What a great piece. It's too bad those that should be listening aren't. It's too bad we can't just kick the US off of the planet and only allow them to re-enter the stratosphere when it agrees. Who am I kidding? By that point, space would be a huge garbage dump and they wouldn't want to come back... The bottom line is that regardless of the reason, the largest polutant wants nothing to do with this accord because, oh my!, it'll affect the economic health of the country. What kind of BS is that? What about the fact that the continued ignorance is causing harm to everyone else on the planet? Obviously, it's going to take more than reliance on the government to make things happen over there but in truth, who else are we going to count on - Big Business? Nope. I think today was a sad day for Gaya.

Mark had it right by saying that we need to focus on the immediate and near future effects of global warming. Who knows, if we keep going at it and we all do our part, we might make a little good until the US wakes up and decides to join the party. It's not good enough to sit back and wait for the big players to join the fun when we can be helping to solve the problem: one person at a time.

As Canadian citizens we do not vote in American elections. Even in Canadian elections municipal, provincial, or federal the candidates have little understanding of science, hence they do not understand "suicide-seeds", global-warming, toxic chemicals in homes and buildings etc...If candidates do not have scientific ability, they are unable to understand and protect the inter-related eco-systems/planet for future generations of humans.

I believe that one day all political-candidates will be required by law to pass science-tests, even before they are eligible to run in elections. All it takes is for one MLA, MP or other elected-representative to present this bill and for others to pass it. I just wonder if Canada will be amongst the first countries to do so, somewhere in the middle, or among the last.

I like Louise's analogy... a lot. I felt like that last summer; happy "Oh what a great day for tanning" stories in the mainstream media- pics of people lying in the sun!! That is soooo 70's- rather than "WHY THE HELL is it so hot in BC in June?" I think it's pretty hopeless, though I thought the article was great.

I lived in Taiwan for three yrs, and the sweltering heat was the #1 reason I left (and the pollution). Absolutely the reason. I've been back here for four yrs now and to my horror I've come to realize that in another 5-10 yrs I'll probably be feeling like that again. Damn! I thought I was escaping it forever. But how do you make people listen??

Hey Ranbir:

I gotta call you on your last post bud. I don't have a science background and I can understand the concepts you mentioned.

We'd be better served by requiring scientists (and politicians) to take an ethics test before they're allowed to work.

What you're talking about sounds to me like a technocracy. Which on paper, sounds good. But then again so do capitalism, communism, fascism, and low-rise jeans. In reality however, they can all be an affront to basic human values.

It's too bad Kyoto was based on junk science (google up 'kyoto hockey stick'). I belive we are experiencing climate change, it is caused by humans, and it's a global problem (a colleague recently spent time in New Delhi... the air was orange). But, regettably, the scientists have descended into a did-not/did-to argument, and no one is saying "hey, we mis-calculated... let's redo the numbers", which provides the necessary prop for GW Bush and his ilk to blather on...

The "Conservatives" do not even believe that global-warming is occurring, the "Liberals" have acknowledged that global-warming is occurring, yet believe that it is not important enough that they should take any action, and the "New Democrats" acknowledge that global-warming is occurring and is a priority, hence action should be taken immediately. If none of the Conservative, Liberal MPs understands science, they may still be ethical to themselves because they do not understand climatology,(or evolution since it is not included in their religious texts) they do not believe it is important to take action on it. Before any MP can be ethical they need to understand, what they are talking about. The kind of "science-tests for candidates", I am talking about could be similar to provincial exams in highschool, in addition there would be announcements in newspapers that anyone thinking about running in an election can go and take the test.

I doubt I could pass any high school science exam with the possible exception of physics. Yet, I have no problem understanding how and why global warming is occurring. I'm sorry but I think it's a dumb idea that would eliminate many worthy candidates from running for office.

I would also be very careful about labelling all Conservatives as religious zealots who deny the theory of evolution. A cursory, and scientific, examination of the facts would negate such a hypothesis.

Ranbir, what you're advocating is a government made up only of scientists. I'd rather have one made up of ethical people regardless of background. Scientists aren't going to understand sociology or economics or how bills get passed for that matter.

We need all kinds of people in government, including religous.

This is a feelgood article that doesn't offer any concrete solutions (nor does it acknowledge that the scientific debate is ongoing). The federal Liberals have signed Kyoto, but still haven't got any plan on how to implement (beyond now arguing that paying billions to other countries is a form of foreign aid, and that's apparently enough). Just the usual theatre of virtue. The test comes in real tradeoffs (what are you willing to give up) which are probably politically unpalateable. By the way, I wouldn't cite Tony Blair as my ethical model for anything.

You do not necessarily have to be a scientist to be scientifically-literate, however some sort of testing is required to insure a minimum level of understanding. Government is a very important job and it is not unreasonable to demand that certain skills ie:scientific-literacy, be required of all MPs and MLAs. The Arctic Climate Impact Association, an international team of 300 scientists, did an excellent report recently on global-warming that was presented to the U.S. Senate and many other countries, it is available on www.acia.uaf.edu . The spatial maps show how much the greenland ice-sheet has melted in just the last 10 years, or closer to home the Canadian arctic used to be covered in white snow, now alot of the snow has melted and it is brown dirt.

Sure, but if we took those 300 scientists and put them in parliament, replacing our slightly over 300 MPs please tell me how long we'll be waiting before they finish writing the national budget?

Scientists are important, no question. But I don't want a guy who spends all his time working with chemicals writing the national budget. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses.

Ugh, no religion in gov't.

Funny, but most "mothers" and "wives" do a fine job of balancing the household budget; I know mine did... yet we have bozos doing it at a governmental level.

Percy, the scientific debate is ongoing only for those who would prefer to deny reality than to deal with it.

There are still those who will argue Christopher Columbus' three ships didn't disappear under the horizon when he sailed in search of a route to India in 1492, but I doubt you'll find too many scientists who have the time for that flat earth silliness either.

Your "feelgood article" comment is a tired cliche that is so out of place it could be a bad joke if the issue wasn't so serious. Would you portray the recent Asian Tsunami as light, holiday entertainment? Do you get a warm feeling when you see tragic accidents?

Journalist Mark Hertsgaard presented what I would call some very "concrete solutions" that
scientists across the globe have been insisting on for years and you say he offers nothings. Is your blindness ideological or are you paid to churn out these ridiculous statements?

There will have to be many trade offs and, I suspect as the situation worsens, people who are suffering will begin taking their rage out on the obvious pigs who continue to pollute and add to the crisis.

I can't say I condone it, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if SUV owners and other energy hogs became targets of that wrath.

I'm well beyond the halfway mark in my expected life so global warming really isn't likely to do much harm to me, but my children and grandchildren, your children and all the other children worldwide will certainly get to know how badly we have screwed things up with our capitalist utopian dreams of two-car garages and
central air conditioning in every home.

I'd suggest it's soon going to be very "politically impalatable" to be anything but extremely angry with energy hogs who would rather deny their culpability than give up the gas guzzler.

Justice might well be served up on the streets by the people, for the people in ways polluters certainly won't like.

Fi, I didn't say let's have reliigon in government, I said we shouldn't exclude religous people. Separation of church and state yes, but government limited to atheists would be wrong.

Also, according to national stats, I don't think all household managers are adept at avoiding high levels of debt :)

As far as global warming goes, I think it will mean the end of Canada because there is no way we are going to remain a low population, militarily weak, land of plenty in a world with far too many people and declining resources.

Maybe the earth is like a body which raises its temperature now and then to kill off viruses.

The move away from diversity and difference is not only killing us politically but environmentally as well. The extinction of multiplicity in all things, including critical thought, is a perilous step away from what makes this earth liveable and all of us upon it, human.

lynn, beautifully put. succinct, yet profound.

Allan, sometimes I wish I had been born a generation earlier (except that I would have missed out on the rewards of the feminist movement, of course- yikes!) because I honestly don't even want to bring children into this world for the reasons you mention (and others). Or I wish I could be blind to the obvious, stumble on in a naive way and pretend my children could even hope to have the kind of childhood I had, or inherit a beautiful earth that, as much as it sounds like gloom and doom, we're possibly just seeing the last of.

Fi, it's sad that as a species with so much intelligence to offer and now the technical means of multiplying and spreading that knowledge, yet we can't seem to squeeze much collective widom out of it all and seem doomed to join earlier species that once flowered and then faded out.

Allan, the debate continues (see current Scientific American and New Scientist), I think. I'm not a scientist, but there are more nuances on long-term climate fluctuations than this article takes for granted. I'm not opposed to Kyoto on ideological grounds, but when your government commits to something that it has no plan to accomplish, that's called "theatre of virtue". You have to know what you want to accomplish, whether it can be achieved, and what the cost is. Otherwise, you're just doing "feelgood" cheerleading, and that's what I meant. And...I'm not sure anybody has connected the Tsunami with global warming, unless global warming causes earthquakes (hee hee).

Percy, I certainly wasn't linking the tsunami with global warming. Rather I was noting what I thought might be your take on the tsunami based on your conclusion that global warming acknowledgers are junk scientists, no doubt out to sell us all Apocalypse insurance.

I put global warming denyers in the same camp as
Americans who continue to wonder aloud why people would commit suicide while killing thousands of other innocents to bring down symbols of American financial and military might.
It's not particularly the question, but rather the answer they often reply to themselves with. Answers such as "oh, they're just jealous of our advanced lifestyle", or "what did we ever do to them to make them so angry?"

I just think it would be nice, even prudent perhaps, to attempt as pathetically as we can, to deal with the troubled issue before we have to look for after-the-fact answers. They're always so unsatisfactory and seldom generate anything you could describe as "feelgood".

Using marketing cliches like, "theatre of virtue" or "feelgood cheerleading" does not change the fact that there is a high concentration of greenhouse gases(Carbon dioxide, methane) in the atmosphere. Humans have created high concentrations of greenhouse gases by deforestation and by burning fossil fuels. The spatial-maps clearly show dramatic global-warming in the last 10 years as evidenced by arctic melting and marketing cliches do not change scientific facts.

No, Percy- but if global warming is raising the oceans' levels then maybe a tsunami is going to be a bit more of a destructive force, no? Anyway, your earlier point of "What are you willing to give up?" is a good one- because that is what it comes down to. Individuals are not going to give up their conveniences; it's only getting worse. This is where gov't must come in and make laws that force us to do such. There is no debate. It's obvious we're heading for trouble.

what - sorry I couldn't hear the debate over the television, stereo, reving of my SUV, etc. Seriously though, we all need to think about global warming and try to make changes to improve this situation. It may be too late to do as much as we'd like but we certainly can do more as individuals and lobby the government to make it a spending priority.

Enjoyed the article....thanks. I remain skeptical as to the amount of this is directly caused by man as global warming also relates to increased solar activity.However I think that prudence in the form of the Kyoto agreement is a good thing.We do need to organize and prepare for this event as it unfolds because its happening!I have a hard time really envisioining the scope of this problem. How much of humanity would really be prepared? How prepared are we for an infinitely smaller problem like the lovely pandemic coming to a neighborhood near you? Dont forget to smell a rose today!

The what are you willing to give up is relevant, because the historical evidence of co2 emissions indicates a decline in these levels only during periods of population collapse. The stark conclusion is, if we are serious about this, we have to think in terms of population reduction in Canada. That means, severely limiting immigration, and perhaps thinking about limiting natural growth. Jared Diamond hints at this in his recent book "Collapse" when he notes with alarm that, by his calculations, Australia has a naturally sustainable environment with a maximum population of 13 million, whereas the government's immigration policies have pushed the population over 20 million with anticipated growth.

I can see why some people don't believe in the sources of greenhouse gasses. A lot of pollution is suspended at ground level ... you see the brownish-orange haze from mountaintops and airplanes. I think trees and plants eat a lot of this carbon, the rest falls to the ground. But what about airplanes? What happens to their exhaust several kilometres up? I think air travel is the greatest contributor to ozone depletion. It's you who takes all those business trips, weekend trips to Mexico, etc. It's you, the solo pilot who faarts all around ... you will pay!

Global warming aused by mankind, I have my doubts. Clean up the enviroment,yes. Huge strides have been made in the enviroment in the last 30 years. Climate has always been in dynamic change on earth. The sun is due to slightly swell in about 400,000 years and then earth will resemble venus. As for global warming caused by man kind check out this web sight http://www.friendsofscience.org/

bush sucks ass