Food is a product of how much CO2 is available

The more there is...the more plants grow and the more drought resistant they are.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

The sun controls climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/study-finds-global-warming-over-past-4.html

Nanaimo and every other member of ICLEI that is reducing "greenhouse gases", is not only being counterproductive...they are robbing you.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/meet_the_bagman_for_crime_inc_–_your_local_government_20100819422/

and

"The extra moisture from the Gulf of Mexico this spring is not that important. It’s the cold ‘wind-shear factor’ that has caused the record outbreak of tornadoes. If global warming were the cause, there would be more tornadoes in Canada than Alabama. And, that’s not happening."

Dr. Spencer goes on to add: "Anyone who claims that more tornadoes are linked to global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSE-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award. Spencer’s research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Some agreement

Hey mopled, finally something we agree on, extreme meteorological (weather) events are not proof of climate change and climate change models can never be even 90% accurate, given variable factors like volcanic eruptions (underwater or atmospheric).

Atmospheric and oceanic oscillations are very interesting phenomena that are only quite recently being studied and evaluated, sort of like the movements of micro plates in the larger global tectonic picture.

As to polynomial variability in modelling these oscillations, lets leave that detailed evaluation to the climate scientists who search out the evidence without bowing to political ideology and pressure.

I forgot the geologist's name who, from his models, absolutely denied that an earthquake could happen all at once along the Cascadia subduction zone, but he rather believed it occurred in steps and stages. But when he did on site, oceanic core sampling, using the evidence he found, he completely reversed his position, to the chagrin of those who had supported his view.

Tectonics are much easier to study than climate due to its snail's pace of change by human standards.

Although ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation ) has been informally observed for centuries, more precise data has only been around since the mid 20th. century.

A more recently observed phenomena, that may take a good part of the blame for the Quebec, east Ontario ice storm a few years back is the mid Atlantic oscillation.

This one has only been data researched over a little more than one or two decades. Other interlocking phenomena are still being explored and have little organized data to date. Models cannot count these in their base until enough accurate data is gathered.

Modelling and oscillations (cont.)

But modelling works very well for the most part. Meteorologists run computer models 30 times over to make predictions in order to avoid as much as possible the effects of chaos (as in Chaos theory).

Yes, we also have various very long term oscillations, from changes in the eliptical orbit of the planet around the sun or shifts in the axis tilt of earth, but the concerns of climatologists are not about these or even that climate has altered the planet from ice ball to quasi inferno over extended time, but rather the rapidity of change over a relatively short term that simply does not fit these or other mid term oscillations' normal effects.

From this point of view, weather events should be placed on the back burner vis a vis climate change, except as intensity becomes more frequent and extreme and as they cluster together over time.

That's when the graphing and data analysis can be manipulated for political and ideological purposes, as is so evident in the comments below mopled's web site reference. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound

It will be interesting to see the tornado graph after the 2011 season has been gathered and added in.

Likewise the arctic ice data, lets say, by 2015.

Regardless of this debate, there are several good reasons to get ourselves off our fossil fuel addiction
and go for lower energy use and to accelerate the implementation of energy efficiencies and the development of renewable energy appropriate to and for local and regional social and environmental needs, rather than shipping energy, in various inefficient forms, around the continent or globe, for the profits of very few.

Too much CO2 is poison to both plants and animals.

Mopled, once again you overstate things. Perhaps you need to visit the East African volcanic region to see how CO2 released in pockets to the surface not only kill animals or humans, but create an environment where only a few grasses, certainly not trees, can be observed to grow.

What was that...through it and see what sticks?

"Too much CO2" is thousands of times what little there is now. Your straw man argument is ridiculous. Volcanoes also give off SO2.

There is nothing but endless and mindless drivel from the Green zombies.

You dismiss the satelite data as being too short a time period...OK
Here's over 350 years of temperature data from one spot:'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/central-england-temperatures-runaway-warming-during-the-last-decade.html

The very latest on the nonsense predictions by climate modeling by the IPCC.

Newest Peer-Reviewed Study: Experts Find That IPCC Climate Models Are Basically Worthless

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/newest-peer-reviewed-study-experts-find-that-ipcc-climate-models-are-basically-worthless.html

Climate change deniers don't understand the scientific method

Any given scientific hypothesis such as whether increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere cause increased occurrence of weather extremes is normally investigated by a number of different scientific groups with a range of conclusions about the validity of the hypothesis. When the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the validity of this hypothesis, then the politicians should listen. Of course, if you ignore the "opinions" of the so-called scientists (many of whom are not climate scientists in any case) who have been bought and paid for by big oil, then the majority of climate scientists who support the hypothesis moves from vast to overwhelming.

Of course, climate-change deniers like to focus on the opinions of the few nay-sayers rather than opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists. That's okay. There is always some chance (no matter how minute) that the naysayers are right. But what if the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is correct? Then we are headed to an absolutely horrible fate of many humans starving to death in the next few decades (since weather extremes like droughts and floods significantly reduce agricultural production) unless we take strong political measures to deal with the situation.

Note, the deniers can argue until they are blue in the face about whether the current climate change is man-made or not or whether a given violent weather outburst is due to climate change or not, but those arguments are completely beside the point; what many different independent climate models are telling us is that if we reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, then food production will significantly benefit from reduced weather extremes, and if we increase carbon emissions, then food productions will be significantly disrupted. So the choices are do you want to cling to a life style that depends on burning lots of carbon-based fuel or would you prefer to avoid most of mankind starving to death?
I am very pleased that this article indicates that city politicians are beginning to understand this choice before us. Hopefully, climate change deniers at the federal political level like Harper and his minions will either start to figure it out as well or be thrown from office as a threat to us all.

Guys, you are getting silly now.

Nobody says climate doesn't change...it's the cause that was debated. CO2 got thrown out a while back because, for one thing, there is no longer even a correlation between present temperatures and CO2. CO2 is still going up even though temperatures have been dropping.
New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/new-peer-reviewed-paper-absence-of-correlation-between-temperature-changes-and-co2/

Maybe this will help your recovery from the cult influence. Your brainwashing is showing.
http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-cult

Middleclass...

...good name for mediocre thinking - reading your comment I can't think of anything else. Maybe gas guzzler too?

Climate change does linked to weather pattern changes.

Anyone with doubts in their mind would do well to read the 'Weathermaker' by Tim Flannery http://www.theweathermakers.org/about/

North America and especially Canada is way way behind thinking, acting and behaving when it comes to being mindful about consumption, using energy and thinking about the future generation.

If you are a parent then I must say that you are letting your kids and your grandkids down. Sad future for them.

You spending their future now and bitch about how expensive is this and that but really most of the people have no idea what the actual investment return is. Or do you?

With growing prices - the investment to a greener technology and lowering the cost of energy use is less than 5 years. Most people probably would buy a car with a 5 year term.

We'll see more of these as the population in the World increases and tornadoes will have more chance to hit high population density areas rather than the desert.

Most of the negative comments and denials on global warming makes me think of the frog sitting in a water that is slowly being boiled underneath him. The pure creature will never know what cooked him in the first place.

And that is just what happening to us. We are being slowly cooked ... and apparently we are the intelligent creatures in the animal kingdom - we are on the top of the food chain. Gee...

Could we stop the guilt tripping

It is hard not to throw up at the stupidity exhibited around this issue. CO2 is present at LESS THAN FOUR ONE HUNDRETHS OF ONE PERCENT.....0.04%...391 parts per million!
It's scarce plant food!

And while you all carry on about nonsensical "Global Warming" aka "Climate Change" aka "Climate Disruption", Canada is bombing Libya... using DU weapons in both Libya and Afghanistan. We are supposed to count our "carbon footprints" while Canada spreads real pollution causing real genetic damage?

Give it a break and deal with the real for a change.