The latest I’ve seen on the lockstep relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures indicates that the Global Warming fanatics have the cause and effect backwards. Yes, the famous CO2/Temperature graph of “An Iconvenient Truth” fame shows CO2 and temperature moving lockstep over time…what it doesn’t show is that CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise. In other words, CO2 does not cause warming, warming causes CO2. This theory that global warming is caused by CO2 is like saying that wet roads cause rain.

-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that only 3.4% is man-made.

-Mankind IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today.
Greenland was called Green-Land for a reason, it was green. The Vikings lived there during the Medieval warming period and it was hot enough to cultivate grapes. Did the Vikings drive SUV`s !?

-CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

-There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.

-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

-” Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance.”
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000

-The IPCC claimed climate change to be “very likely” 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.

-National Research Council report on the UN`s IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.

-Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. “hockey stick” himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his “hockey stick” temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of “peer review” aka, fellow travellers.

-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that ” Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 ”
They released the IPCC’s the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.

-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.

-Algore owns oil stock (oxy) and owned a zinc mine.

-Algore lied in his book and has a history of exaggerations, I “took the initiative in creating the Internet”, there was ” no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law” ( it was) , stated he ” found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal” and of course, “within as little as 10 years (GW will) make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.”

-Alogre`s his manions use 20 X the electricity of an average home. he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

One-sided statements

• It neglects to mention that aggregate mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather events declined dramatically during the 20 th century.

• It neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO 2 emitter: the world’s largest economy, abundant fossil energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, the world’s most mobile population.

• The book impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.

• AIT never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all economic pain for no environmental gain and that regulations stringent enough to measurably cool the planet would be a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.

Misleading statements

• AIT implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO 2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way: CO 2 changes followed global temperature changes.

• It ignores the societal factors that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people’s risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.

• It implies that a study, which found that none of 928 science articles (actually abstracts) denied a CO 2 -global warming link, shows that Gore’s apocalyptic view of global warming is the “consensus” view among scientists.

• It reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a 527 political group set up to promote the Kerry for President Campaign.

Exaggerated statements

• AIT hypes the importance and exaggerates the certainty of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.

• Claims polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” based on a report that found four drowned polar bears in one month of one year, following an abrupt storm.

• Portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B ice shelf—a formation the “size of Rhode Island”—as harbinger of doom. For perspective, the Larson-B was 180 th the size of Texas and 1/246 th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

• AIT presents a graph suggesting that China’s new fuel economy standards are almost 30% more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5% more stringent.

Speculative statements

• AIT blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India, in July 2005, even there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.

• It blames global warming for recent floods in China’s Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

• It blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as population increase and overgrazing.

• AIT warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO 2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050—implausible because coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO 2 levels have risen, and today’s main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO 2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.

• It warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of the WAIS, but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant and alarming.” The WAIS has been retreating since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.

• It warns that half the Greenland Ice Sheet could “slide” into the sea, even though the ice sheet sits in a bowl-like depression surrounded by mountains that restrict glacial outflow to the sea.

Wrong statements

• AIT claims glaciologist Lonnie Thompson’s reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn’t. Four of Thompson’s six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.

• It claims the rate of global warming is accelerating, when it has been remarkably constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C/decade.

• It attributes Europe’s killer heat wave of 2003 to global warming; it was actually due to an atmospheric circulation anomaly.

• It claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950.

• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring

So called man-made global warming is merely a trojan horse for the marxist left. Warming, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the marxist utopian dream,through environmentalism, of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally(aka, carbon trading).

Predicting the future isn’t an easy thing and arguing details is a waste of time and energy. The facts do indicate that we are causing damage to our planet and we need to stop, or at least slow down. Canada can and should take a lead in the science of environmental protection and having businesses incented to do that is a good motivator. We finally have a government that is listening to the voters, and the voters are asking for environmental leadership. Even after the Conservatives win a majority, I hope they continue to listen to voters and not run a dictatorship like the past Liberal governments.

O’K NCC:

Let us heare the NCC plan and perhaps we can sell it to the government and Dr. David Suzuki.

The Liberals NDP here in Canada and Democrats to the south are using fear to justify greater govt intervention and greater tax burden. That is their motivation - money - not saving the planet.

Canada, according to David Suzuki, produces less than 2% of the world’s greenhouse gases, while India, China and OPEC nations are not covered by the Kyoto accord at all. So give your head a shake - Kyoto is not an attempt to slow global warming, if it was we would be after these main polluters, not Canada.

This is 2007. There is no way to actually get our emmissions below 1990 levels, so all the talk about it or the economy, is moot. In fact all that talk is just more hot air warming the world.

There is no doubt mankind is causing serious and unnecessary damage to soil, water and the air. The media and a visit confirms China is the leader of the pack on all fronts with a reported 10% of farmable land already contaminated. We need, must and can easily do better on all 3 fronts. This being regardless of all the noise about the planet heating up which some scientists even attribute to increased activity on the sun. Canada is a small percentage of the total problem but we could and should do better both for the quality of our own lives and as an example to the rest of the world. I just hope the mass histeria across the land will not precipitate a costly knee jerk reaction that destroys our economy in the process. Harvey Stark

If the government really wants to do something about the environment and global warming why not stop Sunday shopping across Canada. That will definetely reduce greenhouse gases. Don’t worry about the economie. Millions of cars are driving arround this country on Sundays and about 70% are “widow shoppers” and not buyers. So quit talking about saving the environment, do something about it.

In 1993 Jean Cretien pledged and thereby obligated all Canadians to reduce green-house emission by 6% below 1990 levels. It latter became evident that this decision wasn’t taking based on any calculation of the cost of doing so or even the burden it would place on Canada vis-a-vis the other signing parties. Indeed, it seems the decision was largely or entirely based on Mr. Cretien’s need to one-up President Clinton who had pledged the U.S. to a 5% reduction. Of course we know that U.S. pulled out of the agreement but in spite of Canada’s leading trading partner and biggest polluter in the world (at the time), Canada, the good boy scout, decided to tough it out and ratify the treaty even when it was apparent we would never be able to achieve it’s objective within the time stipulated. And all this when such heavy weights as China (now the world’s biggest polluter) and India are not even part of the agreement.

While the Conservatives have clearly fumbled this file it has become clear to them that however thoughtless, imprudent and impossible the original pledge
the majority of do-good Canadians have bought into it and are convinced (aided and abetted by doctrinaire opposition parties) that the goal of Kyoto can not only be still achieved but can be at virtually no cost to themselves.

The government knows that this is impossible but is screaming into the wind of fatuous people such as Mr. Suzuki (who have turned this issue into a most profitable cottage industry) and so must do something even when doing so will be destructive to the economy and of little good in reducing CO2 emissions and no good at all in reducing Global warming. Those who wonder at the thought of Lemmings throwing themselves over cliffs will surely marvel at this most strange national behavior.

For your interest, I wrote this to Minister Baird last week:
Dear Minister Baird:
As you set about putting the final touches to your government’s environmental plan, I suggest that it is time to take a leaf out of Preston Manning’s book. When we struggled with the deficit in this country he said: “When you are trying to get out of a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.”
Likewise, given that every adult added to our population will increase the demand on our environment at roughly twice the rate of environmental saving expected of every Canadian, then the first thing to do is to suspend all immigration. I suggest you propose a moratorium on all immigration until 2012 and let’s see how the public and the media are prepared to go along with that. Then we’ll know the country’s (and the opposition parties’) real commitment to Kyoto.
Max Wideman
Vancouver

On a practical level - how can the reckless sacrifices to the Canadian standard of living collectively being legislated by the Opposition Parties do anything to solve the actual Global Warming problem??

I agree with Jamie above: Canada only represents less than 5% of CO2 emissions if that. Even if we shut down everything for total economic devastation, those few percentage points will be quickly gulped up by China/India & developing 3rd world countries.

I don’t believe Canadians are really that stupid! Let’s get this on a realistic footing!! The solution has to be global, workable & will depend on new technologies & breakthroughs.

Just love these comments. So glad to see many waking up to the call to expose Al Gore and the hundreds of “experts” and “scientists” in this farce for funding and finance.

What about the real future? The eternal one, I mean. Each of these scam artists will one day face a Judgement Day and, if allowed to speak, will have to explain why they lied to the world for financial gain and global recognition. How sad they look no further than the year 2020!

Brian Skelton
Nelson, BC

CO2 is just one of the many effluents of a growing civlization, a symptom if you will. It makes no sense to treat the symptom and leave the underlying cause alone. Sure, let’s look at solar, geothermal, hydrogen, wind, etc. and become experts here in Canada; but I would view any carbon exchange market as about as effective as human sacrifices to please the gods. Mark my words, such a market will inevitably collapse.

Until human beings admit that we are not the centre of the universe, that we are not God’s only spawn, that we do not have “dominion” over every other creature on the planet, that we don’t have a right to conquer every square mile for our purposes, nothing will change. Only when we address our inviolate right to breed and our right to kill everything else in our path to make room for our farms and cities, will civilization be sustainable.

I would suggest starting small. Ban Just in Time (JIT) manufacturing, ban fast food drivethroughs, deter land speculation, stop concentrating all our industries in major cities, etc., etc. Stop giving foreign aid to China. Stop buying from China until they clean up their act. Stop basing our society on mindless growth and cut immigration. Eliminate child care subsidies. There are a million small things that we could do. Population growth is the problem, not CO2.

Mike Neilly
Ottawa

I agree with both points that Jamie and Max bring up…we have these knucklehead left-wingers thinking that Canada can solve this problem by itself when it is a small part of the mess. The left always has great ideas that they NEVER followed themselves while they completely allowed this once great country to fall into dire straits on several fronts. No matter what Mr. Harper/Baird came up with it wouldn’t be good enough for the left…I would just once like to hear the opposition leader and Jack try and help instead of taking the complete opposite view on everything this government says. Harper talks common sense and they just don’t get it..they would do anything to try and hoodwink most Canadians into believing this government is bad and they are the answer…no thanks..they didn’t do anything in the past 13 years but lie, steal and deceive…

There seems to be much to do about nothing as usual with polititians trying to get attention (or votes and the gravy train) based on the many comments.
It seems we need to deal with polution in general as a whole to protect life and recycle more, to slow down the using up of the world’s natural resourses.
It also seems that if Canada trys to meet any of these unproven targets, we will indeed have severe economic repercussions to effect 2% of the world’s alleged pollution while the other 98% will trample us economically.

If ‘they’ would give Tim Ball the same publicity as David Suszuki, people would learn both sides of the story. Tim Ball has been following weather patterns for years- global warming has been happening for years–yes-maybe we are part of the problem, but definitly not the cause of it!

Join the real world and stop living in fantasy land folks! If you can add, then it’s pretty clear we are overloading our ecosystem with Carbon Dioxide as well as any other chemical you can think of. CO2 rates are higher than at any time in human history, and accelerating. WE did it. Only WE can stop it. Gamble with the home planet at your peril. This issue is much, much bigger than a recession-if it even happens. We need to completely restructure our economy away from oil and gas. That means a renaissance in new technology and new kinds of industry. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

Further to Max Wideman’s comments (above), two things strike me about this year’s crisis.

First, that none of the environmental advocates or other political hobbyists seem to mention that by far the greatest contributor to the very real degradation of our environment – physical and social – is the fact that we are breeding ourselves off of the planet. Given finite resources and an increasing population, misery and poverty must ensue. Less waste and more equitable distribution may delay the final disaster, but such efforts also divert our attention from this most Inconvenient Truth of all.

Max suggests that Canada might protect itself by a less suicidal immigration policy, but the outside pressure, desperation, and the generosity of the mathematically challenged majority seem unstoppable.

Second, the almost unimaginable irresponsibility of the Liberal government to commit to the Kyoto targets in the total absence of anything resembling a plan boggles the mind. I note a common tendency to refer to any intention as a plan. Given that a reduction of carbon emissions is a good thing, particularly since we will not have oil forever, a rational government would:

1- Decide on a suitable level of pollution for all pollutants.
2- Devise a plan (not a proclamation) to reach this objective. Such a plan would include resource requirements, the related costs and a schedule. Few people know how to do this. Govennments don’t try.
3- Based upon the cost/benefit ratio (including “soft” costs and benefits, like getting re-elected), either proceed or not.

Nothing like that was attempted in 1993 or in the following decade. That is inexcusable. It appears that we still do not know how such a reduction can be made, beyond legislating that it must. That’s not good enough. Costs from this non-plan are necessarily suspect, and the schedule certainly is the stuff of fantasy.

As Max points out, all this is about bailing the boat, rather than patching the leak. Who benefits from these distractions?

First who is thomas! Wow what a guy! Excellent info. Please get involved with Friends of Science www.friendsofscience.org

Also see the BBC video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U is a video on YouTube called “The great global warming swindle”

Global warming is happening, but man has nothing to do with it in the big picture.

Global warming is caused by something called the Sun. And changes in climate are affected by slight variations in the intensity of the sun (Sunspot cycle lengths) and Earths exposure to the sun summed up in what is called Milankovitch Cycles, having to do with the elliptical orbit of the earth, the axial tilt of the earth and precession of the earth’s axis, all affecting the amount of sun exposure we get.

But the liberal hysteria and mass delusion continues!!!

Do you suppose it would be possible to get the pseudogurus in the Department to justify the enviroactivist pronouncements of the Minister relating to the supposed benefits of fluorescent bulbs.

If fluorescent bulbs are so good why do we have to mandate their use?
Is it really true that they will save GHG’s?

To Wit,
The other day, when I was replacing a 60 watt incandescent bulb with a 32 watt fluorescent one, I reflected on their difference. Since both give out the same amount of light, the difference is the 60 watt bulb gives out twice as much heat (I.e. 30 watts worth). What happens to this heat? It goes to heat my house, and because 90% of the electricity in BC is generated by emission hydro plants, this is emission-free heat. When I put in the low -heat fluorescent bulb, for eight or nine months of the year my gas furnace will have to work a little harder to make up for that lack of emission-free heat, and spew out a little more greenhouse gas.

This seems pretty inconsequential, but when you consider all the households in BC, it adds up. BC Hydro has about 1.5 M (million) residential accounts. If each of these installs 5 fluorescent bulbs it adds up to 7.5 M bulbs. If each bulb saves 30 watts that would otherwise go to heat, it amounts to 30 x 7,5M = 225 M watts, and if each bulb is used 5 hours per day for 300 days per year, it comes to; 225 M watts x 5 hours x 300 days = 337,500 MWh (million watt hours) of electricity. BC Hydro says that making a thousand MWh of electricity from natural gas emits 360 tonnes of carbon dioxide. In order to make up for the loss of electric heat from the bulbs, the furnaces of BC householders will give off; 360 tonnes x 337 thousands of MWh = 121,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which is a lot. These numbers are pretty general, but they illustrate how changing to fluorescent bulbs may reduce your electric bill, but province-wide, it can add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

The effect is similar in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick where a large part of the electricity comes from hydro or nuclear generators.

The hotestest year to date is 1998 acording to reliable ground level sources, since then there has been no further warming. Furthemore the has been very little atmospheric warming period according to satelite and balloon measurments. All of the facts I can find on the warming shows a benefit to most of the world most of the time that is when there is a difference. The added C)2 stimulates plant growth. There is no evidence to support the fear mongers nightmare scenarios! Its the Sun stupid!
So why has the government not told this to Canadians instead of ltting tax supported Suzuki ramble on his fear mongering. Why have they not banned Gore horror show from Canadian schools. The enviroterrorists are winning through our indifference.

It is amazing that everybody essentially says the same thing, instead of coming up with sensible suggestions. If I was the Prime Minister I would promote the following actions and if you don’t like it xote me out of office and mess up your own way. (1) In a federal-provincial-private effort create as many incinerators, already proven to be safe, as required to be able to close all landfill sites. This will also help to get the thousands of CO2 producing trucks off the road, while surely other jobs will be found for the drivers, see point 3 below. (2) In a federal-provincial-private effort create as many nuclear power stations, already proven to be safe, enough to provide all required electric energy, and during the time required for construction outfit coal fired stations with the latest scrubbing devises (3) Get unemployed people and people on welfare to earn their money, for instance by doing community work such as cleaning parks and other environmental sensitive areas. (4) Do not spend any money to buy credits form China, India, and others who surely do not use the money for global warming prevention, but for their own nenefits. (5) Most important, even if the global warming fad disappears, as some already predict, these activitues will be benefixial to life in Canada.

My Grand Father told me in 1955 that Politicians will have so little to in 50 years from now (They will play politic with the weather) I tought it was so funny!

We are here now.

Enjoy

Listening and reading about Global warming indicates to me that the succinct action is - business as usual & full speed ahead.

What a regretable waste of time !

John, enjoying a locally warm day.

We have been warned by the “inventor of the inernet”, Al Gore, that when the ice cap on Greenland melts coastal areas and countries will be under water. My questions to the experts are; What happened when the mile thick ice cap that covered Canada and a good part of northern U,S.A. melted? Why was most of the land mass of the world not obliterated and under water as a result of the North American ice melt so long ago? The simple answer and explanation is that it took millions of years for that ice to melt and the effect of the Greenland melt is no different.

The IPCC and everyone else seems to agree that current temperature changes are of the order of 3/4 of a degree PER CENTURY(!)–well within the rates that nature alone has experienced in the past. Global warming is very likely to be natural and unstoppable, except by nature (the sun and the weather system) itself.

This gentle rate of warming is easy to adapt to, over generations.

There is irrefutable NASA evidence of global warming on Mars (and probably Jupiter). Just Google Global Warming Mars. Even a fool like Al Gore should suspect a solar contribution to global warming on Earth.

Sea levels have not risen a smidgeon in the several hundred years they have been measured accurately. Projections of several feet over the next few decades are highly irresponsible. And in case the politicians don’t know it–most of the (wrong) projections concern Arctic ice, which would not raise ocean levels at all if it melted, because it is FLOATING!

Global warming is probably a good thing for Canada, and for all we know the world.

Even if global warmimng is man-made, Canada’s contribution is miniscule. It would be folly to devastate our economy to achieve negligible results. Only if every major nation adopts measures would it make a difference–assuming it is man-made–a highly dubious proposition.

I don’t think we should do anything about it, as we have far more immediate and serious threats to deal with.

I’ve reviewed the Feb. 07 IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”.

1. It is full of probabilities, not facts. Probabilities are notoriously subjective and are, after all, just “probabilities”.
2. The computer models are based (as all climate forecasts are) upon hidden assumptions, risky extrapolations, and the unlikely probability of flawless programming. The computerization of such models makes them more, not less, suspect.
3. Some of the repor’ts “forcing” factors cannot be used even to determine the SIGN of the influence, that is, whether that particular factor raises or lowers temperature.
4. Huge areas of the globe are not covered by the forecasts.
5. The report is based on correlations (rain and wet sidewalks are 100% correlated) but depends on flat statements (with little statistical support) to the effect that man’s activities are causing the correlation. Your first week in a stats course will burn into your head that correlation does not prove causation (wet sidewalks do not cause rain, despite the 100% correlation).
6. Honest climate modellers will admit that the way the programs handle albedo (the heat budget - how heat flows onto and off the earth owing to reflection and absorption), particularly for water vapor, which is many times as potent a GHG as CO2, has, to be kind, a shaky scientific foundation.
7. As others have noted, timing has been ignored, i.e. does CO2 concentration lead or lag global warming? Apparently we are not a bit sure.

Frank Gue, Burlington.

I just saw the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. I cannot believe this won an Oscar and is being shown to our school children. There was more Al Gore self-promotion than environmental discussion. I especially like the parts when he drives around in his massive SUV. What a hypocrite!!
I am not a full climate change denier. This is not my area of expertise. There does however appear to be a lot of unanswered questions and inconsistencies in the science. At worst there is a small man made component that is slightly exaggerating a naturally ocurring phenomenon. If so we can make small adjustments over the long term to keep it from accelerating without doing unnecessary economic damage.
Harper needs to make it look like he is taking this seriously to appease the environmental hysteria out there.

CO2 cannot drive climate:

If CO2 is a driver of climate, then a volcano will essentially kill all life on earth. According to GW types, increased CO2 increases temperature. The increased temperature increases water vapour, which is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. This leads to a vicious cycle of increasing temperatures. However, what they are referring to is a “positive feedback” mechanism. This cannot exist in nature!

Also:

Is it hotter on a sunny day or a cloudy day?

How quickly does it cool off when the sun goes down?

When the sun goes down, how quickly it cools down is a function of humidity. in 100% humidity, it cools down slower than in dry air. Are the GW types telling me that a couple hundred parts per MILLION are going to wipe out life as we know it?

Give me a break.

It is interesting to see how global warming, CO2 emission and air pollution are being mixed. Try this: 1) We are into a period with global warming. However this is not caused by CO2 emission, it is caused by the activities on the Sun as pointed out by the Sun scientists. During the last 10,000 years, the short term temperature on this planed has fluctuated many times, all caused by the Sun. The last major warming was about 1,000 years ago and the last cool period happened about 400 years ago. The temperature will decrease again. We do not know when, but we know that the average temperature is declining because we are in general about 10,000 years into the next iceage. 2) When looking at the history of our planet 600 mill years back, the atmospheric content of CO2 has fluctuated and so has the temperature, but there has newer been any indication that the CO2 is driving the temperature. If anything, it has been the temperature driving the CO2. In fact, the atmosphare is at the moment starving for CO2. Remember, CO2 is not a pollutant. If there had been more, the planet would have been greener. 3) We are creating air pollution, but this has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with our healt. We should strive to reduce pair pollution; develop better combustion engines, develop more hudro power plants, develop wind power, develop clean burning coal fired power plants, develop clean burning waste fired power plante. The clean burning plants are already vell developed in Europe. Most importantly, we should further develop nuclear power plants. This should result in less use of our oil and gas resources. This should keep us going. Forget about the Kyoto Scam.

At the outset, Jean Chretien pulled a figure out of the air on Kyoto to show up the Americans, without any prior consultation with the Provinces who would be subsequently held jointly accountable for meeting Canadian targets. When will Stephane Dion recognize that the Chretien figure was un realistic and was based strictly on political considerations?

When the Kyoto Accord was drafted, it had realistic targets for the time. Now, the left expect that targets can somehow still be met, and its 2007.

Its funny to me how the socialist population want to implement this nonsense, and are in denial about the jobs that will be lost. Yet they cry about saving jobs and saving industry (something else they are against) once jobs are in danger.

People cannot have it both ways.

Life goes on,,,

Well I’m just a nobody off the street but I cannot understand why the Government is waisting so much time with something they are not going to do too much about. God controls the weather. We polute. If they made people clean up messes they cause - would make more sense.

Surround Ottawa with a wind farm, capture all the hot air. and convert it to electricity. That is about all the real use I can find in Ottawa.

David Suzuki is a seller of fantasy and snake oil He stopped trying to be scientist (don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story) a while back.
He joins the other failed communists / socialists (since the Berlin wall came down) looking for a cause to take over, and make into a new religion (and presumably to give themselves a reason for being).

So, all hail the new religion, Global Warming, and it’s altar at Kyoto, and all it’s prophets (the usual suspects).
People generally vote for the LOWEST common denominator.

I would gladly contribute to helping the NCC place the power point “Global Warming and Science Green” by Fran Manns & available from Rick Walker (email = rngerrick@att.net} in every school that is getting a copy of the ridiculous but dangerous to youngsters disc bay Al Gore. Fran Manns’ contact is as follows: -
Francis T. Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario)
Artesian Geological Research
323 Blantyre Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M1N 2S6 Canada
416.698.6291 (N)

W.U.N.P.It seems simply pointless for Canadians to spend any time or money to lower the emissions we put out until the other major polluters are on board. I believe a global effort with all major players (polluters) contributing their share proportionately is the fairest solution. I believe our politicians will come to their senses before they destroy our country financially and realize that Canada alone cannot solve the planets pollution problems. WAKE UP NOW PEOPLE!

Before I add my two cents’ worth, I want to make a minor correction to
Thomas’s otherwise excellent summation of the facts. Grapes were not grown in Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Wine grapes were, however, grown in England, which is not possible at the present time. The Viking settlers on the southern coast of Greenland were also able to raise livestock and, with reasonable regularity, plant hardy food crops.

I think what is actually happening with the present federal government is
that it has been caught in a massive groundswell of public opinion engineered by the environmentalists and their allies in the mainstream media and the opposition parties. I deplore the Conservatives’ environmental initiative as much as anyone else in this post, but keep in mind that they are a minority government, and if they fall, we could get much worse. It would take a Reagan, Thatcher or Churchill to stop the Kyoto mania in its tracks but regrettably, there is no one like them in Canada at this time. Harper is basically a decent and principled leader but he is not in their league. The best that we can hope for is that when reason and good
science finally return to drive environmental issues the worst of the current
initiatives will be allowed to lapse or better yet, repealed outright.

My personal concern as someone with a postgraduate degree in atmos-
pheric science, is the damage which the proponents of the human-caused
global warming theory have done to the integrity of the field and to physical
science in general. The IPCC has violated basic norms of peer review and
in an especially scandalous move made the scientific findings assembled under its auspices subordinate to its political goals (see Thomas’s post above), all the while trading on its supposed reputation as a scientific body.
Also, an ugly atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy is developing on the
subject. Recently, for example, a highly-placed member of the public
meterologists’ professional organization in the US has called for stripping the credentials from members who publicly disagree with the idea of human-
caused global warming.

Without its veneer of science, the global-warming movement is in essence an international push to impose state socialism on the still partly-
free economies of the world, and Canada is a prime target. The idea of
socialism was dealt a near-fatal blow with the fall of the Soviet Union. The
“limits to growth” movement of the Club of Rome was was thoroughly dis-
credited and the anti-globalization movement of the 1990’s fizzled. The
human-caused global warming movement is their successor, and this time,
ominously, they may succeed. I am not optimistic about the near term, but
with some luck, enough ordinary citizens, policymakers and scientists will
see through the fraud and realize the true implications of their political
program.
national push to revive state socialism

If we drop the emotion and take time to look at the facts we would find that the earth is not warming. Check the UN web site (ugh) and you will find that the Antarctic is cooling and growing, the southern US is cooling, Snow fall is increasing in Yukon, and according to the Russians who have had a weather station in the Arctic for the last 127 years, it is not warming either. We will continue to suffer the likes of Al Gore because, according to one prominent scientist, there are not enough resources (global warming advocates) to suck up all the money that is out there. And, oh yes, the National Hurricane Center that predicted Katrina, says their prediction was based on the fact that we are repeating the weather patterns of the 1940’s and hurricanes are doing likewise.

Prediction is the least reliable activities of mankind. If currently we have trouble getting the weather right three days out, how good will our predictions be for years? Now our esteemed politicians are going to formulate policies that will correct our course? Good luck, we’ll need it.

Nothing as deep as some of the previous comments - just a simple question. How do Compact Flourescent bulbs work in cold weather? I have tried the older style tube flourescents in unheated garages and a chicken coop, and they failed during the winter. Hopefully this move by the Ontario Liberals and now by the Federal Conservatives doesn’t mean I need to work in the dark in my barn all winter.

NCC is saying that we need to know the facts, but I do not see anything where NCC is telling us what the facts are according to NCC. The problem is that something profound appears to be resulting in increasing temperature, If it is not due to human activity, then scientists do not have another explanation. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment on the earth to prove a theory. What is clear is that humans are moving into every space available on the planet, and are kicking out the indigenous natural population. By this, we are destroying the means that nature has had for millions of years of coping with natural changes. The real problem is that there are too many humans on the planet to permit them all to live in the manner of western society. If every family restricted itself to just two children for the next couple of hundred years, all the problems we are now attributing to CO2 and other agents will disappear. If we do not limit human population, and we reach the projected nine billion humans, the problem will also be solved in a couple of hundred years. The planet will have experienced a mass extinction, and nature will start over, as it has done many times in the last 2 or 3 BILLION years.

I agree that politics, and environmentalists with poor facts, have made GW into a huge political game. The Liberal party is using this topic to ruin the vote for the Tories in the west, by backing the Tories into a corner concerning the tar sands. If they succeed, we will have a do-nothing Liberal government again. Would someone please suggest ways to turn the tide foisted on Canadians by political maneuvering. The Tories don’t seem to be able to make Canadians understand that anything Canada does will be lost in the wind, you might say, compared to what the USA, China and India are not doing. Indeed what the solar system is going to do, no matter what anyone does or does not do. We need to have more radio stations and newspapers that show the facts, not revel in doom for the Tories. Are our purveyors of “news” all under Liberal control?

Henney Penny ,the sky is falling down! Political Rhetoric all in the name of Getting re-elected.Shame on you Liberals,NDP’rs,& Greens.I see too many Fingers being pointed,but I do not see anyone coming forward with Definitive ideas on how to realistically solve problems.Dr Suzuki is the biggest finger pointer of the lot.His Life has been made cozy & comfortable by the proceeds of the Carbon Based Economies.The Question I ask of Dr Suzuki;What is your Contribution to the Solution to Global Warming?What have you invented to solve the problem.Ideas Dreams & Experimentation collectively solves problems! Get Back to the Lab Dave & Do not come back till you have made the magic Device!!!!
The Left wing do Gooders will do anthing they Can to destroy the Western Economies to prmote their Agenda.Stalin imposed Communism on eastern Europe & the Soviet Union.What Have they Got for it After 90 years.NOT A THING COLLECTIVELY!

I have a few of the newer bulbs now in the house, especially in places where ones are harder to replace. However I went back to the older 100-watt on my porch light today. The new bulb gave off such dim light I wasn’t able to read my outside thermometer. Bob

Global warming is a cycle that has occured time and again over eons of geophysical history, is happening now, and will happen again–who knows when–in the future. How can Al Gore, David Suzuki, or anyone else stop it? It’s utterly amazing how a politally correct paradigm can can push forward like a tsunami, engulfing even Stephen and his “progressive” conservatives. Boy are we in deep Kaka!

2/25/05

On Thomson’s illuminating dissertation, he mentions that Gore claimed scientific “consensus based on 928 articles which did not deny humans were linked inextricably to globalwarming. The summing up article is the product of Naomi Oreskes. My letter to the Peterborough Examiner sums up the manner in whcih she achieved”consensus”.
Dear Editor,

Mr. Suzuki’s latest foray “Nutty claims of warming ‘myth’ resurfaces” gives readers a chance to examine some of the persuasive techniques he employs as a master fundraiser. Having monitored Mr. Suzuki for years, I believe his reality is not composed by information impinging naturally on his senses but confined to definitions of reality created by insensate environmentalists and shaped by frightening computer generated hyperboles disguised as studies.
Mr. Suzuki acts offended that on “ the big day” (When Paul Martin added more $billions to Kyoto) he “expected to hear ‘both sides’ of the issue in the media.” His “both sides” did not include opposing opinions. To him ‘both sides’ meant he should hear from others who “felt the agreement was an important first step” and from “ those who felt these targets would be too difficult to achieve in the short timeline.” If you believe this is ‘both sides’ of an issue, move to Cuba, Castro will welcome you with both arms and kiss all your cheeks.
Those who oppose his views are labeled as “….people who crawled out of the woodwork, bleating about myths…” or pundits peddling warmed-over opinion articles and half-baked interviews.” He will often back up his vigorous debasement of opposing views by quoting a source to get “…the real story…” “Or cut to the chase, read a short article by the University of California’s Naomi Oreskes, published in the journal Science in December. Her analysis of all 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single one disagreed with the general consensus position on climate change.” What this means is 100% of scientists agreed that climate was adversely effected by human activities. Amazing.
Like Mr. Suzuki she is not a climate scientist but an associate professor of history at the University of California which is swaddled in left wing ideology and political correctness. Considering the frigid weather millions have experienced and hundreds of opposing opinions about global warming written by the scientific community, why did Mr. Suzuki not find it strange that her viewpoint was upheld 100%?
Six categories were assigned by her to classify scientists’ responses. Only one category gave an “explicit endorsement” of her point of view. The size or percentage of this category was not given nor were the names of the 928 papers she analyzed. Other categories which added to this first category came to 75%. None of this added number gave an ‘explicit endorsement’. Undeterred , she treated them as “implicitly” agreeing with her. Of the remaining 25% who were silent on the issue, she regarded their silence as support for her position. This is the manner in which she achieved 100%. She later cited the Tsunami as reason to take action on global warming
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at a free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute said: “Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood…(Science Magazine)demonstrates either a new low in desperation or an new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits.”
Having read Mr. Lawrence Kowal’s brilliant letter on the same day in the Examiner: “’Big warming’ is gravy train” alongside Mr. Suzuki’s article gives me confidence that not all Canadians have their brains pickled by political correctness and jammed with environmental quackery.
Cordially

Ronald Dabor Sr

I have not seen the award winning documentary by Al Gore, ‘An Inconvient Truth’. Neither do I listen to the fear mongering garbage that David Susuki spews. I consider both of them to be charlatons and hypocrites. I do not take any stock in the recent skewed bureaucratic summary of the United National possibly accurate scientific report on green house gases and global warming.
I have however listened to a rational science - based radio interview with Lord Monckton of Cambridge UniverityEngland. He is a renowned mathematician who has spent a lifetime studying climate change back to prehistoric times. He bases his work largely on the study of artic ice layers which yield invaluable clues. He also attributes sun activity as having the most dynamic effect on climate change.
The gobal warming fear mongers use a clip of the same large ice mass crashing into the ocean probably in the Antarctic. They claim this as proof of melting ice caps and rising tide by the global warming fear mongers. Lord Monckton explains that this a result of normal glacier movement. Climate change happens independent of human activity

i agree with ron dabor sr. but why have so little research funds been given for alternate forms of transportation……….many back yard inventors have or are developing unique forms of power………..hyperboyle is abundant but can we please see some of these inventions………are we so arrogant as to think the fossil engines are the only forms of power……….why not a world contest .action , action.action.to see these inventions .

a simple idea,why are the roads into and out of large cities not angled as to let vehicles coast when in bumper to bumper traffic.