Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:27 AM EDT 31/01/07

In stark terms, scientists confirm that climate change is 'unequivocal' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. cd dc from Victoria, Canada writes: Instead of reprinting press releases from scientists whose success at securing grant money relies on scaring the populace with Chicken Little scenarios, why not make an effort to put 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever they're calling it this week into context.
    For instance, global temperatures in a hundred years are forecast to be 1.7 to 4 degrees warmer than now? It might rain more? And storms could be more violent? So what. People might die? People die all the time.
    This is junk science at its worst.
  2. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: I have some questions based on the following that maybe someone can clarify, and that is: We once had an Ice Age a long time; secondly; I understand that the polar ice caps have been melting back for eons. It seems to me that this points to a world that has been warming for a very long time. Are we saying that Global Warming only relates to the impact caused by humans? Or is it the rate of change that is of concern? I consider myself a realist and unless the average person is readily prepared to ride a bike to work - I would go for that - We have little hope of controlling the decision making of all the various states in the world.. Anyway, God has given us only finite amounts of fossil fuel, so we can not burn this stuff forever.
  3. John P from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'So what. People might die? People die all the time.'

    Do you imagine yourself a good person saying things like this? Statements like this pretty much indicate that you're a sociopath. No really... I'm not just saying this to be a goof. Check it out:

    There are ten general symptoms:

    not learning from experience - Yup
    * no sense of responsibility - Yup
    * inability to form meaningful relationships - ?
    * inability to control impulses - ?
    * lack of moral sense - Yup
    * chronically antisocial behavior - Yup
    * no change in behavior after punishment - ?
    * emotional immaturity - Yup
    * lack of guilt - Yup
     self-centeredness - Yup

    Ah well... maybe I'm wrong... maybe it's just them scientitians.
  4. Nam Pham from Toronto, Canada writes: So I guess those green hippies weren't not so crazy afterall ... What's that you say, Prime Minister Harper? Kyoto just a 'socialist scheme'? Climate science, an uncertain theory? Maybe if you'd stop playing in the oil sandbox, you could get started on dealing with matters that Canadians care about.
  5. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: John Mcaffrey:

    Lately Ice Ages have been coming more or less like clockwork every 100,000 years or so, with the ice stage 80% or more of the cycle. We tend to go into ice ages slow and come out fast. The triggers for the cycle are thought to be rhythmic changes in the orbit of the earth, angle of tilt etc. So there is a predictable large scale warming/cooling cycle on the earth. Obviously the next ice age is going to be more devastating to places like Canada then the scariest scariest scenario you can paint from global warming. The next ice age is due in a couple of thousand years.

    As the earth warms up from an ice age CO2 increases by the warming oceans out gassing what they hold in solution. This aids further warming but keep in mind that there is a diminishing return to increasing CO2 since at some point the gas 'saturates' the atmosphere such that it captures all of the outgoing near infrared in the wavelengths that CO2 is effective in adsorbing, in the troposphere. CO2 is already more or less saturated in the approximate infra-red adsorption wavelengths of 2,3 and 5 microns, but not in the upper range of 13-17 microns

    Although it doesn't contribute to much warming past the saturation point, it can still increase since the oceans can out gas it if the warming continues for other reasons which effect the radiative balance of the earth, like cloud cover.

    Regards, BRK
  6. Byron Rottweiller from Canada writes: If these changes are coming anyway based on our activities to date, isn't it too late to change?
  7. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: One more point:

    I see the IPCC is still clinging to the argument that solar irradiance can't change enough to effect climate. I await the details in the 4AR, but the TAR noted potential irradiance changes of 0.1%. If you smooth the line enough that's true but you can see from raw data that the max/mins on the noise can vary in the shorter term by maybe 3 to 4 times that.

    So if the noise has that kind of amplitude, who is to say it doesn't vary a lot more than the claim by the IPCC. We've only had satellites up reading the irradiance above the atmosphere since 1980 or so. Too bad we didn't have satellites up there measuring back in 1850, and maybe this panic over AGW wouldn't be so acute.

    In any case, the IPCC scientists are well aware of the burgeoning evidence for a link between solar eruptive activity and climate, so it is more than a little disingenuous, to use the '5 times' argument on a gullible public.

    The drum beat goes on.....

    Regards, BRK
  8. Greg Rockwell from Canada writes: Quite strange. The article is written as if its contents were a smoking gun in the climate change debate. However, estimates of sea level increases of 28-43 cm hardly seem threatening. Moreover, without the fear of coastal submersion, melting ice could be beneficial as more land becomes habitable. What about fewer, stronger hurricanes? This could be good or bad depending on the magnitude of the reduction in quantity and the increase in strength. That leaves droughts. Well, perhaps water can be stored from the progressively more common storms with heavy precipitation. All in all, this article suggests that climate change might not be the one-sided disaster it is often portrayed as. Finally, what of those predictions of humanity suffering the effects of climate change 1000 years in the future--truly meaningless given the degree of technological advancement that can occur in just 25 years. Hopefully, a more reasonable discourse will resume on this issue before the 'war' on CO2 emission commences.
  9. Mr. Hab from Singapore writes: Thats it neo-con-drathals, just pile into your heap of discarded common sense. As long as you can still drive your SUV to the corner store. And as for Harper....well, enough said.
  10. Wild One from Canada writes: I had thought that this was the place for an intellligent conversation, but from some of the comments posted above I see I was entirely wrong. Probably you need an IQ of, say, about 55 to turn on a computer? I have a feeling that, when warmed not to burn yourselves, some of you would still stick your head into an oven to see for yourselves. Probably you should live in a benevolent autocracy for your own protection.
  11. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: What do the ozone holes have to do with it all? Is there some effect that is there but not accounted for because of the fixation with methane and co2? Somehow? I have this feeling.
  12. Vickky Angstrom from Calgary, Canada writes: Pollution stinks and it is bad for us and our children for a whole bunch of reasons. This is all we need to know. All this debate about the finer points of global warming is just an excuse to avoid building the mass transit this country so desperately needs. Political will? More like political won't!
  13. Wild One from Canada writes: I'm becoming more and more depressed. Previously I'd thought I just had to avoid members of the Flat Earth Society, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Creationists, Vegans and Marmite Eaters in order to keep my grip on sanity, but now I see you're really all around me. Why don't some of you continue this conversation with a lobster? For those of you who don't know what a lobster is, that's another species with very little brain that has great difficulty recognising the effects of a slow but inexorable rise in temperature. You could swap stories and exchange notes as you climb into the pot.
  14. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: So what are politicians going to do? Commision more research to come up with definitice solutions while that 'warming' trend accelerates?
  15. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: We have to figure a way to move the earth farther from the sun. Eventually, the sun will become a red giant and the corona will start to invade our current orbital position. (which could slow the earth and decay its orbit). This current thing is nothing more than a little fart of CO2. Examine the CO2 levels over the long long past. Currently CO2 is around 300 parts per million (0.003 %). The HIGHEST it has ever been is 5000 parts per million (0.5%) Even if its going up 3 ppm per year, it will reach the max again in 4700/3 = 1,566 years. However this, like all systems with a rate constant is buffered. There is no way that the 3ppm per year rate can be sustained, especially since about half of the finite level of oil and gas are gone. If we don't move this little mudball earth to a new venue by the time the sun becomes a red giant, we will lose the bulk of the species (plant and animal) who can't live in an infrared world. We have 12 billion years and the earth isn't small. Forget about the little hydrocarbon flatulence, lets start looking at what we need to do over the next 6 billion years to get it done.
  16. mr. slave from Guelph, Canada writes: my goodness! Yet another global warming story. Yawwwwnnnnn. Yes, the sky is falling and we're all going to die. Is there anything else that is newsworthy to write about?
  17. Silvio Caldera from New Westminster, Canada writes: Hello folks, bottom line is that we are raping this earth in pieces by utilizing too much of its resources and I believe that any one commenting on this issue can agree with that. Living under a style of abundance it’s just not sustainable and I am not a pro/con science or pro/con politics&8230;I am just an adult with a loving family that cares how my actions affect other people and the rest of the world. This article sounds scary and I hate how the media uses fear to get our attention... I am not convinced with the report&8217;s findings, predictions, and &8220;temporary conclusion&8221; and I bet the scientists aren&8217;t certain either but they sure have a great argument.

    No suggestions&8230; just comments,

    Cheers
  18. Mike of Arabia from Halifax, United Arab Emirates writes: My god!!!!! Why couldn't they tell us sooner? How can they just spring this on us with no warning at all? This can't be for real!!! If it was real, they would have been telling us about it years ago!!
  19. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: This is worse than I thought. We should immediately shut down all factories and the oil and gas industry until we have a solid plan. No new industry or expansion must be allowed. Gas rationing should be implemented. We are at war!
  20. Brian Havelock from Winnipeg, Canada writes: It's time that Steve Harper and his attack dog John Baird got off there duffs and showed some real leadership on this most important of issues. For Harper this might be difficult as he is bought and paid for by big oil. In spite of his recent about turn he is a climate change denier from the past. Harper's duplicitous conduct shouldn't fool anyone with an eye on the environment and the smoke and mirrors approach of the so-called Clean Air Act.
  21. Al Faux from Weybridge, United Kingdom writes: Great, let's all agree that Global Warming is a 'certainty', caused by us, solar cycles, whatever. But what, actually, do we do about it? And remember that anything that we decide to do will be objected to by somebody and, in any case, soon subsumed by the ever rising population on Space-ship Earth. And what are we not doing anything about, mainly because of our nutty religions - birth control.
    Sorry guys, it's all over bar the shouting and fighting for what's left. But the Earth will continue, just the human infestation will be gone.........
  22. John Ridout from Canada writes: I wonder if Harper will be as quick and decisive to save the environment as he was trying to save tax dollars? We will never tax income trusts - oops sorry we had to the $500 million will cut into our billions in surpluses!! We will kill Kyoto it's just a socialist plot anyway and besides there is no proof. Oops sorry we had to!!! Get the P/R machine cranked up - tell them whatever you have to because we just have to get re-elected
  23. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, ON, Canada writes: TO: ROOP MISIR

    Actually Roop, the warming trend lately has the appearance of being stalled, considering recent (5 year) trends in troposphere, surface and ocean temperatures.

    Regards, BRK
  24. Dan Weagle from Halifax, Canada writes: Why do these sensationalist stories always have to sound like their trying to pitch something? 'The world's leading scientists..'; good lord could there be more puffery? Were they in the top 1% of the top universities? Couldn't they point out that they were all child prodigies that NASA was keeping an eye on from birth?

    As for Wild One from Canada, if you could just let me know how to avoid the most fanatical of the new wave cults, the Environmentalists, I'd be pleased to turn my computer off and stop blogging...that said, with my 55 IQ I'm gonna need a little help. You are sad.
  25. Dan Weagle from Halifax, Canada writes: Oh yeah, 1 other thing....according to this report we'll have almost 200 years to figure out some way to freeze water and we'll all be saved. I wonder if we'll find the answer to this puzzle in time?
  26. feo . from Fredericton, Canada writes: HEY....to those suggesting solar eruptive activity is repsonsible for this warming...please try to put the whole picture together. The warming correlates exactly with the increase in atmospheric CO2 level measured in ice core samples.
  27. Chevalier Malfait from Toronto, Canada writes: I fail to understand why so many posters here are unwilling to accept the consensus findings of leading scientists around the globe. Full disclosure, please: are you anti-science evangelicals? Do you work in the fossil fuel industries? Do you come from 'big oil' families? You must have some agenda causing you to dismiss human-caused global warming in the face of increasingly clear evidence. No one can be that wilfully contrarian without a clear reason. Unless you're scared--but hiding from a problem won't make it go away. We're human beings, not ostriches.
  28. Rob Misek from Whitby, Canada writes: Nooooooo!

    1000 more years of political fingerpointing.

    Dion didn't get it done.
  29. Buddy Rich from TORONTO, Canada writes: Could someone translate BRK for the down to earth Joe out there
  30. Mike Bellows from Canada writes: Glad to hear that scientists have concluded that we have climate change and that it will be warmer from 2090 to 2099. Seems however that we have lost sight of many other pressing problems. Has AIDS or cancer been cured ? I suggest that every cent spent on climate change by our Government in the next 3 years be matched by contributions to curing these 2 diseases. Many more people will be killed by cancer and Aids than the worst doomsday scenario under global warmimg ( although I'm sure you will find someone who will warn us that most of us will die, like in the movies ). I also notice that posts are rarely screened anymore , some people make 15-20 posts which are often rude and basically this has become another MSN board. Where have all the subscribers gone ?
  31. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: In response to Chevalier Malfait – It seems to me that the same group that would like us to believe our universe came together by chance – in all its complexity - is now surprised and possibly concerned that there is a chance that this insignificant planet earth is warming ever so slightly. Can you not see the irony in all this? Do you really think we have control over our destiny?
  32. Red Lobster from Canada writes: I feel affronted by Wild One's comments. No way am I or other members of my species as dense as some of the other correspondents who have posted to this thread. True, we may have difficulty recognising slow increases in temperature once placed inside the pot, although rather than going willingly, we fight like mad to stop ourselves being cooked in the first place. Also, having evolved with an exoskeleton, we lobsters have generally had no need for sensory receptors devoted solely to appreciation of slow temperature change over most of our evolutionary history. In fact, we have far outlasted most Globe and Mail readers as a species, and it seems likely that we will far outlast most of your descendants as well. It seems unlikely that Mr Wiener from Halifax will be contributing to any future pool of intelligent man apes, since he appears to have been subject to excess solar radiation through one of those holes in the ozone layer, and appears to have suffered irreparable damage to his DNA. Fortunately most members of my species are protected from excess uv reaching the Earth's surface from the Sun by a considerable depth of sea water. Our IQ is also generally above the threshold of 60 required to turn computers off again once they have been started - a much more complicated process, as Mr Wiennie can attest. Only a human could devise a system requiring you to press start when you really need to stop.
  33. Wayne Patterson from Ottawa, Canada writes: Does anyone know much about synthetic trees? I read that these trees- large stuctures filled with sodium hydroxide- are capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and that 250 000 of these, strategically located around the world, would make a positive difference in reducing greenhouse gas.
  34. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: 'Likely, unlikely, very unlikely, cannot be assessed with confidence, suggest, probably, a chance, and might be' WOW, what great science. Apparently (or 'might be') 3.5% (could be a little more or less) of all the green house effect is caused by aircraft exhaust. I'm guessing (more or less) that most of (likely) these supposed (some might not be) scientists went to the conference by air. They, most likely, contributed more to 'climate change' by attending this conference than I have with my Honda all year ( 12 months or - something). Canadians contribute 'approximately' 2 % of CO2 to the earth's atmosphere. If, aircraft contribute about (or something around) 3.5% of the greenhouse effect (just watch a clear blue sky be destroyed by 'con trails') why are they ( as well as the auto industry) exempt from Kyoto? That's right folks, not 'maybe' or 'likely', THEY ARE EXEMPT. Wouldn't want to prohibit limos or Lear Jets would we. Not 'likely'.
  35. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Canada deserves a gov't that accepts that global warming warrants decisive action and doesn't play politics about this most important concern.
  36. Adrian Fernandes from Toronto, Canada writes: I always enjoy these alarmist reporters and all the 'romantic environmentalists'. I think money is being wasted on trying to take care of a problem that is inevitable; climate change is inevitable. In my opinion, money should be thrown at legitimate environmental issues like solid waste, not green house gas. So I ask all these environmentalists: Let's suppose solar activity increases in...let's say over the next 100 years...what are you going to do? Put a shade infront of the Earth?

    You can't distinguish between sources of CO2 - there is no difference between the CO2 you exhale and the CO2 that comes out of car exhaust-it's the same colourless gas.
  37. Jan Johnstone from Kincardine, Canada writes: I see the climate change deniers are out in full force. Your circle is shrinking and soon you will only have your selves to talk on this board - LOL
  38. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: I'm with Al Faux from Weybridge, UK. Human population control, birth control, population planning ... call it what you want. Focus on the cause of the problem. Fewer people ought to mean less pressure on remaining resources and some breathing space for other species. No one enjoys over-crowding or wars, but humans keep doing the same things over and over. Canada has adopted forced population growth policies, and our greenhouse gas emissions are skyrocketing in lockstep with that forcedgrowth as a result of increased transportation, heating and industrial activities. We can't keep doing the same things over and over, expecting different results.
  39. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Setting aside for one moment the importance of protecting the environment, and looking at this report purely from the perspective of newspaper journalism, has anyone else noticed that amongst the media players out there, the Globe and Mail has chosen one of the most strange and most unclear and most uninformative headlines for its article? Its headline is 'The fallout of global warming: 1,000 years'. What is that supposed to mean? A thousand years of what? Or does global warming somehow cause a rift in the space-time continuum, adding a thousand years that were not otherwise meant to be? The reader has to read into the body of the article to find out what the headline is talking about - not exactly a sign of an informative headline. And it is not as if headline writing is rocket science: Consider, for example, the informative headlines that got the news out clearly: 'Warming to Raise Seas for 1000 Years - UN Draft' (headline of Global Surf News), 'Sea levels to rise for next 1000 years' (headline of RICS), 'Major Global Warming Report Due Friday' (Houston Chronicle), and 'World Ice Retreat to Spark UN Urgency, Scientist Says' (Bloomberg).
  40. George W from United States writes: I am interested to read Mr Patterson’s highly intelligent and in-ter-esting suggestion about synthetic trees. I have long been of the view that this climate change stuff is a load of baloney since the only mention of it in the Good Book is in the Book of Revelation where I was concerned to see that the seas will dry up some time in the next thousand years. However, that will undoubtedly sort out those talking lobsters that have been attempting to demonstrate their species superiority over myself. I shall be encouraging research into this synthetic tree idea and hope that it will be possible to manufacture their outer shells from hydrocarbon byproducts, thereby making more efficient use of the new petrochemical facilities that my Administration will shortly be approving for development in my country&8217;s Arctic North. Hopefully this will also divert some of those more intelligent scientist types away from stem cell research and suchlike and into solving some of the more pressing problems of this planet, such as erecting a huge fence around the edge to stop us all from falling off.
  41. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Thanks for the scary bed time story, now where is the evidence??

    'Some environmentalists are predicting that a strongly worded IPCC report will dispel any lingering doubts that global warming is really happening'

    Global warming may be occuring, but it is not a man made event, just a natural cycle experienced by the earth.

    And c'mon, were now talking in 1,000 year increments. Get real!!
  42. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: The question on climate change isn't will the weather kill more people. It will no doubt.

    The question on climate change is simply who will pay for it.

    Third world countries will suffer more because they simply won't know what hit them till it's over.

    Who is gonna spend double for the car they want. Who trusts the government enough to believe they will take any increase in tax money and work on green solutions to fossil fuels.

    We are going to find out how accurate these predictions are because we are going to live through it. Or our children are - whatever.
  43. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT Not those Phony LEFTY HACKS who pretend to be me from Canada writes: These are the same scientists that can't tell us if it's going to be sunny, cloudy, raining, snowing or windy with any degree of accuracy this very afternoon. No doubt the climate is changing. Anyone who is not somewhat sceptical of the cause or our ability to do anything about it should detach from the media for a while and practice free thought.
  44. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Mr. Harper and the rest of Parliament, don't spend one nickel on this junk science. Canadian taxes are too high, keep cutting government waste, reduce the government work force and don't waste any money on this global warming nonsense. Believe me a majority of Canadians agree with me, except for a few wackos on this forumn. (See I can be just like a Liberal, I insult everyone who doesn't agree with me; me mom would be so proud)
  45. jim fisher from Canada writes: There are so many other reasons to get off fossil fuels, that slowing climate change is only a benefit. Oil = death and destruction no matter how much CO2 it adds to the atmosphere. How much has been dumped in the ocean, geo-political conflicts, the tag along elements like mercury spewed into the atmosphere. CO2 might by relatively harmless by heavy metal poisoning cannot be disputed. Can the crap about whether this is politics, economics etc..
  46. W R from toronto, Canada writes: To Ms. Angstrom......

    Hate to tell you this but the global warming crisis has nothing to do with stinky pollution. GW is about the effect of increased C02 in the atmosphere. Carbon dixoide is odourless and colourless. The more carbon dioxide the more the earth retains its heat. This is the greenhouse effect.

    Pollution refers to the presence of various harmful contaminants in the air. They create an ugly yellowish smog and make summers in Toronto unbearable. These contaminants are responsible for various respiratory conditions and other other illnesses.

    Both are serious problems but the solutions may not even be the same. This fact is being overlooked/glossed over repeatedly especially by the media who have suddenly and inexplicably made the environment this month's SARS crisis.
  47. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: We have to figure a way to move the earth farther from the sun

    AU - We have to figure how to stay warm and get things moving without using fire.
  48. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok, many here refuse to listen to climatologists, how about the economists? The British Government commissioned a study on the effect of global warming on the economy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Sir Nicholas Stern for the British government, which discusses the effect of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind. Its main conclusions are that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested a year in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. Stern’s report suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. He stated that 'our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.' This report has been endorsed by at least 4 Nobel prize economists: Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Robert M. Solow, James Mirrlees. It has even been endorsed by Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank, one of Bush's ideologues. Are these people just suckers for 'romantic enviromentalists' too?
  49. Don Adams from Canada writes: Dan Weagle, just ignore Wild One... it's just that bummer idiot JD Wood again. Oh yes, he also uses the name Yvonne Whack Her Navel as well :-) This report does give information I've been waiting for. Time frames. There are a lot of Chicken Littles out there running around in circles.... they'll probably never stop... but saner heads can and do prevail. OK, we're into a warming cycle, and it's been speeded up mainly by Human activity. I can accept that. Maximum warming, ( and then the next ice age) have been advanced by a couple of thousand years. I can accept that. Is it going to be a monstrous change, and happen real quick? Not from what I read in this article. There's YEARS to prepare (but haven't I been saying that all along?) We now have to start PLANNING for the rise in sea water ..... where it's going to effect.... should we be building dikes or moving communities. THAT's going to take political planning. Yes. we do have to start doing something about emmissions, but, like charity, it starts at home. Yes,we have to keep politicians feet to the fire, worldwide, and the same at home.... which is even more important. I now see why Harper used the 50 year time line for the Clean Air Act.... there's just not the urgency the Chicken Littles promote. OK, maybe we should have a shorter time frame.... lets compromise and do it in, say, 25 years. That would be a fair compromise. Clean up the air in our cities. New technology needs to be developed, and will be, over time. Clean up our lakes, rivers, and streams. Plant more trees. Possibly legislation with regards to packaging. Cleaner fuel technology for industry, vehicles.... again, over 25 years. Makes sense. COMPROMISE, but NOT KYOTO!
  50. I. C. from Kuala Belait, Brunei Darussalam writes: Does anyone remember acid rain? Why doesn't the media report on acid rain anymore? Wasn't it supposed to be killing off our forests? Didn't all the 'leading scientists' agree in peer reviewed journals that acid rain was about to precipitate a major ecological disaster? Why did this not happen?BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG! Of course, you'd never read THAT in the media, or peer reviewed journals for that matter. Headlines that say 'Sorry, we were wrong about that' just don't sell papers as well as alarmist speculation.
    Food for thought in this current imbroglio...
  51. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Proud Canadian from United States writes: John P from Vancouver, Canada writes: = LOSER!! Umm... No. Proud Canadian John P isn't the loser. It is you and all of your fellow-travellers that are the losers. Denial is not a river in Egypt. No doubt about it, at the approriate times brilliant analysts like you and your ilk argued that the Sun revolved around the Earth despite clear evidence to the contrary and that the Earth was flat. A quote comes to mind: 'There is none so blind as he who will not see'.
  52. SIR Bruce Rideout from Victoria. [GRIDLOCK]B.C., Canada writes: gimme a tent a dinghy a bycycle and a 100 foot square to live unharrassed to grow a potato or 2 and I'll gladly quit driving. otherwise its welfarecutsinyourface and off I go to work. VRoom VRoom SCreech Honk BEEEEEP
  53. Sunny Vegas from Waterloo, Canada writes: I thought the movie 'The day after tomorrow' The world suppose to freeze instead of heating up?

    Watch this year when we have a nice weather. The sciencetist will say someone one farted again.
  54. Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes: Proud Canadian,

    Since you are living in the U.S and not paying Canadian taxes at the moment, I don't think you get to decide. Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change.
  55. Steve D from Fredericton, Canada writes: There are 2 sides to every story, and yet we never hear the other side of it here in Canada. Why is that? Why has the G&M and the rest of our 'un'-biased media omitted the other side? A side that also points to the sun being warmer than its been in thousands of years. A side that blasts the UN and the former Liberal government for leaving out the -medival warm period- when they paraded the now famous 'IPCC hockey stick graph' of 2001. And based on a reputable source the main calculations made by the UN 'tweeked' the lamda values of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I remember one of my Profs telling me that numbers can be manipulated to meet personal bias. How much personal bias have we seen from the likes of the Environmental movement not only here in Canada but around the world? True our use of fossil fuels does not help... but I think there is a much larger player at work and it's that bright spot in the sky...
  56. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: I applaud the Globe and Mail for getting behind this issue and covering it the way it deserves to be.
  57. Self confessed curmudgeon from Toronto, Canada writes: And behold, those that knew how to read and had expert qualifications tried in vain to share their message. The knuckle draggers still knew better. No need to see the report; why waste time learning.

    While I appreciate and value the opportunity to share opinions in this society, it concerns me that the majority of posters subscribe to a 'knee jerk' reaction rather than waiting to see what the world's scientific community has to offer.

    Beyond all else, here is evidence that intelligent beings can work together, without regard to their political, religeous or ethnic backgrounds. This is a feat in and of itself. I think I'd like to see it.

    To Red Lobster, thank you! Very entertaining.
  58. David Black from Timmins On, Canada writes: Looks like almost everyone has missed the point. The rate of change is the concern. Nature does everything slowly. We don't.

    Take a globe and spin it around. The sandy coloured band in the middle is mostly desert. The green band north and south is where most of the food for the world is grown. Warm up the planet and that sandy coloured area becomes alot wider. The green areas become narrower because land has become arid and the areas north and south although warmer doesn't neccessarily replace the new deserts with viable agricultural land.

    Now try and feed the world under these conditions. You think huricanes and rising seas are a worry in this light. Fighting for oil and world economic power will pale in comparison the the fight for food supply. A 4.7 degree change would be a worse case scenerio lets hope we don't get there.
  59. monsieur pointu from Canada writes: Wow, something paleo-climatologists knew before all the Kyoto-hysteria is that the climate of earth changes a lot over time. That's front page news? What really worries me .. or maybe reassures me) is the last few things that the Globe and Mail was really really sure about turned out to be completely wrong. They were 1) Paul Martin is a great man and will be a great Prime Minister. and 2) Michael Ignatieff is a great man and will be a great Prime Minster. Sticking Climate Hysteria stories on the front page for weeks now is just the latest Toronto Star-like campaign from these people. It may lead to bad public policy, but it won't change the inevitable and continuous changes in the earth's climate, and that's the reassuring part.
  60. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: steve D - because those voices are, by far, the minority. that, and Canada only listens to the loudest mouth-pieces on any given subject.
  61. Don Adams from Canada writes: Part 2. I talked about Compromise in part 1. Centrists are always willing to compromise. However, I will issue this warning. If the ultra left on the climate climate change issue are not willing to compromise for the common good, why should the Centrists be, and I then withdraw my remarks about 25 years. Go back to Harper's 50 years. Hell, go to 100 years. That'll still ensure that we, and our kids, and in some cases, our grand kids and great grand kids will see some benefit now, but future generations will have to build on what we've started. Forget trying to negotiate with ultra lefties who want to do it all NOW.... and destroy our lifestyles doing it.... COMPROMISE... the line has been drawn.
  62. Informed Canadian from Canada writes: I suggest we do a controlled experiment to determine which of Proud Canadian, a frog and a lobster is the first to jump out of a giant vat of water being brought slowly to the boil. According to Wikipedia, the boiling frog story is generally told in a figurative context, the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss. Is catastrophic loss of this planet’s ability to support multicellular life sufficiently catastrophic for you?
  63. Al MacDonald from Clean Air, Canada writes: Well, one thing is absolutely certain. The earth is getting warmer and is producing more extreme weather. What is also definite to most of us, is that this is due to a combination of natural and man made influences. Because of the desire for ever increasing economic wealth, we do not follow any path of sustainability in using our natural resources. We simply take and consume with little or no regard for the furure, or respect for future generations. This attitude is finally catching up with us, not just in global warming but in everything we do on this planet. Some of our politicians recently had blood samples taken for analysis to see how many toxins were in their blood stream. Not because any of them were working in a hazardous work space, but simply from the effects of living on Earth; Pollution in the Great Lakes, Pesticides, Huge Landfills leaching toxins into our groundwater, acid rain, mercury poisoning, carcinogens in the water we drink and food we eat, and even in the packaging used to pack our food. The list goes on and on. We have been like the frog in a pot of warm water that is slowly being heated. It's time we realize that we cannot sustain this way of living and changes for the better need to take place. This does not necessarily mean wreaking havoc with our economy, just changing the way we do things. Looks like we all have a choice in being either part of the solution or part of the problem.
  64. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: I. C.

    'Does anyone remember acid rain? Why doesn't the media report on acid rain anymore? Wasn't it supposed to be killing off our forests? Didn't all the 'leading scientists' agree in peer reviewed journals that acid rain was about to precipitate a major ecological disaster? Why did this not happen? BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG!'

    Actually, the scientists were correct. What happened was legislation was brought into cap SO2 emissions. Sound famililar? I quote:

    Initiated in 1985, the Eastern Canada Acid Rain program committed Canada to cap SO2 emissions in the seven provinces from Manitoba eastward at 2.3 million tonnes by 1994, a 40% reduction from 1980 levels. By 1994, all seven provinces had achieved or exceeded their targets. In 1998, the provinces, territories and the federal government signed The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, committing them to further actions to deal with acid rain. Progress under both the Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program and under the Post-2000 Strategy, including data on emissions, is reported in the respective annual reports of these two programs. Between 1980 and 2001, emissions of SO2 declined by approximately 50% to 2.38 million tonnes. In eastern Canada , emissions of SO2 declined by approximately 63% between 1980 and 2001.
  65. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Oh, the ad hominem. I'm a GW 'Denier'? You're a MWP/LIA 'Denier', a denier of Earth's history. (I wish comments were numbered.) Pls refer to Brian K's comments on the capacity of CO2 to absorb radiation ~ the analogy is painting your bedroom wall -- the first coat, clear difference; 2nd coat, some more difference; 3rd coat, a bit more; 4th and subsequent coats - you are just adding thickness to little or no effect. There is a limit to what CO2 can contribute, despite Al Gore's scary chart showing emissions going off into infinity. The framing of the whole debate is interesting: everyone agrees there has been warming and most if not all agree there is a human component. Just what am I denying? The models do *not* match what has been occuring. The sun's magnetic field doubled during the mid/late 20th century which may have had a major impact on the cosmic rays that reach the Earth (less cosmic rays, less low level clouds and less cooling), and recent solar cycles have been relatively strong, but we're not supposed to believe that the sun has a role in the Earth's climate? When did it's role stop? It's of course 'common sense' that my neighbour's SUV is the cause of GW; it couldn't have anything to do with the sun or natural oscillations. Again - the limit of what CO2 can contribute. Those who support Kyoto should start talking about what it is supposed to do ~ yeah yeah, reduce emissions to below 1990 levels ~ but what does that do? What is its supposed effect? The answer according to the protocol's own design is surprisingly little and within the normal variations that you'd expect to see. If we are really serious about grabbing a climate that has never been stable by the scruff of the neck and keeping at, say, 1980s levels or something, we collectively should start being honest and clear about what that might entail (way way way beyond Kyoto) and our chance of success (considering all the factors at play, quite low).
  66. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Steve D: There are a thousand sides to every story if you try hard enough and use your imagination, but when we are talking about a phenomenon that can be measured and charted by science, and the science has been done to death, peer reviewed and done to death all over again, and 98% of studies point in the same direction, then we can say there is only one side. We are not talking about a matter of opinion anymore. There was a time for debate, and those who wanted to debunk global warming gave it their best shot. A lot of money was poured into discrediting global warming, and they came up empty. The Bush administration had no choice but to edit and distort legitimate scientific papers to downplay global warming. Wake up. This is real. It is happening. We have to act.
  67. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Mike: It is not the absorption of CO2 that is the problem, it is the green house effect. Do you know what that is?
  68. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Stern? Even the BBC trashed him over the weekend.
  69. Bill H from Canada writes: Ever since the Earth began life as a cloud of cosmic dust some 5 bilion years ago, it's only constant has been change. Earth is not a static sphere conceived, as the Bible tells us, in its present form and to remain that way forever. We've had ice ages and inter-ice-age warming periods. The crustal plates are still moving around, giving us earthquakes and volcanos. The oceans have been rising for the past 15,000 years (about 130 m in all) since the last glaciers started to receed and that can be expected to continue at several mm per year into the future. (Why would an intelligent civilization build a city below sea level like New Orleans anyway?) So not all that is happening can be blamed on human activity, we are simply one part (and probably a small part at that) of the equation. So while it makes sense to not pollute one's environment any more than absolutely necessary in order to slow any human-induced changes, you won't stop them. Besides, any small impact we might have will be completely abrogated by a doubling of the population over the next 50 years. You are worried about carbon dioxide emission? Think about 12 billion people exhaling carbon dioxide 70 times every minute! Yes, the world will change, but the key strategy is to adapt.
  70. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes:

    '...Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change. ' Yeah, that and a quarter will get you a phone call.

    Ask how many Canadians want to dump a limited source of tax payers money down the toliet with little or nothing to show for it compared to spending money on intrastructure, mass transit, health care or GOD FORBID LOWER TAXES!!!
  71. Mike from Dartmouth from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Brian, I understand that there is a limit to what CO2 can contribute to the effect. That's wrong?
  72. M Horon from Calgary, Canada writes: What is going on with our environment and what man's role is in it has over time ventured into the realm of legitimate science.
    The science is getting there, good lord, even Stephen Hawking is on board now. All humans bear a responsability to repair the damage.

    As long as the media steers this down partisan lines our Government, regardless of who is in charge of it, will have it's hands tied to the point that the Liberals did and accomplish nothing. We can't blame Dion, his hands were tied by his party line.
    If we want to sacrifice to save the planet we must boycot cheap Asian goods and suffer the inflationary consequences. Meanwile we must intelligently clean up Canada without destroying it, not because it will save the planet with our small footprint, but because it will set an example to back up our boycotts!
  73. Yvonne Whack Her Navel from Canada writes: No, it ain't me.
  74. Why Is Common Sense Lacking in Canada? from Canada writes: Hey Globe (ie trumpeteer of the Liberal Party), I thought the main issue was Health Care or was that Child Care?
  75. brm 2000 from hogtown, Canada writes: It is interesting to note that Europe which started industrization in the late 1700's will be very affected by global warming. London, England may well be under water in 50 years. At least in North America you can just move inland, Europe does not have this option. It is bound to be a huge friction point between the new and old world. It is a brave new world, but the die is already cast...
  76. Proud Canadian from United States writes: If only the Liberals were in power with S. Dion at the helm I would feel so secure in the knowledge that they would make everything right and that the Sun would come out tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar...

    Well guess what, the Liberasl and Dion had 13 years to clean up global warming and the earth is still going to look like a marsh mellow left in the fire too long. Thanks Liberals, thanks for letting 6 billion people die during your watch.

    PS Boiling frogs is fun, did you know they explode?
  77. William Borlase from SunnyManitoba, Canada writes: The world has had warming-cooling cycles for ever. There have been new religions ever since man appeared. The environment is the new current religion. All you taxpayers should be shivvering. Those 'environmental preachers' are coming out of the woodwork and they are reaching for your wallets. Beware! Beware!
  78. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: The report is what I expected, a dooms day scenario. I just wish the globe would present the other side for a change. For instance, during the medieval warming period over 1000 yrs ago, it was warmer than it was now. Did CO2 cause that? Moreover, during the early 1970s scientists were all warning us that we were headed for the next ice age? Google the cover of time and Newsweek magazine for 1974 and see for yourself. Also, science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of 'extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations.' I do think we need to reduce pollution, but I do not think we should just focus on CO2; we need to reduce other pollutants as well. Also, can someone explain the 'less hurricane prediction'? I was under the impression that we would get more frequent hurricanes (I guess the fact that the US had fewer hurricanes than normal this year caused the UN scientists to tweak the report) :-)
  79. B Halton from Alberta, Canada writes: Mike and Brian: CO2 is not the only GHG in the atmosphere; you need to add methane, water vapour and several others to the mix. Mike you analogy is way too simplistic.
  80. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: Every day, the hysteria reaches higher crescendos. Someone needs to be keeping all these headlines and articles so that we can use them to beat the press over the head with a few years down the road.

    The press has abdicated its job of being the 'fifth estate', the other opposition, and has simply become a mimeographed newsletter now for advocacy groups, and the Globe is leading the way. Let's hope the next generation that will take over at the Globe in a few years will learn from this.
  81. gary blades from Halifax, Canada writes: There will be 'a rise in sea levels of about 7 metres'. Some countries are going to completely vanish: Seychelles, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Maldives and others which are only a few meters above sea level. Tens of millions of people in low lying coastal areas will be displaced in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma and elsewhere.
  82. Past being tolerant from Canada writes: Bill H. Now just think for a minute....Which species are we talking about here? Do you really exhale 70 times every 60 seconds? Are you sure you're looking at the big hand on your clock? You won't need to breathe that fast until you become really acidotic from all that excess CO2 in the atmosphere and your chemoreceptors go into overdrive under their inability to evolve fast enough to keep up with all the changes in your environment.
    The answer here is clearly sterilisation of anyone who can't demonstrate they have an IQ in excess of 100. That gets rid of half the population within a generation.
  83. Malcolm Jussawalla from writes: 'The number of hurricanes will decrease, but the ones that do occur will be more powerful' Wait a minute...did they say a couple of years ago that there would be more hurricanes? Also, the number of meters the sea level is expected to rise is at most (according to their numbers), less than a couple of meters. How is this going to put NY city completely under water?
  84. Hugo Lapointe from Montreal, Canada writes: Funny how one of the most serious newspapers of this country falls so easily into an unquestionnable belief of the global warming hysteria. You get no report from the scientists who disagree - only reports of the IPCC self-declared 'consensus'. But hey... who cares about truth and an honest debate ? Way to go Globe and Mail, it may just help the Liberals in the next election. You lost your buddies in 2006 and it's been a long time already....
  85. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Proud Canadian from United States writes: Erica LaBute from Canada, Canada writes:

    '...Furthermore, as polls indicate a majority of Canadians are concerned with climate change. ' Yeah, that and a quarter will get you a phone call.

    Ask how many Canadians want to dump a limited source of tax payers money down the toliet with little or nothing to show for it compared to spending money on intrastructure, mass transit, health care or GOD FORBID LOWER TAXES!!!'

    Dude! You're an American not a Canadian! How can one be a proud Canadian from the United States? If you were so proud you'd be living and working in Canada. Also why do YOU care about lower taxes... you don't even pay them?!
  86. hortense thecow from Ottawa, Canada writes: The National Post ran an article on the FP editorial page related to this 'report' which is a political document, with the scientific report to be released much later. Any relationship between the executive summary and the actual details is purely coincidental. Propaganda should not be printed at all without labelling it for what it is: propaganda. Hitler and Goebbels could never have excelled the propaganda standards of the UN. Global warming is hard to tolerate here in Ottawa at minus 24 degrees to-day. I do not subscribe to the G
  87. Mitch Gullison from Fredericton, Canada writes: All the skeptics here amaze me. Humans are pumping out GHGs at an unprecedented rate and you guys believe it will have no effect on the environment. I believe that the Earth has a natural warming period and a natural cooling period but humans are accelerating the rate of the warming. I don't know why you would believe scientists hired by big oil over scientists who really believe the climate is changing.
  88. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Dude

    ?! 6 billion people die in Canada ?! Maybe I'm just basing my arguments on facts rather then 'gut instinct' but I was pretty sure Canada had just over 30 Million inhabitants. Ohhh that's right.. facts are a reality and reality has a well known Liberal bias!

    We keep hearing how Canada must act NOW in order to save the planet, so Canada's inaction has resulted in the deaths of 6 billion people.
  89. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: And to think, the scientists were asked to 'tone down' their language...So, let me understand this...we are getting the soft meaage of hurricanes, typhoons, gales, drought, malaise, pestilence etc etc etc.... Advocacy has overtaken science. Also, please seperate whether warming is occurring from the tragedy that is the Kyoto treaty. If human induced warming is real then all countries - rich and poor alike must contribute to its solution.
  90. Don Adams from Canada writes: Gary Blades, the fish in the ocean need to eat too you know!
  91. Liz Doesit from Canada writes: We can do all we like in North America, but whatabout China with the huge amount of unmonitored pollution growing rapidly. Anyone thought about that?
  92. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: My problem with the IPCC: it seems to be working like a union. Ever been to a union meeting? Try to break up the so-so-so, solidarity with a solid argument that goes against the conclusions they are pitching. They will just ignore you, ridiculize you or break one of your car's headlight at work. (Painful memories here).
  93. Agent Smith from GTA, Canada writes: Randal Oulton, Hugo Lapointe, hortense thecow :

    Q: How many climate change deniers does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: Three. One to argue the light bulb costs too much in taxes and the other two to sit in the dark.

    Ha ha ha. Seriously, it's not propoganda, and there is no hysteria, it is simply a policy document intended to spur governments to finally act. The urgency comes from a decade of doing nothing despite existing commitments to do so.
  94. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: -24 C along the St. Lawrence last night and has been frosty here for the last 10 days. Global warming has not reached here yet! Could use those additional 1.7 to 4 degrees, but will have to wait another 90 years. I notice when temperatures plummet the 'experts' call it climate change instead of global warming.
  95. Norm Neil from in the wild, wild West, Canada writes: Buddy Rich from TORONTO, Canada writes: 'Could someone translate BRK for the down to earth Joe out there'

    TRANSLATION: Sh!t happens.

    Clear enough for ya?
  96. P Gibson from toronto, Canada writes: When are we going to talk about the need to limit human population growth as a means of addressing environmental degradation? It's the elephant in the room that no one seems to have the guts to acknowledge, let alone name.
  97. A. Hansen from St. Catharines, Canada writes: If the U.N. is involved, it's a pretty sure bet that the so-called 'scientific data' that backs up the so-called 'scientists' assertions is questionable at best, or simply an out-and-out lie. The U.N. never does anything that isn't 100% political, and most of it's politics are aimed at bringing developed nations down to the level of the Third World dictatorships that have enjoyed a free U.N. ride on the backs of those of us in the democratic, capitalist world. It's a shame Canadian 'scientists' are involved in this U.N. scam. They must be Liberals. Cut their funding and let's move on to the issues that really matter--like defending our borders and restoring our citizens' sense of self-reliance. Terrorism and the growth of the welfare state are far more immediate threats to Canadians than global warming.
  98. uncle wrinkly from Toronto, Canada writes: Sorry, but I’m having a hard time understanding this nonsense label of ‘denier’ that seems to get thrown around all the time in this debate. The alarmist slant of this story aside, the main point here is the IPCC is saying that evidence of climate change is unequivocal. Fine, no problem, I see very few posts here actually denying that fact. What is equivocal and is indeed HIGHY DEBATABLE however is: 1) the extent to which human activity is accelerating climate change, 2) the potential effects of global warming on the population (both the costs and benefits), and 3) the efficacy of proposed carbon reduction strategies (i.e. the Kyoto accord). I believe the earth is warming and that there may well be some negative consequences for humanity. But I also believe that the Kyoto accord is an absolute joke. It’s essentially a global welfare scheme that is based more on an ideology that major western economies should be punished for their prosperity and it likely won’t decrease carbon emissions one bit as it gives a free pass the emerging giant economies of both China and India. I also believe (like many economists) than the Stern report was a politically driven, crtically flawed and simplistic analysis. And before the usual haters come out suggesting I am some low IQ neo-con or a pawn of big oil, I have nothing to do with any oil company, other than the fact that I use their product to heat my home, drive my car, cook my food, etc. and I don’t exactly relish the idea of paying 5 times more for it.
  99. Sunny Vegas from Waterloo, Canada writes: If Liberal Win the next election. I will ask my work to pay me CASH. That way my tax dollars won't be given to China and India.
  100. Al MacDonald from Clean Air, Canada writes: I guess all the good conservatives/alliance/reform people will surely come to the conclusion that this is all Stephen Dion's fault. And in pointing that inevitable finger, continue to neglect doing anything about it.

    And all the good Liberal people will continue to believe that Dion is the man with true conviction who can actually get the job done.

    In the meantime, more delays, more deferring, more and more of less and less action while Big Business keeps pushing before regulatory measures are put in place. I saw where one poster mentioned that over 500 coal powered generating plants are being built in China this year. In 2001 Dick Cheney called for 1,900 new coal fired power plants to be built in the U.S. Companies in the U.S. are pushing to get 150 new coal plants in under the regulatory wire this year. Just Eleven new coal plants will create 78 million tons of pollution. Acid rain, mercury poisoning, ashma, and GHG's will be just a few of the consequences. I get the feeling that Harper is playing the same delay game up here in Canada, allowing big business to push further and further before real regulatory action comes into play.
  101. The One and Only True PRAGMATIC PUNDIT from Canada writes: EJ Ravensbud - You're confusing weather with climate.