Global Warming

I am still not convinced. Sorry, According to some reports I have seen on the net out of all the scientist asked to complete the questionaire in the study only 17% bothered to reply. Not quite an overwhelming response. For me there are just too many unaswered questions. We have know the world is round for the past 500 years, but now we are sure the world has heated up in the last 200 years. Please tell me what caused the great drought of the thirties, was that global warming? I would like to see some good old fashioned investigative journalism into this and get a true debate going. I don't know for sure if this is man made, but I sure would like to see some real answers, not from the corporations that are going to make money from this "new industry".
It seems to me if this is really happening why are we not on a world wide campaign of getting people to plant trees? Why not encourage densification and stop wholesale developement of the country side, especially here in the Fraser Valley. Why is the Liberal Govt of BC prepared to pay half the cost of oil pipelines and roads so the oil companies can drill for more fossil fuels? (read welfare for corporations)
At least Premier Campbell can go on an election platform and say his government has invested in alternative energy. He now can tell the oil industry they have an alternative to Alberta, they can come to BC and drill for oil.

The naysayers start

Just ask the Inuit if global warming is fact or fiction. Where has the permafrost gone in many areas of the Arctic. They are on the front line of this global problem. Why is it there are folks that still believe the Titanic was unsinkable as it went down? The dirty thirties in the American midwest was more to do with terrible farming practices on land that should never have been plowed than climate. Ask the South Sea Islanders on atolls with a mean height of a few feet why they can no longer grow food because the salt water is now killing their taro crops. I just hope Tsolum has a house big enough to take in some of the Inuit or South Sea Islanders when they need new lodgings.

Re The naysayers start

I did not say global warming was not happening I said I was not convinced. Heck of a difference. Something is happening, but I am not convinced yet that it is not a cycle of some sort. 200 years is a short time frame in the age of the earth. Anyone that questions this science is deemd a fool. Let me ask you or anyone else this question. Are you ready to give up your car, turn off the heat, use one heck of a less carbon foot print on this earth, are you ready to have your kids make a heck of an economic sacrifice on a maybe. When I tend to make decisions in my life I want to hear the pro and cons of the situation. Unfortunatly all we get off the TVs in this country is what I call sound bite news. There is no debate going on between the scientists that we the public can see. The news broadcast go along with global warming since the seventies as if it is fact. Anyone who knows science knows fact is proven, this is still a theory but everyone is willing to still believe it is fact because the idiot box tells them so.,

like I said - we're gonna hear from a lot of fools

Using the government of BC as any kind of an indication of right thinking is your first mistake; assuming that Premier Campbell has any interest in mind other than that of his corporate friends, enablers and fellow travellers is your second; not recognizing that many of the Tim Ball types you find lurking on the pages of Canwest papers are bought and paid for is the third. Pretending that the last 10 years haven't been wasted because no one at the federal level had the guts to tackle Ralph Klein as a major source of atmospheric pollution is the fourth. Accepting any of the slime now oozing out of the Conservative caucus on this issue as straight goods is the fifth.

Stephen Harper and his ciphers are more interested in Super Bowl 41 character assassination ads than they are in the environment.

Do I need to go on? They should all be tried for treason.

Keep fiddling! The only hope we have is if this crazy ponzi scheme of an economy crashes and North American consumption goes into the tank. Otherwise, forget it. It's too damn late. The brains trust aren’t trying to solve these problems – they’re trying to figure out how they can increase profits while giving the ‘appearance’ of doing something.

As Rafe says, Tsolum, it’s long past time to enforce the precautionary principle and stop the stupid bickering about science which was clear and definitive two decades ago.

Too late to weigh the pros and cons

Tsolum, your comment about gathering a large amount of information on a subject, weighing the pros and cons, and then making an informed decision on what action to take is sound advice, but not in the case of climate change. If we wait any longer to gather more information we run the risk of completely destroying the lives of millions if not billions of people. We have been waiting for over 25 years, studying the problem, trying to determine the causes of global climate change. Now there is an overwhelming majority of scientists supporting the theory that human beings are primarily responsible for global climate change.

Perhaps we should not be acting drastically right now to fight climate change. It would not make sense to ruin our economy to fight climate change. We would be left with a new set of problems if we were to do that. There are however many steps, relatively painless, that can be taken right now. Every individual can do just a little bit to use less energy, to produce a little less waste, to slowly wean ourselves off of the automobile.

The time to act is know, but it should not be a knee jerk reaction.

Remember the US

Remember the US congressional hearings on Big Tobacco in the mid nineties? You had the bigwigs from RJ Reynolds etc maintaining there is inconclusive evidence on the link between smoking and cancer. Every single large corporate entity which has anything to do with environmental degradation will use every delaying tactic in the book to avoid the attenuation of profit. Once you understand that you will understand why the tiny minority of "experts" without a single peer reviewed study in any reputable publication (and if so, not in years) are doubtful of Global Warming - their funding comes from the polluters.

I tend to think that the

I tend to think that the science that goes into this is too complex for the average Joe to understand, including myself. Setting aside the fact that I tend to believe the green side of the argument, when I debate with friends about this, I draw an anology to smoking and cancer. Sure, you might develope lung cancer completely independant of smoking, and sure, if you smoke, you won't end up with lung cancer for certain. But doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution? Why don't people see this? I tend to think that it has to do with the language that the whole issue is being couched in...

Yeah dude...Keep Fiddling.

Yeah...Keep fiddling while Rome burns Tsolum. Perhaps you are one of those people who would put a committee together to "Save the Forest" when the day comes their is only one tree left standing... What part of "we obviously need to change, the Earth is in trouble", do you not understand dude??

It also makes me wonder what your job is because, as Gore says,

Maybe that is it eh?

Absolutely G :-)

Great article again Rafe...!! Thanks.

Global Peace,

Bear

There's more than one type of fool

G West

Encouraging the one's on your side could blow up in your face.

Only fools fear global warming

There is a hidden agenda behind all those who blame human activity for global warming although the evidence is still weak and unrpoven. Eventually, the Canadian left points to the usual suspects: oil companies, industrialists as the culprit. If only you enviromentalists would read the drivel published in the 60s and 70s- global cooling, gloom and doom. None came to pass. What the left wants is for the rest of us to be ashamed of progress and to reduce our standard of living.

The fact is that even if every country met the Kyoto Accord, it wouldn't change global temperatures by much. The cut in standards of living that some of you demand is unrealistic and disastorous. No one will accept it. And the economic losses will mean we won't be able to deal with other problems that are more real than global warming like Aids and malaria and poverty.

And do you think China and India want to slow their progress and keep their people starving just so you enviromental extremists can feel better and smug about yourselves while sucking free trade lattes at Starbucks? It's all just another example of your hypocrisy.

So don't worry, global warming is just another fad whipped up by enviironmental extremists to justify their role to society. All this shall come to pass.

You've got to be kidding!

"I don't know for sure if this is man made, but I sure would like to see some real answers, not from the corporations that are going to make money from this "new industry"."

The best way for the corporations to make money is to pretend that there isn't a problem. No multinational wants to spend the enormous dollars that are going to be required to switch over to cleaner power. The small startups that are trying to cash in will undoubtedly be taken over by the big guys anyway. BP is already trying to position themselves as the alternative. You are asking the same question that was asked 20 years ago! Sorry, but the world can't wait for the slow pokes.

Spoken like a true hypocrit.

Spoken like a true hypocrit.

Someone with a smokestack on their house and a smokestack on their vehicle(s) pronouncing that "others" have caused the problem, and are responsible to correct it.

Exactly what precautionary actions will you be taking, Rafe, to mitigate your contribution to climate destruction ?

Evasions

Tsolum wrote (among other things):

If you haven't been able to find the information, it's because you haven't been looking. There has been no recent issue that has been as extensively studied by scientists from around the world, as global warming. You don't have to look at the evidence if you don't want to, but don't imply that the evidence is inconclusive.

c_attila wrote:

Right. Dealing with crises in a half-hearted manner is always the most effective policy. Then maybe the problem will just magically go away and we can continue to pump billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere forever.

Not just fish farms

It is not just fish farms and pollution that we have to worry about, transit matters too.

All I hear on the tube and radio from the predicted good guys on pollution is "must use public transit." But our public transit system is pure crap! Not in Vancouver, but elsewhere, taking public transit is an ordeal best to be avoided!

The SkyTrain types should hang their heads in shame because for the cost of our 40 km. SkyTrain metro line, we could have had 160 km. or more of light rail! It doesn't take rocket science which is the better deal.

For the cost of RAV we could have LRT from downtown Vancouver to Steveston in Richmond; LRT from BCIT to UBC; and enough left over for a basic light rail service from Vancouver to Chilliwack, via the old interurban line!

We have squandered our money on prestigious transit projects that cater for the few and let the rest of the transit system rot!

Until there is a real change in politicians way of thought, like planning 50 or 100 years ahead, rather than the next election, nothing will change! Nothing has really changed yet, just a change of direction in politicians hot air!

year of the locust

Conservative governments, federal, provincial and international will continue to make stupid mistakes because they start from a false premise; that economics is the only force of nature worth considering.
Many conservative minds are anti-science because it threatens their philosophical beliefs--and gee, isn't it odd that religious fanaticism is often found within conservative ranks. Birds of a feather...
So we must keep fighting as if this is yet another Great Mortality--which it will be if we persist in electing ignorant elites.

We are going to have a lot of Fiddlers

And if they pass on theor coastal properties to their children they will be fiddl'in on the roof!

Now come all the excuses; we can make drastic changes, said the Primie Minister!

I agree with an earlier posting by G West:

"Keep fiddling! The only hope we have is if this crazy ponzi scheme of an economy crashes and North American consumption goes into the tank. Otherwise, forget it. It's too damn late. The brains trust aren’t trying to solve these problems – they’re trying to figure out how they can increase profits while giving the ‘appearance’ of doing something."

Unebeliveable that it took this long for climate change caused by humans to be recognized as real by son many.

And as was said by a caller to CBC radio this morning - How (and why) should we expect the same politicians who for years denied, or pooh poohed, the concept of climate change, all of a sudden become leaders in addressing the issue!!!!!!!

My Take

I actually do agree with Mr. Harper's statement about 5 years ago, when he said that Global Warming is a socialist scheme.

That being said, Global Warming is very likely real and it is very likely that man is partly responsible for global warming.

I think we are accelerating it. What is rarely mentioned is that the sun is getting hotter. The sun is a star - and the star is maturing. It will continue to get hotter over the next 1,000 years. Global Warming is inevitable.

The socialists have used this as a scheme to put the breaks on development and economics. They intend on slowing investment. Commerce is rarely good for the environment, that is no secret. However, now they have their weaponry. People don't care about the crack addict on East Hastings. Because, most people see he put himself there. However, people (including myself) feel terrible about those poor polar bears and penguins up in the arctic....

The bottom line is that - global warming is real and it is due to the sun getting hotter. However, man is accelerating the warming because of excess greenhouse gases....

This gives us an opportunity to slow things down - however, we have to be creative. Developing eco-business, eco-energy and eco-tourism is essential for preservation of the environment.

I am no cynic, but I recognize the limitations of man! Man is greedy, man likes to consume. There is no denying this - and it will never stop! So, environmentalists need to join the party!!

We need to take action to ensure the preservation of this world's species. We need to take better care of this planet - before it is too late - and we're nearly at that point!

Global warming may indeed be inevitable. However, that doesn't change the fact that we are polluting the land and in many places in the world - air quality is so bad, you might as well be smoking a carton of cigarettes each day!

Logan

Logan: Piss off! In the US, the two states with the toughest environmental standards (by far) are California and Georgia - both implemented by Republican Governors.

Gordon Campbell has been very proactive on environmental issues, and Harper is coming around. This has nothing to do with Convervative governments - the Liberals have been in power for the majority of this century - it is their inaction - which has helped cause this.

You don't know what you are talking about. In fact, many pragmatic environmentalists agree that the Tories are probably the best able to deal with these dilemnas....they are a friend of business - and can work with them to achieve goals.

Go Green

It would seem my view in this area is a tad more cynical than others. Every few years the people rise up on some cause or other. This year its green. Either by design or by concern we have now down this path and a very important path that it is. However I wonder how long it will last and to what degree we will go to attempt to fix the problem. My view as I say is not anywhere as far as we need to. Everyday we turn off our plastic cased televisions and stereos, type away on our plastic keyboards which attached to our computers which use lethal chips, when we are done we climb into our suv's which consume huge amounts of fuel and ride on rubber tires which take generations to leave the atmosphere. My point in all of this is that the world may be in trouble but I doubt it's population is ready to do the things needed to save our planet. Once we accept the seriousness of our situation perhaps then we will take the actions required to save our planet

Use the Bank of Canada

A crisis situation is the perfect time to get the banks off our backs. Unleash theBank of Canada to create interest free money for carbon sequestration for industry and solar/wind/geothermal gerneration for homes...whatever works best situationaly. Take back our rivers for starters.

We've been living with an artificial debt for 30+ years.

I admit to having questions about the reason for the warming since Mars, Jupiter and even Pluto are warming too, but prudence demands we cut human contribution to it. Interest-free money would go a long way to getting the amelioration needed.

Attention editors

Does this meet the Tyee's posting guidelines?

If you're going to ban Coyote for violating them, what about Capitalism?

Could we have a little equity around here.

Please.

Natural cycles

Given what we observe of "human nature" run-away greenhouse economy is actually quite natural.

There is no hope that governments and corporations will do anything in the short term: that would require them to change course 180 degrees and forge upstream against the mandate of their constituents and shareholders.
Forget about that!

I accept that "climate change" is happening but I can wait for history to decide just how much of the current condition is due to human activity (should there be such a thing as "history" 50 years from now).

You try to tell the people killed in Florida by tornadoes in February and the 20 dead from floods in Jakarta that someday you will think about cutting carbon loading.

Lets just be aware that we are living in a time of upheaval that few of us have ever witnessed and try to do our best to survive and preserve what we can.

Alcibiades

Holy smokes! Why don't you send me to the principal's office!

I apologize to Logan if I offended him.

Science for Cash

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C%2C329703480-117700%2C00.html

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Some background for you Cappy

You might want to check out the Glavin/Cohen thread (Tyee Books) if you want to appreciate where that came from maybelle. There are some folks who'd never be missed if they left this place. Coyote isn't one of them and I'm going to point that out to the editors - along with a demonstration of their horrendous double standards in this matter - and their arbitrary attitude toward the concept of free speech - every chance I get.

Your comments to Logan are your own affair. Coyote's banishment is far more significant - as I see it. You just happened to present an example that was pregnant with symbolic effect.

Alicibiades

Sorry if you've lost a friend! I never really paid too much attention to Coyote's posts. The odd time, he'd throw a bunch of meaningless insults my way. He was more out to lunch than anything else...the guy told me to "fc*K off" more than anybody else...

Who knows what the guy said....though I'm sure he deserved a bit of a suspension! The people at the Tyee put up with a lot here....

You never could understand something without a $ sign in front.

For you to suggest anyone is 'out to lunch' is laughable. The kinds of ad hominem insults you sling every time you post here Cappy, I'd have thought you might actually care and understand something about arbitrary behavior and the need to respect free speech and openness of expression.

You always find a way to lower my expectations.

Coyote posted more wit and wisdom in one diatribe than you have in the thousands of ignorant and just plain wrong and factually inaccurate, not to say bigoted, words you write here in a year.

He'll be missed.

Your absence would be a blessing.

If I want a reasoned defence of capitalism I'll ask Realisticman and he'll provide it with far more grace and style than you could muster in a month of self-serving nonsense.

You didn't actually read the material posted on that thread?

Check again. Beers hasn't 'suspended' Coyote. I should have known you couldn't read accurately and do it that quickly.

Smarten up!

It's astounding how people who have come up through our much-vaunted educational system can still be so ignorant when it comes to basic science.

Capitalism, you are the only one who believes the sun is warming up. Every other model of stellar dynamics accepted by every other astronomer and cosmologist says the sun is cooling down - over millions of years, not thousands. Our sun is actually a microvariable star - varying in luminosity (not energy output!) by 0.1% over an 11 year cycle. Please read any basic astronomy text, any periodical - even nearly any web page you like and confirm this for yourself, and then come back and tell us your REVISED theory of global warming.

You might be mis-remembering a story of a far-future event in the life-cycle of stars which occurs when more than 90% of the sun's mass is converted by fusion from hydrogen into heavier elements, primarily helium. This causes a cooler fusion reaction to take over that takes more time to occur, and the hydrogen reaction that produces intense heat essentially ends. The sun then becomes redder and expands, possibly as large as the earth's orbit. But the time when that reaction is scheduled to start isn't for another 2-6 billion years. Have we got that much time?

And Tsolum, you may be trying to be fair, but you haven't even done the basics, especially if you get your science info from the TV news. Most anchors don't even have your brains - why would you expect them to get complex concepts right that even Stephen Hawking has to write books about to explain?

The earth was known to be round for thousands of years - Eratosthenes first measured its circumference accurate to within a few miles long before Jesus was in diapers. You see how popular folklore has polluted modern thinking. Most of us are no better than the stereotypical African savages we look down on in our understanding of our own world.

According to the geological, fossil and biological record, the earth has heated up 6 times in the parts of its lifetime that we have been able to explore. Each has been associated with cataclysmic changes in the biological record. That we are even able to measure such changes after hundreds of millions of years, in some cases, should give you some sense of scale - how massive these changes are.

251 million years ago, a runaway-greenhouse-effect occurred that raised the average temperature on earth to 40C, increased the percentage of carbon-dioxide to killing levels, and wiped out 90% of all species in the fossil record. This was wayyy bigger than the die-off of the dinosaurs. The basic facts are not in dispute. The causes are.

NASA has done some decent research on the causes of the Dust Bowl of the 30's. It appears not to have been manmade, but have started as a change in tropical weather patterns like a stretch of 8 years of El Nino, and then exacerbated by the farming practices of the time, which may not be any different from today. There were many other weather changes as a result in the 1930s, including rain in the Atacama desert , significant rain causing crop failures in New Zealand, and many others.

When it comes to putting two and two together across a global scale, we're in our infancy. But we think just becaseu we've seen Earth from space, we know how everything works.

We don't. And some of us want to be ostriches about it.

here is the science

Here is a link to just one of many data sets taken from ice core samples, this particular one from Greenland goes back 49,000 years.

It is getting warmer and the ice shelfs are getting smaller, period.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Or closer to home, here's a 14,000 year study for North America:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pollen/recons/northamerica/viau2006namerica-temp.txt

Want more?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

Smarten up!

There are no climatologists saying the sun is warming up, (it's the earth's atmosphere and ground temperature they are talking about) and you are attempting to obfuscate the issue by attributing statements to people, that same people would plainly state not to be true.

"I actually do agree with

"I actually do agree with Mr. Harper's statement about 5 years ago, when he said that Global Warming is a socialist scheme.

That being said, Global Warming is very likely real and it is very likely that man is partly responsible for global warming."

So, global warming is a socialist scheme, but it's a scheme that is, in fact, true? I can accept those schemes; unlike those neocon schemes which are always not true.

Plots

Capitalism wrote:

Thanks for enlightening us. I was wondering what that great orb was.

Next you'll be saying that carbon dioxide was invented by commies to overthrow the government.

Rafe wrote:

This is an important point. We are always after short-term gain and we ignore the long-term pain. Environmental costs are too often ignored in making development decisions.

Zalm/Bowenmark

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

I just did a very quick Google search to - is the sun getting hotter? This was the first article I found. It is a couple of years old....

I understood it that it has been scientifically proven that the sun is getting hotter. I'll do a little more research when I have the time. Though - I think it is actually known that the sun is getting hotter - and this is the primary reason for global warming - though man is clearly accelerating it.

Bowenmark - you are right - global warming is occurring! However, your images depict constant warming over thousands of years!

We all know it is occurring - the question has been man's contribution. I believe man is certainly contributing! I am not disagreeing, but it is ignorant NOT to consider all facts!

This is a socialist scheme - though I thank them for it. The socialists have an alterior motive here. The environment is giving them an excuse to cap production, increase taxes and slow economic growth. My argument here is let's get eco-economic here!!

I like to reduce tax incentives for oil exploration and development companies, and to tax heavy carbon emitters. However, I think we should be granting massive incentives for alternative energy producers and other technologies....

Let's work to make it profitable to be environmentally friendly! Let's develop a green economy....but let us not forget that energy is the reason Canada is what it is today....Let's not bite the hand that feeds us!

It is a very tricky balancing act!! Though, action must be taken...

Alci

I presume he'll be allowed back after a bit of a time-out. Let him sit in the corner with the Dunce cap for a little bit. It appears as though, in his own mind, he's becoming a bit of a celebrity. Let him enjoy it and I'm sure he'll be allowed back - to play with the other kids in the sand-box!!

I respect free speech and I find the tyee lets just about anything go!! This place is hardly about censorship...However, the editors cannot allow this place to become the sewage of BC newsmedia. I don't know what he has said, though it appears as if though he'd already been given a couple of lashings....

Z\B said: Quote: Let's work

Z\B said:

...Yeah, let's make our money off the survival of Mother Earth...Novel idea.

A socialist scheme Z\B??? Man oh man. The capitalists have long promoted global warming by shutting the TRUTH down through the shoddy science supported by their sell-out biologists… Everyone knows that don’t they?? The only part that is a "socialist scheme" is to SAVE the earth from the destruction caused by lack of TRUTH...

Bear :-\

Appologies... The above post

Appologies... The above post is directed towards Cappy. :-)

Cheers,

Bear

The sun will eventually incinerate the planet

bowenmark

If that's not warming I don't know what is.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/03/21/solar-warming/

There are lots of theories that attempt to include solar cycles into global warming trends but they are only theories just like the dire predictions that Henny Pennys are tossing around in the Global Warming conspiracy.

Here's an interesting 10 part series in the National Post.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

If as suggested in some of the articles the International Panel for Climate Change is ignoring information that is contrary to it's goals this will eventually come home to roost. Nobody is denying that a warming trend is not occurring. The arguments now are all about cause, duration and intensity.

Snert

Good articles....

I watched Al Gore's little scham and noticed he didn't mention the impact of the sun on global warming....not even once. It was alarming....

I truly believe in global warming, though many of these reports have been issued by pseudo left organizations including the UN. There is a tonne of misinformation out there....

You never ever hear about the sun's impact on global warming....we all acknowledge it - and we all know it is time for action....but how are we to act, if we are purposefully neglecting information that doesn't jive with their intended conclusions.

There are plenty of scientists who have said they just don't know....

Again, I believe it is happening and I belive man is accelerating the inevitable...however, none of these articles is credible until they address the warming sun!!!

Dear Rafe

Thanks for the articles on global warming.

I do challenge you to investigate, and write a piece on the impact of the sun on global warming. Let's start to get to the bottom of this!

Who is saying the sun is getting hotter, who is discrediting its theory, what impact might it have, why are the recent studies neglecting to address this in their reports.

Enough of this doom and gloom - we must act. Let's be balanced and let's try and find the answers...

Plea for science

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
I realize it comes from a very right-wing site, but this is worth considering.

fantastic links, Bowenmark

Perfect, Bowenmark, I'm going over all these core samples now. They were all done in Greenland, which, it is claimed, has a significant positive concurrency ratio with the rest of the world.

The statistics you site are from thousands of core samples, measuring ice core temperatures and snow accumulations.
As you can see there are many fluctuations between now and 49,000 years ago.

I'm extremely interesting in looking at the correlation between these paleothermometry calibrations and the presence of CO2 in the samples.

Do you have any information on this?

Dollars and sense

1. Global warming accelerated by manmade pollutants? This is a no-brainer. If the billions of tons of CO2 we're putting into the air doesn't go anywhere, then it *has* to have an effect. Which we are seeing, in the loss of arctic ice and in the power of ocean storms. The precise degree of the effect is debatable and I look forward to the research. However, when you are standing in front of an oncoming bulldozer, I doubt that you decide to stand still until you have figured out its exact speed.

2. Why assume that profit and the environment are in opposition? Sure, I wouldn't like to be the head of Standard Oil right now. But if I was in the photocell business, or windpower or even nuclear, I'd be rubbing my filthy capitalist hands together with glee!!!

The future IS survivable, and it could even be extremely cool -- has everyone seen this? http://www.vectrix.com/

Micheal Crichton as a 'scientific' authority

I don't think think so. He's not even an honest interlocutor.

From the New Republic:

There is an obscure publishing doctrine known as "the small penis rule." As described in a 1998 New York Times article, it is a sly trick employed by authors who have defamed someone to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. As libel lawyer Leon Friedman explained to the Times, "No male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, 'That's me!'" This gimmick was undoubtedly on the mind of Michael Crichton, the pulp science-fiction writer of Jurassic Park fame, when he wrote the following passage in his latest novel, Next. (Caution: Graphic imagery. Kids, ask for permission before reading on):

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ...

It turned out Crowley's taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but [his lawyer]--as was his custom--tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)

The next page contains fleeting references to Crowley as a "weasel" and a "dickhead," and, later, "that political reporter who likes little boys." But that's it--Crowley comes and goes without affecting the plot. He is not a character so much as a voodoo doll. Knowing that Crichton had used prior books to attack very real-seeming people, I was suspicious. Who was this Mick Crowley? A Google search turned up an Irish Workers Party politician in Knocknaheeny, Ireland. But Crowley's tireless advocacy for County Cork's disabled seemed to make him an unlikely target of Crichton's ire. And that's when it dawned on me: I happen to be a Washington political journalist. And, yes, I did attend Yale University. And, come to think of it, I had recently written a critical 3,700-word cover story about Crichton. In lieu of a letter to the editor, Crichton had fictionalized me as a child rapist. And, perhaps worse, falsely branded me a pharmaceutical-industry profiteer.

The road to this literary hit-and-run began back in March, when I wrote an article about Crichton pegged to his 2004 best-seller, State of Fear. The 624-page thriller presented global warming theory as the work of a fiendish cabal of liberal environmentalists, celebrities, journalists, academics, and politicians. Crichton's populist disdain for these "experts" dovetailed neatly, I argued, with the Bush administration's antiintellectual streak--and it was the reason that Karl Rove had invited Crichton for a chat with George W. Bush at the Oval Office and a right-wing senator had asked him to testify before his committee. Crichton discussed his White House visit with me, and our talk was friendly--though Crichton was clearly nervous about being linked to Bush. How ironic, then, that he wound up responding to my critique with a move worthy of Rove's playbook.

Indeed, much like a crude political operative, Crichton savages his cultural villains with sadistic glee. In Jurassic Park, a sleazy lawyer is consumed by a t-Rex while sitting on the toilet. State of Fear prominently featured a fatuous Hollywood liberal, remarkably similar to Martin Sheen, who winds up consumed by cannibals. But, despite his generally worshipful treatment in the press, Crichton loathes no creature like the journalist. His 1996 novel, Airframe, ostensibly about aviation disasters, was in fact a diatribe about the news media's cynicism and stupidity. Next, meanwhile, is peppered with sneering jibes at The New York Times. It's a strange crusade for the son of a journalist.

Thus far, no one seems to have publicly drawn the connection between Mick Crowley and Michael Crowley. In her November 28 review of Next, the Times's Janet Maslin nearly did, noting the presence of some oddly mean-spirited caricatures--including, as Maslin put it, "a Washington political columnist and spoiled heir who turns out to have raped a 2-year-old." But, while Maslin generously called these characters "ham-handed," she didn't make the link. Others have, including a friend who called breathlessly from New York. When I accused him of a prank, he replied, "How could I possibly make that up?" True, I thought. My friend was not nearly demented enough.

I confess to having mixed feelings about my sliver of literary immortality. It's impossible not to be grossed out on some level--particularly by the creepy image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child. It's uplifting, however, to learn that Next's sales have proved disappointing by Crichton's standards, continuing what an industry newsletter dubs Crichton's "recent pattern of erosion." And I'm looking forward to the choice Crichton will have to make, when asked about the basis for Mick Crowley, between a comically dishonest denial and a confession of his shocking depravity.

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.

Nice guy

What do you make of this, Bowenmark?

Just found something on the correlation of CO2 in ice core samples (air bubbles) and the fluctuations of temperature of samples and snow accumulations.

Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_core

and read this about 3/8s down the first page: "Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciation CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 600+/-400 years."

I have a feeling this is accurate because I noticed the same thing on a tv show the other day. (Not conclusive, I admit)

What do you make of that and how does it apply to post glaciation periods, Bowenmark? I'm asking because I'm sure you wouldn't post links to science that you don't understand. (Would you?)

cappy you show your inbred

cappy you show your inbred non-intelligence with your potty-mouth response to a blog you can't answer.
Coyote's blogs are missed by more than a few of us here on the Tyee!

Quote:I respect free speech

yes,we note how you respect FREE SPEECH when you utilize it and note how you whine when others you don't agree with utilize it CAPPY !!!

anyways that SLANDEROUS posting regarding Donald Southerland really P!SSED ME OFF to no end .How can you say those kinds of things and still be posting here?Beers your BUDDY???

And i love it when Rafe finally buckles down and writes a well thought out piece.

geez Rafe,i'm getting to old to wait for the good stuff .

and you aint gettin any younger !

Plus la change

Ah, sometimes one has to give thanks for continuity in today's often confusing world. But since the IPCC report on climate change summary was released to the public, one just knew that the Fraser Institute would be issuing the truth immediately - they only waited until today. It is interesting that the committee head in charge of the Fraser playpen's "scientific" rebuttal is an economist. The last time I looked economics wasn't considered a physical or biological science.

Then one knew to find some nonsense and stupid comments one could count on Cappy, some of the high spots follow.

Logan: Piss off! In the US, the two states with the toughest environmental standards (by far) are California and Georgia - both implemented by Republican Governors.

Gordon Campbell has been very proactive on environmental issues, and Harper is coming
around.

You've got me there as it is well known that you are a leading expert on ignorance.

Bingo again, it takes a certain amount of intelligence to truly be a cynic!

Debate

Nice to see Rafe being consistent on this.

A few points to bear in mind.

1. Doing something about Climate Change and Kyoto are only very loosely, if at all, linked. Hitting the Kyoto targets by, say, buying emission credits will not do a thing to reduce emissions though it might make a kleptocrat happy somewhere.

2. The most recent report of the IPCC actually reduces predicted sea level rises to about a foot and a half over the next hundred years.

3. The report also points out that there is not a thing we can do about the CO2 which is already in the atmosphere. (Which means, if the CO2 theory of global warming is correct, we are going to have warming regardless of what measures we take to control emissions.)

4. In order to reach the 6 degree warming the IPCC uses a scenario in which the world's population goes to 40 billion by 2100. (Demographers think 15 billion is the upper bound but who's counting?) The scenario also implies that places like North Korea will have a GDP/capita on the order of Canada or the US. The more realistic scenarios are not quite Gorian in their predictions of doom.

5. Even if all of the Kyoto signatories hit their emissions targets (as if, Canada is 40-45% over its pledge....thanks M. Dion) China is bringing a new coal fired power generation station online every ten days. By 2030 it plans to have 2200 of them. This will entirely overwhelm any reductions the industrialized West can make.

6. Climate is still largely a scientific uncertainty. The example of the CO2 lag cited above is just the sort of question for which there are no sure scientific answers.

7. It is important to note that "consensus" is a political/sociological term and not a scientific one. There was "consensus" that the Earth was the center of the planetary system and, indeed the universe. There was consensus that light traveled through the "aether".

8. The one thing which the IPCC models have not been is scientifically confirmed by means of experiment. The problem being that they do not yield verifiable, near term, predictions which can be checked against observation.

9. To underscore the doubtful scientific status of the IPCC's work, ask yourself what would constitute data which would refute one or more of the claims the IPCC advances? Is there any conceivable set of circumstances which would lead the IPCC to say, "Ooops, our models are wrong."

10. The predictions and analysis of the IPCC are far too vague to constitute a basis for policy recommendations. Reducing CO2 emissions entails significant costs as well as foregone economic benefits. however, the IPCC does not specify how such reductions might actually effect GW. In fact, as I point out at 3, the IPCC specifically states that there is nothing we can do to avoid GW.

All of which tends to confirm the observation of one of the leading climate change skeptics when he said, "consensus was reached before the research was begun."

Before we spend billions buying into the Kyotologists' green religion we owe ourselves a careful, scientific, review of the evidence and its implications. Enviro alarmism and political opportunism make a toxic combination which can destroy economies. Worse, because politicians will engage in pointless bidding wars to seem green, there is every chance that it will actually kill people by diverting resources from uses which could actually make a difference.

Thomas49

FYI: I was talking about Keefer Sutherland and here is the back-up for my allegations:

1) He got drunk and tried to tackle a x-mas tree, then passed out in the lobby of the hotel - http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=16536094%26method=full%26siteid=62484-name_page.html

2) Keefer doing Karate Kicks - http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowbizNews.asp?Code=KI27994C&headline=kiefer_sutherlands_drunk_kungfu

3) This one talks about a bar fight and how he exposed himself - http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-18-2004-50708.asp

Seriously though - I'd have just as much fun if I had the type of money, status and time....

Harper an Environmentalist

Anyone who believes that the Conservative government is truely concerned about the envirnoment and are prepared to slow global warming have not done their homework and are not familiar with Stephen Harper and his past.

If you looked at Gordon Campbell's priority list you would find the environment at the very bottom.

If we want to save the planet we need to get rid of these crooks. They have no intention to do anything, they just want your votes.

Next election vote for the planet, vote for the Green Party.

Tip of the (melting) Iceberg

Climate change is just one of many issues that have been swept under the economic carpet. Twenty five years ago it wasn't even on the top 5 list of doom and gloom! It's now moved it's way to number one on the public agenda. There will be no reduction of emisions for many years still, you will still see SUV's on the road and jets flying above, destination: Margarittaville! We may slow emmisions but forget anything significant as far as changing our society. That won't happen until ecology comes before economy. Good luck with that one. Lets get back to that top five list shall we? While you're sitting around debating climate change we're being herded in to toxic urban pens and force fed a diet of toxic information and junk diet. You are lied to by banks and corporations about your job security, but please now is the best time to buy a house, zero down and only 5% interest for 30 years! I hope they choke on the coming foreclosures. Try finding Sea bass now. Or real cod for that matter. All fisheries are in peril. Ground water reserves are low and we continue to poison what's left. Surface water is often used as a toilet or a dump for industrial and agricultural pollutants. Nuclear waste is seeping from it's containers dumped into the deep ocean trenches as well as just off the coasts where millions of humans have been herded. Desertification, Condo-fication of good agricultural land, see: GVRD, pestilence, famine, religeon, war for oil, oil for arms...

Ya, whoever said lefties are just trying to stop progress really thought this out well. Better stupid, dead and extinct than admit we made a huge blunder. You don't know what the FUK you're talking about. Please continue to drive to McDee's for your super meal, and get your information from the newspaper and TV. You're so far into fantasy land now, there is no going back.

If I had a rocket launcher....

Happy Monday Everyone!

Crowley 'Crichtons Crichton.'

Good story, G, but Crowley's put himself into a pretty sticky moral dilemma web, what with (you dont like 'what with'?) using Crichton's own tricks against Crichton--(and all), trying to discredit Crichton by using the old REVERSE small penis trick.

Heck, there could even be some plagiarism involved here. But that's probably a stretch.

Uh oh. Did I just pull a Crichton on Crowley myself by trying to discredit him instead of concentrating on his investigative skills?

Maybe the only 'grown up' way to resolve this discrediting mess is to ignore the character assassinations altogether (and whether Satan--even David Duke or the Fraser Institute tends to agree with us) and try to figure out the worthiness of the science using one's own cerebral neurons.

Failing that, one's (or two's) conclusions are merely belief by faith.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"Before we spend billions

"Before we spend billions buying into the Kyotologists' green religion we owe ourselves a careful, scientific, review of the evidence and its implications."

I took Climatology at SFU in the early 90s and the body of evidence that pointed towards human caused global warming was pretty convincing. There are people out there that are still not convinced that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. We cannot simply wait for the lightbulb to go on. I'm sorry, but we need the policy changes now. You might not have children, but I do. I can't, in good conscience, give up their future for my short-term gain. Why we can't implement California emission standards today is beyond me. It would atleast be a start. The fact that the Campbell government is even thinking about coal-fired plants is disturbing.

Is it really that bad, Club of Rome?

That's not very nice, Club...you mean all this fun I've been having for the last twenty years is just an illusion and I'm going to have to pay for it sooner or later?

Party-pooper!

Wingnuttery

Jay Currie wrote:

A downward-trending average global temperature accompanied by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would do the trick.

The "C02 lag" is very much a part of the modeling. The demand for 100% certainty by the wingnuts is simply a stalling tactic. There is never 100% certainty.

Utter nonsense. The data came first, then the consensus.

Not a scheme but all the same...

The mitigation of global warming will entail enormous costs, the preponderance of which will have to be borne by those with the capital to pay.

I am completely in favour of taking drastic necessary action immediately. But I am also aware that this will inevitably result in an overall lowering of the indulgent "quality of life" in wealthy countries and likely also a transfer of a good portion of that wealth and an uplift in the "quality of life" for the poorest nations.

This scenario is anathema to philosophically conservative capitalists; that is why they will never truly do more to fight Global Warming than is necessary to fool the electorate into re-electing them.

Booker don't call critics 'wingnuts.'

Booker, don't call critics 'wingnuts.' It is very stupid of you. The world needs both believers and non-believers.

It's simple

Confused about what side of the argument to take? Simply look at the vested interests. It is clear what corporations will gain from the staus quo and not being responsible for providing the burden of proof. And what do environmentalists and concerned citizens gain from working for social and environmental change? Hmmm... Well... a better world for their grandchildren to inherit... biodiversity... social and economic justice... a stable climate... less war and agression... clean water and air... a feeling of having tried to something positive... etc. Personal gain runs a distant second to societal and ecosystem gain. What kind of person would risk the health of the planet that sustains them for personal gain? Oh yeah, they are called sociopathic; selfish interest trumping community interest.

In the movie "The Corporation" the Jefe of the Fraser Institute candidly says he would like to see everything on earth in private ownership. What kind of madness is this that human beings could think this way? Who perverted this poor man and those like him?

How will you raise your children, and what kind of world do you want them to live in. If you can't think this far in advance you don't deserve to be part of the conversation. Go to the corner and hang your head in shame til you realize that when the bar is raised for those least fortunate or unable to speak for themselves, everyone benefits. Clearly you missed this very basic principle.

Wingnuttery

Truman sez:

I guess that actually disparages both wings and nuts.

Mink I love your observation:

Truman, we actually don't need non-believers and believers - we actually don't need anybody whose efforts are motivated by selfish greed and whose actions harm most other living things.

Spades

Not all critics are created equal, Truman. We should call a spade a spade. And "Belief" hasn't anything to do with this.

Party on Truman!

Yes TG, the bill is coming due and soon. If you thought Enron used creative accounting, wait till Mother Nature passes down the bill! Would you care to take on the audit for us? I'm not sure if anyone has wrapped their brain pan around the issue, or if anyone even can. Catch 22 anyone? We can't just stop the economy, but without ecology there is no economy. It's last call and the party is over. It's time to get serious for a while. If we place values back where they should be, on the health of our local communities, then maybe we can live to party another day. Those who don't feel this hangover coming, must be just past the fourth stage of a tequila binge, they're bullet proof. They still think they can drive and intend on taking the bus over the cliff with everyone else on it! This guy with the keys, drunk on tequila and drowning in his own ego, has all the security on his side. All the resources and all the power too. You ever tell someone like that they can't drive?

Check This Out

Here, have a read of this: from this great site - http://motls.blogspot.com/

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/first-canadian-climate-phd-agw-is.html

I challenge any of you to take him on. He knows his stuff.

Timothy Ball

"He knows his stuff."

The folks at desmog blog disagree...

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-on-cfcs-and-the-sponsorhip-scandal

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-completes-transition-to-politician

Stuff?

Let me sum up that link. Ball: I know what's going on and you don't. Just ask MC.

Facts, research, data, science, there is no 100% period, on that we all agree. The consensus is we have a problem. I happen to think we have many problems that will appear sooner than later. Good to know we still have "experts" like Dr. Ball around to dispute all of the "enviromyths."

"Emma? Where's my rocket launcher...."

Oil

Lili G

I challenge any of you to take him on. He knows his stuff

Ball is the Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the oil-industry backed Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Part of their mandate is defend "private initiative and the promotion of private property rights."

Ball also denied that CFCs were a problem with the depletion of the ozone layer -- "it's only because the sun is changing", he said.

Follow the funding, and the ideology.

Vancouver journalist (and winner of the Charles Taylor Prize), Charles Montgomery, has a nice article on your Mr. Ball, here:

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

"Wingnut" is the operative term.

I knew that would happen

I didn't mean take on Mr. Ball, I meant take on Lubos, the owner of the blog. He knows his stuff. Seriously.

And really, with your kind of thinking, why listen to anyone who's paid by anyone.

And to be clear

I also didn't mean Mr. Ball knows his stuff - I don't know if he does or not - I meant Lubos knows his stuff, and I happen to like what he has to say and how he says it.

Timmy Ball

You must be joking. About Ball I mean. Dealing with climate change denial is like playing whack-a-mole; the same characters keep popping up and need to be bashed back down again.

We went through all of this just a few months ago right here at Tyee, remember?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/20/ClimateDread/

Ball, for those who've forgotten, is one of the 'retired' whiz kids who now gets his jollies at the Fraser Institute - those well known climate scientists.

Here's his CV:

As to comparing the archives of the Hudson's Bay Company for historical data on temperature to the results of ice core assays for climatologically accurate data...well, draw your own conclusions.

Pretty much what one expects from the Fraser Institute.

Lili G

So Luboš Motl is credible because he quotes from Tim Ball.

And you 'like' what he says?

That's nice.

Thanks very much...

He describes himself as "a reactionary physicist". What does "reactionary physics" look like? It looks a lot like Tim Ball.

This just keeps getting better and better.

Read the Blog

If any of you would like to debate the subject with someone knowledgeable, all I'm saying is, go to Luboš Motl's site http://motls.blogspot.com/ and debate him. Read his blog, read beyond the top post, and debate him on the science of global warming. He has several posts on the subject; he's quite willing to debate.

There wouldn't be any truth to this, would there?

From one of the comments on

http://motls.blogspot.com/

Younger scientists don't want to risk tenure and older ones don't want the death threats, phone calls and email bombs they get if they talk about global warming.

For my part, I'd love to have a well-spoken scientist who can write about the other side of the global warming debate, but I can't find anyone. People just want to poke holes in someone else's research, which is easy, but won't convince anyone.

fascinating

Interesting picture of young blonde woman with extreme decolletage.

Fascinating observations about string theory.

I'm convinced.

Quote:There wouldn't be any

There must be, it was posted on a message board.

Solar System Warming

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

So, it's not the Sun, because Pluto is too far away. We are still in infancy scientificaly....something's happening and we don't know what it is.

Canoe Trees

According to “The Knowledge Network: The Leading Edge” B.C. program (which is accessible on their website btw), counter arguments provided against Global Warming, are also supplied by rightwing think tanks and lobby groups such as: Marshall Institute, cei.org, Fraser Institute and others. Yeah, Tim Ball is quite the sell-out on the Earth, just as these other groups are. What is hard to imagine is that they harmed the Earth irreparably, and they did this with their eyes wide open…

I would like to see these people fully exposed and then replaced with attitudes of concern for the dignity and survival of Mother Earth, and then perhaps we can move on to heal her, and therefore heal ourselves…

I often think of how the FN’s cultivated Canoe Trees for the future generations. With TLC, they prepared these trees for sometimes 120 years or so, and always knowing it was not about themselves but their childrens children. The Oil Sands in Alberta is about this generation, NOT our children’s children. The logging Industry in B.C. is about this generation, NOT our children’s children. A paradigm shift is necessary to get us back on track to caring about more than just ourselves. Daunting, but I do believe it is possible :-)

By the way, good posts clubofrome... :-) I love Bruce Cockburn too...

Peace,

Bear

Movers

I have a funny feeling the only people who have the right idea regarding our steamy planet are the ones trying to figure out how to move to another one.

...much to learn.

Already there is too much $$$$ spent on finding out if other planets are inhabitable or not. Why? Just to escape this ones "mess" Mr. Beer and Hockey...? I'm thinking, with that mentality, we would eventually just run out of planets, and than what??

No we are not getting off that easy, we have much to learn...

Peace dude,

Bear :-)

Temporariness

All I am saying is everything is temporary. I figured the steamy mess we are in was coming a long time ago. Like just about everybody else I am a little surprized the overcooked chicken has come home to roost in my life time. Much as I like the place, I am sure happy I did not buy that farm on Barnston Island I had my eye on once.

I'll remember that.

verso

I'M Right Wing?

Holy Hanner "right wing" that is the last thing anyone who knows me would say.
All I am trying to say, is before we do anything drastic let us look at this cool manner. Yes there is something going on, could it be something else.
The something else might be the reporting of the movmement of the North and South pole. The North and South poles are moving and are predicted to flip in the near future.(read thousands years) The earths magnetic field is at its weakest ever, could that be the reason?
Man the last thing I want to be is labled "right wing" I better jump on the "Global Warming no questions dared be asked" band wagon too.

job

I meant to put this in last post. I am a web master, so my salary does not depend on the enviromental movement at all. Raif said that it was evident 20 or so years ago. Well what Raif forgot to mention is the global cooling reports thirty something years ago. I usually agree with Raif on a lot of things, but this time he and I are going to differ on this one.

Vineland the good

The Earth has been warm before. The Romans had vinyards in England. The Vikings called North America Vinland the Good because of the wonderful grapes that grew there. The difference is we did not have 6 billion people on the planet the last time it got warm.

When I see any politicians saying we need to limit and reduce our population, then I will believe that they are serious about the environment. People = pollution. You cannot fix the latter without fixing the former. Pun intended.

Dare we open that can of worms and offend the medievals amongst us who still follow religions that tell them to breed vaste numbers of children?

It will all come to a head soon enough. When the pandemic is finished C02 and many other pollutants produced by people will drop to a fraction of the present output.

Like it or not, nature will take care of the situation and any thoughts we have about being able to control that are mere vanity.

glaciers

hiking on the kwoiek (ky-eek) glacier, (which has retreated significantly since the 1:50000 map was made in the seventies or so) i noticed it was covered with black particles; industrial soot, forest fire detritus, i dont know what it was. but this black stuff was heating up and boring holes into the surface of the ice. It is quite shocking to see this kind of human made impact deep in the bush around my home... not to mention the beetles moving in to kill of thousands of old growth ponderosas. i sincerly hope for world wide economic collapse, followed by community based, ecology respecting, small scale rebuilding. the world could use a few billion less people.

Poles

No.

On environment issues,

On environment issues, therefore, the public has no friends save themselves and environmental organizations they support.

I will have to differ with Rafe on this one point. In the end, we can trust almost no one.

Our own materialism and convenience drive many decisions by consumers, and as long as oil is cheap we'll keep burning it. And anyone who thinks global warming will be brought to a halt by running out of stuff to burn is frankly dead wrong. Never mind oil, there's enough coal for two more millenia.

As for "environmental organizations", the hard truth is that these NGOs become interest groups like so many others, with employees and payrolls and contractors and with a donor base too. That donor base comes from a certain socio-economic strata in our society, and it's not the working poor. It's well to do property owners and professionals. That's likely to cloud the approach these NGOs take to certain issues, especially those that impact the value of urban real estate, or which alter the terms of access to the wild country that many upper income people enjoy as recreational space.

I'm not saying the NGOs are always wrong or just a voice of privilege. But the fact is that every political actor on the stage, political party or pressure group, running candidates or not, represents some kind of economic interest group and they should be honest and straightforward about it. We now have federal legislation making sure that only individuals donate to political parties, not business or unions, and only in amounts of less than $1,100 per year. Should we impose the same standards on the Fraser Inst and the Suzuki Foundation?

All Gore

Umslopogaas

The only people on the planet that take the matter seriously are the Chinese. They are, however, vilified for doing so by the very country that harbours the likes of Al Gore and w.

Canada is not doing badly in this area but it has a completely different motivation.

OOPS! Freudian slip

Shucks

good one, Tsolum

I think some people (not mentioning any names of course) should go read their Thomas Kuhn on how a lot of scientific consensus lands in place.

I'm still studying ice core samples (not personally) and what I'm getting is that there's always a lag between increases of temperature and snow accumulation and increases in CO2 in air bubble samples. As I reported above this lag appears to be between 600 and 400 years. (Going back 49,000 years)

And guess what?

Nobody really knows the significance of these CO2 lags: whether they cause an increase in temperature or are are caused by an increase in temperature.

That's on a time macroscale.

But...I find this same "we aren't sure what it means" stuff on the microlevel (time-wise, that is) on the water-vapour, trace greenhouse gases, evaporation, cloud-cover cooling effect.

Maybe I'll work on an algorithm for how many "we're not sure what this means" you can have before the consensus begins to appear suspicious.

Water vapour is agreed to be responsible for about 70% of the greenhouse gas effect. (Although I see the new consensus is only 50%) Weird, though, because I've seen some estimate it at 95%)

Anyhew, as these trace gases like methane and CO2 heat up the atmosphere, (by absorption of exiting energy) more water vapour is evaporated into the air due to the rise in temperature, but evaporation also has a cooling effect; and the more water vapour that goes into the air the more clouds are formed.

Now, despite this positive feedback, (and if it continued without reversal the oceans would eventually start to boil), GUESS WHAT... Scientists are still not able to adequately model the effect of clouds reflecting of radiation and cooling the lower atmosphere.

In other words, they don't know how clouds moderate the earth's temperature. So I'm thinking, there's getting to be a lot of "we're not sure how this works" stuff in this global warming business.

Minimum, though, go read about water vapour as a greenhouse gas. It's usually left out of the reports to the public.

Water vapour on a microscale and the CO2-temperature lag in 1000, 50,000 to 400,000 year ice core samples appear to be possibly the best issues from which to resolve the controversy.

I think where a lot of people get sucked in is that they don't understand that scientists are possibly the least honourable group of people on the planet, and their opinions are always for sale, either for money, employment (think grants) or peer approval.

So...the effect of human activity as a percentage of global warming?

We don't know, yet. The consensus is political, not scientific. Don't be fooled because the scientists fall into line.

They always do that.

However, even if it's wrong it still might be a good idea to pretend that it's true. (But I doubt it). We should still cut down on the use of fuel hydrocarbons--too much pollution. (not FOSSIL fuels; there's no such thing. See Cassini-Huygens spacecraft and lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan, eh).

Weird how that works, eh.

less people

I encourage inkioko to post more everywhere. I mean everywhere, because he or she spells out exactly where this enviro-frauds ( scammers, Charlestons, snake oil salesmen ) are coming from.
A wide world economic collapse, followed by a few billion less people.
That is their bottom line.
Please inkioko log into other websites across our nation and spread the word.
We need all the help we can get.
Thanks in advance.

Almost forgot, global cooling. Remember it?

But then maybe the best way to resolve the issue is to just to do a comparison between the consensus on the global cooling scare of the 70s and the current consensus on global warming, with the truth being considered to be the locus of the mean consensus.

Maybe plotted on a bell curve, like Peak Oil.

A question of Balance

It is possible that humans pollution (especially particulates) is actually cooling the planet while solar output trends upward.

But none of the details or arguments matter to the flood, hurricane, drought victim or the citizens of Sidney, Australia who just ran out of water.

Yes, this planet has experienced greater extremes of warming and cooling and bounced back (or at least ended up just where we like it for the last few thousand years) but it usually has an unlimited number of years to do that and my RRSP growth potential was not an important factor then.

Gaia will do what she does: some say she will "barf" us up like an hairball. too bad that a lot of innocent species will have (many have already) their time cut short as well.

Ann Elk

Truman wrote:

That delightful little opinion explains a lot about your posts on science topics. I'll leave you and Rupert Sheldrake to comisserate with one another.

You're right about the help.

IAMC

First inkioko says "i dont know what it was. but this black stuff was heating up and boring holes into the surface of the ice.

then

"It is quite shocking to see this kind of human made impact deep in the bush around my home..."

A pretty good stretch from I don't know to human activity.

yeah Booker but do you have any ideas?

So Booker do you have any ideas with which to resolve the scientific issues or are you just depending on aspersions cast on my views on other scientific issues and my respect for Rupert Sheldrake to prove I'm wrong.

What do you think is the significance of the CO2 lag, for instance?

Good Post, Truman

Your long post suffers a bit at the end when you suggest that all scientists can be bought - there is not a lot of evidence for that.

However, the rest of your points are just the sort of open minded, inquiring, skeptical, anti-dogmatic questions which need to be asked.

Earlier someone posted that science is not 100% certain. This is dead right - if you see people claiming something is 100% certain you are usually dealing with the religious or the partisan or both. One of the problems in accessing climate change is that the science, properly understood, raises far more questions than it answers.

Scientifically this is a good thing as it suggests fruitful lines of research which can and should be explored. However, it undercuts entirely the argument that governments should be "taking action" as it eliminates the possibility that any particular action is the right one.

Kyoto, proposed and ratified when the science was even less certain than it is now, was predicated on the belief that catastrophe was a live possibility if CO2 emissions were not curbed. We now know that catastrophe on a Gorian level is extremely unlikely. (Remembering for the high end of the IPCC projections to be right we would need a six fold increase in world population by 2100 - 40 billion people.) What we do not know is whether any reduction in CO2 emissions will make the slightest difference.

We know that the IPCC does not think reductions now will do much if anything if, indeed, CO2 is actually implicated in GW.

It is reasonable to look for better science and more plausible scenarios before rushing to embrace the vast wealth transfers and destruction which Kyotologists are demanding.

It could well be that we can spend this money more efficiently providing potable water to the millions who do not have it or eradicating malaria. These are problems which are killing people right now and are within our power to end.

Don't let them get you down

Inkioko: I suppose there could have been an undetected volcanic eruption or maybe the black stuff was meteoritic but I'm betting you named the source.

Snert and Imac:
Has it occurred to you that both processes: natural and Human influence might occur at the same time? Wherever the dust comes from it accelerates the heating and melting of the ice.

Lets get over the argument about who caused what and accept what most people are seeing around them:
Things are hotting up (well sometimes they are cooling up or raining up or winding up or drying up or as with ocean shoreline high water: rising up).

Please tell me that the last few years of record breaking extreme weather is nothing to worry about.

Not this time

You aren't going to draw me in this time, TG. Debating science with you is like trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork.

no worries doggone

You can't worry about something that you can't control.
You can, however, control what you can control.
There is a lot we can do to reduce energy demands.
In my business we have been doing it for 30 years. But it was a hard sell. Nobody wanted to listen to our ideas, which are now standard fare. But there are plenty more products and technology out there, you wouldn't believe it.
I have confidence we will think our way forward, without screwing up earth.

Yes

doggone

But that still doesn't explain the quantum leap, sorry.

Great Ron

Since you're biking to work now I hope you stop and give that tall skinny guy panhandling at the corner of Cook and Pandora every morning some of the money you've saved by putting your vehicle out of its misery.

You can certainly control that - and every little bit helps, doesn't it?

good one, Booker, I agree.

Can't argue with that, Booker--especially because you don't know any science.

Maybe first read the actual report

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

let's deconstruct this stuff, Jay Currie

Okay, Jay, let's deconstruct, then. You applauded me for having an open mind on the science, but you think I'm being way too harsh on scientists.

Let's do some predicate calculus. (A scientific approach)

Jay agrees the consensus on global warming is political, not scientific.

This means almost almost all scientists now agree that the evidence is conclusive that human beings are causing the proponderance of the global warming, (CO2, not water vapour absorption of radiation) and their agreement is based on politics, not science.

Therefore, either Jay is wrong about the consensus being political OR the scientists are not trustworthy in reporting that the consensus is scientific--totally based on reliable evidence--and the major climatology issues have all been resolved and universally understood.

If the consensus is (in fact) political and therefore not scientific, then the scientists are FALSELY reporting that the consensus is scientific.

Which would tend to bring Truman's assessment of the reliability and trustworthiness of scientists into respectability.

So Jay, don't you think that your assessment of the reliability of scientists is very similar to mine--or at least, MUST be considered to be so due to the limitations (and rigour) of this calculus?

The alternative (within the boundaries of this calculus) is that the scientists are all just honestly incorrect. Or, Truman and therefore Jay,(who agrees with Truman about the science) are both wrong about the reliability of scientists.

But one can disagree with Jay's conclusion

The fact that postulates about future events based upon estimates measurements, models and extrapolations have a 90% confidence level is not the same thing as saying such a consensus is political. All kinds of science depends upon probability.

The realms are mutually exclusive.

The key to the whole dilemma is the precautionary principle and, under that calculus, choosing not to act on the basis of a 10% probability is insane. The risk of doing nothing and being wrong is far too great - which is why you're going to see politicians like Stephen Harper start to jump on the bandwagon big time - despite the fact that his government lost a vote on Kyoto in the House today.

In this case, the Opposition has managed to embarrass the Harper government comprehensively - enough to change Dion's fortunes? I doubt it, but Harper's task just got a lot harder, politically.

The words of certain compromised individuals like those who are paid for their opinions by the Fraser Institute notwithstanding.

As long as scientists have a marginally better reputation for reliability than politicians, (in the eyes of the public), and I believe they do, the smart money has to go with the science; despite your negative conclusions about science in general, Truman.

Coal?

Budd Campbell,

There is most definitely not enough coal for two millenia; not that it matters because even another hundred years of burning the stuff would be a disaster, but check out this video to see the math:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2376190597731898896

Personally, I think the question of whether or not global warming is actually real or not is a bit beside the point. What kind of culture have we created for ourselves here?

We are destroying nature - surely no one can dispute that fact. Disappearing salmon runs, deforestation, etc.

We are polluting our own communities - smog, among others, is testament to that.

We are even destroying our communities themselves - the typical suburban single family dwelling is not part of any real "community" - at least not once you've left home and seen just how degraded our communities are.

And it won't do any good to cry to the gov't. Rich people who care nothing but for increasing their own wealth are in charge, and that won't change any time soon.

So I am voting with my money.

Create separate systems - spend your money on local, sustainable, environmentally friendly food and transportation. Our greatest weapon to kill the beast of the global economic system which is destroying our planet is in our wallets - money.

Deny it the food it needs to survive and we shall take back the Earth.

Create your own local systems of commerce, trade, and cooperation, and watch the beast starve to death.

(Just in case some of you

(Just in case some of you didn't get that, it means no cars [or at least as little as possible] no Blockbuster, no McDonalds, no nothing which will keep the system running. It means instead buying your food as locally as possible, or failing that buying fair trade or similar. It means getting on your bike. It means setting up networks of community and commerce which are 0% dependant on the globalised system. It means starting a silent revolution and it's as easy as choosing where and on whom to spend your money.)

IAMClueless gets it right

"A wide world economic collapse, followed by a few billion less people."

Unfortunately that is a very likely scenario. People like I Am Clueless think that's fine, as long as they aren't one of the few billion less!

Support Local Communities

I will now reveal Truman Green's true identity. Remember the cartoon with Foghorn? Some of the best episodes are when he goes a-courtin the Widow Hen. Remember the one when Foghorn decides to take the Widows boy out and teach him abouts sports and life and stuff? Yeah, that's you! Little chicken with round glasses, explaining everything when no explanations are required. You may be right, technically, but you're missing the entire point. Here's your next experiment. Go outside, smell the flowers, then report back. You like homework don't you?

to capitalism

See what I mean about stupid?
Typically, fundamentalist mentality gets quite rude first, then the killing starts.
The only environmentalists in agreement with Mr. Harper are the ones his supporters have paid for--about $10,000 was recently offered. Check out the Fraser Institute's discredited "science" not to mention that "Friends of Science" atrocity Mr. Harper likes. Put all their "science" in with the Intelligent Designers groups and that pretty well sums it all up.
I concede that on occassion, capitalist states get it right---then, even a stopped watch is correct twice a day, but that doesn't mean the watch works.

capitalism

And when did anyone with any brains even consider the Liberals "socialists"?
Read about global dimming before you start racing on about the sun getting mature. Unless you are one of these fundamentalists that actually believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, the sun's maturing takes millions of years; sunspots can affect climate within 10-12 years and have done so for thousands of years. This is NOT what the science is about. Ironically, removing polluting particulates from the atmosphere without strenuous efforts at CAPPING fossil fuel emmissions, will speed up global warming worse than predicted.
However, I am not opposed to nature's mathusian pruning mechanism--if humanity continues to overpopulate (and they will) when resources become scarcer (and they will)when the greed of the elite matches the poverty of the poor (and it will)when ignorance grips the population over rational considerations (and it is), then nature finds a way to restore balance by eliminating to a great degree, that which is causing the problem.
It is not global warming, earthquakes,war, famine, pestilence, droughts or floods that will do us in; it is that we will have put ourselves into such a precarious position as to not be able to rise above them without huge losses. It is like standing neck high in waters that are rising. Just one great pandemic such as drug resistant TB or avian flu, both created by our own greed (remember that the big pharms ie big business, won't provide cheap drugs to poor nations because there is no PROFIT) can and will have devasting effects--now add on famine, droughts, floods, earthquakes (our recent BC warning of a 9+ quake had the potential to cause 40 billion dollars worth of damage and wide-spread social upheavels).
Having governments bought and paid for by big business is not conducive to long term survival. One can debate the theory of gravitation all they want, but not when they are about to slip over a cliff.
Mr. Harper, as well as Mr. Martin activly delayed important steps towards stopping global warming and this continous yapping about it with smoke and mirrors is just another delaying tactic.
The citizenry has to get moving; it has always been the only way to get governments moving, at least in the direction, however temporary, of benefiting the common person.

clubofrome, you say I might be right, but...

Club, you say I might be right but I'm 'missing the whole point.' Okay, my point is that I don't believe the consensus re. CO2-based global warming is a true scientific consensus, but rather a political one. That is the only point I've made here, except that it might possibly be a good idea to act as though the theory is reliable--even if it isn't--in order to cut back on the amount of pollution going into the atmosphere, and other environmental degradation. (Not totally confident about this, though, considering the 'bad tree not bearing good fruit' caveat).

And this: "You may be right technically but you're missing the whole point."

Continue, Clubofrome?

What 'whole point' am I missing? And how does this failure warrant my comparison to a 'little chicken'?

Okay, so I just got back from smelling the flowers. Now what, Club?

Deep Breath too....

The Widow Hen is a chicken, therefore her son is a chicken. The comparison is the behaviour you both share, not that you are a little chicken. The point you are missing is you didn't spend nearly enough time smelling the flowers. Instead of reading the latest genome illustrated, you should try and get out more and have an appreciation for the ecology that gives you life. And to be fair it's not all directed at you, but at those who continue to argue moot points. Like burning less oil would be a bad thing. Some say we are witnessing the last of many species as we fish out the oceans and burn down the forests. I'll suggest that unless you are part of the solution you part of the problem. Get on board or the next species to go extinct will be the one in the mirror. Use your considerable intelligence for helping the cause. Nobody is going to care about C02 lag when they can't afford food, or shelter. How do we get through to those to busy making house, car, vacation, renovation, etc payments to notice the collapse around them.
You win with the smarty pants stuff. I don't understand half of what you're talking about. I have a good instinct for people and I think I understand some of the issues affecting their well being. What's more important is that when they are stressed out it affects all of us. You see it every day in the news, on the radio, the way people act in public, the way they drive. This is not the way communities are supposed to act Truman.
True community means sharing not hoarding wealth. So put that in your Quantum pipe and smoke it!

Capitalism

With regret, it appears Dr Solanki's work has been misrespresented in the Telegraph article.

The Swiss laboratory that assembles the data from six solar observation satellites launched by different countries (PMOD) has noted that since 1978, the solar constant has been on a level or slightly downward trend, while planetary temperature has increased substantially in that time. It appears the correlation betwen solar luminance and global warming is at best imperfect.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

If we go to the Max Planck Institute's own news release, we find out that the Telegraph dropped on important phrase:
"However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

Worse, the Telegraph changed that phrase to :
"Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact."

Go ahead. Find that phrase anywhere in the Plack Institute's release. Solanki actually said the opposite - that solar luminance can only have had a small impact.

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/genPDF.pdf

This is exactly the kind of bullsh*t game that news organizations with an axe to grind are playing with the data. Why can't we just look at the data and results for ourselves?

It appears the Beryllium-10 levels that Dr. Solanki has been using to infer warming may have another cause. The Beryllium-10 results are from two core samples - one in Greenland, and the other in Antarctica. Solanki himself discarded the results from the last 100 years of the Antarctica core sample as unreliable, and accepted only the results from the Greenland core sample. So for this research, we are relying on a single core sample going back 1150 years. Imagine...what if we took more core samples?

This is not to denigrate Solanki's work. It's to stop you and others like you from taking it as gospel when it's only a theory requiring a lot more proof.

Other science organizations reported the same views without adulteration:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/10/16
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751

But of course, SEPP (remember Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Tim Ball and the rest of the Exxon flunkies?) reported exactly the opposite.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/June%2010.htm

But even before I read these articles, I did the math. If the sun's luminance only varies by 0.1%, how could it have been responsible for a 0.4% increase in earth's temperature over the same time, given the solar constant decreases by the cube of the distance? The earth's temperature could have only increased by a small fraction of that 0.1%. I'm sure many scientists did the same calculation in their head too and came up with the same (but more accurate) answer.

So you can hold all the contrary opinions you like. But what cost are we all going to pay if you and others like you take the bullsh*t as gospel?

I respect that, clubofrome, but...

I agree with everything you said, Club, (except the part about me being like a chicken) But I have a whole big environmental rationale on why I think nothing's going to happen to stop the ruination of the planet, (for human habitation that is; the earth doesn't give a rat's ass if the entire atmosphere turns into methane)unless the change in attitude is based on REAL SCIENCE.

Remember these are a lot of the same guys who agreed about the GLOBAL COOLING just a few years ago. (Well, 30 years ago)

Imagine, if the science proves to be a pile of crap this time, how many people are ever going to be concerned with the greenhouse effect again? Never mind chickens, its going to be the old cry wolf-wolf syndrome, don't you think?

Hey Clubofrome, wanna compare C02 footprints? My car gets 35-40 miles per gallon and I drove it 3500 kilometers last year. And I don't eat meat, the eating of which (raising livestock)is said by the United Nations to be more responsible for GW than the driving of cars.

You?

So when they say sun's luminance

zalm

precisely what are they talking about?

Broad spectrum increase/decrease or just the infrared spectrum which would be the one that causes warming/cooling. Is that in the numbers you want people to try and figure out. What accounts for the energy dumped on the earth by an increasing solar wind? Does luminance cover that? How about solar proton events? Maybe we need to analyse these numbers as well.

Sun spot numbers have been at some of the highest recorded levels over the last few cycles, does the measure of luminance incorporate all spectra and particle discharges from these events?

I guess the basic question that should be asked is just exactly what is being measured to come up with the "luminance" values of the sun as opposed to solar luminosity which is a constant.

Would you care to elaborate a bit more so we can make some value judgements here?

Which word even applies, luminance or luminosity?

Stellar dynamics isn't really my forte

It's all the same when it gets to the atmosphere. Luminance is "radiance" - the total energy output, and yes I bet it includes solar proton events even though my text didn't specifically mention that. Luminosity is the perceived output at any given spectrum.

The sun isn't gaining energy - it's always losing energy at a constant average rate - the solar constant. It's just that sometimes there are various local disturbances in the solar flux, so, for instance, when a cycle of sunspots is at maximum and there's a lot of energy being emitted (signified by the powerful magentic fields), that energy is coming from somewhere - from further inside the solar envelope, transmitted first by radiation, then by convection.

So if we're getting a hot spot at the surface, it's because the constant reaction inside is radiating and convecting more energy to the surface of the sun and radiating toward Earth, which experiences the warming suggested by these scientists.... and which effectively cools the solar envelope down.

But not the core. The core fusion reaction goes on, as it is governed by mass and pressure, not the happenings at the outer layers.

Then as the solar envelope cools slightly, convection slows, luminance through the photosphere and chromosphere is reduced, the amount of energy reaching earth is reduced, until a new pulse of heat builds up from the core throught he lower levels of the solar envelope....and we start all over again, at 11-year, 22-year, 88-year, 232-year and even 2400-year intervals.

Sorry, this is oversimplified, and I don't draw very good word-pictures. You need Scientific American or some other periodical for that. There are many other factors, not the least of which the strong nuclear force. Overcoming the SNF gives rise to these fusion reactions, but is not well understood as to mechanism.

snert

Looking back, I don't think I answered the qeustion right. Pretty much everything that hits the earth ends up as heat. Alpha particles and proton winds, even gamma, when they strike something like the upper atmosphere (thermosphere, or ionosphere), set off chains of particles, but also release energy which ends up as infrared. It isn't just the amount of infra coming from the sun that heats us, it's everything. It all contributes to our heating, one way or another.

which is why the solar constant is so important.

Gaia doesn't mind?

Yes, you do make strong points that are very hard to dispute Truman. The coming devastation of the ecology is certainly caused by multiple factors. I've alluded to the fact that I believe climate change is only the first of many challenges on the doorstep. I know that they are inter-related and that the foot print of 6.5 billion new age consummers is unsustainable. We don't need graphs from the limits to growth to show the peril. (Well not for us anyway...) The unfortunate thing will be loss of potential. Our species potential for peace and the role of guardians, unfullfilled. Our creativity and ingenuity, music, art, technology and all the research asking W5. Seems to me a waste of this freak of nature, a big brain, on this rare blue green oasis. It's worth fighting for.

My foot print. Never owned a new vehicle. Only 2 in the last 25 years. Both used when I got them. Meat? More GW than cars?! That much bovine flatulance has to have an impact somewhere! I like a good salad, but I like meat. I eat less than I used to and buy organic. I like the markets for fresh local when possible. I sail, but mostly locally so my recreational footprint isn't tiny, but it's not too bad, and sailing is sustainable. I'd be the first to sign up for crew on the old clipper/trader ships when the oil runs out. We can still have a global economy!! Just forget that same day, overnight 9 am crap.... Tea? Why yes we can have that to you next month... Trains, sailing ships and horse & buggy. All other transportation should be banished immediately.
Anyhoo, nice chatting with you. Watch your top knot...

Club and Tru...

I knew you guys would get along... :-)

Peace,

Bear ;-)

zalm I don't think you

zalm

I don't think you answered the question either but the description you gave illustrates that it's not a simple measurement that goes into all of this.

My concern is that all of the energy output of the sun is included and that steps are taken to make sure there is not some lead or lag in a portion of the spectra that may not be accounted for.

global effects

I live in New Westminster on the banks of the Fraser.The river is polluted.It flows into the sea.It has been polluted for years and is only one of many rivers that contribute to the degradation of the seas.If somebody throws some pollutant into the river it will end up in the sea.If they stop throwing things in the river it will cleanse itself....But it continues as a polluted river.
Simple stuff right? Not difficult to grasp ?
So why is it so difficult to grasp that we are affecting the environment to our detriment? Why on earth do some still insist that we have no affect on climate ?
Arguing that we had such events as drought in the past is like saying folks were killed before the invention of guns and that therefore guns have had no effect on mortality.

No doubt we affect environment

Take a look at these pictures and ask yourself who is doing what to our skies.
http://www.rense.com/general75/eevi.htm

The other question I have is why hasn't our production of methane been adressed when its affect as a GHG is 4-10 times that of CO2? Perhaps it's because nuclear power is in competition with CO2 producing energy sources.

As a sceptic. I will still modify my habits and hope I'm allowed the technology to do more soon. Where is the hybid car with a solar panel on the roof?

Fraser River is not polluted.

benalbanach

That river is in pretty good shape all things considered. It is closely watched an major pollution sources are dealt with in a timely fashion. chemical pollution from the interior pulp mills has been reduced substantially an sewage treatment plants have been installed up and down the river. You fall in that river the only thing you might catch is beaver fever.

The following link deals with pollution issues as per the DFO. Count 'em. One.

http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/water_quality/fish_and_pollution/pollution_e.htm

SailorQuote: you

Sailor

Another sailor once wrote

JTF/BA

Methane

mopled, I note that the IPCC reports that methane, for reasons which no one seems to be able to explain, has declined since the last report.

truman, I suspect that the scientist doing the actual science for the IPCC are pretty honest and largely without agendas. However, the summary was written by lead authors and bureaucrats who have a very definite agenda: Kyoto. Thus, it is quite possible that we are both right as to the integrity of the scientists.

the environmant

Tsolum--you wonder if the dust bowl conditions were because of global warming--the answer is no. The dust bowl conditions came about because of poor farming methods--European farmers failed to appreciate the differences in climate between the North American Great Plains and the more humid farmlands of western Europe from which they came. Over time the land simply dried up and blew away. However, an important parallel can be made in that man's inability to practise good soil husbandry led to the dust bowl; failure to control carbon emmisions is leading to major atmospheric damage and global warming.

Question Begging

Why should we ruin the economy and drastically lower our standard of living unless we're sure that climate change is real and caused by our actons? Why do people want to stand in the way of progress?

That is a common argument against taking any real action on global warming. The problem is that it is based on unquestioned assumptions. I'm not convinced that using existing resources more efficiently, and expanding the use of cleaner and renewable resources will ruin the economy or lower anybody's standard of living. If I switch to compact flourescent light bulbs in my home does that negatively affect the economy or lower anyone's standard of living? No. If I walk to the store instead of driving my car does that negatively affect the economy or lower anyone's standard of living? No. Or if you prefer: there is still debate among economists about whether these human actions have a measurable negative effect on the economy. And progress can mean something other than finding new uses for fossil fuels.

OK, so suppose that this happened on a larger scale: That is, larger entities decided to be less wasteful, or were gasp forced to be less wasteful by gasp Government Regulations. Would this unquestionably harm the economy or lower our standard of living? Would it turn back the clock on progress? I don't buy it.

Negative Effect

DBarclay takes the steps required and asks other important questions. What do we hold as truth? That will vary over the entire spectrum as unique as each individuals experiences. As Suzuki has stated we must define the boundaries. We are living beyond our means and while I hope I'm not around when that bar tab is due, I would like to try and lessen the cost on future generations. The boundaries are the ecology. There is no economy without ecology. Once this truth is realized I think behaviours can change. This one truth if accepted lays the foundation for a chance at sustainability. The problem with going that direction is that the wealthiest loose their grip on the rest of us. The essence of this struggle has always been what Ed Deak describes in his economic lessons. We are stealting wealth and using fraudulent accounting. It doesn't allign with the ecological boundaries or reality. I'm afraid that there will be no voluntary exploration of a sustainable future. Activists have been screaming their heads off for years, and finally we get something on the agenda and the world finally stands up and listens. Well it's worse than "Global Warming." That's a useless term anyway, "Climate Change" is a better term. The symptoms we see are indications of collapse. Societal collapse, ecological collapse and that includes economic collapse. That's what is at stake. All the marbles. Of course all that could change should the MIC have other plans....

clubofrome said: Quote:The

clubofrome said:

We have not just pushed these boundries, but we have stepped over them, and then ignored them as though they never existed.
We may squeek through, but indeed, what about our children?

Respect and love for the Earth once again, is something I believe we are capable of, and is needed to heal the Earth, her creatures and us, but we have to acknowledge the Truth. How we got to the place we are in? What did we do?

Anyways, good post Club...

Peace,

Bear

Do you hear what I hear?

Even the lefties are pretty sure that actively correcting "climate change" won't nessessarily be bad for the (barf!) economy.

If most of the expletives were not completely used up I be busy typing that one!

For Cryin' Out Loud:
YES it's going to be horrendous for the "Economy" and bloody well right!
But it will be horrendous whether we attempt to straighten our activities out or not. For many it is pretty bad already and the old snowball/flywheel affect is going to get even the most comfortable.

Welcome to the present

It's going to be an interesting time.

doggone

Whether or not it will be horrendous is open to extensive debate. There is never any guarantee of what tomorrow will be and humanity, rightly or wrongly, has not gotten to where it is without being resourceful.

Put your sandwich board away and start working on something productive. The end is not nigh.....yet.

but you're the one with the sandwich board

Does that mean you're retiring?

An assumption

This assumes that changing the economy to a saner, more ecologically balanced one is ruining it. Also assumes that living better with less is lowering our standard of living. The French for example have quanititively less than Americans, but quality-wise are way better off. You can surround yourself with cheap junk that you replace every two years or you can have a smaller number of fine things that last decades. I eagerly await Peak Oli, As your hero the Chimperator once said "Bring it on!"

energy

Contrary to the Doomers who seem to be eagerly awaiting some sort of Apocalypse - to expiate guilt? - to one-up The Rapture? - I find myself thinking DBarclay said it short and sweet, that we CAN cut down our personal contributions to GW without too much hardship.

However, since we are so dependant upon energy, unless non-carbon sources are found we are completely hooped. It is the machine that has freed us from grinding toil, and the labour of one man can feed only a very few others.

We will never live without our labour-saving devices, and certainly not in our present numbers. We would first choose to choke to death from putrid air. It seems logical then, that we should take the surplus wealth that oil generates and put it to work on alternate energy sources.

An example of our current wrong-headedness is seen in our refusal to invest in devices such as the Vertical-Axis Turbine for tidal power, since the cost of the cement structure cannot be recovered in the normal investor-driven time frame. However, the installation lasts for a very long time, just as with a dam. Oh well.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, and it was worth the long read just for a chuckle over Ronnie's fumble in substituting charleston for charlatan.

No I'm not retiring

g west

but you're oblique.

Kyoto the answer?

No, I do not think so. I aint no rocket surgeon. But I do recognise the effect of human beings on this planet as being catstrophic (100's of thousands of square kilometres of asphalt anyone).

The problem I have is that Kyoto is baddly thought out. The impact would be felt most by the poor and middle class (assuming the middle class is not completely wiped out). The rich will just keep getting richer.

Me, I already live an astere lifestyle by choice. I don't want or need a lot. But I notice many of my fellow human beings in the western hemisphere demand "need" lots.

Changes need to be made... But an accord that simply shifts blame without actually doing something across the board is an idiot's errand.

Glad you're still alive history 1

Have you been in country? Or just not left yet?

I feel better already

Snert:
I carry the sandwich board for good reason:
It's like a teepee. I can fold it over me and hunker down and the "slings and arrows" or ice pellets or flying twigs and pine cones bounce off. There's a fire extinguisher and some bottled water and an emergency radio and a couple of granola bars.
You are welcome to stop by

Alcibiades, soon.

My bags are packed, and my arms still sore from the vaccinations.

My concerns at this point, staying alive there, and maintaining my moral and ethical centre. Agree with me or not, my chief concern is doing right by you and the rest of Canada.

When I get back, I will find a forum, and share some of my expereinces (understanding there are restrictions on me).

As for the subject at hand here. 'Tis a fine balancing act we are doing, and I do not beleive that Kyoto goes far enough. Roads and parking lots need to be torn up, trees planted, and we need to stop using everything so damned much. Even something as simple as not going super size at McDonald's helps in a small way. I guess you could say, I am a militant tree hugger (hell, why not, I sleep under them enough).

For some inexplicable reason

I read the comments. And all I can say is that you guys on the Right want it 15 different ways. You want to be able to claim that the Cons and Libs are now environmentally "with it" and will save us from global warming which in fact doesn't really exist anyway because not every scientist on earth, especially the ones being paid by Big Oil, agree.

And why do you wrap yourself in knots trying to defend the environmental records of the private enterprise parties even though you agree that they won't do anything meaningful? Because the only scientists you really do believe every word from is monetarist economists who preach constantly about the joys of unfettered capitalism.

In other words, you refuse to accept the views of scientists who work in the physical universe because you don't want to upset an applecart created by "scientists" that deal in the abstract.

Economics trumps physics and biology in your view because even though there is far more disagreement about how to run our man-made economy than ever occurs among real scientists.

In other words, you're letting your political ideology shape your views of science.

On the other hand I'm happy to hear I only have to find one economist somewhere in the world to dispute the theories of Friedman and you guys will then agree that capitalism is just a bad theory and we'll use some other system until every economist agrees with it.

The missing link to Kyoto is Enron

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm

http://motls.blogspot.com/

One of Enron's major consultants of its own internal global warming study was James Hansen of NASA, the U.S. father of global warming. Although Enron wanted the study to end up with catastrophic predictions, the study concluded that the climate alarm could very well be a false alarm. Enron censored its own study and never published it (see the CATO page for more details).
The company thus became a prototype of a company, a country, or a society that starts to build on hot air and non-existent effects. When you start to invent non-existent events such as global warming catastrophes, you're just one step from inventing $11 billion of non-existent profits.

And here is a 7 page paper that speculates we will have cooling instead of warming.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

Stupid Enron...no wonder they collapsed

Enron execs not all that bright, eh.

Imagine, trying to get in at the bottom of a new Carbon credit currency infrastructure (read market) and forgetting to buy beachfront homes for your scientists! Dummies.

Yeah, good one Mopled, you can be sure the cap and trade and carbon allowance gangs are licking their lips at the prospect of CO2 caps, without which their brokerage dreams will remain stalled at the wishful thinking stage.

Once the caps are in the guys with the smarts will be feeling like they just got the Americans to accept the Federal Reserve system (para-private banking), whereby everybody who gets a loan pays homage to the banking snakes.

Meanwhile, the CO2-temperature lags and their correlation with global warming (or cooling) provided by those ice-core samples I was talking about is so rife with variables that anyone with the best bucks and smarts can order up just about whatever science is required to get into cap and trade brokerage in a big way.

Talking about carbon...

And for those of you who still believe the fairy tale that fuel hydrocarbons are 'fossil fuels,' what's this black stuff in those Lakes on Titan? Photo taken from a flyby of the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft. (If you haven't heard of it it's because it tends to bring the 'fossil fuel' and 'peak oil' theories into disrepute.

No fossils on Titan, eh. It rains liquid methane, so the atmosphere's not good for animals.

Take a look: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia09102.html

90% is not what it seems

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585

90% tells 100% of story.

Good one, Mopled. The fact that the scientists say they're only 90% sure that humans burning what they weirdly refer to as 'fossil fuels' (these hydrocarbons are not derived from fossils--it's just another hoax) is responsible for global warming--if long term global warming, is, in fact, occurring--is what increased my suspicion that they know that the number of variables in the greenhouse--anthropogenic warming theory is just too extreme to find the evidence conclusive.

90% is just a political consensus. The truth is that it's closer to 50%--but of course 90% sounds better. The scientists have been whipped into shape, not wanting to appear to be in denial of a political, economic and environmental movement. (I'm sure someone by now has likened it to holocaust denialism)

For a little levity consider the impending extinction of the polar bear. Fact is, polar bears are a variation of the northern brown bear. Somewhere on television recently, I watched a program in which researchers had discovered the body of a bear which was the offspring of a polar bear-brown bear encounter. All of which means that polar bears and brown bears are members of the same SPECIES. Reproductive viability defines the word,'species.'

Which means, of course, if any of Darwin's ramblings are valid, (even if they aren't) the polar bears might just have to learn to live on dry land. I'm sure they can work it out. Unless, of course, they get too close to human habitats, in which their extinction will become at least as likely as the 90% envisioned in the fantasies of the global warmers.

Honest...grizzlies and polar bears date, eh.

Just in case anyone thought I was joking regarding the grizzly bear-polar bear successful miscegenation (a grizzly's a kind of brown bear, too), go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644

Not sure where you're going with this Truman

A Great Dane and a Chihuahua can mate too. Even though it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it couldn't - with a little help.

Like bears they both belong to the same species.

The point about Polar Bears is that the destruction of their habitat may well do them in. I don't know anyone who's ever argued that Grizzly, Brown/Black, or Polar Bears aren't related.

You points on uncertainty in the whole scientific global warming debate are interesting and maybe even valid.

Marshalling a straw man argument about speciation that no one has ever advanced, to my knowledge, isn't.

Like bears, all dogs belong to the same species. What is funny, is that I knew you’d say something like this when I saw mopled’s post. Glad you’re still around.

No strawman here, Alcibiades-G.West

You don't understand what I'm talking about G.West-Alcibiades, so why pretend that you do. If you went to the site I linked you'd see that the point is that the Polar Bear extinction theory is ridiculous not only because the scientists were very shocked that Polar Bears and Grizzlies would be able to mate and produce live offspring. (Although one of them remarked that they knew it was technically possible.) One of the scientists also remarked that the mating doesn't mean that the discovery supports global warming.

If you had any serious knowledge of 'speciation,' you would understand that polar bears are just as capable of living on land as on ice fields, which brings the matter of their extinction into the disrepute which it deserves; It's actually just a comedy, on par with the 'fossil fuel' nonsense.

You might have noticed that the scientists also said that they are certain that the grizzly bear is known to have hunted seals.

So instead of becoming extinct as all the global warmers keep hyping, the polar bears will just return to their original habitats, as the ice recedes. The alternate to this is that the polar bear originated far out at sea and evolved from some kind of sea mammal, which I'm sure even you, G.West-Alcibiades, wouldn't claim.

My point about speciation is not a strawman; you just don't get it. It's very likely that polar bears, like their cousins, grizzlies and brown bears, will be very able to adapt to slowly changing habitats, rather than becoming extinct--as has been found to be the case with varieties of most other species.

Get it, now, G.West-Alcibiades?

Technically speaking, polar bears and grizzlies are known as 'varieties'in evolutionary theory. It's not politically correct to mention it, but in our species, 'races' are analogous to varieties in animal species. To think that the polar bear will become extinct as the ice recedes is as silly as believing that Caucasians will become extinct if American and European cities become unlivable due to pollution, traffic congestion, American global entitlement and Hollywood celebrity worship.

They'll just go somewhere else.

More on strawman arguments...

And talking about strawman, G.West-Alcibiades, you actually wrote this: "I don't know anyone who's ever argued that Grizzly, Brown Bear or Polar Bear aren't RELATED." (my emphasis).

Well, I certainly didn't write that anyone has claimed that these bears are not RELATED--which, of course, perfectly and classically qualifies your comment (not mine) as a "strawman argument."

Strawman definition: Attributing a claim to an opponent even though the opponent has never made the claim, then engaging in an easy argumentative defeat of the claim. The intended result is that the opponent will be seen to be as easily defeated as the claim, even though he/she has never made the claim--a kind of guilt by association. See also, 'dishonest.'

But the idea that bears are all the same species, although quite commonly accepted now, has been a long-standing controversy.

Go here (for example) for some CURRENT wisdom that there's THREE species of bears living in Canada: http://www.bearsmart.com/bearFacts/

"The Bear Facts: Three species of bears are found in Canada. The American black bear (Ursus americanus)...the grizzly or brown bear(Ursus arctos)...and polar bear (Ursus maritimus)."

So, G.West-Alcibiades, it's pretty obvious that you've never known anyone to argue that all bears are not the same species only because you haven't really studied the issue, which as usual, doesn't compel you to question the wisdom of commenting as though the issue has been one in which you have attempted to gain significant knowledge and understanding.

Not at all Truman

Because folks have said silly things for generations didn't alter the fact that you were using the polar bear to make an invalid point. To wit, since Polar Bears are just a variation of a particular species, it doesn't matter if they don't survive in the natural world.

I think that's wrong thinking. Just as it would be a sad outcome if African elephants all disappeared while the Indian ones survived. The point of this article and the arguments attached thereto is about climate change. If climate change is real and accelerating then our little side bet about what's going to happen to the Polar Bear is both ridiculous and redundant relative to the important issue. I call it a straw man and I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. Okay.

The notion of phony speciation in bears ought to have been covered in a book called Bears for Dummies and it certainly has been covered in lots of learned journals. If ice packs don't recover and Polar Bears can't get the nutrition their long hibernation and short hunting season on the ice require, the fact that a few mongrel hybrids may survive in some other environment is hardly something to crow about.

I still think you're playing with straw.

But you are right about one thing Truman

Do you really think it's quite okay to poke fun at anyone you please any time you want to?

And, when someone else gives you a minor nudge in the ribs - which you should have recognized by my last sentence's similarity to a usage you adopt all the time, you might find a wry grin and a friendly wave was more appropriate than an attempted drive-by-shooting.

That kind of thing smacks of Terry Glavin, Truman. You're better than that. You might want to review the contents of the comment record on Terry’s latest book review if you need a reminder by the way. You won’t get me back there though, I don’t intend ever commenting again on anything the man writes. That’s one idea of yours I’m happy to concur with.

Have a good day Truman.

You're kidding, of course, Africa elephants..

African elephants and Indian elephants do not share the same continent, G.West. Brown bears, grizzlies and polar bear DO.

Know what I mean?

So it's not just a matter (for elephants to cohabitate together (notice that tautology--'cohabitate together' or adapt to each other's habitat) of walking back to dry land--as it is for polar bears, which as we know, are genetically almost identical to bears which feel comfortable with terra ferma (sp?) below their paws.

And with a little earnest practise I bet polar bears could even learn to snag the odd fish swimming upstream, or fake out the lower-IQ'd (or amytropic laterally sclerosed) caribou--even consume the occasional overconfident naturalist photographer, as happened to that bear-country interloper a few years ago. (It's not funny, I know.)

And being members of the same species--no surprise to you, G., but only 'dummy' naturalists-- it is highly unlikely that polar bears will disappear along with a few percentage points of ice--in the event that long-term anthropogenic global warming is indeed a fact, which has not yet been proven--only 90%.

Polar bears don't need to go extinct if the ice recedes. They'll just go for a walk instead.

Was it Farley Mowet who said polar bears used to live down at Cape Cod? I'm on it now.

It is quite amazing that you, G.West would really believe that polar bears really need all that stupid ice in order to survive.(considering your obvious smarts)

There's another seque here, begging for attention: Is there anything good about global warming--if it, in fact, is really anthropogenic? More crops in intemperate zones? Less energy needed for heating homes? Fewer people living in flood zones, like parts of Bangladesh and New Orleans? (Don't be strawmanish, I didn't mean by drowning)

And regarding linearly or fluidly designed argumentation in the CO2-temperature lag in Greenland ice-core samples... If the average temperature of the atmosphere increases, it will result in an increase of evaporation of water from the oceans which will offset the ice that is melting and creating a rise in sea levels, which, in the absence of a contradicting model suggests that it is possible that a net gain in sea level caused by melting ice will be mitigated by increased evaporation. (And what about the cooling effect of evaporation, not to mention cooling cloud cover?) This is unknown, (maybe its completely zero sum) but it's the kind of imprecise modeling I was referring to in prior comments.

It might turn out that warming up the temperature of the earth's atmosphere is not quite as easily accomplished as presently consensed by the global warming consensors.

Anyhow, the 90% certainty is undoubtedly premature.

And by the way, G.West, it was the warmers who brought in the polar bear extinction issue, so contrarily to what you're saying, it MUST be important, wouldn't you say?

I think it's even one of the gore values.

You're kidding, of course, Africa elephants..

African elephants and Indian elephants do not share the same continent, G.West. Brown bears, grizzlies and polar bear DO.

Know what I mean?

So it's not just a matter (for elephants to cohabitate together (notice that tautology--'cohabitate together' or adapt to each other's habitat) of walking back to dry land--as it is for polar bears, which as we know, are genetically almost identical to bears which feel comfortable with terra ferma (sp?) below their paws.

And with a little earnest practise I bet polar bears could even learn to snag the odd fish swimming upstream, or fake out the lower-IQ'd (or amytropic laterally sclerosed) caribou--even consume the occasional overconfident naturalist photographer, as happened to that bear-country interloper a few years ago. (It's not funny, I know.)

And being members of the same species--no surprise to you, G., but only 'dummy' naturalists-- it is highly unlikely that polar bears will disappear along with a few percentage points of ice--in the event that long-term anthropogenic global warming is indeed a fact, which has not yet been proven--only 90%.

Polar bears don't need to go extinct if the ice recedes. They'll just go for a walk instead.

Was it Farley Mowet who said polar bears used to live down at Cape Cod? I'm on it now.

It is quite amazing that you, G.West would really believe that polar bears really need all that stupid ice in order to survive.(considering your obvious smarts)

There's another seque here, begging for attention: Is there anything good about global warming--if it, in fact, is really anthropogenic? More crops in intemperate zones? Less energy needed for heating homes? Fewer people living in flood zones, like parts of Bangladesh and New Orleans? (Don't be strawmanish, I didn't mean by drowning)

And regarding linearly or fluidly designed argumentation in the CO2-temperature lag in Greenland ice-core samples... If the average temperature of the atmosphere increases, it will result in an increase of evaporation of water from the oceans which will offset the ice that is melting and creating a rise in sea levels, which, in the absence of a contradicting model suggests that it is possible that a net gain in sea level caused by melting ice will be mitigated by increased evaporation. (And what about the cooling effect of evaporation, not to mention cooling cloud cover?) This is unknown, (maybe its completely zero sum) but it's the kind of imprecise modeling I was referring to in prior comments.

It might turn out that warming up the temperature of the earth's atmosphere is not quite as easily accomplished as presently consensed by the global warming consensors.

Anyhow, the 90% certainty is undoubtedly premature.

And by the way, G.West, it was the warmers who brought in the polar bear extinction issue, so contrarily to what you're saying, it MUST be important, wouldn't you say?

I think it's even one of the gore values.

You're kidding, of course, Africa elephants..

African elephants and Indian elephants do not share the same continent, G.West. Brown bears, grizzlies and polar bear DO.

Know what I mean?

So it's not just a matter (for elephants to cohabitate together (notice that tautology--'cohabitate together' or adapt to each other's habitat) of walking back to dry land--as it is for polar bears, which as we know, are genetically almost identical to bears which feel comfortable with terra ferma (sp?) below their paws.

And with a little earnest practise I bet polar bears could even learn to snag the odd fish swimming upstream, or fake out the lower-IQ'd (or amytropic laterally sclerosed) caribou--even consume the occasional overconfident naturalist photographer, as happened to that bear-country interloper a few years ago. (It's not funny, I know.)

And being members of the same species--no surprise to you, G., but only 'dummy' naturalists-- it is highly unlikely that polar bears will disappear along with a few percentage points of ice--in the event that long-term anthropogenic global warming is indeed a fact, which has not yet been proven--only 90%.

Polar bears don't need to go extinct if the ice recedes. They'll just go for a walk instead.

Was it Farley Mowet who said polar bears used to live down at Cape Cod? I'm on it now.

It is quite amazing that you, G.West would really believe that polar bears really need all that stupid ice in order to survive.(considering your obvious smarts)

There's another seque here, begging for attention: Is there anything good about global warming--if it, in fact, is really anthropogenic? More crops in intemperate zones? Less energy needed for heating homes? Fewer people living in flood zones, like parts of Bangladesh and New Orleans? (Don't be strawmanish, I didn't mean by drowning)

And regarding linearly or fluidly designed argumentation in the CO2-temperature lag in Greenland ice-core samples... If the average temperature of the atmosphere increases, it will result in an increase of evaporation of water from the oceans which will offset the ice that is melting and creating a rise in sea levels, which, in the absence of a contradicting model suggests that it is possible that a net gain in sea level caused by melting ice will be mitigated by increased evaporation. (And what about the cooling effect of evaporation, not to mention cooling cloud cover?) This is unknown, (maybe its completely zero sum) but it's the kind of imprecise modeling I was referring to in prior comments.

It might turn out that warming up the temperature of the earth's atmosphere is not quite as easily accomplished as presently consensed by the global warming consensors.

Anyhow, the 90% certainty is undoubtedly premature.

And by the way, G.West, it was the warmers who brought in the polar bear extinction issue, so contrarily to what you're saying, it MUST be important, wouldn't you say?

I think it's even one of the gore values.

You're kidding, of course, Africa elephants..

African elephants and Indian elephants do not share the same continent, G.West. Brown bears, grizzlies and polar bear DO.

Know what I mean?

So it's not just a matter (for elephants to cohabitate together (notice that tautology--'cohabitate together' or adapt to each other's habitat) of walking back to dry land--as it is for polar bears, which as we know, are genetically almost identical to bears which feel comfortable with terra ferma (sp?) below their paws.

And with a little earnest practise I bet polar bears could even learn to snag the odd fish swimming upstream, or fake out the lower-IQ'd (or amytropic laterally sclerosed) caribou--even consume the occasional overconfident naturalist photographer, as happened to that bear-country interloper a few years ago. (It's not funny, I know.)

And being members of the same species--no surprise to you, G., but only 'dummy' naturalists-- it is highly unlikely that polar bears will disappear along with a few percentage points of ice--in the event that long-term anthropogenic global warming is indeed a fact, which has not yet been proven--only 90%.

Polar bears don't need to go extinct if the ice recedes. They'll just go for a walk instead.

Was it Farley Mowet who said polar bears used to live down at Cape Cod? I'm on it now.

It is quite amazing that you, G.West would really believe that polar bears really need all that stupid ice in order to survive.(considering your obvious smarts)

There's another seque here, begging for attention: Is there anything good about global warming--if it, in fact, is really anthropogenic? More crops in intemperate zones? Less energy needed for heating homes? Fewer people living in flood zones, like parts of Bangladesh and New Orleans? (Don't be strawmanish, I didn't mean by drowning)

And regarding linearly or fluidly designed argumentation in the CO2-temperature lag in Greenland ice-core samples... If the average temperature of the atmosphere increases, it will result in an increase of evaporation of water from the oceans which will offset the ice that is melting and creating a rise in sea levels, which, in the absence of a contradicting model suggests that it is possible that a net gain in sea level caused by melting ice will be mitigated by increased evaporation. (And what about the cooling effect of evaporation, not to mention cooling cloud cover?) This is unknown, (maybe its completely zero sum) but it's the kind of imprecise modeling I was referring to in prior comments.

It might turn out that warming up the temperature of the earth's atmosphere is not quite as easily accomplished as presently consensed by the global warming consensors.

Anyhow, the 90% certainty is undoubtedly premature.

And by the way, G.West, it was the warmers who brought in the polar bear extinction issue, so contrarily to what you're saying, it MUST be important, wouldn't you say?

I think it's even one of the gore values.

Sorry for the repetition, my mistake

Did G.West really whine that I'm too mean for poking fun at his lack of knowledge of bears? Has anyone ever read G.West's zillions of sometimes quite good--often witty and well-earned--put downs of posters here at the Tyee?

Now he's comparing me to Terry Glavin, even.

Truman

I just tried to phone you but apparently your phone won't talk to me...How do I get around that? 6:48pm

Phone works fine, G. but...

So anyways, G.West-Alcibiades, my phone works just fine, but don't phone, eh. Why not just continue your objections to my hilarious global warming commentary right here on the forum. I've had no editorial email suggesting I'm over kilobyting my share of space, so continue...

I thought my last post was really funny. Did you?

In fact that's one thing I'm going to complain to Mr. Beers about. No matter how hard I try to be funny, nobody ever laughs. It's just not fair.

Nope, sorry

I'm tired of having what I say and the way I say it misconstrued. I'll try to phone again and hope it rings through this time.
8:58

G.West, don't phone me.

G.West-Alcibiades, I asked you not to call and I see by my call display that you called me and left a message and your name and phone number. Any further calls to my number will be considered as harrassment.
And I don't appreciate the tone of your last comment about being tired of having your comments misconstrued. Sounds (borderline) like some kind of a threat to me.

We've all critiqued each others' commentary with disdain and sarcasm on this forum and for you to be complaining about it now is totally uncalled for.

You've done at least your share and you know it.

Don't worry Truman

I won't call back. You've entirely misconstrued why I wanted to reach you. The ball is in your court and I'm not interested in harassing anyone (you might want to listen to the voice mail I left if you're confused).

But I won't apologize for something I didn't do, say, or intend.

Cheers.