Skip navigation

Salmon need help to survive climate change

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Warming waters will render some streams uninhabitable as global warming takes its toll ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: Time to buy more 'carbon credits'. It won't do any good, but it will make the buyers 'feel' better and give some much needed cash to whomever sells the bogus credits. I have 12 billion tonnes for sale at only $2 a tonne.

    Or we could all just leave our refrigerator doors open for about an hour a day.

    YEAH globull warming!
  2. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: 'Dislocation' seems pretty obvious. I think it's called evolution - the good , the bad and the ugly.
  3. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: This is ridiculous. There are far bigger problems such as damming of rivers, etc.

    Next thing you know, they'll blame the dwindling of cod (even though we know darned well why it's happening and has been happening for 2 decades) on global warming too.
  4. CD W from coldwater, Canada writes: Take out the upper stream gill netting and problem is solved.
  5. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: For every species that go, one or more 'invasive' species shall take its place! So the ecosystem would survive, albeit in another form!

    Perhaps one way tomaintain such streams and rivers with the existing species is to maintain current abiotic factors as they are?
  6. dave mackay from nova scotia, Canada writes: Oh please!!! How about pollution and overfishing. I suppose that global warming decimated the Atlantic salmon and cod fisheries.These people are simply turning a blind eye to their real problems and looking for new funding from the global warming scare. What Jackasses!
  7. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: Good. This will mean more salmon on my plate. Right deniers?
  8. campbell atkinson from victoria, Canada writes: How about a clue from Toronto.s Beaches area. The great tree canopy keeps everything nice and cool-- so limit streamside cutting.
  9. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: All the deniers out there in Canada won't come around and face reality, even in the face of mountains of evidence and clear science. I predict that today's deniers will only become converts tomorrow and face the reality of global warming when the world becomes too warm to have Winter Olympics. Then, and only then, faced with the inability to feel proud for two weeks that our athletes won one or maybe two gold medals, they will finally wake up. Utterly pathetic.
  10. dave mackay from nova scotia, Canada writes: Canadian Patriot: Not to start a native bashing forum here but a few weeks ago G&M had a story in which to protect sockeye salmon stocks any and all fishing was not to be allowed. The native bands claim it as their right and stated that they were to fish anyway. Last years figures quoted where in excess of 800, 000 salmon for personal and ceremonial uses. Do the math. 30 YEARS AGO the great David Susuyki{sp.?} was calling for an ice age. So who is a denier now?
  11. Ed Anger from Canada writes: send the salmon to winterpeg and everything should be ok...
  12. Old, old Pilot from Canada writes: A friend of mine commented recently that liberal-minded folk tend to believe what they see and conservative-minded folk tend to see what they believe. And since the religious right gained political ascendancy in the U.S. there has been a concerted attack on science generally. Deny, ridicule, obfuscate, whatever it takes to make science wrong so that nothing gets in the way of seeing only what one already believes. It's sad.
  13. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Canadian Patriot - Denier? What is this, some kind of subliminal Holocaust association slur?

    I'm from the sh*t happens, deal with it... school.

    Go cry the sky is falling to somebody else.
  14. Stewart Pid from Canada writes: Some moron just wrote that the winter olympics will be canceled due to glo-BULL warming. Wow, but lets look around .... it has been snowing 5 days straight at Fernie & they just put the first October snow report on their web site that I've ever seen - a 15 cm base. It is snowing in Calgary as I type & there is a snowfall warning / travel advisory for the Crowsnest Pass tonight .... not exactly toasty stuff.
    Everyday we are finding out that Hansen & Phil Jones have tortured their temperature data until it yielded the answer they wanted.
    How about Antarctica with record ice cover & record cold temps.
    Sounds like a lot of weather but not much climate change to this observer.
  15. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: All of these people, most of whom probaby haven't even taken a science course since high school, are convinced that they are fully qualified to critically evaluate science and that highly trained professionals have no idea what they are talking about. If you actually had access to the primary science literature, which I'm sure everyone who has posted to date does not or has not read it, you'd find that the garbage spouted off by a few vocal critics has been soundly refuted. The only hypothesis that remains viable in the scientific literature is the GHG hypothesis. The various forms of the solar hypothesis have all been shot down as insufficient to explain what we are observing. Of course, most of you aren't really interested in actually educating yourself in a real way on this subject in any case. You are more interested in right vs. left debates and finding garbage on the web that simply supports the position that you want to take.
  16. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, so tell me what recent publications that you have read on GHG-driven temperature. Are you even aware of the presence of models that supersede anything that was published in the latest IPCC report? Have you read the Proceedings of the Royal Society A paper refuting the solar hypothesis? Have you read ANY of the primary publications in the field? I don't claim to be an expert but I research any claim that is made on here and I am open to the possibility that the GHG hypothesis is wrong. To date, however, there is nothing that has proven it to be wrong and the competing hypotheses have been proven wrong. I wasn't aware that they taught science classes at the University of Regina.
  17. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Bobby Dy....I'd suggest you get off your high horse. You are not the preminent expert on so-called global warming. Suffice it to say that the science is nowhere near settled despite the machinations of the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth.....the UN. Oh, and as for settled science, you might want to do some research on just how wrong the so-called 'scientific concensus' was on ozone depletion.
  18. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bobby - It would be very easy to rant at you however I strongly suggest that you read 'Dancing Naked in the Mindfield' by Kerry Mullis, Noble Prize Winner in Chemistry, 1993, Chemistry, Polymerase Chain Reaction (recombinant DNA).

    It is very simple. Contrarian thought, challenging the established scientific theories from psychology to medicine is what the advances of the human race are about. Common sense trumps 'peer reviewed, the science is over, there are no more theories' doctronaire totalitarianism and pseudo-religion every time.

    Ignore your boring comments on Harper's drug policy, enjoy a doobee, and take off your belt.
  19. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Global warming is wrecking White Rock. Marine Drive merchants have had revenues drop by as much as 75% this summer because it so friggin' wet and cold.

    The Olympics? - The alpine area at Whistler had 30cm. of snow this week.
  20. jim lllll from Canada writes: The headline should have read..............Salmon in British Columbia will need human help to adapt to changes being brought on by over fishing.. GILL NETTING ... I watched a salmon commercial fishing documentary on TV last week and could not believe the amount of boats that were in the one area. What was harder to believe was the amount of salmon caught in the Gill Nets,,,,,,,,,or Nets....
    Paul LeBlond, chairman of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council should take his head out of his as$ and tackel the problem as IT IS.......
    .Fish stocks in the Fraser River are so low this year that the Tsleil-Waututh Nation will forgo their tradition rights to fish for sockeye, Chief Leah George Wilson announced this in the past summer on August 14.
    The Natives are doing their part but the White Man still remains the greedy ones using the lame excuse of Global Warming.
  21. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: jim lllll from Canada writes: '... the Tsleil-Waututh Nation will forgo their tradition rights to fish for sockeye...'

    If they stuck to their 'tradition' fishing, they wouldn't have any signifigant effect anyway. It's uncontrolled commercial fishing disguised as 'traditional rights' that cleans out the fish stocks, lobster stocks, etc.
  22. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Have you read the Proceedings of the Royal Society A paper refuting the solar hypothesis?"

    Except it doesn't actually 'refute' anything except some proposed mechanisms to explain the connection between solar cycle lengths and temperature change.

    And it introduces a distortion in the cycle lengths in the process.

    As you are well aware, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Meanwhile the AGHG hypothesis remains unproven as well, and fails to explain the historical temperature data.
  23. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: I'd go with the aboriginal fishery doing their part except one of the aboriginal brothers at the local coffee shop was selling over a hundred fish a week-end to us white boys. A truck full of salmon came around to his place as one of many deliveries.

    20 bucks for a nice sized wild salmon.
  24. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes:"... over a hundred fish a week-end to us white boys."

    And in Manitoba at Lake of the Prairies indians come from all over the southwest of the province to gillnet spawning pickerel at the stream mouths. Not infrequently they put the nets from one bank solid to the other so none of them get away.

    Some 'protectors of mother earth' they are.
  25. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, so now you are promoting drug use. Kerry Mullis, self-proclaimed LSD-guru. Actually, Mullis doesn't have a lot of credibility in Science. He did discover PCR which was a major contribution to science and health sciences but, apart from that, he hasn't done much as a scientist. That, incidentally, was a technique and not an intellectual breakthrough.

    There is a big difference between being a contrarian and being an innovator in science. Scientists that are on the cutting edge are always met with skepticism and criticism. Alternative theories on global temperature patterns, however, aren't exactly cutting edge. At least not the ones that are commonly used.

    GlynnMohr, we've had this discussion before. I need you to criticize their method of smoothing sun cycles rather than point out that there is a discrepancy in the length of one sun cycle for a data set that extends over several. You also need to explain how this makes their conclusions invalid. They specifically, if I remember correctly now, evaluated three different solar hypotheses and found that none of them fit the data. I also referred you to a more recent model. I realize that you can't access it. I need to write to Science and request that they make the climate publications available for everyone to access. Maybe I'll do that now while I am thinking about it. In any case, that is the state of the art right now and it makes short term predictions, the first year and a half of which were shown to be accurate. We will only have to wait another 3 years to see how good this model is. I'll write to Science now and see what kind of response that I can get. Because the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science, is trying to educate people on the science of global warming, they might agree to this. I'll update you on the response if I get one.
  26. Darth Bobo from Canada writes: Gee I wonder where all the fish have gone? It was not all that many years ago the indians in the upper Fraser were selling sockeye for $5 a sack. I know because I helped the fellow who bought them clean them.
  27. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bobby - only a righteous Liberal would say that the Nobel Prize means nothing.

    I guess Lester Pearson's meant nothing - that peace-keeping thing was an anachronism, a lucky shot not to be repeated and the basis to ignore and disarm the CF for forty years.

    Bobby - go tune into CBC News, they are just wrapping up the debate on which ugly fate Dion will choose - force an election, or eat crow.

    In regards to cutting edge, I will assume your vast knowledge supercedes the rocket launches by NASA in the last year to determine what the hell is going on beyond the magnetosphere with the variations in solar winds and cosmic radiation absorption.

    I realize the latter is not new science, simply ignored by main stream for a very simple reason - you can't do anything about it. Egocentric science will always find a market because human beings must feel they have control.

    And that is where pop science and religious belief merge. It is prehistoric in concept. What's the next step ... sacrifices to bring back the salmon.

    Mullis is/was crazy but crazy meant he challenges the egocentric shibboleths erected by small minds just as Harper, the ultimate looser Geek, is doing things to send pompous, boring Canadians into circles. He is fingering the historical oatmeal munching Canadian low profile always be nice self-image and it is hilarious to read the reactions.

    I may vote for him not because I believe in his policies but because he is challenging Canadian just as Mullis challenges science.

    BTW, important LSD experiments took place in Sask. under the auspices of the provincial psych. wards. It was a prevalent topic at the U of R and contributed to some of the creative works of both writers and visual artists. Not an advocate but very aware of the attempted scientific and social applications.
  28. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, as I pointed out, LSD has been shown (recently, not just the 30 year old experiments at the U. of S.) to help terminally ill patients. I was merely pointing out that on the subject of drug control, you were arguing in favour of it and now you use Kerry Mullis to support a position. I explained to you what I thought of Mullis. There are a lot of Nobel Prize winners. He deserved his Nobel Prize because of the impact of his contribution. However, in terms of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, he is no icon.

    I have absolutely no objection to pushing boundaries. As I said, it is common in science for innovators to be ridiculed and challenged. In part, that is a good thing. It increases the rigour involved in getting a hypothesis to the point where it is seriously considered by the mainstream of science. As far as Mullis goes, here is the web site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. Type in his name and see what you find. The guy didn't contribute much. I belittle his contribution because, like I said, it is a method not a major intellectual advance. He deserved his Nobel Prize but he does not deserve to be revered and he can't be thought of as a major innovator in science who constantly challenged dogma.
  29. Bergeil DeBungie from Victoria, Canada writes: Commercial fishing is to blame simple as that. To say otherwise is just foolish. Can you blame the natives for the cod? Can you blame the seals for the salmon?
  30. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: J Luft, I never claimed to be but I'm pretty confident that I am a lot more informed than you are judging from what you have written on this topic in the past. As for consensus, it's not a useful concept in science but that is besides the point. Nowhere did I say consensus. I stated that I have done what I can to follow the original literature and that is the only place where you are going to get information without the taint of an agenda. Websites and books aimed at the general population are not going to do it.
  31. E. Biggs from Canada writes: For all you bone heads out there. There are a number of factors that contribute to the fishing issue. - Yes the natives take too many fish and sell them locally. - Yes there is over fishing by the commercial boys. - Yes the wild stocks are being attacked by sea lice from fish farms - Yes we have an over abundance of seal and sea lions that are taking too many salmon, some small islands in the strait are lousy with them. - yes climate change is contributing to the fish decline. We have too much rain and it is cold and the streams are flooding and silting the stream beds. - yes at times we have too little water for the fish to migrate but not this year. - yes we have gill netters sitting at the mouth of the Fraser. - Yes we decimated the herring stocks to the point that CKNW has had to cancel the herring sale for charity as they could not find enough herring and guess what the salmon eat. - Yes we decimated the kelp beds and guess where the herring lay their eggs. I sit here in South Surrey and watch the rain coming down week after week with temps hovering around 50 degrees and hear about the global warming. Let's call if climate change because while the East is sweltering, we are freezing in the rain for weeks on end with no relief in sight. No it is not just a Con fault, a Lib fault and native fault a commercial fishing fault it is the fault of all of us. including the damn courts, DFO experts. We are all pretty stupid.
  32. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Believe me my post was not sent looking like this. Nobody could make sense of what the Globe did to it. Sorry
  33. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: Sooner or later, if nothing is done about protecting and managing the environment, international conflicts will start, and millions of people are going to be forced to move, be killed in war, or starve to death.

    All of the posts thus far show how utterly gullible and naive everyone is.

    You people have all been conditioned by politicians to question the words of scientists. It should be the other way around. Most scientists are much purer in thought than the mud-honeys on this board.

    While its true that some are using global warming as an evangelist cause, there is enough consensus among the scientists that are not on the payroll of an oil company or lobbyist group that there are major changes afoot in the ecosystems of the entire world.

    There are lots of forces in industry, government, and other places that would like to draw out and confuse people as long as possible, and maintain the status quo as long as possible for their own purposes.

    Look how long it took for people to realize that smoking causes cancer!! Scientists connected the dots about this decades ago. There should be laws against spreading misinformation, and very harsh penalties for obfuscating scientific truth in the mass media. If I was prime minister, heads would have rolled by now.

    So if people continue to look for reasons not to do ANYTHING about the problem, there will definitely be a price to pay in the future. The question is whether the currency will be dollars or blood.

    S.
  34. canadian observing from Paris, France writes: I have a genuine question: while there are undeniable, profound changes pointing to global warming happening in the Arctic, it seems to be healthily cold in the Antarctic with normal to below normal temps and normal to above normal ice cover. Why? Is there a climate change model to answer that or is it a mystery?
  35. Jeff S from Canada writes: i wonder how the salmon managed to survive the end of the last ice age without all the eco-terrorists to pick up for them.
  36. Bill Needle from Canada writes: The salmon - like all life - will adapt or perish in response to change. This is the only "rule". It's hard - there are no soft rules.
  37. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes:

    Join the "cult" now.

    .
  38. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Canadian observing: Overall, it is not "healthily cold" in the Antarctic (where it is the beginning of spring now), as far as I can understand it. In recent years, very large chunks of the Antarctic ice mass have broken off, and scientists attribute that to human-caused global warming.

    However, the situation in the Antarctic does seem to be more complex and more difficult to understand than the situation in the Arctic. For up-to-date information, take a look at the website of the British Antarctic Survey of the Natural Environment Research Council.
  39. John Miller from Grand Bend, Canada writes: To the Canadian in Paris ... they call it "global" warming, but most of the so-called warming - some scientists strongly dispute the "warming" bit - is in the northern hemisphere. In Antarctica, temperatures are lower and the icepack is actually getting bigger. Imagine that. This week a British court ordered the UK government to put a health warning on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" when shown to young students, lest they get the mistaken impression that Gore is telling the truth about things like a 20-foot rise in sea levels. The court ruled the film is biased and riddled with assertions that lack scientific backing. Too bad we can't get Canadian courts to order the same thing when the film is shown in our schools. I would take it a step futher and put health warnings on all Globe and Mail coverage about climate change. This newspaper has adopted alarmism as an editorial position. It ignores all news that doesn't fit the theory that humans are fully responsible while pretending there's no disagreement among scientists. On rare occasions when skeptical experts are mentioned, they are invariably portrayed as quacks or oil industry shills. It won't even report things like the British court decision, the thickening Antarctic icepack, or the strong correlation between solar ouput and the earth's temperature. The Globe doesn't think Canadians are smart enough to handle conflicting information about climate change. Instead, the paper spoon feeds its intellectually-dishonest, Chicken Little cartoon coverage to credulous readers. If you really want to know about the evolving scientific debate on climate change, best to look to more credible sources.
  40. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: 'Salmon need help to survive climate change"

    The only climate change these guys will see is in my frying pan.
  41. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: Sooner or later, if nothing is done about protecting and managing the environment, international conflicts will start, and millions of people are going to be forced to move, be killed in war, or starve to death.

    Earth to Sanjay, all the things you say will happen are happening NOW. What is going to be different.
    The sky is falling run for your life. Nice try.
  42. Starting Over from Ontario, Canada writes: The increase in the solar output should not be discounted in the grand scheme of things.

    I have read a number of reports about the average tempartures increasing on our planetary neighbours.

    While unproven, if it is the case, perhaps the GHG people need to rethink their collective positions, and get their collective heads out of Al Gore$ a$$ for a minute.

    Just my thoughts.
  43. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Good Morning Bobby

    The Mullis/Nobel prize debate reminds me of the Linus Pauling/Nobel debate after he became an advocate of Vitamin C ... suddenly he was nuts.

    Back to climate change. From what I have read, there are three forces acting upon our climate .... GHG, particulate, and external solar forces. We control some of the first two but not the latter.

    The rapid melting of the polar ice cap was predicted during the great ozone debate of thirty years ago. It is happening and external solar forces may have a contribution. Particulate cools the planet and the best example was 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded and average surface temp.s rose worldwide. Chinese coal fired power plants not only contribute GHG but particulate that will be distributed by the prevailing jet stream.

    It is very possible that we can have oceans rising due to polar melt, temperatures in some areas lowering and solar radiation increasing in some areas.

    I am anything but a scientist but I do try to read everything that comes my way.
  44. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Jim Miller: You write: "This week a British court ordered the UK government to put a health warning on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" when shown to young students, lest they get the mistaken impression that Gore is telling the truth about things like a 20-foot rise in sea levels. The court ruled the film is biased and riddled with assertions that lack scientific backing."

    Your statement is false, according to the several news stories I read about the events. The High Court judge (Burton, if you want to Google it) ruled that Gore's film could be shown in British schools even though the judge said it contained partisan political statements. The judge said teachers had to balance those political statements. The judge did not elaborate, and he said nothing about the science. The man who took the suit argued that the film should not be shown in schools because Gore got the science wrong. The judge rejected that argument but did not explicitly comment about the science.
  45. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes:"We will only have to wait another 3 years to see how good this model is."

    We really need to run the model back to see how good it is at 'predicting' past known temperature changes. If the model is so miraculously better than last year's models, it should succeed in doing that. Otherwise it's not much better than anything else heretofor available.

    "I need you to criticize their method of smoothing sun cycles rather than point out that there is a discrepancy in the length of one sun cycle for a data set that extends over several."

    The fact that their method manages to smooth out the shortest solar cycle in over a century and make it longer than even the previous one is criticism enough, especially since it biases toward their conclusions.
  46. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Starting over: The scientists certainly do not discount the influence of the sun on the earth's climate. The thing is, though, that solar intensity has not increased during the past few decades. This is covered under "Misleading Argument 6" in the UK Royal Society's "Climate Change Controversies," which is available on their website.

    The situation on Mars is covered in a number of recent studies and commentaries that can be found by Googling. Basically, the scientists say that the current weather events on Mars have no relation to what is happening on earth.
  47. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: Larry Robinson writes: "Canadian Patriot - Denier? What is this, some kind of subliminal Holocaust association slur?"

    The small group of individuals who spout off hackneyed slogans (they aren't really arguments) like "Goracle" and "Glo-Bull Warming" are now commonly referred to as "deniers" in common usage.

    It is a perfectly accurate word to use since they insist on denying scientific fact. Holocaust deniers are somewhat different in that they insist in denying historical fact.
  48. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Larry Robinson writes: "From what I have read, there are three forces acting upon our climate .... GHG, particulate, and external solar forces. We control some of the first two but not the latter."

    Keep reading Larry.

    Humans have a direct effect on all three of the "forces" you mentioned, including the amount of solar radiation that penetrates the Earth's atmosphere.

    Particulate pollution reflects sunlight, and has masked the true effects global warming will have on average temperatures.
  49. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    What's with all the deniers here?

    Look, George Bush himself, the ultimate mega-denier, has conceded that human activity is a significant factor in Global Warming.

    The debate's over! The last person on Earth whose opposition to the science of Global Warming matters politically has conceded the argument!
  50. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: canadian observing from Paris, France writes:"... Antarctic with normal to below normal temps and normal to above normal ice cover. Why? Is there a climate change model to answer that or is it a mystery?" The southern hemisphere as a whole has been cooling since 2001, as can be seen in the yearly graphs and in the monthly text data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ The current climate models have no answer for this, but it appears we have come to the end of another thirty year warming (1970-2000) and can expect a repeat of the weak cooling periods such as 1940-1970 or 1880-1910. Thus far the only factor that seems related to these ups-and-downs of temperature is the length of the solar cycle, which has in general been shorter during warming periods and longer for cooling ones. Thus cycle 22, at 116 months from 1986-1996 was the shortest for over a century and lies in the midst of the latest warming period. The two next shortest were 120 months each from 1913-1933, in the midst of the 1910-1940 warming. The last complete cycle hit a full 11 years (132 months) for the first time since cycle 14 ended at 138 months in 1913, and we seem to be seeing cooling once again. And like in the previous warming-to-cooling transition in 1940, the southern hemisphere is leading the northern one.
  51. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor of Skywall: Stop dancing around the issue.

    Just tell us whether you believe that putting 27,245,758,000,000 kilograms of CO2 (and growing) into the atmosphere each year from the bruning of fossil fuels will have no effect on the Earth's climate.

    Yes, or no.
  52. John Miller from Grand Bend, Canada writes: Bob of Edmonton. Not meaning to be agrumentative, but it's YOU who's wrong. The court has not issued a ruling, per se. It's coming next week. According to the Daily Mail, Justice Burton has indicated that he found Gore's movie promotes partisan political views and that teachers must tell their students there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. Sounds perfecty reasonable to me.

    Others will no doubt point out things like the supposed 20-foot rise in sea levels is patently false, even the IPCC disagrees with it. Gore has never retracted anything in his film, a paranoid environmental fantasy masquerading as a documentary.

    My point was - and you seemed to have missed it Bob - that the Globe and Mail does not report news which doesn't fit the Chicken Little thesis about global warming. Maybe that's fine as far as alarmists are concerned. The credulous are perfectly happy not to have their biases challenged.
  53. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    John Miller writes: "Not meaning to be agrumentative, but it's YOU who's wrong."

    Actually, any Judge who rules that "teachers must tell their students there are other opinions on global warming" is the one whose WRONG!

    John Miller, you are prepared to put you faith in the word of a single judge, but are not prepared to accept the word of thousands of scientists?

    You are being silly.
  54. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall: Stop dancing around the issue."

    The issue is whether AGHGs are the dominant factor in temperature changes. That is an assertion that is a long way from being proven.
  55. Canadian Patriot from Toronto, Canada writes: Christ... I thought we had seen the last of these articles...guess I was wrong... this must be the start of the second wave.
  56. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor: No, the issue is whether we need to do something to reduce GHG emissions. Stop dancing, answer the question.

    Are you saying we do not need to do anything to reduce emissions of GHGs?
  57. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: John Miller: You are right. The judge made comments, as I described them, from the bench and said he would release a full ruling next week. He said he did that so that people would know what his decision is going to be. I should have made that explicit. He may well comment on the science in Gore's movie. It will be interesting if he does, but he may not. It seems, from the news stories I read, that the real issue in the case is keeping partisan politics out of the schools. I have not seen Gore's movie, but it seems that he did at least make a comment about the 2000 election. I have also read commentaries about the 20-foot rise in sea level. As I understand it, Gore presented this as a worst-case (perhaps alarmist) scenario that would occur if either the Greenland ice cap collapsed or half the Antarctic ice cap collapsed. Scientists do not dispute that might happen. What they do dispute, some of them very strongly, is the likelihood of that happening. Scientists agree that human-caused global warming will result in increased sea levels and that may cause severe problems. Where they disagree is in how much the rise might be and how quickly it might happen. I do not have the expertise to assess that debate, except from what I can understand Gore's 20-feet is a worst-case scenario.
  58. Bill Needle from Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes:
    The only climate change these guys will see is in my frying pan

    As usual Frank makes a good funny comment. TY.
  59. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: No, the issue is whether we need to do something to reduce GHG emissions. Stop dancing, answer the question."

    Ah, now you're being a little more precise. If AGHGs are only a trivial component to temperature change (and that seems to be the case), then making panic decisions that have nasty economic repercussions and no benefits is foolishness.
  60. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor:

    So you are saying you don't know whether or not we should reduce our GHG emissions?

    Really, I'm just trying to understand what it is your trying to say?
  61. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Com on, GlynnMhor, you portray yourself as some valid critic of the IPCC.

    So just answer the question everyone cares about!

    Are you saying we do not need to reduce our emissions of GHGs?

    Answer "Yes", or "No", or "I don't know."
  62. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: John Miller: You are right. The judge made comments, as I described them, from the bench and said he would release a full ruling next week. He said he did that so that people would know what his decision is going to be. I should have made that explicit. He may well comment on the science in Gore's movie. It will be interesting if he does, but he may not. It seems, from the news stories I read, that the real issue in the case is keeping partisan politics out of the schools. I have not seen Gore's movie, but it seems that he did at least make a comment about the 2000 election. I have also read commentaries about the 20-foot rise in sea level. As I understand it, Gore presented this as a worst-case (perhaps alarmist) scenario that would occur if either the Greenland ice cap collapsed or half the Antarctic ice cap collapsed. Scientists do not dispute that might happen. What they do dispute, some of them very strongly, is the likelihood of that happening. Scientists agree that human-caused global warming will result in increased sea levels and that may cause severe problems. Where they disagree is in how much the rise might be and how quickly it might happen. I do not have the expertise to assess that debate, except from what I can understand Gore's 20-feet is a worst-case scenario.
  63. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Yes.
  64. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Obviously
  65. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Stop being silly.
  66. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor - Your view is stupid and ignorant.
  67. Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Amazing the number of posters here willing to just write off our natural world.
    I will try do what I can to save our wild salmon (continuing the boycott of farmed salmon is one of them).
    Humans are unwilling to change until crisis is right on our heads. Peggy Lee said it best, "If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball."

    Humans are having a ball, aren't they?
  68. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor - Your view is stupid and ignorant."

    Now what?

    You're reduced to personal invective in lieu of rational discussion?
  69. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor - It is perfectly rational to call something "stupid" and "ignorant" when it is stupid and ignorant. Indeed, it would be quite irrational to do otherwise on such an important topic.
  70. Larry Robinson from Canada writes: Voice of Reason writes: Humans have a direct effect on all three of the "forces" you mentioned, including the amount of solar radiation that penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. The glaring flaw in these arguments is the solar activity outside of the earth's atmosphere in the solar system that has nothing to do with mankind, despite the egocentric science. NASA published extensive research in the 80's regarding cosmic radiation exposure at high altitudes on polar airline routes. Much of it was ignored and some European airlines adjusted their crew blocks to limit exposure. So many posters, probably very young, only give credibility to what they can Google today and they demand action this afternoon. This market is easily manipulated by politicians and snake oil salespersons. Fact is, Canada at 2% GHGs, could reduce emission by half destroying the economy in the result and the net effect on climate change will be "0" because of the massive increase of energy consumption and production in Asia, South America and some parts of Africa - growing economies. The starvation scaremongering - this month's Scientific American focuses on global food issues. We now produce enough food to feed everybody with sufficient energy and protein. The problem is poverty, education, poor agriculture practices and politics. The most rational response for Canadians regarding the environment is the promotion of mass transit, clean up energy production, and focus on preserving habitat which is a significant problem with the salmon.
  71. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Canadian Patriot from United States writes: All the deniers out there in Canada won't come around and face reality, even in the face of mountains of evidence and clear science. I predict that today's deniers will only become converts tomorrow and face the reality of global warming when the world becomes too warm to have Winter Olympics. Then, and only then, faced with the inability to feel proud for two weeks that our athletes won one or maybe two gold medals, they will finally wake up. Utterly pathetic.
    ___________________________
    But if Canader became a summer Olympic power can we still deny? We can be the masters of road hockey, field hockey, fighting and drinking, all rolled into one. The Ozzies might give us a run on a couple of things but we pretty good at stick work.

    And what difference would it make if Joe Shmoo were to accept the obvious, that climates do change? Would that cool the earth down a bit? Just a tiny bit?

    I sat thru a glowball warming lecture recently and when the speaker said 'and ye shall read and memorize the IPCC 4th report' but didn't show the famous hockey stick graph or even mention Kyoto, I was disappointed. Plus the guy was a sanctimonious talk the talk twit.
  72. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Larry Robinson writes: "Fact is, Canada at 2% GHGs, could reduce emission by half destroying the economy in the result and the net effect on climate change will be "0" because of the massive increase of energy consumption and production in Asia, South America and some parts of Africa - growing economies."

    Canada is the 7th largest emitter of CO2, more than Great Britain, Italy, France, Mexico, Brazil and Spain.

    Canada is 7th out of 207 countries.

    In fact, Canada's emission are more that Brazill and Spain combined.

    In fact, Canada's emissions are 18% of all of China's emissions.

    In fact, Canada emits twice as much as France even though we have half the population.

    In fact, it is not necessary to "destroy the economy" to reduce emissions by half.

  73. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor - It is perfectly rational to call something 'stupid' and 'ignorant'..."

    Well, o badly-misnamed one, I'm among the very few who have actually read through the IPCC reports, looked at their models, looked at their methodology, and looked at the observed data.

    All most AGW enthusiasts seem to want to do is quote other people talking about what they think about the science; a highly secondary and derivative approach that smacks of intellectual laziness.
  74. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    The small group of individuals who spout off hackneyed slogans (they aren't really arguments) like "Goracle" and "Glo-Bull Warming" are now commonly referred to as "deniers" in common usage.

    >>How about: are you part of the problem or the soluiton? Or better, either you are with us or against us? Ring any bells, Unreasoning yap? How about 'you can't hug kids with nuclear arms'? That was the grand prize winnter in the eco-weiny cliche-off in the '70s and it is oh so true today. Makes a nice bumper ... errr bicycle stcker now.

    It is a perfectly accurate word to use since they insist on denying scientific fact. Holocaust deniers are somewhat different in that they insist in denying historical fact.

    >>So when does the round-up start? I hear the Canadian north has lots of areas that camps could be set up to re-educate the non-believers. You could call it the eco-gulag, seeing that every thing 'greenish' has the prefix (goes in front of the word) of 'eco'. Like you, you are an eco-moron. And eco-yappping little dog. Get it?
  75. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "I am among the very few who have actually read through the IPCC reports."

    You mean, aside from the thousands of scientists who contributed to you?

    You mean, apart from the throusands of policy advisors to world leaders, including George Bush?

    You mean, apart from all these, only a few people (you and a few others) have read it?

    Hmmmm....

    And you are a scientist, I assume?
  76. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "All most AGW enthusiasts seem to want to do is quote other people talking about what they think about the science; a highly secondary and derivative approach that smacks of intellectual laziness."

    And you have collected you own data, done your own field research and arrived at your own scientific conclusions?

    Hmmm....
  77. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: "didn't show the famous hockey stick graph or even mention Kyoto, I was disappointed."

    You haven't kept up with the conversation then. Science isn't static. It moves on. And deniers have been going in circles on these issues for years. It's rather embarrassing, really.
  78. b mac from Canada writes: It's not as gloomy this year as in the last few years for Sockeye. River level are now back to normal which will se the survival rate for Sockeye Salmon go up.
    .........................................................................................
    "Are you taking your fish oil pills everyday?"
  79. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Dick Nails writes: "Or better, either you are with us or against us? Ring any bells?"

    Yeah. That's George Bush, right? The former ultimate mega-denier.

    And didn't even he call upon everyone to reduce GHG emissions a little while ago?
  80. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "You mean, apart from all these, only a few people (you and a few others) have read it?"

    No, including all those, only a few people have read it. You haven't, now have you? (be honest if possible). Gore himself probably hasn't even read it, beyond the 'summaries'.
  81. Larry Robinson from Canada writes: Voice of Reason - Show some reason and present a rational plan, without the infantile hysterics.
  82. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "No, including all those, only a few people have read it."

    Oh really? Well, how many people have read the IPCC, then?

    I mean, there's you. Okay. So that's one, at least.

    And you say no one who contributed to it read it. Oh my, well then, that takes several throusand people out of it at least.

    Okay, so how many do we have now? Oh, yes, one (that would be you) who read it.

    Translation:

    GlynnMhor is really saying: I AM NAPOLEON I TELL YOU! THE EMPEROR OF FRANCE!
  83. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Hugh, you missed the point about the missing graph and Kyoto. The graph was disproven and Kyoto won't work. Why would these two basic items of any sermon on glow ball warming (disguised as climate change) go missing?

    This whole denying this is just another part of the eco religion/scam: if you cannot shut up your opponent, demonize him, make him worse than .... Hitler. Saying a climate change denier is worse than a Holocaus denier weakens the 'debate' to a mere brain fart of the anti-human eco-left. IOW, nada, zilch and bupkiss.
  84. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Larry Robinson writes: "present a rational plan"

    There are several rational plans which can completely address the problem of global warming.

    Most require a three-pronged approach: greater efficiency, more power from non-fossil fuel sources, and sequestration.

    Its not complicated.
  85. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dick Nails: The hockey stick graph was not disproven. The National Academies of Science reported to the U.S. Congress that the graph had been supported by further research since it was first developed in the late-1990s. You can find that report on the Academies website. You can also find versions of the hockey stick graph on the websites of many major scientific organizations, including the East Anglia site that GlynnMoher is so fond of citing.
  86. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: The voice of unreason, the king of not getting it. Buddy, I used the bush43 example to demonstrate you preposterous and bombastic the 'debate' has become. The only reason that 'if you are not with us' line is not used is that bush43 got it first. You are simply re-casting the cliche to suit your religion. So what do they teach in high schoo these days? Recycling and anti-bullying. You want to be a bully and would if you could. To someone like me and anyone eles who disagrees with you.
  87. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Larry Robinson writes: "present a rational plan"

    Canada, for example, should increase its Nuclear and Hydro-Electric power a great deal. (We have great expertise in these areas).

    There is an amazing synergy between Nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel. Separating hydrogen from water leaves heavy water as a by-product, which is needed to make electricity from Nuclear fuel.

    We could move to a Hydrogen fuel economy within 50 years if we wanted.
  88. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "And you say..."

    Ah yes, when you can't come up witrh something rational, invent a straw man to attack.

    I have to assume from these responses that you haven't read it. I urge you to do so, particularly chapter 9.
  89. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "Ah yes, when you can't come up with something rational, invent a straw man to attack."

    I didn't invent anything.

    You're the one who said that you are one of the few people in the world that has actually read the IPCC report.

    That sounds pretty crazy to me.
  90. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "Separating hydrogen from water leaves heavy water as a by-product, which is needed to make electricity from Nuclear fuel."

    Wrong and wrong. Heavy water is separated using hydrogen sulphide gas bubbled up through falling water. Electrolytic hydrogen ahs the same percentage of deuterium as the water from which it was made.

    And though heavy water is used as the moderator for CANDU reactors, many reactor designs simply increase the enrichment of U235 to compensate for poorer moderation and higher neutron losses of other moderators.
  91. I AM A LIBERAL MORON PLEASE COME AND STEAL MY MONEY MY TAXES from Canada writes: WHERE IS DION? WHY IS HE HIDING?
    Why is the Goebbels and Mail protecting him?
  92. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Oxygen split off from water can be used to burn fuels instead of air. This means that all of the combustion byproduct is CO2, making it easier to trap and sequestrate as desired. Since no nitrogen is present along with the oxygen, NOx pollution (a byproduct of high temperature and/or high pressure combustion with air) is eliminated as well.

    The hydrogen can be used directly as a fuel, or for 'cracking' heavier oils into lighter ones.
  93. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor, man, you don't know your science very well. While there are other ways to isolate heavy water, electrolysis is one of them. While there are ways to generate nuclear energy without heavy water, heavy water is used to generate nuclear energy.

    Would have thought there'd be more from the only man on earth to have read the IPCC report.

    Oh well....
  94. rod silliphant from Chilliwack, Canada writes: How about fish farming which started once the bc liberials began shamming everyone with there spin!

    As well as sine fishing which should have been banned!

    Goverment here in BC cares only about one thing $$$$ at all costs!
  95. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Amazing the number of posters here willing to just write off our natural world.
    I will try do what I can to save our wild salmon (continuing the boycott of farmed salmon is one of them).
    Humans are unwilling to change until crisis is right on our heads. Peggy Lee said it best, "If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball."

    Humans are having a ball, aren't they?

    Aside from your the sky is falling rant how exactly are you helping the wild salmon by eating them instead of the farmed salmon ?
  96. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "While there are other ways to isolate heavy water, electrolysis is one of them."

    Nope. Electrolysis only separates the hydrogen, and purification of the deuterium must follow. It's a very slow and inefficient process, and thus hasn't been used since WWII.

    "... heavy water is used to generate nuclear energy."

    But it is not needed to do so, despite your claiming it.
  97. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Hey everyone, GlynnMhor (who claims to be one of the few people on earthh to have actually read the IPCC report) doesn't even know that heavy water can be produced through electrolysis!

    Yikes! Some scientists!
  98. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Hey, GlynnMhor, are you a "heavy water from electrolysis" denier too?
  99. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor now admits he was wrong, and that in fact, heavy water can be created through electrolysis, but he warns: "It's a very slow and inefficient process, and thus hasn't been used since WWII."

    Do you need a coffee or something?

    The heavy water is a by-product of the production of hydrogen for fuel through electrolysis. The point is the get the hydrogen. Since you're doing that by electrolysis anyway, the heavy water by-product is a free-bee.

    Yikes! Some scientist!
  100. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "But [heavy water] is not needed to [produce nuclear energy], despite your claiming it."

    Wow. Your reading skill are pretty bad. I never said the only way to produce nuclear energy requires heavy water.

    Yikes! Maybe you mis-read that IPCC report too, huh?
  101. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "Hey, GlynnMhor, are you a 'heavy water from electrolysis' denier too?"

    Look into it a bit, and you'll find that the only commercial-scale process used is the Girdler sulphide method. Others are just laboratory curiosities.
  102. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Does anyone know what the average science or mathematics level is of the typical Globe and Mail reader?

    Can any of you even compute a simple derivative? Does anyone know what computational fluid dynamics is? Thats the mathematics used for most climate models. There is an inherent inaccuracy in the method because turbulent flows are not well understood, but this does not mean the models are no good. Same mathematics is used for airplane design which has proven reliable.

    It would seem that none of you are in any position to comment on the science of global warming or much else.

    So all you do is debate about politicians. Just because a politician says global warming is real or non-existent does not make it so. They choose the position that suits their political platform, but I think that its a problem that must not be ignored.

    Problem is ... politicians, and those that listen exclusively to them are too dim witted to come up with realistic or long-term solutions.

    Try: solar power satellites, subsidized electric vehicles, Segways, bio-diesel .... in time, as with the Ozone layer, or acid rain, the problems will be brought under control, but the stakes are higher with this problem than at any point in history.

    S.
  103. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:"I never said the only way to produce nuclear energy requires heavy water."

    Yet from your 01:04 PM EDT post we all can read:

    "... heavy water as a by-product, which is needed to make electricity from Nuclear fuel."

    Had you not meant what you said, you would have written that it was 'used' to make electricity, not 'needed'.

    Give it up, already, and go read the IPCC reports for a few hours.
  104. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "Look into it a bit, and you'll find that the only commercial-scale process used is the Girdler sulphide method. Others are just laboratory curiosities."

    Actually, you admitted you were wrong after you looked into it a bit.

    Do you even know what "by-product" means?

    I'll be looking forward to your next admission that you are wrong on a point of science, Mr. Scientists.
  105. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "Do you even know what "by-product" means?"

    Really, look into it. Trying to get D2O as a 'byproduct' of electrolysis requires an enormous consumption of energy, time, and infrastructure above and beyond that which is expended in just getting the hydrogen.

    It's most certainly not free.
  106. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "Give it up, already"

    Since you ahve admitted that you were wrong about heavy water production from electrolysis, I don't need to continue.

    We have established that you are no scientist.

    It was pointless for you to have read the IPCC report, if you did at all.
  107. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: "There is an inherent inaccuracy... but this does not mean the models are no good. Same mathematics is used for airplane design which has proven reliable."

    However airplane simulation models are tested against both wind tunnel tests and actual aircraft performance and can be demonstrated to adequately represent the behaviours of the aircraft under different conditions.

    What makes the climate models 'no good' is that they do not replicate the known (past) behaviour of the system they purport to represent.
  108. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor - Yep. Its confirmed. You can't read, and have no idea what by-product means.

    If you want to extract hydrogen from water, you have to use electrolyisis anyway. The electricity is used to make the hydrogen (not the heavy water left over). The heavy water is a by-product of the production of hydrogen from water through electroylysis.

    I really don't think ou should have spent all that time criticizing the IPCC report. You clearly have no background in science, and can't read very well either.
  109. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Sanjay Singh from Waterloo - Don't bother with GlynnMhor. You are correct, he has no background in science, and is not qualified to debate with you.
  110. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "Since you have admitted that you were wrong about heavy water production from electrolysis..."

    Well, you go try to find me an industrial scale operation producing D2O using your method.

    The Bruce plant used the Girdler process, as did the short-lived Glace Bay plant, and those are the only two facilities in Canada. France ran a small Girdler plant for a while, Argentina has one at present, as does Romania.

    I think your romanticism has gotten away from you, and you are thinking about the pre-WWII Vemork electrolysis plant in Norway that was featured in a 1965 movie. It was not operated after the war and never lived up to its design production levels.
  111. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "Well, you go try to find me an industrial scale operation producing D2O using your method."

    Do try to keep up.

    There is no nuclear power plant yet on earth devoted to making hydrogen through electrolysis. Therefore, there is no such plant recovering heavy water as a by-product through the method I proposed.

    If we move to a hydrogen economy, there will necessarily be industrial scale operations doing both of these.

    Man! I mean, really!
  112. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: "There is no nuclear power plant yet on earth devoted to making hydrogen through electrolysis."

    There are plenty of plants dedicated to producing hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, yet none of them try to produce D2O from them. Why not? Because it's not an efficient enough process to make it worthwhile.
  113. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    GlynnMhor writes: "There are plenty of plants..."

    Really? Plenty, eh? Name just five then. Five nuclear power plants that are devoted to making hydrogen.

    (I expect we will not be hearing back from you).
  114. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    You are seriously confused on this simple point of science, GlynnMhor.
  115. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Go ahead call everbody some more names there voice of reason.
    It makes you sound so reasonable
  116. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Sanjay Singh from Waterloo - Don't bother with GlynnMhor. You are correct, he has no background in science, and is not qualified to debate with you.

    The last time I read this sort of tripe (not qualified) came from a dyed in the wool, cold war losing Marxist denier... To that knob, unless you were a hackademic Marxists, you had nothing to say to him. Like you, unless you agree that climate changes and man and only man can do and undo this, you have no place in the ... not a debate, in the chorus. Shut up already. Lots of educated adults who 'get' the science and bad science and rantings are always going to deny what you would shove down our throats. I deny. Now what are you going to do about it? Arrest me? Re-educate me?
  117. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: What is the 'simple point of science'? You don't know what 'science' is but are happy to swing it around like a big club, hitting indiscriminantly, in the name of science. How paleo of you.
  118. Cynical libertarian from Canada writes: Voice of reason,

    you are hilarious.

    I'm a little behind here but...

    heavy water is needed to produce nuclear energy like concrete is needed to produce nuclear energy.

    You are arguing points which are so irrelevant (whether someone knows the definition of "by-product"? c'mon) you are sounding a little hysterical.

    I don't happen to agree with Glynn, but you're makin' him sound pretty good (relatively).
  119. Cynical libertarian from Canada writes: Glynn: There are plenty of plants dedicated...

    The self described "voice of reason":

    Really? Plenty, eh? Name just five then. Five nuclear (ah, see how you added this nuclear bit in to help prop your argument up? how clever of you) power plants that are...

    See, you're crazy
  120. usually write from Canada writes: Lomborg's new booK:
    Cool it: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming argues that, instead of cutting carbon emissions, we should be spending money on more important global problems, such as poverty and disease.
    Personally, living in Canada I appreciate global warming...and I'm doing my bit, I own 5 cars, unfortunately can't run 'em all simultaneously, but thinking with a few cement blocks...
  121. usually write from Canada writes: PC sources of power:one of my colleagues was living in Switzerland and he told me the Swiss had to buy electricity from France (so largely nuclear-generated) but they felt bad about it, so used it to pump water uphill so they could then use their "hydro-electricity" and not feel so guilty! Of course, remembering thermodynamics, it doesn't make much sense, since you are wasting energy in the conversions......assume it's a true story, and certainly amusing.
  122. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: The first number of posters should be ashamed of themselves. The scientists are telling us what is happening and all you idiots can do is drool cynical foam.

    Some humans really don't deserve the o2. Callous ignorant and likely cons.
  123. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: usually write from Canada writes: "... Swiss had to buy electricity from France (so largely nuclear-generated) but they felt bad about it, so used it to pump water uphill so they could then use their "hydro-electricity" and not feel so guilty!"

    What they're almost certainly doing is buying power cheaply off-peak and then generating hydro power for the expensive peak periods. Thermodynamically it loses energy, but economically it makes plenty of sense.
  124. dave mackay from nova scotia, Canada writes: Funny , 28 posters and not once is salmon mentioned.
  125. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Once again, the all-knowing Luft has spoken, and the scientists are all idiots. Is there anything the man doesn't know? Quite a bit, actually.
  126. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Cree Prophecy:

    Only after the last tree has been cut down,
    Only after the last river has been poisoned,
    Only after the last fish has been caught,
    Only then will you find that you cannot eat money.
  127. Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes: To quote a famous American from my younger days, "What, me worry?" Look, there is no such thing as global warming. How do I know this? Why I read it on the GM conversation threads. You can read it there every day. And right, these salmon can fend for themselves, enough with the government handouts; they have to damn well learn to swim on their own. One of the great things going for the multitude of deniers regularly posting that nonsense on here is that they in fact really do not need to worry. They most assuredly will not be around when the time comes to pay the piper. More bizzare is that most of these people present themselves on here as 'conservative'. My understanding of a true conservative is one who when faced with a 'tentative' situation where the outcome may be dubious, always opts on the side of cautioun route. But then again, like the 'non-issue' of global warming, when you are gambling with someone else's money, caution really is unnecessary. To those 'no problem' posters, think the next time you are inclined to invoke the old, "I'm not prepared to mortgage my grandchildrens' futures", statement. Following your do nothing, "party-on Wayne", attitudes may very well ensure that they have none. On the salmon thing, "Let them eat perch!"
  128. David J Parker from Edmontarsands, Canada writes: Still waiting for the Canadian government to recognize the depth of this excruciating and profoundly life and death problem.
    Their actions thus far seem to indicate that they understand global warming only to the extent that it might affect their chances of getting Tories elected.
  129. James McGillawee from Oshawa, Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, as I pointed out, LSD has been shown (recently, not just the 30 year old experiments at the U. of S.) to help terminally ill patients. I was merely pointing out that on the subject of drug control, you were arguing in favour of it and now you use Kerry Mullis to support a position. I explained to you what I thought of Mullis. There are a lot of Nobel Prize winners. He deserved his Nobel Prize because of the impact of his contribution. However, in terms of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, he is no icon.

    TWO POINTS:
    1. THE LSD EXPERIMENTS IN THE 50'S IN SASK. MENTAL INSTITUTIONS WERE TO EXAMINE IF IT COULD BE A POSSIBLE CURE FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA NOT FOR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS THAT I RECALL

    2. WHAT RELEVANCE DOES THIS HAVE TO THE CURRENT STATE OF SALMON STOCKS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT IN B.C., I FAIL TO SEE THE CONNECTION, OR HAVE YOU NOW DEDUCED THAT SALMON ARE SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA AS A RESULT OF GLOWBALL WARMING?

    I THINK THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BREATHING SOME OF THOSE GREEN HOUSE GASES! MUST BE A REAL GOOD CROP IN YOUR HOT HOUSE!
  130. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: "Only then will you find that you cannot eat money."

    But you can still trade money for food. That's the whole point of money; it can become anything at all.
  131. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes:"... where the outcome may be dubious, always opts on the side of caution route."

    And it is precautionary not to squander staggering amounts of money, time, and resources on something that looks like you can't change.

    In any case, cheer up, the globe hasn't done any warming since March of 2001:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    Or if you just want to look at the pretty graphs:

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

    Just as we saw the last time the globe shifted from warming to cooling mode, in 1940, the southern hemisphere has started to cool first. It looks like the thirty-year alternance of weak cooling and strong warming (1880-1910, 1910-1940, 1940-1970, 1970-2000) is continuing. This is an indication that the effect of AGHGs is much smaller than supposed, and that there is another, much stronger factor, at work driving temperatures.
  132. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Even if there is a small AGHG signature in the temperature data, our ability to seriously reduce worldwide emissions is very suspect.

    As has been mentioned in the past, countries like China and India are still going to increase their emission levels in the forseeable future far faster than we could conceivably compensate by lowering ours.

    If we are going to invest time, resources, and money, it should be in areas that improve our ability to adapt to temperature changes. Otherwise the chances are very good that we would just waste all our efforts on something doomed to failure. Those who believe that the Kyoto Accord and subsequent arrangements will reduce AGHG emissions, much less concentrations, are putting their faith in a phantom.
  133. Bill Needle from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: far too much.
  134. Bill Needle from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada

    A wise old owl lived in an oak
    The more he listened the less he spoke
    The less he spoke the more he heard
    Why can't you be like that wise old bird.
  135. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bill Needle from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: far too much."

    Or is it just too much with which you, personally, disagree?
  136. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Goodness, gracious, GlynnMhor (I do love alliteration), when you write , "But you can still trade money for food", I despair of your grasp of subtleties of thought. The point of the phrophesy I posted previously (there I go again), is that, in poisoning our air, soil and water, in felling our forests, we are destroying the Earth and all Earth's creatures, on which our very lives depend. All that we need for life comes from the Earth. When the Earth is destroyed - for greed, for profit - our money avails us nothing. What good is money when there is no food to buy, when not only the salmon but all our animal and plant foods are gone?

    The reason I quote Native North American wisdom so often is that no other culture expresses so passionately the need to care for the Earth. We have failed to heed the message in the past, but it is an even more vital message today.
  137. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: "The point of the prophesy..."

    Oh, I know what you were trying to say, despite its being expressed in such a vague and indirect fashion.

    It remains, however, that we'll still produce food, and it'll still be available, because your 'prophecy' is just a lot of hooey.

    "...Native North American wisdom so often is that no other culture expresses so passionately the need to care for the Earth."

    This would be the same indians that stretch gillnets right across spawning streams to make sure none of the pickerel escape. Or abuse their 'treaty right' to traditional food fishery and instead just commercial fish for sale to whitey (there's that money thing again).
  138. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: To GlynnMhor: Money really is just a piece of printed paper, with only a symbolic value. Will $100 worth of goods and services today, be worth the same amount of goods and services in a few years? Of course not. Then there are all the examples of skyrocketing inflation, down through the ages, when barrels-full of the printed paper were unable to buy a loaf of bread. No, you can't eat money.

    A salmon, however, is always a meal, or a salmon can be bartered for something else.

    Now, shall we discuss what "whitey", as you say, has done to the planet?
  139. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: To GlynnMhor: "Money really is just a piece of printed paper, with only a symbolic value."

    Money is more a representative value than a symbolic one. The value is real, and is convertible to anything else.

    "A salmon, however, is always a meal, or a salmon can be bartered for something else."

    After three or four days, a salmon is neither a meal nor much of a barterable commodity. It isn't even something you'd want lying around your home, what with the stench, the flies, and the oozing juices. Unless, of course, one uses whitey's refrigeration machines.
  140. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: To GlynnMhor: Or unless the salmon is smoked and dried, in traditional Native fashion, to preserve it over the winter months.

    How long could you survive without whitey's refrigeration? Someday, when the grid fails, you may wish you had a little Native wisdom.
  141. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes:"How long could you survive without whitey's refrigeration?"

    Have you ever tried to live on dried fish?

    I'll take the wide variety of foods offered at the local grocery store over the meagre fare of the subsistence-farmer-hunter-gatherer any day.
  142. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: To GlynnMhor: Nothing like depending on the farmer, fisherman and hunter, not to mention the very Earth, for your sustenance and yet scorning them all.

    I hope you drive to your local grocery store in appropriate style - a monster gas-guzzler. Something to Express Your Disdain.
  143. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: "To GlynnMhor: Nothing like depending on the farmer, fisherman and hunter..."

    Commercial farmers and fishermen, not subsistence ones.

    In any case your doom-and-gloom scenario isn't coming to pass, and even if no wild salmon survive in the southern streams of BC it will make no difference to me since I rarely eat the stuff anyway, and farmed salmon will still be available should I want it.

    To return to the topic at hand, the salmon and their survival, we probably need to stop all commercial fishing of them, especially during spawning season, including the indians' commercial fishery disguised as treaty-right. The usual aids to fish migration, such as fish ladders, etc, and the preservation of their spawning beds should continue as they have done in the past.

    And on the bright side the globe has not warmed since March 2001, and might well be starting a phase of weak cooling.
  144. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes:"... a monster gas-guzzler. Something to Express Your Disdain."

    Any disdain I have I express in places like these fora.

    I use vehicles to go places, not to express anything at all.

    BTW, my vehicle of choice for grocery shopping is a Volkswagen Golf. At present my wife has taken that car to Manitoba to visit her brothers, leaving me at home to look after the cats. For this week, then, I have had to use the camper van, unfortunately. And it is, alas, necassarily a bit of a gas guzzler.
  145. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: To GlynnMhor: I fail to see the difference between a commercial and subsistence farmer, as most farmers today are not even subsisting. As for fishermen - ask a Newfie.

    What will you eat when your penned salmon succumb to disease? Living in such unnatural conditions, they are far more prone to it.

    Anyway, I'm off to dinner. We're having wild salmon. Nothing like it.
  146. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: "To GlynnMhor: I fail to see the difference between a commercial and subsistence farmer..."

    Subsistence farmers eat their product.

    Commercial farmers sell their product.

    Same with fishing, including 'treaty-right' subsistence fishing. If you sell the fish, it no longer falls under treaty right.

    As to what I'll eat, it has to be said that the penned salmon seem to be doing much better than the wild salmon overall. There'll be plenty of it for me to eat should I ever choose to do so. In the meantime, I do well on Alberta beef.

    Seems pretty obvious to me.
  147. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Gail's Recipe for Baked Salmon

    Cut salmon fillet (preferably wild) into individual servings.
    Sprinkle with grated fresh ginger, squeeze fresh lemon juice over each piece and drizzle with maple syrup.
    Put in an oven-proof dish (pyrex) and bake, uncovered, at 325o until the white juices rise to the top (about 10 min, depending on thickness).

    (A simple recipe which even men "baching" it for a week and looking after the cats can attempt.)
  148. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail, Given the apparent problems that the wild salmon fish stocks are experiencing, should you even be eating any of them at all?

    Leave them be to spawn as best they can and eat Alberta beef instead. There's no shortage of beef after all, nor even rumours of shortage.
  149. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gail: that last post was a bit of a 'low blow'. You did rather set yourself up for it, though.
  150. Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes: to GylynnMhor: thank you for making my point. The scope of your vision of the immediate issue is first grade economics and is restricted to a "today buck". With respect to environment and what climate change portends for the future you apparently are willing to bet that you are right in your myopic views, (I'm not sure from your other postings whether you like Ronnie Reagan in days past, and actually believe that there is such a thing as global warming, or if you just think it is no big deal) and that we (all who are here now) are justified in doing nothing, should just jump into the SUV and do whatever moves us to just feel good. Easy for you, and me were I of a similar mind; neither of us will be around to find out if you are right or to pay the price if you are not (which by all accepted scientific standards is the case. Based upon accepted scieintific evidence it is pretty clear your head is in a warm dark place on this one). Personally I would much rather err on the side of true caution, get off my a$$, make some substantive changes, and look to my government to lead on a societal level. You know, it really won't matter to some poor devil how many bucks he has when at some time in the future (when GlynnMhor is nothing more than a less-than-fond memory and it all hits the fan) in a time of scarcity due to non-existent global warming, he is battling the masses for his daily ration of water or some other basic. I am sure however he/she will be very appreciative of that you and those of your particular bent strove to educate the world that there was nothing to worry about and/or if there was, that nothing could be done about it. Right. Have a nice day. Take the family for a ride in the SUV. Enjoy your spliff, and tell me where you get your stuff. It is obviously dynamite. I suggest as well that you swear off salmon. enjoy your evening.
  151. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I certainly do not wish to make light of the current situation facing the salmon stocks but how did they manage to survive and recover after all the previous natural climate disasters through the course of the earth's history?
  152. Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes: Bill Needle: Thank you for posting that homile. My dad, who was a pretty wise person himself, used to recite that to us ad nauseum when we were kids as good advice. I have often tried to repeat it correctly but have never been able to. I have copied it and it is going up on my office wall.

    The internet, what would we do without it.

    thanks
  153. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: Do the salmon need help? Or do the consultants wish extra funding so they can ratchet up their billable hours?
  154. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Canada writes: Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Gail's Recipe for Baked Salmon

    Cut salmon fillet (preferably wild) into individual servings.
    Sprinkle with grated fresh ginger, squeeze fresh lemon juice over each piece and drizzle with maple syrup.
    Put in an oven-proof dish (pyrex) and bake, uncovered, at 325o until the white juices rise to the top (about 10 min, depending on thickness).

    (A simple recipe which even men "baching" it for a week and looking after the cats can attempt.)

    I was going to post a comment, but for some reason all I can think of is food now. mmmmmmmmgood. Thanks for the recipe!
  155. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Old Old pilot, your comment is worth another go round

    "A friend of mine commented recently that liberal-minded folk tend to believe what they see and conservative-minded folk tend to see what they believe. And since the religious right gained political ascendancy in the U.S. there has been a concerted attack on science generally. Deny, ridicule, obfuscate, whatever it takes to make science wrong so that nothing gets in the way of seeing only what one already believes. It's sad. "
  156. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Well RM from Regina, who asks " how did they manage to survive and recover after all the previous natural climate disasters through the course of the earth's history? "

    Perhaps adding us and our bumbling stupidity into the recipe has made it impossible for them to survive the coming crises. Perhaps we have no choice now, and must tinker more to try and correct our mistakes.

    We continue to deny our part in the current mess. How typically human. We are masters at denial, individually and collectively.
  157. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes:"Personally I would much rather err on the side of true caution..."

    If so, then you ought to be campaigning for the militarization of space, so that when the next comet or asteroid impactor comes we'll have some chance to be able to do something about it.

    We know that the Earth will be hit again, unlike AGW, which might or might not be real, and for which we don't have a lot of actual evidence.
  158. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: Why bother? The fish-farming industry is busy killing of the wild stocks anyway, as they did in Norway several years ago. By the time global climate change can seriously affect the wild stock, we won't have any left to worry about.

    So why worry about this problem? Or is this just a way to distract people from the real problem, that open-pen fish farms kill wild stock.
  159. Offshore Reg from bridgetown, Barbados writes: GlynnMhor: I am trying to understand the link between screwing with the salmon to militarisation of outer space. Right. Easier to set up some stupid straw man argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand than support an untenable position regarding the topic of the article. Like I said, it is all academic. Neither you nor your pal, the joker currently occupying Sussex Drive will be around to answer for your position. Lucky for you. But then again, maybe God will drop out of a cloud and fix everything.

    Who gives a damn about a few salmon anyway, right? Get serious.
    Better, why am I bothering to respond to your irrelevant nonsense.
    Be careful, when Stevie gets that drug policy into place he will be coming after you. This site never ceases to amaze. I now know why I should stick to the Guardian.

    Enjoy your thanksgiving and when the meteor comes.....duck.

    ciao dude
  160. David Simon from Canada writes: Its important that we protect salmon from being killed by global warming so they survive and are killed by us for dinner.
  161. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Of course, the Arctic ice situation has nothing to do with global warming. A new NASA-led study found a 23 percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage. Son Hghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasedena, Calif, studied trends in Arctie perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice. Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. And also, just to mention it again because you can bet your a$$ that the G&M will never mention it, James Hansen of NASA, the darling of the global warming religion, has received $720,000 from the "Politization of Science" fund of George Soros.
  162. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Thanks, J Luft, for that info. Here's a link to the NASA article: http://tinyurl.com/2jf4eb

    As to the supposed Hansen-Soros connection, please have a look at:

    http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-meme-hansen-paid-by-soros.html

    (http://tinyurl.com/2lw3kj)

    before jumping to conclusions.
  163. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: Cynical libertarian writes "see, you're crazy."

    Cynical, just read the posts. It was GlynnMhor that twisted the point, and I who twisted it back.

    GlynnMhor is offering scientific opinion, and I established he has neither any scientific background, nor any understanding of basic scientific principles.

    And as for who's crazy, GlynnMhor claims he is one of the few people in the world who has actually read the IPCC report. He even thinks the people who wrote it did not read it.

    Its GlynnMhor who sounds crazy.

    He called one of my posts "wrong and wrong" and he later admitted (implicity of course - there's his word trwisting for you) that he was wrong on both points.
  164. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: Cynical libertarian -

    Seems to me you are probably GlynnMhor posting under a different name.

    First, you don't post anything until GlynnMhor loses the argument with me.

    Then you suddenly appear and, although you claim to not agree with GlynnMhor, you say I make him sound pretty good.

    Finally, in order the make that claim, you conveniently overlook the fact that the entire discussion (which you say was off topic) was instigated by GlynnMhor making and maintaining one false scientific statement after another.

    Yep. I think I got your number pretty good.
  165. Karl Lauten from Nipawin, Canada writes: Please cough up the precise data that shows that our lakes and rivers are warming up......presumably due to global warming? Also consider the alteration of watershed hydrology caused by forestry, removal of riparian areas, drainage, urban and agricultural developments and you can more than account for any changes, in lentic and lotic ecology, with no connection to "global warming".
  166. Barton Lincoln Jonesboro, the Second from Metro Toronto, Canada writes: So...I guess this means the next time I am at my local Tim Horton's I can expect to see a donation box on the front counter looking for alms to 'save the salmon'.

    Horton's will have to enlarge their counter space for all the donation boxes from hell and high water areas.

    Money...money....whose keeping track when it is someone else's.

    Barton Lincoln Jonesboro, the Second
  167. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I wonder, Karl Lauten, whether you've read the two reports, available from:
    http://fish.bc.ca/helping-pacific-salmon-survive-impact-climate-change-freshwater-habitats
    or http://tinyurl.com/393mdf

    If you have done sxo, would you please describe why you believe that the authors of the two papers are, in your opinion, in error? Where in their studies did they make your supposed fatal flaw?

    If you haven't read the reports, which I think is more likely, could you please provide a link to studies which demonstrate the lack of a linkage?

    Otherwise, please express your views as uninformed opinions.
  168. Lawrence Davis from Denver, United States writes: Great blog with lots of useful information and excellent commentary! Thanks for sharing.

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

Comments are closed

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

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

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

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

Back to top