And maybe

Canadians are less enthusiastic about shoveling money to politicians for a scam.

It could be that the series called "Climate Change:The Deniers" is being read by Canadians.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

It might help to know that two Canadians have been instrumental in blowing the lid off the hoax being perpetrated for quite nefarious reasons.
First Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre
debunked the graph that had us all terrified, the infamous "Hockey Stick",
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Then McIntyre http://www.climateaudit.org/ went on with Anthony Watts http://www.surfacestations.org
to show that the surface temperature data collected was highly compromised by poor placement of the instruments (under air conditioners, next to tarmack and barbeques and burn barrels)and that a re-analysis of NASA's data showed that 1934, not 1998 was the hottest year of the 20th century, and that 5 of the hottest years were in the 1920-40 period. That means there is no trend.

There has been no warming since the peak of '98, in spite of CO2 increases and the whole Solar System is warming at the same time.

The media and the Dark Greens continue to bombard us with catastrophe stories that they manage to blame on "Global Warming", which is pretty funny since it is only the North Pole Warming, the South is getting colder....so it's not "global" is it?
http://www.dailytech.com/Antarctic+Ice+Levels+Hit+Record+High/article8871.htm

The latest bit of ridiculousness is "acidic oceans" when the ocean is basic(8.7 ph) and is a carbon sink. The weak carbonic acid is rapidly changed and utilized.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/le-chateliers-principle-and-natures.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html

Please, I know how hard this is to realize and recognize the betrayal, but it really is time to stop the nonsense.

Hey uvic, we don't need them

- "we need hard GHG emissions caps now and greater investment more immediate implementation of the technologies available."

Will you get your head out and read the references I provided above......at least a look maybe.

Do you have a personal investment in the CO2 Fake Catastrophe? Does it make you feel better to know that children are having nighmares about the end of the world? Or have you decided it's all right to pretend CO2 is a problem since it will get us doing green things?

I can't imagine anyone who had bothered to read the references I provided continuing to spout such nonsense.

mopled

Just for yuks, is there any credible web sites that say there is no climate change occurring?

multiple responses

Grumpy---good points. Where can I get one of those $1000 generators?

Mopled---please get with the program. Even the "deniers" are no longer denying. For example, Bjørn Lomborg, one of the loudest is saying now "Sure, global warming is happening, but we don't need to do anything about it." He's essentially saying that it will be cheaper to deal with the effects of global warming than to do anything about it.

Frank---I don't know anyone who is credible who is saying that climate isn't changing. It used to be that deniers were saying it all has to do with sunspot activity, but that's no longer the official line. Now, most are following Bjørn Lomborg's lead.

The third world

The answer is, the Third world. We are now buying self generating flashlights, just crank them a few times and go.

If solar panels were massed produced or even wind generators and new houses were compelled to install them, the cost would drop. Why are we not doing it now, self generation is not sexy and friends of politicians can't make much money.

Careful of obfuscation

While I'm glad of Lomborg's rational approach to the non problem, not even the most ardent "denier" ever said climate wasn't changing. In fact, that is the point. The climate always changes.
Here's a bit of fun"

Commerce Department Study Finds "Unprecedented" Arctic Melting
Report Dated Today…85 Years Ago

Washington, D.C., November 2, 2007—The story is ominous, chronicling the melting of glaciers, the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and the eradication of seal habitat. It could have been written yesterday, but it was actually written 85 years ago today.
On November 2, 1922, The Washington Post published a story on a government report that described “a radical change in climatic conditions,” “unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone,” and the disappearance of “well known glaciers.” These developments are all oddly similar to current claims about what global warming is doing to the Arctic.

“As this 1922 story demonstrates, scare stories about the environment should always be treated with a degree of skepticism,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute General Counsel Sam Kazman.

The story summarizes a report to the U.S. Commerce Department from the American consul to Norway on changing climate conditions throughout the Arctic. The changes noticed at the time turned out not to represent any long-term threat to the region. The 1922 story reminds us that current stories of allegedly “unprecedented” changes in sea ice, temperatures, and animal habitat need to be seen in the context of natural climate variability.

“In 1922 some people thought the Arctic was melting away forever, and in the 1970s scientists were warning of an impeding ice age due to global cooling,” said Kazman. “Overheated rhetoric about environmental disasters has been around for a long time. Hopefully when the next story of impending doom hits the news, it won’t take 85 years to put the claims in perspective.”

The original November 2, 1922 article:

Arctic Ocean Getting
Warm; Seals Vanish
And Icebergs Melt*

(By the Associated Press)

The Arctic ocean is warming
up, icebergs are growing scarcer
and in some places the seals are
finding the waters too hot, ac-
cording to a report to the Com-
merce Department yesterday
from Consul Ifft, at Bergen ,
Norway .

Reports from fishermen, seal
hunters and explorers, he
declared, all point to a radical
change in climatic conditions
and hitherto unheard-of tem-
peratures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report
that scarcely any ice has been
met with as far north as 81
degrees 29 minutes. Soundings
to a depth of 3.100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very
warm. (cont'd at site)
http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,06235.cfm

Sea lice

People get tired with the MSM promoting an idea that is clearly unscientific, but require emotion to sell their sorry arguments.
In 1978 the MSM were warning us of impending global cooling.
Canadians have shocked you warmists, with their unwillingness to embrace this propaganda of the Church of Gore.
In Britain, polling has exposed the shocking fact that 72% of citizens are not buying this BS story.
Oh, we are so stupid, aren't we?
Maybe not. It could be that it is actually BS.
Anyone who is older than 40, which is a huge demographic group, have heard all the negative stories that MSM have concentrated on.
We don't buy it, sorry.
Try another way to destroy capitalism, because this latest attempt is not working.
And for anyone who is interested in the free market, we have been promoting energy conservation for thirty years.
I can verify that fact.

mopled

So now you guys agree that the climate is changing? But add the caveat that humanity had nothing to do with it?

Ron Erwin

I keep hearing this and yet although I was alive in 1978 I don't recall it. That's pretty much the definition of revisionism isn't it?

And yet they're doing more than we are to lower their emissions, fancy that.

Great, you must have conserved a lot, why is oil at almost a $100 a barrel?

Ron Erwin

I keep hearing this and yet although I was alive in 1978 I don't recall it. That's pretty much the definition of revisionism isn't it?

And yet they're doing more than we are to lower their emissions, fancy that.

Great, you must have conserved a lot, why is oil at almost a $100 a barrel?

Ron : he who was banned

Tell the truth buddy, aren't you just acting out because Gore won the Nobel instead of your favourite, Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE

Ronnie

Ronnie, you finally seem to have found a theme others here might consider logical - your fear, their hope:

But Capitalism cannot be destroyed, though its rules of practice might be modified.

Jeez

The Nobel Committee must have had quite a laugh when they got the nomination from those crackers.

It's hard to find people these days who still think the United Nations is like the Ku Klux Klan...

Do you have any idea how much these characters 'pay' themselves Ron?

You might want to check it out sometime when Rush doesn't have all your attention.

Ron Erwin and Gore's galling prize

Actually Ron is just upset the US Supreme Court couldn't take away Gore's Nobel Prize and give it to Bush :-)

Frank, even Hansen said it

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/NATION02/109190067

Article published Sep 19, 2007
Inside the Beltway

September 19, 2007

John McCaslin - Cold yet?

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

"U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming," blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts."

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."

If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Post staff writer Victor Cohn penned the story about the article, which appeared that same day in the journal Science. For his part, Mr. Cohn contacted Gordon F. MacDonald, a top scientist in the Nixon administration, who considered Mr. Rasool a "first-rate atmospheric physicist" whose findings are "consistent with estimates I and others have made."

Washington Times

Oh I know there were people saying it could happen, after all, we've been hearing about it for years.

But the fact is I've heard more in the last 5 years about the "ice age predictions of the 1970s" than I did in the actual 1970s.

Kids in school, or at least the schools I attended, simply weren't learning about global cooling.

Remember...

There are lies

Damn Lies

and

STATISTICS

Statistics can be 'arranged' to say whatever you want them to say.

and if you believe the Notional Post, then I have prime land in Florida AND a bridge to sell you from Brooklyn!

Well, I remember

But since it was supposed to be 50-60 years off, I didn't worry. Maybe you didn't learn about it in school because there was no reason to propagandize children as there is with the Global Warming Scam. Getting kids to pressure adults to conform has been used for less nefarious reasons, like not smoking.

Many scientists think we may be going into another Maunder Minimum scenario from 2025 on. It is just 11,500 years since the last ice age.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

Murdock, you are not usually foolish

If you restrict your reading about this only to supposedly left wing sources, you play right into the hands of the globalist manipulation.

The writer of the series Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Energy probe has always been anti-nuclear and the people interviewed and profiled in the series are experts in their fields.

Remember on of the objects of the scam is to get more nukes up and running.
Nuclear Saviors:
How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry
CP / CounterPunch Undated
Global Warming Al Gore and Nuclear Power

Striding into Kyoto claiming to be a mighty warrior in the battle against global warming was a familiar beast, the nuclear power industry. Some of the industry's biggest lobbyists, men such as James Curtis (a former deputy secretary of energy during the Reagan years), prowled the streets and sushi bars of this ancient city (itself running on juice from an aging nuke) angling for some positive words in the treaty for their troubled enterprise. The big reactor makers, GE, CBS, and Combustion Engineering, were there too, dissing the oil and coal lobby, downplaying the long-term viability of natural gas and generally treating the eco-summit as if it were an international trade show.

CounterPunch got its hands on a copy of the nuclear industry's Kyoto briefing book prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a $100 million a year trade organization. The book was written by researchers at Bechtel, the giant construction firm that has built dozens of nuclear plants across the globe. It touts the latest "advanced light water nuclear reactor" as the most ecologically benign engineering feat since the solar panel and argues that only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years," the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts. "And it promises to play an even greater role in the future, especially in developing countries, like India and China, which need to increase their electricity supplies to accommodate their expanding populations and economies."

cont'd at site
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Global-Warming-Al-Gore.htm

Washington Times

Isn't that rag still owned by the Rev. Sun Young Moon?

Actually, GW

the story was also reported in Science in July 1971 and the Washington Post, that well known bastion of truth.

Speaking of journalism Tim Ball takes on CBC's Fifth Estatefor the hatchet job done on skeptics in its too often shown The Denial Machine.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/510
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/516
Two more articles to come this week.

I just wish canadafreepress wasn't also carrying Malkin and Limbaugh, but that's part of the psyop insuring reasonable people are turned away from the other side of the issue.

SO it is still owned by the Reverend Moon

And exists to pretty much do the bidding of the right wing.

That little story was featured in several other denial sermons from you here already.

It was stale the first time. As for Timmy Ball, please, give me a break - his data is crap and you know it.

Grumpy: A very

Grumpy:

A very confrontational few statements you made there without any clear reasoning for backing them up. Although I agree that there is much more talk than action regarding environmental issues in our political system, I would near more convincing on your part before I fully believed all your observations.

And, sure, being in a green frame of mind is fantastic, but we need politics to change rules for industry. As an individual, I can be in as green a frame of mind as I want, but still won't be able to affect oil companies and other GHG producing businesses (even if I retrofitted my house with solar and started a communitiy garden).

I'm not saying those things aren't important, but simply that we need to look at both the small (individual) picture and the big (political) picture if we're going to get anything done.

I'm all for the idea of revenue-neutral carbon taxes because they tackle both the individual and business side of things, urging change at both levels.

Ever the Left Gatekeeper GW

There is nothing wrong with Tim Ball,just as there is nothing wrong with many people smeared with the Exxon bs. Even once those people are eliminated one still has people with absolutely no industry connections who say there is nothing to climate alarmism.

The skeptic movement is alive and well in Europe.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

And the skeptical movement

And the skeptical movement that recognizes naysayers like mopled who aren't interested in anything that might cost them a tax dollar is pretty healthy too.

Tim Ball's data is historically interesting but scientifically nonsensical. Sometimes I get up early to grab the paper before I head for work, sometimes it sits in the mailbox for a day or two. Relying upon measurements made at the sole discretion of an independent Hudson's Bay 'servant' for temperature observations over a couple of hundred years is about as reliable as accepting a teenager's explanation for how the side of the car got dinged last night.

Anyway, you keep protecting your libertarian interests however you please mopled, just don't expect anyone to pay much attention when you've posted the same stuff 13 times.

That is a personal attack

The proposed carbon tax in BC will go into general revenue and will replace income taxes.

If I were wealthy wouldn't I love shifting that burden on to the shoulders of the family which had to move to the suburbs to afford housing and pays the price for there being no decent transportation system.

Most of what I've posted this time I haven't posted before and since you still don't get there is no bleeding climate crisis, maybe you need to see some of it again.

Your non-sequitor arguments are typical of an obscurantist.

So I was right then.

It really is ALL ABOUT YOU, isn't it?

Would you like us to call you mopled the Warrior Prince?

Assinine comment

Here, GW, feast your eyes on something brand new
By John Coleman
American meteorologist and the founder of The Weather Channel.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
http://www.icecap.us/

Naw, Truman or somebody already posted this guy - old hat

I'll just hit you with a bit of Dylan and leave you to your own devices, Bob that is, not Thomas.

Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't try "No Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows

Get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin' to sell

My guess is the guy who founded the weather channel is a lot more interested in finding out what's gonna SELL my friend.

You make it up as you go GW

Nov 07, 2007
Comments About Global Warming by Jon Coleman
was just posted today. I doubt Truman has ever even heard of this guy.

You will do or say anything to try to pretend critics and outers of the scam either don't matter, wear the wrong color underwear or comb their hair crooked. Sleazy,cheesy and just plan wrong!

What's your investment in the end of the world, eh?

Well even if Truman hasn't

I sure have.

And I manage to disagree with you joyfully, playfully and without ever stooping to that kind of stuff...carry on my friend - have your fun.

mopled

I know I've asked you this before but let's do it again. You claim there is no global warming, that its a scam that people 20 years from now will look back on sheepishly and laugh.

If so, why do you care? Why not just sit back and let it all play out and have the last laugh on us idiots?

After all, what's the worst that can happen? That we clean up our air and water?

Because it is an expensive diversion

You assume that "what's the worst that can happen? That we clean up our air and water?"

Who says! Where is it written. So far we get a tax that goes into general revenue!

That's it!

And while we are getting all heated up counting our "carbon footprints" and paying umpteen bucks to sequester a trace gas that is not only non toxic, it is an essential component of life, what gets done to aleviate real pollution?

Frank, you are not dumb, so why does a sohisticated person make such dumb assumptions? Is it just the media blitz brainwash going on?

mopled

Okay, I think some things like air pollution will be reduced but let me rephrase my question.

What's the worst that could happen besides we pay a few pennies more on this item and that one for "carbon tax" purposes for a few years until what you call a hoax is realized by all?

You are thinking too narrowly

Higher energy prices impact everything across the board.

It has already been pointed out the "revenue neutral" aspect means the tax burden is shifted to the general population.

What's not to like?

Again, there is the assumption that "pollution" will be curbed.

The only assumption I would make is that there will be nuclear plants built to replace coal fired ones.

Let's keep it simple

If you believe in this crap you are stupid.
Dumb, unintelligent, moronic, disturbed, lazy, embarrassing to the human race, liberal, unreasonable, gullible, a sucker, naive, idiotic, defective, ignorant, dangerous, asleep, dozy, childish, deadhead, stoned, misguided, a few slices short of a loaf , a dreamer, a nightmare and worst of all socialist.
And I am being kind.

mopled

Well, that would help.

Sorta, I think its something that even Conservatives would support doing so its something that might actually happen. I've already said I don't think people will change their way of life.

Ron

What about those guys who nominated Rush for the nobel peace prize? How many of your little cribbed list of adjectives would apply to them?

I think you're just jealous of Al Gore.

Schools

Kids in school, or at least the schools I attended, simply weren't learning about global cooling.

Dead right. When I was in school in the 70's speculative things like global warming/cooling were not taught. Oddly, school was seen as a place where an agreed set of facts and methods were taught so that people had the basic equipment to assess scientific or health or economic claims. (I am not saying these things were taught well; rather that education was conducted from different premises.)

The fact that the various fabrications of Al Gore are being force fed to school children who should be learning basic science and basic analysis speaks to just how far the rot has set into the school system. Charitably, Mr. Gore's piece is a bit of advocacy, a political statement. As such it has no more business in the school system than Conrad Black's latest musings or Mein Kampf. Perhaps, in twenty years, in a course on myths and delusions of the later 20th and 21st century, it might be studied as an example of how science can be subsumed to politics.

30 years from now

To those that blithely discount the panic about global cooling 30 years ago, you will surely use selective memory to pretend that you didn't buy any of the snake oil in 2007.
MSM will dream up something else to fill their day soon.
Any predictions?
Pandemic, sea lice, collapse of the American economy?
Don't you feel foolish for buying this crap?
You should.
If you buy this theory, I have some carbon credits for sale.
Contact me at asuckerborneveryminute.org.
I take all major credit cards, and Nobel nominations of course. ( Yasar Arafat )

Panic

What the heck are you talking about Ron?

There WAS no panic about global cooling in the 70s Ron, none at all. The big panic in those years was the economic downturn after the Vietnam War, the collapse of the American car industry and the first Middle East Oil crisis. Oh and of course Alberta was having a bird because of the National Energy Policy. Not much is new under the sun.

Maybe your memory is failing.

There was a piece at the time in the Washington Post and a copycat article in Maclean's magazine. No one paid it a bit of attention because there was no empirical evidence to support the theory. And now the only place you can read about it is in a joke newspaper like the Washington Times.

What's going on now is completely different - you and Jay Currie to the contrary - and I really don't care if the two of you catch on or not. Dinosaurs always end up getting passed by and left in the mud.

Still no response on that laughable Nobel nomination for Rush eh fella. How come? I thought you'd be all over that like white on rice.

As for what's happening to the American economy, even dinosaurs can't deny what's happening down south. Remember that 1.4 billion increase in debt every single day - even if is denominated in increasingly worthless greenbacks…it’s still increasing all the time.

Something funny happened to me the other day...I had some US bills in my wallet and I tried to pay a bill with them. The retailer refused to take them - not that I wouldn't have paid the exchange - he just didn't want the stuff in his till.

3rd quarter

US economy, third quarter
166,00 non farm payroll jobs.
Inflation lower since the 1960's @3.8% despite oil touching $96.00 per barrel.
Budget deficit fell to $163 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Lowest level in five years.
Employment has expanded months in a row, with more than 8.5 million jobs added since 2003, when the third round of Bush tax cuts took affect, real GDP has grown nearly $1.5 trillion-more than the entire economies of Canada, Mexico or South Korea. Since Bush took office, per ca-pita GDP has increased 12.7%, or $3,800.00 per person, after taxes and inflation.
In spite of the War, Katrina, sub prime loans, devalued dollar, Democrats, the US will survive, because they know that a recession is " a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales"
This according to The National Bureau of Economic Research.
The media have been quiet as church mice about the good news-much the same way they're ignoring signs of a victory in Iraq. But they've found lots of bad news.
Gee, you'd almost think they have an axe to grind.
Economy: It seems no matter how bad the news gets, the economy keeps outperforming expectations. Like the Terminator in the movie of the same name, it takes a tremendous beating but moves inexorably forward.
Taken from Investors Business Daily.

IAMC is right.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."

and;

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming),

What are you smoking R/Man

I acknowledged that story - as many others have done - I've got copies of one or another version in my files. But I also wrote this, which is equally factual:

Maybe your memory is failing.

There was a piece at the time in the Washington Post and a copycat article in Maclean's magazine. No one paid it a bit of attention because there was no empirical evidence to support the theory. And now the only place you can read about it is in a joke newspaper like the Washington Times.

I definitely think you should pal up with Ron though...that has to be a valuable tactic for your point of view.

On the business front, I think you'd be well to ignore what he's saying though. You might start with this from today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/business/08borrow.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

I also came across an interesting article from India the other day - I'll look it up if you're interested. It wasn't rosy.

And Ron

What about the Nobel nomination for Rushbo?

What happened with that big fella?

Just hang onto those equities Ron - you're going to be able to put them in a smaller pocket one of these days though.

Jay Currie

You also believe global warming is all hype and hoax?

I'll ask the same question to you I asked to mopled, do you think that even if it is a hoax that we will be worse off after trying to "fix" our environment?

New York Times

Thanks for the link, GWest, yes there are some great opportunities down south right now. One could easily pick up some cheap properties in Orlando, Phoenix and even Vegas. I'm sure some of those that find Vancouver a bit pricey might be considering re-locating.

Don't just do "something"

You are not "fixing" anything by using the wrong method.

It is analogous patient with slightly higher temperature being prescribed chemotherapy.

From New Zealand an investigation into the economic ramifications of a carbon tax.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10474731

Carbon tax could pose inflation headache
"A carbon price of $15/tonne would lift petrol prices by 10 per cent and residential power bills by 7 per cent, while $25/tonne would rise them by 12 per cent and 11 per cent respectively.

A carbon price of $50/tonne would make petrol prices jump 16 per cent and electricity by 20 per cent.

There would also probably be "second round" effects on inflation as the higher power and petrol prices impacted on production costs and, thus, consumers."

How, pray tell, does inflation solve a non-existant climate problem?

mopled

A carbon tax is not the only thing on the board. You said yourself nuclear plants could replace coal plants. Also, a greater use made of alternative energy sources, a reduction in emissions from industry, buildings and vehicles, perhaps an increased desire to protect forests and wetlands.

All driven by fear of global warming.

So again, if that fear turns out to be misplaced as you claim, so what? We'd still be better off in my opinion.

R/Man

Just hang on here in BC - the bargains will soon be here too. Sad isn't it for all the innocent people who will be hurt because of the greed and selfishness of the few that got us to this point.

It's coming.

We are not on the same page

as far as nuclear power goes, Frank. Coal does have it real pollution problems, but given the nuclear pollution we are all experiencing from the DU floating around in the atmosphere, I would rather not add to the burden.
Once it is understood that there is no problem being created by our miniscule addition to the 0.38% of the total atmosphere that is CO2, coal is back in.

Coal has become very cheap in comparison to oil .There are improved ways of dealing with coal which greatly lessen the real pollution burden. I would rather see legislation on emmissions tightened up if need be, leaving CO2 out of the equation.

From the New Republic...

...Last week, researchers at the University of East Anglia announced, in what they called a "tremendous surprise," that the world's oceans are no longer absorbing as much carbon dioxide as they used to--a development that would vastly accelerate the rate of global warming. If that wasn't scary enough, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions seem to be growing much faster than had been assumed in even the IPCC's worst-case scenarios, according to a study just published by Stanford's Chris Field. And that's not to mention the recent news about Arctic sea ice, which appears to be melting more rapidly than many scientists expected.

Recently, in The Washington Post, Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg argued that climate change was nothing to fear and that the effects--rising sea levels, species extinction, changes in rainfall patterns--were likely to be mild. Although that piece received prominent play in the paper's "Outlook" section, readers would be wiser to trust Judith Curry, one of the nation's top climate scientists, who penned a scathing reply a few days later. In addition to noting that Lomborg played fast and loose with scientific evidence, Curry pointed out that it is foolhardy to dismiss the possibility of "catastrophic outcomes" just because there is a relatively small probability they will occur. Indeed, the past month's worth of climate news makes one wonder if the probabilities are really all that low. While global warming skeptics often scoff at the IPCC's projections on the grounds that climate science can be uncertain, that uncertainty, to the extent it exists, cuts both ways: Things may ultimately turn out to be better than the IPCC predicts, but they also could turn out to be worse.

To a large extent, carbon emissions are growing so quickly because China and India are booming. Any attempt to mitigate global warming will have to address that fact. But there is still much room for improvement here at home. A recent Post piece brought the striking news that the Washington, D.C., area alone belches out more carbon than countries like Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, or Finland, all of which have more people. (Sweden has twice as many people yet emits 80 percent as much carbon dioxide.) What's more, Washington-area residents are actually some of the "greener" folks in the country, producing 13. 2 tons of carbon per capita each year, compared to a national average of 20 tons...

GW, "ocean acidification"

is another attempt to take advantage of our ignorance. Here's why:
Higher CO2 levels benefit phytoplankton which in turn feed fish.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N26/EDIT.jsp

The basic(in both senses of the word) chemistry of the ocean: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/le-chateliers-principle-and-natures.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html

We get back to trying to fix something which ain't broke.

CO2 is our friend....only the brainwashed and conmen say otherwise.

1/2 Swedish power is nuclear

So, Sweden, with it's marvelous 80% CO2 production compared to the US does it with 10 nuclear power plants providing half it's electricity.The Swedish population would prefer to see them phased out.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip39.htm

Still haven't learned have you?

That this: ...only the brainwashed and conmen say otherwise... kind of thing just reflects badly on you.

A pretty steep learning curve but by now you should have gotten it.

And that is 'its' not 'it's' in your second post.

You didn't actually read the piece did you?

Sweden, the whole country, with twice as many people as the Washington DC area includes, produces in total 80% of the CO2 that Washington DC does.

A little less concern with calling people who disagree with you names and a little more attention to detail might be in order.

Just to be friendly, I'll post the passage again - in bold type:

A recent Post piece brought the striking news that the Washington, D.C., area alone belches out more carbon than countries like Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, or Finland, all of which have more people. (Sweden has twice as many people yet emits 80 percent as much carbon dioxide.) What's more, Washington-area residents are actually some of the "greener" folks in the country, producing 13. 2 tons of carbon per capita each year, compared to a national average of 20 tons...

So what!

Taking me to task for a typo is typical of you. My use of "brainwashed" and "conmen" is quite deliberate. The media have been engaging in brainwashing and after close examination of the scientific facts someone in a position of power still chants the mantra, then I think I'm justified in my assumption of a con.

I pointed out that "greener" Sweden gets half its energy from nuclear plants. It doesn't matter that their population is twice that of DC. That's the point!

The demonization of CO2 works to the advantage of those who wish to push nuclear. That is one of the reasons the US EPA turned CO2 into a "pollutant".

The other is to enforce globalist standards on the already industrialized countries in a cockeyed attempt to beggar Peter in order to allow Paul to advance.

A quote from the little man behind the curtain himself:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?

Maurice Strong

OH Really!

I don't think so, you just didn't read and you were far more concerned with approaching this in exactly typical full-umbrage, impolite and rude beyond belief fashion: Very bad wat to enlist disciples.

I think I told you once before that such tawdry tactics actually reflect more on the commenter than the object of your ire.

It was not just a typo that you served up there mopled, it was also a complete misreading of the text relative to Sweden and its CO2 emissions.

Further, I hardly think bringing your errors to the attention of all Tyee readers constitutes 'taking you to task' - I simply don't want anyone else to get the wrong impression based on your errors and omissions.

Other than that, as I've said before - carry on with your little crusade.

While I disagree with Strong’s active pursuit of a global crack-up, I don’t much disagree with his sentiment that it will probably take something akin to collective ECT to bring mankind and womankind to their senses. And, in accord with the sentiment from page of Rupert Murdock’s Times of London last Sunday, I fear it may well be too late already.

Further, I’ll have to chase down Strong’s statement in context myself because I suspect he was speaking ironically.

Irrelevent!

Enough of the hissy fit over trivia.

My "little crusade"!

The socios who run things are pulling a scam, and pointing that out is a little crusade?

I ran across an article today about the 2005 Bilderberg Meeting. Talk was of a 10% oil tax at the well head to go to the UN and getting NGOs more involved at the UN level so as to seem more democratic.

When one realizes that the NGOs are financed by foundations run by Bilderbergers like David Rockefeller,the picture becomes complete.

It is quite the merry-go-round, isn't it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/estulin05272005.html

"The ideas being discussed, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a global neighbourhood managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals, and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a belief system, which to many people - is unbelievable and unacceptable."

Politics of convenience

I just wonder, why a Canadian politician, knowing that a vast majority of the voters don't buy this so called emergency, would stick his neck out for Al Gore, thinking he's like the Dali Lama or something, when he refuses to debate, or appoint debaters, or engage in an open press conference, or in any way meet their challengers, thinking that voters would vote for them on that?
Why would voters vote for someone who wants our civilization to collapse?
We are already actively seeking energy conservation and less pollution, but this carbon thing is over the top.
This could result in more use of nuclear power.
I don't have a problem with that, so beware all you warmists, you have opened up a can of worms that might even paint you into a corner.

WHO

Who wants civilization to collapse?

IAMC

I didn't follow that, could you coldists repeat that?

In Grade Eight

My English teacher used to call that a "Mangled metaphor", Frank. LOL