Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Are scientists evolving into climate crusaders?

ANNE MCILROY

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:33 AM EDT 25/01/08

Warnings of warming dangers have become increasingly dramatic ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes: Story: 'One of the reasons he speaks out, he said, is that global-warming skeptics, or "denialists" as he calls them, get so much attention from the media even though they are a minority -- perhaps 5 per cent -- among climate experts.'

    Which media would it be that provide so much coverage of those who question the notion that CO2 is the prime cause of global warming / climate change? Which Canadian media would it be that provide any coverage of the subject at all -- other than running propaganda from Kyoto-ists that never quite gets around to stating any facts (like the astronomical costs for barely noticeable achievements)? And it's not difficult to suggest that a majority of 'scientists' are Kyoto-ists when only Kyoto-ists are published by the key IPCC-anointed 'science' journals, so only the notions of Kyoto-ists are considered by the all-wise, world-travelling, luxury-loving bureaucrats of the IPCC.

    And -- to the point -- if scientifically illiterate mediots choose to publish only apocalyptically awful bad news, who can blame a 'scientist' who wants publicity and concommitant funding for playing the mediots' stupid game?
  2. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Finally, an article questioning the zealotry and cult-like fear mongering of these new "Crusaders". It is time for a calm and reasoned debate instead of fanatical hijacking of the agenda. I believe this was beginning to backfire on them anyway. The more they screamed "wolf" the more people started to question their motives. This is a good thing.
  3. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: A lot of the "Crusaders" will use their "children" and "grandchildren's" future as a poignant reason to sway the argument. We should ask ourselves, "How is this affecting children now?" Being constantly bombarded with apocalyptic scenarios and one-sided brainwashing must surely be having an effect on many.
  4. jiri Z from Canada writes: As people gradually turn away from the notions of God omnipotent and towards atheism, they need to fill the "I believe" void. The global warming has given these poor souls another belief system to worship.

    Like traditional religious zealots they have crossed the point where any real proof is needed to believe. Equivalents of Lourdes, blood-weeping Madonnas and visions of all kinds are now coming to new priests of the envirocult.

    The witchhunt is already in progress.
  5. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Whatever you do......don't publish CARTOONS about them, or we'll have rioting in the streets, 'Extreme Weather' Fatwas, and 'Deniers' having the throats cut on video.

    Hey...Wait up....that sounds oddly familiar.
  6. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Why is it that the group of 20 Canadian scientists plus the 40 scientists from other countries who cautioned the Canadian Government about squandering billions on global warming are dismissed in this article as " skeptics ".
  7. Max Nemo from Ottawa, Canada writes: I believe no matter what we do (read: our political leaders do) our great grandchildren are doomed. The decision makers (CEO, politicos) must understand this: their offspring will be affected too and there is nowhere to hide from it. We ALL breath the same air.
  8. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Mike Bellows: The answer to your question why the 60 scientists are labelled "skeptics" can be found in their co-signed letter:

    "... there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change ..."

    www.desmogblog.com provides some insight on the individual signers and the stakes they each have in their position.
  9. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: It's truly boggles the mind (of citizens, including myself) at the degree of complacency shown when it comes to taking action to slow down events that could cause climate change. So when we hear scientists speaking out, don't they as concerned citizens have the right to do so?
  10. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Lets get some reason into this "charge over the cliff" by the sheep about Global Warming. It doesn't really matter as long as Governments clean up the planet. I like the thought that Global Warming new religion is waking up the public to a world pollution problem. Now the failure to act is being hijacked by discussing whether it exist or not. This discussion is similar to the stupid discussion about religion, and probably has about as much science involved, but I digress.

    Everybody will agreed 100%, that pollution of land, air and water is very harmful. Let us, government, clamp down hard on POLLUTION of all types with strong deterent action. Clean up; and the Global Warming issue will be addressed by default. Stop the stupid discussion about Global Warming.

    My thrust is not to dispute the media driven Global Warming agenda, but to force the issue about cleaning up pollution. Start with Canada's coal fired generating stations, and direct attention to the Alberta Tar Sands. Then start working on the automobile.

    This must be a plan and legislation consistant with good economic planning. Cold calculated planning with the removal of the public hysteria should be the route taken.

    Durgan.
  11. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: I hope that the doomsayer are wrong. If they are right then I am glad that they are talking out about it openly. If they aren't wrong then I am, as I have been doing, going to make sure to push for the reductions that are required. There are twenty five years of driving that I didn't put into the atmosphere. I still get around with public transportation. I am hoping for the day when people's attitudes will be such that "drive to work on Fridays" becomes the norm and not the exception. Anyone that says that we can't do it just wants to drive their cars around to show off their style in the suburban neighbourhoods that they live in. Glad they're speaking out. Hope they're wrong but things don't look like it.
  12. Brad Arnold from St Louis Park, United States writes: "But he isn't an advocate, he said, because he isn't telling governments how to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, only that cuts are necessary." Actually, cutting greenhouse gas emissions isn't a solution, because soon the warming earth will start emitting far more than humans. Carbon sinks will become carbon emitters big-time. If you doubt this, I suggest you investigate "methane hydrate" (400 billion tons in the permafrost, 10,000 billion tons under the ocean, a sudden release of less than 30 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 in the air). Instead, I advocate removing the greenhouse gases from the environment after they've been emitted. Nature already removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions, although that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030, while mankind's CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2050. I suggest bio-sequestration, using microbes to "eat" the CO2 and CH4, perhaps enhancing them using genetic engineering, and seeding them into the ocean. By the way, I doubt it is realistic to expect mankind to so dramatically cut their greenhouse emissions so fast as to avoid runaway global warming. What you'll probably see is governments cutting the increasing rate at which they pollute, not real reductions but reductions in the rate of increase. Too little, too late.
  13. Luft Isanidiot from Canada writes: Its sad that scientist have to put sooo much effort to inform us when the rest of the world likes to accept facts about global warming. We in North America have to continue to show our stupidity over all as a population and buy into Oil company funded scientists. We need to do something...ITS A FACT that global warming is happening and you poor cons are just going to have to accept it very soon.
  14. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: "I hope that the doomsayer are wrong.".......... If it's any consolation, they haven't been right yet. From the new "ice age" to the "Y2k scare" to just last year's "hurricane season".
  15. mondo pinion from Canada writes: There is a 99 percent probability that in only 150 years
    everyone alive on earth today will be dead.
    Humour aside, I wholeheartedly agree with James Young. Yes, it is sad to watch the lemmings being herded into a politically-correct weather watch, but if it leads to a general environmental awareness, well and good. I believe we have much more serious problems to deal with than climate change. The chemical storms which are assaulting all life on earth scare me a lot more, and I would rather see my grandchildren die of a weather event than of cancer. Worse yet than chemical poisons, the potentials of genetic engineering in the hands of corporations, immune to democratic controls, are simply horrifying. Frankly -- and I know I will be vilified for this -- I see the climate changes as hopeful, as they hold the promise of waking people up to greater threats.
  16. David Brubacher from Canada writes: Why do the "global-warming scientists" ignore the 1000 year warming/cooling cycle? It indicates that the warming will peak in the next 100 years and that the Earth will then start to cool. It also indicates that to date this cycle is more moderate than in the past.

    Do you think it has anything to do with that many of them would need to find new jobs if this self-feeding "industry" burst?
  17. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: I wonder what those crusaders (including some media you know well) will say in 15 or 25 years if this warming cycle stabilizes and turns around, proving it is yet another micro-cycle in the Earth's 4.6 billion years climate history. Ha, I know: they will say 'thanks to our action'... or they will just stay mum or even more probable, they will start a new religion based on some new smoking 'evidence'.

    By the way, the first few comments today are delicious. You made my day.
  18. J G from Whitby, Canada writes: If people don't agree with global warming then let's at least agree dumping raw sewage from cities like Toronto, Halifax, Victoria etc into our waterways is wrong and dangerous; let us at least agree that large commercial farms polluting the land and underground water systems is stupid; let us at least agree that the air we breathe is toxic to a similar extent that second hand smoke is dangerous... (I can avoid second hand smpke but must breathe) and let's agree asthma and thousands of prmature deaths due to poor air quality are some of the many problems we face when it comes to pollution. Assuming we agree...let's do something.
  19. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: One more time. More than 80% of the "green house effect" is due to water vapour. The increase in the sun's output causes evaporation to increase and causes the "green house effect". We should all send an e-mail to the Sun God to protest the inevitable. As much as we see ourselves as important in "global warming" we have to acknowledge we are insignificent. All the Al Gores, Elizabeth Mays and Jack Laytons can't turn off the sun. We can throw billions of dollars at this supposed problem and get nothing in return. Why is the auto industry exempted from Kyoto? When you see a beautiful clear blue summer sky destroyed by "con-trails" of jet aircraft, do you wonder if this may be contributing to "global warming"? Apparently, 3.5% of all green house gasses are produced by aircraft. Guess what, aircraft as well as the Canadian auto industry is exempt from the Kyoto Accord. Just as the majority of Federal civil service jobs are designated "bilingual imperative" there is no such designation for any political position anywhere in Canada. The reason "minority rights" are so important in Canada is that the "rich" and "politicians" are a minority.
    It's time to re-write the dictionary, "Scammed",def. to be Enron'd, Nortel'd, Kyoto'd
  20. Brian Lowry from Fredericton, Canada writes: Clem Brown -- if your facts were any more misguided, you'd be claiming the Earth was flat... yes, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, but as you may have noticed, there is a fairly quick water cycle on this planet (takes months to years to adjust to changes), with vast stores of liquid and solid water. So long as Antarctica is cold and covered in ice, it would be very difficult for the atmospheric levels of water vapour to rise much (and so long as the oceans are warm they won't fall much, either). The same is not true of carbon dioxide, with no significant stores (certainly not of pure solid carbon dioxide), and with a very slow cycle that takes centuries to adjust to changes. Get your science right before shooting your mouth off ignorantly.
  21. george carlin from Houston, United States writes: Gee, does this mean the G&M has figured out that some people might, um, exaggerate, or even (heaven forbid) make stuff up to push their agenda? You'd think when that work of fiction An Inconvenient Truth was made by the ol' serial fibber Al (I invented the Internet) Gore, a lightbulb would have gone off.
  22. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Reminds me of the scientist who said living near electrical wires, electrical fields results in two-headed cows and other serious side effects. Well that guy turned out to have falsieifed his data.

    This Global Warming BS will go down with all of the Lefty Liberal bogus events that never happened. The Looney lefty liberals want to scare you into accepting a Nanny state that they will run. Don't forget liberals still approve of how Stalen ruled Russia. Don't let it happen hear.

    Also, global warming would be better for Canada:

    1) longer growing season
    2) less fossel fuels spent on heating homes in the winter.
    3) less people dying in the winter due to flu, colds.
    4) less people dying due to a lack of exercise, warmer temps would allow more people to be outdoors.

    The list goes on and on why even if the BS Global Warming was real it is in Canada's benefit for it to be allowed to happen.
  23. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: I'm still waiting for scientists to explain why there is global warming on other planets in our solar system as well...like Mars. While man made emissions contributes to the problem, it may be simplistic to say it is the only factor. There are no coal fired plants or automobiles on Mars and yet it's polar ice caps are also melting at a rapid pace.I suspect that the Sun is playing a role here as well by warming up the planet and with additional CO2 in the atmosphere, we are seeing the greenhouse affect accelerate.
  24. d w from Canada writes: The glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. Why are people so alarmed about global warming, when its been going on for thousands of years. The so called link to increased production of CO2 by humans is extremely suspect.
  25. Dark Green from Holguin, Cuba writes: This article is a masterpiece on ATTITUDES and MOTIVATION. 1. "And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?" the minister asked. "Why would we do this?" -- Can one make oneself in any way more despicable? 2. "... he felt strongly that researchers -- especially those working for the government -- could explain the science of global warming, but not push a course of action. " -- Are there still not Canadians prosecuted for neglecting to assist people in danger? What if a guilty motorist alleged, in court, that he thought his responsibility, on the scene, was limited exclusively to "explaining" to the passer-bys how the accident happened?... 3. "The letter the three helped draft and circulate was signed by 90 scientists and sent to Mr. Harper in April, calling on him to develop a national climate-change strategy.... there was some unhappiness among senior bureaucrats that the letter advocated action -- As a citizen, "think" (and talk) all you want, but do not act. Never advocate (never call for) action. I submit it is such a neurotic attitude that can lead to the destruction of nature and of societies. 4. He says it feels good to speak his mind. "It feels like the right thing to do." -- Feels good to read that. There is indeed humanity and courage here to celebrate.
  26. Grant Parr from St. John's, Canada writes: In response to Alexander Dryden, it is a fact that half of articles printed in mainstream media deny the effects of global warming while only 5% of those in scientific journals deny the effects of global warming. I do not recall exactly where I read or heard this fact, it may have been from Al Gore's film.
  27. Grant Parr from St. John's, Canada writes: In response to d w from Canada, it is so alarming because a vast majority of the human population live within a few short miles of the ocean. The melting of the Greenland ice cap alone would cause a rise in sea level of 20 feet. Imagine the people displaced by this event and the infrastructure destroyed. If you looked at a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere verus time for the last 2000 years you would probably be alarmed too.
  28. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: George Carlin: The scientists over at realclimate.org have verified the science behind An Inconvenient Truth. As one put it, "this is an advocacy movie, not a journal article, and Gore clearly believes something must be done and is going to present the science in as compelling (while honest) a way as possible in order to make that case." And as an American, I'd think you would know that Gore never stated "I created the internet". What he said was "I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
  29. J Tittle from Canada writes: Pete Kauchak ; Your gonna wait a very long time for them to explain anything. Heres a few more questions you can ask. Did these guys pass high school chemistry??? Don't they know that the primary "green house" gases are heavier than air and fall? A green house has to be above the ground to work... not at ground level. Also, there is a known and proven method of reducing climate change that will show results in a matter of days. Remember when the grounded all jet travel after 9/11??? Well, there are some scientists who suggested that eliminating jet travel would correct any greenhouse induced problems. On 9/11, it started to have an effect within 3 DAYS!!! But heaven forbid you cancel air travel. How will the "environmentalist" ( driving his out of tune Volvo belching more smoke in one day than a 1 ton diesel truck in its working life ) get to his next vacation ... er I mean conference... without jet travel???
  30. Barry Davidson from Peterborough, Canada writes: Mike Bellows asks: Why is it that the group of 20 Canadian scientists plus the 40 scientists from other countries who cautioned the Canadian Government about squandering billions on global warming are dismissed in this article as " skeptics ".

    Mike, go to http://www.desmogblog.com/ and find out.
  31. harper scares me _ from Canada writes: people who thought the earth was round used to be viewed as skeptics.
  32. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: The reason the 60 signatories of the letter to Harper are dismissed as 'skeptics' is because its those 60 against the 2500 reviewers and 800 authours who contiributed to and approve of the finding in the IPCC report on climate change.
    It is this tiny group who are hanging on to their religion in a cultist manner. The concerned majority of logical thinkers who recognize the science behind global warming caused by greenhouse gas emmisions and who are calling for sociental changes to combat this danger are not the one crying wolf as Dave Medich would have you believe. How many times have I heard "we can't reduce our emmisions without destroying our economy"? It seems the hlobal warming deniers have there own chicken little.
  33. Mark Peters from Nova Scotia, writes: Nobody denies that our planet is undergoing climate change. There is significant disagreement as to the source of this change, however, and it is here that the media in particular have been complicit in presenting only one side of the story -- the one that argues human activity is the catalyst -- and promulgating the hysteria flowing from the likes of "climate crusaders" like Dr. McBean.

    I don't believe for a second that Dr. McBean is on his crusade simply for the future of his grandchildren. He and his ilk are on their warpath because they have dollar signs in their eyes, and ramping up hysteria about the possible effects of climate change and who needs to be punished for it can only serve to line his pockets. If governments take on global warming or the environment as their primary focus, environmentalists and climatologists stand to make a literal fortune.

    And, yes, even scientists have a price.
  34. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Of course they've got to be more dramatic. The only way to get people to do anything is to scare them - people are going to make money off of "climate change" intiatives, whether it's the governments through carbon credits and new taxes, or industry looking to jump on the bandwagon. No one is doing this for free - question that.
  35. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Glen Murtz from Vancouver......... Bravo! Your post is as good as any to prove that the new "Crusade" can turn people into raving lunatics. Reverse psychology maybe?
  36. Ed Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: I gave those liers about global warming a name. GAS! Global Alarmists Society. If you want an intesting read, go to: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00306.htm or, http://epw.senate.gov./fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711. I strongly urge all reporters and editors of newspapers to read it too.
  37. expat living in Japan from Canada writes: The lack of scientific understanding and number of personal attacks regarding political motivation expressed by a majority of the posters in this forum is astonishing. I'm almost embarrassed to be Cndn. How many posters here can say that they have read, much less understood, even ONE scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal prior to making statement such as "who can blame a 'scientist' who wants publicity and concommitant funding for playing the mediots' stupid game", "global warming has given these poor souls another belief system to worship", "Why do the "global-warming scientists" ignore the 1000 year warming/cooling cycle?", just to name a few? Scientific debate and belief in scientific conclusions is remarkably similar to generating beliefs about anything else. Why do you believe that company X is the best investment? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that company to recognize that it is going to be profitable in at least the near future. Why do you believe that vehicle Y is the best vehicle to purchase? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that vehicle to recognize that it's going to satisfy your needs. Why do you believe that political leader Z is the best leader to vote for? Because (hopefully) you've done the research into that leader and his party to recognize that they have goals and propose means to achieving those goals that are agreeable to you. Would you invest all of your money into a company merely because someone states that this is the best company to invest in? Would you purchase a vehicle merely because someone states that this is the best vehicle to purchase? etc. etc.? Scientific beliefs are no different. I beg all of the posters here. Please, 1) do the research, 2) understand the science, and then 3) voice your opinion/skepticism against the science, not the people. Attacking an argument in the other direction (3 to 1) provides absolutely no reason to accept your belief.
  38. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: To Ed Martin - so a US politician is the best source of information you have? How about getting some real research from real scientists? I know you could start by reading the IPCC report.
  39. c b from Canada writes: Wow, first global cooling, then killer bees and next the apocalyptic phrophecy of Y2K, I'm not sure that I can handle the consequences of this killer CO2 cloud. Back into the bomb shelter for me until the MSM sounds the all-clear horn.
  40. Duncan Luciak from Canada writes: It's laughable that there is talk of reductions of carbon emissions in 2050. Somehow, I don't think that will be a problem. Check that. By then, we will be chewing our way through our coal supplies.
  41. Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: I love how people point to http://www.desmogblog.com/ as reason to ignore the letter that 60 scientists wrote to Harper regarding climate change. I went through their website. They have 17 of the 61 people who signed it listed. I wonder whatever happened to the other 44 people. They must not have found enough info on Dr. M. R. Morgan, who is a climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization, and previously a research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K. - to include him on their list. Regardless, out of those 17 people on their website I found 8 with some kind of tie to the energy industry. 8 out of 61! And we are told that the group that signed this letter is filled with people funded with oil money? Perhaps we should go through the scientists that are claiming climate change is 100% human caused, as see where they are getting their money from. Or perhaps people think scientists can't be influenced by the hand that feeds them? (unless it's oil money that feeds them of course) Let me say, I fully support getting off of fossil fuels. I fully support minimizing environmental degradation. What I disagree with is science being misrepresented in order to fulfill a cause (even if it is a worthwhile cause). I do not believe the ends justify the means, and it's no different here.
  42. M. I. AM from Guelph, Canada writes: Are scientists evolving into climate crusaders?
    No, they are just playing follow the leader. try this website and you will see..

    www.businessandmedia/specialreports/2006/fireandice
  43. nicholas clague from Truro, Canada writes: Burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem. We are cutting down too many trees! Trees are a huge resevoir of carbon. I walk past my neighours gardens and wonder why they don't plant trees in their gardens if they have the space. Particularly if they have children and grandchildren they care about. Don't expect the politicians to solve this problem. We are all responsible .
    To coin something Bill Clinton might have said "PLANT A TREE STUPID!"
    So start a campaign in your own neighbourhood. Get your neighbours involved now.
  44. Mathew Smith from writes: Whether I agree with Kyoto or not, or with the Conservative Government's policy towards greenhouse gases or not; I will say this, it deeply concerns me that we have a politician high enough in position that they attended the retreat and actually said "Why would we do this?".... like global warming is not their problem. Far too many people share that sentiment.

    How can it benefit me should not be the sole reason for acting, particularly by an elected representative of the people who should do what is deemed best for the people even if the people don't know it and it means they do not get re-elected. An idealistic view but imagine possibilities.
  45. Mike McFee from Ottawa, Canada writes: Not to mention the media spin that is put on every environmental issue on radio, tv and paper..... According to the media, "the sky is falling"...... Maybe they should do a little research before spouting off....
  46. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, ON, Canada writes: I can only shake my head and muse that these 'denialists' are as short-sighted, narrow-minded and right-wing as those who fought against Universal Health Care in Canada, opposed feminism, denied the harm of tobacco, labelled as looney those of us in the 1970's who advocated recycling, denied the threat of fascism in the 1930s, and warned against the extremism of abolishing slavery ( " It will cost the economy billions!")

    Follow the money. See who is behind those who deny global climate change and its dire consequences. Those who make money from oil dependency, nicotine addiction, expensive treatment but no cure for AIDS, are teh people who will destroy the planet tomorrow for a buck today.

    In whose hands will you place the future? Dr. David Suzuki or Conrad Black?
  47. mogens bay from Canada writes: At 76 I have ben told about 15 times, by the media, this is the end.
    Bird flue, mad cow, Y2k, starving to death supposedly in the next 10 years, and on and on. Now with Canada polluting amounting to about 2 % and with China and India not under any obligations, it seems we must be extra hard at work. No airplanes, cars, factories, power plants and so on. Or like me, I gave up listening to 90% of the news.
  48. Ian in Ottawa from Canuckistan, Canada writes: If envirofascists are so convinced that humans are a direct cause of Glo-bull warming, why does every solution envolve the purchase and selling of carbon credits? That just red flags it for the scam that it is.

    If these envirofascists want to be taken seriously, come up with real solutions that don't involve sending taxpayer's money to such "developing" countries such as China.
  49. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I am not sure what the point of this article is. It has a "shoot the messenger" quality about it.

    I think the reason the scientists have become "dramatic" about the problem of climate change has more to do with the inaction of politicians. Why would a politician risk putting pollution controls in place and accelerating the rate of research for energy alternatives when the impact on reversing global warming delayed by decades?

    If by being "dramatic", these scientists have raised awareness that our current economy will poison and damage our own environment, they have done their duty as scientists.

    The problem is that re-engineering the economy to be less polluting will take time. But the time to start the process is now. Delaying the action adds to the cost of repair in the future. Most reasonable intelligent people should see that.

    I can see from the board that there are are a certain percent of people who have a dodo bird mentality though. They don't care about the future of humanity, as long as they can drive their Humvees now, but I think the public opinion polls make it clear that the dodos are a minority. If it means we have to deprive the dodos of their humvees, so be it.
  50. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Like the old snake oil salesmen, when no one is buying your useless product, the level of claims about the power of the product and the claims about what sorts of evils will befall you if you don't buy the product become more and more shrill and absurd. It is the same with these chicken littles....of course, they also don't want their funding to dry up so they can continue with their "research". The biggest scam in human history (with the possible exception of the concept of communism).
  51. Susie Q from Canada writes: I'm surprised that so many Canadians deny the affects of our over-indulgent lifestyle on the planet. You cannot possibly believe that our wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, devestation to our land and poisoning of our fresh water will not affect quality of life on this planet. Whether serious climate change happens in our lifetime, or 100 years from now, it will happen.
  52. r z from Edmonton, Canada writes: Lesson to all.....the first reports are "sensationalistic"-driven.

    The truth is boring, so it won't get printed until everyone is driven to distraction by someone else's fear-mongering.

    Take everything you read and hear with a grain of salt.

    Never in mankind's history has man been able to determine the future. Nor do we have the capability now.
  53. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: There are LOTS of scientists who say that NOTHING significant is happening -- who agree with the right-wing position . . . . right ? It's just that the Evil Godless Heathen Librul Media is PREVENTING them them from being heard. . . . right ?
  54. Peter Van de Reep from Vancouver, Canada writes: The amount of people who think they know the science behind global warming and climate change is baffling. How many of you get your "science" from the Globe and Mail or other less reputable newspapers? Read some peer-reviewed journals. Your local university or college should have a bunch.

    I am afraid for the future as a student at UBC's Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences. My only hope is that my generation understands the situation. Older generations will pass and halt their ignorant influence over the ways of the only world we have.
  55. Keith Whelpdale from Calgary, Canada writes: To r z from Edmonton. of course we are not able to predict the future. That however is no reason for inaction. We know from the past that at no time in the last 400 thousand years has the level of CO2 been this high (380 PPM). Scientists suspect that the same is true for the past 30 million years when it may have gone as high as 500 PPM. Now at that time crocodiles swam off the coasts of Greenland and Antartica was a pine forest. However, the natural carbon cycle takes millions of years to do what human activity will accomplish in a couple centuries.
    So if we continue on this course what will the earth be like when CO2 hits 1000 PPM? Of course no one knows, but it is unlikely that any surprises will all be good news.
  56. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: There's a saying, from the Talmud, I believe.......... "If you want to leave something behind, write a book, have children or plant a tree" ......... I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would have a problem with a national "tree-planting" project. It could be a collective effort which could actually unite all sides for a common cause. I would be interested to know how big an effect this would have on CO2.
  57. Brian C from Canada writes: With Y2K in our not that distant past, I find it alarming that we've gone from one global disaster prediction to another without skipping a beat. Anyone remember the experts' predicitions? Satellites could lose their guidance systems, crashing to earth. Ocean liners could lose their steering systems, causing them to list and tip over, spilling their cargo of oil and causing an environmental disaster. Financial systems could incorrectly calculate interest, wiping out billions and trillions of wealth, leaving ordinary workers unable to cash their paycheques. Water pumping stations could shut down, leaving major urban centres without water, and hospitals unable to care for the sick. Hydro-electric plants could also shut down, leaving millions of people without heat or a way to cook their food. Many people stored up food, water, clothes, diesel, and bought generators and guns to protect them and their families from their neighbours who could attack them when the power went out and they found themselves freezing to death. My work place even had shelters set up for their "critical" workers so that they and their families had a safe place to live while they worked to bring the companies computers back from a potential crash. All this because many many "experts" were all in agreement of the global repercusions from the world's computer systems crashing, and the naysayers were ridiculed and scorned for their unenlightened, uncaring, and ignorant viewpoints. At least Y2K had an end. I'm afraid this global warming/climate change debate will go on past the next ice age.
  58. Frankie @^_^@ from hamilton, Canada writes: We know what to do
    Make cars as small and efficient as possible----but no
    ban incandescent lighting---but no
    ban lighting and idle computers in offices at night---but no
    make it illegal for stores and office buildings to run air conditioners under a certain temp---but n0
    Replant trees everywhere---but no
    One person in a car,then have to take a bus-----but no
    make city transport free-we are going to give billions away for credits anyway---but no
    charge a yearly enviro tax on cars over a certain horsepower, say 2000, which would go to subsidize free city travel , or those who buy super small cars like the SMART---but no
    Make it illegal for malls to have parking, wanna go,take a bus--
    WE CAN DO LOTS< BUT I THINK IN THE END IT WILL BE----IF IT AFFECTS ME well no
  59. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: I find the opinions of the climate change doubters espoused here sound very much like blind faith. It is analogous to the strident rallying of religious zealots. Must be something about blind faith that leads to peoples need to defend it. Could it be a nagging sensation way down low that, in the face of the evidence, you are wrong? Let me say I believe the consensus opinion of the vast majority of scientists must be given the credence that such an overwhelming accord deserves. Given the lack of substantive evidence to the contrary I have to side with the vast majority of people actually studying the topic. It is plain and simple logic; not blind faith.
  60. Brian C from Canada writes: One other comment. I agree with Ian in Ottawa. If these predictions turn out to be true, which of course they won't, I'm still baffled by this Kyoto solution.

    Here's an analogy. Dion's dog Kyoto poops in his yard. Dion becomes concerned with all the poop collecting in his yard, and he's convinced that the average level of poop collecting in people's yards around the world will cause ocean levels to rise, wiping out billions of peoples' homes and arable land, leaving no clean water to drink or food to eat. Dion's solution is to pay his neighbour so that Kyoto can continue to poop in his yard. Can somebody who's much smarter than me please help me to understand?
  61. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: Ken DeLuca asks: 'In whose hands will you place the future? Dr. David Suzuki or Conrad Black?'

    My answer: neither of them, I resent extremism. It is called BALANCE, mr DeLuca. Any idea of the concept?
  62. Paul F from Toronto, Canada writes: The irony in all the climate-speak is that climatologists keep saying: "reduce ghg's for your childrens' sake". However, if we were really willing to do something for our climate, we'd encourage a more dramatic decrease in the birthrate, because ultimately it is the human footprint that is causing damage to the environment.
  63. B Halton from US, Canada writes: Of course scientists are moving into advocacy. This is not a negative development, given how much resistance they are still meeting.
  64. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: If we do something and we are wrong then we only waste some money. If we do nothing and we turn out to be wrong then the result is extinction. I would rather err on the side of caution. And I would not mind paying more to do this.
  65. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: If Industry has to lobby for softer legislation on environmentally dangerous products and production methods, then why is the electorate ignored, except at election time? It seems to me that the Parties themselves should ask Canadians what the election issues should be. The dumbing-down by the Liberals, when they had the opportunity to really drive this beast into a manageable monster, and then the Conservatives, who had no intent in their latest electoral platform to address environmental issues are the authours of this situation. The environment doesn't give a fig about Political Will, but they better give more than a fig-leaf to the Environment. Trust individual Canadians to find ingenious ways to resolve many contaminating elements of our lifestyles. We can make old cars Environmentally efficient, but the Emission Standards are authoured by Industry. We can reduce our dependency on chemically endangering cleansers and thinners, but the safety codes are drafted by the Chemical industries. We can make safe, light-weight enclosures with cellulose fibres without using petroleum-based plastic resins. But Industry has written the standards. What do the politicians do? They give us pablum motherhoods, rather than announce just how deep they will dig down to take these obstacles out of the way, so new, safe, not safer, methods and materials can be developed. These standards were written by scientists and I find it facetious of them to come forward now, when the very same sector was the key driver to set these old standards and institutionalize them in almost every major Code system we rely on. From Vehicle Emission Standards to the Building Code, specifying dangerous insulation and sealants to coatings and paints. Even medicinal safety standards for the Pharmaceutical industries are practically enshrined into every regulation that addresses even the types of storage equipment. Good that they get concerned. It isn't to perpetuate this mess decades later?
  66. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: To P Martin from St. John's, NL: Thank you for you post. Finally a succinct, clever and rational comment.
  67. Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States writes: To Brian C: Y2K was indeed a predicted disaster waiting to happen. Why was it not? Because people listened to the warnings. Governments and industry spent millions and millions to fix the problem before the critical date, and a (possibly mild) disaster was averted. Was it wrong to heed the warnings? The only thing for sure is that it is much more difficult to fix a chaotic, non-linear and complex system such as the Earth's temperature by dealing with our societal energy consumption than to punctually convince all of our computers that 2000 is not 1900. Why were government and industry so eager to advance a Y2K panic but not to promote the ideas of global warning? Probably they are manifold: (1) it is easier to deal with a punctual problem, (2) governments listen to industry because it carries economic weight, and industry was concerned for its profits which is the reverse of the current situation, (3) resolution and consequence happen within a single administration, again, climate concern is not in the short term politician's interests. Talk to any scientist or even tourist who has been to any of the more severly affected areas of the world and they will tell tou how appalled and scared they are. Rent the movie 'an inconvenient truth' for a smattering of insights into how the climate is changing. Bottom line: more than any quantitative data amassed (and there is a huge amount of that), it is the extremely rapid qualitative changes which we can euphemistically call 'alarming'.
  68. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: J Owen from Calgary.......... "Could it be a nagging sensation way down low that, in the face of the evidence, you are wrong? "............... Actually, in my case, it is a nagging sensation in the face of "all" the evidence and propoganda that "they" are wrong. Face it, they're track record on being "right" isn't that impressive.
  69. FLUVIAL SEDIMENT from Port Alberni, BC, Canada writes: What do you mean, "evolving"?! Scientists have been saying this for decades; it's the big money boys who want to make even more money, quick, that are blocking the initiatives needed to mitigate the effects of climate change. Yes, some of the causes are natural and beyond our control but the way we're managing ourselves we're making it way worse for ourselves.
  70. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Robert Hobbs from Baltimore, United States ............ "To Brian C: Y2K was indeed a predicted disaster waiting to happen. Why was it not? Because people listened to the warnings"................... I don't know about that. All I know is that when I turned on my computer on Jan 1, 2000 it was just like any other day. And that was the case for many of the smaller businesses, individuals and even countries that made no effort on the Y2K panic. Unless, of course, somebody logged onto my computer and fixed it while it was "off".
  71. Matt H from Utopia, Canada writes: The end is nigh! The end is nigh!

    The sky is falling!

    Do something for the CHILDREN!!!! For the GRAND CHILDREN!!!

    The gods are angry! Our mother is angry! Let the virgin sacrifice begin.

    Good grief. Another frightened man doing his best to frighten all the other frightened men.

    This is about fear NOT science.

    If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of shrill people doing their best to scare the general populace. Remember this: governments of reactionairies over-react and make dumb decisions. Think of this as our own generation's new Red Scare. Call it "global climate change McCarthyism".

    Years ago, it was over-population. Last year it was the bird flu. This year, global weather patterns. Next year, red dye #7?

    I'm sure the natives reacted the same way when they first saw Halley's Comet. The real inconvenient truth is that we will always have people filled with fear doing their best to convince others to be afraid of something and sometimes they succeed.

    Remember Y2K?
  72. V ADS from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Climate change is driven by powerful natural forces that are still poorly understood, such as solar cycles. Keep in mind that Canada looked like Greenland just 8,000 years ago. What causes huge ice-sheets over most of North America to advance and retreat on fairly predictable 20,000-year cycles? This is climate change -- not measuring a few years as "the hottest" of the past century.

    Natural drivers of climate change are almost totally ignored in public debate over this issue. We need more good (dispassionate) science and more debate, and less advocacy and rhetoric. We need to examine the geological history of our present Ice Age and apply that knowledge to better understand the natural variability of climate.

    Advocacy scientists betray their profession. Another problem is advocacy journalists who lack balance and write stories based on emotion instead of reason. But the worst disservice to the debate are public relations hacks and their media pawns who label scientists who don't agree with them as "deniers" or in the pocket of oil companies.
  73. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: To Dave Medich from Windsor, I would like to tackle your comment “they're track record on being "right" isn't that impressive.&8221; from several angles. First, who are &8220;they&8221; that have this horrible track record? I doubt there is only one group of scientists. Secondly, why do you say scientists have a bad track record? We now have cars, airplanes, computers, refrigerators, heart transplants and polyester because scientists were right about something. We know that the Earth is not the center of the universe (or is it from a relativity standpoint?). And lastly, from a grammatical standpoint I believe you meant &8220;their track record&8221; and not &8220;they&8217;re (they are?) track record&8221;.
  74. Aaron Treacher from vancouver, Canada writes: Alexander Dryden;
    Your link between kyoto and AGW is not clear. I for one believe the data reflects the latter but thinks the former is a waste of time. You want to do something about it? convince the US (and the rest of us) to incorporate the true cost of environmental degradation into the prices of products (a la Preston Manning). If selling goods in the North American marketplace (and to a lesser extent the European one) is dependant on certain environmental behaviours (or subject to stiff tarriffs) I think you will see a quick improvement in environmental practices. Of course another advantage is that companies would not be able to ditch their manufacturing plants in the USA and reopen in the third world to avoid the EPA or similar regulations.
  75. Darrell Carrigan from Bentley, Canada writes: For many years "End of Days" advocates were little old men with long beards bearing sandwich boards proclaiming: "The End is Near". It is not surprising that they have evolved into ivory tower academics and their acolytes who have taken up the banner, er, board. Also, if we humans, who are so arrogant as to believe we are totally responsible for climate change, are to change back to another age, what point in our history are we trying to revert to and what sacrifices are necessary?
  76. Self confessed curmudgeon from Toronto, Canada writes: To J Luft and Brian C, please keep writing. The harder you try, the closer you will get to actually contributing something intelligent. It's just a matter of time.

    To P. Martin from St. John's NL, thank you for the concise and reasonable statement.

    Even the most short sighted should recognize the damage we have done to the planet in so many ways; the land, water and air is fouled in very obvious ways. Scientists have used data to confirm the damage with sewage in drinking water, air pollution around cities and PCBs on land. So why then, with the majority of scientists with expert status agreeing on climate change do those opposed suggest the science is all wrong?

    To those that think the kool-aid is bad, find someone that can read for you and do some research. Disprove the science and publish.
  77. John D from Canada writes: That we are experiencing global warming is not in question, but the reasons for it are still in question. Green house gases likely play a part in it, so it would be prudent to try to curb output of them. However, as no one knows what the outcome of global warming will be - perhaps global temperatures will stabilize or drop again - does it warrent spending tens or hundreds of billions on this while we have other global issues, like the lack of clean drinking water for over a billion people? If there are issues where we know that we can save thousands or millions of lives, should we not try to address those before we spend billions on issues for which we don't even know what impact we can have?
  78. J Owen from Calgary, Canada writes: My last post is all wrong! My quotation marks all came out as &8221s. They did not translate from my word processor. Further proof these damn scientists can't get anything right.
  79. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ahhh if this is all about our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grand children, then all is fine: let's add the elderly, the disabled... And guys even if the Global warming is in the end a natural occurrence, there will be global cooling and yes, for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and great great grand children and the elderly, the disabled, we will impose sacrifice then... until it warms up again... Who said the perpetuum mobile did not exist?
  80. Dave L from Kingston via Cranbrook, Canada writes: "Global warming is media propaganda." What an ignorent stance to have on an issue that we (each generation since the industrial revolution) will be looked at by future generations as the people who destroyed the planet. It had taken millions of years for life on this planet to evolve (yes, i'm an athiest, i don't believe god created the world) and in a few short centur