Skip navigation

Greenhouse-gas reductions likely overestimated, panel says

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

But report supports government's stand that emissions will begin to go down in 2010 ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Midtown Bob from Toronto, Canada writes: In Ontario, we call the Liberals! hahahaha

    Bit seriously. Doesn't matter your political stripe, politicians are all the same.
  2. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: If this article is true, we truly do live in strange times. This is so bizarre that it defies comment.
  3. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: When will these people accept that Canada will never, is unable to ever, meet the targets set out by a previous Prime Minister - to impress the rest of the world with superficial impossible farcical numbers - which were then written into a so-called agreement called the Kyoto Accord.

    So, the next step is just to try and reduce emissions in a meaningful way, that will NOT bankrupt the Country. I'm not saying that Harper's way is the best, BUT some of it has to work because companies are now starting to reduce emissions and becoming more efficient anyway.
  4. Midtown Bob from Toronto, Canada writes: I wish the G M would have a spellchecker. Here's the corrected version of my last post.

    In Ontario, we call them Liberals! hahahaha

    But seriously. Doesn't matter your political stripe, politicians are all the same.
  5. Lalo Lad from Toronto, Canada writes: The Liberals didn't do anything about Kyoto, the Conservatives have done nothing about Kyoto. I, for one, don't care about Kyoto anymore but something has to be done to reduce emissions and its effect on climate change.
  6. Jim Terrets from Vancouver, writes: No kidding, if you've paying attention to the antics of the Bush administration you'll know what Harper's going to do next. Whatever Bush does, Harper is sure to follow. From 'cut and run' to Kyoto, Harper copies his hero. Just pray to God that we don't have a Katrina-like disaster in Canada because we'll be treated to images of Canadians starving and dying of thirst in horrific conditions while Harper is too busy on his vacation to bother doing anything about it.
  7. chris jenkins from Free the West, Canada writes: This is news? Everybody knows the Kyoto targets are unrealistic.
  8. Gordon Scott from Lotus Land, Canada writes: 0 out of 9!

    Harper hasn't even started the job!

    It's all a greenwash, meanwhile Alberta's oil tar sands, Canada's biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions as well as a number of other types of pollution, is being encouraged to expand it's output as quickly as possible.
  9. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Oooo the 'watchdog' is sooo right! What Harper SHOULD be doing is investing his political capital to tell Canadians is why they should be in favour of $5 a litre gasoline and heating their homes to 12C this winter. hey but at least it won't cost quite so much now in yuan and rubles to but all those emissions credits....
  10. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: The Kyoto accord is a dead issue and everyone knows that its targets are unrealistic. Environment Canada is more a leftist academic think tank than a practical, objective organization dedicated to practical solutions to real problems. We would expect nothing less from 'Environment Canada'.
  11. Larfing Outloud from American Samoa writes: Jim Terrets makes me laugh.

    Do MORE Jim Terrets!!!!!!!
  12. Sean P from Canada writes: Should we be surprised?

    I mean look at Baird and Harper, really look at them!

    does anyone really think that they are interested in solving climate change?

    it's up to the provinces now. B.C. and Manitoba have taken aggressive steps to tackle climate change and I hope the other provinces will too.

    I'm not expecting much frlom Alberta though.....
  13. globefan EH from Canada writes: Robert West you may feel that Canada will never, is unable to ever, meet the targets set out by a previous Prime Minister - to impress the rest of the world with superficial impossible farcical numbers - which were then written into a so-called agreement called the Kyoto Accord

    However when Canadian professional environment employees speak out and jeopardise their jobs to say the politicians are overriding the scientific community findings then we should worry. Politicians should do what they do best, gab, they should leave the science to people that got the appropriate degrees in the field of science.

    Stockwell Day thinks the world is afew thousand years old and worked as an auctioneer and Harper is an evangelical. fundamentalist. They do not speak for me when it comes to the science of environmental issues.
  14. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: chris jenkins:-- This is news because it ISN'T about Kyoto. This is about the CPC's non-Kyoto approach to dealing with CC/GW. The panel, basically, says that the CPC's plan uses fuzzy math to make claims that it can't make. Remember - this government wanted a non-Kyoto, Made-in-Canada plan and it's THAT plan and the claims that make it up that the panel is evaluating. And, apparently, giving poor grades to.
  15. Tom McMallow from Somewhere Beautiful, Canada writes:

    canadians won't meet kyoto targets because we don't want to. not really, we don't. oh yes - we want to SAY we want to. we want to make it LOOK like we do, by decrying how little harper is doing. but we surely don't any one of us want to make the personal sacrifices necessary to do it. oh no. don't raise the price of gas, not even a nickel - joe clark found that out in 1979 or so. no, we want to look good but not pay for anything to make it happen.

    and so we elect the government that we deserve - that reflects our true desires. such is democracy.
  16. dean spence from bright old city, ontario, Canada writes: Perhaps it would have been useful and informative to indicate this panel is chaired by glen murray, a liberal.
  17. Larfing Outloud from American Samoa writes: globefan EH from Canada writes: 'They do not speak for me when it comes to the science of environmental issues.'

    Absolutely right globfanm, you tell 'em, SpongeBob Squarepants speaks for you!
  18. Proud Canadian from United States writes: So some Liberal hacks with jobs for life are against the conservatives, what else is new??

    Hey Dion, why don't you tell us how you want to send BILLIONS out of Canada to Russia and China with no impact on Global Warming.

    Bye Bye Lie beral party of Canada.
  19. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jim Terrets - yeah - I hear that even our dollar wanted to be 'just like Bush'; that's why it went to parity. It cute to see the appeal of such simple logic to some people. Of course reality is far more scary and complex; including the fact that 98% of Canadians (not Americans..there it would be 101%) would oppose even half the measures required to comply with Kyoto at this point. It's a dead issue and will continue to be when Bush leaves office.
  20. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Dion should be in charge here, he is the only man with a vision, a passion, and a plan that beaurocrats would love. Harper's plan is just to simple, and does not involve a whole industry of judges and evaluators.

    Harper fails here miserably.
  21. Gordon Scott from Lotus Land, Canada writes:
    Harper has an ‘Aspirational’ goal!

    It involves misleading the public, all the while rewarding their buddies in the Big Oil and Big Coal and hoping Canadians don’t catch on until well after the next election.

    Harper and his ‘aspiration’ need to be booted by Canadian voters, anybody but Harper please.
  22. b mac from Canada writes: Any solution. acceptable to most Canadians, cannot include a carbon tax. We are taxed to death already. The Harper government has the best plan regardless of what the academic world might think. In the meantime, technology & not politicians, will provide the solution.
  23. Rachel M. from Kyoto Blues, Canada writes: Kyoto is DOA. The by-election resulted in much less support for Dion and the Greens. A more moderate made in Canada plan may be achievable without major impact to our economy.
  24. Larfing Outloud from American Samoa writes: Rachel M. from Kyoto Blues: Damn, I always loved the Blues.

    Keep singing sister.
  25. Might makes right? from Toronto, Canada writes: 'panel accuses government of misleading methods, false conclusions...'. In other words, Harper's government is looking more and more like the GWBush administration.

    Hey, it don't matter as long as they make themselves look like leaders with resolve. That seems to be their #1 priority. Climate, schlimate!
  26. Paulo Garrido from Barrie, Canada writes: b mac from Canada writes: 'The Harper government has the best plan regardless of what the academic world might think'

    Ya... what do those learned people know anyways...

    Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: 'Harper's plan is just to simple, and does not involve a whole industry of judges and evaluators'

    Simplicity for Simpletons... Motive Operandi of a Conservative.
  27. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Gordon Scott- newsflash: the public isn't being mislead, and aren't nearly as stupid as the left seems to believe; in truth, they want tthe government to do something about GW but they get that much of our booming economy and one to one dollar right now has to do with fossil fuels and resources. They get that this is a serious issue but one that has to be addressed over the longer term, and give the economy time to adjust to the changes; they are not willing to sacrifice short term prosperity to look good for the UN types. Of course few will actually say this publicly, which is why Harper's strategy of necessary subterfuge on this file involves a lot of nodding and winking on both sides.
  28. Dennis Petruk from Canada writes: Still some Liberal hacks in the government, specifically Environment Canada. Glen Murray, a Liberal, chairs this farce.
    I truly hope some of these appointed hacks get fired. Assumptions are not fact, and the G&M shouldn't be spinning an opinion, without backing it up with facts. This shoddy journalism is disguised as fact.
    Pathetic.
    Dion is vapor.
  29. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: The libz got us in this stupid mess, promoting flaky 'science' and propaganda to generate the public demand for their stupid plan to reduce energy demand by 40%. It will take some time until eveyone gets themselves unculted. We're on our way. Steady. Hold the course.
  30. Another Point of View from calgary, Canada writes: I agree with Sean P. This issue is going to have to be resolved at the provincial level as the federal government is becoming increasingly handcuffed in Canada. And Sean, believe it or not even in dear old Alberta the issue is on the burner.

    Anybody know what kind of progress is being made in the US, Russia, China and India? Without an effort by these four its an uphill battle all the way.
  31. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: 'The report also concludes that the Conservative plan would not help Canada meet its targets under the Kyoto accord.' The panel does not seem to realize that Kyoto is a dead issue, yet here is the real reason for the criticism of the Conservative government's climate change plan. Terms like 'systematic' exaggeration, 'not accurately reflecting' and 'important inconsistency' can also be applied to the Kyoto accord. The Conservative government's climate change plan is the first practical step in tackling the problem. The Opposition does not care about the environment or about reducing emissions; they are only interested in discrediting the Conservative governments, with the help of leftist bureaucrats and pseudo intellectuals. If they really did care, they would be part of the solutions, instead of part of the problems.
  32. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: dean spence 'Perhaps it would have been useful and informative to indicate this panel is chaired by glen murray, a liberal. '

    Not just a liberal but an uber liberal and failed candidate who made a fortune off the libzbollah. He's o scientist - or politician, really. Just a party hack.
    Sad.
  33. Robert Marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: Wow looks like we have 2 options when it comes to taking action on climate change.

    Prime Minister Harper's Plan: Do little if anything and submit poorly prepared plans. Make noises as though your planning on doing something and just hope that the opposition parties make up unrealistic environmental plans of their own so you can just make fun of their plan and have an excuse to use your own poorly created plan.

    Liberal / NDP Plan: Do Kyoto , Do Kyoto , Do Kyoto regardless of whether it was a truly realistic option in the first place.

    I only wish I could go in their and kick all of these parties behinds so that they actually start working together and get some realistic action going.

    Oh wait sorry forgot that I'm talking about politicians after all who seem to be less and less willing everyday in Ottawa to actually work together for a change. About the only thing they can seem to agree on these days is salary increases :)
  34. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Simplicity for Simpletons... Motive Operandi of a Conservative' - does that include the desire to actually get elected? Please, use your erudition, to explain how any politician favouring Kyoto, and the necessary draconian energy taxes and general upending of the economy over the next 2-4 years, would actualy get elected. This line of reasoning that the public should step aside and let the academics/experts take over has a sinsiter, anti-democratic undertone to it. Does 'being right' obviate the need to consult the people? Wasn't the 20th century about getting away from that sort view?
  35. Robert Marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: I failed to mention yet another option that we have for climate change.

    Screw getting the government to get it done instead start doing it ourselves and demanding it from company's we buy from.

    But that is a dream for dreamers those days I guess :)
  36. M. Thought from Calgary, Canada writes: Yeah - the Con party at work! And to think, after watching the Republican party in the US and our Republican (Conservative) party in Canada that there is any difference boggles the mind.
  37. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: Quebec is going green, their power comes from Newfoundland!!
    Sask. is the same, their power is from Minnesota!!
    Calgary the same, our trains run entirely on wind power - or so we are told, therefore, when the wind doesn't blow, the trains don't run!!!!!

    Seriously,
    Suncor - in those precious Oilsands area (where it is called Little newfoundland) - have been ordered to reduce emmissions, so progress is being made!!
  38. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: Harpercrite keeps on thinking that smoke and mirrors will get him a majority government............I say it will never happen with liars like that in charge
  39. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Those posters who truly wish to inform themselves might like to look at the Roundtable's website. If they go there, they will note that the membership of the panel includes members of industry (gasp!), even utilities (gasp!) - not all failed Liberals, as some posters would have you believe. Check it out and be informed - this is the link to the list of members, but backtracking will provide the larger picture: http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/overview/members/members-list-eng.html.
  40. Sam M from Montreal, Canada writes: Yes! The conservative hack globe tells it like it is. i bet harper burns wood for nothing. Us liberals need to stick with kyoto.Its a great plan-ya bunch of conny hacks! join the ibs.join with us we include everyone. we aint the COns! wetake everything.
  41. The Real PS from Toronto, Canada writes: How come NO ONE has mentioned the bit that says: They noted that the 38-page report also concludes that the government plan will, over time, result in significant emissions reductions. Hmmmm, it's true the libs can suck and blow at the same time.
  42. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Peter Walker:-- You might be interested to know that the young gentleman whose idea it was to link green (wind) power to the C-Train (for non Calgarians, this is Calgary's light-rail transit system), thus creating the 'Ride the Wind' campaign, was a Liberal candidate in my riding two elections ago. He lost to the regrettable Rob Anders, who (as you no doubt know) has the protection of Mr. Harper.
  43. Durward Saar from Canada writes: Sounds to me like Harper's failure to buy into fantasy has ticked off the leftards in Ottawa again roflmao.
  44. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy has justifiable criticisms of the government's climate change plan, to be sure. But, as I stated previously, it represents the first practical steps to be taken. I am sure, without reading it, that the report is biased in some of its statements and assertions. The membership of the Roundtable is not as important as what it is saying, and some of the members should know better than to push Kyoto--a dead issue.
  45. dave mackay from Canada writes: The only misleading methods , false conclusions are the reporting style of the Canadian Press reporter , Alexander Panetta. Watch for this name in future stories and you will see the same hardline stance on any Harper issue with always a softer touch on any left viewpoint. I believe this is a personal thing with this reporter.
  46. garry heaps from he likes wearing makeup... no really, Canada writes: love the picture of steve and john. is this from their high school prom? the other kids are going to talk. worst pm ever. brian you are firmly in control of number 2.. until steve leaves the country, then you've got first place again.
  47. Gordon Scott from Lotus Land, Canada writes: Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: “the public isn't being mislead” “Harper's strategy of necessary subterfuge on this file involves a lot of nodding and winking on both sides.”
    This report accuses Harper’s government of “systematic” exaggeration, “double-accounting,” “not accurately reflecting” emissions reductions, “important inconsistency,” and “overestimated” reductions.
    The Harper government is not treating this issues with anywhere near the seriousness that is required.
    Canada is one of the less energy in-efficient countries in the developed world. The Harper government is not directing Canada into becoming a more energy efficient country instead it is continuing to promote our continued dependence on fossil fuels.
  48. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: dianemarie, I am quite aware of the Rob Anders fiasco, and that the Courts have ruled 'no authority to intervene', BUT of course, that whole thing is just an advertising ploy, because the wind energy produced just goes to the grid obviously, BUT there was an outcry at the time, no wind, no trains!!
  49. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: diane marie 'You might be interested to know that the young gentleman whose idea it was to link green (wind) power to the C-Train ...'

    Which is entirely ... marketing. They don't shut the trains off when the wind doesn't blow, and they don't exactly send THOSE electrons to THOSE overhead wires. It doesn't actually help us put up consistent reliable 24/7 power that modern societies need to get where they are going and to get actual work done. It's an expensive occasional substitute to make a few extremists feel better. Not am actual contribution, unfortunately.
  50. Annie Turner from by the Avon, Canada writes: They can argue black is white, blue is green, red is orange...it does not matter, the Con's are really fired up tonight over this 'no climate change'. They cannot do anything, but go back in time even though it is now, and Harper is running the show NOW and making a mess of it.
  51. P. SA. from Canada writes: Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes,

    ah .. i see.. its OK to lie because people want to be lied to ....
    got a bridge for sale..

    seriously people!... 2024, i will run for PM.. as an honest politician.. I expect everyone on this board that claims to have a sense of decency and kindness for mankind would be out there voting for me :D

    cheers,
  52. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: Kyoto is unrealistic because Harper has spent the last year and a half telling us it's unrealistic and not doing anything about it.

    Anyone that thinks Harper has any interest in the environment at all is beyond help.
  53. spicydoc reinvigorated from Canada writes:

    I agree that the provinces need to do the job of reducing emissions.

    Ontario is the biggest polluter, and will dramatically reduce emissions in the next 4 years. Here's how---

    The loonie's rise, driven mainly by commodities produced outside of Ontario, will devastate Ontario's manufacturing sector.

    Less production means less GHG. Also, as people lose jobs, they consume less--less GHG.

    In two weeks, the genii (how's that for a plural, diane?) in Toronto will elect Dalton again. This will further ruin Ontario's economy (and reduce emissions even further....excellent).

    The impending implosion of Ontario will be bad for the people that live there, but will be manna for people whining about GHG levels.

    Ontario alone will account for most of the GHG reduction promised by Baird.

    Way to go Ontaio!! Show us the way!
  54. siren call from Canada writes: Rachel M. from Kyoto Blues, Agreed, Kyoto is dead.

    However, this IS Harper's 'more moderate, made in Canada plan' that is so underachieving.

    The Real PS from Toronto, the claim of emission reduction over time is made by the 'Tories' themselves. You're right, it doesn't jibe with the rest of the report.

    Excluding the real possibility that the 'Tories' are simply lying maybe the watchdog means emissions will be reduced if the actual plan is followed, i.e. if Canada's new government weren't exaggerating the potential impact of the plan and 'using misleading methods to arrive at false conclusions, such as double-accounting.'
  55. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Well nobody every accused the CPC of being honest. It's remarkable that they can spin this as something positive, reinforcing the perception of dishonesty. While Kyoto is not achievable, the current climate program that the CPC dishonestly promotes as bold and effective, is a complete fraud. This creates an opportunity for Dion, Layton, and May to come up with credible, aggressive but achievable plans for GHG reductions. 2005, the first year of Dion's tenure, showed the first decrease in total GHG reductions in Canada since GHG emissions have been tracked. There was no associated collapse of the Canadian economy in 2005. A credible GHG plan can have benefits to this country in terms of developing technologies that are marketable worldwide and increasing the efficiency of production, reducing the cost of good produced in this country. Let's see some strong but credible leadership where this government has failed. It is vulnerable and this file and should be taken to task for its dishonesty.
  56. M. Thought from Calgary, Canada writes: Harper government at work!! http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/24/GreenMirage/
  57. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: yawn
  58. Save our Planet from Toronto, Canada writes: There's only one politician in Canada that has the gumption to put Canada on the right track - the green track. Dion is an accomplished environmentalist who has the guts to say no to big oil and put the environment first.
  59. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Germany can build 'Passive Houses' that consume 80% less energy than a typical German house. And they cost about the same as a typical German house as well. If you don't believe me, just google 'passive house' and read the Wikipedia article. These houses stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter, and they need almost no extra heating or cooling. The waste energy from appliances is often enough to keep them warm.

    Carbon fibre has the potential to allow cars to get mileage in the range of 100-150mpg or more. Carbon fibre is stronger than steel, and yet a fraction of its mass. Carbon fibre cars would be far lighter, and would thus need smaller engines to achieve excellent performance. They build jet fighters out of carbon fibre. And the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. And Formula 1 racing cars. All we have to do is to figure out a way to efficiently manufacture carbon fibre automotive components. And I have seen strong hints that such a thing is possible.

    Why can we not start building more such houses? Why can we not change the way we build cars? It seems to me that we are stuck in a rut. We can't seem to make the jump to the next generation of technology, because there is little short term economic incentive to do so. If we do not create an economic incentive to adopt efficient technologies, then we will not make the changes fast enough to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. We must create economic incentives that encourage efficiency.
  60. Douglas MacDONALD from Canada writes: Its time that the parties to the left namley the Liberals and NDP merged to put up a proper opposition to this incompetent conservatives and get rid of them in the next election before they do more damage to this great country of ours.
  61. D M from Toronto, Canada writes: We all pollute - and as a result, we all effect our environment. We need to clean up our act, and impact the environment less. This is as much true for individuals as it is for corporations and governments.

    We need to come up with realistic goals with creative approaches. We need to make sure that we are not making hasty decisions that do not solve the problems. For example burning ethanol may cause less pollution, but manufacturing causes more - is ethanol an answer?

    Biodiesel sounds good but releases 1.5 times CO2 as regular diesel.

    Solar panels sound good, but the manufacturing process produces nasty chemical waste.

    Alternatives might involve focusing more on wind turbines and hydrogen as a fuel. The by products of hydrogen is water. The manufacture of wind turbines is less polluting than other alternative energy sources.

    The key here is to make decisions that don't end up doing just as much damage as the problem in the first place.

    That's one of the key problems of Kyoto. It was designed to look good but it really wasn't going to solve the problem. At the same time it was going to devistate our economy. How many people do you really think would be worried about CO2 emmissions when they can't afford to heat their homes in the winter. When the choice is about global warming down the road or freezing to death tonight they will do what solves the immediate problem.

    It's better to solve the global warming issues with a plan that will work - rather than pursue Kyoto because it is politically correct.

    Kyoto will not reduce carbon emissions. Carbon offsets do not work. China and other similar countries will be more than happy to collect (the higher valued) Canadian dollars while they produce nice dollar store items for us in factories that they have absolutely nothing to.

    Want to solve Global Warming? Start with a reasonable plan. Maybe Harper's isn't the best-but it is better than Kyoto.
  62. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Baird is a fool and a bully. Can't believe Harper would let this guy in cabinet with so many others to choose from.
  63. A PM from Canada writes: Harper and his band of LIARS!!!! We have a guy leading this country who wrote the Alberta Firewall letter, didn't believe in climate change, gave the americans $1.5 billion of our softwood lumber revenues. Those righties sure are fools.
  64. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: ' Dion is an accomplished environmentalist '

    Close.

    'Dion is an unaccomplished environmentalist ' is more accurate.
  65. James C. from shenzhen, guangdong, China writes: why do canadians always feel the need to have everything put into place by government? with respect to reducing GHG and pollutions - cant individual companies that pollute do something on their own for a change? cant individual canadians take a bicycle to work one day a week during the warm seasons? is anyone in canada capable of taking the initiative?

    looks like they're not......
  66. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto (Of course) Canada writes: .

    Carbon fibre has the potential to allow cars to get mileage in the range of 100-150mpg or more.

    No. The main source of energy consumption in regular family cars, for most of their hours of use is air resistance at travel spee, not variable mass. Spending millions of dollars to shed a few pounds makes sense for passenger airplanes and F1 but not family cars. You need to study science and economics and you will be able to answer your questions before you embarass yourself. Good luck.
  67. alex just a canadian from montreal, Canada writes: Fact CPC is in power, I don't care what the libs did or didn't do, I don't care what the NDP or the new lib plan is. THE CPC IS GOVERNING what are they doing (enough crying about being a new government, if you can't handle the responsibilities then close shop and leave government this is not a place for you)

    As for kyoto don't tell me we can't even try to meet some of the targets even if we start tomorrow, its a start. Canadians on this site are telling me and others that Canada a modern country with countless resources and technology can't even try and attain the goals, while 'OLD EUROPE' some countries not even comparable to us can reach their goals and profit from it.

    If that is the line i read here then we are not only an embarssment to ourselves, but the human race as a whole. In the end those industries will end up selling their technology to us because we were to lazy and afraid to try. Bottom line $$$$ goes to them and not the other way around.
  68. James C. from shenzhen, guangdong, China writes: provinces can implement reduction of GHG as well. federally, the liberals did nothing for years with kyoto, and yet they still trumpet this plan as the best thing out there. the conservatives have a less amibtious but probably mroe realistic plan, and still some of you arent happy. clearly the people who are liberals (and watched their party do nothing on the environment for years) dont like PM harpers plan because they just dont like PM harper.

    what does it take to get any action out of canadians?
  69. Paulo Garrido from Barrie, Canada writes: Wir,
    No, 'being right' does not obviate the need to consult the people? But I don't think I am going out on a limb to say that the 'people' expect, at the very least, some semblance of meritocracy in the highest offices of the land!
    I dare not burden you with any 'erudition', after all, I wouldn't want to give the appearance of being scholarly, applying knowledge acquired from research... I would be lynched by this conservative mob attacking all things academia.
  70. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Voltaire's Distant Counsin:-- Excellent post and suggestion.-----Peter Walker (and, of course, spicydoc):-- No one with a measurable IQ would believe that the electricity powering the Calgary C-train comes directly from some wind generators in the Pincher Creek area. Of course, those wind-generated electrons enter the grid, and most people understand that wind power (alone) can't provide all of the energy needed for such a mode of transportation or for what is, in general, required. But, the contract signed between the City and the energy provider facilitated the increasing production of wind power, which most would agree is a good thing. The smart idea to link the two was that of the (failed) Liberal candidate. Many times, it is everyday people and industry who lead the way, while leaders engage in the production of political wind (smoke and mirrors).
  71. Radcliffe Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: The environment, the envoronment, the environment...The news report said today that 900,000 Canadians rely on the food bank...But there is no committee or agenda for this.

    Which is more a pressing need? Environment or the people who can't afford to feed themselves. I know a part of the reason. These people are mainly: natives, minorities and women so the level of the ice sheet is more important...
  72. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: diare marie, you seem to know a lot about wind power.
  73. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Apparently, when Baird claims something is going to 'deliver the goods' he means it is going to fail every conceivable benchmark.

    Just when you think you understand an idiom...
  74. Not the Alliance from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada writes: The article states: 'An Environment Canada panel gave a passing grade to zero of nine programs in the Conservative climate-change plan and accused the government of exaggerating its potential impact.

    The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy also accused the government of using misleading methods to arrive at false conclusions, such as double-accounting'

    Is there anybody out there who is surprised that the Harper 'conservatives' would attempt to mislead? Even his core supporters have to rely upon outright lies and fake posts under hijacked names. It's all business as usual for them.

    Of course it's not the 'Harper Administration's' fault. They never lie, but when they do lie, it's for your own good. It's the media's, liberals, Dion, NDP, BLOC, Rona, Globe & Mail, lefty Roundtable's, lazy good for nothing environment's fault. Have I forgotten anybody?
  75. Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Baird and Harper are running a dishonest, slipshod, seat-of-your-pants Environment portfolio they cobbled together to make them look like they're doing something to GET VOTES. I'm glad to see their empty gum-flapping has failed.
    Now, let's throw the CPC and their dangerous minority out of office as soon as possible so that we can someone who's going to take meaningful action on the problems facing our environment, including global warming!
    Hopefull May and Dion are listening and acting.
  76. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Joel Canada from calgary, do you know diane marie from calgary? You two are one and the same. What a dishonest joke.
  77. siren call from Canada writes: Elsewhere on the environment file: Last Updated: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 | 11:53 PM ET CBC News Serious budget problems at Environment Canada are threatening wildlife programs and services within the federal department, freezing allotted money for some and reducing funds to nothing for others, CBC News has learned. Of most concern to conservationists among a handful of cuts is that the Canadian Wildlife Service has had its service budget frozen for the rest of the fiscal year, meaning all its scientific field and survey work has been halted. The national wildlife agency is directly responsible for studying and protecting wildlife in Canada and puts out the Hinterland Who's Who public service ads. Wildlife and bird habitats protected as National Wildlife Areas have seen funding cut to zero. 'Wildlife doesn't have a voice, and sometimes the results of cuts today aren't realized for many years,' said Sandy Baumgartner, executive director of programs and communications for the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Sources say the budget cuts are as follows: The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network, which observes changes in ecosystems, has lost 80 per cent of its budget. The Migratory Bird Program, which monitors the health of bird populations, has seen its budget cut by 50 per cent. The budget for the National Wildlife Areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds, has been slashed from $1.9 million to zero. Bob Bailey, a hunter and conservationist, was shocked to hear the federal government's support for Canada's 144 National Wildlife Areas has been reduced to nothing.
  78. siren call from Canada writes: In other environment related news: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 Serious budget problems at Environment Canada are threatening wildlife programs and services within the federal department, freezing allotted money for some and reducing funds to nothing for others, CBC News has learned. Of most concern to conservationists among a handful of cuts is that the Canadian Wildlife Service has had its service budget frozen for the rest of the fiscal year, meaning all its scientific field and survey work has been halted. The national wildlife agency is directly responsible for studying and protecting wildlife in Canada and puts out the Hinterland Who's Who public service ads. Wildlife and bird habitats protected as National Wildlife Areas have seen funding cut to zero. Sources say the budget cuts are as follows: The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network, which observes changes in ecosystems, has lost 80 per cent of its budget. The Migratory Bird Program, which monitors the health of bird populations, has seen its budget cut by 50 per cent. The budget for the National Wildlife Areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds, has been slashed from $1.9 million to zero. Bob Bailey, a hunter and conservationist, was shocked to hear the federal government's support for Canada's 144 National Wildlife Areas has been reduced to nothing.
  79. siren call from Canada writes: Sorry about the double post. I got sent to the wall of death page and thought maybe taking out certain things would allow me to format paragraphs.

    I was wrong.

    For all the talk of Harper's incredible intelligence, I really don't think he grasps the importance of the environment from either a scientific or political angle.

    Is he angry with his high school biology teacher for failing him at some point. 'Cause, I mean, you have to study biology in high school, right???
  80. Meerschaum ! from Canada writes: Why is this a story?

    Even if Canada were to eliminate ALL of its greenhouse gasses and lose millions of jobs in the process, set our economy back decades and halve our standard of living, it wouldn't proytect the world's environment a damned bit - because every six months China's annual greenhouse gas emmission increase by an amount that's greater than Canada's entire annual greenhouse gas emissions.

    Oh yeah, and China isn't subject to Kyoto.

    What was it Jim Croce used to sing about not spitting into the wind?

    Kyoto is a farce and its supporters are naive clowns.
  81. Paulo Garrido from Barrie, Canada writes: Guillaume Afleck,
    Yes, thank god for the conservatives.
    From whom else would you get your fill of cheap gimmicks and spin doctors prattle.
  82. Jim Terrets from Vancouver, writes: Well Larfing Outloud, given your handle I would expect nothing less.

    Wir sind das Volk: If our dollar wanted to be like Bush it would be declining in value. I guess you're one of those people that doesn't mind if our government lies and misleads so long as its a rightwing government.
  83. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: Paulo Garrido 'From whom else would you get your fill of cheap gimmicks and spin doctors prattle. '

    Well I got my fill for 13 years from the lying theiving liberals. They haven't stopped since. Phone Warren Kinsella if you need more!
  84. Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Siren Call: you're post is right on! Well said.
    Leonard Colon: what's your point?
  85. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Conservatives, as usual, engage in the either-or of binary thinking. It's either the environment or the economy. Contrary to such simplistic thinking, the two are not mutually exclusive. Many, including Sir Nicholas Stern, have attempted to put a cost to GW/CC and have concluded that it is greater than reasonable attempts at mitigation.
  86. siren call from Canada writes: Hmm. The story on the front page has been completely re-written and is decidedly more Harper friendly. Odd.

    It also includes this, about the makeup of the watchdog group:

    'The roundtable is made up of a wide range of influential Canadians. It includes oil and gas executives, academics, environmentalists and corporate leaders.'

    Bunch a hippy, left wingy, conservative hatin' folk for sure.
  87. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: Wow! So in 20 years, Canada will be producing -20% 'pollution'? GREAT! You should suck in 100% more pollution than you make. That will make up for the U.S. not falling for the globull warming HOAX!
  88. G From Canada from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Man Harpo is fat
  89. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: siren call:-- The author changed. If memory serves, the first article was by a CP journalist; this is by a Globe staffer.
  90. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: While there are a lot of critics of Kyoto, their criticisms are unfounded. The only thing wrong with Kyoto for Canada is that we (the public) didn't take it seriously until about 12 months ago. For example, how much more competitive would the manufacturing sector be with today's high dollar if their energy costs were reduced by 35%?

    The targets are not arbitrary. They are dictated by the best estimates that science can give us right now. We can't just say that it would be better (read easier) to cut emissions more slowly today (i.e., defer costs) and cut them deeper in the future.

    A big problem with the CPC plan, which relies upon technological change to achieve inadequate goals (a 50% reduction from 2006 is less than what the science is calling for), is that the plan to achieve these goals through technological change is as inadequate as the short term goals. For technological change, we need significant investment in research. Meanwhile, the CPC has not been adequately investing in research either. This kind of technological change requires investments in the billions not the $30 million or so increase that NSERC saw this year. That essentially just addressed inflationary needs. So, without this investment, we will be importing this technology and it will also be costly. In effect, the current CPC plan, then, is just another form of deficit spending or deferred taxation.

    One of the most informative measures of the CPC plan will be the release of the 2006 CO2 emissions numbers. 2005, under Dion, saw a very slight decrease. Any increase will show a reversal of the progress under the LPC. While CPC supporters like to repeat the Harper rhetoric of a failure on the part of the LPC, the fact is that they made reasonable progress on intensity-based emissions. What that taught us was that intensity-based reductions on the order of what was achieved (and the CPC plan is no more ambitious in this respect) was a failure.
  91. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jim Terrets - no; I like my governments, however, to exercise some pragmatism and scepticism when developing policy before hopping on the latest bandwagon of the self loathing secular apocalyptists that make up the modern environmental movement. Not sure how much you read, but would you for instance be in favour of the stance of George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and author of 'Heat' who says that the GW threat requires that all air travel be banned? Is that a stance Harper should adopt to prove his bonafides to the people who 'get it'? It's not Harper but rather the bizarre positions and general intransigence of the radical environmentalist that keeps them marginal. I care about GW but would also like to go to Europe again and some point in my life.
  92. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Siren Call, indeed, this is bizarre. A very different story than what was originally posted. More pro-CPC anti-Kyoto bias on the part of the Globe and Mail. Of course, despite the rantings of the Harper supporters, we always knew that the Globe and Mail had a conservative bias. They just tend not to agree with the conservative social policy of the CPC program. They've been unrealistically supportive of poor budgets that were quickly ripped apart by other media. If the Globe and Mail, with their conservative bias, have been critical of Mr. Harper, then perhaps it is because his government has often engaged in policy that even a conservative newspaper has a difficult time just giving a pass on.
  93. siren call from Canada writes: diane marie from calgary, yes the article we were mostly commenting on was by the CP's Alexander Panetta.

    Why the change is my question, but it could be as simple as lack of accreditation from one side or the other.
  94. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Bobby Dy - how can Kyoto be based on the best targets science can give us now when these targets were developed over 10 years ago?
  95. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Siren Call, I understand now why this article has been changed. The legitimate article was a CP article. The same one (as the original) can be read on the Star website. Apparently, the editorial board of the Globe and Mail didn't like any criticism of inaction on GHGs and decided it needed to spin the story to support the government's inaction.
  96. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: diane...stern's work has been blown away by the scientists whose studies he used to 'formulate' his guesses. He did himself a disservice.

    That aside, where were these critics when the Liberals lied, stone-walled and hired a comedian for 13 years? They only show their heads now???? Comedy indeed.
  97. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: diane...even if ol' stern was even 1/2 right, Canda will be a net beneficiary of warming. I wouldn't want real estate in Arizona but Sask will have milder weather and grow more crops.
  98. spicydoc reinvigorated from Canada writes:

    Bobby Dy--

    I've mentioned it before, but the gloab is not pro-CPC; the gloab has been anti-Kyoto for ages.

    There was an editorial in February blasting the Kyoto protocol, and they've been consistent all along.

    If you like, I can dig it up for you.
  99. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Wir sind das Volk, the only thing that has changed significantly in the past 10 years is the amount of variation between the different climate models. I would have to do some research, which I can't be bothered doing right now because I have some other things to get to tonight, but I suspect that a 50% reduction from 1998 levels only slows the rate of climate change. I doubt that it is sufficient to eliminate the accumulation of atmospheric CO2. The atmospheric CO2 is additive. To know what is required to maintain current levels, we would have to know what th size of the CO2 sinks are on the planet. For at least some of that, there are reasonable estimates.
  100. siren call from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, I know the Globe endorsed Harper's successful run for PM and that, being a business, they likely are fond of his deregulation stance. However, I haven't been reading this site long enough to note a bias one way or the other.

    I might be more alert in the future.
  101. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Maybe the Globe finally sees the truth:, Harper and the conservatives are here for a long time, The Liberals will not govern for at least twenty more years.

    Canadians will not forget the dark political period of the Liberals in Canada.
  102. spicydoc reinvigorated from Canada writes:

    siren call and Bobby--

    The gloab endorsed Harper, but stressed that the libs needed a time out to get their act together. They were never rah-rah pro-Harper.
  103. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: The Harper/Baird plan isn't worth the paper it's written on. Someone burn that napkin.
  104. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: bill johnson, since I know that you have some expertise in this area, I have a question about the 'net benefit', which there very well may be. There are some recent papers trying to measure the amount of heat transfer/strength of the 'meridional overturning circulation'. My understanding is that increased fresh water is anticipated to weaken this. It is also my understanding that if this were to happen, then we would see a significant (and potentially rapid) decrease in temperature in the northern parts of N. America (such as Canada). Is this true?

    My second question relates to your point about Saskatchewan (or the prairies in general). To what extent are the precipitation patterns expected to be favorable to the increased crop growth potential that would be supported by both increased temperature and increased CO2? Anyway, I'd appreciate any insight on this if you have it.
  105. dan donahue from winnipeg, Canada writes: Heaven help us all if Harper and crew are even re-elected let guide us through 20 more years. Me thinks Canadians are much smarter than the
    Reform-Conservatives and their elitist mindset could begin to imagine.
  106. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: spicy doc and Siren Call, agreed. I think that, overall, this paper lacks a strong bias. I was merely trying to put forth the counter-propaganda to the anti-Harper/CPC spin of some of the CPC supporters. The truth is that if you are looking for a news source to uncritically support one party or another, you will always find bias against your distored notion of what is bias in the Globe and Mail. I accept that. But, I also think that if people are going to argue that the Globe and Mail has an anti-Harper bias then someone needs to make exactly the same arguments of the reverse. If you take an extreme position on what failing to show bias is, you can find support for either form of bias in the Globe and Mail.
  107. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: The Harper/Baird plan isn't worth the paper it's written on. Someone burn that napkin.

    Any plan that helps delay/postpone/destroy the stupidity that is Kyoto is a contribution. An almost empty carbon capturing country like Canada shoud be given money from every polluting country on earth and left alont to continue to be as clean as we are. A model to the world.
    Any other arrangement is ridiculous.
  108. R L from Calgary, Canada writes: Harpo will blame the intelligence, or he'll cover up his lies with yet more lies (or a lie about the first lie).

    Or maybe the problem is merely the effectiveness of the communication from the Harper Administration to the lowly uneducated misinformed peasants (the citizens). Will John Baird will be swiveled out and replaced by Stockwell Day? Hooray!
  109. J B from Ottawa, Canada writes: Uhhh...an hour ago, this story was completely different, and the title was much more honest.
    Somebody out there is upset...
  110. R L from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Jan. 17, 2007: A Radio-Canada investigation reveals that shortly after he was elected, Harper's government quietly met for two days in Houston, Texas, with its U.S. counterparts and oil industry executives. The apparent purpose of the meeting? Canada committing to a five-fold expansion in oil sands production in a 'relatively short time span.'

    A week later, George Bush makes his state of the union address, stating that the U.S. is addicted to oil and that he wants to makes America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil 'a thing of the past' -- now a national security objective of the U.S. government. Where will this missing production come from? Apparently from us. Thanks for letting us know, Stephen.'

    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/24/GreenMirage/
  111. NikolaTesla -the genius who lit the world from Calgary, Canada writes: My personal apology to Mother Earth. It seems money and stupidity has won out again. By the way just what is your core made of?
  112. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: bill johnson:-- My point was that it's not a simple either/or situation. If it were, major industry groups would not be themselves calling for action. What business requires is certainty - it will deal with what it is legislatively required to do, but it needs to know what that is. Among other reasons, it wishes to be acting on a so-called level playing field. It also (obviously) requires a reasonable time frame within which to respond, the determination of which is the responsibility of government. What is not helpful is for government to mislead the public in its claims.-----siren call:-- It may be as simple as the Globe just wanting its own staff reports to appear in its weekend print edition. Neither report is very favourable, I think.
  113. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: James C:

    Where I am right now it is currently 9 Celsius. Tonight it will drop down to 3 Celsius. My furnace is not on, in fact, it has not been on since the end of April and I have no means to heat my place other than blankets. It will not go on until it threatens to freeze and burst my pipes.
  114. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: G. Afleck, the stall's and delays aren't to put off Kyoto as much as they are to delay the need for Harper to do anything at all while he's PM. He's paying lip service until after the next election. Then if he's still around he'll float another trial balloon.

    G from Canada from Saskatoon, 'Man Harpo Is Fat.'

    Have you seen him from the side shots? Reminds me of Gleason or Hitchcock. They must rivet that bottom button on his jacket as there's no thread strong enough to withstand that kind of pressure.

    I apologize ahead of time to those CPCers who were just offended, but I've been holding back with that for some time now and like that belly of his is just dying to pop that jacket button, I just couldn't keep it in any longer.

    I should be good for a few more months now and again I apologize.
  115. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: diane marie. you can change your dishonest monikers rather fast, are you working on two computers?

    You are such a dishonest Liberal trool, give it up you wine-induced fraud.
  116. Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, MN, United States writes: It is unlikely that a growing worldwide population, frantically economically developing, will be able to cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so drastically that abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.

    Any feasible planetary rescue strategy must include a method of removing some of the excess CO2 from the air.

    I suggest the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of biosequestration.

    I suggest engineering and extensively testing a GMO and seeding it into the ocean.
  117. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Geez Leonard, I think your last name fits you to a ' T '.
  118. NikolaTesla -the genius who lit the world from Calgary, Canada writes: Who killed the electric car? -Googlevideo-

    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5977085690337730430&q=who killed the electric car&total=236&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
  119. Greg Davies from Calgary, Canada writes: Meerschaum ! from Canada writes: 'Why is this a story?

    Even if Canada were to eliminate ALL of its greenhouse gasses and lose millions of jobs in the process, set our economy back decades and halve our standard of living, it wouldn't proytect the world's environment a damned bit - because every six months China's annual greenhouse gas emmission increase by an amount that's greater than Canada's entire annual greenhouse gas emissions.

    Oh yeah, and China isn't subject to Kyoto.

    What was it Jim Croce used to sing about not spitting into the wind?

    Kyoto is a farce and its supporters are naive clowns.'

    Meerschaum great post and I agree with all of your points except the last.

    Given that the parties involved with the creation of Kyoto and it's signing and ratifying in Canada are all past or present business partners, and given that there is an opportunity for these parties to profit from carbon trading via loopholes in that framework, then supporting Kyoto would represent far more than just simply naivete or foolishness - it would be reflect either complete ignorance of the relationships between the parties and the profit mechanism built into the framework, or it would reflect collusion with it's goals.

    In my opinion Kyoto supporters are either ignorant fools unaware that they are being manipulated, or they are actively colluding with an organized campaign to defraud Canadians of Billions for absolutely no verifiable benefit to the environment.
  120. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Geg Davies, Thanks for your post,
    Kyoto makes the Liberals 'feel good' but it is far from the truth, an area the Liberals are very familiar with.

    Harper will do what is pragmatic, and right, in spite of the 'You are fat' comments from the dishonest Liberal trools.

    It is really no wonder the Liberals in Canada will be in opposition for the next twenty years, they deserve it.

  121. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Pretty funny Lenny. Is that the best you can come up with? Very lame. But what does one expect coming from a colon.
  122. siren call from Canada writes:
    Psst! Leonard Colon, it's 'trolls'.
  123. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: Brad Arnold 'I suggest the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of biosequestration.'

    We have one. It's called 'trees'
    We filled almost all the millions of square miles of empty space in Canada with them. But the liberals are so stupid that they couldn't negotiate credits for this obviously creditable activity.
    30 million people - millions of square miles of carrying capacity. and we're the bad guys. Typical liberal stupididty.
  124. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Dwaynee, Thanks for showing us your low IQ level, it's now wonder you just love the LPC, (Liberals) , maybe it's time for you to sign off and snuggle up to your 'Partner' , he misses your in depth mussings.....

    You really are pathetic Dwaynee Allen...get a real life next time around.

  125. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes:'... the only thing that has changed significantly in the past 10 years is the amount of variation between the different climate models.'

    Much more has changed in the modelling, and can be seen at the IPCC's own site:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

    But what has not changed for the last six years and more (since March 2001) is the actual global temperature:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Mind you, the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) enthusiasts just hate to have it pointed out to people that the actual data aren't following their expectations.
  126. James C. from shenzhen, guangdong, China writes: ' Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: James C:

    Where I am right now it is currently 9 Celsius. Tonight it will drop down to 3 Celsius. My furnace is not on, in fact, it has not been on since the end of April and I have no means to heat my place other than blankets. It will not go on until it threatens to freeze and burst my pipes.'

    ----------

    glad to hear it. and i dont drive a car in china and use public transit. also my home is heated by a small space heater that i move around depending on which room i'm in (it doesnt get that cold here in winter but cool enough). good to hear someone somewhere is doing something.
  127. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Guillaume Affleck:,, Great post! You are right on the money here,
    Thanks!

    The Liberals are dishonest, and will pay by not governing this great country for another thwenty years.

    Our dollar is at par with the US currency, and that is a testimony to the faith and trust the world has in Harper and the Conservatives in Canada,


  128. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes:'Canadians can't understand Dion because he can't speak English...'

    So? Chretien could speak neither french nor english, and look how long he lasted as PM.

    Far too long, to be sure.
  129. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: 'trools' 'mussings' ??? What are these? Lenny does your babysitter know you're still up and playing on the puter?
  130. Leonard Colon from Montreal, Canada writes: Glynnmhor from Skywall, I agree with you, Chretien should be charged and jailed for the theft of our cash, and ruining our reputation on the world stage, what a bubbling fool, the Liberal captain.

    Liberals are dishonest, and will not govern our country for at least another twenty years, and that is a good thing.

    Harper is getting 'reality' back into our political system.
  131. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: james c:

    I 'carpool' to work because I am a tradesperson, and unfortunately I need to take my tools where I go. Believe you me, I am no greater advocate of the use of public transit in cities because it would certainly cut down on the time I am on the road.

    cheers.

    (besides, I'm too cheap to throw money away like that. ;) )
  132. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Glynnmhor, that is a misrepresentation of what the data shows. Look at the graph over the past 50 years or so and what do you see? You see growth to peaks, flattening or declines, followed by more growth to even higher peaks. The latest models published a couple of months ago predict no increases again until 2009 and then rapid increases. Basically, the same pattern that has repeated over the last 50 years or so of these graphs.

    Let's take the opposite approach and let me ask you this question-how can you support the claim that the data does not support anthropogenic GW based upon the past few years of this graph? In other words, how can you base any conclusion based upon incomplete data (in terms of this latest cycle and not knowing whether the flattening will continue, whether it will decline and then incline again, or whether it will just continue to incline after a brief flattening)?
  133. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Glynnmhor:-- Mr. Bernier, who barely speaks English but is our Minister of Foreign Affairs, is scheduled to address the UN. That should be interesting.-----Dwayne:-- You really should try hard to resist the impulse.
  134. Greg Davies from Calgary, Canada writes: There is no doubt that the climate is changing. It's not up for debate, and anyone trying to keep the attention focused on the science is merely putting up a smokescreen to mask the real issue - the inability for Kyoto to actually be effective in it's stated purpose - dealing with climate change.

    Given that there is no accountability for carbon credits and given the massive profits that China and carbon traders are reaping from carbon trading and the fact that the biggest polluter (China) isn't even bound, and given the longstanding business ties between the principals involved with the creation, signing and ratification of Kyoto, - all of them Canadians and Liberals - then the idea that Kyoto is designed to address Climate change makes no sense whatsoever!

    In fact the only thing that Kyoto seems to be GOOD at is funneling Billions of $$ to carbon traders!

    If it looks like a scam and smells like a scam, and was created, signed and delivered by Liberals, the purveyors of AdScam, what should we call it?

    How about ClimateScam?
  135. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Diane Marie, you mean I should try harder to resist, but thanks for reminding me.

    Cheers and good night.
  136. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Of course, if you just want a summary and the juicy details...

    http://faxanadu.gnn.tv/blogs/24999/GlobalWarmingWhatMediaWon_tTellYouAboutU_NClimatePanel
  137. dubai dubai from new york, United States writes: Greg -- Carbon is another commodity, just like that black stuff you are making all your money from in Calgary. And traders make money from it, just like they do trading the black stuff. Trouble is, because you and your ilk have resisted carbon trading in canada for so long, the rest of the world has gotten ahead of you in terms of making money out of it. So just sit back and enjoy your 80 dollar a barrell oil and don;t be a sorry sport about the trade that got away.

    BTW -- I didn;t think cowboys were supposed to cry...although i did see brokeback mountain and see they do some other things.....
  138. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, interesting propaganda piece that you referenced. Here, however, is what Science, one of the two leading science publications of the world, reported on the process:
    'Created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, the IPCC had the process down for its fourth assessment report. Forty governments nominated the 150 lead authors and 450 contributing authors of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. There was no clique of senior insiders: 75% of nominated lead authors were new to that role, and one-third of authors got their final degree in the past 10 years. Authors had their draft chapters reviewed by all comers. More than 600 volunteered, submitting 30,000 comments. Authors responded to every comment, and reviewers certified each response. With their final draft of the science in hand, authors gathered in Paris, France, with 300 representatives of 113 nations for 4 days to hash out the wording of a scientist-written Summary for Policymakers.'

    Given the choice between the 'guerilla news network' and a highly respected international science magazine, I'm taking the word of Science.
  139. Greg Davies from Calgary, Canada writes: dubai dubai from new york, United States writes: 'Greg -- Carbon is another commodity, just like that black stuff you are making all your money from in Calgary. And traders make money from it, just like they do trading the black stuff. Trouble is, because you and your ilk have resisted carbon trading in canada for so long, the rest of the world has gotten ahead of you in terms of making money out of it. So just sit back and enjoy your 80 dollar a barrell oil and don;t be a sorry sport about the trade that got away.

    BTW -- I didn;t think cowboys were supposed to cry...although i did see brokeback mountain and see they do some other things.....'

    Dubai thank you for confirming that there is no other purpose for Kyoto other than to add liquidity to the carbon exchange.

    Brokeback Mountain? Never seen it.

    Wasn't that a film about a couple of gay cowboys in the American West?

    Did you enjoy it?
  140. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Bobby Dy - I submitted the full article for viewing but G&M rejected it...

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html

    The comments for Working Group I are the only set of reviewers' comments to be made available to the public, and only then thanks to use of US Freedom of Information laws rather than a willingness on the part of the IPCC to allow people to examine the material. Surely all people should be able to examine the involvement and thinking of their governments and the reviewers from their own countries because it is the people who will most certainly bear the economic and political costs of any resultant actions.

    A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.

    At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.

    Good try - but the little bit of information deemed safe to give out to the public shows a worrying lack of review and objectiveness. So where do you read your propaganda?
  141. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, I already stated, this quote came from Science. I forgot to paste the link. You won't be able to access it unless you have a subscription or access to a university library. Here is the link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/754

    Science has credibility, the Science and Public Policy Institute, by all appearances, seems solely constructed to develop propaganda to discredit climate change science. Request that they publish a letter in Science or Nature so that they can take on real scientists who can actually critically evaluate anything that they want to claim. There is certainly nothing about their website that gives the impression of an objective source. The name sounds credible but the content is not.
  142. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, as I mentioned, Science, which is a highly respected source, wrote about the review process exactly what I quoted. It doesn't jive with what the SPPI posts and, given the obvious agenda of the SPPI, I'm taking the account in Science over anything that a propaganda network has to say.
  143. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, let me explain the difference between a credible source, like Science (owned and operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and SPPI. In Science, you will find criticism of published models of climate change, papers on additional factors influencing current climate, etc...At SPPI, the ONLY thing that you will find is criticism of climate change research. It is basically impossible that everything published is completely wrong, which is what SPPI would like you to believe. Climate change research covers many many things. It covers research on circulation of warm and cold water in the ocean, which impact on climate, it covers research on aerosols and their impact on climate, it covers research on carbon sinks. It is not all wrong. There are limitations to existing research and details of that are what you will find in Science. SPPI completely lacks credibility. Moreover, they talk about being non-profit and 'non-partisan' but nowhere could I find information on where they get their support to keep running. That raises questions as to their claims of non-partisanship. I can't find anything about them on the internet other than questions that remain unanswered but it's pretty clear from the web site that they are not what they claim to be.
  144. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: bill johnson, if you return, perhaps you could comment on the SPPI if you know anything about it. It certainly doesn't appear scientific or credible to me.
  145. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Bobby - I note that you attack the publisher rather than the content they provide. Can you find ANY discrepancy between their comments and the comments we can view under the FOIA?

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

    What I'm saying is people are saying there is a consensus when there is not. Can you provide something, maybe a false statement at the above source, instead of off-topic attacks on the website it's hosted on?
  146. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, what I am saying is that what they report on that website contradicts what I quoted from Science. On that basis, I am concluding that they are misrepresenting the process because Science can be trusted. If their report differs from Science then I use that as the basis to conclude that their claim is false. If you are not familiar with Science Magazine, which is one of the top peer-reviewed journals in all of science, Google it or look it up in Wikipedia.

    After observing that SPPI's account of how the IPPC process works, I have to examine the content of the web site and the organization's 'publications' to evaluate its credibility. My comments on the web site indicate that I found nothing on there to suggest to me that it is a credible source of information on anything.

    In terms of 'consensus', consensus is rare but not necessarily meaningful in terms of whether or not a conclusion of the scientific community is valid. What would be more accurate would be to say that there is a broad agreement that climate change science is the best information that we have to use as the basis for policy. Moreover, the alternative solar hypotheses that have been advocated as an explanation for the observed warming were recently debunked in a publication in 2007. So, it also remains the only existing hypothesis that has been advanced and has resisted being proven wrong, and consequently dismissed, by existing ongoing research.

    Emotion is not the basis of argument and there certainly is lots of emotion surrounding this topic. This is true of the pro-action side of the argument but is not exclusive to it. The con-action argument is also emotionally driven. I have no reason not to be objective. I have informed myself thorugh legitimate science sources and see no reason to doubt the hypothesis at this point. I do see alterior motives in challenging AGW.
  147. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, in response to your question about whether or not I can find any discrepancies between how the peer review of the report was recounted by SPPI and what is posted at the IPCC website, the answer is clearly YES. After looking at these reviews, it is clear, as is normally the case, that the reviews are anonymous. That is the way that peer review is normally done in science because it removes the potential for 'retribution' in response to critical reviews (i.e., I review your paper and find some deficiencies and, at a later date, you review my paper and, out of anger, provide an unreasonably critical review that rejects my paper for reasons that are not justified).

    So, given that the reviewers cannot be identified, the number of reviewers cannot be determined from the information presented. It also cannot be determined how many individual reviewers contribution to one or more chapters. However, it would normally be the case that individual reviewers would ONLY comment on one chapter because they would normally have specific expertise in just a subset of the content. There is little point in them criticizing parts of the document where they do not have expertise.

    So, again, I go back to Science. They give a very different account of the process.
  148. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Peer reviewed study contradicting man-made GW 2006

    http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html

    Former man-made GW advocates (all scientists) who after reviewing all the latest evidence change positions and say man is not to blame...

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

    And let's not try to call every last person who disagrees with us in the pay of oil - just thought I'd preempt the ad hominem arguments.

    Did you hear about the correction NASA made to it's temperature data? I didn't read about it on the G&M. It was on NASA's site, after a 'denier' pointed out the weren't taking in the time of day with their temperature calculations. Meaning noon temperatures weren't compared with noon temperatures - but with whenever they wanted.

    The result was that the claim many (Al Gore, other M-mGWA's) were making - that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false

    According to NASA's newly published data:

    The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
    * The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
    * Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940;
    Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century.

    While that doesn't necessarily prove M-mGW (man-made global warming) one way or the other, it shows the data is NOT definite, and the verdict is NOT in.

    just google: nasa warmest year on record revised
  149. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, and read the response of the NASA scientist to this criticism. You will find a logical discussion about how science works and how the criticism was unscientific. You will also find that the claims of misrepresentation are not true. First, there was a minor error in data that was reported and corrected. Second, the criticism referred only to U.S. temperatures and not global temperatures (although this may have been misrepresented as reflecting global temperatures. Third, in the original publication by the NASA scientist, you will find that they state that there is no significant difference between 2003 and 1934 temperatures in the U.S. So, again, this highlights alterior motives. What was publicized was a gross misrepresentation of what actually took place. The article from Harvard that you cite advances one of the solar hypotheses. There is a 2007 article disproving the solar hypothesis. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
  150. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Devil's Advocate, I would refer you to 'Rebuttal of ‘‘On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?’’ by L. F. Khilyuk
    and G. V. Chilingar' published in the same journal, Environ Geol (2007) 52:1007–1009, a paper authored by W. Aeschbach-Hertig.

    After ripping apart much of the article, it concludes with this paragraph: 'It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and
    Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar
    2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of
    a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental
    Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed
    to guarantee the quality of published literature,
    are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.'
  151. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Because of some issues pasting the title and reference for that scathing critique of the article that you cited, here it is again.

    W. Aeschbach-Hertig (2007) Rebuttal of 'On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?' by L.F. Khilyuk and G.V. Chilingar. Evironmental Geology (2007) 52:1007-1009.
  152. Waiting and Seeing from GTA, Canada writes: Using Kyoto compliance as a club to beat the Conseratives with was an effective game for the Liberals until it started to be widely understood what it would do to the Ontario economy. If there is any doubt about this, please explain to me why so little has been done by Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government in this area. I recall an article in the G&M (back in late April) where the Ontario energy minister said something to the effect that they would like to upgrade or replace the GHG producing coal fired power plants, but there wasn't the technology available to do it. Consider that NGS could accomplish a lot, but would cost a fortune. No one seems to want to say much about this. Anyways, support for Kyoto compliance was high in Ontario as long it only meant scaling back the oil sands plants. Once it became clear that plants like Nanticoke would have to be replaced, enthusiasm for Kyoto and Dion trailed off. I also find it interesting that Alberta has an edge over Ontario in applying carbon sequestration techology. Alberta has somewhere to put the CO2 (down old oil or gas wells), and Ontario does not. Ontario's sequestered CO2 would have to be sent to places like the US midwest. Bottom line: All things considered, the CPC position on intensity targets make the most sense. No trading in carbon credits and industry gets to gradually learn how to be more efficient and produce less GHG. This won't satisfy environmentalists in hurry, but if you have a better, more realistic plan, I'd love to see it.
  153. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: The CPC has no policy on intensity targets. They have 'aspirational targets' and apparently they are based on vapour.
    Ezra Levant opinioned that the CPC should only offer window dressing to the concerns of Canadians re the environment.
    So, the Conservative gov't has done/plans to do nothing about the worry of climate change and health concerns.
  154. Vote NDP in the next federal/provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: THis is why we shouldn't have the Conservative goverment dictating our environmental laws that benefit big oil and industry. I know for a fact that the federal Conservatives have no intention of addressing the environment (unless you go to Arnold Schwazzenager's California). EVen if they have some initiatives, they're all intensity-based targets which are made by US president George W Bush. The Liberals are no better as they have some plans but never move forward on them.

    Only the NDP or Greens can achieve environemntal sustanability.
  155. The Centrist from Canada writes: The Harper Conservative government blams the liberals, the media, moonbeams, sun spots, judges, civil servants and even the senate for not meeting its goals.

    There is a plan to respond. The Harper Conservative government and its political operatives will respond by personally attacking anyone who attacks Harper or his government.
  156. William Borlase from Canada writes: Only a Liberal, or even more likely a Dipper, would spend billions trying to change the climate. Kyoto is dead. It has been revealed for what it was-a bureaucrat's dream petty cash drawer (the UN and Ottawa). Yes, the world is in a warming cycle just like it has for billions of years. Personally I'm looking forward to warmer winters and a longer golf season.
  157. Waiting and Seeing from GTA, Canada writes: So, Catherine Wilkie, Vote NDP, and Centrist - How would you go forward? I'll grant you that there is much to dislike about the CPC, and you long for the day your favourite party gets back their influence, if not outright power. That said, I would like to see more than CPC bashing. It's not enough. Someone has to come forward and say this is what they'll do. They have to stand up, let the people see their agenda, what it will cost and how it will be implemented. Until the day that happens, this is all just about politics.

    My impression is that the LPC has been deliberately vague in this area. Gobbledygook about inventing new green technology doesn't cut it. IMHO they have been preying on people's good intentions for their own advantage without offering real solutions.

    And Catherine, regarding your comment about lack of real environmental policy by the CPC: How would you compare that to signing an international agreement like Kyoto, and then doing pretty much nothing to implement it, or even explaining how it could be implemented? You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
  158. Now Tarfu from Canada writes:

    William Borlase,

    Only a mor*n, and likely one from Alta., would say that the Earth has been in a warming cycle for billions of years.
  159. dubai dubai from new york, United States writes: Greg - Not very good comeback (ahem, brokeback). Why is liquidity such a bad thing? You have it in the oil market and virutally every other market.

    And its a good thing -- even to protect thick cowboys like you. Just picture if one day news came out that another oil reserve the size of the tar sands had been discovered? There would be a lot of selling pressure. Without liquidity you wouldn't be able to cash out in time. You would loose your shirt.

    But don't worry Greg, you could come to new york, shirtless and broken. I'm sure down in Chelsea they would love you and find a way to pump some liquidity into your system.
  160. Joel Canada from Calgary: Liberal Stronghold, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie: good post. Indeed, the CPC has no policy on intensity targets; merely 'aspirational targets'.

    Sadly, that's good enough for some people but shows how insincere this weak minority government is on the Environment.
  161. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Glynnmhor, that is a misrepresentation of what the data shows."

    Hardly a misrepresentation. The data show no rise in temperature for the last 6.5 years; may saying so is just the truth.

    "Look at the graph over the past 50 years or so and what do you see?"

    Look at the graph over the past 130 years and you'll see alternating approximately 30-year periods of instability and slight cooling (1880-1910) followed by warming (1910-1940), slight cooling again (1940-1970) and once more warming (1970-2000).

    While there may be a GHG signature in all that, the current claims that AGHGs are the cause of warming are not substantiated by the models. The latest models being touted by the IPCC (presumably the best they have available) smooth over the 1910-1940 warming, showing instead a steady gentler warming from 1900-1960.

    See faq 8.1, figure 1:
    http://tinyurl.com/3dlhk4
  162. William Borlase from Canada writes: "Now-Tarfu" accused William Borlase of being from Alberta and a "moron" to boot. Unfortunately I do not live in Alberta but have family who do and are well on their way to being "blue eyed Arabs." Since we are stooping to insults, you sound jealous and might be from Ontario. "The moron" meant to say that the "warming and cooling cycles" have been going on for billions of years.
  163. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: "... let me explain the difference between a credible source, like Science..."

    What 'Science' says about the data, or what the Goracle says, or Suzuki says, or anyone else is derivative and secondary to the data and the models themselves.

    Look at the actual modelling on the IPCC's site and you'll find that the models do not replicate past temperature changes, and thus cannot be relied upon to predict future ones.

    Figure 8.11 in:
    http://tinyurl.com/3dlhk4

    shows that they're still using 'flux adjustments' in the models to manually drive the model outputs closer to observed temperatures, presumably because the models themselves can't manage to do that on their own. Consider that they're presenting the best they've got, and their best just doesn't cut it.
  164. alex just a canadian from montreal, Canada writes: 12 years of peanuts from the libs, now 2 years plus of nothing from the conservatives. Not bad for a developed country, heck we even cry with the smallest suggestions on what individual can do. I think the world should add another category--developed---undeveloped---developing----and the newest----THE LAZY DEVELOPED.

    I figure at this rate the feds should have something in maybe 20 years since each one blames the other and our planet moves ever closer to a garbage dump.

    When the military has a better environmental plan and procedures to clean up past and present training sites, not to mention the most minute leak of any substance that has to be cleaned and inspected, I guess to much to ask the feds to do anything. I wonder what is parliaments electricity bill?
  165. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes:"... a 2007 article disproving the solar hypothesis.

    I've looked at the Lockwood and Froehlich paper before, and one thing that strikes me in it is that their rather complicated scheme for determining solar cycle length leaves a value of nearly 10.5 years at a time where the actual solar cycle 22 (1986-1996, in the midst of the 1970-2000 warming period) was only 9.75 years.

    Given that shorter cycles correspond to warming periods, this creates a bias in favour of their conclusions at least with respect to cycle length.

    Cycle 22 was the shortest in over a century, followed by cycles 15 & 16 at 10.0 years each from 1913-1933, in the midst of the 1910-1940 warming period. The cycle length hit 11 years (the nominal long-term average) with the recently ended cycle 23, the first time since cycle 14 of 1902-1913.

    You can google 'solar cycle nn' (where nn is the cycle number) to look at any of them.
  166. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: William Borlase from Canada writes: "[Kyoto] has been revealed for what it was-a bureaucrat's dream petty cash drawer (the UN and Ottawa)."

    Not to mention the Goracle, who owns a company for trading carbon credits, and stands to make even more money from Kyoto than he's raking in with his lecture tours.

    Maybe he'll be able to buy a second 20,000-square-foot mansion to go along with his other homes.
  167. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMohr, have you actually read Science. It is where many of the original models are published in the first place. For example, the recent new model that makes short term predictions and predicted that temperatures will remain steady until 2009 before rising again, was published in Science. Critiques of the modelling, for example that the averaging of existing models gives the impression of less uncertainty in the range of warming than there actually is. As for your criticism of the solar cycle length, they state their methods clearly in the paper, write them if you disagree with them. I can't answer your question.

    You didn't answer my question, however, on your interpretation of the recent (2000 to present) temperature plots. I contend that you cannot reach any such conclusions, other than merely stating the actual recorded temperatures.

    By the way, the recent model that I spoke about that was published in Science, also did retrospective predictions and demonstrated greater accuracy than any of the IPCC models. The model adds an additional parameter that increases its accuracy, current temperature. When the model was published (earlier this year), it had successfully predicted about 2 years of temperature as well as accurately predicting past temperatures. Since there is no other way to evaluate climate models, this is evidence that it is a better model than any of the existing IPCC models. Also, since it makes short term predictions, unlike the IPCC models, we will very quickly be able to evaluate the quality of the model. That is a significant achievement and, if validated, will quickly allow a much stronger case for changing government policies on GHGs.
  168. kevin joncas from Canada writes: Bobby Dy--Everytime someone points out errors in "accepted dogma" the originators blow it off as "minor errors". Then they change the "minor errors" to reflect the facts. NASA changed their statement and the IPCC has dropped the "hockey stick" from their last report.Why do this if the error is ''minor'. Just what is considered "minor" when you are talking about .6 of a degree over the past 100 years with instruments of varying reliability and readings taken from many different places than the originals. Even the concept of an "average global temperature" is ludicrous from a scientific point of view.
  169. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMohr, there are no scientists making the claim that GHGs are THE cause of the current warming. The climate scientists have, in their boldest attempts, tried to put a percentage contribution on it and it is not 100%. What you are referring to is the public reporting of what the scientists have published.

    On a related note, another paper was published earlier this year in Science that tracked temperature records through several cycles of warming and glaciation. What they found was quite interesting. The exit from an ice age occurs with a rapid rise to a maxima. Following this (which is where we are now), there is a slow and steady decline in global temperatures until one final, sharp drop in temperature occurs. This cycle then repeats. Consequently, the prediction based upon natural cycles is that we are declining towards the next ice age. Of course, that is an oversimplification for much shorter time scales.

    Take a read of the rebuttal of the Environmental Geology paper that was also published in Environmental Geology. This also debunks an apparently popular paper on an alternative hypothesis that was, in large part, based on solar output. While I am no expert in climate, I do follow this story in Science, where it is getting lots of coverage, and I do independently check the criticisms that people like you and Devil's Advocate put out there. I have no personal reason for bias and if something convincing came up, I would have no problem accepting it, particularly if it was criticized by experts who could find no flaw in it. To date, AGW remains the leading hypothesis and to state otherwise IS biased. If you have something convincing, give me the original citation and I will follow it up and get back to you. To date, my efforts have shown me that there is nothing convincing that has been touted as disproving the hypothesis that actually stands the test of critical analysis.
  170. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: kevin joncas, if you read the response by the NASA scientist, you will see that his anger was not related to "blowing off the error as minor", rather it was related to the misrepresentation of what was actually pointed out. For example, there are claims about 1934 being the warmest year on record. That is absolutely false. 1934 was, by about 0.1 degree, the warmest year recorded for the US, not the world. The original research paper also stated that there was effectively no difference between 1998 and 1934 (in the US) rather than the filtered public claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US.

    I don't disagree with you about the validity of a "global temperature". However, it is a surrogate measure for something that cannot actually be measured (the temperature at all points on earth on a continuous basis). It doesn't undermine the argument.

    My own personal view, and the view of much of the scientific community from what I can tell, is that AGW is the leading hypothesis. Is it proven? No. However, the alternative hypotheses have not withstood critical analysis. Would I be happy if AGW was proven wrong? Absolutely. Canada still has vast conventional energy resources and will benefit if there is no action on GHG emissions.

    What I do find disturbing is the disinformation campaign on GHG emissions. Why, for example, is it so important to you that we do not act? What is at stake for you if we do act and the hypothesis is wrong? We know what is at stake for much of the world if we don't act and the hypothesis is right. We don't know, however, how catastrophic things could get because when we move so far away from the natural equilibrium there is a great deal of added uncertainty.
  171. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Given that the report accuses the government of "systematic" exaggeration, "double accounting", " not accurately reflecting" emissions reductions, "important inconsistency", and "overestimated" reductions, I suggest that this is nothing more than a right-wing scheme designed to fill the pockets of the stockholders of big business while ignoring the concerns of average humans globally.

    Would this not be the left side counter argument of the analysis of Harper's 'left-wing scheme' speech before he became a 'believer"?
  172. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor, there are no scientists making the claim that GHGs are THE cause of the current warming."

    Figure 9.5 in the IPCC's chapter on attributing climate change makes just such a claim, that anthropogenic forcings are the only way for their models to approach the observational data:

    http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb

    As to 'Science', that costs money. Despite several people's accusations, I don't get paid by any oil companies to post on these fora, and couldn't tax deduct the expense. If you can link to any accessible stuff, though, please feel free to do so.

    The IPCC's fourth report is also replete with enthusiasm about how much better their models are than they were for the third report, yet they're still not very much better in reality. I have to remain sceptical that the ones you which you refer in 'Science' are such a huge improvement from the year-old (or so) ones in the IPCC's report.
  173. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes:"... there is nothing convincing that has been touted as disproving the hypothesis that actually stands the test of critical analysis."

    On the other hand there is little that proves the AGHG hypothesis true, either. Other than the knowlege that GHGs have some effect, most of the support for claiming high climatic sensitivity to GHG changes is based on modelling. And the modelling isn't adequate to the task.

    It is worth repeating that just because a model simulation comes up with reasonable answers doesn't mean that the model is correct. Any given dataset can be accurately represented by an infinitude of models, only some of which approach the reality of which they purport to be a model.

    Our politicians, and many hypsters and hucksters, are pushing our Societies onto a very expensive path, one fraught with opportunities for corruption and thievery, based on very shaky science.
  174. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: "... the recent model that I spoke about that was published in Science, also did retrospective predictions and demonstrated greater accuracy than any of the IPCC models. The model adds an additional parameter that increases its accuracy, current temperature."

    It sounds perhaps interesting, though it also sounds like they might be just driving their model by inputting the known observations of 'current temperature' on a continuing basis.
  175. canadian beaver from Canada writes: If Harper had been PM and Not Mulroney where do you think we'd be on acid rain? Mulroney fought for Canada on Acid Rain Harper on the Other hand goes outside of Canada and Berates the Canadians and Canada. Stop calling the Reformer PM a TORY you insult True Tories.The Harpies Only Critize Liz May because she Dared Show Harper's WEAKNESS on GW. meanwhile she Praised PM Mulroney as the Greenest. I think it was her praising of Dion on GW that drove the Harpies over the Edge.The Harpies Don't Like anyone saying "Dear Leader has No Clothes'. Canadians will Soon tire of the Reformers with there Nasty bullying Ways. Difference between the CPC &PC Parties is that CPCers see EVERYONE as an Evil Enemy, The PCers only see them as opponents. The PCers can Argue a Point with the Person of opposing view,the CPCers Can only Attack the Person without making a Point. Of course as far as the Harpies are Concerned "progressive" conservatives are Liberals.:>)
  176. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: On the subject of computer models, they can be manipulated to produce the desired results. At one time I managed a group of employees who used numerical, finite-element modelling in their work and it often impressed me the lengths they were prepared to go to, to ensure that their results would "show it good". Some of the techniques they used were such that anyone trying to verify their work would have had a very difficult task to identify exactly what they had done.
  177. kevin joncas from Canada writes: Bobby D
    Read an article a while back that showed that there is a limit o the greenhouse gas effect. After a certain point adding more gasses does does not increase the effect. Catastrophic futures are nowhere as likely as the alarmists would have you believe.
    In addition,we must consider that animal husbandry contributes more ghg than all transportation sources combined. What is the solution? Reduce dramatically all food products from animals.
    In my opinion everyone is spending far too much time and resources railing against what what is quite likely inevitable,rather than trying to figure out how to deal it if it happens.
    The reality is that if you shut down Canada COMPLETELY, there will be no change in the outcome. We are essentially arguing about the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead. We can all feel warm and fuzzy about our strongly held positions and put every political spin on things all we like,but we are just peeing into the wind.There is a big difference between defeatism and realizing reality.
  178. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: Don Quixote meets King Canute?
  179. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Mother Nature is suffering a viral infection and IS going to have a fever to get it under control.
    Like a virus we are too stoopid to realize what we are doing to the host and we are truely helpless to prevent it.
    Result = vastly reduced populations, and a frailer host.
  180. Greg Davies from Calgary, Canada writes: Canadian beaver from Canada writes: "If Harper had been PM and Not Mulroney where do you think we'd be on acid rain? Mulroney fought for Canada on Acid Rain Harper on the Other hand goes outside of Canada and Berates the Canadians and Canada. "

    Beaver your comparison with acid rain is disingenuous because it reverses the behavior of the parties - the Liberals gave away the farm with respect to Kyoto, and the Tories are attemping to hold onto the farm!

    More to the point, Chretien and Martin seem to have had their past/present business relationships with the architect of Kyoto in mind when they gave away the farm, rather than the best interests of Canadians, and it is these behind the scenes relationships that the Canadian media has repeatedly chosen to conveniently ignore.

    Based on the lack of accountability in the carbon exchange what they effectively created is little more than legalized money laundering, and if the opposition chooses to force an election over ClimateScam then Harper can always choose to remove the blinders installed by the media and reveal the real relationships and forces underpinning Kyoto.

    Based on the gauntlet thrown down by the Bloc Beaver it would seem that the of that event will be determined by the gumption of your so called leader.

    Could you put a word in and make that happen Beaver?
  181. dubai dubai from new york, United States writes: Hey Greg -- I would really like to know what your hang up with carbon trading is..... You have not articulated it.

    I first asked if you didn't like it because it was a trade you missed out on -- you didn;t respond.

    then i asked what your hang up is with liquidity in a carbon trading system -- you didn;t respond.

    Greg, when people hate something but cannot articulate why they hate it so, that becomes the subject of psychological investigation. I really think you should see a shrink. And while you are at it, lay off the Beaver from Quebec. Ever seen a French Beaver? Sure beats that mountain of Albertan beef you have to climb every night.
  182. jack sprat from calgary, Canada writes: Harper historically said he does not believe in global warming. Suddenly, he is a "leader" (self-proclaimed with aspirational goals). But what this report proves by reporting the "double counting of many reductions" and the vague language that basically says nothing in the Act, it proves first that Harper is lying - again, second, he does not believe in global warming just like before, a leopard does not change his spots, and third that he continues to go around internationally to talk about his specific plan and the great reductions, and now we know he has lied, basically in front of international governments and at conferences...and don't think he didn't know about the double counting and the vague langauge, he is a control freak, he knows. He has absolutely NO INTEGRITY. If he doesn't believe in global warming say so, don't pretend and then make sure your so called "Act" is full of errors, exaggerations and vague language that is just BS.

    This report shows the true Harper. Lie, conceal, exaggerate and report what you think voters will like. It continues daily.

    Punt
  183. David Simon from Canada writes: China is starting up a new coal-fired power plant every 2 weeks, while Dalton McGuinty stretches his nose and the date he's coing to close Ontario's coal plants. In the global warm-mongers are right we're going to have some really warm winters coming Yipeee!
  184. Doug Edwards from Canada writes: Just a couple of points to ponder

    Approximately .5% of all of the people on this planet live in Canada. It is true that on a per capita basis we have one of the poorest records around resource use. On the other hand, we are so small in the scheme of things that if we stopped producing greenhouse gasses altogether the planet would be no better off.

    Many of the things that we produce in this country (including oil, coal and natural gas) are not used in significant quantities here. We export these things. Perhaps we should start looking at the end user country as the producer of the C02 that is generated both during production and consumption.
  185. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Doug Edwards from Canada writes: "It is true that on a per capita basis we [Canada] have one of the poorest records around resource use."

    However on a GDP basis we do much better than many countries. We're four times less polluting than China, for example (as of 2005) and about 15% better than the world average.

    http://tinyurl.com/e3nfc

    That Europe does batter is a reflection of the much shorter transportation distances plus the widespread use of clean nuclear power.
  186. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: While the government is "full of it", I don't think the opposition parties are any better with their deceitful statements saying we can meet Kyoto by 2012. They failed with their plans and now are trying to force the government to do the impossible - short of closing down the oil sands and other industries. Critics even said that Bill C-30 wouldn't get us to Kyoto by 2012. Lie, lies everywhere and the environment and our childrens' future continue to suffer
  187. Michael Sharp from Victoria BC, Canada writes:

    The long and the short of this article is that meeting Kyoto by 2012 is not doable.

    Liberal Party of Canada platform #1: Implement Kyoto fully.
    Woof woof.

    So.

    Does Dion continue to beat his dead one-trick pony in order to save face or does he admit defeat and change his tune?

    It's lose/lose for Stephane.
    But we already knew that.
  188. Kate K from Canada writes: Does anyone know where I could get a copy of this document written by NRTEE. I looked on their website and didn't find a document which was released on Friday Sept. 21st which is when was supposed to have been. The name wasnt given so it is difficult to search for. If you have any links please send them. Thanks
  189. Doug Edwards from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall - There is another issue when you look at the "holier than thow" attitude of the Europeans. There is large expediture energy and the consequent C02 production with resource extraction. The Europeans don't get charged with this C02 - we do.
  190. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "Misleading" - just wonderful. "Open, Transparent and Accountable" just doesn't quite mesh with "misleading", now does it? OOPS. As for all the "thirteen years of Liberal inaction" cracks, just what was Mr. Harper's position, attitude and approach to GW/CC/GHG when he was: A) President of the NCC; B) Reform, et. al., MP from Calgary; C) Leader of the Opposition? Sadly, his position is well documented and known. The fact that Canada has made little progress in dealing with GHG is as much Mr Harper's fault and doing as anything the Liberals did or didn't do.
  191. jack sprat from calgary, Canada writes: The Cons realize that this is bad news. Easy to tell; they released the report late Friday and have obviously trold all their bloggers to slam the libs even though they had nothing to do wioth the report. Perhaps the Cons should remember some facts before you bash: Your leader, Harpo proposes intensity based targets while saying libs did nothing in their term....the FACT is from 1993 to 2004 the INTENSITY of emissions DROPPED 47% but the actual emissions increased 35%. You see his plan is a sham, a lie. The numbers prove that intensity based targets wont work. Why doesn't he admit that instead of bashing on the libs, the FACTS say his George Bush approach is flawed. What's worse is he knows it but lies to Canadians and insults our intelligence. Why do you Cons put up with that.

    ABC

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