Skip navigation

How global warming goes against the grain

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Experts worry food shortages triggered by crop devastation are a more immediate threat than flooding, Martin Mittlestaedt finds ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Oh! Another scary global warming story! How unique.
  2. spicydoc deluxe from blue skies, Canada writes: While we're on the topic, here's an interesting piece from that neocon apologist rag The Toronto Star:

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184676

    I have no idea why the Lib-friendly media aren't flogging this more.
  3. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    Of course warmer temperatures will lengthen the growing season for much of the world, especially in Canada, which will increase food production. Global warming (if there is such a thing) is not all doom and gloom.

    Remember the glass is half full!
  4. A Smith from Canada writes: Let's have the current Canadian population reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. Then we'll double our population! Great idea.

    Oh, and also lets all replace our existing houses with energy efficient houses. We'll ignore the greenhouse gas emissions that are produced by the manufacturing of the shingles, insulation, doors, windows, wiring, plumbing and cutting of the wood. Not to mention the ashphalt for the driveway, the bricks and/or siding and the concrete in the foundation. That's environmentally free, right?

    Let's also ignore all the planes in the sky. But we'll focus on shutting down drive-thrus at fast food restaurants. Cause that produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, right? Do yourself a favour and find out how many more airplanes are in the sky now than 25 years ago. And understand how much fuel is required just to get a plane into the sky.

    Folks, population control is the low hanging fruit when it comes to the environment. We also need policians who can make the connection between the economy and the environment. Why? Because if the unemployment rate goes up, environmental policy will go out the window (very fast) in the interest of people being able to have a job.

    End venting.
  5. David Simon from Canada writes: So in other words agricultural conditions in Canada will IMPROVE with global warming. Why isn't 'Canada's National Newspaper' not applauding. I say Stand up for CANADA
  6. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Take a quick look at the location of continents on the face of the planet. Any shift north of wheat growing areas opens up more land to grow wheat on it. There is almost continous landmass consisting of North America, Europe and Asia. How do these people do their math??
  7. jiri Z from Canada writes: The 'small but influential group of experts' is merely creating an environment for increasing the price of grain and other commodities.

    Follow the money and you shall find the farmers.
  8. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Climate change is a metaphysical fact of nature and will occur regardless of what we do or think. Why wouldn't irrigation methods or other methods of bringing water to dry areas work? There is one word that is rapidly becoming overused and therefore meaningless. That is the word 'experts'.
  9. Harold Harper from Canada writes: spicydoc deluxe from blue skies, Canada writes: While we're on the topic, here's an interesting piece from that neocon apologist rag The Toronto Star:

    The Star a Neo-con rag???? Step back from your keyboard now please and call 911 and get some HELP!!!
  10. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: What utter BS. I used to think that emotionally flavored responses were counterproductive, but I now realize that that is the prevailing language of the debate.

    Regards, BRK
  11. Stephanie MacDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: Warmer temperatures will not necessarily make land more productive. In particular, most of the comments here have missed the point that replacing the nutrient rich soil of the southern agricultural zones with Canadian Shield and tundra will still lead to a decline in agricultural output. Seeing this agricultural catastrophe as a 'glass half-full' situation for Canada - which it most certainly is NOT - while other nations face starvation is ignorant and downright immoral.
  12. Andrew E from Rednecksville, Alberta, Canada writes: spicydoc deluxe from blue skies, Canada writes: While we're on the topic, here's an interesting piece from that neocon apologist rag The Toronto Star:

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184676

    I have no idea why the Lib-friendly media aren't flogging this more.

    If you consider the RED STAR pro-Conservative, I'll bet you think Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were Block Parents.
  13. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: Stephanie of Toronto:

    Spare us your righteous moralizing. Billions are being spent on climate research which may be in the end nothing more than a exercise in politically-correct futilility. Ask the people of Africa which is more important:

    1. Malaria
    2. AIDs
    3. Starvation
    4. Global Warming

    Do you actually think that they will agree with your perspective that your self-adsorbed environmental angst qualifies as real in their world?

    What arrogance the environmental movement has to suggest that this is the most 'serious issue' to currently face mankind. Maybe in their 'latte-sipping' GTA world it is.

    In the end, the left never get it. It's always about more government, more regulation, more control.....more.....

    Meanwhile the corpses pile up in places like Darfur.

    Regards, BRK
  14. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: Karol Karolak,you are a genius doing your math.Wheat growing on acidic soil.
  15. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Colin Freeze had the Kadhr story to milk... Mittelstaedt has Global warming and all catastrophic consequences to go with while Simon Houpt b*tches about MoMA's director's pay... Next we should vote Al Gore perhaps...
  16. Graham Parker from Ottawa, Canada writes: The more comments I view on Climate change the less confidence I have in the Canadian electorate. I would like to address the apathy and pathetic responses of James Cyr, J. Juft, J.C Davis and Jiriz. Z which I am wasting valuble charachters pointing out. First of all, Mr. J. Cyr just because climate change is an inevitable occurance (which is occuring prematurely thanks to human acitivity; check the scientific journals because it is not found in the mainstream media) does not mean we should attempt to reap the maximum profit we can of it. This ideal disgusts me. Mr. J Luft, step outside any major Canadian city any summer day and take some nice deep breaths in of pollution. How about you take your entire family out, that would be a lovely family outing. J.C. Davies and D Simon, lets forget about the other 8.6 billion people who share the planet with us. Yeah! Foresake them all, we are going to make a killing off agricultural exports! Man I feel great! I can't wait till they come after us for all our fresh water because they have none. And dearest Mr. Klappensten, the latte sipping GTA crowd possessed the insight because the average African could not escape the being chased/executed/censored into even publishing/conducting the requisite reasearch demonstrating the impacts of climate change on Africa. In 20 years your idiocy will been evident for all to see, it is too bad millions will have to pay with their lives to demonstrate that the scientist were right all along. I forgot to mention that you are all climate experts, so what you say must be right and every individual that reads this must take your opinion as is. Well, I can only hope they don't. And remember, there is no economy without the environement genius.
  17. Brian Dell from Edmonton, Canada writes: Thomas Malthus, Club of Rome... dire predictions that never came true, largely because of human ingenuity with respect to increasing yields. What's different this time?
  18. J Law from Canada writes: Graham Parker from Ottawa. Please lead the way for us. Quit your job, turn off your furnace and lights, stop driving your car, unplug your computer give up all the articles you own that have been made/built with the help of fossil fuels and just lead us to this wonderful land of perfect environment please. I bet when you get there you will find David Susuki with his diesel spewing bus.
  19. matt mills from Canada writes: Oh....my.......God..........Now , not only am I going to cook to death, I am also going to starve. Where's Al Gore, I need a hug...........
  20. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: ...... I wonder if the computer model they are using is on a MAC or a PC. We'll have to ask Reverend Gore or Saint Suzuki. Macs are way cooler. I know because I saw the commercial.
  21. R. Carriere from Canada writes: From the article quoted above: Once again showing the Liberal Party truth merchants: I would ask then former Environment Minioster Dion what he has to say about the following:

    Full article: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184676

    Quotes from Eddie Goldenberg, chief advisor to former PM Jean Chretien:

    'The previous Liberal government ratified the Kyoto Protocol knowing Canada wasn't ready to take the tough measures needed to address climate change and would likely miss the deadlines for reducing emissions, says a top adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien.'

    ''Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done,' he said in a speech to the Canadian Club of London, Ont., the text of which was provided to The Canadian Press.'

    ' Still, Goldenberg chided Liberal MP Mark Holland for his ``unfortunate comment' about shutting down the oil sands.

    'It might be easy political rhetoric but it ignores one fundamental reality, namely that Canada for a long time to come will need oil sands production and lots of it. Our economy and our standard of living depend on it.'

    So there you have it! The Liberal lying machine unmasked and outed!
  22. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Having been raised in the market gardening industry and a grandson of a very prominate Burlington Ontario market gardener and sold his produce on the once famous Hamiton Market for years, I understand land/soil very well. I remember well the feel of the earth and have noticed the change in our soil for years. Before y'all write these words off so easily best you talk to your elders who have worked the land before you were born. Mother earth provides life to each and every creature and all creatures have been placed here under our care and custody, and quite frankly we have not treated them well in all respects. Should the creatures die of disease or lack of food they lie in the land that we grow our cropps that feed our children and we eat ourselves. Perhaps this issue should deserve soom thought, think about it next time you look at a plate of food served to your one of resturaunts. to be continued........
  23. John E7 from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: Hmm if corn becomes harder to grow then making ethanol (the salvation of tomorrow) is going to be expensive ;)'
    Besides, We will be needing corn to feed our bellies as the population of our mudball doubles...
    I like the idea of a hydrogen economy myself.
  24. Robert Dryburgh from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada writes: Ho-Hum... Another 'Sky is falling Story' from a small but influential group of experts.
  25. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Don Adams from Canada: To continue on in your vain, I can remember taking a sociology elective course( not to worry I graduated in business...) in the late 1960's. The Prof was adamant that the world was doomed concerning population. At that time, there were about 3 billion people on the planet and him and many of his 'brothers of ultimite wisdom' predicted doom and gloom for the world if the population ever reached 5 Billion-the world would be over. That same gang told everyone that could hear to stop having children and to spread the word around the world. They even had funky population control slogans coupled with typical liberal mantra. Now, the world population will hit 7 billion shortly and it looks like we survived. Does this ring a bell? While bad air can never be a good thing, I wonder if this hype, fear, and scare mongering to the nth degree by the media is warranted. Man and government (sometimes God and Mother Nature) has always found solutions and I have problems with scientific models that stretch out 43 years from now. On last note, how quickly we forget those same science people who predicted 'the worst hurricane season ever' for 2006 because of 'global warming.'The result was there was basically nothing to report! Where are these guys now with their ever so accurate computer and blow hard models?
  26. A Moron from Canada writes: Another pack of jealous 'scientists' after their 15 minutes of fame. I recall predictions from the fifties saying we'd have flying cars by the year 2000 and only need to work 20 hours thanks to computers. Diabetes is going to finish us off before global warming or mass crops losses. Have a nice day.
  27. Douglas Campbell from writes: The level of reactive anger and ignorance here is appalling.
    We base our economic and taxation policies on theories that are far less developed than our climate models.
    Global warming is happening, is accelerating, and we know (roughly) why.
    It is the professional duty of experts in various fields to extrapolate trends, analyze likely scenarios, and inform the public.
    What we do about global warming is a matter for political debate, but why are people attacking the analysts who make the projections?
    Of course not all the projections are perfect, and the relative risks of various possible catatastrophes varies.

    I am very concerned about agriculture and fear our current long supply chains and minimum inventories mean the global food system is prone to breakage. It takes years to bring land into production, and most of the belt of glacial scraped shield/taiga/tundra in the Northern hemisphere will take thousands of years to become productive.
    As for 'survival of the fittest', very few urban Canadians would be among the winners.
  28. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Denial is not a river in Egypt. And it isn't a State of the Union either. @B Klappstein: you sound like your fellow-townie Mike Harris (Ontario Premier). Can you say 'Walkerton'? @J. Luft (and other Calgarians): Source of Bow River is Victoria Glacier above Lake Louise. What will you drink when there is no Victoria Glacier? @ Karol Karolak: temperature is not the only consideration - soil quality and composition is a (trivial, I admit) factor. Why are the most productive wheat-growing regions where they are? Oh, yeah - the soil. @Don Adams: if you are going to use evolutionary terms, get it right. Evolutionary fitness/success is determined by REPRODUCTIVE success, not physical characteristics. @R Carrier: and your point is? Window dressing asside, Harper remains the property of the Calgary Oil companies. More important is the detail that hter corporate sector did a very good job of delaying action and regulation. Supported by Reform/Alliance/CPC c- funny that. The problem is real, and the deniers here are a big part of the problem.
  29. Ray C. from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: R. Carriere, I also remember the fear mongering courses taught to us in university. It was the late 70's, and the Club of Rome report, with computer model projection predicting the end of the planet. I remember quite depressed after some of the classes. Looking back, how naive was I. Then in recent times, it was the Y2K in the computer industry, how the world economy was going to fall apart. A bit older and 'wiser', I knew better that these so called 'experts', and true enough, nothing happened, other than billions of dollars was spent. Now, I support environmental issues, but always with a big grain of salt.
  30. Klaatu Barrada-Nikto from Gort, United States writes: I read an article the other day which stated that because of 'climate change' , the Sahara desert is actually shrinking; but what was more unbelieveable about it was that the eco-socialists were pontioficating gloom and doom over this!
    And Brian Klapstein is correct - Malaria is and has been the number 1 killer in Africa for decades - 26 million die each year worldwide.
    Thank you Rachel Carson.
  31. Claude Fraser from Canada writes: We have had a vegetable garden all of our lives. Our parents before us. We are finding, as the farmers are finding, the intense heat of several weeks is ruining the gains of the garden. The growing season may be longer...we frequently have an earlier frost than years previously. But, the last several years have had a week or two of intense heat and lack of rain. You cannot get the plants to survive. Watering is not the same as a natural rain...and one has to consider the use/conservation of water.
    In my lifetime, I have seen the changes of the weather cycle.
  32. Claude Fraser from Canada writes: R. Carriere: Enjoyed your revisionism re Eddy Goldberg. Where was our current gov't on the issue of global warming during those years? Did they hold the environmental warnings of the NCP and Green Party? NO. Actually, they were raising money to fight the Kyoto Accord and didn't believe in the science of global change (either).
  33. Russ Kehoe from Canada writes: Andrew E, since more land area of Africa becomes desert each year, I'd say the Africans should be very concerned about any climate change.

    R. Carriere, J Law, spicydoc, J Luft, et al - The usual liars telling the usual lies, LMAO
  34. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto-and YOUR point is? Oh yea, we need good soil......wow! ' The problem is real!' Wow again! You remind me of my prof.....

    You also state, ' Harper remains the property of the Calgary Oil companies.' Prove your defamatory statement! If so, why didn't your beloved Chreien / Martin, and then Dion act? Go read the quotes from Eddie Goldenberger before you spout off:

    Full article: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184676
  35. Don Adams from Canada writes: R. Carriere, aren't these boards great? Lots of laughs. Most posters here appear to be either young college students, or young post grads, none of whom have developed a lick of common sense yet. Their eyes are still filled with stars. Either that or '60's hippies and wannabes. Peace, Love, Save the Earth, Save the whales, Free Love. I got a laugh out of those idiots as well..... when I was only 20!

    Oh well, most of these people, by time they've matured and are in their mid 40's will do a total reversal of their thinking. They'll then be voting Conservative too :-)
  36. Michael Bowen from Halifax, Canada writes: Isn't Eddie Goldenberg a lobbyist/consultant for oil-related businesses now? Perchance that influences his memory? I myself use 'advisors' in my work....it doesn't mean they actually know what I'm thinking about an issue....I often say things to provoke their response, it doesn't mean that what I'm saying is actually what I'm thinking about the issue....I'm interested in their response.
  37. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Don Adams from Canada: gotcha ya! gotcha buddie-one day, they'll get it!

    Claude Fraser from Canada: Can't argue with you there. We had do-nothing Liberal Party and the other guys that didn't believe. You do state this present government ' they were raising money to fight the Kyoto Accord.' Although the concept of fighting Kyoto would have been right, can you point me to a link or story that backs your claim of actually raising money to fight the Accord? Just curious if you could provide.
  38. Klaatu Barrada-Nikto from Gort, United States writes: Don Adams, you are so right!
    The young can be forgiven for their idealism - it is a noble trait, but one that sadly lacks first-hand knowledge or experience (commonly referred to as wisdom).
    What irks me are the birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging, granola-eating, 50-and-60-something eco-socialists who have spent their lives raping and plundering the Earth for financial gain ('I've got a huge investment in an open pit strip mine in Etritrea which is poised to make a bundle, but I can rationalize it away by going downtown on Saturday to join in a protest against a new local landfill'), and now spend their days telling everyone else what to do and how to live.
    And then there are the rest of us - spending our days at work, trying hard to raise a family and just make ends meet thanks to overtaxation and regulation because of said eco-socialists and other assorted leftwing types.
    Winston Churchill once said, 'a man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart; but a man who is still a liberal at 40 has no brain.' (forgive the paraphrasing.)
  39. Claude Fraser from Canada writes: R. Carriere: The story that cited the letter was in the Globe and the Star, I believe, two weeks ago. The form letter from the Conservatives to their membership requesting money to fight the Kyoto Accord. Well covered.
  40. J K from Canada writes: Don Adams you’re right it’s all about survival of the fittest. Only the fit should be allowed to survive. And while we are at it we should get rid of all of our hospitals. Those sick dying people are just a drain on society. If they aren’t fit enough to survive in this world there is no point in helping them out. We could save a fortune on healthcare.
  41. Claude Fraser from Canada writes: R. Carriere: The article can be reached through the Globe archives. Article written by Doug Fraser. Mr. Harper (then) sent out a fundraising letter in 2002 asking for money to fight the Kyoto Accord and referred to the Accord as a 'socialist scheme'.
  42. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: I got a few sentences into this article and could not go any further. I am so sick of the doom and gloom articles printed by the globe. One thing which makes me sad is 18,000 children die every day in the world because of hunger and here we are spending billions on what is probably a natural warming cycle of the earth (during the medieval warming period the planet was warmer than it is now; during the 1970s 'experts' were warning us of the next ice age, when GHG were RISING).
  43. D K from Canada writes: .C. Davies from Canada writes:
    Of course warmer temperatures will lengthen the growing season for much of the world, especially in Canada, which will increase food production. Global warming (if there is such a thing) is not all doom and gloom.

    No it won't. Remember the dust bowl in the 20's?
    Warmer does not = more crops necessarily. You still need water.
  44. Tim Hearn from edmonton, Canada writes: Speaking of crop devastation, this next bit is from a Newsweek article in 1975

    'The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually... Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists... are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.'

    Sound familiar?
  45. D Young from Canada writes: Not that I buy into all the doom and gloom, but if the chicken little crowd believe the ocean levels are going to rise and cause flooding and islands to disappear and at the same time believe there will be huge drought regions, why not just take the water from the rising oceans and put them on the dry lands. That shouldn't be too hard a project for all these brillient scientists. Who knows, maybe some of them could still get rich off it.
  46. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Claude Fraser from Canada: Thanks- I'll go have a look.

    'sent out a fundraising letter in 2002 asking for money to fight the Kyoto Accord and referred to the Accord as a 'socialist scheme'.

    Are you saying KYOTO ( not the climate situation) is not a 'socialist scheme?'
  47. ralph sutton from Simcoe Ontario, Canada writes: No food = starvation = war pestulance = death . Great ! We either destroy the world economy and cause massive world war or we starve to death via global warming . Sounds lovely! I think I am going to get drunk and stay that way ! Why? Because 2/3 of the world isn't going to do a thing about it and the 1/3 of the world is dead locked in a mind set and way of life that traps them in this mess . Plus no one any where in this world has any real glue as to what to do . Everything else is a dead end philosophy . Time to change , but to what ? Hey Globe and Mail you seem to harang us with this issue every day , you must know what to do ,,,,,Not! Your reporting is fear mongering and pointless , because Canada doesn't live in a bubble, we need a global effort and Haarper sure as h--l isn't going to cut it alone or at all! So either offer a solution or shut up!
  48. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Claude Fraser from Canada: You are correct, having played in the fields of rows and rows of fresh veggies and even having tomatoe fights on the way home from school seems like yesterday, things have changed indeed, oh yes that good crick with good brook trout I could catch with a worm, a hook/line and willow branch is long gone also. hmmm they were good! On another topic the Canadain voter, votes on the issues of the day, as defined by the leader and the media. It seems like yesterday when our National debt was 48 billion and our dislike for Brain Muroney that we threw the whole lot out but two. Of course those educated people who paid attention understood the science of global warming but for the average voter was working just to survive and could not relate so the issue did not make sense. Health care and education is always an issue but Canadains again do not understand until after the election how important it is. One of sad pastimes of retirement is being able to attend far too many funerals and visiting friends in hostpital while wanting to help build a better life for our now grown children and grandchildren. Global warming is an issue that is now on the world stage and may cause our politicans to look at it is not bad. Those fortunate to have not only the wisdom of age but education should bring constructive thoughts to the table and leave partisain politics at the door. Not easy some times as even cool little old me can get upset with the whole lot some days.
  49. Frank Enstein from Canada writes: Graham Parker, I couldn't have said it better myself. The self-centeredness and greed on this site is appalling . Survival of the fittest- ppplease! I guess our society is full of navel gazers who have yet to comprehend that we are part of a global community, but I guess that concept is much too complex for most.
  50. jim bo from muskoka, Canada writes: so! let me get this straight
    tar sands = bad
    ethanol = good
    now let me get this straight. if we can 't grow enough corn and grain for the people of the world. why are we pushing ethanol as a green fuel of choice. it is 33% less efficient and takes massive amounts of water and farm land to grow and then distill. indonesia, brazil and many other countries are cutting massive swaths of trees and rain forest to get on the ethanol bandwagon. aren't trees good for co2 emissions?? OH! the madness
  51. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Frank Enstein: 'The self-centeredness and greed on this site is appalling.'

    If you visit these blogs regularly you'll see the same group of a dozen or so posters, our Denialist Pantheon, repeating their mantra within each thread and across all threads, over and over again. In the early days of the internet, when discussions were done primarily through Usenet, newsreader programs had what was known as 'kill files' which made it easy to remove their kind of background noise. With Web-based boards and blogs, we're obliged to play Whack-a-Mole with them, fun for a while but it gets a little tedious. Also - with their visibility on these boards, it's hard to believe their claim that they're actually the backbone of our economy, supporting the rest of us treehugging radical commie students and retirees.
  52. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: Can we please stop with this Kyoto scam. Temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees C and we should all panic. The increase in temperature according to real climatologists (not ex 'I wanna be president, and fruit fly experts) without Kyoto and with Kyoto is another mere 0.6 degrees C. When an article such as this is published with the preponderance of of adverbs such as 'might', could, likely, may, you have to wonder why it was published. Any one of us could write an article on any subject as long as we used the politician like jargon of this piece of propaganda. What the Hell is wrong with journalists today. Too lazy to do some real legwork that they have to find some noncommittal hack, to suppose, so they can quote them. Don't you just love how there are 'think tanks' and 'umbrella groups' of think tanks. Wow, they must be the smartest of all, they are an 'umbrella group'. Quick, pick a cause, set up multiple money sucking groups, appoint a president and CEO, rent a limo, appear knowledgeable, find a hack to quote, someone buy an umbrella, hurry we need to appear important, appoint another executive, get him a Lexus, put some plastic Al Gores in liquor stores with a looney slot in the head, establish an 'umbrella group' appoint another CEO, quick, empty the Al Gores into my pocket, Damn the torpedoes, I need the money, er, to save the planet. Hurry, someone pay for my offsetting carbon credits so I don't look like the pig that I am. I can crap in my hometown river as long as I buy sewage credits from China. Why shouldn't we all run with the bulls? It's good to be Gore'd.
  53. Don Adams from Canada writes: JK from Canada. What a comment.... dripping with sarcasm. Oh well.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO believe we should put some people down. People with terminal cancer who want to die. People who've become total vegetables. We keep them alive, spend millions on them when there's just no chance they'll get better. Why? Because of some stupid thoughts due to religion. Many people are much better off gone.... better for themselves, for society. Life is not infinite. I watched my aunt die, slowly, in imense pain.... she wanted to die, but The Law said NO. Took away her rights.

    I see my 90 year old mother in law in a nursing home. A vegetable. Has to be spoon fed, bathed in bed, wearing diapers, doesn't know what's going on around her, doesn't even recognize her own kids.... just stares vacantly at the wall. this has been her life for a year now. Know what it does to the living, her children? This is right? There's quite a few like that in this particular home. And yes, if they were gone, it'd be a big saving to society. A blessing for her, for her children, and for society.

    So take your piety and sarcasm and just shove them where the sun don't shine!
  54. Satori Zen from Warriors' Land, Canada writes: No need to worry about what's coming first. It's coming from all directions at the same time. Anybody heard about the fate of the honey bees (not to mention frogs) and what it means for the food chain and potential food shortages? Heard about the new diseases that affect and may soon kill plants, trees and us, human beings, with no cure in sight? Flooding has been extensive, in recent years, has devastated large parts of living quarters on every continent. All those extreme phenomena (droughts, floods, twisters, hurricanes) will only increase in number, intensity and frequency, will even be experienced where they never were. And concurently, given those phenomena are all related. Remember the jokes 'everything is in everything... and vice versa', 'everything is related to everything... and vice versa'? Well, after a good laugh, time has come to realize those are no jokes. A broad picture of those interconnections should get reported extensively in media like the Globe. For interconnectios, why not delve a little into James Lovelock's 'Gaia'?
  55. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: jim bo: 'if we can't grow enough corn and grain for the people of the world. why are we pushing ethanol as a green fuel of choice.'

    Refreshing to see some productive comments here! Full disclosure of pros/cons will be needed for effective public discourse and policy development, but compromises will inevitably have to be made.

    GRIST has done a special series on biofuels:

    http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/biofuels

    Also, the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton U. has developed a 'Stabilization Wedge Game' which 'illustrates the scale of emissions cuts needed in the future, and provides a common unit for comparing the carbon mitigating capacities of various energy and storage technologies.'
  56. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Call it Satori Zen's very own Domino Theory of Climate Change....
  57. Most Conservative Posters Are Hired Hacks from Toronto, Canada writes: It's disturbing that the more evidence that comes in about climate change and the higher the percentage of people who accept the science and want to do something; the more denialists come onto this website and post their climate change denial propaganda. The proportion of denialist comments here on this website are a gross overrepresentation of their proportion in the Canadian society as a whole. It makes one wonder how extensive the oil lobby's propaganda machine is. I mean get real guys... your comments are so numerous that you are all completely unbelievable. It shows that your opposition to climate change is politically or monetarily motivated.
  58. Josh K from Edmonton, Canada writes: Frank Enstein/Graham Parker: I know what you mean, I keep telling myself I have to stop reading these boards because they're so depressing. So much ignorance and selfishness. If these reflect, at all, the state of the opinion in our country, we're in pretty deep trouble (or at least doomed to continue our slide from international leader to international irrelevance/51st state status).

    Like Don Adams: I can't believe you had the utter gall to suggest that it's okay for other nations to starve while Canada prospers because it would be the 'survival of the fittest.' That's probably the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen on these boards (and I've seen a lot of J Luft). Explain what's makes Canada 'fitter' than regions where climate change will decimate crop production. Are we 'fitter' because we live in a more northern climate? Are we 'fitter' because the emissions that indulgent societies like ours have produced the very emissions that appear to be damning the people in those regions?

    Wake up. 'Survival of the fittest' hasn't been in any way existent in the Western world for the last 100 years. If it was, there's no way a knuckle-dragger like you would have made it to your wise-old, Conservative-voting age.
  59. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Canada writes: 'Orest Zarowsky from Toronto-and YOUR point is? Oh yea, we need good soil......wow! ' The problem is real!' Wow again! You remind me of my prof..... You also state, ' Harper remains the property of the Calgary Oil companies.' Prove your defamatory statement! If so, why didn't your beloved Chreien / Martin, and then Dion act? Go read the quotes from Eddie Goldenberger before you spout off:' Well R., actually you do need appropriate soil to grow any particular plant - including wheat. 'WOW' indeed. As for the Club of Rome and Malthus, I would say that they remain correct overall, and that there is more than one way for population pressure to cause problems - often several problems converge synergistically. OOPS. As for Harper and who owns him: He lived in Calgary, the NCC still has HQ in Calgary, Manning is still a member of the 'Calgary School' as is Harper, and the main business in Calgary is - oh yeah - Oil. And Harper 'got religion' (so to speak) on the environment when? But that didn't stop him from cancelling another environmental programme 2 weeks ago. And even today, his core supporters - like you - deny there is any problem. Another 'WOW' bears fruit. Speaking of the Liberal record, we note the lack of any real, credible national opposition to them. But we did have Reform and Alliance - the Alberta version of the BQ. Niether Reform, the Aliiance nor big business believed there was a problem and acted so. No one to force action or hold anyone to account. 'WOW' again. R. Carriere, you and your ilk are the same sort that were surprised by the Dustbowl of the 30's, despite many warnings that it would happen. An even more forceful and emphatic 'WOW' comin right at ya. I quote a 70's icon who was a (deadly accurate) satire of you and your kind: 'Stifle Yourself'.
  60. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: MCPAHHfT says '[..] the higher the percentage of people who accept the science and want to do something'.

    How does that jive with Dion's standing in the polls, despite Harper's bumbling performance? After all Dion is all CC, all the time.

    No trouble getting tickets to hear Suzuki talk either...

    Face it: CC has been oversold, both science and politics (i.e. Kyoto).

    It is time to pipe down the rhetoric and start working on sustainable solutions.

    I don’t think “You’re with us or you’re with the Big Oil Companies” works for you anymore.
  61. Satori Zen from Warriors' Land, Canada writes: I would not press my luck too much, Littmann (from Cantopia, Canada), if I were you. Like it or not, you're one of the dominoes! There is no room for anyone, besides the chain of causes, even for extraterrestrials.
  62. Mark Orr from Toronto, Canada writes: It amazes me how the environment can adapt. In this case, causing a famine to reduce the infestation of human beings on the planet. (yes I also include myself in that statement). It is brutal, but nature often is.
  63. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: As I sit in White Rock by the sea on Feb. 23 with snow coming down having just finished skiing at Cypress Mountain on Vancouver's north shore where the staff declared it the deepest snow ever and having just read another new source that quotes another group of credible scientists that are running sun activity models and predicting a dramatic earth cooling by 2012-2015 - I am yawning and going for an orange juice. I'll be inside today, West coast drivers on snow ranting about global warming. Ugleeeee.
  64. Marc D from Canada writes: The utter lack of ethics or morality shown by such comments as 'survival of the fittest' and 'it's good for Canada' makes me wonder if the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (vhemt.org) doesn't have a good point. Thousands of years of supposedly ethical development, and as a species we're still at the screw-thy-neighbour stage. J.Luft exemplifies this attitude, with his head in the (oil) sands, science is all bunk revisionist attitude that it's all a hoax just to stop him from getting rich. What's even stranger is that such comments are coming from the very same people who also spew out views directly cribbed from religious texts that, superficially at least, make altruism a virtue.

    I dare say I don't know where to start. Just because it's warm enough to grow food further north doesn't mean that we CAN grow food, given that the land itself isn't exactly high quality. Even if Canada and other northern countries could grow more food doesn't mean that the transportation problems to get that food to those who need it would suddenly solve themselves. Transport issues made worse by the sheer greed of people who would rather people starve to death first so they can make more profit later, and the governments who think this attitude is perfectly justified.

    As for the one with the list (malaria/aids/starvation/global warming), there are causal relationships between each. This report shows a link between global warming and more starvation. Altruism is dead in the countries that make the most food, so they insist on being paid full price for what they've got, which empties the treasuries of the countries hardest hit. Without funds, they then cannot afford to purchase (there's that lack of altruism again) the necessary anti-malaria or anti-HIV drugs, nor can they afford to invest in their infrastructure (education, better housing) to prevent these problems.
  65. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If it wasn't for the deniers, there would be no debate? Maybe. The real referee is entirely apolitical - Mama Nature. I'm sure she's way past PMS, but she can be merciless when it comes to saving her own a$$! J. Luft and probably other Westerners have had the honour of driving across Southern Saskatchewan, but maybe not during sandstormy summers. At least, they've seen what prehistoric Drumheller looks like. You can't grow tumbleweed in either! You're windshield looks like it got sandblasted in one of those sand storms. And Drumheller's prehistoric terrain is a good reminder of what happened in previous epochs. If you don't like the science, look at where we've been. Every spring, or even within a week or two, our Manitoba farmers will be coming out to comment about whether there's enough moisture content or too much, to estimate their crops, seed purchases, and make their loan proposals for seed and equipment. It was whacky for the last few years. Its russian roulette, running a farm out here. Without taking Climate GHGs in as a factor! Farming needs consistency to be justified. If you own or rent several 2,500 hectare sections, you have to be able to count of Her Worship (Ma Nature), or get mama government to sustain you. She ain't happy, and she don't vote. In fact she doesn't play our game, she runs it! Good for vote-sucking politicians, bad for the rest of us.
  66. M Horon from calgary, Canada writes: Computer modelling of long term climate patterns is in it's infancy and can not lend anything more than fluff to intelligent debate. The current IPCC data suggests only tiny increases in temperature over the next hundred years, this is heavily downgraded from the previous estimates, the data appears to be trending downward, as has the mean increase in sea levels data.
    The World Agroforestry Center is a credible institution, it was actually started by a canadian in the 70's, currently it's intelligence is largely american, heavily funded by the europeans of course. Most of the worlds credible science on climate change is american. As is the science the latest IPCC report is founded on.
    One very interesting point in the article that deserves attention by the Kyoto pornographers relates to ethanol. Ethanol is being pushed by these junkies as a key item in lowering greenouse gasses, ethanol is distilled from grain! What will the world eat? Especially if the breadbaskets of the world are on the verge of catostrophic dessimation (at least according to a computer model). Ethanol is not a viable solution on a global scale folks. Neither are windmills or solar or sequestration. There are only two solutions, we either stop using energy, or we switch to nuclear as much of europe has.
  67. M Horon from calgary, Canada writes: Don Adams, as I approach 50 I look back fondly to my idealistic youth. I may not have been very practical but I was learning about life. I agree a lot of these posters have the heads so far up their backsides that they cant see the light of day, but come on, cut them some slack. Better yet, keep challenging them like you are. One thing we can always bank on about kids is that they are self centered.
  68. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto- I usually don't answer posts filled with nothing more than, well, nothing, but since it's Saturday afternoon, I'll have a little fun with your type of ilk and bite. WOW! What a thread of diatribe! You and your ilk are actually fun to read. And then this beaut. from you,'Speaking of the Liberal record, we note the lack of any real, credible national opposition to them.'
    That's the best I've read in a long time. Blaming the Liberal Party non-action and rhetoric and outright lies and stupidity because of the opposition at that time? Your ilk had majorities and if you weren't so busy at the coffers, you might have acted. Oh well, think I'll go out and get a nice big breath of fresh ocean air. It is magnificent here today. Wish you were here! By the way, I have a great many Ukranian/Polish friends-they are terrific people-caring-fun-and do they know how to have a wedding reception......
  69. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If you build a theory on top of another theory, what do you get? Any intelligent person that knows stats knows you get nothing but useless junk. The Liberal funded G&M continues its slide down the intelligence scale.
  70. M Horon from calgary, Canada writes: Orst Z, who crapped in your corn flakes? Only a few of the oil companies in canada are calgary based, in fact only a few of the oil companies in canada are canadian. Exxon, Shell, Mobil, Total, KinderMorgan, Anedarko, Duke, Williams, to name a few are either american or european. Canada has encouraged the world to come here and exploit our resources on our behalf. Did all of this happen it the past year? Did NAFTA bring the europeans here?
    Steven Harper is a conservative from Calgary. Of course he sees the value in canada's resource based economy. Without it we would not have enough money to keep Quebecers from living in tarpaper shacks burning bunker C or wood to heat them.
  71. M Horon from calgary, Canada writes: John Mead, the Liberal funded G&M? If the liberals didn't have their MP's paycheques written by our federal government they would not have enough money to exist outside of their imaginations.
  72. S Rankin from Chatham, Ontario, Canada writes: Human history is replete with civilizations which in their hubris wrongly assume that they could exploit nature without consequence. Every single one of them crashed and disappeared. Many of the comments on this page perfectly illustrate that our civilization is no different. Unless we change our ways the same will happen to us eventually. Historic examples include Easter Island and the Mayas. There have been many others. We North Americans are pampered and take much for granted. It will shock many to learn that we all face starvation with just two back to back crop failures. Think it will never happen? It is not as preposterous us you think. The ice cores show that climate has been relatively benign over the past few thousand and that the recent past is the exception not the rule. A good book (2005) on this subject if you wish to educate yourself is “Collapse” by Jared Diamond.
  73. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Norman Labine - I spent 50 years on the Prairies and my father spent 66. You forget that the Palliser expedition that surveyed the Prairies declared the Palliser Triangle (roughly Shaunavon to Rosetown to Calgary) was an uninhabitable semi-desert. During my father's youth, the entire southern Prairies was sem-desert during the dirty '30's and many, many farmers abandoned their farms and moved. He tells the story of attaching a piece of wood at the bottom of a binder to collect the individual grains that fell off the stem because they were so stunted and dry. They would have starved if not for relief food (dried apples and fish) being sent out from Eastern Canada. In the late 80's we endured incredible springtime heat and wind, so much so that when my parents returned from the West coast on Hwy. 3 and hit a dust storm at Lethbridge that carried on well past Medicine Hat - they made the decision to move to Vancouver Island. My father said, ' I lived through this once but never again'. Today we have a generation that has not endured any major life trauma (WW II, drought, etc.) and they expect consistency and predictability. They also think human beings control everything. We have an egocentric, inexperienced population that is having a hissy over any variation in the climate and consequently goes running to any snake oil salesperson that says 'we can change the world'.
  74. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: S Rankin from Chatham, Ontario, Canada
    Yes this is true, from Babylon to Harappa, to Rome the life cycle of a civilization appears to link directly to it's ability to and then inability to feed itself. Population expansion, warfare, weather, and technology have all played heavily in this. So does this knowledge mean we should be fatalistic and not do anything about it?
  75. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto I am going to repeat myself; get in your car and drive to nearest forest. Walk deep into woods so nobody can see you. Find a big stick and start hitting trunks of trees with it as if you were hitting all these people that hurt you when you were a kid. Do it until you are tired, do it every day for a month. It will take away the edge and people will stop pissing on you in private and on public forum like this one. Look your problem is not unique it is called PTSD, you just try to replay the drama of your childhood and that is why you keep on trying to piss everybody off so they can piss on you so once again you can feel like a real victim you once were. Cheers man, as your shrink he is going to tell you same thing.
  76. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: S Rankin, the fate of the Mayas is hotly debated, but the evidence that environmental destruction decimated their civilization is thin, to be charitable. Which leaves Easter Island. Set against hundreds of civilizations, Jared Diamond’s story, while entertaining, seems to be a one-off thing.

    Most civilizations that we know of were simply replaced by a new one. This would negate environmental destruction as the underlying problem, since the successors would have to cope with the very same environment. If you want to use history for guidance, losing a war seems to be more consequential...
  77. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Graham Parker--congratulations on missing the point of my post. My post had nothing to do with anyone 'making a profit'. I suggested that irrigation methods be used to offset the effects of climate change in areas that may be affected. In other words, the ingenuity and the brains of men and women will be used to overcome any adversary, either man made or metaphysical. It is true that 'nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed', and this is the lesson that still has to be learned in a few areas of the world.
  78. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: J Luft-I'm not convinced that your bright enough to know what is good or bad about CO2. Try this experiment-take a kilo of dry ice (frozen CO2) and have someone seal you in a closet with it. Then have them come and release you six hours later. See what happens. Here's a hint. We will no longer have to endure your abusive posts.
  79. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes:
    Excellent, well researched piece Martin.

    Bravo!
  80. The Loyal Canadian Work Farce from Canada writes: Can a leopard change his spots? While some further their understanding about the interconnectedness of all life and try to save the planet, many right-wing business types work overtime trying to find ways of profiteering on the growing crisis. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gunna' be a rough ride. Ooooommmmmmmmmmm.........
  81. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Loyal Canadian work farce, remember the love canal, lake erie, leaded gasoline, DDT, flurocarbons (ozone depletors) Acid Rain (h2s) etc? The leapords spots are always changing. Those of you who have been suzukified play a role in progress, however by your idealistic natures you will never solve problems yourselves, you must leave it up to those who can act and get things done, who whether you like it or not are generally conservative industrialists.
  82. Todd Smith from Vernon, Canada writes: There has not been a shortage of talk about the environment/global warming/etc and many of the biggest offenders are the ones that continue to do all the talking.It would seem that it is finally time to make the big decisions or stop being hypocrites and as if it is someone else,who ever that is,who is responsible and should do what ever has to be done.
  83. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto- I usually don't answer posts filled with nothing more than, well, nothing, but since it's Saturday afternoon, I'll have a little fun with your type of ilk and bite .. etc. R. Carrier I am amused by your transparent attempt to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). And deny reality. That is your prerogative, but stop being surprised when your lies are challenged. And, just for fun, you may want to try addressing the issue itself. Instead of spewing, as you so eloquently put it, 'nothing'.
  84. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Incidentally, the February 9th issue of Science has a very nice discussion on what solutions are necessary in different parts of the world. For places like Canada, we have to invest in CO2 capture technology and that technology has to be capable of storing CO2 for about 1000 years, at which time deep ocean mixing will sequester the excess atmospheric CO2. This technology exists but needs to be further developed. We need to begin pilot implementations of this now so that we can identify the weaknesses in existing technology and improve upon them. For places like Europe, it is conservation and alternative energy sources.
  85. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: M. Horon: Here is a quote from Science that refutes your point.
    'The IPCC is overly conservative...The facts are not in much dispute. The ocean is warming and therefore expanding, mountain glaciers are melting into the sea, and Greenland is melting around its edges as well. That drove up sea level as fast as 3 millimeters per year lately. The IPCC projects that sea level will continue to rise 28 to 43 centimeters in this century, depending on emissions.

    It is also generally agreed that the IPCC calculation leaves out a potentially important factor. Some glaciers draining ice from Greenland and West Antarctica have sped up in the past 5 to 10 years, some of them doubling their speed (Science, 24 March 2006, p. 1698). But this glacier acceleration is not included in the IPCC sea-level projection 'because a basis in published literature is lacking,' according to the report.

    That didn't sit well with some researchers, such as Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He authored a Science paper last month that extrapolated from the recent sea-level rise to a rise ranging from 0.5 meter to a near-disastrous 1.4 meters by the end of the century. Days before the 2 February IPCC report release, he and others--call them counter-contrarians--spoke out in news reports. The IPCC sections on sea-level rise are 'obviously not the full story because ice-sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening,' Rahmstorf told the Associated Press. 'A document like that tends to underestimate the risk.' And the day before the IPCC release, a second paper--co-authored with seven colleagues--was published online by Science (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843). The seas have been rising at the uppermost rate projected in past IPCC reports, the authors noted. Sea level 'may be responding more quickly than climate models indicate,' they wrote.
  86. Duncan Munro from Langley, Canada writes: Global warming is real. The warming and drying of the soil will lessen crop productivity around the world, except in areas where there is enough water for irrigation. Look at Alberta, do they have enough water for irrigation now? How about 10-20 years from now when the oilsands projects are using 30% of their available water supply?

    The acidification of the oceans from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is going to massively disrupt the food the chain, unless we can begin reducing CO2 emissions now! We have to start making drastic changes to the way we live and do it quickly to avert a global catastrophe. One of the basic and fundamental facts that we have to face is the the oilsands projects must be terminated. Not only do the oilsands produce massive amounts of GHG emissions, and directly create massive environmental damage, but the oil that is burned later also contributes to GHG emissions. We also have to shut these projects down to wean the world from its oil dependency, and it is imperitive that we begin reducing fossil fuel consumption ASAP. A shut down of the oilsands will cause oil prices to spike, which will boost Alberta's income from its conventional oil wells.
  87. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto I am going to repeat myself; get in your car and drive to nearest forest. Walk deep into woods so nobody can see you. Find a big stick and start hitting trunks of trees with it as if you were hitting all these people that hurt you when you were a kid...etc. Hey Karol! Wassup? How Ya been doin there bud? Still resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks I see. Still not actually addressing the questions or issues either. Same Old, Same Old. Just a different day. I'm just waiting for the next devolutionary stage in your arsenal - attempts at personal intimidation. Very Rovian of you, but ineffectual. Not to mention a discredited approach.
  88. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Larry Robinson from white Rock, I too have lived through those. My grandfather was North West Mountie and told me of awful things. Those were naturally caused events. In BC, other than cache creek, people don't consider much that Alberta is grabbing most of the watershed to pump into their oli patch processes, causing all kinds of effects to river flows both south down to the Milk River, and across through both Northern and Central/South Sask and MB communities and farm communities. Our deep-freeze cold was even more so because of lack of cloud cover (no moisture in the air-flows from Alberta's chinooks). We had very little snow, on a regular basis this winter. We're getting our fair share now, and that should help our farmers, this time. The fact is that we know and understand more about the impact we can control, screw the science, and all we have to do is apply the currently known solutions to our cars, homes and businesses or farms, and help others see the huge savings to their own incomes that they can achieve. All the science does is build more consultants, and more hot air. And guess what, my neighbours in my old part of Winnipeg, on their below average incomes are doing it. Now they can see their way to buy a newer car. upgrade their windows without going into debt (I've shown several how to build their own, free!) and get below the 'Statistical Carbon-Taxable rates' established in 1999, under Chretien. Don't bust my chops about the political fad, I don't give a hoot about them. They won't do a damn thing that involves us, so I'm sliding into the 60 percent who won't vote, no matter how green they dye their ties! I just don't believe that Canadian Federal Politicians care enough to ask the little guy what he thinks he can do. Since 1965, through to today, every political program, dictate and emissions regulation has failed. Lung cancer and diseases, smog, and polluted lakes have gone worse. Up theirs!
  89. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: M Horon from calgary, Canada writes: Orst Z, who crapped in your corn flakes? Only a few of the oil companies in canada are calgary based, in fact only a few of the oil companies in canada are canadian. Exxon, Shell, Mobil, Total, KinderMorgan, Anedarko, Duke, Williams, to name a few are either american or european. Canada has encouraged the world to come here and exploit our resources on our behalf. Did all of this happen it the past year? Did NAFTA bring the europeans here? Steven Harper is a conservative from Calgary. Of course he sees the value in canada's resource based economy. Without it we would not have enough money to keep Quebecers from living in tarpaper shacks burning bunker C or wood to heat them. M. Horon, it seems a nerve or three was severely pinched, based on your opening comment. Yer Lookin Real Good There Bud. But, M Horon, all of the oil companies active in Canada have major presence in Calgary, whether it is a regional or national head office. And your point is? As for Harper and his position, well in what is basically a one-industry town, who do you think is going to call the shots? As for specific resources, like petroleum, please let us know the basis of your objections to conservation and prudent exploitation of same.
  90. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: Duncan Munro says 'One of the basic and fundamental facts that we have to face is the the oilsands projects must be terminated.'

    Your honesty is refreshing and appreciated.

    We might also shut down manufacturing, which, in Southern Ontario, is mostly in cars.

    Unfortunately, the CO2 bean counters tell me that this would still not suffice to meet out Kyoto I targets. Then there is Kyoto II. Dig deeper, I guess...
  91. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Michael H, I do not dispute that this is a problem, nor do I dispute that we need to act. However there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies on both sides of the equation. Most of us on the planet are all for a cleaner healthier environment, regardless of our motivations. The IPCC science is conservative compared to your eurpoean studies. However there are also credible studies on the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of the planet. Also there are studies relating to the natural cycle of deep ocean currents on the pole temperatures. As with everything the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes of the debate, which is where I put the IPCC. Carbon sequestration is a huge industry in the united states, this is one of the reasons they have so far out paced us in reducing their emissions intensity. However they profit from it, they are not pumping co2 into the ground to help the environment. They are using it to pressurize depleted oil fields. This technology is currently being agressively persued in alberta as we speak. Even if the co2 debate didn't exist you would see it in the near future here anyways. If the gov provides incentives, hopefully tax based, we will see it develop all the faster. One other point is that it is american companies who are leading the charge with it here. In the end it will only reduce our emissions intensity. To curb emmissions we need to drop our reliance on fossil fuels to fuel our economy, if you really study the matter you will find nuclear technology is the only parctical solution on the near term (20-100 years)
  92. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: M. Horon-I agree that nuclear is a solution and its dangers are overblown by the so-called 'green movement'. I am also aware that CO2 is being used to increase recovery from conventional oil sources and that this is the primary reason why the technology is taking off. The article I refer to points out, though, that this is the most appropriate solution for countries with vast resources of cheap energy sources, particularly coal. As for the tax mechanism, there is the carrot or the stick. The question is which one is more effective with the least cost. If the tax incentive approach doesn't cover the cost of implementing the technology, it likely will not work. For that reason, I suspect that it is the stick approach that will likely be necessary.
  93. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky I am not against prudent and efficient development of our resuources. You are reading between the lines, and not to well I must say. Are you familar with the EUB or the NEB regs? Did you know that when building a pipeline for example that they count the bugs in the area, gps owls nests, fox dens and deer habitats. Million dollar reroutes occur to avoid the single nest of a sensitive species. Our regs are extremly strict. Our real issue here is not so much overdevelopment, rather it is pacing the rest of our economy and infrastructure to keep pace with the current development.
    You know that big windmill that ontario hydro built down off lakeshore drive in your city? Did you know that you could line those up from Ontario place to the frontenac access at kingston and still not have enough to provide electricity for the houses alone in the gta?
  94. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: For the rest of you-don't try the experiment I suggested for J. Luft. It is EXTREMELY dangerous.
  95. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: This fear about losing economic stability is so phoney. We don't buy our own dogfood! We've got great little Canadian companies who make the best Energy saving products in the world, that we can use on our own homes and cars, and not one MP, from any Party has ever bothered to press that they be promoted to us. A Saskatchewan company, with plants in Ontario and the US, makes the most efficient fridges and freezers anywhere on the planet. Another company in Quebec, makes a roof-top wind-generator that can be added to, to service up to 10 homes or an industrial stripmall, that makes No Noise, and doesn't kill birds! A BC company makes Coal and NG co-generation equipment to remove ALL of the pollutants and convert them into usable materials. But our self-serving partisan politicians want to delay those kinds of result-giving technologies, make money for their carbon-trading pals, and drag it out to score votes over such a simple, wealth producing range of real-time reduction measures. Use what we have, and refine it later. Those little companies are exporting, because of our Inter-provincial trade restrictions, because of lobbied regulations in the National Building Codes and the National Emissions regulations. Not Chretien, Martin, Harper, Dion, Layton or even a backbencher independent has even proposed that these should be changed. Who's Party is acting right, again? These are easily changed. BUT, they want a COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE (AKA stall for an election). What would we do if we could drop a roof-top windmill and feed 10 homes forever for under $200,000? No, we have to watch them buy these foreign monsters for $2,000,000 each, wreck the cows ability to produce milk and pay more for green power. Empower us, we don't need the big plan.
  96. Smart Rs from Canada writes: Whats is all the fuss about. We have Suzuki and his rock star sized entourage travelling Canada giving advice and with the money he will spend on buying CO2 credits from the Switzerland he will be able to feed all the hungry in the world. I just knew he would come up with the right answer.
  97. Dark Green from Global Warming Land, Cuba writes: Doesn't any Canadian worry that in all likelihood, should one man and one woman survive all this, they are most likely to be not Canadian but Chinese?...
  98. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes:

    People are over reacting. We must summon the Goracle and have her make the final decision. The Goracle has never been wrong. If we bow in solemn prayer the Goracle may appear and speak her wisdom. Credit cards accepted.
  99. Dark Green from Global Warming Land, Cuba writes: Klaatu Barrada-Nikto from Gort, United States writes: I read an article the other day which stated that because of 'climate change' , the Sahara desert is actually shrinking; -- Better go and see for yourself Klaatu... Need a Canadian passport?
  100. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Hey Michael H.....CO2 is NOT pollution. Full Stop. Don't be such an idiot. Filling a closet with pure oxygen or pure anything will have pretty much the same effect on you. Come on pal.....stop pretending you are some kind of an expert. You are simply an empty shell....like Gore and Suzuki.
  101. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Canadian Press OTTAWA – The previous Liberal government ratified the Kyoto Protocol knowing Canada wasn't ready to take the tough measures needed to address climate change and would likely miss the deadlines for reducing emissions, says a top adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien. Eddie Goldenberg said in a speech today that the Chrétien government nevertheless signed and ratified the international pact because it was an 'absolutely necessary' first step in galvanizing public opinion to meet the global warming challenge. Goldenberg was a senior adviser to Chrétien when the Liberal government signed onto Kyoto in 1998 and formally ratified it in 2002. He said today that public opinion at the time favoured ratification 'in the abstract,' despite strident opposition by some provinces, the business community and the Conservative party's predecessor, the Canadian Alliance. But he doubted Canadians were ready for the concrete measures the government would have had to take to meet the Kyoto targets. 'Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done,' he said in a speech to the Canadian Club of London, Ont., the text of which was provided to The Canadian Press. 'The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short term deadlines would, at the end of the day, have to be extended.' And that moron Chretien agreed to the stupid accord anyway.....and worse yet is that his spawn, Dion, wants Canada to commit to it again even though they all know it is a joke. That shows the mentality of the Liberals and their followers. Unbelievable stupidity.
  102. J G from Whitby, Canada writes: There's serious money to be made, if an emissions trading system is adopted by Ottawa – but only if hard caps are placed on emissions, something the federal Cons won't do. Europe has caps for 11,500 companies & every year they are going to pay a penalty for exceeding emission limits, pay the costs of upgrading operations to reduce emissions, or pay less to get a 1 year exemption by buying emission credits. Worldwide, the value of trading in the first nine months of 2006 was $24.6 billion. Investment analysts estimate that Canadian businesses lost $1 B in investment opportunities in 2006 because we have no trading system. The fossil-fuel industry fought this. The high-technology industry seeks hard caps as they would sell products and expertise for reducing emissions. Emissions trading creates entrepreneurs looking for opportunities to lower emissions. When they succeed, so do the Canadian firms. The entrepreneurs gain emission credits they sell at a profit & high-tech firms get sales. Example, an entrepreneur can spend 3 years and $5 M to improve a coal-fired plant in China so it spews out less CO2. That reduction= emission credits. They are offered at a price that would return a reasonable profit. Here, companies want to buy credits to meet their caps. It counts just as much to reduce emissions in China as in Canada. And since China poses one of the greatest threats for global warming, lowering emissions there helps climate here. In the first 9 months of 2006 firms, mostly from Europe and Japan, were involved in emissions trading that was responsible for reducing Chinese emissions equal to the total emissions in Canada for generating electricity, and almost equal to the total emissions for transportation. To get to Canada's Kyoto target, the federal government would have to help in buying emission credits abroad and phase in caps over a short phase-in period. However the Cons don't see the urgency and don't want Canadians to participate in this global effort.
  103. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: WHY?
    Why is it that all these reports describe natural situations that 'may' happen or 'could' happen?

    In British Columbia, the provincial gov't is planning to glob onto more money -- $25 million for a talking heads show -- by adding a surcharge to energy bills. Yet this same government continues to build projects that restrict traffic flow and force highway vehicles to stop more often, thereby adding to air pollution. And it continues to allow open-air burning of garbage on private property.

    The only real tangible effects of global warming are that the pols and emotion manipulators have discovered a new alarm to ring, a new enemy to blame, and a new incarnation of the old 'tax-'em-high' shell games.
  104. Melvis Jackson from Neepawa Manitoba, Canada writes: Are we still talking about global warming? I thought the Anna Nicole Smith story was now the flavour. Both fit under entertainment.
  105. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: J G from Whitby, Canada: Follow up!

    Now there is a stock that is a major player in carbon emissions trading called Climate Exchange Plc (CXCHF.PK). Carbon emissions trading is the trading of permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is way of meeting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate global warming.

    Climate Exchange Plc owns the Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. and the European Climate Exchange, which provide futures contracts and options contracts of emissions. Goldman Sachs has taken a major position in this company. If Goldman Sachs is involved-it is inevitable-for all the wrong reasons!

    WASHINGTON (AFP) - Wall Street could become the world's center for lucrative markets in carbon trading, or be left behind if the US government ignores climate change, a senior British lawmaker said.

    Ahead of a gathering of global lawmakers at the US Senate to debate action on global warming, legislators said the European Union's emissions trading scheme offered a model for the United States, China and India to follow.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070213/sc_afp/usclimatewarming
    .
  106. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: HOW COME...?
    How come all the fuss about Global Warming being the effect of man's activities and how we need to clean up the mess we have made against nature, while at the same time politicos and special interest groups preach that we must accept unnatural same-gender marriage and the promotion of it, which to many is a pollution of nature?
  107. Clark Kent from Canada writes: Well, John L. Murlowe, some affect us all, while some do not. Comparing gay marriage and climate change is fairly laughable, including equating the political sources involved in either one.
  108. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: J. Luft-oxygen is also a toxin. Both are toxic and both are essential for life. Have you not heard of anti-oxidants? Their purpose is to minimize cellular damage from oxygen. As for the term pollution, it means simply something that causes harm to the natural environment. In high enough concentrations, oxygen and CO2 could be considered pollution. That's irrelevant in any case because I said nothing about pollution. I implied that CO2 is toxic to humans, which it is. It is a waste product of our metabolism.
    I also never said I was an expert on the environment. I was merely pointing out your stupidity. The information that I cited above is provided from a VERY credible source for science research. Refute the points. I know that your idol, Mr. Harper, thinks that one can win an argument simply by being offensive, but it's not true unless we're dealing with simpletons.
  109. B Littmann from Cantopia, Canada writes: J G from Whitby, Canada writes: There's serious money to be made.

    Not for all of us. You see, CO2 trading doesn't provide any goods or services, which means we pay through the government while Bay St gets to make a quick buck. Green entrepreneurs are a more of a worthy cause. But then there are the Russian oligarchs on the French Riviera; and the Chinese capitalist who can now buy an entry model power plant and get a free Canadian upgrade.

    You didn't mention Joe Shmoe on the Ford assembly line, though.

    No, let us not pretend that we can all get rich with this scheme.

    If we’re serious about reducing emissions we should introduce a carbon tax and ratchet up the rate until we obtain the desired level of emissions. In the mean time we’ll be able to afford lots of good quality health care. Maybe a few income tax cuts as well.
  110. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: The problem with Kyoto based targets is that too many compromises were made to accomodate Russia, Chnia and India. Those accomodations were pretty much neutral for almost all of europe. If you study the emissions tables you will see that the majority of the european union didn't have to do anything other than not increase their emissions, many had immediately built in buffers. This had to do with the crash of the solviet union and their old coal based economies. When the tarkets were set they back dated them to pre the collapse of the ussr to accomodate russia with an immediate 24% buffer. They are still well below their targets. Meanwhile Canada and the US were behind the ball by around 25% right out of the gate. We can thank Chretien for that, he seemed more concerned with convincing the europeans that we are a player rather than a colony, hence the raw deal. This is all oldsauce now, however getting screwed is getting screwed no matter how you cut it. If you read the toronto star article linked to in spicydocs post above you can read all about how chretien knew the targets were unattainable but signed anyways. Economically the americans didn't sign because kyoto carbon credit trading props up the euro at the expense of the dollar, unlike canada the americans can smell a rat.
  111. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: I am hearing a lot of debate that is basically throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
    The tar sands will not be shut down. The tar sands are using a huge amount of water and affecting ecosystems up to the NWT. That is a seperate issue.
    Saving energy is simply smart. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, they cause pollution, vs. GHG. Air pollution in industrial areas, worldwide, and water pollution are issues.
    Human caused climate change is not a proven fact, despite the screaming, and nobody seems to be commenting on the recent research that the earth's magnetosphere is deteriorating, this has an effect of cosmic radiation absorption, and the sun has had some unusually active periods in the last ten years. Yes, the climate is changing but not just here on earth. Yes, something is happening at an unusually fast rate but not just here on earth. No, we don't know the next phase. Yes, we can do things to protect our ecosystems but these big changes may quite literally be beyond our sphere of influence.
  112. William Davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: What mother nature doesn't believe in Karma.
    Or could it be that it is all based on stirring up hatred towards the western industrialised countries, with the hoped for outcome of the so called 3rd world countries not following their example.
    If so this is a very devious plan to ensure the poor remain poor for ever.
  113. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is a real knee-slapper of incompetence:

    From today's Telegraph, scientists assert that when the Earth heats to 6.4 degrees:

    '6.4°: Most of life is exterminated

    Warming seas lead to the possible release of methane hydrates trapped in sub-oceanic sediments: methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. The oceans lose their oxygen and turn stagnant, releasing poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas and destroying the ozone layer. Deserts extend almost to the Arctic. 'Hypercanes' (hurricanes of unimaginable ferocity) circumnavigate the globe, causing flash floods which strip the land of soil. Humanity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges. Most of life on Earth has been snuffed out, as temperatures rise higher than for hundreds of millions of years.
    '

    Cool! Methance fireballs on Earth! Now that is some serious science.
  114. Roland Neissinger from Oakville, Canada writes: We will find out, one way or another.
    If things get wet and warm in northern Canada, we always can start growing rice.
  115. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: A few of points... Whether climate change is caused by human activity (which I believe) or a natural occurence, we are still in trouble with agriuculture. You can't grow large volumes of food crops in poor soil - that is most of the land that would be good from a temperature perspective under global warming. Right now, it's mostly rock, pine forests, or tundra and bogs. So I think we will have a huge food prduction problem shortly. For Brian Klappstein from North Bay, if you do your research, you will be able to draw a direct link to the bodies piling up in Darfur from Climat e Change. The muslim Janjaweed who are doing most of the killing are historically nomadic animal herders who are finding water harder and harder to find for their herds. So, they are attacking the animist farmers so that they can take over the fertile areas that still have water.... not too much of a logical leap on this one. If water was not an issue, they the Janjaweed would not need to take over other territories to ensure their survival and maybe, just maybe, the bodies might not be piling up. Please do your research. The solutions that we have that are a start include using less and using the stuff we do have to, more efficiently. North Americans are not likely to be interested in doing this. Too bad for us.
  116. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: For John E7 from Salt Spring Island, the Hydrogen economy is not likely to ever occur, ot if it does, it will not benefit us. A few reasons for that. First and foremost, the H2 we would need would be created by cracking hydrocardbons to capture the H2 gas. So, Oil, Coal and Gas would still be consumed and we would be in the same, or a similar hole. Wind, solar PV, and nuclear might be useful to create hydrogen, but we end up with the second problem. That is, storage. H2 is a notoriously difficult material to store. H2 molecules are small enough that we cannot effectively store them using the technology that I am aware of being in existance or being research. Also, for the gaskets and tanks that we do have currently, H2 has a nasty way of corroding the materials and making them even more porous and fragile. So even if we can produce enough hydrogen, we can't store it. Oh well.
  117. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael H......CO2 is not pollution.
  118. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: J Luft, on the contrary, CO2 and anything else that does not get incoprorated into the desired product being produced by a process, is a waste product. Waste products are synonymous with pollutants. It's just a matter of definition from that point on.
  119. D K from Canada writes: 'D Young from Canada writes: Not that I buy into all the doom and gloom, but if the chicken little crowd believe the ocean levels are going to rise and cause flooding and islands to disappear and at the same time believe there will be huge drought regions, why not just take the water from the rising oceans and put them on the dry lands. That shouldn't be too hard a project for all these brillient scientists. Who knows, maybe some of them could still get rich off it.'

    Ahh yes, salt the earth to ensure nothing will grow.
  120. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: That 0.6 C temperature increase being bandied about is a global average. In the European Alps, the increase is documented as 1.4 C and it has had observable impacts. In Alaska, the permafrost is thawing - with observed effects like trees and buildings starting to lean. The glaciers in the Andes have shrunk by about 25% over the past 10 years. The snowcap in the Ruenzori Range in Africa, which includes Mt. Kilimanjaro, has visibly declined significantly. The greatest and most immendiate changes are showing in the 'marginal' and edge zones, as predicted by assorted models. Unfortunately, the bulk of the palnet's rivers are fed from assorted mountain glaciers. On the issue of sea-level rise, theIIPC report is conservative, to say the least. When the Arctic icecaps start melt in a big way, a feedback loop will start. The palnetary albedo will be reduced and more heat wil bve retained, instead of beind reflected. Kudzu is now showing up in Maine, and the Northern Pine Beetle is migrating into Alberta. And so it goes. But it's all a load of BS, according to Harper and his fans. There is none so blind as one who will not see.
  121. Alex Kay from Canada writes: Agriculture can be shifted north, but not right away. You have to move the people and the infrastructure, not to mention a time lag for the soil there to accumulate in nutrients needed. And by then millions of people in Africa, Asia, and South America will have suffered famine.
  122. mr motoc from Canada writes: J Luft . . . we're so GLAD you're here. You accurately represent the Moron Wing of the Conservative-Republican Annexationist Party: Anti-Science, Anti-Rationality, Anti-Freedom. Thanks for being so loyal to the fantasyland version of the world as presented by Faux News and the Washington Times (the Christian-Moonie newspaper & website, headed up by one of your heroes, the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon). Keep it up . . . those of us with FUNCTIONING frontal lobes would be hard-pressed to mimic your ignorance. Please! Don't ever go away . . . .
  123. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is a real knee-slapper of incompetence:.... etc. Michael, you may want to tone it down a bit. The overall temperature range in which the present life cycles and ecology exist and function is quite narrow. And an average increase in global temperature in the range you quoted may not have quite the effects you so gleefully deride, but it will not produce any positive effects. They may not be as bad as predicted, the prediction could be acurate, or the effects could be worse. But the Dustbowl of the 30's was predicted. When these were published, the response was similar to the content of your post and many others here. The silence of the doubters and deniers during the Dustbowl was noteworthy. But even worse was that these were the same bunch that opposed 'Relief' as it was called then for the victims of the environmental catastrophe. Funny how the same crowd that denies the human part of global warming is the same bunch that supports the Fascist end of the political spectrum. Even better is that the core of this bunch comes from the part of the country that was hardest hit in the 30's. That quote from Santayana comes to mind. Also the Darwin Awards.
  124. MR Perfect from Calgary, Canada writes: Dr. Suzuki reminds me of the panhandler down on the steet with the sandwich board that says ' The World ends tomorrow' while looking for money to go to Toronto next week. The fact is people cannot control the weather and these so called experts have a hidden agenda. Now bring on global warming so I can gold in February. As the song says... Don't worry be happy!
  125. Larry Robinson from White Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - What are you smoking? My family lived through the dust bowl, sometimes turned down relief food, sent sons to fight fascism in Europe and one never came back, supported the founding of the CCF, worked for Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd in the first medicare admiinistration including being threatened during the doctor's strike and do not believe that global warming is totally human caused.
    The real fascists, totalitarian right wingers, are the enviro wackos preaching a conservative doctrine with no acceptance of any other theories and bent on silencing any critics.
  126. Satori Zen from Warriors' Land, Canada writes: Honestly, this 'conversation' is an even greater source of despair than what it is about.
  127. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Some scriptures say that the world will end by fire...
  128. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Orst Z, 125k years ago sea levels rose over a hundred meters in a very short time. Maybe there was a previous civilization burning fossil fuels behind that one and their civilization is at the bottom of the ocean (The atlantians or lemurians?). Scientists say that the ice age collapsed catastrophically because of a natural cyclical change in deep ocean currents causing the north american ice sheet to slide into the atlantic, but maybe they are wrong. Possibly they are conservative scientists funded by exxon mobil and are not as credible as liberal scientists funded by the sierra club. Until there is some kind of definitive proof of what you and the suzukified far left state I will stick with credible main stream internationally recognized groups like the IPCC. I think that left wingnut Suzuki is building an arc. I'll bet you can convince him to get you a lower bunk...........
  129. Dark Green from Greenland, Cuba writes: Satori Zen is right: the waste of time preceding the wasteland. Unfortunately, for lack of character and energy, '... not in a bang, but a whimper.' (T.S. Eliot)
  130. vicki dutton from Canada writes: It is so pleasing to think that farmers in Canada may achieve an element of appreciation. After recording negative income in grain productions n for 3 of the last 5 years, the future does sound friendly. Hmm, now to get those farm boys who bailed cause they could not feed their young families out of the oil patch earning huge dolalrs so they can come back to the land? With the average age of farmers over 50 we better hope they come back soon.

    It is kind of nice to see commodity values back to 1974 values.
  131. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: And finally, for all you doom and gloomers on a human guilt trip, please read Apocolypse 2012, Lawrence Joseph. Yup,the world is going to end but for different reasons than you self-flagellating theories.

    If Layton gets rid of ATM fees, he may change this country.
  132. Dan Scott from London, Canada writes: Well... look on the bright side. The price of corn is going up, maybe those of us farming will be able to save the family farm.
  133. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Larry Robinson from White Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - What are you smoking? My family lived through the dust bowl, sometimes turned down relief food, sent sons to fight fascism in Europe and one never came back, supported the founding of the CCF, worked for Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd in the first medicare admiinistration including being threatened during the doctor's strike and do not believe that global warming is totally human caused. The real fascists, totalitarian right wingers, are the enviro wackos preaching a conservative doctrine with no acceptance of any other theories and bent on silencing any critics.' Larry, on what basis do you assume that I am a wacko? I never said that global warming is totally caused by humans. Nor did the reputable independent scientific reports. What has been shown is that human activity is causing 2 things: 1) an acceleration in the RATE of warming and 2) the upper limit of expected temperature has been increased. I trust this is clear now? As for the specific examples of abnormal events I gave, these are cold, hard documented facts. Let's assume that the impact and effect of human actions is real but marginal. This means that some change in behaviour and action is actually necessary. The greater the actual impact of human activity, the less marginal the effect. The question then becomes what to do and how. As more information becomes available from many fields, the picture looks grimmer, not rosier. Unfortunately, these effects form feedback loops and the feedback becomes exponential fast. Now, let's assume that the sceptics are right. The status quo is unsustainable, and some steps need to be taken to mitigate our impact on the environment. No matter what side of the debate one is on, a rational person will agree that some concrete action needs to be taken. How does this make me a Fascist?
  134. Moji Byrd from Canada writes: Yes as most of you sensible people have it, any abnormal weather related event, or even if the cow can't jump over the moon it is going to be due to global warming....they are going to trump this propoganda until it hurts you in the pocket book...of course they could have chosen a better spokesperson than Al Gore.....but when the story is b.s. who better than an ex-politician.
  135. robert marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: Hey maybe we will get lucky and humanity will wept itself out with the thousands of nuclear weapons still in existance around the world long before we all start starving to death due to global warming.

    Go nuclear winter go!
  136. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky....your comments are meaningless. The IPCC document is already under extreme pressure as many of the scientists who contributed are outraged as to how the science has been twisted by the UN and its minions. Your selective use of 'facts' is typical of Y2Kyotophiles such as yourself. Kind of like only pointing to areas of the globe which might be experiencing above normal temperatures while ignoring the offsetting areas of the globe where they are experiencing below normal temperatures. Come on....if you are trying to convince anybody of your argument at least put some effort into it.
  137. Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: For people on both sides of this debate, I have three questions:

    1. What are you personally doing today to reduce your GHG emissions?
    2. How much have you reduced your direct and indirect (purchases of food, clothing, any consumables) GHG emissions since Canada signed onto Kyoto, or better yet since 1997 when our targets were first codified?
    3. In the face of the clearly devastating news in this article, what do think the Chinese are going to do?

    I myself, sadly, have done nothing, but then I am less worried about than some others. I assume that all of those who are preaching the Kyoto mantra have made measurable reductions.
  138. Diogenes the Cynic from Sinope, Greece writes: Brian L. from Calgary... 1. no emissions, 2. living in a tub, 3. understand Chinese are developing while Canadians are over-developing. Now what difference does that make to you or to anyone? I go about carrying a candle in broad daylight, looking for a human being. Do not find any. Are you suggesting I should therefore live the life of a beast?
  139. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Larry Robinson from White Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - What are you smoking?... etc' Further to my earlier comments, I note that you didn't actually address or refute any of the specifics I raised. Most particularly, my commnets about the prediction of the Dustbowl and the responses to those predictions. Nor the deafening silence of those who derided those predictions when the Dustbowl actually did happen. Why is that, Larry? As for your contention that I am attempting to 'silence' those who disagree with me, a review of the posts here (and elswhere) is in order. If hard, corroborated, physical evidence is showing that a serious problem exists, how does commenting on hte impact and effects of the problem make one a 'eco-wacko and Fascist'? I find it passing strange that it is the individuals who deny global warming exists, let alone the human impact part of it, are the same ones who normally resort to ad hominem and personal attacks, use bullying and attempts at personal intimidation, refuse to actually discuss or address the issues raised in the article(s) or posts, and so on - read the posts - in attempts to silence those who are scientifically literate and take the problem seriously. It is also instructive to note the terems of derision these people use and which political party they claim to support. Equally instructive is reading these individual's posts in threeads related to security, social issues and the judiciary. Their own comments prove that these are a bunch of miscogenists, rascists, rednecks (in the worst possible connotationa) and Fascists. given your family history, why are you siding with this crowd?
  140. Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: Question 4. How much do think David Suzuki has reduced his emissions, direct and indirect, since Kyoto?

    Mr. Cynic, candles emit CO2 and since you own a computer you have at least indirectly emitted through its purchase (although I'm not sure how your electricity is generated). However, it appears you lead a spartan lifestyle (no pun intended) so you get an A .

    PS I was fortunate to visit your country for six weeks many years ago and without doubt its one of the most beautiful on our planet with hospitality to match. I hope to return.
  141. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! The WORLD needs to reduce CO2! The only way to do that is reduce CO2 PRODUCERS! The main PRODUCER IS MAN! So howmany do you want to KILL?
  142. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: 'J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky....your comments are meaningless. The IPCC document is already under extreme pressure as many of the scientists who contributed are outraged as to how the science has been twisted by the UN and its minions. Your selective use of 'facts' is typical of Y2Kyotophiles such as yourself. Kind of like only pointing to areas of the globe which might be experiencing above normal temperatures while ignoring the offsetting areas of the globe where they are experiencing below normal temperatures. Come on....if you are trying to convince anybody of your argument at least put some effort into it.' I've made the big time - Luft is addressing me directly. Meaningless comments are they? Maybe. The real question is whose comments are meaningless. I note, Luft, that you haven't addressed a question raised earlier in the thread: what are you going to drink when the Bow River dries up when there is no more Victoria Glacier? Why don't you EVER actually address the specifics of an issue on which you post? Comments re the IIPC report have some validity, given one can use terms like 'whitewash' and 'politically expedient suppresion of bleak data'. But the 'issues' you raise are spikes in your own coffin. You have just confirmed the existance of what you have been denying. Your 'observations' about Y2K show that you are not familiar with computers or software subtleties at all. Also, Red Herrings. The Y2K and other comments you have posted make it clear that you work on a purely ideological level. This self-confirmed detail is what makes you irrelevant and meaningless.
  143. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Fifty cal: Actually, there are a very large number of ways to reduce CO2 production without trashing the economy. Some major behavioural and attitude changes are required, but nothing as nasty as the 'there is no problem' Denial Team would have you believe. Not to mention the trivial detail that there are lots of oportunities to amke some very serious bucks here.
  144. Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Zarowsky, you have made by my count 11 posts in this discussion imposing on others your views on science and CO2 reductions. A couple of posts back I asked some simple questions. Since you clearly are a Kyoto and climate change believer, what have you personally done to reduce your emissions.

    Have you sold your car? Have you reduced your number of vacations and the distance travelled? Have you turned the heat down to less than 15 on your thermostat in winter and left the air conditioner off in the summer? Have started mending all your worn out clothes. Have you reduced your food consumption? Everthing you consume has CO2 emissions attached. Please share with people what you have personally done.

    After all, don't you think that people like you should show leadership. Talk is pretty cheap.
  145. Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes: I would have thought that, by this time, we would be beyond the ludicrous notion of the 'Kyoto' claim that CO2 is the major cause of 'global warming' or 'global climate change.' The only -- absolutely proven, scientifically proven -- proofs that exist are those that prove that CO2 is NOT the major, or even a minor cause of either 'global warming' or of 'climate change.'

    Okay? Got that?

    Check it out. Please!!!

    The only continuing crap -- especially here in Canada -- is that pseudo-religious lunatics like MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT, in the G&M, can continue to produce unutterable lies. If M-M wants to be a leader of some new religion -- let him profess himself so (and as much good bloody luck to him as he may earn). If M-M wishes to continue to profess himself a member of the honest trade of 'reporting facts' -- then M-M has one hell of a lot of confessing to bs to do.
  146. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Orst Z, 125k years ago sea levels rose over a hundred meters in a very short time. Maybe there was a previous civilization burning fossil fuels behind that one and their civilization is at the bottom of the ocean (The atlantians or lemurians?). Scientists say that the ice age collapsed catastrophically because of a natural cyclical change in deep ocean currents causing the north american ice sheet to slide into the atlantic, but maybe they are wrong. Possibly they are conservative scientists funded by exxon mobil and are not as credible as liberal scientists funded by the sierra club. Until there is some kind of definitive proof of what you and the suzukified far left state I will stick with credible main stream internationally recognized groups like the IPCC. I think that left wingnut Suzuki is building an arc. I'll bet you can convince him to get you a lower bunk.' Now, aren't you the commedian. Don't quit your day job. Unless I am seriously mistaken, there was no human civilization, or population for that matter, 125K years ago. Your extra comments clarify your ideological position. The comment about the collapse of the last ice age is useful and relevant, needs follow-up. Sadly your rant renders you irrelevant - can you say cigarette manufacturer propoganda, denial and obfuscation? Re IIPC - some evidence already of CYA expedient whitewash. And how exactly does this reduce / invalidate anything in the IIPC report - vs confirming and strengthening it? OOPPSS!
  147. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Zarowsky, you have made by my count 11 posts in this discussion imposing on others your views on science and CO2 reductions. A couple of posts back I asked some simple questions. Since you clearly are a Kyoto and climate change believer, what have you personally done to reduce your emissions. Have you sold your car? Have you reduced your number of vacations and the distance travelled? Have you turned the heat down to less than 15 on your thermostat in winter and left the air conditioner off in the summer? Have started mending all your worn out clothes. Have you reduced your food consumption? Everthing you consume has CO2 emissions attached. Please share with people what you have personally done. After all, don't you think that people like you should show leadership. Talk is pretty cheap. Well Brian: Given that in your original post you explicitely said that you have done 'nothing' to deal with the issue, where do you get off either criticizing the number and content of my posts or not excusing your performance'' Now, Brian, you have accused me of 'imposing' my views on others here re science and that I am a 'believer' in the Kyoto Accord. Re Science and 'imposing' views; facts are facts - deal with it. Kyoto is in many ways a very bad joke. If I had had anything to say in the foianl aggreement there would be some differences. It is funny to listen to the likes of Steve Harper whine about the Kyoto being a 'socialist Scam' in the context of carbon emmision trading when it was the 'free-marketeers' who forced the carbon emmisdion scheme into the treaty in the first palce. More Efficient, dontchknow, You Calgarians really need to get a grip and start dealing with reality
  148. Étienne Papineau from Guelph, Canada writes: Being an aspiring agronomist, I am very saddened by most reactions posted on this site by my fellow citizens. Perhaps it is time that as a country we come to terms with the fact that food is not created in the backroom of the American owned (selling American produce) grocery store we drive our SUV to...

    For those who doubt the credibility of this report CGIAR is the most respected network of ag researchers on the planet...

    Here's an interesting statistic that might bring some of you to pay attention to the correlation that exists between hot tempereatures and food production:

    On average, 100 L of water = 1 kg of grain.

    I would end by quoting a famous ag/energy researcher David Pimmentel, whom I met last year. 'Who is paying for food?'
  149. Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Zarowsky thank you for your reply. You apparently have done nothing to change your habits even though you appear passionate about Kyoto. You apparently think that others, Steven Harper, Albertans, should do something but you have not. You are a hypocrite.
  150. Joanna McFarlane from United States writes: For those of you who are interested in a real discussion of climate change, check out www.realclimate.org
  151. ed jessup from montreal, Canada writes: I am so sad to witness the raging stupidity expressed by so many comments.

    By all means scrap Kyoto in the vain hope of saving your job (which will probably end up being outsourced to China anyway..) and pour scorn on all those who are trying to save the world. Just know this similar bleating from your Australian counterparts has not prevented a drought that is forecast to reduce summer crop production by 59% (www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=21814). That is a mighty big shortfall; it has already raised the price of wheat futures.

    As the cost of food takes an increasingly large portion of our wagechecks, we will no longer be able to afford the goods and services that keep our precious economy going, then you will rue the day you decided you 'couldn't afford' to save the world
  152. Diogenes the Cynic from Sinope, Greece writes: Just want a clean, healthy environment for our children and grandchildren! DON'T YOU WANT A CLEAN, HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN? Damn the rest! DAMN ALL THE REST! Make it come about! MAKE IT COME ABOUT... BEYOND IMPOTENCE AND SUBMISSIVENESS!!! Get a candle! Be your own light!!!
  153. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: ed jessup from montreal, Canada writes: I am so sad to witness the raging stupidity expressed by so many comments.

    I am sure that posterity will show who was stupid and who was not. So far, the enviro-weenies have not been right about one thing yet. I expect them to keep their perfect record.
  154. ed jessup from montreal, Canada writes: Dave Medich:
    'I am sure that posterity will show who was stupid and who was not'

    You are dead right about that one!

    The difference between you and me is that, on this subject, I would rather be wrong...
  155. The Knuckle Dragger from Canada writes: I think Ed Jessup flunked Common Sense 101 Dave.
  156. Erin Voegeli from Kitchener, Canada writes: Not sure if anyone has brough this up yet, but has anyone considered where a massive portion of harvested grain goes? To cattle. Very inefficient use. If more went directly to humans perhaps we would have more and there wouldn't be such a threat of a shortage? Just something to chew on, pun intended.
  157. Gordon G from Brooklyn, United States writes: After finally watching Mr. Gores Inconvenient Truth, one statistic continues to ring in my head; that being the population of humans in this ecosystem. It would seem that, if what Mr. Gore says is true, this ecosystem will soon correct itself, i.e. If it cannot support the 9 billion humans predicted for the year 2050, then a serious number of humans will parish.

    This happens again and again in micro-eco-systems, naturally. What hubris we have to think that just because we think we have the ability to change nature.

    Face facts, although we are quite an interestingly intelligent form of life on this planet, it will be likely proven that we, in the end, cannot control, nature [especially our own].
  158. Darren X from toronto, Canada writes: Newsweek 1975: 'The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.'

    many global warming skeptics seem to draw comfort from prior predictions that turned out to be wrong. 'They were wrong in the 70s so why believe them now?' (This argument is eagerly reproduced by propaganda centers like the Fraser Institute who are essentially bought and paid-for shills for corporate privilege, but I digress).

    While this does raise a good point (media alarmism does not necessarily equal a true story), I would point out that a lot of climate science is based on computer modelling... and surely even the most scientifically illiterate global warming skeptic is aware that computers have come a long way in the last 30 years?

    I think we should be more inclined to listen to 2005 science than 1975 science.
  159. John Stewart from Eden, Ontario, Canada writes: In the future, if these food shortage predictions turn out to be true, it will be interesting to see how history judges our current crop of agriculture bureaucrats. These are the people who are responsible for the demise of Canadian agriculture. Their cry of 'The Americans and Brazilians will feed us!' may ring hollow.
  160. Bob MacMillan from Hamilton, Canada writes: I don't like the LPC, am not sure about CC, and hate Kyoto, I do believe things will slowly change, maybe for the better (what a firm grasp of the obvious, eh?). This comment is mostly aimed at those in a hurry to cut GHG emissions. Technology is being developed so that at some point in the future you may get what you want. In the mean time you might consider something from management 101. When people take on something new to them, they'll likely go through four stages of development (1) Enthusiastic Beginner, (2) Disillusioned Learner, (3) Variable Performer, (4) Peak Performer or Expert. I see posts here from all levels and appreciate the intelligent ones, whether I agree with them or not. My concern is about the Enthusiastic Beginners. These will change into Disillusioned Learners when they realize what they're really up against. Maybe they will persevere to the Expert Level (if so, good for them). However I hate to see major government policies like Kyoto put together and promoted by EB's. I also hate to see them manipulated for someone else's political gain. We all need to get past the Disillusioned Learner stage and do what we can to make our environment as clean as possible. Just please be careful when going after your favourite cause that you have an idea of how costly and effective your results will be in the overall scheme of things. End of public service announcement. You may now resume name calling and mud slinging. Everyone have a nice day.
  161. Gordon G from Brooklyn, United States writes: Bob Macmillan writes: 'These will change into Disillusioned Learners when they realize what they're really up against.'

    Great post Bob, unfortunately, this change will more likely come when these beginners realize they have to personally give up their own car; at that living outside of densely populated areas is completely unsustainable.

    I laugh at idiots who think that changing a light bulb and replacing ones fridge puts us on a path to saving the species... I also laugh at people who say we are destroying the environment. Sorry the earth will always provide some form of environment; just, most likely, not one that will sustain 9 billion humans [regardless of which light bulbs they use].
  162. Keith Petreman from Canada writes: For those of you stating that climate change has occured before and the human race still exists, so no worries, right? should take another look. Past civilizations have destroyed themselves by devastating their environments and they have done so with much less efficient and less advanced technology than we have today. From Europe, to Easter Island and South America, history is littered with fallen civilizations which thought they could continue as they did forever only to come to spectacular collapse. And for all you rising yields theorists out there, consider this: societies and civilizations collapse much more quickly than they rise. At their peak, human civilizations tend to be at there most arrogant and resistant to change while at the same time taxing their environments and resources at ever increasing, unsustainable rates. This tends to yield spectacular environmental and economic collapses. When technology was less advanced, this process took centuries and tended to be fairly localized. Modern technology is allowing us to rape the planet at an unprecedented and accelerating rate. History tells us that once the scarcity from environmental devastation becomes so apparent that it cannot be ignored, its too late to do much about it. The environmental devastation on a global scale that is taking place right now is unprecedented in human history. Examples of countries/civilizations that egnored these factors until it was too late: the ancient Greeks, the Ottomans, Haiti, the Greenland Vikings, and many more. I reccomend the books ''Collapse'' or ''Blood, Germs and Steel'', both by Jared Diamond.
  163. Dik Coates from Canada writes: LC Davies... the glass could be half empty, too...

    A lot of good an extended growing season is... if the climate becomes too arid... just a thought...
  164. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Mr Petreman, your points are somewhat valid, however while such mile high view on civilization my provide a little perspective, it does nothing more than that.
  165. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - Because I have an open mind and am not associated with any political party or lobby group, I read all reports regarding this issue. Hysteria breeds intolerance, and that is where the environmental lobby is living. The vision is becoming more myopic, the tone more strident and the information more distorted. Food is not the issue. Canada was the world's bread basket, but no more because of plant breeding that has developed specific grains for different environments. I learnt a lot about genetics and adaptation from an excellent genetics prof. and his friend, a visiting genetics prof. named David Suzuki. That was in 1970. I believe in evolution and adaptation. The human species has an impact on the environment but has no control on the sun, solar activity, solar wind, cosmic radiation, magnetosphere, cloud density and accumulation. All of these elements have been unusually active and 'abnormal' (if normal exists) in the last century, especially the last decade.
  166. Lukas Pearse from Halifax, Canada writes: It is tragicomic that so many of these comments are railing against science because it is more complex than their little minds can absorb. This is almost a solid argument against democracy, if the long view of the health of the entire world is measured against their petty political one-upmanship, and yet the ill-informed seem to hold more clout.. Get a grip people! These are very serious issues, and you can't be so self-absorbed without looking like a fool.
  167. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: To Keith Petreman........Jared Diamond? You have to be kidding? Anyone connected to George Soros is suspect. His thesis is nonsense.

    To alarmist, Orest Zarowsky....I'd suggest you start dealing with reality rather than preach your phony religion to others. The alarmist statements from the IPCC are already under attack by scientists who put the science together for the UN. The minions at the UN have twisted the facts beyond any recognition. It is a socialist scam, pure and simple. It is a scam put together by Maurice Strong for the benefit of his communist masters in China and wacky socialists in Europe.....where, by the way, their carbon trading scam is falling apart completely.
  168. M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Orest Z.
    Your alarmist emotional suzukified partisan stance discredits you before you present any of your points. Who knows? Maybe there is some validity to what you say, however no one takes you seriously because of the personal angst and zealous rhetorical crap that you are selling it with.
  169. Keith Petreman from Canada writes: J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: To Keith Petreman........Jared Diamond? You have to be kidding? Anyone connected to George Soros is suspect. His thesis is nonsense. J Luft, say what you want about Jared Diamond but the evidence he presents in his books is based on facts and backed up by volumes of evidence. He's pretty much devoted his life to the subject of human impacts on the environment thoughout human history. You couldn't have picked a better country as an example of environmental collapse than China. It's not isolated to communist countries though, Australia is going down much the same path. You seem pretty insecure in your arguments. Rather than dismissing people as ''communists'' or ''whacky socialists in Europe'' when you start losing the debate, why don't you look at their arguments. Jared Diamond is no ideologue and he's certainly no communist. You remind me of the ancient peoples of Easter Island. Towards the end of their civilization they built larger and larger monuments in a vain attempt to appease the Gods and bring back prospierity. In the face of a worsening situation they devoted an ever greater proportion of their resources to make themselves feel better about themselves and give hope for the future. They hid behind their illusions for comfort until it was too late and eventually descended into cannibalism. We are doing today on a global scale that which the Easter Islanders did to themselves centuries ago. Your flippant and arrogant comments, unfortunately, are nothing new. They most often lead to disaster.
  170. Peckerhead Pete from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    Wow. We are going to overheat AND starve to death. I guess the good news is we are not going to 'over populate' before we overheat and starve to death. I hate crowds when I am hungry, hot and sticky.
  171. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: To Keith Petreman....anyone connected to Soros is suspect....and that includes Diamond. I do look at the arguments, oh arrogant one.....and they are BS. By the way.....ever been to Easter Island? Get off you high horse.
  172. John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: The line by one contributor that stated 'As for 'survival of the fittest', very few urban Canadians would be among the winners.' caught my eye. These must be the same urban dwellers who have stood idly by as more and more prime agricultural land was devoured for development of big homes and redundant suburbs. Maybe these are the same people that looked down their noses at rural Canada and yawned as one small town after another slipped into oblivion. Each town's death Taking with it the core of original Canadian culture as well as countless family's hopes and dreams. What goes around comes around.
  173. Gordon G from Brooklyn, United States writes: So, if it's proven that the natural environment cannot support 9 billion humans; AND if we cannot technologically save ourselves from the technology that has allowed this explosion in our species population; it would seem that the death of billions and billions of us will be the logical outcome.

    So what, its only our own affectation, religion, that would make us feel any remorse over this loss.

    Don't worry folks, the world will right itself one way or another.
  174. Robert Saar from Coquitlam, Canada writes: spicydoc deluxe from blue skies, you use the term Neocon a lot, however I doubt you know what it means.
    FYI, it means a former LIBERAL espousing political conservatism, yet you apply it to all conservatives even those of us that would rather be dead than a Liberal.
    To me a neoconservative is someone who grew up and matured beyond emotional reactions and began looking for and implementing logical solutions.
    A growing crowd according to the polls.
  175. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: 1. By the way, anybody else pick up on the comments of the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus? In an interview with a Czech economics daily, Klaus made the following observations:
    'Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
    Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the 'but's' are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.' Wow! A politician with both balls AND brains!
  176. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: I do not know about neo-cons but il y a de vrai cons ici!
  177. M. Owens from calgary, Canada writes: Harold Harper from Canada writes: spicydoc deluxe from blue skies, Canada writes: While we're on the topic, here's an interesting piece from that neocon apologist rag The Toronto Star:

    Harold, I suspect spicydoc was being sarcastic. Of course if he isn't, maybe it's because of Chantel Hiebert's views regarding Mr. Dion's unwise Kyoto strategy? The most left media in the world no longer supporting Mr. Dion?
  178. j.r ewing from vancouver, Canada writes: This is good news. If the climate were cooling, which it will eventually, our crops would be severely compromised. When the cold snap in California this winter damaged the citris crops it was a small indication of how lucky we are that the climate is what it is at this point in time.
  179. The Neo-Con Knuckle Dragger from Canada writes: This Orest Z character....I don't think he's smoking anything....he's just an angry, unrealistic young pup who needs some training. Plus, probably all upset because someone put pepper in his vaseline.
  180. Glenn Hawley from Canada writes: Darren X from toronto, Canada writes: Newsweek 1975: 'The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.' I would point out that a lot of climate science is based on computer modelling... and surely even the most scientifically illiterate global warming skeptic is aware that computers have come a long way in the last 30 years?

    I think we should be more inclined to listen to 2005 science than 1975 science. '

    If you look at the IPCC's report, you won't find a computer model result that reproduces the cooling seen for three decades before 1975. In my opinion, that has much to do with the climatologists' refusal to consider solar variability forcing as part of their models. The 2001 IPCC report explicitly rejects solar influences (chapter 6.11 of the science part of the report).

    In computing, there is a maxim of 'garbage in, garbage out'. No matter how fast the CPUs are today and no matter how much more RAM is at their disposal, we aren't going to get good results based on inadequate inputs.
  181. Boyd Brandson from Rocky Mtn, House, Canada writes: Erin Voegeli from Kitchener, harvested grain fed to cattle = Very inefficient use.
    Ok as long as you understand that eating meat is an instinct and not eating meat is a decision.
  182. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Glenn H. - excellent critique of the IPCC report and the lack of appropriate inputs for their climate model. I am reading of more concerns from respected scientists that the IPCC report is basically flawed. To ignore solar activity borders on witch doctor egocentricity. The sun is one of the prerequisites for life on earth. To point at only one prerequisite, atmospheric gases, in isolation of everything else is not even science. The sun is going through a dramatic period of activity over the last century, the magnetosphere appears to be deteriorating at an ( I hate to use the word ) alarming rate. The interplay of these phenomena with the state of atmospheric gases is a crucial piece of the puzzle. An open mind means accepting that we are on a planet that is part of a much larger system. It is time to look outward instead of the xenophobia of inward panic.
  183. Facing The Storm across the Juan De Fuca from Canada writes: I have no doubt that Climate change is real. What I cannot understand is the perpetuation of the myth that we should focus on undoing the 'bad' at any cost instead of recognizing this that as long as the are XX billion people on the planet, we cannot do more than mitigate the results. The real question needs to be; How are we going to prepare for these changes? Can We?
  184. Ed Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: Talk of the town. 1960 to 1980... Acid Rain. 1980 to 1990... Carbon Dioxide, Aerosols. 1990 to 2007... Methane - Cow farts and sheep farts. Don't you think there's something smelly about all this Global warming?
  185. Keith Petreman from Canada writes: J Luft, so I'm on a high horse than am I? The vast majority of the world's scientific community believes that global warming is being caused by humans, but wait, some of those scientists talk to George Soros and J Luft says no one should listen to anyone that would trust George Soros! No need to read Diamond's book, no use to bother reading the science or learning the opinions of people who actually study the matter. Oh no, It's all a conspiracy propagated by George Soros. Hey, J Luft, go grab another beer and crawl back into your hole.
  186. Duncan Munro from Langley, Canada writes: Over at www.cspan.org -> Video library -> Science and technology they have 2 online video presentation regarding the most recent IPCC report. The first presentation is very interesting and I would urge everyone to listen to the first 10 minutes or so, of the opening speakers comments, where he discussed the how this report is very conservative due to the need to get unanimous agreement from scientists from 130 countries. What is coming down the pip is probably a lot worse than the mid range predictions in the IPCC report.
  187. Some Guy from Canada writes: There are a number of layers to this onion which need to be pealed away to find the core of the problem. The first is, is the world warming? That debate seems to be over in the scientific community and the answer is yes. The 1975 prediction of a new ice age was based on way too little evidence compared to the quantity of evidence available today. We have a long baseline of measuring the retreat of glaciers all over the world. For those who wish to deny this, you will have to provide evidence that this is only localized and not global. The line of permafrost in the northern hemisphere is moving north in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia. The second important question is what is causing this. The sun is suspect number one. Several posters here are correct in noting archeological evidence of past warm spells such as the one around 900 to 1000 AD. It is incorrect, however, to say that it was warmer then than it is today. This was correct when I was making the same argument 10 years ago, it is no longer correct. We are warmer now than then. The solar activity as measured by sunspot activity peaked in the 1950's with another lesser peak in the 1980's to early 90's. While it is still higher than average and much higher than the mini-iceage, it should not still be increasing the temperature of the planet any further. I have been arguing the thrust of this article for several years now. Wolrd food security is questionable. We typically have 30 to 60 days of food reserve in the world and any supply reduction could prove catastrophic. Whether or not human activity is contributing to glabal warming, we are fast running out of fossil fuels in any case. It takes 1000 cu ft of natural gas to produce a barrel of bitumen from the tar sands. This is clearly not sustainable. Conservation makes sense on a great many levels.
  188. Some Guy from Canada writes: To Brian L. and your four points: 1. Since 1997 I have increased my bicycling and decreased my car driving. My current estimate is 7000 km per year on my bicycle versus less than 1000 km then. That has all been at the expense of car driving. I calculate that savings in car insurance, gas consumption, and car maintenance minus increased bike maintenance saves $2400 oer year and it gets my middleaged body some needed excercise without the cost of a gym membership. 2. I have always believed in wear it out before you replace it so I was never a big consumer in the first place. In 32 years of owning a car I have owned a total of 5, including the one I have now and only one was in driveable condition when I replaced it, but only barely. 3. I don't know what China is going to do. Some places in their industrial heartland now have air which is worse than London's during its killer smogs. I think if we improve carbon capture technology they will copy it more cheaply than we can make it. 4. Dr Suzuki has mentioned the very issue you brought up. He said in an interview that he regularly weighed the damage to environment his travelling did versus the improvements he felt he was making by raising the profile of the issue. His current bus tour is because he calculated that it reduced his GHG production by substituting the bus for the airplane travel he used to do.
  189. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Too much fun. Check out the date in this one! 'An article recently published in “Scientific American” makes the important announcement that the climate of the North American continent is gradually becoming warmer notwithstanding the influence of certain “Sun Spots”. There would appear to be some foundation for such a belief, for only lately the Guardian carried an item calling attention to the fact that in Alaska the flowers are now in bloom and farmers there are breaking the soil for next season’s crop. Similar news has appeared in other journals corroborating the truth of this important discovery. But however starling this information may seem, and however ready the inhabitants of these northern latitudes may be to take advantage of the climatic change, their initiative have nothing on the enterprising company recently established in the village of St. Peters. This firm, primarily formed for the purpose of catering to the wants and requirements of farmers generally, intend to launch into scientific and progressive agriculture also and has already (Jan 15, 1926) been engaged in plowing discing and dragging in anticipation of sowing winter wheat, cranberries and a certain variety of “wild oats”. The location is ideal for such an industry as a supply of mussel mud in the vicinity is assured and also an abundant supply of moisture without the expense of irrigation. A rich aftermath is consequently expected. Certain difficulties, however, have already been encountered which threatens the success of the scheme, for on the morning of the 16th following the first day’s operations only the levers of the machinery were visible above the blanket of snowy whiteness. But with a display of courage which might not be likened to that exhibited by the oil borers on Governor’s Island when they encountered the water, the St. Peters company after consulting their engineer have suspended further operations awaiting the effects of the first “January thaw”.'
  190. Hunter Fortune from Canada writes: Here's my two cents. Kyoto is not about reducing GHG's it's a wealth transfer. The carbon trading market, is on a serious downward slide, see for yourselves here. www.euets.com What happened in Ontario this week when just one (tiny) refinery had to shutdown? Gas prices rose across Canada. Gas stations ran out of gas, and yet noone in Ontario seemed willing to change their lifestyle. Funny that. But, we should shut down the oilsands, and that won't effect anyone except greedy Albertans? That's what Prophet Suzuki told Albertans this week. Alberta has more wind turbines than all other provinces combined, but we are the bad guys? Our composting plant in Edmonton is state of the art, Albertans recycle and reuse and compost our garbage, what does Toronto do, they ship their garbage to the states! Oh and by the way Edmonton has never had a smog day, can you people from Toronto say that, and don't blame the Americans, they are doing a much better job of cleaning up the environment than we are. And some of you BC hippies, yapping about the environment, maybe it's time that Vancouver Island stopped dumping raw sewage into the ocean, don't you think? Yap about the global environment all you want, but maybe you should all look at what is happening with real pollution right in your own neighbourhood. One poster here asked what we as individuals are doing to help build a sustainable environment. I compost, even in the winter. I grow my own veggies without using any pesticides. I start my flowers from seed, I gather the seeds in the fall for next year, I recycle more than I throw into the landfill. I figure the CO2 I breathe out gets absorbed by all the plants I have, and they give me oxygen back. Do people in apartments in Toronto have to recycle? Do you wash the plastics and cans and put them in a special bin? I think not. Instead we get all this bleating about global warming, carbon taxes, and carbon credits.
  191. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - Because I have an open mind and am not associated with any political party or lobby group, I read all reports regarding this issue. Hysteria breeds intolerance, and that is where the environmental lobby is living. The vision is becoming more myopic, the tone more strident and the information more distorted. ... I learnt a lot about genetics and adaptation from an excellent genetics prof. and his friend, a visiting genetics prof. named David Suzuki. That was in 1970. I believe in evolution and adaptation. The human species has an impact on the environment but has no control on the sun, solar activity, solar wind, cosmic radiation, magnetosphere, cloud density and accumulation. All of these elements have been unusually active and 'abnormal' (if normal exists) in the last century, especially the last decade.' Larry - exactly right. A great many factors that humans niether influence nor control influence the weather, climate and overall global temperatures. And these can and should be included in any serious models of what is happening. But the things that humans do that contribute to the problem also need to be acknowledged and addressed. The Kyoto Accords is seriously flawed, as I have explicitely stated earlier in the thread. Given when you were studying genetics in Univesity, the discussion and debate about Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' should be familiar to you. Based on the small amount of digging I have done, the debate was very similar to this one. And the language and approach of the group that denied what Carson was saying was strikingly similar to what we see here in this thread. As for the IIPC report, the response of the 'dissenting' members of the team remind me of Richard P. Feynmann's account of the Challenger Shuttle explosion. All this does is make it clear the report is a whitewash CYA document. This means that the situation is actually far more serious than presented. Oh well.
  192. Oz D. from Montreal, Canada writes: The threat of global warming is real and present and in front of us and for some reason we cannot seem to grasp it. Mother nature's devastation is much much greater than any human catastrophy since we cannot contain it. We must respect our nature and show care towards it. Big corporations must intervene in this matter since they have the power to make changes. In the coming years every individual out there should make it a personal goal to achieve a more green lifestyle.
  193. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Brian L from Calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Zarowsky thank you for your reply. You apparently have done nothing to change your habits even though you appear passionate about Kyoto. You apparently think that others, Steven Harper, Albertans, should do something but you have not. You are a hypocrite.' Well Brian, I have had a programmable thermostat in the house for over 20 years. The furnace is a high-efficency model. I don't use the central air that my mom installed very much, and even when I do, I keep the tempewrture at fairly warm settings, and it is also run off the programmable thermostat. I use Public transit whenever possible, I walk and bike a lot and don't use the car all that much. I make a seriuos effort not to generate trash, and recycle. I have in fact done lots of things to reduce my energy consumption. I am not particularly passionate about Kyoto - I am concerned about the human element in global warming. I am very unhappy about the defeatist and obstructionist attitude and approach of the crowd that refuses to deal with reality. This issuenot just a Calgary or Alberta problem - it's everyone's. We have our own share of deniers here. BTW, what steps has Calgary taken over the past say 15 years to curb urban sprawl and set up a viable public transit system? Oh, yeah - none, based on the reports I've read. Harper et al on the environment - there's a joke. Who's the hypocrite?
  194. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: 'M Horon from Calgary, AB, Canada, Canada writes: Orest Z. Your alarmist emotional suzukified partisan stance discredits you before you present any of your points. Who knows? Maybe there is some validity to what you say, however no one takes you seriously because of the personal angst and zealous rhetorical crap that you are selling it with.' Uh Huh. You betcha. Stating cold, hard, documented facts is now alarmist etc, is it? And stating the truth destroys one's credibility? Who knows? - you ask. The Shadow Knows! Yes, I know that you and Luft and Carrier and the other members of Team Denial don't take me seriously. So what? You don't take anyone who disagrees with you seriously. As for 'angst and zealous rhetorical crap', all one needs to do is read your and your cohorts' posts, read mine and compare. Not just in this thread, but on others on numerous topics that have nothing to do with global warming. I will give you this: you are smarter then J. Luft or my good buddy Karol Karolak - you are more subtle and sophisticated. But you are still using the same tactics and your ideological position is pretty clear. Even Karl Rove could learn something from you. Not concerning position or ideology, but about attack techniques.
  195. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Thanks for the lecture, Oz D.. Unfortunately your religion is a scam.
  196. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: .
    GW is real. That's about all the science says.

    Predictions about the effects of GW are pure FANTASY.

    Here's a good sociology question: Why are there always so many idiots ready to jump on every apocalyptic bandwagon that comes along.

    The earth is not about to boil over tomorrow, no matter what Gore says. And this isn't the first that someone cried wolf in order to boost their career.
    .
  197. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto (Ooooooo) says BTW, what steps has Calgary taken over the past say 15 years to curb urban sprawl and set up a viable public transit system? Oh, yeah - none, based on the reports I've read. Harper et al on the environment - there's a joke. Who's the hypocrite?' Well, airhead, the definition of a hypocrite is 'a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.' If someone doesn't believe in your green religion they can hardly be called a hypocrite because they don't act according to your religion.

    As for what Calgary has done, we don't get tons of money from the feds to build our infrastructure.....unlike your parasitic city......have you had the army out lately for any snow falls?
  198. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: 'The Neo-Con Knuckle Dragger from Canada writes: This Orest Z character....I don't think he's smoking anything....he's just an angry, unrealistic young pup who needs some training. Plus, probably all upset because someone put pepper in his vaseline.' A very useful, and appropos comment - especially the the last part - NOT. As for the 'young pup' I am pushing 50. As for the 'unrealistic', I have spent most of the last 21 years earning my living performing ultra-trace level environemtal analysis for organic pollutants. I have seen some interesting things, rest assured. I did the analysis of the waste drums from the Smitheville PCB dumpsite, as well as the soil core-samples from the vicinty. What was really interesting was the difference in the officialy published results vs what I actually saw. The official results tended to be much lower. Some years later, after Harris came to power, I was doing EPH analysis. Harris et al changed the regs by increasing the acceptable limit and reducing the Carbon-number range. Samples that wouldn't have passed before were now 'acceptable'. Including many that were polluted by discarded motor oil. I am less than amused by what has passed through my hands in the lab, never mind what my own beady little eyes have seen 'in the field' as a Scout Leader. I am angered not only by the mendacity of our governments and leaders like Chretien, Martin, Mulroney, Harper, Harris, Peterson, Rae and others. I am even more angered by the obstructionism and defeatism of people like you and your fellow-travellers. Not because you hold a contrary position, but because you actively encourage a do-nothing approach.
  199. Harry Chartrand from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Excuse me: 'during the devastating heat wave in much of Europe in the summer of 2003 that killed tens of thousands.' Tens of thousands? Where was I?

    Distributional effects are such that Canada should be planning to benefit rather than complain about global warming. Buy as much land in Saskatchewan as you can, the Americans are coming. New Orleans was just the first of the major American coastal cities to suffer. Excepting Vancouver our major maritime cities and ports are relatively well placed.

    So get ready Canada, property values are about to go up.

    But then again maybe 'tens of thousands' died in Europe and nobody noticed. This is a mug's game.
  200. Sal L. from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto "BTW, what steps has Calgary taken over the past say 15 years to curb urban sprawl and set up a viable public transit system? Oh, yeah - none, based on the reports I've read"

    Suggest you read more.... you are way out of date on the environmental initiatives of the city... the full NE leg of the light rail transit system ( wind powered ) is but one.
  201. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: In 1844 William Miller convinced 50,000 that the end of the world was at hand and the second coming Jesu was proven to be that year. Thousands sold everything they had on his advice. This became known as the Great Disappointment.

    Miller was charismatic.

    Fast forward 160 years, and we have another apocalypse promoted by another charismatic.

    This, too, shall pass. Unfortunately, another apocalypse will surely follow on it’s heals. Fear motivates people, and charismatics profit by it.

    The present Gore love fest reveals more about the need to believe in something larger than your self than it does about climate or the Earth.
    .
  202. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto (Ooooooo) says BTW, what steps has Calgary taken over the past say 15 years to curb urban sprawl and set up a viable public transit system? Oh, yeah - none, based on the reports I've read. Harper et al on the environment - there's a joke. Who's the hypocrite?" Well, airhead, the definition of a hypocrite is "a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements." If someone doesn't believe in your green religion they can hardly be called a hypocrite because they don't act according to your religion. As for what Calgary has done, we don't get tons of money from the feds to build our infrastructure.....unlike your parasitic city......have you had the army out lately for any snow falls?" Luft - Brian called me a hypocrite AFTER stating he had done "nothing". Your "comments" have appeared AFTER my specific response to Brian L.'s comments were posted. I wonder who the "airhead" actually is. Speaking of airheads, why haven't you addressed the related issues of urban sprawl and no viable public transit in Calgary? I am still waiting for your response to my question about Calgary's drinking water. Your definition of hypocracy is correct but incomplete. On what basis do you say I am a hypocrite - as opposed to your own mouth condemning you? Toronto alone generates 10% of Canada's GDP - without the benefit of windfall prices for a natural resorce who's presence is pure luck. And when the price of oil wasn't skewing statistics, it was closer to 25%. Meanwhile, Toronto pays out several billions more in taxes than it gets back from any level. In fact, some of the tax subsidies Alberta's oil companies get are paid by Toronto taxes, parasites that we are. Who is the airhead here?
  203. Andrew McKegney from Canada writes: It seems that this thread has missed the reality of the human tendency to fight over resources - the real reason for most (if not all) wars. Well with global warming and peak oil happening together (no coincidence) we're in for several world wide conflicts over the diminishing supplies of oil and food. In less than a decade the world population will be halved and shrinking! Starvation will be rampant due to crop failures and radiation poisoning. This combined with disease (pandemics) will lower populations to a point where it is once again sustainable. Probably take about 50 years to stabilize between 1 and 2 billion. No nation will escape unscathed from the upcoming and inevitable reckoning of the results of uncontrolled human population growth and consumption. It's way too late to avoid this fate - perhaps if we had started 30 or more years ago........
  204. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "Sal L. from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto "BTW, what steps has Calgary taken over the past say 15 years to curb urban sprawl and set up a viable public transit system? Oh, yeah - none, based on the reports I've read" Suggest you read more.... you are way out of date on the environmental initiatives of the city... the full NE leg of the light rail transit system ( wind powered ) is but one." Well, Sal L. you are clearly from Calgary - why are you obfuscating your location? One of the reports I was referring to appeared in the Focus section of the G&M around 6 months ago. If you have anything more recent, or that will refute the article I refer to, please post the link. I would like to make it crystal clear that we have the same problem here in the GTA, especially in municipalities like Vaughn, Richmond Hill, and other outlying municipalities. You should hear the fuss that resulted from the "green-belt" legislation enacted by the current (Liberal) Provincial government. More ammusing was the fact that the Provincial govt backed off from terminating a large number of residential developments on the Oak Ridges Morraine due to the threat of Developer legal actions. Recently, there have been several actions by the "incumbent" mayor of Vaughn, who lost the recent municipal election, to regain his seat. Buddy has some very amusing and close ties to assorted real-estate developers. "Urban Sprawl", and corruption anyone?
  205. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Andrew McKegney - very well said and bang on. You should expand on this point, and connect some of the earlier posts re resources and conflict in this thread.
  206. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - yes, Rachel Carson brought a new awareness of the fragility of the ecosystems to our university classes, as did the first scientific evidence of acid rain, the industrial pollution of the Love Canal, and, how soon we forget, Three Mile Island. I totally agree that ecosystem protection is paramount. I am an artist and I did wild fowl drawings for high end clients. I quit. When asked why, I said because their habitat is drying up and being drained. Energy conservation, water protection and limiting air pollution are all valid, unarguable goals. However, the current climate change is being interpreted as a human caused phenomenon therefore the solution is totally in the human realm. This egocentricity and immediate gratification is everything that is wrong with the modern world and is the reason our natural world disappearing. Only when you have meticulously studied something as magically complex as the evolution of feather size, shape, colour and function from a duck's head to its back, to its wings, to its breast to its tail - do you understand that human beings do not control this world. Whether you are spiritual or a rationalist, there is unfathomable complexity on this planet and beyond. There are no immediate conclusive answers, only more questions and respect for something beyond the human experience. I detest the politicization of something so sacred and the intolerance that bludgeons questions.
  207. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Regardless of whether one believes that global warming is impacted by human activity, or that it even is an issue, the current staus quo is niether desireable nor sustainable. There are too many reputably documented cases of serious impacts of pollution and environmental degradatin to ignore and say that there is no problem. There are many solutions and actions that are currently avaialble, practical and cheap that would go a long way to mitigating many of the current concerns / issues. To start, conservative fuel economy standards could be applied to SUVs. Aditionally, an "excessive fuel consumption tax" could be levied on SUVs and other low-milage vehicles. The approach that London England has taken to deal with traffic could be applied in various hub municipalities in Canada. The issue of Urban Sprawl, especially in thje contexts of consumption of prime agricultureal land and support of viable public transit systems needs to be addressed. favoring cars over public transit in municipal environments needs to stop. Pedestrian and cyclist friendly environments can be developed. The manner in which banks approve and set up mortgages for houses needs a review - this would lead to a reduction in urban sprawl. More investment in R&D of alternative energy sources/technology. This is a short list - note no significant industrial impact. Luft et al, I wait for your suggestions.
  208. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Orest Z - yes, Rachel Carson brought a new awareness of the fragility of the ecosystems to our university classes, as did the first scientific evidence of acid rain, the industrial pollution of the Love Canal, and, how soon we forget, Three Mile Island. I totally agree that ecosystem protection is paramount. I am an artist and I did wild fowl drawings for high end clients. I quit. When asked why, I said because their habitat is drying up and being drained. Energy conservation, water protection and limiting air pollution are all valid, unarguable goals. However, the current climate change is being interpreted as a human caused phenomenon therefore the solution is totally in the human realm. This egocentricity and immediate gratification is everything that is wrong with the modern world and is the reason our natural world disappearing. Only when you have meticulously studied something as magically complex as the evolution of feather size, shape, colour and function from a duck's head to its back, to its wings, to its breast to its tail - do you understand that human beings do not control this world. Whether you are spiritual or a rationalist, there is unfathomable complexity on this planet and beyond. There are no immediate conclusive answers, only more questions and respect for something beyond the human experience. I detest the politicization of something so sacred and the intolerance that bludgeons questions." Larry, you are so on target it is scary. It seems that you and I are in full agreement on a very fundamental level. You may want to consider reasessing your perspective on my "position". It is more nuanced than the fascits here make it out to be - as should be clear from all of my posts here and elswhere. There are lots of things we aren't in control of, but us humans must assume responsibility for our actions.
  209. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: More thoughts on solutions: Canadian Tire sells a set of Solar-powered products that use a thin, foldable and inexpensive solar panel to run and recahrge these items. I was wondering why this technology can't be applied (allowing for suitable adaptations) to house construction: new and retrofits? And there aare a bunch more examples in a previoud post (not mine that give examples of CAnadian products that address many of the issues re global warming. ANd so it goes. Sigh.
  210. Catch 22 from Vancouver, Canada writes: One of the most effective means for reducing carbon emissions will be a Carbon Credit Card. Every citizen and company would get a specific amount of carbon they would be allowed to emit. Every time a person buys fuel, or uses electricity that is produced by coal/natural gas, the carbon emissions would be deducted from the carbon credit card. If a person goes over their limit, they would need to buy unused emission credits from other people.

    If you starkly reduced your emissions, then you could actually make money from this system by selling your unused credits. Those who need to emit an excessive amount of carbon would still be allowed to, but they would have to pay for the right. This is a simple market based system that could have large impacts on carbon emissions.
  211. Catch 22 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Neoconservatives are detached from reality. Here is example of why. Agriculture and food production make up approximately 3 percent of the economy (measured in dollars). A neoconservative economist argued that because food is such a small part of the economy, if we reduced food production by half, it would still only result in a 1.5 percent reduction in economic activity.

    Think about that for a minute: he argued that cutting the food supply in half would have a negligible effect on our economic system! This type of thinking is surprisingly prevalent amongst our business leaders. These MBA types spend their life looking at numbers, balance sheets, statistics, but they have a poor conception of the economic system as a whole. They think that their numbers and graphs are all they need to know to run a successful company or economy. It is these very same people who are arguing that dealing with the climate crisis will wreck the economy. They only see the short term balance sheet. They don't see the science. They don't understand the predictions of climate change. They are detached from reality.
  212. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Catch 22 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Neoconservatives are detached from reality.

    Yea, right. But the idiots that think we can reduce Co2 by 35% in 3 years under Kyoto aren't detached from reality. Give your head a shake and repent by saying three "Hail Als" to the Goracle.
  213. Klaatu Barrada-Nikto from Gort, United States writes: "Researchers using computer models to simulate the weather patterns likely to exist around 2050 found that the best wheat-growing land in the wide arc of fertile farmland stretching from Pakistan through Northern India and Nepal to Bangladesh would be decimated"

    Computer models, looking 33 years into the future...
    They can't even get a weather forecast correct three days out.
    Rubbish, all of it.
  214. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh! Another claptrap spew from J. Luft to start a blog! How unique.
  215. Simon Leigh from Toronto, Canada writes: Humans forget they're animals. When food is scarce, we die. When it's plentiful, we breed. Huge die-offs are coming. Talking won't solve this problem.
  216. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky, please permit me to comment on your previous posts. You say that you have encountered pollution that was covered up by politicians and bureaucrats. This is the type of thing that I was referring to in my previous post that stated "all forms of pollution should be reduced and eliminated if possible". Also, I would question your statements about Toronto in light of a recent article in the G&M that stated the Mayor of Toronto is pressing for money generated by the 1 % reduction in the GST. This is typically the leftist thinking of a parasitic mentality. That 1 % belongs to taxpayers, not the mayor. My point is, pollution should not be swept under the carpet, and politicians should be taken to task for doing so.
  217. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky seems to be going apoplectic. Anyone standing near him should be careful they aren't hit by flying shreds of rock when his head explodes. I am still waiting for your response to my question about Calgary's drinking water. Your definition of hypocracy is correct but incomplete. On what basis do you say I am a hypocrite - as opposed to your own mouth condemning you? Toronto alone generates 10% of Canada's GDP - without the benefit of windfall prices for a natural resorce who's presence is pure luck. And when the price of oil wasn't skewing statistics, it was closer to 25%." Phew.....you'd think that Orest had a hand in history and the geographical location of Toronto (who's location is pure luck). And you seem to know a lot about how the oil and gas industry works, Orest....why don't you come out here and make a bundle if you think it's so easy? But the real howler from Orest is "In fact, some of the tax subsidies Alberta's oil companies get are paid by Toronto taxes, parasites that we are." Now THAT'S funny! Check the numbers you ignoramus. Finally, Orest says "Who is the airhead here?" You have already proven that, Orest.
  218. Long live Canada from Canada writes: "Agricultural researchers with the CGIAR thought the decline in wheat-growing capacity of the plain, which includes the Punjab, was so worrisome they hurriedly made the finding public, although the full study in which it is described, called "Can Wheat Beat the Heat?" is not going to be released until later this year."

    I'm not even going to comment on GW. What's the rush in making this public, since the full report is being released later this year? Perhaps the rest of the study isn't grim enough? I suggest everyone hold on to their comments until we read the whole study. Of course, if it isn't filled with doom we won't hear another word about it.
  219. The Religious Left from Canada writes: Those who predict global warming will benefit agriculture don't understand how agriculture works.

    You don't just throw a few seeds on some land that's the right climate and it grows. Proper soil takes centuries of the right conditions to develop properly, and using that soil requires clearing, infrastructure, roads, transportation networks for the grain, mills, people, expertise etc etc. All this requires time and masses of money.

    You can't simply pick up and move an industry a bit North because the temperature changes. It's far more complex than that. It will be very expensive in Canada and almost impossible in Africa.

    Can the industry adapt? Somewhat, yes. There will be some new areas suitable for farming opened by global warming. But they will need massive development and won't compare to the established farmland that is lost.

    Saying this is a good thing, is like saying Lake Ontario rising to Spadina would be good for Toronto as more people could have lake shore properties.
  220. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: When the banks are happy everyone needs to be suspect. It's a sad affair when I cannot trust our farmers to grow healthy food because of the bottom line, cannot trust banks because of their bottom line and cannot trust politicians because of their concern for covering their bottoms.

    GMO corporations will be the only ones smiling all the way to the end of the world.
  221. Brian C from Canada writes: So, part of the world that grows wheat will become too hot to grow wheat. And presumably, no other part of the world that is currently too cold to grow wheat will warm up enough to grow wheat, because part of global warming is that parts of the world will get colder. So, hot gets hotter, and cold gets colder, and the icebergs and glaciers melting results in more water raising ocean levels, flooding cities and thus less water available for drinking and agriculture. And don't forget the satellites that are still falling from the Y2K end-of-times disaster. They're bound to hit the earth anytime now.

    No wonder people are starting to refer to global warming as a religion. It takes a lot of faith to believe in it.
  222. S Daly from Toronto, Canada writes: Most Conservative Posters Are Hired Hacks from Toronto, Canada writes: "t makes one wonder how extensive the oil lobby's propaganda machine is. I mean get real guys... your comments are so numerous that you are all completely unbelievable. It shows that your opposition to climate change is politically or monetarily motivated."

    Opposition to climate change? Did you really mean to type that? I would hazard a guess that the entire "sky is falling" crowd opposes climate change. I am going to take a leap of faith here, assume you understand what you are talking about and really meant to say that those who do not jump on the bandwagon and believe massive change is needed to save the planet are politically or monetarily motivated.

    If the oil companies have a propaganda machine, I think they have forgotten to prime it. I read more in the MSM regarding Gore, his mockumentary and the Kyoto love-in then rebuttals from "experts" in the field of climate change.

    The opposition is to Kyoto and the fact that it is a useless piece of paper. The mere fact that countries can buy credits from other countries (oddly enough not under Kyoto) to not meet their targets shows just how toothless it is and perhaps shows the true intent of Kyoto.

    Speaking of politically motivated, I would suggest that, judging by your name, your comments are politically motivated. For others, perhaps we do our own research, look at both sides and don't blindly follow what is spoon fed to us. Perhaps for us it is not a question of left/right but is because we can think for ourselves and not a product of hype and hysteria.

    Want to save the environment? It is time for tangible steps (smog, pollution, waterways, forests...) and not some sad scheme that leaves 95% of the causes of the greenhouse effect untouched.
  223. Rob Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: I would expect the denial of reality in a less educated forum - gw is real it is man made. We need sharp reductions in CO2 and we need them now. Perhaps pontificating against reality makes fodder for your intellectual capabilities however it illuminates gross ignorance. Close your eyes, "cover your ears, nana nana nana I can't hear you" . . . The facts are that we need to change our collective will and create a sense of urgency to attempt to correct mankind's destruction. To consume and profit might be what neocons consider capitalism damn the consequences but the invisible hand upon careful reflection using intlligence and enlightenment is moving the pendulum to the "green side".
  224. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Back to the grain thing - Prairie farmland has increased in value by about 20% in the last two years and good for the farmers. The reason is the growing of canola and corn to produce ethanol. Now, can some math whiz on this thread measure the GHG's produced in transporting the seed, seeding the field, spraying the field (sorry to break it to you, but read about Monsanto and its control of the global canola market), harvesting the product, trucking the product to market and then processing the product to ethanol to save GHG's produced by fossil fuels at the end consumer level. Not to mention, the further draining of prairie potholes (if there are any left from the reduction of the late 80's when government payments were based on cultivated acre) which has destroyed the wetland habitat that was the duck factory of North America. The tar sands are now destroying the same habitat that extends all the way to the NWT. The enviro-wackos have decreed ethanol is good so industry has responded. The same process is taking place in Indonesia producing palm oil byproduct for the Netherlands green energy policy. The result is the decimation of tropical forests and the fauna that lives there. What to do - turn off your computer, your tv and go outside every day for one hour. Observe your world, move and think. You will eventually understand a few of the millions, if not billions, of natural interconnections and what you can do about a few. You will also be healthier. It is interesting that we cannot even control our own bodies but the enviro-wackos have decided we can control the climate of a planet hurtling through space in orbit, and rotating at the same time, around a star that is a little tempermental right now.
  225. Don Wells from Calgary, Canada writes: To S Daly---another conspiracy theorist eh!
  226. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: To Larry Robinson re: ethanol as fuel. It's another one of those green hallucinations. Taking land out of production from food to fuel is ridiculous. As well, if one were to do the entire economics on this, you would find that it makes no sense economically, nor does it cut CO2 emissions (in fact, may well increase them). Ethanol production is energy consuming and it is difficult to move through pipelines and so usually is trucked....increasing emissions.
  227. S Daly from Toronto, Canada writes: Don Wells from Calgary, Canada writes: "To S Daly---another conspiracy theorist eh!"

    Nope, not at all.

    I would appreciate it though if you could enlighten me as to why there is a credit buying provision in Kyoto if the doom of the planet is around the corner. We are talking coastal areas flooded, food shortages and in the end, life as we know it is eradicated. Defeats the purpose, no?

    Now if we could only do something about that pesky water vapor that makes up over 90% of the greenhouse effect.....
  228. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: J. Luft - reports from automakers indicate we will have a mix of vehicles using a mix of fuels. The new Mercedes diesels, and other Euro diesels, combined with lower sulfur gas are practical steps forward. Hydrogen is too expensive and technologically demanding at this point. Fossil fuels are with us so its a matter of cleaning up refining and end use. As for the wack-jobs talking about carbon credits - in psychological terms, this is called deflection of responsibility. The problem does not mitigate or go away, you just hand off responsibility for the overall ecosystem damage to somebody else through a system of funny money credits that is bureaucratic heavy and a blatant public tax sinkhole.
    Kind of like my step daughter lecturing me on human caused climate change after her university class drove to the West Coast of Vancouver Island and then spent three days chugging around in a power boat observing how those horrible humans were screwing up the world. Of course, there is a special credit three month course offered this summer at very high rates.
  229. Beaverton Bob from Beaverton, Canada writes: Why hasn't the Globe and Mail taken up a PROUD TO BE A CANADIAN approach to all this stuff. Why haven't they hired an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to make an editorial reply to each of these comments. A pile of Liberal Academic Crap!
  230. Rob Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Larry Robinson is making a strong argument for "intelligent design theory" however human caused GW is irrefutable. There is no debate anymore. Get on with the tough challenges of reversing habitat destruction, CO2 emissions and trying adapt to our world as we found it.
  231. Batholomew Bartlesby from Vancouver, Canada writes: If the growing season does increase in canada you can also be assured that drier summers and spring droughts will also increase. THose living in the Palliser's Triangle should be aware! Who's going to want to buy farmland around Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Tabor when the rivers run dry and the crops don't even sprout?
  232. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't believe I am typing this, but I agree with J Luft regarding Ethanol. I am still not a Luft-Winger, but he is right that Ethanol takes more energy to make and transport than it produces, and it takes food producing productive land out of the market. Yes it burns marginally cleaner, but you have to burn a lot of dirty diesel and use lots of GHG producing fertizlier to make it. I have seen little to suggest that Ethanol programs to date are nothing more than a rural cash crop subsidy program.
  233. R L from Canada writes:
    The GW debate is so reminiscent of the anti-smoking paranoia of the past several decades. The conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do thought cigarettes were going to be the bane of health care and that lighting up was actually bad for you, COMPLETELY ignoring the proven evidence that deleterious health effects are cyclical, always have been, and always will be. LOL, I've been informed that there remain to this day nutjobs out there who steadfastly believe that the tobacco industry is all about profit, as opposed to their noble mission to lift up mankind through better jobs and more efficient production techniques. Seriously, lefties, give yourself a shake.
  234. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bartholomew - Palliser's Triangle was originally survey as being uninhabitable semi-desert, however during the immigration boom of the early 20th century when Europeans were sponsored to come to Canada to farm cheap land the area became settled by new Canadians who were inexperienced in farming, especially in that environment. They were marginal grain farmers at best and the drought of the 1930's wiped them out, returning the land to grazing land. The government agricultural programs of the 1970's to 1980's were mostly based upon per cultivated acre payments. Therefore the cycle began again with people cultivating this area. I know of relatives who planted crops in the southwest corner and prayed for crop failure with the government assistance while they ran viable operations to the north and east. The reality is that this area always was the home of pronghorn, mule deer and cattle grazing vast tracts of land. There is some irrigation but again we are talking human intervention in a vast semi-desert. The greater concern is the huge areas of viable land being used to produce alternative fuels and the damaging inputs required to get maximum output and marginal improvement of GHG. Fertilize, spray, harvest and do it again next year.
    The premise of this article forgets that the Canadian grain industry started from plants from around the world that were crossbred and selected to grow in the various Canadian environments and soils. We were so successful at plant breeding that we developed grains for previously destitute nations in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe that could not feed themselves. We helped grain importers become self-sufficient and then become net exporters to our own detriment. I am not worried about plant breeding not keeping up with climate change. The short plant life span and current genetic technology allows for adaptive and selective mechanisms in a much shorter time than the eons required for human mutation, adaptation and selection.
  235. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: The experts have been looking at computer models for a long time. None have been accurate. They were completely off during last year's hurricane forecast.

    The big reason they are inaccurate is they omit solar output. They claim since they have no control over it, they don't need it in their forecast. This is completely wrong because it is the largest variable if you consider it's where the heat comes from.

    So they may as well be playing video games.

    This is not science, these rainmakers just want their funding programs to be extended.
  236. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: And ... the production of plants for alternative fuel purposes does not require organic agrarian techniques. The soil becomes simply a medium that receives chemical inputs to produce growth. When a population begins linking health outcomes to the purity of food production, we have fundamental change in our impact upon the environment. This is happening in China, now. The massive pollution, deterioration of food quality and growing disposable income are causing people to seek out organic foods. Argentina follows organic agricultural practices and Europeans are buying up their farms (remember Chernobyl and its long lasting affect on food production?) and exporting the produce. Food is indeed the key to contemporary environmental awareness and responsible practices that signal positive behaviour modification whereas Kyoto completely encourages deflection of responsibility, subsidize poor practices and tax high output. But then the whole carbon credit thing is just another huge industry surrounded in propaganda and preying upon the uninformed.
  237. Peckerhead Pete from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    The government is not going to allow the economy to tank, just to lower greenhouse gasses. So, if nothing is going to change, why doesn't Canada lead the world in finding ways to thrive on a warmer planet?

    Everybody think of three ways to be "Happy in the Heat", and meet back here tomorrow......OK?
  238. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky, please permit me to comment on your previous posts. ... Also, I would question your statements about Toronto in light of a recent article in the G&M that stated the Mayor of Toronto is pressing for money generated by the 1 % reduction in the GST....." Well, the published results from the Smithville samples went through at least 3 levels of filtration before I saw them in the press. The first level was the consultant engineering firm that sub-contracted the analysis to the lab I worked for. The next 2 levels wre the Provincial government, that was "monitoring" the site. As for Toronto and economics, it is a cold, hard fact that at least 10 Billion more in taxes leaves TO than returns in Provincial and Federal input. Miller is actually pressing both higher levels of government to return 1 cent of the PST & GST collected here to Toronto to "balance" the difference. Not unreasonable, and hardly "socialist", given that a chunk of the taxes collected actually does pay for the tax subsidies the oil companies get federally, and that Toronto has to pay extra costs due to the Harris downloads - and a chunk of our eduycational taces are sent to other towns, while we end up with a deficit.
  239. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes - and etc" james, since you are in Ontario, you should be very familiar wit hwhat wentr on here during the last 20 years, especially the HArris / Eaves fiasco. You should also be fully aware of the actual issues in not only Toronto, but the GTA / Golden Horseshoe. Anything that really FUBARS us, FUBARS you as well. Now, it may very well be that you live far away from TO and the problems and issues we have to deal with are irrelevant to you. You should still keep the following in mind: our neighbours in Pickering / Ajax / Oshawa have admitted to foisting their marginqal and mentally defective citizens on Toronto. There were the Harris / Eaves / Flaherty downlaods of provincial duties onto municipalities. Somehow TO got the brunt. TO alone generates a minimum of 10% of the GDP of the country, but we sure don't see the equivalent return. So where does the cash from To end up?
  240. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky--sorry to say, I have only lived in Ontario for the past four years, and am not familiar with Harris or Eaves, since before that, we lived in Australia for the previous 12 years. My issue is with the rather socialistic policies of the Toronto Mayor. Why does he want to confiscate taxpayers' money for his own ends. Is there any accountability as to where the city money goes? I have no idea where the Toronto taxes end up--that is the responsibility of elected council. And yes, Balmertown is VERY far away from Toronto--close to the Manitoba border, which may explain my relative ignorance of city politics.
  241. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky--sorry to say, I have only lived in Ontario for the past four years, and am not familiar with Harris or Eaves, since before that, we lived in Australia for the previous 12 years. My issue is with the rather socialistic policies of the Toronto Mayor. Why does he want to confiscate taxpayers' money for his own ends. Is there any accountability as to where the city money goes? I have no idea where the Toronto taxes end up--that is the responsibility of elected council. And yes, Balmertown is VERY far away from Toronto--close to the Manitoba border, which may explain my relative ignorance of city politics." Well James, all I can tell you is the following: before you make any comments, you should learn the history. Until you know what you are discussing, all you succede in doing is presenting yourself as a fool. Do some digging before you shoot your mouth off. It is a cold, hard fact that there is a difference of about 10 billion in the taxes extracted from Toronto, at all levels, vs what comes back to Toronto - om bothj the provincial and federal levels. And this before we get into a discussion of Provincial responsibilities downloaded onto Toronto ( and other municipalities) by Harris to pay for the tax cuts at the provincial level that were eaten up, and then some, by increased municipal taxes and new service fees.
  242. Stew Griffin from Alberta, Canada writes: J Luft - Although I don't cling to the right ledge by my fingernails like you, I do support your arguments against ethanol as a viable fuel alternative.

    The Romans figured out what happens when you use a food based energy supply for things other than feeding the population. Unlike our machines, their (Ox) didn't even waste 70 % of the energy to heat.
  243. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky--I don't need to know details to criticize socialistic principles and actions. You state that Toronto paid out 10 billion in taxes more than what was returned. Are you talking about transfer payments? If what you say is true (you don't give any evidence or reference for your "statement of fact"), then that is a scandal. Torontonians should pay taxes into city coffers, and that money should go to projects in Toronto. If it doesn't, then something is wrong, pure and simple. And what do you mean "extracted from Toronto at all levels"? How many levels of city taxes are there? As far as provincial responsibilities "downloaded" onto Toronto is concerned, this is going on in every province, since there is no clear cut definitions on Federal, municipal or city financial responsibilities. This is just one of the bureaucratic messes so prevalent in this country!
  244. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky--I don't need to know details to criticize socialistic principles and actions..... etc" Well Jim, you say you don't know the details. More importantly, you say you don't care about the details. And you keep using the term socialist. Sadly, the details are important. But then, the right wing doesn't worry very much about trivia like dertails, accuracy or truth. To clarify the tax issue, there are only 3 levels of government here - municipal, provincial and federal. Municipal governments can raise funds only by using asssorted local levies like property and assorted business taxes. These provide a limited income. Provincial and federal levels collect income tax along with things like caqpital gains and other, broader taxes. The taxes collected by the provincial and federal governments in Toronto (never mind the GTA) seriously exceed the funds that both levels of government put back into Toronto. As for the download well that's fine as long as the funds to do the job are there, or the municipality is given the means to raise the funds. This was and is not case here. So, yeah there is a scandal. Your contention that the financial responsibilities of the various levels of government are poorly defined, especially wrt municipalities is utter nonsense. Jim, we have things to deal with here in Toronto that you in Balmertown don't. And you would be amazed how many of those are a direct result of assorted Federal and Provincial programmes and policies. Which the governments are unwilling to fund properly. Details, details details, eh Jim. Say, how about if I asked you to do some work for me, expected you to cover operating costs, then refused to pay you for the work? And then called you a socialist when you wanted the money to cover your operating costs, never mind your time? Go over well would it?
  245. Jimmy O from Toronto, Canada writes: The flippancy and arrogance of most of you is astounding. In a free market economy you have to pay for the costs of production. Now we know the economy is subsidiary to the atmosphere and we can no longer use it for a dump. It's simple - carbon taxes up, income taxes down. I don't want to subsidize you people who consume lots of energy any more and I won't have to soon - SO THERE!
  246. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: To say that global warming, is mostly going to affect those that have not caused it, is an irresponsible statement. The biggest cause of GHG is a burgeoning population, which is mostly in the emerging nations. True, a person from the developed world leaves a bigger GHG imprint, than a person from the emerging nations, but the point is, that the population of the emerging nations is far larger and growing far faster than developed world. The planet cannot sustain this rate of population growth. To ignore these facts is ignorance at its peak.
  247. Lawrence Davis from Denver, United States writes: Great blog with lots of useful information and excellent commentary! Thanks for sharing.

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

Comments are closed

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

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

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

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

Back to top