Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Landmark climate report released

BOB WEBER

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 12:07 AM EDT 19/11/07

Adopted by consensus, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report spells out dire consequences of inaction; Baird calls report 'overwhelming' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Rudy H from Canada writes: Of course the climate is changing. And we will have to learn to live with it. And yes we play a part in it. While the effect of carbon dioxide is overblown we do change the environment by changing land use. One of the biggest factors could be that big white ball we call the Sun. It is changing the climate on Mars (and there is no CO2 emissions by the Martians that we know of) so why should it not be a major cause here.

    Regardless of the cause we have to deal with it. Instead of concentrating only on shutting the barn door our governments should look forward and encourage solutions to deal with the problem.
  2. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    "Advocacy groups hailed the report as indispensable for the 10,000 delegates expected at Bali."

    10,000 people flying to Bali that's one heck of a carbon footprint!
  3. William Robertson from Hamilton, Canada writes: I regret to admit being old enough to have watched Dr. Paul
    Ehrlich promote his ground break in work, "The Population Bomb" in the late 1960's. This latest gathered gaggle have had their epiphany 40 years later and nothing material has yet been done. The interesting point is that in 1968 Dr. Erlich connected population growth to our issues. he called then for zero population growth. In the intervening 40 years the world population has doubled and short of calling a moratorium on new births there's precious little we can do now to roll that clock backward. Even to "hold" at our approixmate 6 billion size will take an effort no one is prepared to face. If population has a direct correlation to our sustainable environment - an argument I bought in 1968 - everything short of population control is a band-aid and will only extend the timeline for the ultimate conclusion - over-population will venetually consume all of our resources. And, how is it that the current day tree-huggers, so concerned about carbon-footprints and jet aircraft exhaust are all prepared to trek off to Bali - 10,000 strong, all via airplane, to discuss this? Sounds like a seductive venue trumps concrete action on the environment.
  4. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions.

    I always wondered what consensus meant, now I know..... chilling
  5. Fugget About It from Victoria, Canada writes: So all these delegates are flying in carbon polluting jets and being transfered to the hotels and conference centers via taxi or bus, and they are at a conference on "CLIMATE CHANGE"

    Then there will be 10,000, that's TEN THOUSAND delegates flying to Bali from all parts of the world to do the same thing in a short while.

    WHAT IN THE HECK IS SO WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE PEOPLE? These are the same people touting diaster is looming but flying around the world to tell the story?

    There is such a thing as internet video conferencing. This just so outrageous and yes I have written letters to the organizations regarding this.
  6. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Here we go agin: A buncha socialistical "scientists" with an atheistical "hidden agenda" (gittin' a buncha Commie "grant money"), havin' a buncha fancy-schmancy "advanced degrees" and usin' a buncha sissy-pants "terms" and "words" . . . who think they know stuff better than the sensible folks on Fox News. Yeah, this all figgers.
  7. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: William.. I too remember the beginning of the problem and it was considered racist to pursue limiting population growth because it was in the third world. Now it is all the western world's problem and we should pay the third world. If the UN or IPCC told us which 2 or 3 billion people to get rid of it would simplify the solution. I hate to admit it but natural disasters and violent gov'ts are the control now.
  8. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Fugget: . . . Yep, yer right, buddy ! These "scientists" usin' modren technologicalistical travel devices (like "aeroplanes" and "cars") to git where they're goin' . . . to attend these "conferences" (Really: a buncha free-love advocates, if ya ask ME) . . . obviously DISPROVES everthang they're sayin' about so-called "Global Warming". . . . Somehow.
  9. Alter Ego from Canada writes: I think it's great propaganda that both the G&M and the BBC are choosing to rnu these polar bear photos as the banner for this IPCC report. The whole myth of the disappearing polar bears was quickly debunked after the release of "an inconvenient truth" and the global polar bear population is actually growing...but don't the let the truth get in the way of a good story I guess.

    I suppose a polar bear photo makes one "warm" up to the story.

    Climate change has been going on long before we got around and will go on long after we are gone. There is nothing wrong with being environmentally conscious but the fanatacism that accompanies some globo-warmers is something that even Islamic militants would be in awe of.

    The whole universe is experiencing warming right now (go and google it). The only common denominator in all of this, in my opinion, is the sun.

    Anyhow, please global warmers, I implore you, CHILL OUT!
  10. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    "WHAT IN THE HECK IS SO WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE PEOPLE? These are the same people touting diaster is looming but flying around the world to tell the story"

    Apparently Mother Nature can distinguish between a flight for a good cause and one for pleasure.
  11. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: At any conference in any discipline, you very often learn much more and make more progress outside the lecture halls and meeting rooms. For something like a global conference on climate change, videoconferencing is simply not a very good or practical option.

    Yes, all those airplanes will contribute to global warming. But that damage might very well be dramatically offset if good progress in made in solving the problems.
  12. Oil Patch Guy from Canada writes: "There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change,” Mr. Ban said. He said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries adopt clean energy and to adapt to changing climates......here comes the the problem with Kyoto - sending money to China and Russia that would be better spent developing greener technologies here first that we can then export to the poorer countries. It's the old give a person a fish versus teaching them to fish...
  13. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: .C. Davies from Canada writes:
    "WHAT IN THE HECK IS SO WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE PEOPLE? These are the same people touting diaster is looming but flying around the world to tell the story"

    Apparently Mother Nature can distinguish between a flight for a good cause and one for pleasure.
    >>>The royal liberals like the supreme guru Al Gore will continue to preach us about the importance of the environmentally friendly lips service while living like corrupted pigs.
  14. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: "There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change,” Mr. Ban said.
    >>>Sure buy less gadgets and drive less SUV. What can be more affordable?
  15. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: The USA economy is collapsing because they will not begin the transition to a carbon frugal society, and they can no longer afford to import such massive quantities of oil. Time is running out for Planet Earth, unless we act quickly to reduce our GHG output, but the climate change deniers, would rather commit global suicide, than reduce Oil and Gas consumption.
  16. Now Tarfu from Canada writes:
    Alter Ego,

    I understand you think that the polar bear population is growing, that everything is fine with climate and that global warming is all natural (due to the sun). Not sure what you're smoking, but try weaning yourself off of it and coming back to reality at some point.
  17. Wise Guy from VI, BC, Canada writes: William R is correct. Even intelligent environmentalists wont touch the population hot potato and still talk about "Smart Growth". It's a complete charade, and actually criminally misleading. They have been recycling the same uncreative ideas for decades; it's actually so pathetic I have lost all respect and confidence.

    Western countries are not growing internally so they have to import people. Western countries would need to stop all immigration, and poor countries would have to deal with their own population issues. Bringing an Ethiopian here increases their carbon footprint 500 times. We should all be moving to Ethiopia, not vice versa. This is just the harsh truth.
  18. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: The idea that the sun is responsible for the present global warming is Misleading Argument no. 6 in the UK Royal Society's "Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide."

    And, I don't think there is anything in the Kyoto Accord that says credits have to be transferred to places like China and Russia. Why can't it be done within Canada?
  19. Wise Guy from VI, BC, Canada writes: To all the folks who say the sun is making us warmer. You, sirs, are complete morons and a disgrace to human intelligence. Why is it that I hear that exact same chorus from so many ignoramuses. Because you have been fed the same B.S. from climate change deniers. Those arguments appeal to all the pea-sized brains out there, in my experience mostly older conservative men. Do you know how peer-reviewed science operates? 2,000 scientists don't just agree to the same statements in collusion. The IPCC reports are in fact heavily watered down so that consensus can be reached. We already know they fall short of stating the actual pace of change given the rapid warming seen in the arctic.
  20. dean spence from bright old city, ontario, Canada writes: The climate hysteria reminds me of the Spinal Tap amps that go up to "11" - if they don't decrease the volume and intensity of their predictions they will run out of head room by early next year. Slow down, folks, make those adjectives last.
  21. BobtheBaptist Saves from Wealldietogether, Canada writes: Do not expect any government to bring an end to the pollution that is causing Global Warming and the Catastrophic Climate Change (CCC) that is to follow. Money rules this planet and insane, greedy and arrogant politicians rule the money here in Canada, the US and everywhere else. You want to save the lives of your kids then go green now. And start with your own behaviour like parking your car, getting off your lazy butt and walking into your coffee shop to get your morning fix.
  22. Al Suba from Trenton, Canada writes: For the IPCC to present a report that says anything other than what this report says, would be to seriously undermine the requirement for the IPCC itself. To do away with the IPCC would be to waste an untold number of cushy jobs that are totally unnecessary except to foment turmoil for no other purpose than fomenting turmoil.
  23. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Them thar advocates of "Global Warmin' " have too much goll-durned book-learnin' fer their own good. Ah thank that's their biggest problem, right thar. YUP.
  24. Peter Lavina from Hawaii, United States writes: If mankind won't deal with the integrated issues of carbon footprints, over population that exhausts the worlds resources, and other issues, nature will. Nature is the safety mechanism that always tries to balance out an inbalance. Human society, like deer have become too sucessful at reproduction, thus causing a magnifiying effect on resource usage and environemtal degradation. We can either reduce our consumption of resources, thus prolonging that which we still have for the fewer for longer, or nature will do it for us. Capitalism is all about having alot of toys, and satifying the individuals ego. Short of a major global transformation to change the habits of western society and all emerging growth capitalistic socieities, such as alien beings landing and telling us so, we will continue on our landfill item drunken shopping orgies and double latte beverages. FOr every perons we change to have less impact, 2 others will consume more. Did anyone question why a Saudi Prince just bought a A-380 flying palace to play with? Apparently global warming hasnt hit the rich yet. Its a poor mans notion. But nature always bats last. That's the beauty of nature.
  25. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: Shouldn't the G&M point out they got half of a Peace Noble. Got diddly squat with science.
  26. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: If humans are still here today, one puzz word will come to mind: adaptation. If someone believes human can change the course of mother nature, think again. The report acknowleges that the climate change is actually faster than the model predicted . Some other reports stated that Canada will come out better than the rest in term of climate change.( ref The NewYorker latest article on the subject) It will take hundreds or even thousands of years to change the planet. Why do we suffer the economical consequences in the meantime to accomodate the super-hyped crusade to save the planet in short term? The corn-based energy alternative spells disaster: high cost of food everywhere from the third world to the advanced societies in the West.
  27. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Now Tarfu, the polar bear population IS growing. That was confirmed by biologists a few months ago with a large population survey. The Inuit have been saying the same thing for years, but the scientists didn't believe them until their own results corroborated what the aboriginals were telling them.
  28. Political Junkie from Canada writes: The "consensus" around Erlich's Population Explosion had us convinced that in the 1990's there would be widespread famine in North America, never mind the sub-Saharan Africa. Millions of us were going to starve to death. His models were correct, except for one thing.

    Erlich failed to predict the enormous advances in agriculture due to mechanization, logistics, fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified crops. Many environmentalists opposed this progress. These adaptations by man to changing circumstances progressed at a rate exponentially higher than than the doomsayers of the day predicted. The only reasons for famine today are political, not the inability of the earth to support enough agriculture to feed its inhabitants.

    Erlich also failed to predict the fact that advanced societies where children are not required as cheap farm labourers were to have rapidly declining birth rates.

    There probably are analogies here for today's alarmists. Don't underestimate man's creativity when faced with a crisis and don't reflexively oppose advances in technology and science. It's not "nature good - man bad." It's "man good - nature moody and unpredictable."

  29. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Actually, the latest surveys find that more climatologist strongly disagree that climate change is mostly attributable to humans than strongly agree. The "scientific consensus" so far is only in the voting chambers of the UN and other useless organizations. Don't expect the G&M to publish that though.

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
  30. Luctor Et Emergo from Canada writes: It's nice to know that there is political consensus around "climate science". Problem is, there is no man-made global warming or man-made claimate change, and most of the science published since the IPCC's January 2006 deadline for this report points that way. There most certainly is no scientific consensus and more and more scientists are now saying this openly.
  31. John Miller from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: To Mr. TreeHugger loudmouth from VI, BC ... you perfectly illustrate why we should all pause in the lemming-like stampede over the cliff of climate change hysteria. You're so pumped up on cc steroids you think anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, anyone who questions IPCC fear-mongering is an oil company stooge, and anyone who won't give up their SUV and go live in a cave next to you on VI is a menace. The truth is YOU are the menace. You and others like you - unquestioning, unthinking peddlers of junk science and alarmism - credulous sheep in the service of dubious people with dubious agendas that have nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with politics.

    And if you really believe the sun doesn't make us warmer, how can you stand wearing winter clothes in the summertime?
  32. Mike JH from Canada writes: The climate will change from cold to warm and back again continuously, as it has for millions of years. It is not all bad for Canada. Don't knock it!
  33. Jesse Winger from Cardston, Canada writes: The IPCC has substantial credibility. The Devils Advocate (why advocate for the devil, BTW?) has about none.

    Religious kooks (mostly Creationists and religious fundamentalists), pseudo scientists and big oil (eg Exxon) have muddied the issue - mostly to themselves. Even some of the posters in this conversation! That's too bad.

    Reality is tough but adults can learn to face facts: the reality of serious problems facing our planet due to human-induced climate change. The sooner, the better for us all.
  34. Joseph Freeman from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thank you, Mr Justice! It's about time someone brought the argument to the deniers in a language they can "unnerstand."

    Why is it that this is global warming - and the fact that we CAN do something about it - is so unbelievable to the same folks who think "our entire way of life" - including human rights, political structures, and constitutional protections held dear for generations - had to change overnight after 9/11?

    At least be consistent with your positions.
  35. John Doe from Canada writes: Nothing will stop climate change. The richest 0.01% of the population control the world economy and those people only care about money.
  36. Jerry S from Canada writes: i really do not understand why it is so important for so many people here to simply reject outright the research findings of such a large group of highly respected and educated scientific experts.

    do you honestly think you know better? do you also tell your doctor that she is wrong during visits?

    and for those of you who think this is a joke. i wonder if your grandchildren will think its funny when they realize that you could have acted, but you either didnt take the situation seriously or thought you knew better?

    you are being irresponsible.
  37. A Reader from Canada writes: Global warming isn't going to cause the end of the world, or human civilization. But what it will do (for those who can only view things in monetary terms) is cause trillions of dollars in economic damage, from increased insurage claims, lower food production, rising waterlevels eroding expensive costal property, increase fuel consumption for every device (thermal power plants, cars, airplanes, etc) due to the second law of thermodynamics, etc even in the best-case predictions. Even IF (not that I agree with this view) the world is warming naturally and human activity is only one factor causing the earth to warm, limiting carbon emissions would slow down the rate of that increase. Its frustrating to see so many readily available solutions that can drastically reduce carbon emissions (stopping new coal plant construction, increased energy efficiency, plug-in hybrids and nuclear energy) that can be implemented at far lower cost than the economic costs of continuing with the status quo, yet governments, industry, and environmental groups are all only concerned about their self-interst instead of looking for genuine change. (groups like greenpeace are far more concerned about fundrasing and promoting their anti-industrial ideology than finding the compromises needed to get action taken environmental issues)
  38. Vern McPherson from writes: The COns will bury this issue in Canada at their own electoral peril. Canadians want meaningful action now and they aren't getting it from this bunch.

    Look at the COns posts here so far. They either deny or don't care or belittle the science. And that comes from Head Office. friends.
  39. Kevin Komisaruk from Toronto, Canada writes: Human fools caught in a delusion of their own immortality are the greatest problem of all. Of course the planet will take care of itself, with or without us. One can only hope it will eradicate humanity in the process, and replace it with a more intelligent species. In the meantime, just a bit of friendly advice: what goes around comes around.
  40. Vern McPherson from writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Now Tarfu, the polar bear population IS growing. That was confirmed by biologists a few months ago with a large population survey. The Inuit have been saying the same thing for years, but the scientists didn't believe them until their own results corroborated what the aboriginals were telling them.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ROTFLMAO !! What biologists were they Alistair ? From the CPC staff ? LOL !!!
  41. bruno tomassini from Canada writes: The more the CPC back room boy posting here attack the issue, the more DION looks like a LEADER with his policies on climate changes.

    cheers!

    disclaimer: I'm not necessarely a Liberal supporter and I'm not affiliated with any political party.
  42. Mike JH from Canada writes: If we are really serious about reducing the 2% of global CO2 that Canada produces we will shut down all coal fired power plants in Ontario, Alberta and Sask.; eliminate 17 million cattle; close down all oil and gas production except that which is needed for national security. With this huge effort we should be able to reduce the 2% to 1.5% by 2012.

    Walking to Tom Hortons will not help!
  43. J Billins from TO, Canada writes: To all you IPPC "non-believers", dont worry. Haliburton Enviromental Services will save the planet!
  44. S. Elieff from Canada writes: John Miller from Windsor wrote: And if you really believe the sun doesn't make us warmer, how can you stand wearing winter clothes in the summertime?

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work if you believe the sun has anything to do with warm weather in the summer and cold weather in the winter. It's a constant! The people in the southern hemisphere might indeed be wearing winter jackets in July, when it is their winter, while we have our shorts on.

    Given the lack of knowledge about the most basic science in our society, it is not surprising that so many are easily swayed by the weak and often easily disproven arguments put forth by those who reject the notion of human caused climate change.
  45. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Ah thank it's pretty durn clever to pretend that "more and more scientists are backing away from the conclusion that GW is a fact". Yeah, ah KNOW there ain't no evidence for a claim like that thar, but . . . SO WHUT ???
  46. JOE BONNEVIE from MONCTON NB, Canada writes: HOT AIR WILL BE COMING FROM ENV. MIN BAIRD AGAIN. INSTEAD OF PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES LIKE HE HAD TO DAY ON CBC (SAT) 17 NOV, WHY DOES HE AND THE HARPER GOVERNMENT GET DOWN TO SERIOUS BUSINESS. I HAVE YET TO SEE THEIR PLAN. ALL I HEAR IS TALK, SEE PHOTO OPPS. BLAME ON OTHER COUNTRIES. THEY KILLED KOYOTO, SAID THEY HAD A PLAN. WHERE IS IT? HAVE CANADIANS BEEN INVOLVED? THIS IS OUR WORLD, THAT OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN. MR BAIRD STOP PASSING THE HOT AIR AND GET TO WORK. PERHAPS WE SHOULD GET THIS GOVERNMENT OUT OF OFFICE AND GET ONE THAT WILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING. WHERE IS THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PLAN FOR OUR POPULATION? WHAT ABOUT COASTAL COMMUNITIES? MR. BAIRD, COME DOWN EAST AND WE WILL SHOW YOU GLOBAL PROBLEMS RIGHT HERE. THEN WE'LL SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CUP OF TEA AND TALK. (A MARITIME INVITATION) BET HE WON'T ACCEPT, PERHAPS HE DOES LIKE OUR TEA OR US, WHAT DO YOU THINK. (JOE BONNEVIE MONCTON NB joeb@nb.sympatico.ca
  47. martha stewart from Canada writes: "Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to “abrupt and irreversible changes&8221;...

    Note the word "could." That is the exact word used in the original statement. Could is not "will."

    Iraq could have had WMDs. The Leafs could win the Stanley Cup again.

    Fugget About It from Victoria - Your 10:45 post was dead on. But who wouldn't want an all expense paid Bali vacation in December, especially when you're also 'saving the planet'?

    POLAR BEARS - The Big but Cute Lie. Their populations are at all time historic highs. For starters, google 'Taylor polar bear.'
  48. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes:"The report acknowleges that the climate change is actually faster than the model predicted."

    Yet global average temperatures have stubbornly refused to increase since 2001, despite the continual year-over-year increases in CO2 and other GHGs, as any of us can clearly see from the Hadley Centre's own data:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    The above graph is taken from the HadCRUT3 dataset used by the IPCC when making reference to observed temperatures.
  49. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: I totally agree with A Reader from Canada.

    We don't need to shutdown the tar sands project, no serious economists would suggest that.

    Simple solution, limit car engine sizes to 1L. 40% of all emissions come from cars. people just do not need navigators or escalades.

    Aside from that, most of the other changes would be fairly simple. More nuclear power, more public transit, buy locally, dont use A/C (its canada...)

    But then again, the minute someone recommends limiting the use of navigators, its inevitable that he gets called a "socialist"
  50. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Car companies opposed collapsable steering wheels and seat belts when they were first mandated by the government, claiming that they were too expensive and would damage profitability. They were utterly wrong. All cars have such safety features today.

    Movie companies opposed the development of video tape recorders, claiming that their profits would be destroyed because no one would go to movie theatres. They were utterly wrong. They make almost as much from movie rentals as they do from theatre receipts.

    Oil and coal companies claim that dealing with climate change by reducing carbon emissions will destroy they economy. They ARE utterly wrong.

    Corporations are not human. They are a lot more like machines, whose sole motivation is to maximize profit. If a corporations perceive that a coming change COULD impact their profits in any way, then they will do anything in their power to avoid the change. In the case of oil and coal companies, they will hire public relations firms (such as Hill and Knowlton) to shift public opinion so that real action on climate change is more difficult. One of their main methods is to aim propaganda at the least scientifically informed segments of society. You will see many examples of such propaganda in the posts in this discussion thread (e.g. it's the sun, not us).

    What has surprised me is that the oil companies have not ceased their propaganda campaign, even in the light of the increasing mountain of scientific evidence about climate change. They are truly incapable of seeing beyond their three year profit projections.

    One of the biggest offenders is Koch Industries (google them), who have significant interests in petrochemicals, asphalt, and fibre (they own Georgia Pacific) . They continue to funnel money into denialist organizations.

    These coal and oil interests are acting solely in their own (perceived) self interest, and against the public interest.
  51. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Wise Guy from VI, BC, Canada writes: "To all the folks who say the sun is making us warmer. You, sirs, are complete morons and a disgrace to human intelligence."

    Yet the correlation between solar cycle length and temperature changes, both up and down, over the last century and more is much better than that between the continually increasing GHG concentrations and temperature changes.

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
    http://tinyurl.com/24qbex
    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

    Can GHGs on Earth be claimed to drive the Sun's magnetic cycles? It seems less than unlikely.

    While a clear mechanism explaining how solar cycles and temperature change are linked has not yet been determined, if there is a causality in this relationship, it runs from the Sun to the Earth, and not the reverse.
  52. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Okay, lets just get this part strait, a statistical review carried out by Naomi Oreskes looked at all abstracts published in a peer reviewed journal between 1993-2003. 75% supported the consensus, 25% dealt with the techniques used to measure global warming, 0% denied anthopogenic warming.

    It's great to be scientifically active, but lest not have a caucus of arm-chair scientists going around picking and choosing which reports they will listen to and which reports they will not.

    How many people here have PhD's in anything relevant to this field?

    Even George W. acknowledged anthropogenic warming.

    Martha Stewart writes: "Note the word "could." That is the exact word used in the original statement. Could is not "will."

    You do realize that is the stupidest argument to not act yet to surface? the fact that you are playing semantics to prove your point shows you really have no good evidence to back up your claims
  53. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from writes: The COns will bury this issue in Canada at their own electoral peril. Canadians want meaningful action now and they aren't getting it from this bunch.
    >>>The Christmas shopping season is coming. I expect all Canadians (Liberals, Ultra-Liberals, Neocons, Olde Cons) flooding Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Sears and other stores buying all the crap they think they need. Canadian wants meaningless lips service (courtesy Al Gore) to male them look good, cheap gadgets from China and big oil guzzling SUV.
  54. Fugget About It from Victoria, Canada writes: J Billins from TO, Canada writes: To all you IPPC "non-believers", dont worry. Haliburton Enviromental Services will save the planet!

    Bloody hilarious and well said!
  55. Fugget About It from Victoria, Canada writes: You (Fugget About It, from Victoria, Canada) wrote: So all these delegates are flying in carbon polluting jets and being transfered to the hotels and conference centers via taxi or bus, and they are at a conference on "CLIMATE CHANGE"

    Then there will be 10,000, that's TEN THOUSAND delegates flying to Bali from all parts of the world to do the same thing in a short while.

    WHAT IN THE HECK IS SO WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE PEOPLE? These are the same people touting diaster is looming but flying around the world to tell the story?

    There is such a thing as internet video conferencing. This just so outrageous and yes I have written letters to the organizations regarding this and YOU CAN TOO!
  56. Vern McPherson from writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: "Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to “abrupt and irreversible changes&8221;... Note the word "could." That is the exact word used in the original statement. Could is not "will." POLAR BEARS - The Big but Cute Lie. Their populations are at all time historic highs. For starters, google 'Taylor polar bear.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now Martha if Dr Taylor feels polar bears are at ann all time high in pop and growing why do you suppose he did this ? "There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in the world, and all but one member of the PBSG believe global warming poses a critical threat to their long-term survival. The exception, quoted by contrarian writers, is Dr Mitchell Taylor from the Government of Nunavut, who remains sceptical about the climate modelling projections and their impact. 'I'm not sure I understand his logic,' Stirling says. 'However, at the last meeting of the IUCN PBSG in Seattle in June 2005 the group [including Dr Taylor] unanimously agreed to classify the polar bear as vulnerable.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/04/climatechange.activists "voted to classify the polar bear as vulnerable " ?????? Go figure eh..........................
  57. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: The denialist posters will continue to post their absurd assertions as bait. Those of us with any clue about the real science of climate change will respond to the bait, pointing out that black is indeed black, and not white as has been asserted. And the casual reader of these postings will come away with the impression that there is conflict over whether climate change is real.

    Don't respond to the bait! Don't feed the trolls. Don't argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
  58. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The HadCRUT3 global temperature data (linked above) show alternating approximately thirty year periods of weak cooling (1880-1910, 1940-1973) with periods of warming (1910-1940, 1973-2001). One might quibble with the exact dates of the inflection points, but the last century has clearly not been one of steady warming.

    The most recent data, taken along with what we can see from past trends, suggest that the Earth is now entering yet another of these periods of weak cooling. And this is associated with solar cycle 23, already longer than 11 years, and not expected to finish until early 2008. Recall that shorter solar cycles correlate with warming (eg- cycle 22 from 1986-1996 at 9.7 years) while longer ones are associated with cooling (cycle 20 from 1964-1976 at 11.6 years).

    This link shows solar cycle lengths:

    http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/2

    Anyone can use these data to themselves compare cycle lengths to temperatures.
  59. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: "The denialist posters will continue to post their absurd assertions as bait."

    Well, VDC, I post the datasets actually used by the IPCC. If you mistrust them, your whole argument is a bit undermined.
  60. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: I'm still waiting for global warming to hit my area, checked my heating file & I've turned my furnace on every year for the past 15 years during the same 3 day period in October!
  61. martha stewart from Canada writes: Vern - When do you think there might have been more polar bears? When they were hunted more than they are now?

    Listing a species as 'vulnerable' is just caution. It is the lowest level of risk for listing. (Google COSEWIC for the Canadian lists) It is a far cry from the hysteria being promoted about polar bear extinction. That is a Big Lie.

    Taylor has taken a lot of heat from the herd for being honest. There is a great deal of research money at stake, and the greater the supposed threat, the more they will get.
  62. Vern McPherson from writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Vern - When do you think there might have been more polar bears? When they were hunted more than they are now? Listing a species as 'vulnerable' is just caution. It is the lowest level of risk for listing. (Google COSEWIC for the Canadian lists) It is a far cry from the hysteria being promoted about polar bear extinction. That is a Big Lie.Taylor has taken a lot of heat from the herd for being honest. There is a great deal of research money at stake, and the greater the supposed threat, the more they will get.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Martha it's real simple. Why is their "caution" or vulnerability if populations are in fact growing ? Is it because GW might in future threaten populations LOL !!!

    I mean you can't spin this. OK !!!!
  63. martha stewart from Canada writes: Will Hoaccio - Its not just semantics. This political meeting haggled over every word. The result was "could" not will. That does not mean that no action is required. But it does mean that there are still uncertainties. In the meantime, the media and some posters here are taking this statement as some kind of definitive conclusion... which, no matter how you spin it, it is not.

    RE, that this"shows you really have no good evidence to back up your claims" ... this does not even begin to make sense. But the deliberate use of the word "could" in this statement does indicate that their is insufficient evidence for any IPCC claims or conclusions.
  64. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Martha Stewart writes: "Taylor has taken a lot of heat from the herd for being honest. There is a great deal of research money at stake, and the greater the supposed threat, the more they will get."

    Yea... the envioremental scientist from Bangladesh to Mexico have money to make by saying Polar Bears are vulnerable.

    OR MAYBE the one dissenting voice, the environmental minister from Nunavut, the province whose economy runs off various animal hunts, including polar bears, has some money to make by not listing them as vulnerable.

    This guy has lobbied hard with the US gov't not to put polar bears on the endangered species list, claiming it would hurt his territory's economy.
  65. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Re Martha Stewart

    they use "could" because they are trying to predict the future. these are estimates, the only way they could be "sure" is after the fact. it has nothing to do with insufficient evidence or anything of the sort. It would be scientifically wrong to say they are "sure" but they can say that it is "highly probable".

    The IPCC aren't trying to send hidden messages in their choice of words to climate skeptics.
  66. martha stewart from Canada writes: Vern wrote - "Martha it's real simple. Why is their "caution" or vulnerability if populations are in fact growing ? Is it because GW might in future threaten populations LOL !!!"

    I agree. It "might." No problem with caution about future possibilities. But the current "extinction" scare has no foundation in current reality, and that was my point. That is a Big Lie, but they need to tell it to keep using the polar bear as their appealing poster child.

    You never addressed my question.
  67. Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: Talking about money:
    Why do you think it is an economic catastrophy to change our lifestyle towards renewable energies and away from coal/oil?
    I am asking the people who use this statement as steady but never really underlined excuse to continue to use energy as we do now?
    Don't insult - I am seriously interested in your answer.

  68. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes:"Why do you think it is an economic catastrophe to change our lifestyle towards renewable energies and away from coal/oil?"

    Because the methods proposed to do so have involved economic catastrophe. Punitively high taxation, restriction of supply, destruction of the value of existing infrastructure by government fiat, etc, etc.
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: Will Hoaccio writes: "they use "could" because they are trying to predict the future"

    Exactly. They are "trying," using models that may or may not be accurate.

    Given the numbers of lawyers involved with this political statement, these words do matter. There is no "hidden message" - it very carefully states what it states. What they should have done is provide some indication of the probability that there predictions are correct, but they did not - probably because that is not possible yet.

    You wrote: "envioremental scientist from Bangladesh to Mexico have money to make by saying Polar Bears are vulnerable"

    What do scientists "from Bangladesh to Mexico" know about polar bears? Why would they comment?

    Like too many these days, you seem to think that scientists are saints. But it is just another business. And now it uses fear the same way the military-industrial complex does. Very sad really.
  70. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    Consensus at the committe level can be easily reached by kicking the dissidents out of the committee.

    I believe a certain university committee consensus was reached in this manner when the gun registry hoax was being put forth for liberals to maniupulate to obtain votes and increase government revenues.
  71. Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: Thanks Glynnmhor!
    But what exactely are the methods?
    What is the economic catastrophy?
  72. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    I British Columbia in the last two weeks, the premier "gave" $49 million to a new art gallery at Simon Fraser University. Few people outside university attendees will benefit.

    $49 million will buy maybe 2 highway interchanges which will help reduce auto and truck emissions levels, reduce brake and tire wear, reduce accidents, reduce fuel consumption and improve traffic flow for a region of approximately 350,000 people.

    Why would I place any confidence in the political process to help stem the so-called global warming processes?
  73. martha stewart from Canada writes: John L. Murlowe writes: "Consensus at the committe level can be easily reached by kicking the dissidents out of the committee. "

    Exactly. If the IPCC was really an objective scientific body, they would seek out all alternative evidence to test their hypothesis. But, of course, they do not.
  74. Tim Rutkevich from Toronto, Canada writes: I like how Toronto lefties are screaming the climate changing and then approve projects like these: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/277334 _________________________________________________________________________ Comrade Miller, socialist science requires socialist measures. You can start by raising taxes on the excessive foot print dwellings, 50 square meters per person is enough living space. Anything in excess need to be taxed at 10 times the rate. Call it Kyoto Green tax. I am sure people in Toronto would support this. You will get my vote next time.
  75. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: Thanks Glynnmhor!
    But what exactly are the methods?
    What is the economic catastrophe?

    I listed three of them already. Do you need more?
  76. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:"Exactly. They are "trying," using models that may or may not be accurate."

    Worse, they are using models known to be inaccurate, as the IPCC's Fourth Report figure 9.5 shows:

    http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb

    The graph shows 58 runs of 14 extremely noisy models, stacked together to improve signal-to-noise ratio. The stacking process is in some respects equivalent to a smoothing filter (higher frequencies are lost) so it is easier to compare the trends with the Hadley Centre's 5-year smoothed temperature data:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    It is evident that the models do not replicate the 1910-1940 warming period, starting too warm in 1900 and ending the warming 20 years too late, in 1960. While it may look as if the models 'sort of' match the data, but the slopes are wrong.
  77. Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: One more thing:
    The world's five biggest power producing plants i the world produce NO CO2!
    The world's dirtiest power plants on the other hand are the most inefficient. When it comes to efficiency, plants in Australia and the U.S.A. are well behind Mexico.
    You can read all this i the CARMA report. The data for power stations in the US, Canada, Europe and India come from official, verified reports.
    These data show that for the sake of economy and not just ecology THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE in the way we get our energy.
    Another example: In Austria entire towns are run by renewable energy and here in Canada, which in many ways (density of population, landscape, education) is similar, some people just completely deny that other ways are possible EVEN THOUGH THEY WORK! They do not smell, they do not pollute, they are not loud - What's the problem?
    Is it so hard to get used to new ideas, ideas which have been proven to work as concepts somewhere else and nobody suffers or gets poorer?
    Why do you reject it?
    I just do not understand this kind of mental torpor!!!
  78. Glynnmhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes:"These data show that for the sake of economy and not just ecology THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE in the way we get our energy."

    If we just close down some existing power plant, one with decades more useful life ahread of it, we will still owe the cost of capital on that plant, and in addition will have to expend more capital creating the replacement plant. The economic return on the investment, including the premature loss of the other investment, is negative for decades. That's hardly good for the economy.
  79. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Alternate energy sources, energy conservation and a reduction in energy wastge along with dealing with actual sources of pollution are the ways to combat our contribution to climate change. But make no mistake, climate change will occur no matter what we do, as shown in the past..
  80. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Will: 1:45 Oreskes' findings questioned, "consensus" not as solid as you think. The newspaper (London Times) reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, “decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly.” The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries. With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating “strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans. Lorne Gunter, a columnist for the Canadian journal National Post, was more blunt in his assessment of the survey. “It’s a long way from a consensus backing the most extreme global warming scenarios, as environmentalists and UN officials would have us believe,” observed Gunter. “Interestingly but hardly surprisingly, Dr. Bray has had trouble getting his findings published. Science magazine turned down even a letter-to-the-editor from him,” Gunter added. “That’s doubly galling because back in December Science didn’t hesitate for a second to print a discreditable paper by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego in which she claimed that in her analysis of 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed climate research papers, ‘Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.’”
  81. martha stewart from Canada writes: Political Junkie - Please, we don't need no stinkin' facts to spoil this hysteria.
  82. Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: Martha - I think you did not really get it...
  83. Nickstar One from Canada writes: ".....The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions......." "Cannot disavow consensus"? Accept "bias" but don't ever "disavow" its conclusions? Is this the same kind of "consensus" that is currently perpetrating the physics-defying; containing minute to infinitesimal composition(thousands of a gram); and possessing absolutely magical and unique properties which has been transformed by "consensus" into the SHS-based fraud of "epidemic of toxic poison"? In short, the purely invented, statistical gymnastics epidemiology creation of the "fraud of SHS". The irony of it all? The UN guy, now "leading the charge" of all the hysteria and paranoia inherent in both UN inspired(and completely consensus-driven) agendas of SHS Fraud(WHO) and Global Warming(IPCC) is very aptly named MR. BAN. "Cannot disavow consensus" in a pig's ear! Dissolve this UN coterie of biased charlatans promoting and pushing their visions of "consensus" on the world. Given the many challenges ahead for this world of ours, it is long overdue to dismantle this ineffecutal, post-WWII relic debating society, and create an entirely new entity(out of its sad and sorry ashes)that would be meaningful, decisive, and above all, efficient and effective.
  84. martha stewart from Canada writes: Laurant - Please, be specific. You "could" be right or you "could" be wrong but I can't tell based on the information you made available.
  85. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Most folk believe that they themselves will be compelled to give up some convenience to the planet in recognition of the global warming crisis. They do not want to do so. It is easier to disbelieve the whole idea than to give up that convenience.
  86. Laurant Europe/Canada from Canada writes: Yes, Ant Fascist, you might be true.
    This would be the reason nobody replies to my little report above - even reading and thinking about new entirely possible ideas seems to be too inconvenient for some...

    (Oh, and Martha, please do not bother us with discussions about terms like 'might' and 'think'. It is somewhat energy inefficient in this discussion... ; )
  87. Tim Anthony from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Here is an utterly fantastic site to shut-up the skeptics:

    "How to talk to a Global Warming Skeptic"
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

    It also points out that the science isn't so hard that half of people who can read, can understand the issues well enough to debunk most claims themselves. Not advocating everyone going off to learn it all, just saying: this stuff is NOT anywhere near as esoteric as most probably think it is. Just learn a quick couple points, then just cite the site for the ones you don't know yourself.