Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Globe essay: The sequel to Kyoto

With cracks and holes in the Greenland ice sheet, we may well have to 'geo-engineer' the climate

THOMAS HOMER-DIXON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:25 PM EST 26/01/08

Global warming is emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. martha stewart from Canada writes: Oh no! More scary 'could' stories. And more misinformation. For example, it says 'And then there's the matter of pine bark beetles.' ---- No. They are mountain pine beetles. ----------- 'As the climate warms, they reproduce through two generations during the summer, and their mortality is lower during the winter. Both these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall.' ---- Not necessarily. Only if there is enough habitat (MATURE pine forests) to support larger populations. ------------ 'We've already lost swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska to bark-beetle infestation.' ---- Not in Alaska. In BC the 'lost swaths' were almost entirely mature lodgepole pine forests, the product of decades of Smoky the Bear fire suppression. Without this unnatural scenario, this epidemic could never have been so large. ---------- 'If they cross the Rockies into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland, and kill much of it, the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide.' ---- They already have crossed into Alberta and the range of their primary host, the lodgepole pine, does not go any further east. Any CO2 released from forest fires is not an addition to the ecosystem (unlike CO2 from fossil fuels). And when dead pines are salvage logged (as most of them are), that eliminates this fuel and fire hazard, and this supposed CO2 problem. ----------- 'When I asked Stephen Schneider, a leading climate scientist at Stanford, about the implications, he just shrugged and said, 'Well, we're talking about billions of tonnes of carbon.' ----- So what?
  2. MJ M from Fort McMurray, Canada writes: I read an article today suggesting that we were about to have the coldest winter in 30 years. Yesterday they announced that CO2 emissions dropped in the US last year.

    blah blah blah
  3. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'Global warming is emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before.'

    No quite regularly mankind has been faced with mass delusions.
  4. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes: .
    Well written guest piece with layman science. Well done.

    Just fired up Google Earth and did a high res scan of Greenland's south coast and glaciers. Sure enough, huge lakes and melting sinkholes everywhere. Fascinating.

    68°39'19.06'N
    49° 7'27.16'W

    Scary as well, judging by the responses of the first three bed-wetters.
  5. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: Brace for cold, Canadians warned..... ummmm this was the title to an article in this paper....

    nonsequitur
  6. Maurice Nicolson from Parksville, Canada writes: Nothing much mankind can do about it as globe warming is mainly a result of the sun's activity. Fortunately this activity is due to decline in the coming years and we can all look forward to much colder winters. One has only to look at agricultural history and viking settlements to find evidence of past globe warming periods. This issue is such nonsense.
  7. dave mackay from nova scotia, Canada writes: After reading this article by Thomas Homer - Simpson , I am truly frightened. No longer can people stand back and do nothing!!!!!

    Tomorrow I am trading my wife's Hummer for a used Zamboni and I will fix this Greenland problem.

    In a couple of weeks , after fixing Greenland , if these unruly beetles get out of hand someone have David Suzuki ship me these damn things and I'll dip them in overpriced Canadian chocolate and sell them in China, in time for the Olympics.

    If only we could stop these children from melting , which I read about a day or two ago.
  8. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Denialist posters like Martha Stewart remind me of the Grima Wormtongue character in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
  9. Behind Space from Canada writes: Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes: Scary as well, judging by the responses of the first three bed-wetters.

    - Well, I'm just glad they don't represent the majority of Canada. Some people are just too entrenched in the economic costs of fighting global warming, that they'll believe anything that says otherwise
  10. Mike Smith from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: Our brains are wired to detect dangers of a different sort (snakes, spiders, and big cats) than today's modern dangers: like obesity, cardiovascular disease and global warming. Modern psychology supports this hypothesis.

    Deniers, give it some more thought, and if you are so smug and confident, buy some oceanfront property somewhere.
  11. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes:
    Corporate greed led by the Oil Lobby, versus the fate of the human race, and most of the other species present on planet earth...what's the fate of 6 billion people compared to Exxon's bottom line?

    Seems like Big Oil's paid minions are out in force tonight.
  12. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: The IPCC is another politically motivated unit of the corrupt UN. The same UN that previously pronounced AIDS statistics and forecasts that were subsequently admitted to be wrong. Pro-IPCC posters ignore that while Greenland's ice mass is declining, Antarctica's is increasing. Pro-IPCC posters: consider that the first IPCC reports predicted alarming increases in ocean levels, while the latest does not predict significant increase.

    Just more useless and baseless alarmism.
  13. John Longshot from Canada writes: All this from a political scientist who has his knickers in a knot? Then there are those from the hallowed halls of academia who create more problems than they solve! Faculties of political science are well known for their myopic view of the world. Some professors are so cloistered that they have totally lost touch with reality.
  14. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: John Longshot from Canada writes: 'All this from a political scientist who has his knickers in a knot?'

    Yah... typical.

    Meanwhile global temperatures have stubbornly refused to rise over the last six years despite the continual increases in GHG emissions and concentrations.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  15. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: As of this writing, the G&M's poll asking how many people think global warming is 'an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?'

    Some 60% of respondents actually agree with this nonsense.

    Religious cults like the AGW proseletyzers need to be revealed for the prevaricators that they are, or else more and more people will be taken in by their BS.
  16. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: Exxon didn't cause the Arctic to have big trees millions of years ago, nor did Exxon cause their destruction.

    So, Global Warming can be seen as a cycle, the results of which we don't really know. After the last age, of course the earth experienced Global warming, and most of Alberta and saskatchewan was covered either by the sea or a huge lake. Now we are 2000 feet or more (3500 feet in Calgary) above present sea level.

    We have to get rid of cattle due to their production of huge amounts of methane as they fart (for want of an easier word). Horses too. The population of PEOPLE is at an all time high, so 99% of those have to be removed, then less carbon dioxide will be exhaled!! Cars etc. powered by anything, indeed any form of transport really, have to be stopped, because no matter what they run on, they need industry to manufacture them, so get rid of industry also!!

    Where does it all end?

    Back to cave men and fires for heat - OH I forgot, fires also contribute to the gases also.

    OK,
    freeze to death!!
  17. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: 'Just more useless and baseless alarmism.'

    These folks have nothing productive to do, I suppose ...

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
  18. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: 'So, Global Warming can be seen as a cycle, the results of which we don't really know. After the last age ...'

    Not a valid comparison. The time scales are not remotely similar.
  19. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Maurice Nicolson from Parksville, Canada writes: 'Nothing much mankind can do about it as globe warming is mainly a result of the sun's activity.'

    Another standard denier myth.

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

    It's Whack-a-Mole time again.
  20. Neal Zavitz from Canada writes: Peak oil will replace global warming as top issue very soon. And there wont be any way of denying that it is our fault this time. Farewell Planet. It was nice knowing you.
  21. Roy Bob from Canada writes: Yeahright, we can change the climate. While we're at it, let's reduce gravity by 15% or so. We'll get better fuel efficiency from everything from cars to airplanes etc.
  22. Charlotte Gabrielle from Ottawa, Canada writes: I cannot believe how many deniers there are in this country. Thomas Homer-Dixon is smart and not known for being hugely radical- if he is worried we probably have a problem. And seriously, you can go look at the satellite pics of Greenland, and if it doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. Meanwhile I think waterfront property is probably an investment to avoid- but property five metres above sea level could be just the thing!
  23. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Charlotte Gabrielle from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I cannot believe how many deniers there are in this country.'

    Don't be misled by message counts on the G&M forums. There's a small coterie of deniers that jump like dogs in heat at any articles dealing with climate and weather. If you want to waste time by reading their messages, you'll notice fairly quickly that they are pretty much copying/pasting the same lines over and over again. If you have any paranoic tendency, you might think they're paid hacks.
  24. feo . from Fredericton, Canada writes: There are an incredible amount of deniers on this article.............. If one used these comments as a survey, it would look like 90% of Canadians do not believe in climate change. ................ What it likely represents is that 90% of these commenter's work in the oil industry and are running a serious campaign of doubt generation. .............It is very similar to the way the tobacco industry created doubt in the minds of the public regarding whether or not smoking causes cancer by using various fronts......Hate to tell you boys, but carbon tax is coming to Canada.....you'll need to create Reform Party II to avoid it.
  25. F Rioux from Canada writes: No reasons to deny the hard work of many scientist day after day. Try all you want you will never be more credible than thoses horders of scientists. You think they all may be wrong, maybe, alls possible. But thats no reason for prevention, futur will tell, prediction is an hard thing to do, like meteo can show.
  26. F Rioux from Canada writes: But thats no reason for no prevention*
  27. F Rioux from Canada writes: Just saw the today pools.

    'Do you agree that global warming is 'an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?''

    Someone need to take some statistic course at the globe. The question is full of bias.

    'Do you agree that global warming is 'an emergency', sound already better. Not all question are good, you know the clarity act, I hope you understand.
  28. Frankie @^_^@ from Canada writes: humans are complete idiots. They take a rock and drop it on their foot. Who and what do they blame. The rock of course. People drive big unnecessary cars everywhere spewing emissions everywhere. Who do they blame. Well they blame the government, they blame animals who emit gas,they blame everything else but their driving habits.ALL CARS , and I mean ALL CARS should not be allowed to have engines bigger than 70 hp for eg. NONE. Wrap the steel around the engine anyway you want but only 70 hp. Why do you need bigger cars. It just gives an excuse for people to eat more and look like bigger pigs than they are. With smaller cars you would have to eat less to fit in the car. China and india are just beginning to drive, Whats going to happen when an extra 2 billion cars go on the roads in the world. FORCE CAR MAKERS TO MAKE SMALLER CARS. We dont have a right to spew toxins into the air!!!!
  29. John Silverman from Canada writes: Excellent article! Lots of good information in there, and I've been a big fan of Thomas Homer Dixon, he's a super smart dude and very well respected.

    At this point I just laugh at the deniers. They just make themselves look bad while not convincing anyone to join their cause.
  30. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: All this alarmism doesn't explain why Antarctica is adding ice and we are facing the coldest winter in 15 years.

    Bali is is a better choice than Montreal. Less chance of extreme cold weather chilling the global warming crowd. Happy contrails to you!
  31. Vic Vegas from Vancouver, Canada writes: It is a good article, but nobody is going to give a darn until the food chains starts to suffer. Then we'll see who has the best army. Give it a decade. We'll be buying stale bread off a road warrior on Granville Street.
  32. Journey Man from Canada writes: Charlotte Gabrielle from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I cannot believe how many deniers there are in this country.'

    Charlotte & Hugh: Having poked around this board for a few months ago I rapidly came to the conclusion that there are more closed mined morons per square pixel on this board than could ever be possible in the 'real world'. I suspect that many of them are just nasty little internet trolls who need to get out in the sun occasionally; out of mommy's basement that is.

    One thing that the climate change deniers never seem to be able to explain is just who benefits if we try to prevent climate change buy burning less coal and oil for example? We can very quickly identify the beneficiaries of continuing on our present course.

    I have four young kids, and I owe it to them, and their future children to change my ways. Who do the denier types have? Nobody but their selfish selves and their oil company stocks I suspect.
  33. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: I'm not a denier in the sense that I would refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence of global warming. What I do doubt though is the ability of the inhabitants of this planet to take any concerted, timely action that could influence the world's climate in any significant way. Rather than dreaming of possibly vain attempts to change our climate, it would be more useful to concentrate our efforts on devising ways to adapt to change.
  34. Ex Drone from Ottawa, Canada writes: Don't listen to the climate change deniers, who cherry-pick their data and assess the problem through the lens of pseudoscientific conjecture. Try understanding the issue by reviewing the credible, scientific, peer-reviewed findings of the IPCC:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

    Oh and if you buy into the deniers' claim that thousands of climatology scientists are inflating the issue in order to reap the bountiful research grants, I know a number of struggling scientists who would like to know where all these bags of money are. Scientific research is not a very good wealth management strategy.
  35. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: Dear Journey Man:

    The real deniers are the global alarmists. They deny that the Earth has been warmer in the past. They deny that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. They deny that polar bear populations are growing not shrinking. They deny Antarctica is adding ice. They deny all the environmental hoaxes of the past such as nuclear winter.

    The ones who gain are the governments who then can add massive taxes with the support of the gullible public. The UN under attack for its poor performances in Darfur, Rwanda, the Asian tsunami has a global cause to justify itself. GE has cornered the wind power and nuclear energy industries in the US and actively supports the global warming issue.

    Ever try to get a dairy farm started under the quotas of the milk marketing board? Imagine trying to start or expand a business under a carbon quota! The politicians would hold all the power. These aspects are far more terrifying than any possible threat from the addition of a few parts per million of a benign gas.
  36. John Melnick from high river AB, Canada writes: The aspect of GW that concerns me the most is the fact that anybody who does not embrace every word that is written by the IPCC and display the requisite degree of panic is a 'denier'. In any scientific debate there must be a healthy tension that is not evident in any of the articles that I see on the subject. And when 'everybody' totally agrees on a subject and marginalizes anyone who questions them, the correct answers are late coming. I have also learned to be very suspicious when masses of people head singelmindedly in one direction. The evangelists who espouse anthroplogical climate change have a lot to gain monetarily (grants, tenures, etc) and in stature their respective field so their motives are not altogether alturistic. If any one of them saw even of a glimmer of evidence that broke the link between humans and climate change which is ACCELERATED beyond those that preceded, they would walk right past the findings for fear of vitriol.
  37. Gillian Owen from Canada writes: Yes, it's an emergency. I wish we could persuade our global governments to mandate rationing (Monbiot) but that may be a stretch. I wonder if the cynical vote is true - that the first world will find a way to cope, quite possibly by strong arming the 3rd world. In the meantime I avoid airplanes and gas guzzlers and California's lettuce. But mostly I play the ostrich.
  38. John Melnick from high river AB, Canada writes: By the way, what was the 'normal' rate of warming following a cooling period? Seems to me that by the theory in this article the normal rate would be exponential with or without human activity? It's totally obvious to this 'denier' that as more dark areas of the earth are uncovered, the more sunlight is absorbed, the more melting, the more dark areas etc. And the rate of change quickens towards the end before the climate resets and begins cooling again. Bottom line is that nothing in this article convinced me that there is an unequivocal link between human activity and warming. The arguments in it are more philosophical than scientific.
  39. Norm Neil from in the Wild 'n Snowy West..., Canada writes: Roy Bob from Canada writes: 'Yeahright, we can change the climate. While we're at it, let's reduce gravity by 15% or so. We'll get better fuel efficiency from everything from cars to airplanes etc. '

    Actually Roy, a U of Calgary scientist David Keith, who works in the Energy & Environmental Systems Group has an interesting angle on the climate change issue that I've seen so far. He has a presentation that is well worth watching:

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
  40. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Although we should do all we can to reduce man-made greenhouse gases, trying to 'geo-engineer' (i.e. forcefully change or influence) the climate is extremely dangerous, and can lead to clearly unwanted or even dire consequences.
  41. Occams Razor from Montreal, Canada writes: Next week, policy makers, scientists and activists from around the world will gather in Bali, Indonesia, to try to produce a climate-change agreement that will take us beyond the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Accord. This meeting will take place in an atmosphere of sharply heightened unease among leading climate scientists.

    =============================================

    How are all these worried scientists getting to Bali? I assume the vast majority by airplane.

    Why don't they host the conference online. We have technology that can support videoconferencing. All presentations and meetings can be held online. What's the point of creating technology if it's not going to be used to its fullest potential?

    By havnig more meetings, presentations, conferences online, we could cut out loads of emissions but then I guess the scientists wouldn't get to unload their worries down at the Borneo Pub or Poco Loco. Oh well, they're only human!
  42. Vivian Darkbloom from Brooklyn, United States writes: The human experiment is getting quite interesting indeed.
  43. Nick Burman from Calgary, Canada writes: I look at it this way. If the deniers are right and we fight Global Warming the wors we can do is hurt our economy (maybe) and breath better air. If listen to them and do nothing and they are wrong..... WE ARE SCREWED ! ! ! !
  44. Chris M from Canada writes: Great article....Id suggest people have a look at his latest book as well (the upside of down...i think) -- especially if your fault with the article is that it ignores peak oil. He explores that and much more in detail. Great Canadian thinker -- as someone else has already posted, what he's saying here isn't particularly radical. The concept of positive and negative feedbacks is the most concise explanation Ive heard so far for the changes occurring throughout the globe.

    I wish people would stop conflating the fact that its cold today with a cycle that is going to take decades. So what if this winter is going to be abnormally cold -- just because these feedbacks are accelerating doesn't mean winter is suddenly going to vanish or that we can't have really cold winters in the meantime. These same people would be shouting right back at me if Environment Canada was predicting a warmer than average winter and I claimed it was absolute proof that global warming was responsible. At least try and come up with a new argument folks...you just sound sad and childlike trying to justify your cynicism.
  45. Hugh McNeil from Canada writes: I flew over Greenland a few years ago in March. It was amazing to see such a large landmass so absolutely covered in white, with a few mountain peaks jutting straight up from the white plain, as pointy as ice cream cones. Unbelievable. Then we approached the coast and flew directly over a massive glacier, with crevasses that must have been a mile deep. It is one of the most spectacular things I have ever seen. That glacier front moving into the water must have been more than a mile across. The only thing I can compare it to is the Grand Canyon, but this was bigger. I hope a satellite is tasked to watch this thing fall into the sea, because if it suddenly toboggans, its waves will wipe out seaside settlements down the North American coast. The Xmas Tsunami will be nothing in comparison.
  46. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: The most sensible thing I've read here today - amid the usual torrent of hysterical commentary from the usual Chicken Littles - is by the guy who thinks we should reduce gravity to boost the efficiency of vehicles and air craft. Bravo Roy Bob! This perfectly captures the hubris and dementia of the global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-all crowd. Practioners of this modern witchcraft are impervious to reason or doubt. Conflicting scientific evidence is brushed aside as propaganda from the oil companies and other evil-doers. They rant about the supposed 'overwhelming consensus' of 2500 IPCC scientists, when probably fewer than 60 actually comprise the loopy 'consensus'. They ignore how corrupt every UN undertaking becomes - from oil-for-food to AIDS in Africa to Human Rights committees and, now, climate change - when hijacked by NGO zealots and goons with hidden-agendas. They also ignore the self-interested role the news media play in hyping every little alleged CC detail while carefully ignoring evidence to the contrary - and the contrary grows by the day. Many of the alarmists posting here dishonestly pretend to be climate change 'experts' as they repeat the same tired old lies, misstatements and distortions fed to them by the Gores and Suzukis of the world. Yet real scientists with real knowledge about climate are starting to doubt the role of carbon in the warming effects we've seen. Anyone who's interested should check out this link about the new skeptics: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42 The surest way to fan climate change skepticism is for the alarmists to keep insisting the 'science is settled' while they behave like Gobbel's brownshirts and try to quash all public debate about it.
  47. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Recant, foul deniers, recant! Only abjuration of your vile ways can save you from everlasting agony and permit you to live with us in utopian splendour!

    Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
  48. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Just returned from sailing the Atlantic. Two weeks without e-mail, cell phones, news, TV, any contact with the outside world and no sight of land brought home the meaning of egocentricity and insignificance.

    The ants continue to fret and scurry.
  49. Anonymous Freedom from Anywhere but here, Canada writes: I look at this issue and what I don’t understand is that it seems that every piece of information that is about global warming is seen as and treated as “absolute truth” by the purveyors of the global warming crisis. This same group also seem to treat every piece of information that does not support their cause as “absolute nonsense.” .” Don’t even try to ask a question that may not agree with global warming because instantly you are an “idiot neanderthal denier!” Think about it! I also notice that the G&M seems to only focus on the “fear and destruction”, pro global warming side of this debate. Would it be too much work to be a paper that has some backbone and gives equal time to both sides? Should it not be the job of the paper to present both sides equally? I say shame. G&M time to change your policies. If you are going to run an article on global warming, then run an article on the counter side. Then I have a question for the readers. It would seem to me that most of the global warming activists I have met or have read also seem to champion evolution. So with that being said then perhaps this is meant to be? Maybe this is the next step, humans die out and the earth starts again. So why fight evolution? Shalom
  50. d w from Canada writes: Thomas Homer-Dixon is a political scientist at the University of Toronto. I think that says it all. It is a stretch to say that someone who studies politics is a scientist. Science has been corrupted and politicized.
  51. Isaiah M. from Vancouver, Canada writes: This somehow reminds me of the Y2K bug scare and all the buzz generated before the clock struck midnight on Dec 31, 1999. Incidentally, all came to pass and the alarmists went mute.
  52. d w from Canada writes: How many years will we have to put up with these stories about how the sky is falling. I blame the media for the fear mongering and there desire to sell advertising space.
  53. Cody Sharpe from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: 'A new truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'
    Max Planck
  54. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: This article is way off. It has it all wrong. It says that within 20 years we will actually start to do something about global warming. Just read the first 3 posts and others like them, to see that nothing will ever be done, because mankind is pathologically suicidal. And to think that IF anything is ever eventually done, it will be some sort of bandaid solution like space mirrors instead of taking action now to prevent the situation in the first place. There's a cozy spot in hell for you Martha Stewart et. al. I hope you're telling your children that this 'science' is hogwash. I bet that you are.
  55. Al Suba from Trenton, Canada writes: 'Next week, policy makers, scientists and activists from around the world will gather in Bali, Indonesia'. Yeah right!! Why don't they show us a smidge of credibility and gather in a global hot-spot like Chibougamau, Flin Flon, or maybe Yellowknife. Granted, these places may not have the palatial facilities deserving of these money suckers, but mavbe we could get the Rangers to pitch a few tents or build them a few igloos. Then let's hear their tales about how warm it is!!!
  56. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: The G&M has adopted alarmism about climate change as an editorial position, Anonymous Freedom. This position renders them incapable of covering any non-alarmist development. The National Post, on the other hand, is far more intellectually honest and runs stories on both sides of the issue. I thought this is what a newspaper is supposed to do when it comes to evolving science, the details of which a great many scientists dispute. But, no, the Globe's editorial brain trust knows better than climate experts who dismiss claims made by the IPCC, Al Gore and others of the alarmist persuasion.
  57. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: pete peters - Interesting link!
  58. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: What will 'experts' like Homer-Simpson have to say if/when it is determined that we are merely going through one of Earth's many warming phases and that it has absolutely nothing to do with their theories? Perhaps it is better to ensure that the public is sufficiently indoctrinated now and that their little minds aren't 'contaminated' by competing ideas. With the help of a compliant media and the tireless work of the legions of dedicated gruenjugend, all 'impure' thought and dissent will be discredited and eradicated. All hail the religion of the Goreites, for theirs is the way, the truth and the light. As for 'geo-engineering' the climate, no thanks! We are already experiencing the deadly fallout from the work of 'scientists' who tried to play God in another area and poisoned our food supply with their genetically modified crops.
  59. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: The amount of cherry-picked science trotted out to try and defend inaction is astounding.

    According to this article, major reductions in emissions are possible without damaging the economy significantly. Even the economic argument falters when you look beyond the immediate term.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30green.html?em&ex=1196658000&en=61e35e9268c9bacb&ei=5087%0A
  60. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: There is one thing for sure that every generation in history has faced before -- and that is a group of people telling everyone else that they are facing an emergency unlike anything before.

    Hyperbole is an old as the hills, when demagogues want to rally people to their particular cause. In 999 AD, mass hysteria swept Europe when everyone was told that they were facing an emergency unlike anything before.

    You just have be to shriller these days, as some people are getting a tidge more ornery and not doing want they are supposed to anymore, which is turning to the demagogues and saying oh please save us, we'll do anything and give you anything.

    Yep, we ain't the first generation to be told this is the end, and we won't be the last. It's as certain as death and taxes.
  61. Richard Daystrom from Toronto, Canada writes: Why was Anchorage not chosen for the conference site? Or Tallinn, Moscow or Edmonton? AttractionsCanada really dropped the ball on this one.
  62. Chris MacDonald from Calgary, Canada writes: The global warming alarmists have been pointing to 'Tipping points' for quite some time, but this seems to reflect their desperation for attention as their climate models prove themselves unreliable at predicting actual world temperature readings. The earths long term natural state has been proven to not include ice sheets anywhere - we only have them today because we are still coming out of an ice age. Geo-Engineerng? Ridiculous!
  63. Michael Kyoto from Canada writes: From a Globe and Mail editorial: 'No responsible government could come even close to the (Kyoto) targets without bankrupting the treasury. But in an effort to score political points, Liberal leader, Dion has stubbornly plodded ahead, smearing the gloss of virtue on this economic and political folly.'

    Lets get real and admit out loud that practical longer range targets are needed.
  64. Michael Kyoto from Canada writes: Richard Daystrom

    Edmonton doesn't want 20,000 visitors spewing CO2 from their private jets. Let Bali entertain the hypocrites.
  65. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: I've got one to match yours Cody Sharp of Lethbridge:

    'There's a suck born every minute'
    - PT Barnum
  66. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: ummm ... that should be:

    'There's a sucker born every minute'
    - PT Barnum

    apologies to PT and all his modern equivalents
  67. Trevor Giles from Nelson, BC, Canada writes: Some interesting comments on this article. I have a few for consideration. First, with respect to balanced reporting on the topic of Global Warming where a paper presents articles from both sides of the argument. This is nonsense. This is not a balanced issue anymore as the consensus in support of Global Warming far outweighs the small band of denialists, many of whom are supported by oil and coal interests. Second, this whole issue has to be looked at in terms of risk management and the consequences of each position. If the denialists are correct and this is just another 'cycle' and that massive amounts of CO2 are 'good' for the planet or will not harm it then what is the downside if we all reduce our carbon footprint on a massive scale? None, just a better world with less pollution. On the other hand, if Global Warming is in fact a reality, and it certainly looks as though it is, what is the downside if we continue the business as usual approach of the denialists? Quite possibly human extinction. So regardless of what you may think about global warming, would you not rather err on the side of the least risk to humanity? I would. This issue is not about 'saving the planet' which is a decidely arrogant human construct. For the planet has been around for 5 billion years give of take a few hundred million and will likely be around for another 5 billion. The question is really 'Will humans still be on the Planet in the next 1000 years?' As for geo-engineering I'll pass. If we all cooperate we could easily reduce our carbon footprint by 50% in the next 5 years. You don't have to change your standard of living...you just have to change the way you live.
  68. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: Michael Kyoto .. NOTHING is needed. Nothing. Certainly not caps on carbon that will drive up the cost of energy and kill jobs while doing nada to halt the natural changes that are occuring now and have occured repreatedly in the past.

    We must resist this hysterical, left-wing attempt by environmental Chicken Littles to wreck economies and imprison us within a bureaucratic tyranny that will make us all poorer and more dependant on their whims. They're starting with carbon and CO2, but you can just bet when Kyoto and its illegitimate offspring show absolutely NO results - as they most assuredly will - they'll move on to methane, water vapour (the most abundant greenhouse gas) and gases you haven't heard about yet.

    We not dealing with science here, people, we are dealing with corrupted science and the politicization of a subject most people - including Al Gore and fruit fly specialist David Suzuki - know little or nothing about.

    Anybody pushing carbon caps and carbon trading should be tarred and feathered if they don't honestly explain what it will cost individual Canadians, and prove the alleged benefits.
  69. scott thomas from Canada writes: The simplest, most cost effective, and cheapest way to 'geo-engineer' the climate is to cut back on green house gas emissions.
  70. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: Trevor Giles ... see my comment about Gobbel's brownshirts above, and go buy one down on Baker St. for your next choir practice. The more experts know about the supposed 'science' of global warming the more skeptical they get. Whether you and other alarmists want to acknowledge it or not.

    Like most proponants of doing something 'just in case', you are more than willing to spend other peoples' money on a mad cause. But how would $5 a litre gas suit you?
  71. Dave from Vangcoova from Wet Coast, Canada writes: Global warming, followed by global cooling (read: ice ages)
    is a cycle that goes back billions of years.

    There have been at least 5 cycles of global warming / global cooling in past Earth history ... all of which predated human
    industrialized activity. Do we know what caused the Earth to warm up, then cool down ? No. There are several theories, with each having it's advocates in the scientific community.

    There is nothing that humans hae caused to bring about this current phase of global warming, nor is there anything we can do to stop it. We must simply adapt to it.
  72. Anonymous Freedom from Here, Canada writes: Trevor Giles from Nelson, BC, Canada - Thanks for proving my point! Young man find yourself a good “deprogrammer&8221; and leave the cult!
  73. Dave from Vangcoova from Wet Coast, Canada writes: @ Trevor Giles

    So I gather that you ride your bicycle everywhere outside of the cities, in the dead of winter?
  74. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: 'No need to worry about 'Climate Change' The Committee of 300
    are not.
    a.) Either be concerned about 'Climate Emissions' and /or 'Eliminate
    some population'??
    b.) Is that the the 'New World Order' Plan????

    c.) Now would the 'Real members of the 'New World Order', please
    identify yourself'???And they are????

    More population- abuse of our Planet-less jobs=Smaller Planet to sustain humans.
    And the individuals who are in 'denial' should get their heads out of their ____!!!!!
  75. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: Did anyone tell the scientists that Greenland used to be farm land? Likely not. Did anyone tell the scientists that the earth needs carbon dioxide for plants to survive? Likely not. Did anyone tell the scientists that computer projetions are only estimates because the information going into the computer is controled? Likely not. Did anyone tell the scientists that if the ice pack melts as fast as they say it is, that the Great Lakes should rise in level not decrease? Likely not. Did anyone tell the scientists that green house gas is needed for our own survival? I didn't think so. Did anyone tell the scientists that cliamte is more regional than global? I didn't think so either. Did anyone mention that global warming is being used to obtain billions of tax dollars for research and thereby paying these scientists? No, I didn't think so either.

    Best scam in the world and everyone is falling all over themselves.
  76. Whoa Aminute from Kenora, Canada writes: Like the stock market, the weather goes up and it comes down.
  77. John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: Trevor Giles from Nelson, BC, Canada. What, specifically, would it take for the entire human race to 'easily reduce our carbon footprint by 50% in the next 5 years'? Including Russia and China. What impact will these measures have on my living standard and those of Canada as a whole? How much will this effort slow the rate of anthroplological global warming (AGW)? Remember, we are trying to reduce the component of GW attributable to human activity (whatever portion that is), not reduce the natural cycle of GW right? The instrument which could measure the tiny amount of information that has been presented to us to answer these three questions has yet to be devised. Until the information is available you either accept the premise of AGW = extinction of life or you do not. I look at 2500 scientists, activists and politicians plus their countless hangers-on carbon tracking their worried way to Bali and choose not to ascribe to their religion. Tammy Faye Baker comes readily to mind.
  78. martha stewart from Canada writes: Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto writes: 'Denialist posters like Martha Stewart remind me of the Grima Wormtongue character in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.' ------ Did she/he just deal with facts too? Please check mine (first post). The pine story in this article is factually inaccurate, period. And therefore misleading. ---- If predictions of a significantly warmer and drier future for the boreal forest regions come true, the current forest types will indeed become more fire prone and less 'pest' resistant, and dead trees and forests will burn more frequently. But those pines will NOT be killed by mountain pine beetles from BC and Alberta because they are jack pines, the lodgepole pine's boreal forest cousin. They will be killed by other insects specifically adapted to jack pines. And spruce beetles will attack spruce. Etc. ---- My last comment - 'So what.' - could have been clearer. The quoted scientist 'just shrugged' and confirmed the obvious: the vegetation of the boreal forest holds tons of carbon (mostly in wood). But he did not connect it to the rest of the story. Did the scientist make this link, or just the writer? ---- There's no 'denial' here. Just an attempt to bring some facts to what has become an oversimplified and constantly repeated global warming fairy tale. The real story is actually more interesting and essential for real planning for the future. There are more characters in forest ecosystems than there are in Tolkien.
  79. ALASTAIR JAMES BERRY from nanaimo bc canada, Canada writes: Back in the 60's there was a real concern, in Europe at least, that the ice age was returning. One problem was the introduction of JETS flying the Atlantic leaving persistent contrails that on average spread a 5% additional cirrus ceiling over Europe causing an estimated 5 F drop in summer temperatures.
    One of the solutions bandied about at the time was aerial spreading of soot over Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic sea ice to absorb more of the sun's heat.

    Now , 40 years later, we are worring about global warming.

    I say we should be like LITTLE BO PEEP and do nothing until the CLIMATE comes home looking, and being, just the same as usual!
  80. martha stewart from Canada writes: Canadian Patriot from United States writes: 'There's a cozy spot in hell for you Martha Stewart et. al. I hope you're telling your children that this 'science' is hogwash. I bet that you are.'

    Well I'm certainly telling them that some of it is. But in my first and most recent post, I was just dealing with the specific factual inaccuracies of this particular article. I think facts are a good thing. You think they should go to hell apparently.
  81. leper Man from Nelson, Canada writes: This is really silly. A bunch of people who get their science from newspapers led by a few imposters pretend to be present material which throws doubt on global warming. It is happening and at an unprecedented rate never before experienced on this planet. This is what real scientists tell us. There is no question.
    Doubters are still wondering is smoking causes lung cancer or if the world is actually flat. They grasp onto any point they would like to believe not who has the most knowledge. Real scientsist say there is no doubt. Paid liars still question reality. These poorly educated gullible people won't believe the light in the tunnel is indeed a train, even though they hear the roar of the engine, until they are so much meat painting the tracks.
  82. Canadian Pragmatist from Canada writes: I think what the 'deniers' are saying is that the more you look at global warming the less the impact that human activity has on climate. Mother Earth and the sun are much more powerful then we will ever be, period. They are also not 'denying' that the earth is experiencing a minor tempature increase and probably will forthe next while. They are however saying, instead of doing things that don't matter like creating carbon taxes that move dollars around without improving things, let's focus on what we can do. Many of the things we CAN do are simple. Eat less red meat (less cattle - less methane), tele-work when possible, consume a little less (just because it's new doesn't mean you have to have it), buy products with less packaging or that used recyled content.

    Just like a crash diet never works, change yourself a little at a time and the world will be a much better place. Unforetunately, this isn't sexy and doesn't make exciting headlines for the media and they can't fly off to conferences to discuss it.
  83. martha stewart from Canada writes: Just read page 2... It says 'The consensus now emerging is that oceans will rise by a metre this century and perhaps even two.' ---- This supposedly scientific consensus is accurate by a factor of two!? - that's just guesswork, at best. --- 'A two-metre rise would have enormous effects on coastal areas of Canada — on places where people live...' --- No doubt, IF that happens. But if these predictions are remotely accurate, we should have already detected some measurable sea level rise. Does anyone out there have any information on whether this has or has not been detected yet? After all, this article states that 'With such a rise, concerns about rebuilding infrastructure and moving people inland will — in a few decades — become real, even urgent.' Surely there must be some measured rise if we only have a few decades???
  84. Jack O'Douley from Toronto, Canada writes: As someone has remarked, Homer-Dixon is a social scientist. He specializes in 'conflict' studies. In fact, his job was created after a campaign in which 'Science for Peace' lefties were prominant. You can imagine that his agenda is that of the usual left-wing-nut academic. I have no idea why anyone should take any notice of his opinions on climate science.

    Just for the record.... I am convinced that we are going through a gentle warming cycle. Part of it is human induced. However, it really is nothing to get excited about. One poster remarked that this 'global warming' is typical of mass hysteria... I think that is true. I'm also of the opinion that listening to a bunch of UN funded science bureaucrats on a junket to Bali is not a way to get at the truth. Oh yes, I do tell my chidren that. But they usually reply 'Look Dad, we remember you banging on about the Population Bomb.. go back to your pipe.'

    I am also a denier. I deny that Homer-Dixon is worth listening to, at least on this subject.
  85. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Silverman writes: 'Excellent article! Lots of good information in there, and I've been a big fan of Thomas Homer Dixon, he's a super smart dude and very well respected.'

    Well it may be well written, and the author may be 'super smart and very well respected,' but the pine beetle story he presents is factually inaccurate and misleading. If anyone can dispute my posts on that (12:35 AM and 1:52 PM) using facts instead of just name calling, please do. But it seems the Kyoto gang here today are like religious fundamentalists who insist that every word in the Bible is true, no matter what.
  86. martha stewart from Canada writes: pete peters from Pincher Creek - Have you been living there long enough to remember the huge mt pine beetle epidemic that hit Waterton National Park ALBERTA in the late 1970s? Today's epidemic may be the worst but it is certainly not the first. This beetle first came to public and scientific attention about 1900 when it hit the Black Hills in the US, attacking one of its other host species, the ponderosa pine.
  87. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: Martha Stewart ... facts are inconvenient to the global warming-will-kill-us crowd. That's why they try to demonize and silence anyone who disagrees with them. They want to create vast bureaucracies in every country to regulate every smokestack and sniff every tailpipe so they can control every aspect of our lives. And they'd really like to put it all under the domain of the United Nations whose unelected leaders and pocket-lining bureaucrats they can control and influence.

    The alarmists - whose every utterance and fear is unquestionly reported by the G&M, a reliable house organ - are spectacularly dishonest for refusing to say what their mad carbon-control schemes would cost average people. Nor