several hundred thousand years. Time will tell if this is a bad thing overall. I suspect that it will cause lots of problems (eg. sea level rise, biodiversity loss due to rapid change of interspecies dynamics etc.) and some benefits (higher photosynthetic productivity and expansion of plants into rock/ice and tundra environments). Change is not bad, by definition.
  167. M G from Canada writes: I should also point out that there are two reasons for the correlation between temperature fluctuations and those of CO2 and methane over the past 500,000 or so years. The main reason is that higher temperature leads to higher decomposition rates, so a lot of the soil carbon from partially-decomposed organic matter ends up back in the atmosphere. This is a potential feedback to any climate warming that may occur. The second reason is that the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere cause the climate to warm, due to absorption of longwave radiation emitted from the Earth. We are doing this now, and the consensus seems to be that this is a bad thing, overall. I'm not so sure. Aside from the direct photosynthetic benefits of CO2 I listed above, a warmer climate could potentially help to break down pollutants in the north more quickly, lengthen the growing season and facilitate the colonization of new lands by animals and plants. If I had to choose between a 200 ppm CO2 world (ie., a decrease) and a 400 ppm world, I would take the latter.
  168. M G from Canada writes: Last comment: Back to work...
    Before I get attacked again as a skeptic (which I am not), I should concede the following points. 1. I believe in conservation and limitation of development to enhance environmental welfare and have devoted my working life to ecoogy and atmospheric science because of my love of these fields 2. I walk to work to reduce my own emissions. I just so happen to be more concerned with air pollution, water pollution, soil conservation, wildland destruction (especially forests) and environmental contaminants, than with CO2, which is not technically a pollutant in the first place. As you sigh in disagreement, you are releasing it in very high concentrations. Wow! Four consecutive posts... I guess I'm arguing with myself. Time for me to say ciao!
  169. William Jorgensen from Noraville, Australia writes: "Climate-change" or "global-warming", the choice in terms might not seem to be much, but they are without doubt quite different expressions when it comes to the personal perceptions each individual, and country, have about a sudden and relatively permanent change in the weather.
    While climate-change sounds benign, the vision of a world cooking in its own juices in a globally-warmed oven adds a different set of imaginary pictures to the slide-show in one's mind. Unless, of course, you live in a normally frozen, or freezing, country where a few more degrees of global-warming might actually be considered a good thing - Canada for instance.

    In Australia, global-warming has a very different effect on the national conscience. An endless drought and record temperatures are becoming very obvious to anyone not living in a permanently air-conditioned maximum-security mental hospital. Anyone with a backyard garden, however, is very aware of the changes going on in the weather. (There was a record 43 C day on the east coast in early spring that killed half the plants in my garden, many of them native, and, wiped out every brown orb-weaving spider and host of other beneficial insects -- one good thing though, the annoying nests of black ants living under my paving were never seen again.

    I'm one those rare people who, even though I have children, often wonder whether life on this planet wouldn't be better off without us, and I sometimes console myself that should worse come to worse, life will go on, but now I wonder if everything else is going to die with us - no future archaeologists of another specie to wonder at our once mighty stature., how sad.

    It may already be to late to do anything, I don't see anything that looks like the consensus that's going to be needed to make a difference, except perhaps energy/resource-depletion, which is another catastrophe more imminent and certain than climate/global/warming/change.


  170. M G from Canada writes: Okay, I lied. I need to make another point. I just looked at a set of ice core records with finer temporal resolution. There is a point, about 20,000 years BP, when CO2 levels got as low as about 185 ppm. This of course, was both a cause and effect of the ice age (ie., 1. less absorption of longwave radiation = cooling and 2. less decomposition = lower CO2). Wouldn't it be great to know for sure how this cycle was broken? I, therefore, modify my above point, to say that CO2 levels have been at their lowest level in hundreds of millions of years during the past one million years. This is more accurate. Sam's point is still way off base, as he says concentrations are the highest since the dinosaurs. In fact, they are much closer to being at their lowest point since the dinosaurs than they are to being at their highest point since the dinosaurs. Do you agree with this, Sam?
  171. jiri Z from Canada writes: Alan Padington's view seems candid enough. Too bad that his notions make not one bit of sense. As a "scientific person" he has to side with the (envirocult fanatics)?? Phew, Sir, I am now attacking your ideas - not you personally, you understand.

    Your ideas are crap. Thank you and Good night.
  172. Don Wilson from Debert, NS, Canada writes: Tony fr Waterloo - you've nailed it - people are just too busy to stop and think about what they can do as individuals . The world climate is changing as it has done from the moment after the Big Bang . For those that stop and think - they can use ground source heat instead of buying increasingly expensive hydrocarbon fuels . Heat from the sun is free and the price doesn't keep rising. This heat can be stored inexpensively for nightime use. Big inefficient furnaces can be sold for junk and smaller backup ones installed , after installation of a heat pump and solar heat collector(s). If government really understood , they would create a program to buy up all the older gas guzzling cars and trucks and melt them down. They would move more freight by sea and rail and get long distance trucks off the highways. Here in Nova Scotia the monopoly power provider has been dragging it's feet about getting wind power supply up and running on a large scale. Ditto for Tidal power of which there is plenty . They have no incentive to do that . This is a government project . However polititions are only interested in the next 12 months , not in the next several centuries.
  173. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Sam Courtney from North, Canada ........ Sam! Sam! Calm down....... calm down...... I'm not questioning your sexuality. I'm pretty sure I know what it is. Anyway, no I'm not being paid by anyone because I don't need the money and the reason I can post liberally is because I am retired. I have a lot of time lately because it's pretty cold outside. This global warming thing is a drag. Maybe I am stupid, as you believe. I must have done something right to retire quite well off with a home here and in Europe all before I turn 50. But don't worry, I can take your pompous, condescending insults. You should learn how to do it. Be a man!
  174. Jo L from Halifax, Canada writes: Scientists as climate crusaders? that's said like its a bad thing like it means their less trust worthy.... If you know a huge amount of information about something and know that what is happening is dangerous to EVERYONE... you'd be a crusader against it too, unless your a sociopath. No one wants to believe the scientists but this is not like evolution its something that's happening before our eyes. The only controversy is made up by people who don't know any science, but are profiting from continuing enviromental distruction. Who do you trust?!
  175. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Seems Al Gore has become the poster boy for global warming alarmists. Imagine if someone had predicted THAT 5 years ago. The following article lists 25 major falsehoods in the Al Gore " movie ". But be Warned: If you get upset when people question the global warming hysteria , don't read this article as it will spoil your day.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
  176. ivan more from Canada writes: The Koyot treaty is actually a giant wealth redistribution scheme, socialism on aglobal scale that taxes wealthy, idustrialized countries by forsing them to buy carbon emission credits from poorer countries through a vitrual(phony) carbon market, while not reducing the world's pollution by one single molecule. Also Koyoto will actualy accelerate globalization by encuraging companies to move their factories from highly- regulated Canada to mass-polluter countries like China and India: thus lowering our standart of living. In effect it's socialism disguised as science by our evinoristas I urge every Canadians to take a look at the Koyoto Protocol and ask yourselves how creating a carbon emission trading bureaucracy makes this planet even one degree cooler.
  177. ivan more from Canada writes: In 1988, the UN's intergovermmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was formed, wich issues periodic Summaries for Policy Makers(SPM) - wich tend to be mote political than scientific, and advances thr myths of Koyoto. A respected Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tom Bell, says 'the Koyoto Protokol is a political solution to a non - existend problem without scientific justification. Koyoto is socialism on world scale. rich country to give money to poor country, virtual market to by carbons and to make some people millioners.Anyone in another viewpoint should check friendsofscience.ca wich notes that no one has yet come up with a fotmula for predicting climate change. The best we can do is predrict the weather two weeks ahead of time. Even that is hit or miss. What Canada and the world should be more concerned about is pollution wherever it occurs -- plastic in the oceans, toxic wastes wrecking the land, polluted groundwater that will kill our lakes just a Soviets killed Lake Baikal in Russia.
  178. Wayne B from Calgary, Canada writes: I remember all those times my Mom and Dad yelled, "Son, close the door. Are you trying to heat all of central Alberta?"
  179. Dan Weaver from Toronto, Canada writes: ivan more - your argument is as hollow as the many economists that hold your view. the facts of climate change are the realm of science, which thus discredits friendsofscience.org. and just because a few people put up a website doesn't make it true. for a rebuttle of your web-savy though inaccurate website friends, run by scientists who are regularly published in the prestigious journals like Nature, Science and so forth, see www.realclimate.org
  180. ivan more from Canada writes: Dan Weaver from Toronto, Canada: Please check who is financing www.realclimate.org and you will see the reality.
  181. ivan more from Canada writes: How creating a carbon emission trading bureaucracy will makes this planet even one degree cooler. rich country to give money to poor country, virtual market to by carbons and to make some people millioners.how creating a carbon emission trading bureaucracy makes this planet even one degree cooler???
  182. meaghan franey from Wolfville, Canada writes: Whether you are on the side of the skeptics or the believers when it comes to the issue of climate change, it can't be denied that we are polluting the planet. The air is not clean, it's barely breathable in some cities, and if you combine that with water and soil pollution from pesticides and otherwise it's hardly a recipe for good health. Regardless of what you're concerned about when it comes to the environment; humans (present and future generations), animals, plant-life or just the earth in general, cleaning up our act cannot possibly be a negative thing. Except, perhaps, if you're on the side of the big companies producing much of the pollution, or the folks who won't hear of hanging up their laundry instead of using the clothes-dryer, or getting rid of the massive gas-guzzling SUV's. After all, they need a good sturdy vehicle to maneuver their way through the grocery store parking lot.
  183. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Sam Courtney from North..... Thatta girl, Sam! Give 'er!
  184. Long live Canada from Canada writes: The more I read about global warming the more I am convinced that rather than being an immediate crisis situation it is more of a long term investment, sort of like saving for retirement. Please do not rely on An Inconvenient Truth for facts. Al Gore is a politician. He presents evidence in a way that will convince you he is right. There are numerous errors in the film, even according to the scientists at realclimate.org, who had to admit they were a bit concerned about them. Do not blindly believe those who say skeptics are all paid by the oil industry. This information comes from Greenpeace. Greenpeace also claimed that Apple computers had one of the worst environmental records in their comparison of various PC manufacterers. When people pointed out that this was simply not true, Greenpeace accused them of being on Apple's payroll. Finally, when people who claim to be scientists start hurling insults and resort to name calling it makes the rest of us wonder about the validity of their argument. Science is objective, there is no need for personal attacks if you have evidence that supports your position. Perhaps people are so convinced that humans are only capable of reacting to an immediate crisis they feel the need to create one. I agree with those who say that we need to address the problems with the environment. I do not appreciate people misleading me into being afraid. By the way, build a hybrid I can afford and I will buy it.
  185. mac chen from Unfathomaville, writes: It is high time we ascribe some measurable quotient similar to IQ to each person's environmental culpability. Degredations including collusions and complicity would subsequently be prevented from being swept under the carpets of time as they now are. Hopefully.

    One's G.E.Q. - Gross Environmental Quotient should encompass not only one's direct impact on the environment (including past history), but indirect impacts as well. In this way every entity, from country to corporation - right down to its individual consitituents' reputation would be on the line. A measurement could be worked out thus allowing public renouncement for one's "environmental culpability" (perhaps "E.C." is more fitting?). If politicians were held to such accountability, along with every Canadian citizen - from private household waste to their line of employment perhaps effective change could be on the horizon.
  186. Long live Canada from Canada writes: In reading my post over I should clarify that the evidence that Al Gore presents to convince us he is right is often distorted, like making the correlation between insect damage to trees and global warming. In reality, it is in large part due to restricting the natural forest fires and planting reducing the diversity of forests by planting only one species after harvesting. A politician doesn't tell you the whole story.
  187. RC Lunan from Cobourg ON., Canada writes: Polute the air,water and land at your own peril. Common sense (of what could happen) but that's not very common now a days.
  188. Rick Drysdale. from Sidney BC, Canada writes: Maybe they are finally starting to see that no matter if they are right or not , when you scream at me I will stop paying attention.
    If someone was transported here from 500 years ago wouldn't they think things have changed a lot?
    When I look around I don't see any evidence of climate change here. The sky is clear the water is actually cleaner in my marina where I live. The wind still blows from the south east.
    My wife and I have always tried to use as little as possible . Our electric bill averages 23 dollars a month we use less than 100 gallons of water a week. We move about 20 miles to be closer to where we work.
    Still they yell at us to us less and do without so some mythical grandchildren will be able to do what?
  189. Steeve McCauley from Montreal, writes: If what I'm reading in this comments is any indication of the state of mind of average Canadians, we are doomed. It's astounding how many people take this issue personally, as if asking people to clean up their act is somehow a personal assault.
  190. JN Smith from Canada writes: Climate Change is a tough sell for some of us outside of the GTA. Unfortunately, Winterpeg is missing the global warming action. It's minus 20 here and a high of minus 29 on the weekend. I'm waiting for evidence of warming. I know it's going to snow more this winter and be cold. Heck, it's probably going to snow in early May. No, it's not climate change. It's Winnipeg. I remember reading a G&M article about the 30 cm snowfall in late December here. The article used the term "weird weather." How is snow in December weird? Did I miss something?
  191. Mai Larebilaton from Toronto, Canada writes: "And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?" the minister asked. "Why would we do this?"

    Spoken like a true Lieberal
  192. Chris Pisesky from Edmonton, Canada writes: Iím shocked and surprised that so many Canadians are so ignorant. Almost as if they're on the payroll of these oil companies. Sure, some of the information in An Inconvenient Truth is made up to scare us and that bothers me, but Global Warming is happening and we can't ignore it! Iím not a "kyoto-ist", or an environmental scientist, Iím simply a concerned human. Its easy to ignore all the proof of climate change because when we get in our car and drive to work, when we fire up our computers and build our suburban mansions full of wonderful appliances, life is blissful and we'd rather think about how to pay our mortgages and bills. In Canada, we donít have to worry about our island home being covered by the ocean. We only have to worry about our favorite vacation spot flooding. We donít have to worry about 10 hurricanes a year, or millions of people having their homes flooded. We donít have to worry about it too much in cold Alberta, so we keep pumping out the oil and burning up the natural gas. Why should we care about the people and habitat all over the world that are being affected? We're rich! Well Canadians have a responsibility to set an example for the rest of the world and quit being so ignorant. We need to take action by reducing our own emissions and pressuring our government to reduce emissions, as well as pressure other governments such as China to reduce their astronomical consumption of coal. People can joke around as much as they want about how Waterworld is a cool movie and how itís just a big scare. Hopefully they're the ones living on the coast when the ice caps melt and flood their homes, leaving them fighting for their lives. Then maybe they'll admit that Global Warming is real and that we should have done something while we could.
  193. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: Oil is a non-renewable resource. It is running out rapidly. Even without the threat of global warming, common sense would dictate that we take measures to conserve it, yet many of the posters here seem to assume that oil will last forever, and it is only some left-wing conspirators with Jack Layton in the lead, that want to slow down its consumption and drive up prices.

    The price of oil has skyrocketed in the last few years because global demand is outstripping supply. The price will continue to climb as oil reserves are depleted and demand continues to increase, unless we act decisively now to reduce demand. By introducing measures to curb fossil fuel consumption we ensure that the supply will last much longer and that prices will fall. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
  194. alphonse warakomski from United States writes: If one starts looking seriously at the case that carbon dioxide causes global warming one soon comes to the conclusion that this a myth of the 21st century. Many politicans such as Al Gore publicize this myth with the hope of gaining public support. The problem with the case of carbon dioxide is that the computer models used do not take into account cloud formation and activity; this is too complex to do at present. This makes the models, despite the high investment of money and time in them, worthless. Thus we have a case of propaganda against so called green house gases. In this case one must point out that in the past there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were higher than today and the temperatiure was cooler. Further there are many climatic cycles that cause warming and cooling and their effect makes carbon emmissions irrelevant, or at best attenuators of warming-cooling. The cycles are Milankovic cycles (3, 100,000 years, 40,000 years, 20,000 years) which correlate warming and cooling to the eccentricity shape of the earths orbit around the sun, the precession of the orbit of the earth, and the varying axilal tilt. Another cycle, Shaviv-Svensmark, correlates the orbit of the solar system thru the galaxy with cosmir ray density and cloud formation. Then there is a newly recognized cycle, Singer, that is composed of several solar cycles, Gleissberg and DeVries-Suess, that cause a rise and fall of temperature due to changes in solar intensity and activity. So whats it all mean. Well global warming may be caused by cycles that we have no control over and may well be unstoppable by human intervention. So why throw money and effort in that direction. The main lesson here is do not trust any politican or scientist that presents "scientific facts" to propagandize a cause without throughly investigating their hypothesis, especially if the chief protagonist has a vested financial interest in carbon trading such as Al Gore does.
  195. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes:"By introducing measures to curb fossil fuel consumption we ensure that the supply will last much longer and that prices will fall."

    The 'measures' to curb fossil fuel consumption must necessarily make the price rise, not fall, and do so before the natural economics of the supply-demand curve would make the prices rise anyway. So people would pay the higher prices for longer.

    As to supply, while oil and gas have modest finite limits, we have enough easily available coal to last for centuries.
  196. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Ottawa, Canada writes: Today, Nasa quietly corrected their erroneous data. It is all over the news, yet the globe and mail totaly ignores it, as the new data weakens the global warming argument.

    Censorship?
  197. L. van Dyk from Canada writes: To anyone else who uses "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" example I wish to point out that eventually there was a wolf.
  198. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file. Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3įC warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites. OOOOPS what dangers of warming???
  199. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, you must be a charlatan to refer to the Loehle paper; it has been discredited. See:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

    and the "corrected" Loehle papaer at:

    http://www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
  200. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Scientific American News - January 24, 2008

    "Geophysicists Urge Steep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=geophysicists-urge-steep-cuts-in-greenhouse-gases
    http://tinyurl.com/33jo7r

    The scientists of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) warn that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be slashed in half to keep temperatures from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) - or else. "Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th-century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity and - if sustained over centuries - melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea levels of several meters," the AGU declares in its first statement in four years on "Human Impacts on Climate."

    The statement, released today, is the latest - and strongest - statement from the Washington, D.C.-based scientific organization on human-induced climate change. "The record of the Earth's climate since the invention of the thermometer is much better understood now," says physicist Tim Killeen, AGU president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. "This detailed understanding of the climate of the 20th century gives confidence in the ability to project into the future. It is now agreed that we can't explain the detailed temperature record of the 20th century without bringing to bear human effects and GHG emissions. That, in a way, is the smoking gun, the fingerprint."

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