Skip navigation

Dragonflies, open water reveal rapid Arctic change

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Evidence suggests dramatic changes are taking place at a faster pace than anyone imagined ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Right Said Ed from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow... a climate change article that did not close with a paragraph blaming it all on SUV's... perhaps I need to read it again, I must have missed it...
  2. W M from Canada writes: I hope all the people who keep calling the scientific community alarmists as reading this, as it clearly indicates what many of us have realized for a long time. Far from being alarmist, the fact that the IPCC reports require consensus has resulted in projections that skew toward the conservative (i.e., low) end of the spectrum in order to get sign on from Bush/Cheney, OPEC, etc. Could it be that Bush and Cheney have been wrong about something? Naw.
  3. Robes Pierre from Calgary, Canada writes:

    All is well stay the course... we'll 'aspire' an end to global warming when Stevie has a majority.
  4. Ed Anger from Canada writes: Winnipeg is stilll too cold in the winter so I say bull................
  5. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Climate change or climactic fluctuations are definitely occurring. What the human factor is, is still unknown.
  6. John Nagle from Victoria, Canada writes: James Cyr-

    Are you joking? It is known, it is simply difficult to quantify.

    John
  7. Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, MN, USA, United States writes: The primary reason climate models have been grossly underestimating climate change is the failure to incorporate positive feedback loops.

    Methane hydrate contains more carbon than all the oil, coal, and natural gas combined. It is made of ice, so rather than release the carbon into the air when burned, it will release the methane (i.e CH4, 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2) trapped inside the ice when it melts.

    There is about 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) estimates that 50% of surface permafrost will melt by 2050, 90% by 2100. First the snow melts off the permafrost, exposing the ground which absorbs more sun, then a little greenhouse gas is emitted, leading to more warming, and more melting, in a vicious circle.

    By the way, there is an estimated 10,000 billion tons of methane inside oceanic hyrate at the bottom of the sea. Some of that is in vulnerable deposits near the coasts. A release of less than 30 billion tons of methane would be like doubling the CO2 level in the air.
  8. Dennis sinneD. from Calgary, Canada writes: We had tons more dragon flies in Calgary, than usual, this year.

    Funny, I never see grasshoppers here, but we used to have huge ones in Red Deer. Do you have grasshoppers in Red Deer this year?
  9. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: Eds: http://tinyurl.com/35v9wo
  10. Peter Cromerovich from Erehwon, Canada writes: Robes Pierre from Calgary: Aspire as in soar? -like an eagle perhaps. Best not get too close to the sun. I was thinking more on the lines of a turkey as, sadly for us, I see nothing to inspire. Even sadder (actually I am kind of glad) I won't be joining Bush, Cheney, Harper and Stockwell in their rapturous and glorious ascent past all that Global Warming, leavng behind the 5000 year old Earth. If it is that old maybe it's time for a new model anyway? Then again maybe their wax will melt.
  11. Mary Smith from United States writes:
    Let's see; John Cyr said 'What the human factor is, is still unknown.'

    John Nagle responds, 'Are you joking? It is known, it is simply difficult to quantify.'

    Quantify: to determine, express, or measure the quantity of. In other words, what the human factor is, is still unknown.
  12. Martin Chriton from Waterloo, Canada writes: ' John Nagle from Victoria, Canada writes: James Cyr-

    Are you joking? It is known, it is simply difficult to quantify.

    John'

    LMAO. I'm saving this quote. H.i.l.a.r.i.o.u.s.
  13. Duncan Munro from langley BC, Canada writes: When will our very our 'wonder general' Hillier, start demanding nuclear subs, carriers and H-bombs to stop the Yankee threat to our Arctic Sovereignty, now that the ice is receding?Maybe he might like to argue that the ice itself was the best protection... But, I guess the chief of the defence staff doesn't like to worry about things like that. Much better to fight a 'police action' in some dirt poor third world country, than confront the real threats to our nation. Hillier is the best general George Bush has got.

    What a joke. Hillier is popular because he sends our troops into a meat grinder of an unwinnable war and every right wing yahoo stands up and cheers, while Global Warming is threatening Canada like no other crisis ever has. Hillier and his pals, Harper and McKay, spit on the very idea of action to stop Global warming, while all the leading us over the edge of precipice.
  14. bob gervitz from United States writes: I don't personally know what the degree of human effect is on Arctic ice melting or any of the other so-called global warming effects but I'm no dummy. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, running all manner of combustion engines, burning huge swathes of forest, running millions of air conditioners, refrigerators, cars, trucks, trains and planes, pouring millions of gallons of pesticides on their lawns, etc., etc. And have been doing so for over a hundred years at a tremendous intensity level never seen before on this earth. How can anyone seriously claim we are having no effect on the planet's climate? -------Those that do claim we are having no effect are the same idiots who said smoking caused no harm, the DDT caused no harm, that radiation caused no harm, that asbestos caused no harm, that thalidamide (sp?) caused no harm, ....see any pattern here?
  15. Buckaroo Bonzai from United States writes: Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, MN, USA, United States writes:'National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) estimates that 50% of surface permafrost will melt by 2050, 90% by 2100. First the snow melts off the permafrost, exposing the ground which absorbs more sun, then a little greenhouse gas is emitted, leading to more warming, and more melting, in a vicious circle.'

    I did a lttle research on NCAR, this group you quote as experts. Not really a 'Center', but just 2 guys from the Unuversity of Boulder with an opinion. Some 'exprets'.
  16. Alexander Jablanczy from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: There are but three outcomes possible for the ice bears exile to the Antarctic, extinxion, or hybridisation with the grizzlies as has already begun. Then we will also find out if English and French are correct in calling these ursids Polar or German and Hungarian which call them ice bears. If they survive the melt then they are indeed polar bears but if they disappear with the ice then thats what they were ice bears and not polar bears. I wonder what their name means in Eskimo or Inuktitut? Even way donn here in Algoma black squirrels are driving out the red squirrel which had a monopoly on boreal forests. Gimme my pinecone even if it's spruce. Lake Superior is down today two feet compared to 15 years ago believe it or not even on the US side not just here in Ontario. Calculate the water deficit area x water level drop and you get probably more water than all the lakes in Europe. It might be difficult for some folks to believe in something that they cannot see., but you can all look at the horizon and see what? not clear blue sky but an ugly smudge or wash of greyish brownish yellowish muck stain and filth in the sky. While very rarely it might be due to distant forest fires, this VISIBLE experiencable air pollution is simply not deniable rationally. It is also visible over Toronto Los Angeles and over Vancouver downtown though I must say I dindnt see that this year a month ago. It's not constant but intermittent. To deny thet air pollution in cities exists is simply moronic. We also know that the official temperatures are given at airports always are a couple of degrees cooler than downtowns. You dont need a billion dollars of science just open your eyes where you live anywhere and the conclusion is absolutely inescapable: human induxtrial civilixation I call technobarbarism changes air sky planet climate soil plants animals. Global warming? That's not half of our problems. It's been self evident for centuries.
  17. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: So Brad, what you are telling me is your Minnesota, and my Southern Ontario, are about to become new sun spots? Yahoo!!!
  18. canadian observing from Paris, France writes: Regardless of the degree to which humans are contributing to global warming, there is a desperate need to pay attention to air, water and soil pollution. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that long term dependence on fossil fuels and burning down all our forests is foolish. So let's stop arguing about it and start to make some changes.

    Having said that, I have (a somewhat naive) question. We hear so much about the destruction of species as a result of climate change, but won't there also be species creation? Certainly with a warming trend, there is a possibility of new species developing as a result of evolution and adaptation to a new environment? As long as the climate has changed (since the beginning of the earth) species have come and gone.......is it all bad????
  19. R. D. Kimmel from United States writes: NCAR is a joint venture of 14 universities and the National Science Foundation. Professors from major U.S. universities who are involved in the study of Earth's atmosphere do research on site. I lived in Boulder for a while and knew some of the professors who conduct research at NCAR. They are world authorities. NCAR is NOT '2 professors from the University of Boulder with an opinion.' Buckaroo Bonzai, had you done a little more research, you would know, among other things, that the university located in Boulder Colorado is Colorado University (CU), not the University of Boulder. I am amazed and saddened to learn of more evidence of global warming.
  20. Russ Kehoe from Canada writes: Thank You R.D. Kimmel , Buckaroo Bonzai is just a neo-Consucker troll, spreading filth and lies.
  21. Starting Over from Canada writes: If estimates of Canada's contribution to GHG are to be believed, even if we returned ourselves to the stoneage today, the planet is pretty much screwed until sometime next century.

    Since the major up and coming contributors are being given a pass at our expense, do you tree huggers propose any other bright ideas?

    Or should the rest of us roast until we all die?

    Just curious.
  22. Brenda Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: Thank you Bob G, for putting it so simply and obviously, maybe the people who still don't believe it, will read your comment and a light bulb will go off and they will finally get it!
  23. Brenda Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: If it weren't for 'tree huggers' the planet would be a very ugly place and we would all choke and die. Long live the tree huggers!
  24. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: The conservatives know that global warming is causing the problems. They spin the nonsense of unsure science so they can ignore a problem they simply don't care about. They want to secure their oil interests before Harper loses the next election and they are going at breakneck pace behind closed doors now.
    We don't have much time left, if Harper stays in power until George W gets voted out next year they will accomplish everything they are secretly doing.
  25. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Sure, some would say that we need more research into the phenomenon of climate change?
  26. Bill M from Canada writes: Brenda Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: If it weren't for 'tree huggers' the planet would be a very ugly place and we would all choke and die. Long live the tree huggers!

    So now, because of the tree huggers, we have a pretty planet, and we're all still going to die one day.

    But seriously Brenda, I think the point Starting Over is trying to make is this. Take a bucket, and put 100 marbles in it. Remove two. See a big difference? Pretend those 100 marbles represent all the human produced CO2. The two you removed are Canada's contribution. So if you completely shut down Canada, and I mean completely, no more cars, trucks, furnaces, industry, electricity, etc., do you see what a big difference it would make? So what difference will meeting Kyoto targets )while throwing a couple of hunred thousand people out of work and having inflation run rampant) really make? China, Russia, India, etc aren't going to cut back. The polar ice cap is still going to melt, no matter what Canadians do.
  27. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: Hi Bill M, while I agree Kyoto is not the solution, (Personally I view it more as a tool of globalization than an environmental solution). To simply say that won't work, let's do nothing isn't a choice either.

    Many businesses and corporations that have changed their ways to become more environmentally conscious (on their own I might add) have actually found it profitable. That is the word that needs to get out... There IS economic opportunity to doing business in a different way, rather than this fear-mongering of any environmental solution will destroy our economy.

    Perhaps we need to look beyond the melting of the ice caps???

    Economies boom for two main reason, war and technological advances, searching for ways to solve our environmental crisis means searching for technological advances... this can be very lucrative to those willing to try.
  28. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: The earth is undergoing one of its natural, periodic climatic transformations. Get used to it and get over it! As soon as they admit that nothing can be done about this phenomenon, and when the public finally sees through their scam, the global warming alarmists and con artistes will find another brand of snake oil to peddle.
  29. Starting Over from Ontario, Canada writes: Thanks Bill M, that WAS precisely the point I was making. Taking sides for or against Climate Change is at this point, uttlery useless. Unless the planet cooperates fully, and I mean 100% sharing of resources, technology, brain power, food, available land mass for relocation etc., no amount of Canada's effort will make a difference.

    In a utopian world, that would be the outcome, and we would all find ourselves living peacefully in harmony with nature and each other.

    The reality is, we're screwed.
  30. at Elections Canada , taxpayers owe us a refund,Revenue Canada adit the little people from Canada writes:
    Harper is busy trying to lock up 5 million Canadian wacky tobacy users . Please don't tell him Afghanistan has gone from low level supplier to a surplus of 5,000 tons excess to the worlds present need . Don't tell his government officials , spies and federal cops are impotent to put a dent or control that with the power of our soldiers there .

    Thanks for allowing this beautiful summer weather this fall . Is it related to the Artic do you think ?
  31. Arctic Mac from North of 72 Degrees, Canada writes: Someone asked whether a 'nanuq' is considered an ice bear in our language. Obviously, with over 4000 years of hunting bears, Inuit do know things about bears that scientists do not. Inuit consider the nanuq as a bear of the sea, but when it morphs into a 'tullaajuittuq' (one that never sets foot on land or ice), it becomes a 'sea bear'.
    Inuit have told about a future time when the ice will disappear and trees will return to the Arctic, most of us never imagined it would happen in out particular lifetimes, but here it seems to be happening.
    There is a good report on climate change, done in 2003 when elders were gathered together to pool their accumulated knowledge into an Inuit specific report. It is called 'Elders Conference on Climate Change - 2003'. The changes are still accelerating, albeit in other places where there was no observable change until this summer.
    Anyway, as another commenter pointed out, the Arctic holds more greenhouse gases in its permafrost than the entire world emits and as we melt, expect the climate to change even faster.
  32. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS: What you need to do is start a public database, of all of the public figures who are DENYING the reality of global warming. List their names, and their statements. Make it a permanent record for history that cannot be fudged. Then as the climate warms, their names will go down in infamy, and those in positions of power could even be prosecuted in the future for what they have done. They could end up in jail for their crimes of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. GET IT ALL ON THE RECORD IN ONE PLACE, so future generations knows who SPECIFICALLY was responsible for not doing what they should be doing.
  33. c f from Ontario, Canada writes: Canadian from Paris - reasonable question, however the issue is the speed at which the climate is changing. Existing species can be destroyed because they can't adapt quickly enough, so similarily it goes that new species can't be created because the rate of adaptation is much too slow. It's kind of like using dynamite to blow up a mountain and waiting impatiently for a new mountain to appear in its place.

    You hear statements like 'we don't know how much is natural and how much is human induced', which is utter BS. We do know roughly how much, and the speed at which it is happening is way beyond natural fluctuations.
  34. Bob from Montreal from Canada writes: Finally, a decent article on the subject! There are specific weather-related reasons why we had such a dramatic reduction in the Polar pack this year. One other point worth noting that, as stated in the arcticle, the North-west Passage did not, in fact 'completely open' as reported in most media reports. The 20% ice cover was still a threat to 'blue water' ships because it was mostly the thick old ice floes that remained. On the point about the polar bears, they are much more tollerant of change than we give them credit for. The polar bear population in northern Labrador is thriving even though they have a two month shorter ice season than the bears in the high Arctic and a least one month less than in Hudson Bay. That being said, I don't want to leave the impression that I am not concerned about what we see as its is very concerning. What is important is that we make sure we provide the resources required to properly study this over the coming years (objectively!).
  35. The human race is a failed experiment Creator from Canada writes: And who would have thought that a bug and a bird could cause such a stir
  36. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: Yes, we are cooked. The battle is lost, for reasons stated: US, China, India, etc.; and because people will never do enough to make a difference. Consumerism is our religion, period. If Canada does all or nothing, it would make a small difference, but not a great deal. Having said that, bob gervitz's summary is the best common-sense summary you'll see. Anyone who doesn't understand that pumping unlimited air pollution into a finite container - the Earth's atmosphere - will have very serious repercussions, is either stupid, which is rare, or in the case of our posters, being obtuse for reasons of personality or politics. In short: they don't care, and have fun justifying it. I've always done everything I could for the environment, every day, because I have to live with myself and I'm not a jerk; but I'm under no illusions about it having any but a tiny local effect. Jerkism wins every time.
  37. Dave a Conservative from Ottawa, Canada writes: Time to start investing in Nunavut and N.W.T. shorefront properties. While we're at it, perhaps a small cruise ship and the odd resort complex. Canada's curbing of emissions is useless without CHINA, INDIA and the US not only cutting but eliminating their emissions.
  38. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: I blame soccer moms from the TO area, and um, peanut butter. Yes, peanut butter.

    The science is overwhelming that peanut butter and Toronto soccer moms are to blame for Global Warming.
  39. annon Annon from Canada writes: How could humans cause global warming? God put us here to rule over the earth, and use its resources the way we feel fit. I think it is a cockroach conspiracy to rule the world.
  40. Anne Peterson from Canada writes:
    More planes for the military. Has anyone bothered to figure out the carbon footprint of war. How to kill people in more ways than one.
  41. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: John Williams from Ajax, Canada: I agree wholeheartedly John. Let's also make a list of the buffoons who buy into the 'we can stop global warming' argument.

    'GET IT ALL ON THE RECORD IN ONE PLACE, so future generations know who SPECIFICALLY was responsible for doing what they should NOT be doing.'
  42. M D from Halifax, Canada writes: John Williams; thats a great plan. So someone like myself who isn't convinced of GW to the point where I want to pay 3x for 'clean energy', but still uses many times less than the average Canadian should go on the list, but what about the hypocrites that belive in it with their heart and soul, but don't stop driving or using the A/C? They have the opinion that something should be done; gov't should legislate, but only to the extent that it doesn't cost them any undue inconvieience or financial hardship.

    The statement 'Well even if there's a chance shouldn't we do *somthing*' Goes both ways. 'Shouldn't we look a bit further into it before we committ to 2-3X price for energy and anything that uses it as a base construct'

  43. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill M. you assume that Canada's measly contribution of 2% exists in a vacuum, and that we wield on influence on the rest of the world.

    If that were the case, Canada would never have contributed to the fight against fascism in WWII, UN peacekeeping efforts, famine, tsunami relief, etc. Cancer or AIDS research? Our contribution is so small, so why make an effort to solve global problems?

    This is the same kind of small-minded thinking that business leaders criticise Canadians for when speaking to our ability to compete economically.

    Canada not only can take leadership on the fight against climate change, it has a moral obligation to do so, as we have benefited so much from the activity that created the problem in the first place. We are a rich nation, and one that can do great things when we are determined to do so. Canada is not insignificant in any way, shape or form.
  44. at Elections Canada , taxpayers owe us a refund,Revenue Canada adit the little people from Canada writes: annon Annon from Canada writes: How could humans cause global warming? God put us here to rule over the earth, and use its resources the way we feel fit. I think it is a cockroach conspiracy to rule the world. Posted 04/10/07 at 9:54 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Google the # of times Harper has faced the press in the Government paid for Facility . What happened in New York last week ? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191506582-TIqIRR1A5Ro3tbWN5sQQKg Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift a New Conservative Group By DON VAN NATTA Jr. Published: September 30, 2007 Freedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Bradley Blakeman, the president of Freedom’s Watch, who left the Bush administration as an assistant deputy to the president. Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy. Harper is playing you like a violin . He has no agenda but good government ? Free vote on Iran ?
  45. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: And why is anyone surprised that Harper is building 'patrol ships' instead of the 'ice-breakers' he promised? He knows something he's not willing to tell us. I.E., we're screwed!
  46. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: In reponse to the 'why bother?' posters, note reporter Jeffrey Simpson's comments from October 2:

    'Frank, you've asked the cardinal question: Why do anything when Canada's emissions only amount to 2 per cent of the global total?

    'By that reasoning, Canada would roll up the oceans and forget about the rest of the world, since our contribution to anything will never be decisive.

    'If we had followed this logic, we would never had fought two world wars, we would never give foreign aid, we would not participate (except nominally) in the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, APEC, the OAS or any other international agency'
  47. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Arctic Mac. Thanks for the real information, I have read about the methane issue before and believe there is a lot of truth to it.

    Having lived in the north (not arctic) I can appreciate how it will be a compounding problem as the permafrost begins to melt, it will emit more and more methane which will tend to provide even more warming, and on and on we go.

    Methane problem is also in the oil industry and the feed lot industry/ Think we need to ban cows???

    We also have to watch those Mexicans as they eat a lot of beans which result in methane.

    I also think we need to close Ottawa as there is a lot of methane and GHG coming from there.

    As an old fart (get it) it is an academic issue for me but something is happening for sure.
  48. Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: Two points:

    1. Global warming conclusions that are humans are to blame are great because it gets us to cut down on the ridiculous amount of waste we consume and how inconsiderate we are of our environment.

    2. To say humans are the cause - well I can only agree to that if you tell me humans were the cause of the other ice ages that earth has experienced. Since there were no humans, good luck. 'Global Warming' is as much clock work as Spring Summer Fall & Winter but on a much more lengthy schedule, in the thousands of years.
  49. J B from United States writes: 'Since the major up and coming contributors are being given a pass at our expense, do you tree huggers propose any other bright ideas?'

    Carbon capture and disposal. It may come down to active management of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The technology is not that far fetched. Even with conservation measures/alternatives energy sources the population of the planet will likely continue to use fossil fuels throughout this century at an accelerating rate, and carbon dioxide management and removal will be required to stabilize the co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Global regulation of carbon dioxide is required. My 2 cents and I do read the climate change literature.
  50. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes:
    2. To say humans are the cause - well I can only agree to that if you tell me humans were the cause of the other ice ages .
    *************************************************
    The fact that we have had a warming trend over the last 100 years and that this trend is contemporaneous with an increase of greenhouse gasses seems to be significant. It is also significant that
    this has occurred at the same time as the world went through the industrial revolution which has meant using large amounts of fossil fuel which of course do produce GG. It would take too long to explain here but I would encourage you to do the research yourself if you wish but there are alternative & interesting explanations for the cooling and warming periods in the history of our planet.
    CYMRO
  51. Starting Over from Ontario, Canada writes: J B, Canada was not given credit for its' ability to act as a carbon sink. If it had, our vast forested areas would have negated our own contribution.

    Why was this accounted for in the original Kyoto Protocol?

    I have read the literature as well, and there is no real mention of this anywhere.
  52. J Kay from Canada writes: Starting Over; It was in fact considered in the Kyoto Accord which is why Canada's contributions needed to be only 6% below 1990's levels whereas much of Europe had targets of 8% below. The sink effect is not as significant as you suggest.
  53. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill M. you assume that Canada's measly contribution of 2% exists in a vacuum, and that we wield on influence on the rest of the world. If that were the case, Canada would never have contributed to the fight against fascism in WWII, UN peacekeeping efforts, famine, tsunami relief, etc. Cancer or AIDS research? Our contribution is so small, so why make an effort to solve global problems? These comparisons are inaccurate. A couple of well placed boms could defeat a nation, a couple of bombs will not solve climate change. UN peace keeping efforts is to keep two sides from kiling each other, again a problem that is small in comparison to the climate. Famine, cancer, Aids, billions upon billions have been contributed to these causes, yet not one has been solved. There has also been considerate time in the research of these, again still unsolved. Climate still is a larger problem than this, as these other items only affect a small amount of people. It is becoming painfully obvious that GW, (while actual cause is debatable), is occuring, that there is little we can do about it now to reverse it's effects, and that we need to start now in the means of adapting to this changing world. Soil, air, water pollution are items that we have a chance at reducing, and we may need to do so as part of our adaption, but for climate change, unfortunately is it now in process that once started, will continue until it's likely outcome. Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, MN, USA, United States writes: Great post! To anyone - Has there been much research done on the theory that we are experiencing the reversal of the earth's magnetic poles, and the result that this may have on the climate?
  54. Bill M from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill M. you assume that Canada's measly contribution of 2% exists in a vacuum, and that we wield on influence on the rest of the world.

    I think you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make Art. I'm saying going the Kyoto route will be a disaster for Canada, and will achieve next to nothing on a global scale. If we all do what we can personally to reduce our carbon footprint, it's a good start. I've done all I can, and am already paying the price, as are you, in higher hydro rates to make up for their loss in revenue. If someone out there has the real answer to solve this problem, let's hear it.

    The Green's answer is to tax the crap out of energy, and eliminate income taxes to even it out. Sounds good. The guy who has no choice but to drive to work (public transit doesn't cover every square kilometre in this country) and doesn't have a very high paying job, suddenly has to pay $5 a litre for gas. But he pays no income taxes to begin with because of his income. How do you justify it to him? Meanwhile, the lawyer living in the $500,000 condo right next to where he works in downtown Toronto stops paying taxes on his $750,000 salary. That sounds just brilliant to me.
  55. Starting Over from Ontario, Canada writes: Bill M, your 11:14 post is dead-on. The Tree Huggers don't get it, but alot of us do.

    We are looking for a happy medium as a solution, the Greens would have us living in the 12th century. Definitley not an option.
  56. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: John Nagle: iI have not seen it quantified yet, therefore, it is unknown. If it is, then what is it?
  57. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: J B. from the United States: good post, and very true. There is already good reasearch into various scenarios of carbon capture.
  58. M j from Canada writes: Pfeh! I've read enough from the arses whining about how screwed we are. Grow a pair of testicles, you miserable sacks of useless DNA. You are exactly the sort of weedy milksops that I would throw off my training course, simply because your carcasses slow down those that work hard and don't accept failure as an option. Get off my planet and don't write soon. OF COURSE we can do something! Canada's 2% usage may not seem like much, but that's just your transparent spin. Let's say you have to swim 100 meters to shore, or drown. Do you stop at 98? All of sudden, that last 2% seems pretty @#$% important, doesn't it? The 2% lie also ignores the volume of oil Canada currently and hopes to export. That's a good deal more than 2% isn't it? As an oil-producing first world nation, our attitudes and tactics are influential. Everytime our twisted little PM aligns our energy and foreign policies with the likes of the USA and Australia, the world gets a little more dangerous and warmer. We could be pouring billions into green(er) technologies, which are coming as inevitably as hot summers. We could be exporting that technology to energy importing countries, who would then release less CO2. FYI, that's just the sort of thing that earns credit in Kyoto. THERE IS NO ARTICLE IN KYOTO THAT SENDS MONEY OVERSEAS. Credits are earned by projects, designed by Canadians, sold by Canadians, consulted by Canadians, built by Canadians. Greedy oil mofos are lying about Kyoto to stall a brilliant opportunity for Canada to create jobs and technology investment right here at home. Lastly, the reason why so much misinformation and confusion is being sown, and why they (oil profiteers and the governments in their pockets) want you to be confused: every per cent of reduction in CO2 emissions means less oil is being sold. There is NO WAY to reduce emissions without reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, period. None. Nada. Zip.
  59. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill...you're rignt Kyoto may not on its own make a huge difference in the level of GHG emissions.

    It's like starting to pay off a mortgage - in the beginning you don't see much decline in the principal. However by not paying it off, the balance grows by a larger amount every year.

    The process has to start, and Kyoto is so far the only framework proposed where all the major contributors have made an initial commitment. Its a process that needs to continue, but it will be ineffective if we can't even commit to the very small first steps.

    By meeting those commitments, or at least making the best, most honest attempt to meet them, it sends a signal to the world, including major polluters like China, India and the U.S. that Canada believes that the goal of reducing carbon emissions is worth the sacrifice of a few tenths of a percent in economic growth.

    Harper's alternative (APEC deal) is a fraud. Intensity targets allow growth in the economy to move the target up exponentially over time. This ensures that emissions will continue to climb rapidly. The impact on the planet is the same regardless of how many dollars are circulating through the economy.

    Reducing income tax and increasing carbon taxes will not put us in the 12th century. Our economy is diverse and resilient. They will however ensure that we make adjustments to the way we use energy. This will protect our economy from the inevitable increase in fuel prices from supply limitations (peak oil). The biggest incentive to use less energy, is to give people a financial reward for using less, by letting them keep more of what they earn. That provides even more money to invest in things like better insulation and using alternative energy sources. Hard to see how that's such a bad thing.

  60. r b from calgary, Canada writes: The Inuit elders presumably never suffer from the same time of selective memory that elders in the ROC do. I would have assumed that their memories would be no more, or less, useful in determining empirical evidence of warming than mine would be. As a concrete example, let me relate local perceptions of weather here in Calgary. In this mostly frozen burgh, frosts come early, usually late August, certainly early September. The first snowfall is almost always no later than mid September (this year was no exception). However, Calgarians invariably 'can't believe it' when they wake up to frost in August, or snow in September. The local media feeds this perception by interviewing one incredulous Calgarian after another. I asked an acquaintance if he recalled an August in 1993 (I believe that was the year). We had 2 solid days of snow, and on either August 20th or 21st the HIGH for the day was BELOW ZERO. In August! And across the Rockies in Kelowna it was still in the 30's. His response was something to the effect of - 'uh no, I can't recall that, that can't be, are you sure?...'. And that is why anecdotal evidence, and human perceptions, have to be heavily discounted when considering climate change. I respect the opinions of people like the elders interviewed, but it is not empirical evidence.
  61. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm sorry to sound like righteous indignation, but I'm enjoying the whole thing.

    The 'whacked out' conservatives who denied this, are seeing their precious economy crumble, and cities smashed off the planet by hurricanes and tsunamis destroying any economic gain made by desperate companies too chinsey to change.

    We too share the brunt, enjoying our drives to work alone, rampant shopping to make up for family distress, and the march to another almighty buck.

    We'll all pay, but the little guy in the middle will feel it less. The very rich will loose tons of cash, and of course the very poor will take the brunt of the damage in the world.

    I suggest a glass of cheap champagne on a rooftop somewhere, and enjoy the coming fall...because...it's not going to stop. It's going to get many times worse. And to that I say...we deserve it.
  62. r b from calgary, Canada writes: I would like to thank Robert F for resisting the use of hyperbole in his posting.

    Some posters on the climate change debate sound alarmist, almost panic stricken, but not Robert.

    Nope, his is the voice of reason in a cacaphony of Chicken Littles.
  63. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill M writes: The Green's answer is to tax the crap out of energy, and eliminate income taxes to even it out. Sounds good. The guy who has no choice but to drive to work (public transit doesn't cover every square kilometre in this country) and doesn't have a very high paying job, suddenly has to pay $5 a litre for gas. But he pays no income taxes to begin with because of his income. How do you justify it to him? Meanwhile, the lawyer living in the $500,000 condo right next to where he works in downtown Toronto stops paying taxes on his $750,000 salary. That sounds just brilliant to me.

    Of course, lower income tax rates will give the lower income earner more incentive to choose a location that costs less, or find work that pays a higher rate of income, or negotiate a better salary.

    On the other hand, if the big-shot Toronto lawyer spends all of his income on consumption, then that person will be no better off. If however the lawyer saves the extra income and invests it, that supplies more capital to Canadian businesses, which will be utilized to improve energy efficiency as well as provide more jobs.
  64. Linda P from foothills of Rocky Mountains in a valley, Canada writes: Too bad that we can't go back and fix our biggest mistakes like the 'A' bomb.
    Too bad we can not change the influence we have had on the environment.
    We are a very strange people, allowing our planet to be destroyed, all for the sake of what; the mighty dollar, personal gain, depleted resources, world poverty, clear cutting the boreal forest, the rain forests of South American are under the saw as I type this comment; to make way for more progress.
    I hang my head in shame for my part in pollution, landfills, the lack of clean air, melting ice caps, the extinction of specific waterfowl, lost languages and the whole lot of it.
  65. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Canada writes: r b from calgary, good point about the weather observations. Five years ago, we broke trail through the snow, 1.25 hours north of calgary, on the August long weekend. Same thing, other side of the mountains it was high 20s. That's what happens when you live so close to the mountains. The Inuit though, may be a little better in portraying the past, as they have ensured that it has been passed down from family to family.
  66. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Linda P: are you saying that we should all lay down and die? You mention that we allow our planet to be destroyed for 'world poverty'--I don't quite understand that. Yes, we have made mistakes, but mistakes can be rectified, should we take the time and effort to do so. But corporations and governments usually won't act unless pressure is put on them, and that is where we come in. Do not whine about the perceived problems, offer proactive solutions. Why do you hang your head in shame for things (lack of clean air) that you have no control over? There are solutions to be offered, and things everyone can do to counter those effects. Do not say that the 'glass is half empty'. Say that it is 'half full', and that things can be done!
  67. Bill M from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Of course, lower income tax rates will give the lower income earner more incentive to choose a location that costs less, or find work that pays a higher rate of income, or negotiate a better salary. Or get a second job (if he hasn't lost the first one) so he will be able to afford the huge increase in the costs of every single product that is shipped by any fossil fuel burning vehicle. And yes Art, inflation will run rampant. If the cost of production goes up, the cost gets passed to the consumers, who will in turn demand higher salaries to pay for the higher costs, driving costs up, and round and round it goes. Remember Trudeau, and why he had to institute wage and price controls? And art, what are you doing in Burlington to help? All I see when I drive through there is green land after green land being destroyed to build housing. Why aren't they building up instead? Are you fighting city hall to stop the destruction? Or do you live in one of them? Burlington, the city of three cars in every drive way, and if one is more than three years old, you must part of the working poor. And for all those of you who say a minor reduction in GDP is worth it, please volunteer to be the first in line at the unemployment or welfare office. I'm sure you'd think twice about it if it's your job that gets eliminated. You don't care that hundreds of thousands become unemployed to meet your Kyoto goals, as long as it's not your job.
  68. Dave Jansen from Canada writes: Harper told us this wasn't the case.

    Harper doesn't lie.
  69. Dave Jansen from Canada writes: Bill M from Canada writes: 'You don't care that hundreds of thousands become unemployed to meet your Kyoto goals, as long as it's not your job.'

    Fear-monger much there Bill?
  70. Marc Proulx from Nepean, Canada writes: The article makes references to sea ice coverage based on readings since the 1950's. This article is very disingenuous, when you consider that 50 years or so of climate readings is enough time for this article to make the pronouncement that our climate is changing. Shame on this writer! I would argue our climate is constantly changing - regardless of human presence. We have only kept reliable records on climate for perhaps the last 100 years. We measure a human lifetime in terms of 75 years, whereas the earth's climate likely has a cycle of more than 2000 years! We are very insignificant to this planet. Lets not forget that the 'little ice age' only ended about 1400 AD. Based on this information alone, we probably are at the peak of a warming trend in our climate. Another thing to note in reference to the article about the Northwest Passage, is that the Norwegian Explorer Roald Amundsen successfully navigated this passage in 1909. Did we have global warming then?
  71. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm sorry to sound like righteous indignation, but I'm enjoying the whole thing.

    ....MUCH RUBBISH DELETED........ It's going to get many times worse. And to that I say...we deserve it.

    What a drama queen you are RF.
  72. J B from United States writes: I didn't mean to imply in my post that I discount the value of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Here are some numbers that I think are pretty accurate: the US, Canada, and Australia emit about 6 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year; the EU about 2 tons/person/yr; China about 1 ton/person/yr; and India about 0.25 tons/person/yr. Could those of us in N. America who enjoy such a wonderful quality of life reduce our per capita consumption? It seems there is quite a bit of low hanging fruit in that regard, but easier said than done. And then there are about 3 billion people who probably would like to have air conditioners, cars, dishwashers, etc. etc., as well they should. Global growth and development will make stablizing atmoshperic co2 concentrations a serious challenge even if we change our lifestyles and invest heavily in new technology. However, I am in the camp of every little bit helps, mainly because of the cumulative effect of millions of people doing these little things. Right now we are increasing the co2 concentration in the atmosphere by roughly 1.8 ppm/yr. With some very reasonable business-as-usual assumptions about energy use and global growth, that rate could increase to about 6 ppm/yr by mid century. IMHO reducing the rate of increase is an important part of the solution, if only to buy some time.
  73. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: Time to buy ocean front property up north.
  74. Bill M from Canada writes: Dave Jansen from Canada writes: Bill M from Canada writes: 'You don't care that hundreds of thousands become unemployed to meet your Kyoto goals, as long as it's not your job.'

    Fear-monger much there Bill?

    Sorry if I scared you Dave. The Liberal Government estimate in 2003 was the cost to implement Kyoto would be approximately $100 billion, and in the neighbourhood of 250,000 jobs lost. Their numbers, not mine.
  75. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Bill M...I recall seeing the same arguments about inflation when the GST was introduced. Now economists are almost unanimous on how the shift to consumption taxes instead of production made our economy more competitive and added jobs. Burlington is not the best example in being an environmental steward, I'll agree. Our suburban development practices are not sustainable. Gridlock and the recent increases in property taxes are proof of that. I've been making these points to city council for several years. We definitely need to grow smarter with less sprawl. The greenbelt legislation, Places to Grow, and the fixed city boundaries will help. Ultimately though, it's up to people to make better decisions - choosing to leave the cars at home and use the excellent public transit and walking/cycling facilities we have invested in. People who live in suburban areas, myself included, need to be prepared to deal with higher energy costs. It's inevitable. Peak oil is here. The tax shift just helps that adjustment along. Being totally automobile dependent will be a recipe for future poverty, not to mention the quality of live lost to sitting in traffic for hours. The 3 car families we see will certainly have to make changes to adapt. A tax system that gives incentive for making those changes is the best thing to help us adapt to the soon to be reality.
  76. Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: 'The fact that we have had a warming trend over the last 100 years and that this trend is contemporaneous with an increase of greenhouse gasses seems to be significant.'

    LOL! You ignored my point completely. 100 years is a very minuscule timeframe. I will repeat my point again - convince me that all the other ice ages (when humans did not even exist) were a result of human pollution and I will believe that humans are the cause for this global warming.

    My BELIEF is that this is a natural cycle, could I be wrong? Absolutely - but there is no evidence to concretely say, yes humans are the cause, in fact there is more evidence against human causes. Only when you look at data from 1950 forward can you make correlations that humans caused global warming, but the earth is much older, and 50 - 100 years is statistically insignificant.

    The fact is we do not possess the knowledge or the know how to make these claims, and to do so is as ignorant as to claim the sun revolves around the earth.
  77. r r from London, Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes:' convince me that all the other ice ages (when humans did not even exist) were a result of human pollution and I will believe that humans are the cause for this global warming. '

    Well, you could read the scientific literature on climate change. The data clearly show that the only signficant factor correlating with the current warming of the past few decades is man-made GHG.

    Previous warming periods correlate with various factors such as solar activity, but the current warming is clealry man-made.
  78. J Kay from Canada writes: Albergino: Your comment is highly disingenuous. You paint a false dichotomy wherein the only choice is that all warmings both past and present are human induced or they arent. Since one obviously cannot prove past warmings where humans did not exist were due to human pollution, you infer that the appropiate conclusion to draw is that this warming is also natural. That is neither an obvious conclusion, nor is it a logical conclusion because your entire comment employs a logical fallacy for your argument. It can be in fact true that past warmings were natural variation, which occured on a far longer time scale that what is being observed, and that the present warming given the rate at which it's occurring strongly suggests that it has anthropogenic origins.

    Your insistence that one 'prove' all past warmings were human induced before you'll accept that the current warming is, is disingeuous in the extreme and if true, is if nothing else, proof that your ability to construct a logical rationale argument or make said same decision is acutely impaired.
  79. J B from United States writes: 'convince me that all the other ice ages (when humans did not even exist) were a result of human pollution and I will believe that humans are the cause for this global warming. '

    You are assuming there can be only one variable. How about this argument: Natural factors were responsible for past shifts in climate, human activity (ie, co2 forcing) is likely responsible (or at least a major contributor) for the present one.
  80. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: 'The fact is we do not possess the knowledge or the know how to make these claims, and to do so is as ignorant as to claim the sun revolves around the earth.'

    You obviously don't have the knowledge, Al. Hundreds of peer-reviewed climate scientists do. And many global insurance companies, national governments, and multinational businesses. If you'd like to catch up, consult the folks at http://www.realclimate.org
  81. Paul Rogers from Canada writes: annon Annon from Canada writes: How could humans cause global warming? God put us here to rule over the earth, and use its resources the way we feel fit. Interesting.... seems like Harper and Bush et al feel the same way. Worrying about climate change is for the pagans.
  82. Anne Peterson from Canada writes:
    How come Denmark has met its Kyoto targets, its economy is so booming, its unemployment figures are so low, it gives a higher percentage of its GDP in aid to poor countries, it has free education through university, it has free health care and such good services of other kinds for its citizens. This is not ideological dreaming like some posts here. It is simply the facts. What is the lesson that can be learned from this. It isn't that going green will cost us jobs. That's for sure. Where do you people who make that panicy pronouncement get your facts anyway?
  83. Michael Sharp from Paradise Found, Canada writes:

    'Save the Puffins!!', cried Dion in a fit of angst.

    They hide their poo he thought knowingly to himself, a very clever bird indeed.
  84. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Anne Peterson: The 'fact' is, that nothing is free. Someone ultimately pays for these wonderful services. and it is wrong to compare Denmark to Canada.
  85. Michael Sharp from Paradise Found, Canada writes:

    Anne Peterson, in a question of ignorance so blindlingly blatant as to stun any who read it, notes, 'How come Denmark has met its Kyoto targets?'

    Cuz Annie, Denmark is about the size of Vancouver Island.

    Denmark has some great editorial cartoonists by the way, those that haven't been killed by fatwas.

    And they can have Hans Island, it's not very nice this time of year.
  86. Bill M from Canada writes: Anne Peterson from Canada writes:
    How come Denmark has met its Kyoto targets, its economy is so booming, its unemployment figures are so low, it gives a higher percentage of its GDP in aid to poor countries, it has free education through university, it has free health care and such good services of other kinds for its citizens.

    Here's a project for you Anne. What was Denmarks population in 1990, the date for emissions level reductions? Canada's population has grown by over 20% since then. These extra millions of people require homes, heating, transportation, infrastructure,etc. These all cause an increase in emmisions. And where do we get our gloom and doom predictions of economic upheaval? Google 'liberal' 'cost of kyoto' and you'll see that the Liberals, while in power, estimated the cost of Kyoto at $100 billion plus, and an estimated loss of 250,000 jobs. The Green party recently had the same estimates. And have you ever seen any government program come in at the cost they said it would? Now do you see why some people are concerned about Kyoto?
  87. Bill M from Canada writes: I'll answer the questions for you Anne. Denmark's population has grown from 5.2 million to 5.5 milllion since 1990. it's area is 42,000 square kilometres, smaller than Nova Scotia. Canada's populatio has grown by OVER 5 million people since 1990.

    Find a new argument.
  88. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Anne Peterson - The above psoters correctly pointed out the difference between Denmark and Canada. You could drive across Denmark in 2 hours. You should compare Denmark to Norway, another small socialist country. Norway couldn't meet its targets either.
  89. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Oops. Psoters?
  90. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Nobody can win the argument that is raging over GW... man-made... natural... who knows? The propaganda machines on both sides are cranking out theories and interpretations of observations that make one wonder what their motivations are.

    Here's my unpopular take on the issue.... I say bring it on.... GW that is. The weather here is sensational. It's warm, dry, sunny... not the usual damp drizzle and cloudy skies that we are so accustomed to. It's a nice change.

    During the ice-ages of past, the earth rose from the sea, ocean levels dropped and continents were joined together. I say it's high time we get back the seas that we lost to the land during the last ice-age. We all know how the marine ecosystems are far more productive than land ecosystems. Won't the earth be better off if it's warm and more bio-productive?
  91. Mary Smith from United States writes:
    I would like an explanation here from the 'know-it-alls', who are certain humans must be the problem, about the rise and falls of the various ice ages.
  92. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: I found the post about the Inuit elders very interesting. It implies that the north did have trees and a milder climate within the scope of human memory. Cool. I mean, warm.
  93. Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: To all who have responded to my argument:

    I will re-iterate, I could be wrong that global warming is indeed a human caused event. I believe this part of a natural cycle, mainly because all the facts that have been pointed out that humans have accelerated global warming each have an opposite stats proving it wrong. For those who remember the early 90's - when they spoke of global warming and George Bush Sr. would squash everyone. The same is true today, there are more facts AGAINST human caused global warming. The difference? Nowadays, we can SEE the effects and we are scared, therefore it must be caused by us.

    And that may be true! But it could also not be true. To side with one over the other is absolute stupidity. We DO NOT KNOW, we have never known and my only hope is that we discover the real cause of global warming and how to adapt & survive. Stop spending your time arguing beliefs and data that supports your cause versus data that exists that always does not support your cause. Being right does not save lives.
  94. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: After the bombing of Iran and the intensification of war on terror, the union of North America - we, the citizens of the country that used to be known as Canada, will be totally dependant on multinational corporations for environmental concerns.

    Crazy but true - we are being lead down the road to fascism for our own protection 'war on terror'.

    Global Warming - is a sign of the apocalypse
  95. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: 'my only hope is that we discover the real cause of global warming and how to adapt & survive.

    There you have it... the evolution of the species.. adapt and survive. The Earth will change, is changing, and always will change. If we know that the planet is going to warm up, let's get ready for the change instead of spending trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to somehow tame nature.

    Mankind cannot revert to the agrarian ways of ages past... we are too numerous and too reliant on energy and mobility.

    I believe that if mankind was still living the stone-age lifestyle the earth would still be warming up.
  96. Michael Sharp from Paradise Found, Canada writes:

    Interested Observer from Vancouver, didn't I see you at on Robson with that placard reading, 'The end of the world is coming! Repent!'

    Do let us in on the secret though.

    If global warming is a sign of the apocalypse then what are the other three horsemen?

    I preferred it when you wore that placard that said, 'Eat at Joe's.'

    It was so much more believable.
  97. Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States writes: Climate Realist from Canada writes: 'If we know that the planet is going to warm up, let's get ready for the change instead of spending trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to somehow tame nature.'

    Well said - I agree completely.

    Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Crazy but true - we are being lead down the road to fascism for our own protection 'war on terror'.'

    You are 100% correct. It has already begun years ago. It's a catch 22, all our resources are shipped to the US & China (who owns a great deal of US debt - who owns a great deal of Canada). So what do we do, stand 30 million strong and get destroyed by the United States, or go along with completely stupid and wrong wars but enjoy a high quality of life. I think we are dancing with the devil - myself included, I wish we could find a way out.
  98. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Yeah, I'm seeing little changes in my neck of the woods too...

    Just last week, I saw Bigfoot high tailing it through my backyard, heading south. He was mumbling something about it being to freaking cold and winter is coming.
  99. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni from Minnesota, United States I've had this debate inumberable times on these comment boards and you will learn that it's the same every time. I am done with having debates with the people who have drank the kool-aid and look down their noses at individuals with contrarian views. The reality is nobody knows anything about how much of an effect humans have had over the environment and frankly couldn't care less anymore what anybody has to say about it. I will continue to try my best to reduce my impact on this planet and thank god that I live in Canada where last I checked will actually benefit from Global warming. It's a beautiful 26 degrees here in Toronto and will be 27 degrees this weekend. I am going to go out golf a round and enjoy this warming trend.
  100. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Michael - repenting will not help - for it is written . . . Harper is pontificating because he is buying time until he can unveil Canada's partnership on the NAFTA Superhighway; common currency; collective currency, really the globalization of Canada and I didn't know what the protestors were in Quebec for - now I know

    In response to recent articles in conservative publications about the sovereignty, freedom and economic dangers that will result from President Bush creating the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in Waco in March 2005, the SPP has issued an unconvincing rebuttal.

    This SPP document starts by declaring that 'our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.'

    Kyoto could be paid for by the spilled money in the phoney 'war on terror' but these 'wars' allow for the suspension of rational thought and the imposition of tyranny and fascism.

    Environmental concerns are far down the priority list -
  101. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: Terry M makes a great point about meeting climate goals. Norway didn't meet their goals depsite their small geographical land mass which actually gives it a leg up on Canada. What does it have in common however is it has a robust oil and gas industry. Looks like they didn't want to depress their economy either in order to meet their global obligations. Damn those Imperialist mindset Norwegians.
  102. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni - unfortunately wearing a placard and a tin foil hat doesn't change the inevitability of everything. The SPP is a merger of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the homeland security complex - Nafta with spy planes. The model dates back to September 11, when Paul Cellucci, the US ambassador to Canada, pronounced that in the new era, “security will trump trade”. But there was an out clause: the trade on which the economies of Canada and Mexico depend could continue uninterrupted, as long as the governments of those countries were willing to welcome the tentacles of the US war on terror. Canadian and Mexican business leaders leaped to surrender, aggressively pushing their governments to give in to US demands for “integrated” security in order to keep the goods and the tourists flowing. Almost six years later, the business leaders at Montebello - under the banner of the North American Competitiveness Council, an official wing of the SPP - were still holding up “thickening borders” as the bogeyman. The fix? According to the SPP website, “technological solutions, improved information-sharing, and, potentially, the use of biometric identifiers”. From experience we know what this means: continent-wide no-fly lists, integrated databases, as well as the $2.5bn contract to Boeing to build a “virtual fence” on the northern and southern borders of the United States, equipped with unmanned drones. In short, under the SPP vision of the continent, “thick” borders will soon be replaced with a nearly invisible web of continental surveillance - almost all of it run for profit. Two members of the SPP advisory group - Lockheed Martin and General Electric - have already received multibillion-dollar contracts from the US government to build this web. In the Bush era, security doesn’t trump big business; it may be the biggest business of all.
  103. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alberigo DiGiovanni - unfortunately wearing a placard and a tin foil hat doesn't change the inevitability of everything. The SPP is a merger of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the homeland security complex - Nafta with spy planes. The model dates back to September 11, when Paul Cellucci, the US ambassador to Canada, pronounced that in the new era, “security will trump trade”. But there was an out clause: the trade on which the economies of Canada and Mexico depend could continue uninterrupted, as long as the governments of those countries were willing to welcome the tentacles of the US war on terror. Canadian and Mexican business leaders leaped to surrender, aggressively pushing their governments to give in to US demands for “integrated” security in order to keep the goods and the tourists flowing. Almost six years later, the business leaders at Montebello - under the banner of the North American Competitiveness Council, an official wing of the SPP - were still holding up “thickening borders” as the bogeyman. The fix? According to the SPP website, “technological solutions, improved information-sharing, and, potentially, the use of biometric identifiers”. From experience we know what this means: continent-wide no-fly lists, integrated databases, as well as the $2.5bn contract to Boeing to build a “virtual fence” on the northern and southern borders of the United States, equipped with unmanned drones. In short, under the SPP vision of the continent, “thick” borders will soon be replaced with a nearly invisible web of continental surveillance - almost all of it run for profit. Two members of the SPP advisory group - Lockheed Martin and General Electric - have already received multibillion-dollar contracts from the US government to build this web. In the Bush era, security doesn’t trump big business; it may be the biggest business of all.
  104. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes:'The fact that we have had a warming trend over the last 100 years and that this trend is contemporaneous with an increase of greenhouse gasses seems to be significant.'

    Until you actually look at the temperature data. From 1880-1910, and again from 1940-1970 global temperatures dropped in the face of continual increases in GHG concentrations and emissions.

    Some other factor seems to drive alternating 30-year periods of warming and cooling, a factor that has in the past overwhelmed the influence of changing GHGs.

    BTW, the globe has not actually warmed since March of 2001, as one can see by the Hadley Centre's HADCRUT3 dataset, the one used by the IPCC to represent observed temperatures:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
  105. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Michael - repenting will not help - for it is written . . . Harper is pontificating because he is buying time until he can unveil Canada's partnership on the NAFTA Superhighway; common currency; collective currency, really the globalization of Canada and I didn't know what the protestors were in Quebec for - now I know'

    Hmmm... sounds an awful lot like the EU. How terrible. The Europeans set aside the shrill arguments of the anarchists and look at them today. Prosperity through a common currency, and regional harmony through open borders are the result of unification.

    Your argument also sounds a lot like the arguments of the Newfoundlanders who were against Confederation. Open trade, common currency, and the completion of the unification of British North America made Canada complete.

    You can hate George Bush and Steven Harper all you want... it won't change the need to unify NA in a common energy and trade and currency policy.
  106. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Climate - we do not need to join the US for any reason - Canada can do it alone just fine - thank you. The fact is Newfoundland would be better off going it alone.

    The US debt ceiling was quietly raised to $9.8 trillion with a current account deficit growing exponentially - the US is bankrupt. We do not want to leap onto that sinking ship - sinking financially and morally.

    Why would Canada want to join the US and Mexico - only to facilitate the facsist regime change on a larger scale?

    What does Dieppe mean to you? Why are we emulating that enemy today?
  107. Jerm _ from Canada writes: Interested Observer: your pathetic attempt to equate Bush with Hitler identifies you as a member of the extreme-fringe-left, as well as being an insult to the memories of millions who have suffered and died to the hands of an actual tyrant.

    Just wait 14 months, and Bush will relinquish power peacefully (out of character for a fascist), and when Hillary takes over Im sure you will proudly proclaim how the US is a beacon of freedom in the world.

    Anyways, you're hilarious. Fight the system man!!!
  108. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Climate Realist from Canada writes: 'Mankind cannot revert to the agrarian ways of ages past... we are too numerous and too reliant on energy and mobility.'

    Fine. If climate change doesn't concern you, try doing a little research on 'peak oil'. Believe it or now, we cannot sustain infinite growth with finite resources. Forget mobility. You'll be lucky to have heat for your home.

    http://www.theoildrum.com
  109. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jerm - I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies. There isn't much doubt in my mind - anyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the US cannot avoid the parallels. Just as Hitler used American tactics to plan and execute his reign, it looks as if Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to plan world domination - and that is the stated intent of both. From the Reichstag fire to the landing at Nuremberg to the motto of 'Gott Mit Uns' to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to the insistence that peace was the ultimate goal, the line is unbroken and unwavering.
  110. Cup of Tea from Natonal, Canada writes: .
    .
    I haven't commented on global warming pieces for some time, but I just can't believe there are still those that deny what is plain as the nose on your face.

    Why? Are you a liar? Or just stupid?

    Humans have altered the ckimate due to increased emissions of C02 is (and others gases). Why is this so hard to understand?

    Oh, I forgot, we're all just lefty scumbags.

    Sheesh...
  111. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Interested Observer: Yes, Hitler ate suppers, and so does George Bush, so there is another 'relevant' comparison....
  112. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Climate - we do not need to join the US for any reason - Canada can do it alone just fine - thank you. The fact is Newfoundland would be better off going it alone.'

    I don't think that many Newfoundlanders, aside from Clyde Wells, would agree with you on that one. Do you not recall the abject poverty of the working poor of NFLD? If not for national social policies, NFLD would have remained little more than an island of have-nots.

    I tire of the shrill anti-American rants. Like it or not, we're joined at the hip to the USA. Yes, America starts more than their share of war, that I grant. But America is not just about war. I have many friends and family in the USA and I can assure you that they are not rabid war-mongers and environmental terrorists.

    GWB is a failure as a President, but to compare him to Hitler is more than an exaggeration... it's really quite a sophomoric take on things.
  113. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Fine. If climate change doesn't concern you, try doing a little research on 'peak oil'. Believe it or now, we cannot sustain infinite growth with finite resources. Forget mobility. You'll be lucky to have heat for your home.' I suggest you do a little research on the Athabasca oil reserves. We have enough oil for the next 200 years unless we rush to sell it all off. That's why we need a NA energy pact, otherwise we will be competing for our own oil with the rest of the world. Fortress NA folks... hate it now, but some day you'll be happy to be within its walls.
  114. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Cup of Tea from Natonal, Canada writes: .
    .
    I haven't commented on global warming pieces for some time, but I just can't believe there are still those that deny what is plain as the nose on your face. Why? Are you a liar? Or just stupid? Humans have altered the ckimate due to increased emissions of C02 is (and others gases). Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, I forgot, we're all just lefty scumbags. Sheesh...'

    I can see you've bought Al Gore's propaganda hook-line-and-sinker. I wouldn't call you a lefty scumbag... just a very impressionable lefty. There is a big difference.
  115. Jerm _ from Canada writes: Thank you climate realist for you pragmatic take on george bush. I for one was glad to see Saddam taken out, and I think the comparisons between Saddam and Hitler are orders of magnitude more appropriate than those between Bush and Hitler. Besides, I would like more of the worlds tyrants taken out, including Kim-Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahamdenijad, Robert Mugabe, Hassad (syria), and Gaddafi. If the europeans had balls, every tyrant in the world would get removed from power, and other tyrants would fall in line pretty quickly. Now the truly evil of the world only have a demonized USA to be afraid of, and that is not enough.

    Furthermore, interested observer, you merely launch a large number of accusations, some of which have a shaky relation to reality, and some of which are complete fabrications of the lefty imagination (incarcareting the poor - please, but nice try). Keep it reasonable and you will gain credibility and help your point of view have more of an impact.
  116. Zapp Brannigan from Kingston, Canada writes: Nope... all is normal... nothing to see here, people... stay the course...

    riiiight
  117. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: I note that the leaves are changing colour and geese are flying south at the usual time of year. I expect the snow birds will soon follow. Another hurricane season has almost come and gone yet again with barely a whimper.

    All is still right with the World!
  118. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler.'

    I guess you'll have to wait for next fall, and see if Bush relenquishes his presidency, or starts to become like Hitler and change the constitution to stay in power.

    Given the lengths of time necessary to effect a constitutional change in the US, I think he's too late already. Way too late.
  119. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes:'All is still right with the World!'

    Yep, and as I pointed out above, the globe currently isn't even warming.
  120. Climate Realist from Canada writes: America would never allow its federal government to become totalitarian as some here would suggest is likely to happen. Amending the US constitution to allow for the feared 'President for Life' scenario would never happen. The US is not organized like Canada is. The individual states hold more power and have more rights than our provinces do. The country would splinter under the constitutional crisis that would erupt.

    I think the big worry for everyone should be the remarkable rise of the independent mercenary armies that US corporations are running. These should be outlawed outright. If anyone has an interest is starting wars, it is the 'war for profit' cabal of evil men behind these shady organizations.

    George will soon be gone, there will be a democrat in the White House and democrat controlled congress and senate. But you want to know something? It won't make a hill-of-beans difference to the Global Warming situation, so don't blame GWB for ending the world as we know it.
  121. Sam Courtney from Canada writes: Climate Realist from Canada Good to see my little buddy writing nonsense again. I hope everyone realizes that this creature is one of harpers paid minions who knows squat about science and less about global warming. 'I suggest you do a little research on the Athabasca oil reserves. We have enough oil for the next 200 years unless we rush to sell it all off.' The Tar sands contain the dirtest oil in the world, burn it all in 200 years and and you might as well kill you kids today. You are talking about extracting up to 1 trillion barrels of oil , funny at the current level of efficency you will need the equivent of another 1 trillion barrels of oil to extract and process. Currently we use cleaner methane to produce the dirty equivalent- crazy. The tarsands are a ecological disaster on a local scale now, zero land reclaimed and ecosystems destroyed. The suface are that mya be stripmined will be comparble in size to NB. The insitu deposits extraction while less physically distruptive from a landscape prespective will have horrendous effects by the CO2 released. Carbon sequestering only applies to extraction and refining- it does not apply to end users- transportation- so 1 trillion barrels of oil will produce 3 times the C02 minimum. assuming that 1 trillion barrels were extracted the CO2 equivalent in the barrels would equal 450 trillion kg of CO2. Of course the actaul number would be higher - this calcualtion assumed zero emmission at source and from refining. Currently 450 kg to 1200 kg are of C02 are released just to processes the bitumen into one barrel of oil. But you are a self stated climate realist so you understood that right? I didn't think so. Dream on my poorly educated little friend.
  122. Sam Courtney from Canada writes: Just to put the last estimates in perspective - each year about 27 billion tons of Co2 are released into the atmosphere by buring fossil fuels. So if the tar sand are utilized at 1 trillion barrels anually- that means that 500 billion tons would be released. The atmopshere and the oceans cannot possibly abosrb that much c02 from one source on top of all the other CO2 sources and that already released from fossil fuels and resident in the atmosphere.
    Burn it and we are all toast.
  123. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Sam Courtney from Canada writes: Just ' So if the tar sand are utilized at 1 trillion barrels anually...'

    The usage mentioned was a trillion barrels over 200 years, actually. And they are called oilsands; I don't know why some people keep exposing their lack of knowlege by calling the resource 'tar'.

    I agree that we shouldn't be using natural gas, since it drives up the price of that commodity unnecesarily. Nuclear reactors for process steam, heat, and extraction of hydrogen (for 'cracking' the oil into lighter molecules) and oxygen (to make sequestration of combustion CO2 feasible, as well as eliminate NOx emissions) from water would be a better option.
  124. Mary Smith from United States writes: For those of you who assume a Democrat is a shoo-in for President, you are mistaken. Many Republicans are unhappy with Bush because he has done some un-Republican things, but that doesn't mean they will abandon the Party. Actually, many are angry with both Parties. The Democrat controlled Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush. I never voted for Bush myself, but if Hillary is the Dem candidate, I absolutely will vote Republican.
  125. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Sam Courtney from Canada writes: Climate Realist from Canada Good to see my little buddy writing nonsense again. I hope everyone realizes that this creature is one of harpers paid minions who knows squat about science and less about global warming. '

    Wow... a psychic.... cool. Brilliant as well.
  126. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Climate Realist from Canada writes:'Wow... a psychic...'

    Maybe Sam there can tell us where we can both collect these paycheques he supposes us to be receiving.
  127. Climate Realist from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Climate Realist from Canada writes:'Wow... a psychic...' Maybe Sam there can tell us where we can both collect these paycheques he supposes us to be receiving.'

    I take my cut in cash. Our friend Sam is such a caricature of the Kyoto Ideologue. There's no debate... it's Sam's way or no way.
  128. otmar zambo from Canada writes: a few of these dragonflies which came flying down to hot alberta admitted two things! number one: we came south because up there we were freezing our A** off!
    number two: we are being paid by the Al Gorer and by Dr. David Tshibuki! we sent our paycheque back however because we like to liv in a 'warmer Climate'! I understand that, for me even Alberta could get a little bit warmer!
  129. F M from Ottawa, Canada writes: What a load of horse hockey. The comments on this thread are so uninformed and naive I can hardly even begin to comment. Go out there and INFORM YOURSELVES PEOPLE!!!!!! I used to post on these threads on a semi-regular basis, but they have been taken over by gawd knows what kind of idiots.

    EDUCATE YOURSELVES, PEOPLE!!!!! You are regurgitating a load of codswallop that you have received on email from anonymous self-appointed experts who are very likely in the employ of the very people who stand to profit by our inaction.

    I am going to bed now, perchance to dream . . .
  130. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Climate Realist writes: 'I suggest you do a little research on the Athabasca oil reserves. We have enough oil for the next 200 years unless we rush to sell it all off.'

    It seems we're doing just that. Today we produce about 1 million barrels of oil a day. Plans are underway to increase that to about 5 million barrels a day. We might get there in 10 years if we continue to throw caution (and the Alberta environment) to the wind. That's a net increase of 4 million barrels/day. Therefore, take that 200 years and divide by 5.

    Of course, the U.S. currently uses about 25% of the world's 85 million barrel daily production - about 21 million barrels/day. Even at its maximum potential, Alberta will supply only 1/4 of the U.S. demand. That still leaves a BIG problem with where to get the rest of the oil they need to run Wal-Mart, Disney World, and the interstate highway system on.

    Meanwhile, depletion of existing oilfields continues at a rate of about 3 million barrels/day EVERY year. Replacement of that depletion is much slower to come on stream. Total production peaked in July, 2005 and has not eclipsed that level since.

    Over the next 5 years, we will need 3 Athabasca oil sands worth just to keep up with declines elsewhere in the world. And that says nothing about meeting increases in demand.

    In summary, if you don't want to use less, prepare to pay many times more. It's then we all will realize what the true cost of endless consumption is.

  131. Climate Realist from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Over the next 5 years, we will need 3 Athabasca oil sands worth just to keep up with declines elsewhere in the world. And that says nothing about meeting increases in demand.'

    You missed the subtle message. I believe in 'Fortress North America' in which North American fuel resources are preserved for domestic consumption only. No oil to China, no exports outside of our hemisphere. Long-term energy self reliance is our obligation to our children.

    Slow down consumption by slowing down production. Over production for the sole purpose of making big money for big oil is about the worst thing we could possibly do.

    I don't care how much gas costs. Most of us can adapt to a less mobile existence.
  132. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes:'...if you don't want to use less, prepare to pay many times more.'

    That makes no sense. If the prices rise, people use less of whatever it is.
  133. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: There is no doubt that if oil and its spin-offs get too expensive, alternative forms of energy (and alternative transportation methods) will become very cheap, and very economical. Isn't that a good thing?
  134. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: '...alternative forms of energy... will become very cheap, and very economical. Isn't that a good thing?'

    Only 'cheap' relative to oil and oil equivalents, not 'cheap' compared to our current costs.

    As the supply-demand push drives oil prices upward, the now-exorbitant costs of the alternatives will begin to be competitive.
  135. CPT America from United States writes: Any of you 137 posters want to take a trip to the north today?
  136. CPT America from United States writes: what are you loons going to do when you are all part of the Canadian Caliphate? I can hardly wait!
  137. J B from United States writes: Art Vandelai, nice post about the peak oil situation. One other thing to consider is that world coal reserves could keep us going for another couple of hundred years, both for generation of electricity and for transportation. Reliance on coal is problematic because of the higher amount of co2 produced per unit of heat energy, not to mention particulate emissions. In the future most countries will likely demand the expensive technologies that are becoming available to produce energy cleanly from coal. Other large reserves, like the oil sands, require a lot of energy to separate/refine and have other negative environmental impacts. Either way it seems more expensive energy is on the way.
  138. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes:'...if you don't want to use less, prepare to pay many times more.'

    That makes no sense. If the prices rise, people use less of whatever it is.

    Essentially we're saying the same thing. For many people and businesses, demand for oil is inelastic - they are somehow unable to respond to price signals by lowering consumption. Those will be the future's economic losers.

    As author Jim Kunstler likes to say, there is no way we will be able to continue to run Disney World, Wal-Mart's warehouse on wheels, and just-in-time manufacturing processes on any combination of alternative fuels. We need to prepare for things to be restructured to be a lot more local (much less 3000-mile caesar salads), and rely on options such as rail and marine transport once again. That adjustment takes time, and needs incentive and leadership to maintain as it flies in the face of the trend toward ever-more globalization.
  139. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: GlynnMhor......Yes, cheap relative to oil and oil equivalents, and who knows what other economic factors may intervene!
  140. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: The arctic is warming but is the warming global?

    Not if the antarctic has any say. The ice area there for September 2007 set a new record. The next iciest year was 2006. Both are the only 2 years since satellites started watching this stuff in '79 to exceed 15 million sq. km of ice in September.

    Not that the media took the slightest interest in this new climate record, but against all climate model predictions, the antarctic is cooling. Steadily and surely.

    Regards, BRK
  141. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: "As the supply-demand push drives oil prices upward, the now-exorbitant costs of the alternatives will begin to be competitive."

    We have no better alternative to the energy density and portability of oil and gas. The Energy-Return-On-Energy-Invested becomes lower and lower as we move away from cheap oil and toward lesser alternatives -- the energy inputs in the extraction/production business become progressively more costly. This is called Receding Horizons, and is an analogue to the Red Queen's Race.
  142. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: "Not if the antarctic has any say. The ice area there for September 2007 set a new record. The next iciest year was 2006. Both are the only 2 years since satellites started watching this stuff in '79 to exceed 15 million sq. km of ice in September."

    This is fully explained under climate change models, if you'd care to research it rather than regurgitating partial truths.
  143. Energy Manager from Canada writes: This is fully explained under climate change models, if you'd care to research it rather than regurgitating partial truths.'

    Explained.. yeah, right. Theorized is more like it. Regurgitated partial truths... ahem... you do realize that you live in a glass house eh?

    The Kyoto ideologues are venomous is their disdain of 'deniers' to the point where they will all agree to believe and repeat any swill sloshed their way lest they themselves be labeled 'denier'.

    An analogy comes to mind... the faithful party worker carrying out the will of the Central Planning Committee all the while nodding in solemn approval of the latest party newsletter.
  144. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: What a pity, Energy Manager, that you had to resort to an ad hominem (personal) attack rather than propose a viable alternative model, one which tracks reality better than the IPCC models, backed by a consensus of the world's climatologists.

    If you have better theories to proposes, please post links here rather than just spouting your own venom.
  145. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: i wonder if the glacier melt will shift the Earth's axis...
  146. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: you know a warm ocean current could easily shift and melt the entire cap in the course of a single year..
  147. Eric Stewart from Canada writes: Alan, is that true? Am I going to have to reset the magnetic declination on my trusty old Silva again? I just got finished pointing it toward Russia.
  148. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Eric, I wouldn't blame it on the glacier melt but ... http://www.physorg.com/news8917.html
  149. Roland Neissinger from Latteville, Canada writes: Now get ready for ative pole shift, new land (real estate) popping up where Antarctic and Greenland's Ice melts off,
    lots of existing areas sinking,
    People migarating around the globe,
    Panic fanned up by media, fanatics of any ilk and ruthless politicans running wild and free....
    Welcome to the future.....
    ...the next 50 to 80000 year warming period....
    ....before the glaciers rise again......
  150. Lawrence Davis from United States writes: Great blog with lots of useful information and excellent commentary! Thanks for sharing.

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

Comments are closed

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

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

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

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

Back to top