Skip navigation

The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

In stark terms, scientists confirm that climate change is 'unequivocal' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. cd dc from Victoria, Canada writes: Instead of reprinting press releases from scientists whose success at securing grant money relies on scaring the populace with Chicken Little scenarios, why not make an effort to put 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever they're calling it this week into context.
    For instance, global temperatures in a hundred years are forecast to be 1.7 to 4 degrees warmer than now? It might rain more? And storms could be more violent? So what. People might die? People die all the time.
    This is junk science at its worst.
  2. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: I have some questions based on the following that maybe someone can clarify, and that is: We once had an Ice Age a long time; secondly; I understand that the polar ice caps have been melting back for eons. It seems to me that this points to a world that has been warming for a very long time. Are we saying that Global Warming only relates to the impact caused by humans? Or is it the rate of change that is of concern? I consider myself a realist and unless the average person is readily prepared to ride a bike to work - I would go for that - We have little hope of controlling the decision making of all the various states in the world.. Anyway, God has given us only finite amounts of fossil fuel, so we can not burn this stuff forever.
  3. John P from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'So what. People might die? People die all the time.'

    Do you imagine yourself a good person saying things like this? Statements like this pretty much indicate that you're a sociopath. No really... I'm not just saying this to be a goof. Check it out:

    There are ten general symptoms:

    not learning from experience - Yup
    * no sense of responsibility - Yup
    * inability to form meaningful relationships - ?
    * inability to control impulses - ?
    * lack of moral sense - Yup
    * chronically antisocial behavior - Yup
    * no change in behavior after punishment - ?
    * emotional immaturity - Yup
    * lack of guilt - Yup
    self-centeredness - Yup

    Ah well... maybe I'm wrong... maybe it's just them scientitians.
  4. Nam Pham from Toronto, Canada writes: So I guess those green hippies weren't not so crazy afterall ... What's that you say, Prime Minister Harper? Kyoto just a 'socialist scheme'? Climate science, an uncertain theory? Maybe if you'd stop playing in the oil sandbox, you could get started on dealing with matters that Canadians care about.
  5. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: John Mcaffrey:

    Lately Ice Ages have been coming more or less like clockwork every 100,000 years or so, with the ice stage 80% or more of the cycle. We tend to go into ice ages slow and come out fast. The triggers for the cycle are thought to be rhythmic changes in the orbit of the earth, angle of tilt etc. So there is a predictable large scale warming/cooling cycle on the earth. Obviously the next ice age is going to be more devastating to places like Canada then the scariest scariest scenario you can paint from global warming. The next ice age is due in a couple of thousand years.

    As the earth warms up from an ice age CO2 increases by the warming oceans out gassing what they hold in solution. This aids further warming but keep in mind that there is a diminishing return to increasing CO2 since at some point the gas 'saturates' the atmosphere such that it captures all of the outgoing near infrared in the wavelengths that CO2 is effective in adsorbing, in the troposphere. CO2 is already more or less saturated in the approximate infra-red adsorption wavelengths of 2,3 and 5 microns, but not in the upper range of 13-17 microns

    Although it doesn't contribute to much warming past the saturation point, it can still increase since the oceans can out gas it if the warming continues for other reasons which effect the radiative balance of the earth, like cloud cover.

    Regards, BRK
  6. Byron Rottweiller from Canada writes: If these changes are coming anyway based on our activities to date, isn't it too late to change?
  7. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: One more point:

    I see the IPCC is still clinging to the argument that solar irradiance can't change enough to effect climate. I await the details in the 4AR, but the TAR noted potential irradiance changes of 0.1%. If you smooth the line enough that's true but you can see from raw data that the max/mins on the noise can vary in the shorter term by maybe 3 to 4 times that.

    So if the noise has that kind of amplitude, who is to say it doesn't vary a lot more than the claim by the IPCC. We've only had satellites up reading the irradiance above the atmosphere since 1980 or so. Too bad we didn't have satellites up there measuring back in 1850, and maybe this panic over AGW wouldn't be so acute.

    In any case, the IPCC scientists are well aware of the burgeoning evidence for a link between solar eruptive activity and climate, so it is more than a little disingenuous, to use the '5 times' argument on a gullible public.

    The drum beat goes on.....

    Regards, BRK
  8. Greg Rockwell from Canada writes: Quite strange. The article is written as if its contents were a smoking gun in the climate change debate. However, estimates of sea level increases of 28-43 cm hardly seem threatening. Moreover, without the fear of coastal submersion, melting ice could be beneficial as more land becomes habitable. What about fewer, stronger hurricanes? This could be good or bad depending on the magnitude of the reduction in quantity and the increase in strength. That leaves droughts. Well, perhaps water can be stored from the progressively more common storms with heavy precipitation. All in all, this article suggests that climate change might not be the one-sided disaster it is often portrayed as. Finally, what of those predictions of humanity suffering the effects of climate change 1000 years in the future--truly meaningless given the degree of technological advancement that can occur in just 25 years. Hopefully, a more reasonable discourse will resume on this issue before the 'war' on CO2 emission commences.
  9. Mr. Hab from Singapore writes: Thats it neo-con-drathals, just pile into your heap of discarded common sense. As long as you can still drive your SUV to the corner store. And as for Harper....well, enough said.
  10. Wild One from Canada writes: I had thought that this was the place for an intellligent conversation, but from some of the comments posted above I see I was entirely wrong. Probably you need an IQ of, say, about 55 to turn on a computer? I have a feeling that, when warmed not to burn yourselves, some of you would still stick your head into an oven to see for yourselves. Probably you should live in a benevolent autocracy for your own protection.
  11. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: What do the ozone holes have to do with it all? Is there some effect that is there but not accounted for because of the fixation with methane and co2? Somehow? I have this feeling.
  12. Vickky Angstrom from Calgary, Canada writes: Pollution stinks and it is bad for us and our children for a whole bunch of reasons. This is all we need to know. All this debate about the finer points of global warming is just an excuse to avoid building the mass transit this country so desperately needs. Political will? More like political won't!
  13. Wild One from Canada writes: I'm becoming more and more depressed. Previously I'd thought I just had to avoid members of the Flat Earth Society, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Creationists, Vegans and Marmite Eaters in order to keep my grip on sanity, but now I see you're really all around me. Why don't some of you continue this conversation with a lobster? For those of you who don't know what a lobster is, that's another species with very little brain that has great difficulty recognising the effects of a slow but inexorable rise in temperature. You could swap stories and exchange notes as you climb into the pot.
  14. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: So what are politicians going to do? Commision more research to come up with definitice solutions while that 'warming' trend accelerates?
  15. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: We have to figure a way to move the earth farther from the sun. Eventually, the sun will become a red giant and the corona will start to invade our current orbital position. (which could slow the earth and decay its orbit). This current thing is nothing more than a little fart of CO2. Examine the CO2 levels over the long long past. Currently CO2 is around 300 parts per million (0.003 %). The HIGHEST it has ever been is 5000 parts per million (0.5%) Even if its going up 3 ppm per year, it will reach the max again in 4700/3 = 1,566 years. However this, like all systems with a rate constant is buffered. There is no way that the 3ppm per year rate can be sustained, especially since about half of the finite level of oil and gas are gone. If we don't move this little mudball earth to a new venue by the time the sun becomes a red giant, we will lose the bulk of the species (plant and animal) who can't live in an infrared world. We have 12 billion years and the earth isn't small. Forget about the little hydrocarbon flatulence, lets start looking at what we need to do over the next 6 billion years to get it done.
  16. mr. slave from Guelph, Canada writes: my goodness! Yet another global warming story. Yawwwwnnnnn. Yes, the sky is falling and we're all going to die. Is there anything else that is newsworthy to write about?
  17. Silvio Caldera from New Westminster, Canada writes: Hello folks, bottom line is that we are raping this earth in pieces by utilizing too much of its resources and I believe that any one commenting on this issue can agree with that. Living under a style of abundance it’s just not sustainable and I am not a pro/con science or pro/con politics&8230;I am just an adult with a loving family that cares how my actions affect other people and the rest of the world. This article sounds scary and I hate how the media uses fear to get our attention... I am not convinced with the report&8217;s findings, predictions, and &8220;temporary conclusion&8221; and I bet the scientists aren&8217;t certain either but they sure have a great argument.

    No suggestions&8230; just comments,

    Cheers
  18. Mike of Arabia from Halifax, United Arab Emirates writes: My god!!!!! Why couldn't they tell us sooner? How can they just spring this on us with no warning at all? This can't be for real!!! If it was real, they would have been telling us about it years ago!!
  19. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: This is worse than I thought. We should immediately shut down all factories and the oil and gas industry until we have a solid plan. No new industry or expansion must be allowed. Gas rationing should be implemented. We are at war!
  20. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: It's time that Steve Harper and his attack dog John Baird got off there duffs and showed some real leadership on this most important of issues. For Harper this might be difficult as he is bought and paid for by big oil. In spite of his recent about turn he is a climate change denier from the past. Harper's duplicitous conduct shouldn't fool anyone with an eye on the environment and the smoke and mirrors approach of the so-called Clean Air Act.
  21. Al Faux from Weybridge, United Kingdom writes: Great, let's all agree that Global Warming is a 'certainty', caused by us, solar cycles, whatever. But what, actually, do we do about it? And remember that anything that we decide to do will be objected to by somebody and, in any case, soon subsumed by the ever rising population on Space-ship Earth. And what are we not doing anything about, mainly because of our nutty religions - birth control.
    Sorry guys, it's all over bar the shouting and fighting for what's left. But the Earth will continue, just the human infestation will be gone.........
  22. John Ridout from Canada writes: I wonder if Harper will be as quick and decisive to save the environment as he was trying to save tax dollars? We will never tax income trusts - oops sorry we had to the $500 million will cut into our billions in surpluses!! We will kill Kyoto it's just a socialist plot anyway and besides there is no proof. Oops sorry we had to!!! Get the P/R machine cranked up - tell them whatever you have to because we just have to get re-elected
  23. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: ROOP MISIR

    Actually Roop, the warming trend lately has the appearance of being stalled, considering recent (5 year) trends in troposphere, surface and ocean temperatures.

    Regards, BRK
  24. Dan Weagle from Halifax, Canada writes: Why do these sensationalist stories always have to sound like their trying to pitch something? 'The world's leading scientists..'; good lord could there be more puffery? Were they in the top 1% of the top universities? Couldn't they point out that they were all child prodigies that NASA was keeping an eye on from birth?

    As for Wild One from Canada, if you could just let me know how to avoid the most fanatical of the new wave cults, the Environmentalists, I'd be pleased to turn my computer off and stop blogging...that said, with my 55 IQ I'm gonna need a little help. You are sad.
  25. Dan Weagle from Halifax, Canada writes: Oh yeah, 1 other thing....according to this report we'll have almost 200 years to figure out some way to freeze water and we'll all be saved. I wonder if we'll find the answer to this puzzle in time?
  26. feo . from Fredericton, Canada writes: HEY....to those suggesting solar eruptive activity is repsonsible for this warming...please try to put the whole picture together. The warming correlates exactly with the increase in atmospheric CO2 level measured in ice core samples.
  27. Chevalier Malfait from Toronto, Canada writes: I fail to understand why so many posters here are unwilling to accept the consensus findings of leading scientists around the globe. Full disclosure, please: are you anti-science evangelicals? Do you work in the fossil fuel industries? Do you come from 'big oil' families? You must have some agenda causing you to dismiss human-caused global warming in the face of increasingly clear evidence. No one can be that wilfully contrarian without a clear reason. Unless you're scared--but hiding from a problem won't make it go away. We're human beings, not ostriches.
  28. Rob Misek from Whitby, Canada writes: Nooooooo!

    1000 more years of political fingerpointing.

    Dion didn't get it done.
  29. Buddy Rich from TORONTO, Canada writes: Could someone translate BRK for the down to earth Joe out there
  30. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Glad to hear that scientists have concluded that we have climate change and that it will be warmer from 2090 to 2099. Seems however that we have lost sight of many other pressing problems. Has AIDS or cancer been cured ? I suggest that every cent spent on climate change by our Government in the next 3 years be matched by contributions to curing these 2 diseases. Many more people will be killed by cancer and Aids than the worst doomsday scenario under global warmimg ( although I'm sure you will find someone who will warn us that most of us will die, like in the movies ). I also notice that posts are rarely screened anymore , some people make 15-20 posts which are often rude and basically this has become another MSN board. Where have all the subscribers gone ?
  31. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: In response to Chevalier Malfait – It seems to me that the same group that would like us to believe our universe came together by chance – in all its complexity - is now surprised and possibly concerned that there is a chance that this insignificant planet earth is warming ever so slightly. Can you not see the irony in all this? Do you really think we have control over our destiny?
  32. Red Lobster from Canada writes: I feel affronted by Wild One's comments. No way am I or other members of my species as dense as some of the other correspondents who have posted to this thread. True, we may have difficulty recognising slow increases in temperature once placed inside the pot, although rather than going willingly, we fight like mad to stop ourselves being cooked in the first place. Also, having evolved with an exoskeleton, we lobsters have generally had no need for sensory receptors devoted solely to appreciation of slow temperature change over most of our evolutionary history. In fact, we have far outlasted most Globe and Mail readers as a species, and it seems likely that we will far outlast most of your descendants as well. It seems unlikely that Mr Wiener from Halifax will be contributing to any future pool of intelligent man apes, since he appears to have been subject to excess solar radiation through one of those holes in the ozone layer, and appears to have suffered irreparable damage to his DNA. Fortunately most members of my species are protected from excess uv reaching the Earth's surface from the Sun by a considerable depth of sea water. Our IQ is also generally above the threshold of 60 required to turn computers off again once they have been started - a much more complicated process, as Mr Wiennie can attest. Only a human could devise a system requiring you to press start when you really need to stop.
  33. Wayne Patterson from Ottawa, Canada writes: Does anyone know much about synthetic trees? I read that these trees- large stuctures filled with sodium hydroxide- are capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and that 250 000 of these, strategically located around the world, would make a positive difference in reducing greenhouse gas.
  34. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: 'Likely, unlikely, very unlikely, cannot be assessed with confidence, suggest, probably, a chance, and might be' WOW, what great science. Apparently (or 'might be') 3.5% (could be a little more or less) of all the green house effect is caused by aircraft exhaust. I'm guessing (more or less) that most of (likely) these supposed (some might not be) scientists went to the conference by air. They, most likely, contributed more to 'climate change' by attending this conference than I have with my Honda all year ( 12 months or - something). Canadians contribute 'approximately' 2 % of CO2 to the earth's atmosphere. If, aircraft contribute about (or something around) 3.5% of the greenhouse effect (just watch a clear blue sky be destroyed by 'con trails') why are they ( as well as the auto industry) exempt from Kyoto? That's right folks, not 'maybe' or 'likely', THEY ARE EXEMPT. Wouldn't want to prohibit limos or Lear Jets would we. Not 'likely'.
  35. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Canada deserves a gov't that accepts that global warming warrants decisive action and doesn't play politics about this most important concern.
  36. Adrian Fernandes from Toronto, Canada writes: I always enjoy these alarmist reporters and all the 'romantic environmentalists'. I think money is being wasted on trying to take care of a problem that is inevitable; climate change is inevitable. In my opinion, money should be thrown at legitimate environmental issues like solid waste, not green house gas. So I ask all these environmentalists: Let's suppose solar activity increases in...let's say over the next 100 years...what are you going to do? Put a shade infront of the Earth?

    You can't distinguish between sources of CO2 - there is no difference between the CO2 you exhale and the CO2 that comes out of car exhaust-it's the same colourless gas.
  37. Jan Johnstone from Kincardine, Canada writes: I see the climate change deniers are out in full force. Your circle is shrinking and soon you will only have your selves to talk on this board - LOL
  38. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: I'm with Al Faux from Weybridge, UK. Human population control, birth control, population planning ... call it what you want. Focus on the cause of the problem. Fewer people ought to mean less pressure on remaining resources and some breathing space for other species. No one enjoys over-crowding or wars, but humans keep doing the same things over and over. Canada has adopted forced population growth policies, and our greenhouse gas emissions are skyrocketing in lockstep with that forcedgrowth as a result of increased transportation, heating and industrial activities. We can't keep doing the same things over and over, expecting different results.
  39. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Setting aside for one moment the importance of protecting the environment, and looking at this report purely from the perspective of newspaper journalism, has anyone else noticed that amongst the media players out there, the Globe and Mail has chosen one of the most strange and most unclear and most uninformative headlines for its article? Its headline is 'The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years'. What is that supposed to mean? A thousand years of what? Or does global warming somehow cause a rift in the space-time continuum, adding a thousand years that were not otherwise meant to be? The reader has to read into the body of the article to find out what the headline is talking about - not exactly a sign of an informative headline. And it is not as if headline writing is rocket science: Consider, for example, the informative headlines that got the news out clearly: 'Warming to Raise Seas for 1000 Years - UN Draft' (headline of Global Surf News), 'Sea levels to rise for next 1000 years' (headline of RICS), 'Major Global Warming Report Due Friday' (Houston Chronicle), and 'World Ice Retreat to Spark UN Urgency, Scientist Says' (Bloomberg).
  40. George W from United States writes: I am interested to read Mr Patterson’s highly intelligent and in-ter-esting suggestion about synthetic trees. I have long been of the view that this climate change stuff is a load of baloney since the only mention of it in the Good Book is in the Book of Revelation where I was concerned to see that the seas will dry up some time in the next thousand years. However, that will undoubtedly sort out those talking lobsters that have been attempting to demonstrate their species superiority over myself. I shall be encouraging research into this synthetic tree idea and hope that it will be possible to manufacture their outer shells from hydrocarbon byproducts, thereby making more efficient use of the new petrochemical facilities that my Administration will shortly be approving for development in my country&8217;s Arctic North. Hopefully this will also divert some of those more intelligent scientist types away from stem cell research and suchlike and into solving some of the more pressing problems of this planet, such as erecting a huge fence around the edge to stop us all from falling off.
  41. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Thanks for the scary bed time story, now where is the evidence??

    'Some environmentalists are predicting that a strongly worded IPCC report will dispel any lingering doubts that global warming is really happening'

    Global warming may be occuring, but it is not a man made event, just a natural cycle experienced by the earth.

    And c'mon, were now talking in 1,000 year increments. Get real!!
  42. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: The question on climate change isn't will the weather kill more people. It will no doubt.

    The question on climate change is simply who will pay for it.

    Third world countries will suffer more because they simply won't know what hit them till it's over.

    Who is gonna spend double for the car they want. Who trusts the government enough to believe they will take any increase in tax money and work on green solutions to fossil fuels.

    We are going to find out how accurate these predictions are because we are going to live through it. Or our children are - whatever.
  43. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT Not those Phony LEFTY HACKS who pretend to be me from Canada writes: These are the same scientists that can't tell us if it's going to be sunny, cloudy, raining, snowing or windy with any degree of accuracy this very afternoon. No doubt the climate is changing. Anyone who is not somewhat sceptical of the cause or our ability to do anything about it should detach from the media for a while and practice free thought.
  44. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Mr. Harper and the rest of Parliament, don't spend one nickel on this junk science. Canadian taxes are too high, keep cutting government waste, reduce the government work force and don't waste any money on this global warming nonsense. Believe me a majority of Canadians agree with me, except for a few wackos on this forumn. (See I can be just like a Liberal, I insult everyone who doesn't agree with me; me mom would be so proud)
  45. jim fisher from Canada writes: There are so many other reasons to get off fossil fuels, that slowing climate change is only a benefit. Oil = death and destruction no matter how much CO2 it adds to the atmosphere. How much has been dumped in the ocean, geo-political conflicts, the tag along elements like mercury spewed into the atmosphere. CO2 might by relatively harmless by heavy metal poisoning cannot be disputed. Can the crap about whether this is politics, economics etc..
  46. W R from toronto, Canada writes: To Ms. Angstrom......

    Hate to tell you this but the global warming crisis has nothing to do with stinky pollution. GW is about the effect of increased C02 in the atmosphere. Carbon dixoide is odourless and colourless. The more carbon dioxide the more the earth retains its heat. This is the greenhouse effect.

    Pollution refers to the presence of various harmful contaminants in the air. They create an ugly yellowish smog and make summers in Toronto unbearable. These contaminants are responsible for various respiratory conditions and other other illnesses.

    Both are serious problems but the solutions may not even be the same. This fact is being overlooked/glossed over repeatedly especially by the media who have suddenly and inexplicably made the environment this month's SARS crisis.
  47. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: We have to figure a way to move the earth farther from the sun

    AU - We have to figure how to stay warm and get things moving without using fire.
  48. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok, many here refuse to listen to climatologists, how about the economists? The British Government commissioned a study on the effect of global warming on the economy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Sir Nicholas Stern for the British government, which discusses the effect of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind. Its main conclusions are that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested a year in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. Sternís report suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. He stated that 'our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.' This report has been endorsed by at least 4 Nobel prize economists: Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Robert M. Solow, James Mirrlees. It has even been endorsed by Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank, one of Bush's ideologues. Are these people just suckers for 'romantic enviromentalists' too?
  49. Don Adams from Canada writes: Dan Weagle, just ignore Wild One... it's just that bummer idiot JD Wood again. Oh yes, he also uses the name Yvonne Whack Her Navel as well :-) This report does give information I've been waiting for. Time frames. There are a lot of Chicken Littles out there running around in circles.... they'll probably never stop... but saner heads can and do prevail. OK, we're into a warming cycle, and it's been speeded up mainly by Human activity. I can accept that. Maximum warming, ( and then the next ice age) have been advanced by a couple of thousand years. I can accept that. Is it going to be a monstrous change, and happen real quick? Not from what I read in this article. There's YEARS to prepare (but haven't I been saying that all along?) We now have to start PLANNING for the rise in sea water ..... where it's going to effect.... should we be building dikes or moving communities. THAT's going to take political planning. Yes. we do have to start doing something about emmissions, but, like charity, it starts at home. Yes,we have to keep politicians feet to the fire, worldwide, and the same at home.... which is even more important. I now see why Harper used the 50 year time line for the Clean Air Act.... there's just not the urgency the Chicken Littles promote. OK, maybe we should have a shorter time frame.... lets compromise and do it in, say, 25 years. That would be a fair compromise. Clean up the air in our cities. New technology needs to be developed, and will be, over time. Clean up our lakes, rivers, and streams. Plant more trees. Possibly legislation with regards to packaging. Cleaner fuel technology for industry, vehicles.... again, over 25 years. Makes sense. COMPROMISE, but NOT KYOTO!
  50. I. C. from Kuala Belait, Brunei Darussalam writes: Does anyone remember acid rain? Why doesn't the media report on acid rain anymore? Wasn't it supposed to be killing off our forests? Didn't all the 'leading scientists' agree in peer reviewed journals that acid rain was about to precipitate a major ecological disaster? Why did this not happen?BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG! Of course, you'd never read THAT in the media, or peer reviewed journals for that matter. Headlines that say 'Sorry, we were wrong about that' just don't sell papers as well as alarmist speculation.
    Food for thought in this current imbroglio...
  51. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Proud Canadian from United States writes: John P from Vancouver, Canada writes: = LOSER!! Umm... No. Proud Canadian John P isn't the loser. It is you and all of your fellow-travellers that are the losers. Denial is not a river in Egypt. No doubt about it, at the approriate times brilliant analysts like you and your ilk argued that the Sun revolved around the Earth despite clear evidence to the contrary and that the Earth was flat. A quote comes to mind: 'There is none so blind as he who will not see'.
  52. SIR Bruce Rideout from Victoria. [GRIDLOCK]B.C., Canada writes: gimme a tent a dinghy a bycycle and a 100 foot square to live unharrassed to grow a potato or 2 and I'll gladly quit driving. otherwise its welfarecutsinyourface and off I go to work. VRoom VRoom SCreech Honk BEEEEEP
  53. Sunny Vegas from Waterloo, Canada writes: I thought the movie 'The day after tomorrow' The world suppose to freeze instead of heating up?

    Watch this year when we have a nice weather. The sciencetist will say someone one farted again.
  54. Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes: Proud Canadian,

    Since you are living in the U.S and not paying Canadian taxes at the moment, I don't think you get to decide. Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change.
  55. Steve D from Fredericton, Canada writes: There are 2 sides to every story, and yet we never hear the other side of it here in Canada. Why is that? Why has the G&M and the rest of our 'un'-biased media omitted the other side? A side that also points to the sun being warmer than its been in thousands of years. A side that blasts the UN and the former Liberal government for leaving out the -medival warm period- when they paraded the now famous 'IPCC hockey stick graph' of 2001. And based on a reputable source the main calculations made by the UN 'tweeked' the lamda values of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I remember one of my Profs telling me that numbers can be manipulated to meet personal bias. How much personal bias have we seen from the likes of the Environmental movement not only here in Canada but around the world? True our use of fossil fuels does not help... but I think there is a much larger player at work and it's that bright spot in the sky...
  56. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: I applaud the Globe and Mail for getting behind this issue and covering it the way it deserves to be.
  57. Self confessed curmudgeon from Toronto, Canada writes: And behold, those that knew how to read and had expert qualifications tried in vain to share their message. The knuckle draggers still knew better. No need to see the report; why waste time learning.

    While I appreciate and value the opportunity to share opinions in this society, it concerns me that the majority of posters subscribe to a 'knee jerk' reaction rather than waiting to see what the world's scientific community has to offer.

    Beyond all else, here is evidence that intelligent beings can work together, without regard to their political, religeous or ethnic backgrounds. This is a feat in and of itself. I think I'd like to see it.

    To Red Lobster, thank you! Very entertaining.
  58. David Black from Timmins On, Canada writes: Looks like almost everyone has missed the point. The rate of change is the concern. Nature does everything slowly. We don't.

    Take a globe and spin it around. The sandy coloured band in the middle is mostly desert. The green band north and south is where most of the food for the world is grown. Warm up the planet and that sandy coloured area becomes alot wider. The green areas become narrower because land has become arid and the areas north and south although warmer doesn't neccessarily replace the new deserts with viable agricultural land.

    Now try and feed the world under these conditions. You think huricanes and rising seas are a worry in this light. Fighting for oil and world economic power will pale in comparison the the fight for food supply. A 4.7 degree change would be a worse case scenerio lets hope we don't get there.
  59. monsieur pointu from Canada writes: Wow, something paleo-climatologists knew before all the Kyoto-hysteria is that the climate of earth changes a lot over time. That's front page news? What really worries me .. or maybe reassures me) is the last few things that the Globe and Mail was really really sure about turned out to be completely wrong. They were 1) Paul Martin is a great man and will be a great Prime Minister. and 2) Michael Ignatieff is a great man and will be a great Prime Minster. Sticking Climate Hysteria stories on the front page for weeks now is just the latest Toronto Star-like campaign from these people. It may lead to bad public policy, but it won't change the inevitable and continuous changes in the earth's climate, and that's the reassuring part.
  60. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: steve D - because those voices are, by far, the minority. that, and Canada only listens to the loudest mouth-pieces on any given subject.
  61. Don Adams from Canada writes: Part 2. I talked about Compromise in part 1. Centrists are always willing to compromise. However, I will issue this warning. If the ultra left on the climate climate change issue are not willing to compromise for the common good, why should the Centrists be, and I then withdraw my remarks about 25 years. Go back to Harper's 50 years. Hell, go to 100 years. That'll still ensure that we, and our kids, and in some cases, our grand kids and great grand kids will see some benefit now, but future generations will have to build on what we've started. Forget trying to negotiate with ultra lefties who want to do it all NOW.... and destroy our lifestyles doing it.... COMPROMISE... the line has been drawn.
  62. Informed Canadian from Canada writes: I suggest we do a controlled experiment to determine which of Proud Canadian, a frog and a lobster is the first to jump out of a giant vat of water being brought slowly to the boil. According to Wikipedia, the boiling frog story is generally told in a figurative context, the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss. Is catastrophic loss of this planet’s ability to support multicellular life sufficiently catastrophic for you?
  63. Al MacDonald from Clean Air, Canada writes: Well, one thing is absolutely certain. The earth is getting warmer and is producing more extreme weather. What is also definite to most of us, is that this is due to a combination of natural and man made influences. Because of the desire for ever increasing economic wealth, we do not follow any path of sustainability in using our natural resources. We simply take and consume with little or no regard for the furure, or respect for future generations. This attitude is finally catching up with us, not just in global warming but in everything we do on this planet. Some of our politicians recently had blood samples taken for analysis to see how many toxins were in their blood stream. Not because any of them were working in a hazardous work space, but simply from the effects of living on Earth; Pollution in the Great Lakes, Pesticides, Huge Landfills leaching toxins into our groundwater, acid rain, mercury poisoning, carcinogens in the water we drink and food we eat, and even in the packaging used to pack our food. The list goes on and on. We have been like the frog in a pot of warm water that is slowly being heated. It's time we realize that we cannot sustain this way of living and changes for the better need to take place. This does not necessarily mean wreaking havoc with our economy, just changing the way we do things. Looks like we all have a choice in being either part of the solution or part of the problem.
  64. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: I. C.

    'Does anyone remember acid rain? Why doesn't the media report on acid rain anymore? Wasn't it supposed to be killing off our forests? Didn't all the 'leading scientists' agree in peer reviewed journals that acid rain was about to precipitate a major ecological disaster? Why did this not happen? BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG!'

    Actually, the scientists were correct. What happened was legislation was brought into cap SO2 emissions. Sound famililar? I quote:

    Initiated in 1985, the Eastern Canada Acid Rain program committed Canada to cap SO2 emissions in the seven provinces from Manitoba eastward at 2.3 million tonnes by 1994, a 40% reduction from 1980 levels. By 1994, all seven provinces had achieved or exceeded their targets. In 1998, the provinces, territories and the federal government signed The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, committing them to further actions to deal with acid rain. Progress under both the Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program and under the Post-2000 Strategy, including data on emissions, is reported in the respective annual reports of these two programs. Between 1980 and 2001, emissions of SO2 declined by approximately 50% to 2.38 million tonnes. In eastern Canada , emissions of SO2 declined by approximately 63% between 1980 and 2001.
  65. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Oh, the ad hominem. I'm a GW 'Denier'? You're a MWP/LIA 'Denier', a denier of Earth's history. (I wish comments were numbered.) Pls refer to Brian K's comments on the capacity of CO2 to absorb radiation ~ the analogy is painting your bedroom wall -- the first coat, clear difference; 2nd coat, some more difference; 3rd coat, a bit more; 4th and subsequent coats - you are just adding thickness to little or no effect. There is a limit to what CO2 can contribute, despite Al Gore's scary chart showing emissions going off into infinity. The framing of the whole debate is interesting: everyone agrees there has been warming and most if not all agree there is a human component. Just what am I denying? The models do *not* match what has been occuring. The sun's magnetic field doubled during the mid/late 20th century which may have had a major impact on the cosmic rays that reach the Earth (less cosmic rays, less low level clouds and less cooling), and recent solar cycles have been relatively strong, but we're not supposed to believe that the sun has a role in the Earth's climate? When did it's role stop? It's of course 'common sense' that my neighbour's SUV is the cause of GW; it couldn't have anything to do with the sun or natural oscillations. Again - the limit of what CO2 can contribute. Those who support Kyoto should start talking about what it is supposed to do ~ yeah yeah, reduce emissions to below 1990 levels ~ but what does that do? What is its supposed effect? The answer according to the protocol's own design is surprisingly little and within the normal variations that you'd expect to see. If we are really serious about grabbing a climate that has never been stable by the scruff of the neck and keeping at, say, 1980s levels or something, we collectively should start being honest and clear about what that might entail (way way way beyond Kyoto) and our chance of success (considering all the factors at play, quite low).
  66. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Steve D: There are a thousand sides to every story if you try hard enough and use your imagination, but when we are talking about a phenomenon that can be measured and charted by science, and the science has been done to death, peer reviewed and done to death all over again, and 98% of studies point in the same direction, then we can say there is only one side. We are not talking about a matter of opinion anymore. There was a time for debate, and those who wanted to debunk global warming gave it their best shot. A lot of money was poured into discrediting global warming, and they came up empty. The Bush administration had no choice but to edit and distort legitimate scientific papers to downplay global warming. Wake up. This is real. It is happening. We have to act.
  67. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Mike: It is not the absorption of CO2 that is the problem, it is the green house effect. Do you know what that is?
  68. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Stern? Even the BBC trashed him over the weekend.
  69. Bill H from Canada writes: Ever since the Earth began life as a cloud of cosmic dust some 5 bilion years ago, it's only constant has been change. Earth is not a static sphere conceived, as the Bible tells us, in its present form and to remain that way forever. We've had ice ages and inter-ice-age warming periods. The crustal plates are still moving around, giving us earthquakes and volcanos. The oceans have been rising for the past 15,000 years (about 130 m in all) since the last glaciers started to receed and that can be expected to continue at several mm per year into the future. (Why would an intelligent civilization build a city below sea level like New Orleans anyway?) So not all that is happening can be blamed on human activity, we are simply one part (and probably a small part at that) of the equation. So while it makes sense to not pollute one's environment any more than absolutely necessary in order to slow any human-induced changes, you won't stop them. Besides, any small impact we might have will be completely abrogated by a doubling of the population over the next 50 years. You are worried about carbon dioxide emission? Think about 12 billion people exhaling carbon dioxide 70 times every minute! Yes, the world will change, but the key strategy is to adapt.
  70. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes:

    '...Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change. ' Yeah, that and a quarter will get you a phone call.

    Ask how many Canadians want to dump a limited source of tax payers money down the toliet with little or nothing to show for it compared to spending money on intrastructure, mass transit, health care or GOD FORBID LOWER TAXES!!!
  71. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Brian, I understand that there is a limit to what CO2 can contribute to the effect. That's wrong?
  72. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: What is going on with our environment and what man's role is in it has over time ventured into the realm of legitimate science.
    The science is getting there, good lord, even Stephen Hawking is on board now. All humans bear a responsability to repair the damage.

    As long as the media steers this down partisan lines our Government, regardless of who is in charge of it, will have it's hands tied to the point that the Liberals did and accomplish nothing. We can't blame Dion, his hands were tied by his party line.
    If we want to sacrifice to save the planet we must boycot cheap Asian goods and suffer the inflationary consequences. Meanwile we must intelligently clean up Canada without destroying it, not because it will save the planet with our small footprint, but because it will set an example to back up our boycotts!
  73. Yvonne Whack Her Navel from Canada writes: No, it ain't me.
  74. Why Is Common Sense Lacking in Canada? from Canada writes: Hey Globe (ie trumpeteer of the Liberal Party), I thought the main issue was Health Care or was that Child Care?
  75. brm 2000 from hogtown, Canada writes: It is interesting to note that Europe which started industrization in the late 1700's will be very affected by global warming. London, England may well be under water in 50 years. At least in North America you can just move inland, Europe does not have this option. It is bound to be a huge friction point between the new and old world. It is a brave new world, but the die is already cast...
  76. Proud Canadian from United States writes: If only the Liberals were in power with S. Dion at the helm I would feel so secure in the knowledge that they would make everything right and that the Sun would come out tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar...

    Well guess what, the Liberasl and Dion had 13 years to clean up global warming and the earth is still going to look like a marsh mellow left in the fire too long. Thanks Liberals, thanks for letting 6 billion people die during your watch.

    PS Boiling frogs is fun, did you know they explode?
  77. William Borlase from SunnyManitoba, Canada writes: The world has had warming-cooling cycles for ever. There have been new religions ever since man appeared. The environment is the new current religion. All you taxpayers should be shivvering. Those 'environmental preachers' are coming out of the woodwork and they are reaching for your wallets. Beware! Beware!
  78. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: The report is what I expected, a dooms day scenario. I just wish the globe would present the other side for a change. For instance, during the medieval warming period over 1000 yrs ago, it was warmer than it was now. Did CO2 cause that? Moreover, during the early 1970s scientists were all warning us that we were headed for the next ice age? Google the cover of time and Newsweek magazine for 1974 and see for yourself. Also, science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of 'extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations.' I do think we need to reduce pollution, but I do not think we should just focus on CO2; we need to reduce other pollutants as well. Also, can someone explain the 'less hurricane prediction'? I was under the impression that we would get more frequent hurricanes (I guess the fact that the US had fewer hurricanes than normal this year caused the UN scientists to tweak the report) :-)
  79. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Mike and Brian: CO2 is not the only GHG in the atmosphere; you need to add methane, water vapour and several others to the mix. Mike you analogy is way too simplistic.
  80. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: Every day, the hysteria reaches higher crescendos. Someone needs to be keeping all these headlines and articles so that we can use them to beat the press over the head with a few years down the road.

    The press has abdicated its job of being the 'fifth estate', the other opposition, and has simply become a mimeographed newsletter now for advocacy groups, and the Globe is leading the way. Let's hope the next generation that will take over at the Globe in a few years will learn from this.
  81. gary blades from Halifax, Canada writes: There will be 'a rise in sea levels of about 7 metres'. Some countries are going to completely vanish: Seychelles, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Maldives and others which are only a few meters above sea level. Tens of millions of people in low lying coastal areas will be displaced in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma and elsewhere.
  82. Past being tolerant from Canada writes: Bill H. Now just think for a minute....Which species are we talking about here? Do you really exhale 70 times every 60 seconds? Are you sure you're looking at the big hand on your clock? You won't need to breathe that fast until you become really acidotic from all that excess CO2 in the atmosphere and your chemoreceptors go into overdrive under their inability to evolve fast enough to keep up with all the changes in your environment.
    The answer here is clearly sterilisation of anyone who can't demonstrate they have an IQ in excess of 100. That gets rid of half the population within a generation.
  83. Malcolm Jussawalla from writes: 'The number of hurricanes will decrease, but the ones that do occur will be more powerful' Wait a minute...did they say a couple of years ago that there would be more hurricanes? Also, the number of meters the sea level is expected to rise is at most (according to their numbers), less than a couple of meters. How is this going to put NY city completely under water?
  84. Hugo Lapointe from Montreal, Canada writes: Funny how one of the most serious newspapers of this country falls so easily into an unquestionnable belief of the global warming hysteria. You get no report from the scientists who disagree - only reports of the IPCC self-declared 'consensus'. But hey... who cares about truth and an honest debate ? Way to go Globe and Mail, it may just help the Liberals in the next election. You lost your buddies in 2006 and it's been a long time already....
  85. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Proud Canadian from United States writes: Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes:

    '...Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change. ' Yeah, that and a quarter will get you a phone call.

    Ask how many Canadians want to dump a limited source of tax payers money down the toliet with little or nothing to show for it compared to spending money on intrastructure, mass transit, health care or GOD FORBID LOWER TAXES!!!'

    Dude! You're an American not a Canadian! How can one be a proud Canadian from the United States? If you were so proud you'd be living and working in Canada. Also why do YOU care about lower taxes... you don't even pay them?!
  86. hortense thecow from Ottawa, Canada writes: The National Post ran an article on the FP editorial page related to this 'report' which is a political document, with the scientific report to be released much later. Any relationship between the executive summary and the actual details is purely coincidental. Propaganda should not be printed at all without labelling it for what it is: propaganda. Hitler and Goebbels could never have excelled the propaganda standards of the UN. Global warming is hard to tolerate here in Ottawa at minus 24 degrees to-day. I do not subscribe to the G
  87. Mitch Gullison from Fredericton, Canada writes: All the skeptics here amaze me. Humans are pumping out GHGs at an unprecedented rate and you guys believe it will have no effect on the environment. I believe that the Earth has a natural warming period and a natural cooling period but humans are accelerating the rate of the warming. I don't know why you would believe scientists hired by big oil over scientists who really believe the climate is changing.
  88. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Dude

    ?! 6 billion people die in Canada ?! Maybe I'm just basing my arguments on facts rather then 'gut instinct' but I was pretty sure Canada had just over 30 Million inhabitants. Ohhh that's right.. facts are a reality and reality has a well known Liberal bias!

    We keep hearing how Canada must act NOW in order to save the planet, so Canada's inaction has resulted in the deaths of 6 billion people.
  89. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: And to think, the scientists were asked to 'tone down' their language...So, let me understand this...we are getting the soft meaage of hurricanes, typhoons, gales, drought, malaise, pestilence etc etc etc.... Advocacy has overtaken science. Also, please seperate whether warming is occurring from the tragedy that is the Kyoto treaty. If human induced warming is real then all countries - rich and poor alike must contribute to its solution.
  90. Don Adams from Canada writes: Gary Blades, the fish in the ocean need to eat too you know!
  91. Liz Doesit from Canada writes: We can do all we like in North America, but whatabout China with the huge amount of unmonitored pollution growing rapidly. Anyone thought about that?
  92. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: My problem with the IPCC: it seems to be working like a union. Ever been to a union meeting? Try to break up the so-so-so, solidarity with a solid argument that goes against the conclusions they are pitching. They will just ignore you, ridiculize you or break one of your car's headlight at work. (Painful memories here).
  93. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: Randal Oulton, Hugo Lapointe, hortense thecow :

    Q: How many climate change deniers does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: Three. One to argue the light bulb costs too much in taxes and the other two to sit in the dark.

    Ha ha ha. Seriously, it's not propoganda, and there is no hysteria, it is simply a policy document intended to spur governments to finally act. The urgency comes from a decade of doing nothing despite existing commitments to do so.
  94. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: -24 C along the St. Lawrence last night and has been frosty here for the last 10 days. Global warming has not reached here yet! Could use those additional 1.7 to 4 degrees, but will have to wait another 90 years. I notice when temperatures plummet the 'experts' call it climate change instead of global warming.
  95. Norm Neil from in the wild, wild West, Canada writes: Buddy Rich from TORONTO, Canada writes: 'Could someone translate BRK for the down to earth Joe out there'

    TRANSLATION: Sh!t happens.

    Clear enough for ya?
  96. P Gibson from toronto, Canada writes: When are we going to talk about the need to limit human population growth as a means of addressing environmental degradation? It's the elephant in the room that no one seems to have the guts to acknowledge, let alone name.
  97. A. Hansen from St. Catharines, Canada writes: If the U.N. is involved, it's a pretty sure bet that the so-called 'scientific data' that backs up the so-called 'scientists' assertions is questionable at best, or simply an out-and-out lie. The U.N. never does anything that isn't 100% political, and most of it's politics are aimed at bringing developed nations down to the level of the Third World dictatorships that have enjoyed a free U.N. ride on the backs of those of us in the democratic, capitalist world. It's a shame Canadian 'scientists' are involved in this U.N. scam. They must be Liberals. Cut their funding and let's move on to the issues that really matter--like defending our borders and restoring our citizens' sense of self-reliance. Terrorism and the growth of the welfare state are far more immediate threats to Canadians than global warming.
  98. uncle wrinkly from Toronto, Canada writes: Sorry, but Iím having a hard time understanding this nonsense label of Ďdenierí that seems to get thrown around all the time in this debate. The alarmist slant of this story aside, the main point here is the IPCC is saying that evidence of climate change is unequivocal. Fine, no problem, I see very few posts here actually denying that fact. What is equivocal and is indeed HIGHY DEBATABLE however is: 1) the extent to which human activity is accelerating climate change, 2) the potential effects of global warming on the population (both the costs and benefits), and 3) the efficacy of proposed carbon reduction strategies (i.e. the Kyoto accord). I believe the earth is warming and that there may well be some negative consequences for humanity. But I also believe that the Kyoto accord is an absolute joke. Itís essentially a global welfare scheme that is based more on an ideology that major western economies should be punished for their prosperity and it likely wonít decrease carbon emissions one bit as it gives a free pass the emerging giant economies of both China and India. I also believe (like many economists) than the Stern report was a politically driven, crtically flawed and simplistic analysis. And before the usual haters come out suggesting I am some low IQ neo-con or a pawn of big oil, I have nothing to do with any oil company, other than the fact that I use their product to heat my home, drive my car, cook my food, etc. and I donít exactly relish the idea of paying 5 times more for it.
  99. Sunny Vegas from Waterloo, Canada writes: If Liberal Win the next election. I will ask my work to pay me CASH. That way my tax dollars won't be given to China and India.
  100. Al MacDonald from Clean Air, Canada writes: I guess all the good conservatives/alliance/reform people will surely come to the conclusion that this is all Stephen Dion's fault. And in pointing that inevitable finger, continue to neglect doing anything about it.

    And all the good Liberal people will continue to believe that Dion is the man with true conviction who can actually get the job done.

    In the meantime, more delays, more deferring, more and more of less and less action while Big Business keeps pushing before regulatory measures are put in place. I saw where one poster mentioned that over 500 coal powered generating plants are being built in China this year. In 2001 Dick Cheney called for 1,900 new coal fired power plants to be built in the U.S. Companies in the U.S. are pushing to get 150 new coal plants in under the regulatory wire this year. Just Eleven new coal plants will create 78 million tons of pollution. Acid rain, mercury poisoning, ashma, and GHG's will be just a few of the consequences. I get the feeling that Harper is playing the same delay game up here in Canada, allowing big business to push further and further before real regulatory action comes into play.
  101. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: EJ Ravensbud - You're confusing weather with climate.
  102. Karl Junkin from Canada writes: People seem to think that Global Warming won't kill anyone, but they obviously are not thinking about all concequences. The drastic changes that are resulting will cause huge changes in ecosystems that may not be sustainable, meaning species will becomes extinct, which could mean less food for us. Although we don't eat Polar Bear, it is more or less safe to say that the Polar Bear's fate is sealed, it will become extinct in the Arctic (because ice in the arctic is here for a limited time only now). Just one example. Here's another, while the rise in sea level of almost 'a mere half meter' does not sound like much to you personally, what about machinery? Water works in particular is something to think about, or what about subways, should the rise in sea level have any spillover into the subway network and flood it, Toronto and Montreal are screwed. Beaches will also be cut down to about half their size. Does anybody here saying 'no big deal' have any comprehension of the volume of water it takes to cause all coasts of all continents around the world to rise half a meter? That you say 'no big deal' to that is truly mind-boggling and shows that have been enough stupid human beings to get us into this mess and still more stupid human beings to stop us enlightened ones from getting out of it sooner rather than later. Please bang your head into your monitor repeatedly, really hard, it is necessary to raise your IQ.
  103. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: EJ: That is a brilliant argument, a stretch of normal weather, despite an overall warming trend somehow negates the overall warming trend. I am happy we are now having a normal January in Ontario and Quebec, but what about early Jan, when the temp got up to 10 ?
  104. Your Conscience from St Catharines, Canada writes: I'm so glad the G&M has decided on the validity of the science on our behalf so that we don't have to worry about making our own choices on the issue. This has become more and more a political disaster, with alarmists on both sides getting 99% of the exposure while the majority of intellectuals who reside somewhere inbetween are ignored. This chicken little syndrome we are developping is truly pathetic.
  105. B B from Toronto, Canada writes: For the global warming debunkers, please watch 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It shows the science behind all the talk and the unequivocal proof that humans have caused the problem. The documentary illustrates that we are not just experiencing the warming part of a long-term cycle (it's not like what has happened many times before).
  106. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: -24 C along the St. Lawrence last night and has been frosty here for the last 10 days. Global warming has not reached here yet! Could use those additional 1.7 to 4 degrees, but will have to wait another 90 years. I notice when temperatures plummet the 'experts' call it climate change instead of global warming.'
    Oh yeah.. we halso had a green Christmas, temps hovering above or slightly bellow 0c during most of January and temps raising to -2c over the coming weekend.
    I used to remember building tunnels in snowbanks, now there are no snow banks. I don't think you have to wait 90years.
  107. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Big Deal. . . . Sissy-pants 'scientists' are trying to foist on the world . . . a 'socialist scheme' BECAUSE: . . . 'science' is socialistic, and has a well-known liberal bias. And so do 'reality| and 'facts' . . . So there.
  108. L D from Guadalajara, Mexico writes: Great. The atmosphere will heat up and cook us all like a rotisserie chicken.

    One thing, I once asked someone involved with the Kyoto negotiations if the accord was nothing more than a redistribution scheme. He said, 'Yes. And that's not such a bad thing.' This whole issue is unfortunately about so much more than climate and seemingly about having something to usher in a statist political agenda.
  109. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: If we're serious about cutting our CO2 emissions then we need to meet our targets. We should therefore implement a Canadian cap-and trade system. The cap ensures that the emission are cut, while the trade ensures that the economic pain will be minimized.

    Kyoto on the other hand allows us to do nothing, while sending billions overseas to a country that has cut its emission through de-industrialization following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their emission were already cut in the '90s and sending money their way isn't going to change anything in terms of global emissions. We're simply paying in order to feel good about ourselves, despite SUVs and all the rest.
  110. james castle from Canada writes: What do scientist know? Nothing. That's what. They all want grant money. That's why they went into science. So they could become filthy rich in the rich, rich area of science.
  111. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I understand the sensitivity of many of the climate change deniers here. I mean, your great leader, Harper, has just been exposed as a charlatan. Let's leave aside the debate on Kyoto and Harper's colourful language for it. So 5 years ago, he is denying that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any harmful effects. In fact, he says the opposite: 'It [Kyoto] focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than pollutants.' But, rest assured, now Harper is on the Environmental file. Does he renounce that statement in the fundraising letter? Well according to the Globe article today his spokesman, who did not want to be named, said 'no comment'. Such conviction! Such clear headedness! This is embarrassing.

    So embarrassing, the reality is so uncomfortable, that we just deny the reality. It is easy to deny, than confront something that takes foresight.

    But what do we expect from a party formerly led by Stockwell Day, who thinks the Bible is a better source on the creation of the world than a science textbook.
  112. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Proud Canadian from United States writes: We keep hearing how Canada must act NOW in order to save the planet, so Canada's inaction has resulted in the deaths of 6 billion people.' Yes, act now in a coalition (hence Kyoto's U.N appeal) to save teh planet. The government of Canada is responsible for Canadian Lives only (in my opinion). The science from Global Warming has only gotten stronger post-2000. So those 13years of inaction you keep quoting make little to no sense in many ways. First of all Conservatives also didn't see the environment as a top priority. No one believed the science. Had the Conservatives been united in attacking the Liberal governments stance on the issue of the environment for lack of legislation then of course they could then take the high horse now and claim that the Liberals had 13years and did nothing. But the truth is that the science is here and the people of Canada NOW, TODAY in the majority support making sacrifices in order to deal with our enviromental problems. We still have other priorities, but the environment is now in the top 5 for the majority of Canadians (as polls indicate). New memo's show that Harper doesn't believe and has never believed in Global Warming. Harper is only in it because Dion is in it. Prior to becoming environment Minister Dion was an outspoken advocate for the environment, he was NOT a NON-Believer like Harper. I'm placing my bets with the Liberals come next election, if they mess up i'll switch again and vote Conservative... but right now I can't stand the odour coming out of the Prime Minister's Office.
  113. Don Adams from Canada writes: Karl 'chicken little' Junkin, while the actual polar bear may become extinct, a new species has evolved.... a mix between grizzly and polar bear. The world constantly evolves, species constantly adapt..... except for humans from the lower end of the gene pool.... they win Darwin Awards. Your award is in the mail. :-)
  114. Paul C from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow I had no idea there were so many scientists that wrote on this board. Especially ones that are so confident that they can disregard the work of 1000s of scientists who have published 100s of papers in leading peer reviewed journals. Of course, from my experience a pretty solid thesis defense is: 'Human caused global warming is not true, my gut tells me so'.
  115. Matthew Yeo from Canada writes: A question keeps getting asked: why don't we hear from the other side? A: what other side? Take away the 50 organizations funded by ExxonMobil to discredit Global Warming and the 'scientists' who work for them and the other side almost ceases to exist.

    My ex g/f used to work on a volunteer basis tracing down the lineage of research institutions, their funding, etc. and it was surprising how many climate-based think tanks appeared about 5-8 years ago, all with funding from ExxonMobil (often filtered through a couple of shell companies as proxies). It was easy to spot them because they released their 'research' straight to the public instead of to the peer-reviewed journals and made damn sure that the press knew about every book release. As quickly as one would get discredited, another would pop up to replace it.

    So sad to see that so many people have bought into their junk science. Seriously, doesn't anyone check into the authors of the books they read to see if they are legit or if they are biased by their funding?
  116. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: To all of the Global Warming deniers and other ostriches, think about this.

    If you, the Global Warming deniers are right, and we, as a planet, begin to actively change our rate of pollution excretion, at the very least, will have made this planet a better, cleaner place to live.

    If we, who accept the evidence of Global Warming are correct, and we, as a planet allow you to prevent us from reducing our rate of pollution excretion, then we will have made this planet a worse, perhaps even a deadlier place to live.

    Basic risk management tells us to begin to act now. Why would you deny the rest of humanity a better, cleaner planet to live on?
  117. Mike G from Canada writes: I feel like we are being conditioned by the controlling forces of the Media to embrace the doomsday scenario of global warming. This must mean that someone somewhere is going to hit us with another self sacrficing tax increase.
    last I heard the petroleum resources of the earth would be comsumed within the next century or two. So the prosect of this trend continuing for a millenia are somewhat unrealistic. I think we should make changes in our lifestyles to curb the rise in other forms of pollutants that adversely affect everyone's health. CO2 is essentially harmless, and in the long term can be addressed hopefully by technological advancements. That doesn't mean however, that we should ignore it.
  118. True North from Canada writes: Steve Harper was questioning this science less than a year ago.
  119. Roland Neissinger from Oakville, Canada writes: All these numbers: What strikes ones that everything always has to last a 1000 years (The third Reich, devils presence on earth,...) like the headline above.
    Lets face it, if a cruise ship running on full speed with somehow locked throttle just a couple kilometers away from an ice berg, and the captain calls for a couple tugboats to come from far away to stop or at least turn the ship, what chances are there his maneuvre will succeed?
    Same with us and our ever increasing consumption, we are running at full speed, and probably hit the next ice age in who knows what time.
    Whatever we do now, can only help future generation - if anything - for a less poisoned environment.
    Of course if the now have it all generation keeps on gazing at their own navel all the time - the ship will hit the ice berg a lot sooner than the majority thinks!
  120. Ranald Walton from Hamilton, Canada writes: What I really dislike about this whole Global Warming industry, is that 6 months ago it wasn't on the radar screen, now it's a 'crisis' and, unfortunately, will probably fall from public view in 6 months.

    Let's remember to breathe, come up with a realistic long-term plan and deal with it. The globe is warming but the sky is not falling.
  121. Peter Hann from Canada writes: I am not altogether convinced that all the variables have been identified and factored into these reports, as previous posters have noted, there appear to be no disputing experts. Very strange as there are always contrarians in any debate. In any case, if we accept that global warming is real, and is accelerating, then we must still come to the realization that we live in a global village, i.e. Canada is not existing in islolation. We could be the perfect enviromental citizen and it would all be for naught if countries like China and India don't participate in solving the problem. Its a classic Prisoners Dilemia game, where self-interest will make us all worse off than we need to be.
  122. K G from Calgary, Canada writes: Remenber the Y2K scare...how the world was going to come to a screeching halt because computers would not be able to understand how to count to 2000? Scare tactics by your pitiful governments (worldwide) to make you look upon them as some sort of hero and saviour. Give your heads a shake....Scientists can be bought to say whatever you want them to say....'evidence suggests...' This global crisis is sadly a way for some to gain popularity and make money.

    'In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.'

    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
  123. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Ranald Walton from Hamilton, Canada writes: What I really dislike about this whole Global Warming industry, is that 6 months ago it wasn't on the radar screen, now it's a 'crisis' and, unfortunately, will probably fall from public view in 6 months.

    Let's remember to breathe, come up with a realistic long-term plan and deal with it. The globe is warming but the sky is not falling.'

    It's been on the radar for decades but scientists have only been taken seriously post year 2000. With each passing year more and more people start to believe in the science and the rhetoric paid for by those who stand to lose money is slowly losing it's influence. Soo much so that those who support those said companies (like Stephen Harper) are releasing legislation that screams 'Me too, Me too!' because if they continue to oppose it they stand to lose support (which is why they're using an old tactic of buying for time.. 50 years hoping things will die down by then adn everyone will forget the warmer then usual weather causing gigantic tropical storms, floods and crazy harsh heat waves.
  124. Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: When one is in an airplane at 40,000 feet and look down at industrial areas, NYC, Pittsburgh etc, for example, you do see smokestacks with some emissions. But from that perspective it is hard to imagine that in the grand scheme of things, that they (or anything else such as automobiles) would have any significant effect at all on world climate, even over a long period of time. However, far be it from me to dispute the findings of the world's best scientists. Green house gas emissions from the U.S. is currently more than that of China and India combined. However, by 2020, the emissions from China will exceed that of the U.S. So for the next couple of decades, the situation will be getting worse, not better. The world is so tied in to using carbon based fuels that even if the will to do so was there, it will take a long long time to even begin to solve the problem. Some advocate each of us doing things in our own lives to help the situation such as taking your bicycle to work. In most Canadian cities that would be almost like committing suicide. Where I live, 'bicycle lanes' is unheard of. I agree with John Bennett, spokesman for the Climate Action Network Canada. ďWe need the policies, regulations, and programs to reduce emissions and we need to do it with the same kind of urgency that we would use to fight a war.Ē We owe it to future generations.
  125. T P from New York, United States writes: To Byron R and others wondering what to do: check out Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. It's great- really sucks you in and explains things super-well. And lets you know what you can do. Let me know what you think!
  126. Raymond Gork from Toronto, Canada writes: Amazing how many of us like the sound of our own voices and the sight of our own scribbling. (Yes, count me in for sure). So... here's my two-cents' worth.
    First off, count on the Lefties to rant about Stephen Harper. (strange, I saw very little about George ll). Second, climate change is happening for sure. Us hoomans have been increasing, oh, for about the past couple of thousand years, give or take a few setbacks like the Black Death, the Holocaust, etc. And that increase accelerated sharply over the past century. That, alone, has to have had some effect on climate change, what with our increased demand for food and energy. The amount of hot air generated by us armchair pundits, both left and right also doesn't improve things. What to do? We certainly can change our bad habits - and we all know what those are. It's highly doubtful that we will be able to change the pace of climate change in any meaningful way, but at least we will feel a whole lot better about ourselves. As for the Lefties, maybe I might go out and rent a Hummer for a few hours - just to piss off a few self-righteous individuals.
  127. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: Paul F from Toronto:

    There seems to be a fundamental mis-understanding on these threads on my references to the solar-climate link.

    The solar irradiation variable, which as the NOAA admits we only have a few decades of reliable data on (from satellites) is one possible moderator of long term climate changes.

    But you don't need raw wattage changes from the sun to explain climate change via a solar mechanism. The sun is theorized to control climate by changes in the solar wind (like solar flares and stuff), which control cloud cover by seeding clouds (or not seeding clouds as the case may be).

    And as we all know, clouds have a much bigger effect on climate than CO2.

    Regards, BRK
  128. j adams from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT Not those Phony LEFTY HACKS who pretend to be me from Canada writes: These are the same scientists that can't tell us if it's going to be sunny, cloudy, raining, snowing or windy with any degree of accuracy this very afternoon.

    Yet we still tune into the weather report everyday, why?
  129. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Your Conscience: who are the majority of 'in the middle' intellectuals to which you refer? Name one prominent one.

    Instead of just making stuff up, why don't you actually try understanding what you talk about?

    The IPCC is not a hippy hangout where everyone wears sandles and has a 'Save the Whales!' sticker on their car. It is a international grouping of scientists that take all the research out there and tries to take some general conclusions for all the observations that have been made about global warming. It's work has been endorsed by the acadamies of science in a few dozen countries, including Canada, the UK and the US.

    Now you can take the position of James Castle, and say, 'what do scientists know?' They want to get 'rich' on grants. That would be one position, which is the same position by the way of Harper, the Spanish Inquisition and the Flat Earth Society. But most prominent scholars in climatology, or economics for that matter, are saying the pattern is undeniable.
  130. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: I. C. from Kuala Belait, Brunei Darussalam asks: 'Why doesn't the media report on acid rain anymore? Wasn't it supposed to be killing off our forests? ...Why did this not happen?'

    Well, it did damage a lot of forests and lakes, and has been in this has been in the new lately in Nova Scotia. Acid rain doesn't get widespread press anymore because it isn't 'new' or 'hot' news. Also, to a considerable degree, we fixed the problemwith anti-pollution laws, and better industrial practices and technologies. You must have read lately about the recent regulations for reduced sulphur in gasoline? That is part of the long term process of social and regulatory change.

    Remember the ozone hole? It's a lot better too, although still some continuing work to do. An international accord (that must grate on some here), the Montreal Protocol, tackled that head on.

    Perhaps some are disappointed the economy didn't crash when we acted collectively on those issues. Maybe they should admit they were wrong

    Facts make good food for thought in this current imbroglio...
  131. Tim Dowell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Paul F. from Toronto

    Paul, The Stern Review seems to ignore one key thing and that is adaptation. The economic downfall this report predicts seems to be based on the economy(s) of the globe not adapting to our changing world. Last I checked our economy and mankind are always adapting to change. Remember fire and the automobile...
  132. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: One of the interesting aspects of this issue is whether the much publicized debate over global warming detracts from other environmental concerns or draws greater attention to them. By other concerns I mean the need to preserve wilderness, to protect wildlife and their habitat, fish stocks, clean water, toxic species in the Great Lakes, the question of enhanced protection for Canada's marine areas, foreign nations fishing in our waters, reforestation. Or, do they all go hand in hand? Or, is it a matter of jurisdictional mandate (ie, some of the above are provincial issues etc)?
  133. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: And two out of three dentists prefer Crest.
  134. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Global warming or not....it is absolutely naive to believe that a planet can be inhabitated and developed by any species without changing the very nature of its being.....the unverise is not static and earth cannot be static. As I said, it is totally naive to think that the world should be exhibiting temperatures that existed decades or centuries ago. I go back to the earthquake and horrific tsunami that hit Indonesia. It was not global warming that caused that, at least I have not heard anyone claim such. It was reported that earthquake caused the earth to wobble and changed its orientation. Such events are bound to have profound effects on climate, way beyond our present ability to determine. I do not support pollution, naturally, but I do balk at those who find the 'answers' so glibly and quickly.
  135. Norm Neil from in the wild, wild West, Canada writes: Thank you Brian Klappstein (from North Bay, ON) for injecting some clear-headed, rational thoughts into this discussion. Hopefully it will motivate others to follow suit?
  136. Edward Martens from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Politicians and professors think the 'masses are asses'. Their fear mongering is based on some facts (yes, the globe is continuing to warm, as it has for over 95,00 years) and some misleading jargon. 'hotest it's been in 1300 years,' means it was hotter 1300 years ago when people were sure zipping around those feeways and factories were humming and spewing.
    Climate change is now 'equivocal'. Meaning what? We now have proof it's happening? Give us more respect. Climate change has been happening on earth for over four billion years. Sometimes fast such as today, 1930's, and many other short and long periods of time.
    Society closed the door to mendacity 40 years ago (except in war where truth is always the first victim.) Let's stick to the facts so we change only that which needs changing and over which we have control. Otherwise let's use the precious resources for feeding the earth's poor and tend to their health rather than feeding the fear mongering professors and their radical allies.
  137. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Buddy Rich from TORONTO, Canada writes: 'Could someone translate BRK for the down to earth Joe out there'

    Rent the movie, Buddy. Al explains it very well, in a balanced, down to earth way.
  138. j adams from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: And two out of three dentists prefer Crest.

    I thought it was 4 out of 5?
  139. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Why do Liberals and their supporters always seem to find 'end of the world' topics when they are NOT in power or an election is near? Do supporters of this corrupt party ever ask themselves these simple questions?

    Liberals= 'We must get back to power as quickly as possible'
  140. Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: K G from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Remenber the Y2K scare...how the world was going to come to a screeching halt because computers would not be able to understand how to count to 2000? Scare tactics by your pitiful governments (worldwide) to make you look upon them as some sort of hero and saviour.'
    K G the Y2K 'problem' did not just dissipate into thin air all by itself. Having spent my entire working life computer field from the early 60's on, I can tell you that in the year preceding 2000 (and in some cases well before that), computer programmers, analysts and other computer personnel spent most of their time making changes to accommodate the rollover to the year 2000. If this was not done, there indeed would have been problems.
    My point is that like the so-called 'millenium bug', doing nothing about man-made global warming is not an option.
  141. Jeff Edwards from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is the strangest set of comments that I have seen in a while. Which is more credible on global warming: the collective views of the scientific community or the likes of what you see here?!? Sheesh. Man made global warming is the dominant cause of global warming and it will have severe effects on the planet. Time to move on to the topic of what we do to mitigate the problem.
  142. Durward Saar from Coquitlam, Canada writes: BB from Ontario... An inconvenient Truth? How about a convenient lie. There is no proof in that propaganda movie, it has ALL been debunked. Just like Kyoto has been repeatedly debunked but that does not make good headlines and creates no new tax regime. Does history not get taught in this country anymore? The last mini ice age ended less than 400 yrs ago, 200yr in some places. Repeat after me.. the climate is constantly changing always has always will. And for the guy quoting Co2 creating warming from the activists graph...CO2 follows the warming not the other way around and hundreds of yrs later. It amazes me that people are so militant about something they know so little about, and it amazes me even more that they refuse to investigate this themselves and instead just spout what the activists tell them. What ever happened to truthful debate? Will we now run our countries based on the words of vested interest groups rather than logic and facts?. I fear for the future of our country when this type of hype is given credence with-out proof. What happened to the last 'smoking gun'? Oh that's right it was shown to be purposely mis-leading and at best an outright lie.(hockey stick graph) Same bunch same lie. Oh but they are telling the truth this time right?. And where is the architect of Kyoto? Oh yea hiding from the law because he is a criminal as well as a liar, Mr. Maurice Strong is hiding in China...Again.(probably buying up MORE COAL MINES)
  143. Eric The Red from Toronto, Canada writes: Why feed the global warming deniers by trying to argue with them? Obviously they don't believe in logic, science or rational argument and they take such an extreme stance on the issue that change for either side is hopeless.

    For the rest of us (and according to the polls the environment is the top concern of canadians, higher than health care ever was - so the deniers are definitely in the minority), it's time to take action. We simply need to do whatever we can do to protect our future!
  144. Dark Green from Holguin, Cuba writes: SO WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT DO WE GET 'THEM GOVERNMENTS' DO? Time to stop wasting time arguing with those in denial playing finicky while the house is burning! -- Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: 'I agree with John Bennett... ďWe need the policies, regulations, and programs to reduce emissions and we need to do it WITH THE SAME KIND OF URGENCY THAT WE WOULD USE TO FIGHT A WAR. (my emphasis)Ē We owe it to future generations.' -- Agreed we need to MOBILIZE big, all over the country, and kick those government creatures hard into action! Where do we start, right now?
  145. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: KG: I would find another example to use KG, as the Y2K issue was very real. That our entire financial and security systems were all based on two digit numbers would've been very disruptive had we not converted our computers. I work for the federal government and believe me, even something simple like the interuption of CPP cheques could have very disruptive effects on hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I mean look what happened with that relatively small computer glitch at RBC. Their entire network failed for days, and many many people freaked out. Sometimes the worst part of a disaster is the human response, so can you imagine what will happen is climate change is as real as some claim? I say err on the side of caution.
  146. Gern Blandston from Missasausage, Canada writes: Sure, lets attack this with the same level of effort or more than a war. Then, the islamic extremists and insurgents will take us out while we aren't paying attention and then those asshats can worry about climate change. Here comes Doomsday.....

    Seriously though, this stuff worries me and with so much political involvement why can't this be the one thing where everyone can do their part to improve our climate. Simple, eh? I wish.....
  147. j adams from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: K G the Y2K 'problem' did not just dissipate into thin air all by itself. Having spent my entire working life computer field from the early 60's on, I can tell you that in the year preceding 2000 (and in some cases well before that), computer programmers, analysts and other computer personnel spent most of their time making changes to accommodate the rollover to the year 2000. If this was not done, there indeed would have been problems.

    Thanks for saving me some time Cecil, I was going to post something to that effect regarding Y2K. I've had to give that same explanation many times before. Y2K was no conspiracy, the hype got out of hand, but there was indeed a problem that was proactively solved by IT professionals.
  148. The Objectivist from Canada writes: #2, 1 might be a sociopath, but idiot comes to mind more quickly (why did they stop numbering posts!!) . 3, you don't have to be aniti- environment to think Kyoto is nothing more than a sugar coated placebo intended to let the ignorant masses feel good and politicians get elected.

    The real issue driving the problem is not SUV's, but population growth. Those countries (Canada, US, Australia) that are the largest consumers need to arrest the birthrate and reverse it, setting an example for the rest of the world and demand in through trade relationships others do the same. Just in Canada we're adding 500,000 consumers a year, yet idjits are focused on SUVs!! Yet we have in place policies (immigration, economic inducements to the birthrate) increase population!

    Google world population history. look at the graph. do you really think Kyoto or getting rid of SUV's is going to do anything? The problem is how many of us there is, how much we consume and that the trend is toward even more consumption.

    Whether its global warming or the food supply chain shriveling up as oil runs out, these are just reactions to the real problems which are increased population and increased consumption per capita.
  149. Jim Mohagan from Canada writes: This is all very worrying, to be sure. I don't understand the hysterical anger of all these people denying the conclusions of these scientific studies.

    There is an upside to all this, however. Studing the big centre-spread map of Canada 2009 in Saturday's Globe, I couldn't help but see some possible benefits to Canada. Winters will be less severe, agricultural land will increase as the permafrost moves north, The U.S. will be in desperate need of our water and there could possibly by a viable shipping route through the Northwest Passage through part of the year. We'd better move to assert our sovereignty up there.
  150. B C from Calgary, Canada writes: The willful ignorance of many here is truly amazing, when comments like its cold here this morning, CO2 is harmless, etc... are the basis for lets do nothing, stay the course....
  151. Green Jerry from Canada writes: Woo hoo, more summer!
  152. V ADS from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Climate change is unequivocal? Sheesh. How stupid do these people think we are? The climate has ALWAYS changed, sometimes dramatically, as was the case just 8,000 years ago when most of Canada looked liked Greenland. Earth has been a frozen ball. It has had no ice on either pole for most of its geological history. And now we're supposed to be shocked, shocked, that the climate is changing? In 1998, 15,000 scientists (basic and applied scientists) -- two-thirds with advanced degrees -- signed a petition against the (1997) Kyoto Accord that expressed their 'profound skepticism' about the 'shaky science' underlying Kyoto. This petition was supported by volunteers and donations, with no contributions from industry, and included a cover letter from a from the past president of the U.S Academy of Sciences. A similar petition was signed by European scientists. Nevertheless, the IPCC continued to maintain that 'consensus of 2,500 scientists' supported its research. At that time, IPCC members were less than 2,000, and few were climate scientists. Most were United Nations bureaucrats or environmental activist, including some behind the 'global cooling' scare of the 1970s. If the IPCC was truly a 'scientific body', it would not have released the 'Summary for Policy-Makers' for its newest report until that report was released. The Summary is not peer-reviewed, and like all summaries before it, is filled with hypothetical scenarios that are swallowed hook, line and sinker by guillible politicians and media. The 'Summary for Policy-Makers' of previous IPCC reports bear little resemblance to the contents of the actual scientific reports or data. People can read these reports and see this for themselves. I did. Canada should not take its marching orders on the environment from the United Nations. It's time a multi-disciplinary panel of experts was brought together to debate the science behind Kyoto.
  153. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty: Geez Rick, talk about your rhetorical false assumptions. In twenty years I have yet to see a political party fail to do every last humanly possible thing to get elected. I mean what else do you call Harper's conversion to all things environment? The science hasn't changed in past six months, only the polls, so gee, I wonder why he switched? There is no such thing as an honourable politician, and you've been around long enough to know this. Vote for the guy who will do what you want him to do, and never be afraid to dump his sorry butt the second he stops. Other than that let's not project false virtue onto these popularity whores. The pressure of millions reduces them to mere icons of their parties. In private they're all probably perfectly nice people, but that has nothing to do with the roles they play in our democracy. Many others here will rant until their faces turn blue, but from previous comments I know you're smarter than that. Join the middle ground Rick!
  154. R Duschek from Canada writes: What has become crystal clear in the last 24 hours is the fact that, when presented with an opportunity to move forward in a non-partisan way on an action plan to address Canada's role in dealing with climate change, the Liberal's are stonewalling. Now, this point is not being reported today in the G&M, but another 'National' newspaper quite correctly points out that the Liberal members of the parliamentary subcommittee dealing with amendments to the Clean Air Act are playing politics and attempting to delay any progress until after the next federal budget.

    Why? Because the Liberals really either don't care about the environment or because they would rather just play politics. And there would appear to be at least 13 years of empirical evidence to back this up. Mr. Dion and the Liberal party do not want meaningful action on the environment immediately because they are hoping to use the environment as the main plank of their election platform.

    So, here we go again, it seems. Politics ahead of action.
  155. agent sixtynine from Calgary, Canada writes: This is boring. I'm bored now. Story changes every 5 minutes and I can't wait till this whole topic fades away.
    Goodbye.
  156. Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: j adams from Winnipeg, Canada: Yes, as you are aware, that proactive solution was what was intended way back when we were using 80 column cards and space was at a premium (not to mention the needless keying in of the numbers '19' in thousands of transaction records at a time.) I guess in few more years there will a move to go back to two-digit years. LOL :)
  157. Johan Wunderbar from Hamilton, Canada writes: I think its very sad and kind of amusing that all of these armchair scientists think that they know more about the situation than the scientific experts that have dedicated their lifes to this. Do you really think that scientists are jumping on the climate change band wagon just for kicks? That is disrepectful and absurd. As a scientist (althought not a climate expert), we are taught to examine data objectively and make conclusions from the data, not from what we want the data to say. The fact that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement is astonishing. You can spin it any way you want, but I'll take an experts opinion over a laymans any day of the week.

    Hey, while you're at it, why don't all you armchair scientists tell us how to put an orbiter around Mars, how to sequence our DNA, and develop new drugs to fight cancer. After all, being a scientifc expert is as easy as logging on the internet and spouting out unverified, made up opinions.
  158. Chi Guy from Chicago, United States writes: While I agree that we all need to do things smarter to limit each of our footprints (do they call it Carbon Footprints) there is a cost to going all out either to the left or to the right. Totally going all out to the left would mean the destruction of the economy and possibly our society. This type of change will have a very large human toll attached to them both in suffering and death. I agree that we do pollute in excess to what we need to and we should take care to be much more careful on that but you must also realize that there is a trade-off. Our life expectancy has been continuously increasing and much of that has to do with our level of technology. Yes, producing some of this technology does create some hurt (the toxins observed in the politicians some people are stating above) but in most cases the good far outweighs the bad in saving lives. As for the total right side just doing business as usual – even if you think Global Warming is not real (and you had better be right) what is the logic of not trying to consume more intelligently? In the end I think humanity will overcome this issue as we always but there will be a price tag in lives to it and we need to try and limit this.
  159. James Picknell from Innisfil, Canada writes: It's about time that our so called 'Science' has gathered enough evidence to convince itself of something that's pretty obvious to anyone who's even slightly observant of our surroundings. They've seen enough leaves to realize they are in a forest! Now - let's watch the politicians and those who gain economic benefit trash it some more. How long will they be in denial?
  160. FLUVIAL SEDIMENT from Port Alberni, BC, Canada writes: Good thing Harper fired his environmental whistle-blower. Just exactly what we need right now. But I don't think Kyoto is the answer; that just gives all the multinationals a license to go continue polluting somewhere else besides the developed countries. We all live on the same planet.
  161. mogens bay from Canada writes: WHO WROTE THE SUMMARY? SURELY POLITICIANS, NOT SCIENTISTS. THE USUAL SCARE, VOTE FOR US WE WILL SOLVE IT, AND ALL OUR FOUNDATIONS WILL MAKE MONEY. LET US READ THE REPORT WHEN IT COMES OUT. ALL 700 PAGES
  162. Green Jerry from Canada writes: I'm with you agent sixtynine. When are they going to bring back bird flu? I thought that was supposed to kill us all first. global warming sounds like a really good thing. Bird flu? That doesn't sound too nice. What with it's 4% mortality rate.
  163. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Well said Philosopher King. That was my point. The Liberals never brought forth any legislation regarding greenhouse gases or pollution in our cities. The Conservatives did and it is now in committee. Is that not the middle? All parties can do something for the country and all can all claim credit. Let us wait and see which party STALLS this committee. Which party do you think will do that Philosopher King?
  164. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Anything that comes out of the UN (especially anything 'scientific' that goes through the UN bureaucracy to be tuned up) should be summarily dismissed.

    Johan Wunderbar makes a number of comments in which he puts scientists on a pedestal (of course, he discounts the thousands of scientists who disagree with the Church of the Holy Kyoto Accord)....Johan, just as an example, the scientists said that the foam falling from the fuel tank of the Space Shuttle wouldn't cause any damage.
  165. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: Hey, for people who still don't believe in climate change, can you share some of the money you receive from your bosses for publicizing your BS?! I'm lacking a bit of money currently...
  166. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: I'm getting the impression that what the scientists are saying is about three orders of magnitude less scary than what the journalists are feeding us. The G & M is becoming more of a tabloid paper with every passing day.
  167. Shaun McLaughlin from Pakenham, writes: I visited Newfoundland last summer. At Gros Morne they tell visitors the area was 3C higher than now 1000 years ago when the Vikings settled the area. Further south at Point aux Choix, the site of a 5000-year old native settlement, they tell visitors that the region was 5C warmer than now.

    The polar bears survived both these periods and will likely survive the next one. The Vikings sailed regularly across the North Atlantic in open boats in what were balmy conditions.

    The planet is warming up again. There is no doubt of that. It doesn't mean all will be bad.

    Government should plan to mitigate the problems associated with global warming (e.g. build dykes to protect coastal cities) rather then spending lots of money trying to stop it.
  168. F M from Ottawa, Canada writes: After following the various threads on this and related articles for the past couple of weeks, I am very dismayed to find that the mud-slinging, name-calling , infantile posturing and general I'm-right-you're-wrong tone prevails. The same posters appear after every article, claiming it's all a left-wing mega-hoax perpetuated by scientists who don't want to lose their research grants or socialists or 'them', that shadowy group trying to control every aspect of our lives.

    Frankly, it's getting boring. Among the hysterical accusations, though, there is a real debate here - not about the science, which I think most of us realize has been carried out by qualified, responsible climatologists - but about HOW WE RESPOND. Let's get on with THAT, shall we? And not wait for governments to tell us what to do. 'That's a long wait for a train that don't come.' If people start making it a part of our daily decision making -- buying local, buying in season, etc -- it's a step in the right direction.

    As for those who continue to deny that it's happening or that we have an impact on the climate, may I quote the Canadian philosopher and songwriter Bob Bossin's New Talking Atom Blues: 'Einstein said he was scared, and when Einstein says he's scared, I'M SCARED'
  169. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: In stark terms, scientists confirm that climate change is 'unequivocal' . My comment is so what? Where I am sitting now, ten thousasnd years ago there was two miles of ice. All I want is to have pollution reduced somewhat. If it takes the 'Global Warming Mantra' to instigate action so much the better. Every generation builds their own little 'paradise.' If it is not sustainable then changes will occur, and the next generation will build their own little paradise. I was born in a log cabin on virgin land in this great country, like Abe Lincoln. I adapted and now live the good life suitable to my economic means. I sort of like not having to chop wood, haul water, not fill the coal oil lamps, shovel the barn, milk a cow, kill a chicken, butcher a pig, in other words I sold my body and soul and most of my freedom to obtain things I use to produce directly. Is the life better, certainly, but I do have some nostalgia for the old ways. But have no real desire to go back except as a hobby and in small doses. There has never been a peasant, who wants to go back to the land. The life we now living is so boring to so many people that many are now living the good life by playing 'Second Life' on a computer. That is what has been built. An upheaval in the climate might bring people back to reality. Anyway it will be a challenge. Doomsday? I think not. Durgan.
  170. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: To Tim Dowell:

    I don't know what Stern Review report you read, but let me quote you from the executive summary:

    'At the same time, given that climate change is happening, measures to help people adapt to it are essential. And the less mitigation we do now, the greater the difficulty of continuing to adapt in future.'

    The problem isn't that people don't adapt, but that we acknowledge the need to adaptation is necessary, and we need to try to anticipate what changes are coming.

    But let me ask you something, if the CO2 emissions increases persist and global temperatures rise by 5 degrees C and sea levels rise, how do you adapt in cities built close to sea level, like Shanghai, London, New York and Tokyo? Will we rebuild those cities like Bush has rebuilt New Orleans?

    I think the point is to invest money now to lower the emissions before having to pay much more to deal with changes to infrastructure (like where a city is located), crop conditions, etc.
  171. Brian C from Canada writes: What a nice one sided article, void of any evidence from the heretics who would try to disavow this pure science. Thank you G&M for continuing to tell me what I should think, because I'm certainly not responsible enough to form my own thoughts after considering ALL the facts. Now to get the Liberals back into power so that they also may continue telling me what's good for me and what my values are. I feel so much better now knowing that people will take care of me. I am sure that someone 100 years from now will notice the 1.7 degree rise in temperature and 0.28 m rise in ocean levels and somehow this is a bad thing. And I didn't notice you talking about the proof that this global warming is manmade, but I suppose I'm gullible enough to swallow that whole. Thanks once again. Keep up the great work.
  172. Charles Mitz from Cambridge, Canada writes: Here's what we know: Global warming is occuring and its significant. The 'greenhouse' effect is contributing to this warming. We do not know if the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities is the principal cause of global warming but it is unquestionably a part. There are times when a suite of circumstances demands action whether or not the science is completely understood (complete understanding of complex phenomena like global warming may not be possible even in theory given the number of variables involved and the time overwhich they manifest themselves).

    There is a consensus that the potential threat demands cooperative global action. The good thing is that actions taken to reduce CO2 emissions will also increase the efficiency with which we use our precious and limited quantities of fossil fuels. We end up winning even if the greenhouse effect is not the principal cause of global warming. Personally I think it is.
  173. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: I suspect that most people that are in favor of the Kyoto Accord have not read it.
    It basically states that it is OK for lesser developed countries to pollute and it is OK for developed countries to pollute as long as they buy energy credits from the lesser developed countries. In other words it is OK to pee in the bathtub as long as you pee in the other end.
    Idiots wrote the Accord and only idiots believe in it.
  174. Jorly fuster from Washington B.C., Canada writes: I'm sorry, but Alberta's economy and boom is more important that the rest of the world. There will be no change in Harper's environment policy as he has made many promises to the family values of Albexas
  175. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello Fluvial Sediment - I often wonder where do Liberals find Canadians to vote for them. Then we read posts like your and all is clear. Let me help you my little Loonie Left friend. PM Harper did not fire Ms Gilinans. She left on here own and from the Auditor Generals office putz. Second Ms Gelians just finished ripping into the Liberals over their environmental record. Maybe your little brain could sort that little fact out for us.
  176. m fenny from Canada writes: 'feo . from Fredericton, Canada writes: HEY....to those suggesting solar eruptive activity is repsonsible for this warming...please try to put the whole picture together. The warming correlates exactly with the increase in atmospheric CO2 level measured in ice core samples.'

    Actually feo it doesn't. There is a point in the 1960s when the CO2 levels fell for a few years, but yet the temperature didn't. Maybe you could explain this.
  177. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: J Adams: I'm not sure if you'll agree, but I think KGs example is actually supportive of climate change action. Like Y2K the chicken littles got out of hand, but that didn't mean we didn't have a very real problem. Same goes here. It's not as bad as everyone is saying, but it is a problem we need to solve. We must start moving towards zero impact energy production if we wish to continue.
  178. Buddy Rich from Toronto, Canada writes: Eh Norn Neil,
    clear all right 2 words versus 1266.
    That's how you make money my friend.
    Have a very profitable day.
  179. Trevor Giles from Nelson, Canada writes: Just so you are all aware, because of the nature of the IPCC, everything they put out has been watered down and every word of their statements haggled over by every representative nation. Read 'An Inconvenient Truth' and 'The Weather Makers' if you really want to understand the gravity of what we have already done to our planet. Remember, we only have one Earth. When it is screwed so are we humans. So what is wrong with erring on the side of caution? Better air. water, and life in general.
  180. Brad Bowen from Toronto, Canada writes: Rick McIdiot - You keep taking shots at the left yet it is Tsar Harper who is now preaching climate change and global warming from his stump. I assume if a Tsar Harper led government passed sweeping changes that impacted the environment it would be the fault of the Liberal party? It's an interesting theory (one of many you have).
  181. Snafu Fubar from Canada writes: That is so scary.

    We must immediately give each of these scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars to further study this problem. Screw the poor and the homeless; we need to pour billions of dollars in to Kyoto so, all together, the world can reduce this rise in temperature by half a degree over the next century. That will mean we will only see a 1.2 to 3.5 increase. Then we can all tell the starving nations of the world that their suffering was not in vain. We can say things like “It would have been half a degree hotter had you not endured”. I am sure they will take comfort in the words.
  182. G From Canada from The Prairies, Canada writes: to The Objectivist from Canada give your head a shake. SUV's and other cars are a huge part of the problem. As the population increases people see the need to own these monsters of the roadways. You can have population increases without people needing to buy these items. What would happen if everyone walked away from an SUV and bought a hybrid, or a smart car, or any other gas conserver. It is people like you who have an SUV who are unwilling to give it up because you do not look cool, or whatever the issue is. The hard truth is we must change our buying habits and feel the need to pollute at will. We can all do our part in stopping the killing of our planets, and we do not need governments to tell us what to do
  183. Vapor Pressure from Alberta, Canada writes: Unlike with ozone depletion where a 'mechanism' was found and data confirmed the 'chemical reaction' was taking place which is the proper way to approach the skeptics ... with facts. We have the inconvenient truth of global warming, climate change, starting the next ice age by shutting down the ocean heat pump ... whatever. If you think of the last 100 years of human civilization or even that its only been 250 years since human societies anywhere on earth actually 'gave a damn' about fellow human beings (note Carl Sagan's constant references to ancient civilizations failure due to its endorsement of slavery and the natural recurring dark ages because of that). You put the infitesmal period of time that human beings have had a 'consmic' conscience and it is apparent that nobody knows what will happen in the next 50 years, let alone a 1000. It wasn't that long ago that the Malthusiens held sway and people lived to a ripe old age of 40 on average. Even assuming repeating the same old data over and over for 30 years and ignoring other data constitutes science or a close enough approximation that I should be worried. What about the fact the effect of the 'radical action' has an exponentially lower cost to everyone every year. It's kind of like buying a computer ... you buy one when you need it and you can afford it. Until somebody shows that Banladesh has lost 100 square miles due to the rising oceans ... that's where I sit. Note to Conservative: We can afford more than your offering at present, hopefully the alliance with the NDP on this issue is not just conjecture.
  184. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Doncha LOVE it when right-wingers pretend to be PRO-science ? YIKES ! It's similar to the creepy feeling you get when they pretend to be PRO-human rights.
  185. steve austin from Edmonton, Canada writes: J Luft - Johan, just as an example, the scientists said that the foam falling from the fuel tank of the Space Shuttle wouldn't cause any damage.

    But you'd have to admit those engineers had to be pretty smart to that thing of the ground in the first place.
  186. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: The guidelines state that :' comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations'. By that criteria, most of the anti-GHG postings should be removed. Why aren't these rules being upheld?
  187. CWL Leven from Winnipeg, Canada writes: First off I still remember that the scientists in the 1980's were calling for Global cooling and they had the same zeal as they do now on Global warming. Second the earth is billions of years old, so what, that the last 50 years have been the warmest out of the last 1,300 years; thats a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time. Third I wonder if one of the reasons the temperatures are going up since we started reading the temperature is because we have better thermometers than 150 years ago. The average temperature went up only 1.7 degrees thats probably not even the margin of error in a thermometer 50 years ago. I admit that Global warming seems to be taking place and we gotta do our part by recylcling,reusing etc, but is it man made I dunno. But I hope it gets warmer in Winnipeg.
  188. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't wait for all of these so-called 'experts' who have never published anything on climate change come out and criticize this report. Anybody who comes out critical cannot be a real scientist because to take a real critical look at such a large study would take at least 2 years of testing assumptions and peer review of data to accomplish. I would also like to see so-called journalists who report on the false debate to tell readers about their scientific training that allows them to be critics. Science should be about facts, not about debating points.
  189. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty: I support the cooperation between the NDP and the Conservatives despite not supporting their party ideals. I agree this is certainly the center in this case. My real point though is that this endless railing against 'the left' takes what I think are reasonable points on your part and makes them partisan, which is unfortunate. You call people 'looney left' or whatever the silly term of the day is, and thus you end up lumping yourself into these extremes, when it is clear to me at least that you are not extreme. This might sound like the pot calling the kettle black, but people with a centrist mind set such as ourselves should try and resist such urges, don't you think?
  190. Rick Czarnota from Calgary, writes: Mitch Gullison from Fredericton asks 'I don't know why you would believe scientists hired by big oil over scientists who really believe the climate is changing.' I am of the same opinion as you Mitch. I believe the warming trend the earth is experiencing is a natural trend, but human activity is speeding up the trend. In my experience talking to people I have found that the reasons people are skeptical regarding the science of global warming differs from person to person. Some point to the fact that many of the scientists who are the strongest supporters of GW are funded by Greenpeace and other activist groups. Their agenda is as politically/monetarily driven as the scientists funded by oil companies. I don't share this opinion, but have found it to be a common belief. Some people are skeptical because they are ignorant to the scientific method. They really don't understand the science, the concepts of the greenhouse effect, or the terminology. In my experience many people avoid issues they don't know about or minimize them as they are unable to contribute anything meaningful to the debate. The flip side to ignorant people are those who feel they are as or more knowledgable than those who study climate change for a living. They understand the scientific method, the concepts driving the warming trend and have hypothesis of their own which they feel have not been answered. What are the effects of solar radiation fluctuations? The issue seems to be ignored by many scientists, yet it obviously would have an effect on global warming. What about water vapor in the air? The day after 9/11 when all planes were grounded New York experienced a 1 C drop in air temperature. Everyone comes from a different perspective and gaining a consensus on something only a handful of people in the world study and research full-time is going to be impossible.
  191. Jest a Good Ole Country Boy from Canada writes: Gid'day eh? Philosopher King. Yeppers, gots to agree with you. Them there politicians are as changeable as the wind. Anything to get elected..... kiss babies, shake hands, vote to send money out'n the country with things like this Kyoto thingy. Mr. Harper done changed some too, cause he knows people are some ticked off about this here climate change bizness. But, that's ok. People been screamin' fer years about gittin' rid of the smog over cities. Maybe this time sumpin' will git done about it.
  192. Janet W from Canada writes: CD from Victoria - Your post just goes to show how ignorant you are. Don't bother to read the research and form an educatad opinion, just boil a complex problem down to one simple scenario, 'people die all the time.' Very enlightening.

    The point of the matter is quite simple. Human activity over the past 100 years is responsible for the greatest climactic change in the shortest period of time on this planet. Try thinking for just one moment exactly how much heat needs to be created on earth in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1 degree? Our constant need for over-consumption is finally catching up with us and we need to make some drastic changes. Unfortunately with huge rising economies like China and India gobbling up fossil fuels and emitting more and more greenhouse gases into the environment, it's going to be an uphill battle. Of course, why worry about it, 'people die all the time.'
  193. The left-leaning FA, not the other one from VAN, Canada writes: To mr Weagle who said -------'Why do these sensationalist stories always have to sound like their trying to pitch something? 'The world's leading scientists..'; good lord could there be more puffery?

    They have to PITCH it to cause you didn't listen THE FIRST 10,000 TIMES THEY TOLD YOU.
  194. Nick Burman from Calgary, Canada writes: When I was in school back in the 1950ís, I got into a terrible argument with my science teacher. She was talking about the content of the atmosphere and I questioned her if the amount of natural gas, oil and coal we were then burning would not change the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Her response was that the atmosphere was so vast that we could not have an affect on it no matter what we did. I did not believer her and the argument that followed set the tone for a very bad year for me in that class. I felt I was right then and know I am now. Many years later, several decades ago, I started to see my first articles on climate change in such magazines as Scientific American. Though possible climate change through greenhouse gasses was considered to be not much more than a theory, I still recall them. The scientists were then using the best computer models available and were suggesting much the same as what they are predicting today. Some of this has now appears to be coming true. During the 60ís I worked in the Northern Canada for several years. Then I hardly ever went there until the last few years when I traveled there extensively. I met and talked with First Nations people and their elders. From what I experienced and heard, the signs are all there. From my experience I have learned that the scientists of years ago (and perhaps even today) were wrong. Wrong about one thing. That is in their prediction of the rate at which these changes are taking place. I see that things may be happening much faster than they originally predicted. I would sure like to run into Ms. Wenzel again. Still our representatives in parliament continue to bicker like grade three children with their teacher out of the classroom, jockeying for power, playing the blame game, instead of getting things done.
  195. S Daly from Toronto, Canada writes: I can look outside and quite clearly see there is climate change. Most do not need convincing of that. What we need is convincing that all these 'global warming' fanatics that spout off about Kyoto....spout off about cutting emissions are correct that this is a man-made situation.

    If this is man-made, it would be safe to assume that the concern in 1975 of a cooling trend was man-made as well. So was the ice age. So was the warming period that saw life flourish...but strangely, industry was not there during that time.

    Nov 29, 2006 saw the U.N. release a report on 'global warming' stating:

    'cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation'

    'When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases'

    'It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.'

    So clearly, to succeed with Kyoto it would be prudent to slaughter the majority of bovine on this planet...that way one of the 'major contributers' would be gone and all those 'Inconvenient Truth' fans (fanatics?) would get their wish. Except of course it would be revealed that co2 is not the big culprit after all.

    On a side note.....China is building 1 coal fired plant every 3 days and will move to the number 1 co2 emitter by rough estimates......2009. Perhaps it is THAT country that people should be protesting against since they didn't/wouldn't have to to conform to Kyoto.

    Now...if you could just work on that pesky water vapor.......
  196. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Trevor Giles: An excellent point that bears repeating. If we reduce our ecological footprint the side effects are cleaner air, healthier people and more efficient use of limited resources. That people continue to rail against this is mind boogling. The farleft is certainly going crazy here, but resistance on the right is no less dogmatic and no less 'chicken little'. It hurts us not one bit to be more environmentally friendly if done wisely, but the cost of doing nothing could be staggering.
  197. j adams from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Philosopher King - Agreed - sometimes my 'Rhetoric Alarm' goes off prematurely and I scroll to the next post, thanks for the nudge!
  198. Jest a Good Ole Country Boy from Canada writes: Gid'day eh? Janet W, you jest don't seem to unnerstand the natural order fo things. Youse born, you hrow up, you procreate, an' you die. What's wrong with that? Yeah, got's to have a bit 'o fun along the way, bu y sounds purty angry... jes' not havin fun. Gots to lighten up a bit, take time to smell them there wildflowers...they don't last too long, an' neuther do we'uns.
  199. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: S. Daly - Ah yes, the manure factor. Always present!
  200. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Agreed Philosopher King. I did promise R. Carrierre to take my 'chill pills' in the morning. I will strive to educate and not criticise.
  201. Friends Always from Calgary, Canada writes: Reality is not about fear mongering...Reality is about social and environmental consciousness plus leadership. Our environment is forever changing. We are continuing to remove our natural resources to feed our consumption for human and social convenience. Many of these resources are either non-renewable or consumed on a negative net rate as the earth cannot renew them fast enough....we need to moderate our consumption.

    With respect to the pollution outputs into the environment...fact is that pollution is happening and the debate should not be at 'what rate is it going to erode this planet and our health' but 'what can we do to control if not reduce our emissions.

    Do debate how fast our natural resources are going to dissappear or when the planet and every living being is going to die. Debate how we can demostrate national leadership to curb our consumption and limit our pollution and waste.

    As to the affect on the economy, trust me...we will always be able to afford to enjoy a comfortable life. Through a market economy, we always find ways to afford and pay for the goods we consume.
  202. R. D. Kimmel from United States writes: I think there is plenty of evidence of worldwide climate change. I spent a year in Antarctica in the '80s. During that time, I spent a couple of weeks on the Larson Ice Shelf with a team of geologists. That part of Antarctica no longer exists. It is water. Here in Minnesota, in the last five years, we have had dew points in the summer that are more like those experienced in southern India, not Minnesota. Our moose are almost gone due to warm summers, and cold water fish can now only be found near the bottom of L. Superior. I note that there are many different points of view posted concerning gobal warming/climate change. I would like to make the following point: Humans are causing great harm to the Earth. When you can't drink the water, and you can't breathe the air, it's over. It doesn't matter what you call the process of getting there, and denial of the problem will not alter the outcome.
  203. Don Adams from Canada writes: Country Boy, interesting posts, to say the least :-)
  204. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Philosopher King - not only do you have a brain but today you're actually using it! If this isn't your day off again, get back to work!
  205. Snafu Fubar from Canada writes:
    Comments..........coming...........Too Fast.......

    Can't.............read them..............all..........

    Must.......press B.S. filter..................................

    Wow, the whole story disappeard.
  206. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Nick Burman-you have a very good point. At this time, we seem to be exceeding the predictions of the models. This implies a self-reinforcing cycle that could in fact mean that we are much closer to the tipping point than we would care to believe.
  207. One Canadian from Canada writes:
    I don't think anyone is denying that we should take better care of our planet. It has to be a balanced approach to reducing GHG.

    The liberals and huggers want to shut down all industry with exception of those operating at the center of the universe (ontario). That is not going to happen.

    It is interesting that the media continues to whip the issue and get the fanatics (liberal) frothing at the mouth.

    The high priest suzuki is traveling across canada talking to liberals on how to grow the new religion. He is going to add up all of his Co2 emissions on the trip and make a donation to India’s wind energy industry. In other words, he will pollute canadain airspace (and minds) and then give money to another country to compensate for the damage he causes here. That is what Kyoto is and definitely not the right approach to solving the problem.

    The prophets quoted in this installment of the G&M mission to elect a liberal, can see 1000 years into the future and the liberals will gobble it up. This thing has taken on cult status. Don't be surprised if the liberal flock all get Al Gore haircuts and start wearing green bed sheets.
  208. At Large from Canada writes: One short comment from a Generation X-er who still rides his bike to work: thanks a LOT Baby Boomers, now it'll be up to us to clean up your mess since you spent all your time humming and hawing about whether the fumes from your cars and factories might be harmful or not.
  209. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Harper strongly opposed Kyoto and several times repeasted that a Conservative government would turn its back on the Kyoto accord and set its own targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
    http://xrl.us/uj46

    Harper is right on the Kyoto. However, Kyoto focused attention on the pollution business, and that is the only good thing about Kyoto. Cretein forced this Kyoto on Canadians while he was the emperor. Emperor in Canada means the leader of a majority government.

    The only thing the CPC did that was wrong was not attacking pollution fully. The CPC tried smoke and mirrors and now have to implement realistic action due to public backlash even if it is misinformed. Every Federal Government wants to avoid cleaning up the Tar Sands, and this is the main issue. If meaningful steps are taken to force cleaning up the tar sands and coal fired generating stations, there is no reason to join the new religion Kyotoism.

    Kyoto is a flawed concept and I hope the CPC and Mr Harper stand firm. The election should be fully focused on Kyotoism. There are other more important issues not being addressed.

    Durgan.
  210. Snafu Fubar from Canada writes:

    At Large.

    You're welcome. I'm off to the beach!

    Snafu
  211. Guillaume Afleck from Ottawa, Canada writes: Kimmel 'When you can't drink the water, and you can't breathe the air, it's over. It doesn't matter what you call the process of getting there, and denial of the problem will not alter the outcome. ' The problem is: if all our resources go to fighting the dubious problem of CO2 emissions we will not put the resources necessary towards reducing real pollution that makes air and water harmful to human and animal life. That is one of the main problems with the KyotoHysteria.
  212. Wm. Sandham from Toronto, Canada writes: Number 1: that is one of the most small minded, ignorant views I have ever read in regards to global warming. It is people like you who are to blame for the current condtion of the planet. A planet on its death bed. You and others like you make me ill! Global warming is a pressing issue that CANNOT be lookde upon lightly and CANNOT be brushed aside. You won't be able to escape the consequences in your gas guzzling SUV you fool! Face up to the facts! Face up to the consequences!!
  213. T P from New York, United States writes: To Durward Saar from Coquitlam - I bet you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth... am I correct?

    To those that welcome some demystifying re: what is global warming, what is the ozone layer, so what re: the melting polar ice caps, the history of it all- I agree with Jasper the Black Lab

    Rent the movie!

    You may think: 'OK now I get it.' You may see things differently, and go to bed smarter.

    (p.s. hi Jasper from 2 eyed!)
  214. Long live Canada from Canada writes: I don't see anything here that I haven't read before. The range of warming has been changed slightly (I have read about that before), and it is the first I've heard that they can make predictions 1000 years into the future. If anyone can explain how this is possible, please do so.

    I honestly think more people would accept GW if there weren't such unreasonably fantastic predictions so far into the future. Come on, 1000 years? Why? To sell newspapers? Was this really in the report?

    I am a reasonable person, and I believe it's entirely possible and a good idea to reduce emissions. I don't doubt GW is occuring and feel we should lower emissions plan 'just in case'. But I also think that looking 1000 years into the future is more science fiction than science.
  215. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Wm Sandham from Toronto - You state the world is on its 'death bed'. OMG

    Was the world also on its death bed when the Liberals were in power?
  216. Cliff Gaetz from Halifax, Canada writes: Who are these unnamed world leading scientists, keep in mind we can finds scientists to present any type of view the media would like to present.
    What are these scientists credentials? What is the backgorund they based their studies on? Who funded them? Pertinent questions that the media always seems to ignor.
    Lets protect and correct man made damage to the environment. However, why does the media and the left wing continue to ignore and dismiss sound and fundamental writings from scientists who believe and have presented sunstantial studies and evidence that substantial parts of global warming are directly related to natural occurances.
    Fair, even and open debate can only lead to better public policy.
    However, questioning aspects of global warming should not be questioning the need to protect the damage that man is doing to the environment, both in our atmosphere, but also in our lakes and oceans.
  217. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Ok, so letís sum up the arguments of the global warming debunkers so far: 1) The dumb: We are having a stretch of normal or cooler weather now, so that completely negates the scientifically proven overall warming trend. 2) The short-sighted: What about the cost? What about the economy? We are going to destroy the economy if we try to do anything about global warming. What about my SUV and job in the oil and gas sector? 3) The paranoid: All scientists are dishonest. All they care about is lining their pockets with grant money at the expense of tax payers. They have no ethics or intellectual integrity. They are in the pay of the liberal empire. 4) The pseudo-scientific: The earth experiences long-term warming and cooling trends, always has, always will. This is just a warming trend and thereís nothing we can do about it. It is pure hubris for human beings to think that they can have any kind of an effect of these long-term patterns Number 1 does not ever deserve a response. Number 2 is sad, since those making this kind of argument obviously have no concern for others or have no belief in human ingenuity. The science is there to make the shift to a healthy and sustainable economy, but it has been suppressed until now. Number 3 is just weird. Iím not sure people making this kind of claim really believe it themselves. Number 4 contains some truth, but is a hand-picked argument. As such it is just one example of the many bizarre, confused and desperate-sounding junk science claims made on these boards. It is, I would argue, bizarre to think that human beings would not have an effect. If we can destroy the oceans, rivers and lakes, or cause regular smog to form over our cities (have your heard of global dimming, or is that a con too?), then why would we have no effect on the earthís climate? The amount of CO2 we are putting out into the atmosphere is astronomical.
  218. Jest A Good Ole Country Boy from Canada writes: Gid'day eh? I gots to agree with this here climate change stuff. Yeppers, world is warmin' up. But, that ain't such a bad thing. I remembers years ago when the winter snow covered the fences in winter. Made fer lot's of hard diggin' to get out to the barn t'feed the cattle. Today sure ain't much snow. Winters is warmer, don't has to burn nearly as much wood t'stay warm. That's OK. Yep, summers is warmer, but not a problem.... jest gots to jump in the pond ifn you gets too warm. We gets too much rain, floods the fields, kills the crops, but that ain't a problem either, we jest switch t'growin rice or cranberries. Big problem as I see it though is them durn cities. All that smog. Gots to clean that up fer sure.
  219. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: Many of you confuse denial with questioning. Many of you confuse climate change (a 4 billion year reality) with man-made climate change (a highly debated theory as for the proportion of mankind's influence). In french, we say 'dialogue de sourds'. You just don't listen.
  220. Tim Dowell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Paul F. from Toronto,

    The economic disaster in the report is based on mankind not adapting.
    The executive summary is counter the conclusions of the review.

    As far as cities being underwater... I think people would adapt and don't worry Bush will be dead by then.

    Let me ask you something.
    It has been proven that Co2 levels go up after a global warming period. This has been discovered by looking at ice core samples spanning warming and cooling periods that have occurred long before the discovery and use of fossil fuels. How did the planet warm before without an increase of Co2?
  221. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: A quote from earlier: 'Thanks for the scary bed time story, now where is the evidence??'

    Dear lord some people are ignorant! The evidence is in this paper. If you want to see the evidence, read it when it comes out!!! To people claiming that this is a natural occurrence (i.e. coming out of an Ice Age cycle), are you so arrogant as to believe that only you have thought of this? That out of the literally THOUSANDS of scientists that have worked on this issue, none thought to check into this clearly obvious issue? To the guy arguing about solar irradiation, do you honestly believe that no one in the scientific consortium working on this issue have examined this angle?? The arrogance of climate deniers is absolutely astounding.

    This type of bold, clear statement is rare in the scientific community. That's because scientists try to check every angle and answer questions with the utmost skepticism, and where doubt remains, no conclusions are made. So this type of consensus is huge. Stop with the arm-chair science, read the report when it comes out, and see for yourself that your concerns have been answered.
  222. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: B Halton from Alberta - Did you not forget 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling.' I feel all fuzzy and warm now that I've read your story.
  223. Katherine Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Its Harper's fault!' 'Its America's fault!' 'It's big oil's fault!' 'Kyoto is the magic solution to global warming! If ONLY the stupid politicians would adopt it!'
    Oh really? What, all of you not own a car? And the computer you are using to access the internet, thats is being run on hydrogen and produces no green house gases? Your house is heated through body heat and good insulation is it? Give me a break!
    I'm getting sick and tired of people placing the blame on someone else. We, all of us, are responsible for what is happening now. We work for companies that emit green house gases, we drive cars, we heat our houses, we produce waste, and so on.
    And whether or not you believe that global warming is being accelerated by human activity or not, you can't deny the negative health effects of pollution - but what we should be doing, if we really are that concerned, is changing our own actions. Support organic farmers, buy low-emissions emitting cars, use public transportation or walk, buy energy efficient appliances, recycle...
    There is no quick fix to solving this problem. But small life-style changes go a long way. So all of you finger-pointers, get up off your butts, turn off the computer, turn down the heat and walk or take the bus to work.
  224. Dat Guy from edmonton, Canada writes: This kind of fear from scientists reminds me of how in th 70's global overpopulation was going to end the earth as we knew it..all the water was going to be used and the air would be so poluted that great numbers of people would die and thus restablize the earth. I guess the scientists forgot about the mini ice age in the 1700's and the fact that some glaciers are growing. I think this el nino year has really worked in the global warming study funding department. Probably a 1000 year cycle that we are experiencing. One last thing..if a major volcano blows does that not affect the atmostphere too.
  225. Durward Saar from Coquitlam, Canada writes: How many trees do we fall to make up the shortfall of plastic (Read oil product) production that will ensue if we follow this tripe?
    How many people will starve due to the increase in the price of food world wide? how will we get food to starving nations and not burn oil? By sail?
    how do we avoid becoming isolated nations when travel will be only for the very very wealthy?
    Seems the cure is worse than the imagined ill.
    This is bad science, bad policy and the creation of a global communist with either great insight( the realization of a single planetary government and global communism) or very limited insight(people starving and living in isolation).
    I think Maurice Strong knows exactly what this will bring about, Both.
    The problem is over population, massive over population in some cases, Maurice knows this as well.
    You can't advocate the genocide of the poor, but you can convince them to kill themselves off with a feel good scheme made to look like salvation.
  226. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: 1000 years to return to what? I never realized there was a climate status quo. And a 1000 years from now, who cares or remembers? Hottest eleven years on record yet the Arctic has been warming for a hundred years? Last time I looked Earth is not in a closed system. There's a thing called the sun and other planets are experiencing climate change. And I don't think we are going to undo the industrial revolution here on earth. So, since things are pretty much moving on for the next ten centuries, I'm going to the beach to have a coffee. Ciao.
  227. Douglas Edwards from Canada writes: Many of these so-called scientists are trained in a discipline that can't predict the weather three days from now with any degree of accuracy. The remainder have little on no training in the field of weather or climate at all. Overall a group of people that think 'If it didn't happen in my lifetime, it never happened at all. To talk about climate change in the context of temperature measurements that go back only 1500 years is nonsense. The fact is our plant is possibly going through a warming phase. It has done that before. It has also gone through cooling periods. 15,000 years ago a large part of North America was covered with ice. That is a fact. 15,000 years is not even a blink of the eye in geological time. Just over 100,000 years ago temperatures were much higher than they are now and there were tropical forests in the Nortwest Territories. That is a fact. Even 100,000 years is less than a blink of the eye in geological time. These events had nothing to do with mans activities. If in fact we are in a warming period, (a few years of higher temperatures are not a sure sign of that) then is is very likely that the pattern of previous warming periods will be repeated. The history of these warming and cooling periods indicates that themperatures will increase at an accelerating rate to some unpredictable number then drop rapidly (we are talking geological time here) and we will enter another ice age. All of this will take 10 -15,000 years. It is arrogant to think we can influence these events. We do not need to make wholesale changes in our lifestyle because the world is warming up. If it is, it will. Nothing we can do will significantly change that.
  228. Margaret Melton from Guelph, Canada writes: We old folk are beginning to believe there is hope for those who are following us. There are indication in this post that more people are moving from scared to sceptic.
    I do believe they are noticing the proliferation of 'world bodies' who travel the globe on our tax dollars, polluting the earth with billions of pages, all predicating disasters of one kind or the other.

    Trust us! The world will revolve as it should, and we still will have those who feed and get fat on your fears. With or without who is to blame for cause or effect. Enjoy!
  229. Jest A Good Ole Country Boy from Canada writes: Gid'day eh? We humans breathe in oxygen, breathe our CO2. Trees breathe in CO2, breathe out oxygen. Why not jest plant more trees? Oh yeah, too big a population. Wellsir, maybe ought to try what we'nus do when the herd gets too big fer the pasture to support them, but the bulls, control the numbers of calves. Ain't that there rocket science. Do that with humans where they's jest to many of 'em.... nut the bulls. Course, ticks off the cows that comes in heat and no bull to service 'em, but who cares what a cow thinks? Keeps the number down real good. Sustainability.
  230. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Margaret, with all do respect, your generation has contributed many fine things to this world, but massive amounts of greenhouse gases is not one of them. Times are changing. Industry is changing. the world is not a static place. You and your generation will soon pass on, but we will be left to deal with the fall out. As such, your opionion carries less weight--with all do respect.
  231. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: So 1300 years ago, it was warmer... They survived did they? Thank you.
  232. jeff mactavish from Canada writes: What a joke! Let's ruin our economy with Kyoto so the enviroment will be better 1000 years from now. Smart plan Libs. And you wonder why people think your idiots.
  233. james mclintock from Canada writes: global warming isent anywhere to be found in the bible, so it must not be true, thats all i need to know. ;)
  234. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Whoops, temperature now up to -5C. The globe is warming. Run to the basement!

    The globe can warm but our rivers can only clean so much filth! Montreal spent over a billion on a white elephant stadium and minimal on sewage treatment. Most still goes straight into the St.Lawrence River. Thankfully I live upstream but still have to face what Toronto and the Great Lakes cities throw into the river. Halifax and Victoria straight into the Oceans with minimal treatment. These problems we can solve. Water is life. The climate marches to its own drum.
  235. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Rick McNaughty--I would never say the sky is falling. It isn't, it is warming.
  236. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Jeff--Most now agree that Kyoto is a semi-scam. We need a made in canada plan, but it has to be real.
  237. mike sharp from Victoria, the crocuses are up!, writes: And the climate is changing on Mars, too.
    Big deal.
  238. Lewis Bartholomew from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Does anyone on this post today remember where they were on the very first Earth Day years ago? I do. Ok, whether (weather?) you think this is a bunch of crap or something that most of us have been following for years why would anyone in their right mind want to take a chance that, just maybe, on the slim chance this might be an issue for the next generation, shouldn't we simply put on the brakes? As most of us know we are now living on the errors of our grandfathers'/grandmothers' environmental legacy from the last century. They not only didn't have the science to show them what they had wrought, but they also didn't give a rats behind like many of you today. Both Global warming (and more critical Global Dimming) are not simply the effect of the lack of standards in today's global economy but are also the long lasting effects of the industrial revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yes, climates do change (ie: dinosaurs) but we are speeding up change in the way we alter our planet in our short life span. Call us chicken littles if you wish. I also remember another children's story about a grasshopper and an ant.
  239. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: The first paragraph of this article is completely false and is a classic example of sensationalist, meaningless conclusions by so-called scientists as well as over-exaggerated reporting by the media. The statement that 'Humans have alreay caused so much damage to the atmosphere that the effects of global warming will last for more than 1000 years' is scare tactics at its best, and one must look for the real reason why this type of tactic is continually being trotted in front of our faces. Is it to scare people into accepting the welfare giveaway of Kyoto? The implication that humans are responsible for long term effects of 'global warming' is erroneoous--the second part of that statement does not follow from the first. Everyone must do as much as possible to clean up pollution and alternate sources of energy should be brought on line. We can do without the meaningless scare tactics!
  240. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Lewis Bartholomew says 'Call us chicken littles if you wish. I also remember another children's story about a grasshopper and an ant.' OK....you are a chicken little. Do you remember the children's story about Peter and the Wolf?
  241. Steve (not the paunchy, controlling, paranoid Steve of Ottawa) from Alberta, Canada writes: Why aren't the global-warming deniers (Luft et al) throwing down the gauntlet & providing the public & decision makers with their vast arsenal of data that refutes the theories of global warming? Why aren't they earning huge sums (million$$) by clearly showing us all how to approach 'perceived' global warming? Why are they instead limited to writing poorly spelled, often antagonistic & insulting posts from their basement apartments? Hmmmm.... who to believe... who to believe... haha Stand Up For Canada!
  242. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Rick McNaulty: Thanks for the good humour, I'm on step 9 myself! LOL
  243. A. K. from Edmonton, Canada writes: There is no value in the opinion of scientsits who have dedicated their lives to study climate change against the smart posters in G&M discussion boards.

    What are you afraid of? Change - it will happen this way or that way? Or is it about politics of which are not even part - neither Jack, or the two Steves listen to you or read your rant.

    Please think how you can live responsibly and do your little bit to live in harmony with the environment. Just a little bit. Except for poster no. 1 cd dc - you are a lost case. I hope print your response and leave it for your grandchildren to see.
  244. Tony Chiang from vancouver, Canada writes: I think most people will admit to the clear overwhelming evidence of global warming in the world. The issue for skeptics is whether humans are a fundamental contributing factor. To these people, I ask this - What if you are wrong? There is no 'second chance' when it comes to our planet. If we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and all these scientists are correct, we would have been so far down the road of pollution that it will be virtually impossible to turn back.

    Although there is clear evidence of cyclical natural warming in the history of earth, mankind has potentially reduced the ability of the earth to recover through our acts of deforestation and fossil fuel dependence. True, temperatures rose thousands of years ago, and true, temperatures declined again, but thousands of years ago, I'm pretty sure most of the rain forests were intact and people didn't have coal powered electricity.

    It comes down to this. If we reduce our production of greenhouse gases, we will incur economic costs and social costs, there is no doubt about that. After paying these costs, even if global warming proves to be a completely natural process as skeptics claim, how much have we really lost?

    On the other hand, if we place our chips solely on the fact that global warming is a completely natural event that will resolve itself and mankind continues to emit CO2 with abandon, how much do we stand to lose if we are wrong?

    I know where I'm placing my bet.
  245. mike sharp from Victoria, the crocuses are up!, writes: Two facts.
    1.) Global warming is real.
    2.) Kyoto is a money-sucking socialist scheme.

    Kyoto is also a cute little puppy dog, but never mind.
  246. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Luft: are you unemployed?
  247. Larry Robinson from white Rock, writes: Actually poster no. 1 is right. If we are concerned about people dieing, why not Darfur, thousands of childhood deaths due to starvation and disease, sectarian violence or fat out of shape Canadians. We can do something about these things and I'm going to walk to the beach at a prudent pace so as not to exhale too much CO2.
  248. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Siberia's weather was actually reported early this winter as having it Northern Canada and our Prairies. It's friggin cold, like 10 to 15 degrees colder than normal for this time of year, for us. Folks in Eastern Canada, even when Harper made his announcement in front of 24 Sussex, in shirt sleeves in January, were still playing Golf! If we've got Siberia's cold, what does Siberia have? If Indonesia might lose 2,000 islands, how much more of a heat-sink will El-Nino and La Nino be? I don't care about the technical answers, but I do care about the local and regional work-arounds. Will there be enough dry land in the Red River Valley to build on. It takes a long time to build new towns and cities. Will Toronto and Montreal have enough smogless days and rain to capture rain-water. Nova Scotia has a small cholera issue, right now. Northern towns and reserves have a hard time keeping their water clean. Southern Saskatchewan and Alberta often have droughts and probably will have more (AKA Don't kill the Wheat Board for a few decades). This wasn't Harper's best day, was it. Mother Nature took a big nip just with this winter's great golf season! Insulation, Insulation, Insulation!!! Cooler Summers without AC and warmer winters with less energy. Grow where you're planted, because Mother Nature is on a rampage to recover her natural state, with or without us.
  249. Vapor Pressure from Alberta, Canada writes: I thought I'd better add (to a previous submission) that the authors of this report should watch Discovery Channel and NG Channel to get more up to date information. Ice is accumulating on Antarctica ... I guess you could argue 'sea ice' is being reduced but it doesn't help the ocean rising half a meter conjecture. Personally I'm more concerned about what the Earth's core is doing and how long it takes the magnetic field to flip and will we be exposed directly to the solar wind for a time ....
  250. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Larry. I have a feeling you don't care all that much about black babies in Darfur. If you did, you'd be worrying about what is going to happen to them when the weatern world no longer even bothers to keep an eye on developments there because it is dealing with its ecological problems.
  251. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Douglas Edwards: Weather is a localized phenomena. This means that is any each particular area the weather is unique and dependant on different variables. Weather reports are therefore generalizations of the highest degree. Comparing this to climate cycles averaged over thousands of years is nonsense. It's like suggesting that because someone cannot accurately tell you how many leaves are on a single tree they cannot therefore know anything about the forest. Given that you do not understand even this basic fact, please spare us your diatribes on the science of climate change. There is no viable argument to support crapping in our own nest. Why not just back reasonable action rather than rail against common sense? If you continue to take the diametrically opposite position of the other nuts, you will never be anything but a nut yourself. Having been that nut many times before I know of what I speak. Support reasonable action and leave the rants to the chicken littles.
  252. r john mckinley from fredericton, Canada writes: Just watched al gores an inconvenient truth, would be very enlightening for the majority of the people on this forum.
  253. Free Markets from Canada writes: Here are some interesting tid bits for all you people who think you know it all....

    China will pump more carbon emissions into the air in the next 15 years than three billion Ford Expeditions being driven for a total of 45 trillion miles...from coal alone

    Livestock emits more of the greenhouse gasses than manmade gasses, from a United Nations report.

    Claude Allegra - who has recently reversed his position on global warming (after studying it) has said, 'The cause of warming it unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money.'

    China in the year 2009 will pass this up as the No. 1 emitter of CO2

    China is spitting out a coal fired power plant every three days.

    Al Gores's scientist, Tom Wiggly has said that in the event we all comply with Kyoto, all the developed nations for the next 50 years, it will only bring the temperature down 6/100 of 1 degrees Celsius.
  254. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Vapor Pressure: Telling PHD climate scientists with decades of experience to watch a documentary made by non-scientists on a channel whose existence is dependant on ratings is hardly what I call good science.
  255. Raging Squirrel from GTA, Canada writes: Criminey, most of the 'people' posting here are the largest collection of armchair morons I've seen in a long time. 'It's not in the Bible, so it must be true.' Moron. 'The economy and jobs are more important.' Moron. Continuing global warming will disrupt and ruin economies and therefore jobs. 'Scientists are in it for the grant money.' Moron. I've never seen a scientist begging for grant money get rich. Those in the private sector don't get grants, they get budgets. 'Technology will save us.' Moron. Technology is part of what's killing us. We clamp ever tighter on the technological teat and refuse to let go. 'So the temperature goes up a couple of degrees, who cares?' Moron. You should. It's all relative and comes down to averages. The ecosystem is a VERY delicate device. We've been tampering with it for centuries. Now we've broken it and know we have to fix it, only there are too many morons out there with no brains, no degrees, and a propensity for extreme selfishness, capitalism, consumerism, and materialism, that we are likely doomed to fail. We've created our own noose, but deny it's there. We'll have to wait until nature drops the floor on us before we realize the folks with the brains or the common sense were right. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. The way I see it, we are ALL part of the problem and ALL part of the solution. If we don't do anything, we deserve to die. It's just too bad we'll take a lot of other species with us. At least Mother Nature is a patient mistress. A million years after she's gotten rid of the human cancer, the world will thrive once more.
  256. jennifer sydenham from Vancouver, Canada writes: Many thanks to Wild One for the analogy of the Lobsters who are too stupid to recognize that the pot of water they are in is getting gradually hotter and hotter - personally I don't want to be one of the last of the lobster people so can we please move on to what shall we DO about this?

    How about taking the bus to work even one day a week? Buying produce that has been grown locally and not strawberries that have been flown in from California and don't even taste that great? Not leaving your car idling outside your house for hours in the morning (NO excuse for that in Vancouver!)? Lets do something voluntarily before we get taxed into it.
  257. W M from Canada writes: As suspected, the people who are so invested in their ant--greenhouse gas reduction position that no amount of evidence will induce them to review the validity of their position; but hopefully it will have an impact on people who have, in good faith, been awaiting further evidence. I understand that they exist and won't go away, but just wish that they wouldn't waste our time with nothing more than name calling and vapid claims of 'junk science' ... or the still more outrageous claims that scientist can make more $ by being one of the many thousands who accept the science rather than being one of the few who oppose it. Exxon alone made $50bn last year and is spreading some of it around to any and all 'scientists', who are willing to dispute the climate change evidence. In fact, they are so desperate to find such scientists that they are even funding people whose last 'gig' was taking funding (some might call them 'payoffs' from tobacco companies) to public dispute the 'junk science' that showed that tobacco harms health. If you can tell me how any legitimate funder of science could conclude that a scientist who was so utterly wrong about the sub-cellular impacts of tobacco to challenge experts on the planet's climate, let me know. It's not even as though Exxon is funding actual climate research - they are just funding disinformation.
  258. Kathryn Dereski from Port Elgin, Canada writes: Where can I buy some carbon credits? Apparently they are the answer to the pollution problems. Imagine that, a scheme to help world pollution, couldn't be about money could it.
  259. B Halton from Canada writes: Raging Squirrel. Technology is the only thing that is going to pull us out of this without obliterating the economy. What would you propose? Do you really think that Canadians are going to 'go back to the earth,' get rid of their cars, no more computers, take a shower every three days? Flush the toilet once a day? Pay twice as much for organic food? That is ridiculous. I have hope, but if you rule out technology as a means for dealing with a technological problem, you are employing what we call wishful thinking.
  260. Lewis Bartholomew from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: J Luft. Yes, and if memory serves me right, the wolf was killed and the valley people were saved because of quick action. The grasshopper on the other hand almost froze his hind legs off because he couldn't see that the climate was changing and was saved by the ants who were getting ready for that change in their environment.
  261. Raging Squirrel from GTA, Canada writes: Technology won't save us because technology in itself is nothing. Humans created technologies. Humans use and abuse technologies. Humans think technologies will save us from anything and everything. It is human habits, human greed, and human ignorance that must change. Technology is almost immaterial. New, green technologies are only part of the answer. Human will is the main component. No will. No solution. No life.
  262. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: We see this Blog, right. In all the many Federal Programs addressing Climate Change, not one Federal dollar has gone to establish a Climate Solutions Citizen's BLOG. We can kick and scream and recommend tips all day, but Canada has different issues in every region. Each region needs different local solutions, and each region has ordinary folk working on them, vendors offering specialized products, and services.

    We are not encouraged to share in solving this issue, one home, one car, one office or business at a time? Why?

    It costs a couple hundred thousand to run a professional blog. A few servers, a couple of Database whizzes. And the energy saved? The ideas and policy changes required? Beats costly opinion polls and inaction.
  263. Billie Smith from Japan, Canada writes: Big deal. I will be dead.
  264. Long live Canada from Canada writes: I'm still wondering how they can make the 1000 year prediction. Anyone care to elaborate? Anyone?

    Another thing....we seem to have a group that gets most of its scientific knowledge from An Inconvenient Truth. Read the scientific literature yourself, don't get it from a politician. That way we can base solutions on what will work instead of what will profit some and hurt others.
  265. Shane Hollon from Aurora, Canada writes: I'm just so shocked at the apparent lack of care for the world on which WE ALL LIVE ON from so many posters here. I am currently taking a Science, Technology and Environment class at York University. Anyone who has sat in on just one of these 1.5 hr lectures knows that climate change and global warming are not just inevitable, they are scientifically proven, the signs are visibly present, and you can literally and easily graph it's past and present course. In 50 years, when sea levels are already starting to rise, islands disappear, vital and industrialized coasts vanish, and our world population increases to 8-9 billion, we'll see who doesn't care about our planet anymore.
  266. M M from Canada writes: Anyone who has followed the climate change debate and science for the last two decades will know it's far too late to reverse global warming trends in our lifetime. And the failure of any real global-political effort to reduce carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere means these levels will continue to increase as Earth's population grows. Rapidly growing economies, particularily in Asia, will likely offset reductions by countries with carbon treaties, such as Kyoto. The warming effect may even accelerate as Arctic ice melts and as billions of tons of methane, trapped in the Russian and Canadian tundra, gradually thaw. It's not the future I'd have wished for my grandchildren, but I expect they'll find more ships navigating the Northwest Passage than polar bears traversing the sea ice.
    Realistically, Canada should prepare for this eventuality, in terms of our sovereignty in the north, our Inuit community, our resources, agriculture and other industries. It's hard to find politicians willing to think this far ahead.
  267. Barry Monette from Renfrew, Canada writes: Factor One: Cimate change, warming, and cooling can, have and do occur completely idependently of human activity. We have had ice ages and periods of warming over the history of the planet. Factor Two: The biomass has and will continue to have significant impact on the climate and environment. Our earthly biomass has completely tansformed the atmosphere and landscape staring over a billion years ago. Factor Three: Human activity has had a huge impact on the environment and landscape over the pass few thousand years - argiculture, deforestration, urbanization, technoligcal impacts, engery production, etc. This obviously impacts our climate, and the weather changes are often not beneficial, but disruotive. Factor Four: What are we (humans) here for? We need to use of conciousness to come to terms with the first three factors. It is the responsibility of humanity to learn to control the environment to the benefit of the planet. We as humans have a duty to learn how to control the environemnt to our benefit. We can no longer run around with blinders on. Neither can we ingnore the copsmic forces that can change our climate - wether this is being hit by an asteroid or being engulfed ina warm cloud of cosmic gas that out sun collects like a vortex. The fact that we actually can effect climate change should be construed as a positive step towards climate control. Right now our ability to change the environemnt is out of control. We need to get a grip on it, and fast.
  268. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Raging: Humans use and abuse everything, particularly eachother. What are you advocating? Population control? State controlled breeding programs intended to increase the number of saintly people walking among us? I don't understand.

    As for technology being nothing, I totally disagree. Technology is a function of humanity. I flows from us, and is therefore a function of our basic nature. Technology is as human as we are.
  269. Raging Squirrel from GTA, Canada writes: We're already paying extra for organic food.

    If the global infrastructure collapses, our habits will change. Like it or not.
  270. Mark Van Buren from Trenton, Canada writes: So the earth heats up 4 degrees over the next 100 years, and the CO2 will be around for 1000 years. Sounds like a good thing to me, maybe it'll even prevent the next ice age. Melting Greenland - sounds good - not much use to us or plants and animals the way it is now. Yes the oceans will rise, and flood low lying areas - it's not like it's going to be a Tsunami - people will be able to move out of the way. Clean air, and water is a more important issue than CO2 - let's not spend our eco-tax money on eliminating this useful 'polutant'.
  271. Merzhi Mure from Toronto, Canada writes: Being a 21 year old Conservative, which is quite rare, I find myself sceptical of either side of the argument. Having read Bjorn Lomborg's the sceptical environmentalist and watched the inconvenient truth the central pillar of the argument is that human activity is the major contributing factor to climate change. Before watching the inconvenient truth the film conjured up images in my mind of Woody Harrelson and others alike dancing around trees and praising the organic food Gods. But the film was all Gore, and by that I donít mean it was boring; it was informative and poignant. The reality is that climate change is happening. Unfortunately either side has contributed to confusion either by using the media to prop up exaggerated estimates of future problems such as ocean levels which were said to increase around 60 meters, as you can see that initial estimate has been lowered quite a bit or the media itself pitting either side against one another to the point where no solution is present or discussed and the debate continues to be centered around whether or not climate change is actually happening: ďThe fallout of global warming: 1,000 years.Ē Itís time to change the discussion to something that is more productive, but the only solutions present are to have governments act as the big crack down dog forcing big bad industry to stop polluting. The answers arenít relatively simple, but for the average Joe the answers are always right under our noses, actually in our markets for individuals and families. If youíre going to buy a family sedan get a Toyota with synergy, and if you think that affects Ford and GM well it should: they should be making quality hybrid vehicles, if their not thatís their problem. Buying is our greatest asset for change because the markets adapt quiteÖ very quickly to our demands. We donít need billions spent on demanding industry to stop polluting we should be investing billions into markets that have or are achieving these goals.
  272. L M87 from Calgary, Canada writes: Yes, the world has seen much climate change in its existence, but those changes took place over tens of thousands of years, not the variance year by year we get today. To put this into simplistic perspective to #1, think of a deep swimming pool with a mix of strong and weak swimmers in it. Suddenly, the swimming pool turns into a wave pool and the waves start getting bigger and bigger, real, real fast. The strong swimmers manage to float with the waves, but the weak swimmers drown and die...bye, bye. If the waves keep getting bigger, then even the strong will not last.
  273. David Le Gallez from Ottawa, Canada writes: I do believe that these scientists put out these scare tactic reports in order to justify their grants. I also believe that it is possible that some scientists may skew their data against climate change because they fear they will not future research contracts from the oil giants. I refuse to use the term Global Warming because we still get damn cold winters in Ottawa. However, somewhere in the middle are scientists who will report accurate and honest results. I just don't believe that any of these guys are working on this problem. So where does that leave us. Well you have convinced me that there is some sort of climate change going on. But, you have not convinced me that humans are playing a significant hand in it. All the evidence I have seen to date is correlational, that is, something is happening at or about the same time as something else. Now I want to see some cause-and-effect data. Get some scientists together in a lab and reproduce what it currently going with the environment and report how they were able to make it happen. Then, and only then, will I believe that human activity is playing a significant role; if that is what the cause-and-effect data shows. Also, this report is full of contradictions. So at this point I would say my biggest fear is that the rest of Canada buys into the scare tactics and we end of as another third world country because the socialists and Enviro-Nazis have implemented programs that end up destroying the Canadian economy. Don't show me scare tactics based on political ideals, show me real facts based on real models that are based on real science.
  274. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Shane Hollon is really Al Gore in disguise. What a steaming pile of drivel.
  275. L C from Canada writes: Mr. Van Buren: you do realize that you have just written off Bangledesh, for example? We'll just get 'em to move out of the way?
  276. j boland from United States writes: Hey, Antartica was once a tropical climate area, why not again? But, we must take pause to note the deliciously succulent irony in all this hysteria. The 'care-meisters' of the world are calling for action against a 'certain' existence of and cause for climate change of warming, action that is--shock, shock--always in the way of state control of the individual. In practice and affect, they are demanding the certain return to abject human misery, and early death, of billions of humans around the world. Guaranteed. That is what is at stake here. Capitalism in the past 150 years has lifted the third world out of much of its perpetual misery that it knew all so well from the beginning of time. It did so in spite of socialism nipping at its feet, a socialism that itself promised the same but always failed to deliver, for obvious reasons. Now, the socialist agenda, always in favor of the impersonal utopia but in reality always against human individuals, wants the world to forget its past while that agenda works feverishly to return us to that very past. But, of course, it wishes to exempt the worst polluters while punishing those who have done the most to help the human condition. Classic evil, hand in hand with Marx and Mou, doing all kinds of vile while claiming to be virtuous. All Hail, Kyoto. Which direction do we bow? Let the new CARE, the new killing fields, begin, joining those of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mou, Saddam, Fidel, Cambodia, Sudan, for whom and which these same believers always have a good word. So, whatever you do, do not dare to question the new orthodoxy. That would be sociopathic, daring to think for yourself. We're watching you.....
  277. Raging Squirrel from GTA, Canada writes: Mr. Halton is invited to join the other lemmings in running off the cliff.

    Population control is already here in China, for example. It's not enough. When the food and water becomes scarce for the 9 or 10 billion mouths to feed in the next 30 or 40 years, humanity will be forced to revisit population control (for starters).

    Saintliness has nothing to do with anything. Grow up and READ something intelligent. The essence to computer technology gives us a good lesson: Garbage In equals Garbage Out.
  278. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: B Halton from Alberta, Canada asks 'Luft: are you unemployed?' Yep...sure am and paying a hell of a lot of taxes (far too much, really) to pay for the salaries of guys like Philosopher King who claims to be 'working' for the federal government and who posts regularly during working hours on this site. Why didn't you ask Philosopher King the same question?
  279. Joe Osborne from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm always amazed that population growth never seems to enter into the discussion of the things we could control. Yes, we have to come up with long term solutions, but we must also look for ways to adapt, particularly if we are already too late to reverse anything in the short term.

    One of the things that most western nations could do immediately is limit immigration to the point that would give them zero population growth. Fewer people would mean an end to the ever increasing demand for energy and other resources. I know this suggestion makes economists freak, but let's face the facts--the current economic model of never-ending consumption must come to an end. Would it not be better to put the breaks on ourselves in a controlled manner rather than having to endure the very real possibility of a future catastrophe?
  280. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: One car-buff blog has car-owners restoring their cars and converitng them to electric, in the US, and supported by the US EPA. Another car-buff blog where a member proved you could roller-paint your car and end up with a better job than the best paint shops or factories, now has 62,000 people doing it. Safer paints, no spraying, no dangerous thinners.

    Another one, focussed on maximizing performance, efficiency, lower emissions with 25,000 members restoring and maintaining cars as old as the early 60's with smaller engines.

    And all the tree-hugging sites (to placate the deniers) that offer common sense guides and forums, often with the blessing of the EPA on everything including Rain-Harvesting, Insulation on the cheap, efficient passive heating systems, modifying existing glazing.

    And niether the NDP, Liberals or Conservatives, not even the NRC or Environment Canada has ever offered a national blog or even a regional one to Canadians to compare notes, exchange their experience or recommend vendors.

    Let's get some benefits out of the Federal Community Connections system the Chretien/Martin government deployed.

    Informed Canadians can help each other, more effectively than some motherhood booklet issued with any new Climate Change/One Tonne Challenge booklet.
  281. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: steve austin says 'J Luft - Johan, just as an example, the scientists said that the foam falling from the fuel tank of the Space Shuttle wouldn't cause any damage.

    But you'd have to admit those engineers had to be pretty smart to that thing of the ground in the first place.'

    Yes, I agree....they were pretty smart to get that thing off the ground in the first place. But did you know that when they were looking at the potential for problems with respect to the foam, that there were some engineers at the time who disagreed with the 'scientific consensus' of the risks of the foam and were simply essentially told to buzz off that they didn't know what they were talking about. See the parallel?
  282. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Personally LUFT I'm tired of your endless insults and lack of meaningful dialogue. You are a twisted old crank with nothing to offer this or any discussion. Do me and the whole world a favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
  283. P Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: cc dc - since altruism is obviously not a word in your vocabulary, let me explain it to you in selfish terms:

    You, personally, are creating a world where your progeny will be worse off than you were.
    You, personally, are debating in favour notions put forward by people who have immediate financial gains instead at the expense of a global scientific consensus.
    You, personally, made the suggestion that people dying should not affect your lifestyle. (Why not cut the middleman and just murder people for gas - it's really what you're suggesting... )

    The cost of complete disregard for carbon emissions is a hotter planet. If you think just a 'little more rain' is what's in store for us, you've already forgotten what a big hurricane can do - remember Katrina?

    Victoria is coastal city, is it not?
  284. Joe Canadian from Canada writes: Change is constant with the climate. Always has been always will be. We could just as easily slip into an ice age within 1000 years if some huge volcano some where like Wyoming blows up. In the meantime I suggest not sending money out of Canada to buy emission credits because we need that money in Canada to help the average Canadian Joe become more energy efficient via meaningful tax credits, much like a charitable contribution. The bureaucracy is already there, just save receipts if you get audited. That way people might retro fit the whole house as they can afford it. No need to hire and waste more money on another bureaucracy.
  285. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Gee . . . how come so few of the 'mentally-benighted' (you whine when I use the more direct and accurate term) right-wingers who contribute to this thread are citing 'the polar ice caps on Mars' today ? Yeah, the matter of 'the polar ice caps on Mars' have nothing to do with this discussion (UNLESS you think that Faux News is an actual, y'know, source of 'news' on this or any other subject), but usually that never stops the wingnuts from pretending that it does. SO ? May we hear from you, please on the whole Martian aspect thing ? Thanks so much.
  286. Philosopher King from True North, Canada writes: Kathryn Dereski: Carbon trading will be instrutmental in mitigating the costs related to climate change technology conversion. I don't personally think that international carbon trading will be as effective, but within Canada it will be neccesary. The government will set emissions caps. Companies that invest in low emission technology and lower their emissions earn credits that they can sell to high pollution industries that fail to lower their emissions quickly enough. This is both an incentive to high pollution industries to lower their emissions and allows those who do invest to recoup some of the cost. Key in all this is the regulation of these caps and subsequent lowering of the bar over time. It is this final component that makes me think the international version of this will fail. However, within Canada this will be neccesary, and will happen, no matter which government is in power. Mark my words.
  287. Joe Canadian from Victoria, Canada writes: I have reason to believe that most of the people who refuse to listen to science and reason are those who absolutely do not have any care in the world other then their own comfort. After all....you will be dead long before the real poop hits the fan right? Not your problem at all! Pathetic

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