Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[jbg]

Most scientists have said that the sun and ocean currents do play a role in climate warming. They account for it and still are left with a rising figure which the say is greenhouse gases.

CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2) is methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

You mean, jdobbin, that these "scientists" can quantify the exact result of ENSO, PDO, NAO, sunspots, and one I forgot to mention, the Quasi-Bi-ennial Oscillation (QBO)? Amazing.

If they can, and one, at any given time, say in early November, measure all of the foregoing, how come no forecaster can tell me how much snow New York City is going to get this winter, or what my heating bills will be like?

[jdobbin]

You mean, jdobbin, that these "scientists" can quantify the exact result of ENSO, PDO, NAO, sunspots, and one I forgot to mention, the Quasi-Bi-ennial Oscillation (QBO)? Amazing.

If they can, and one, at any given time, say in early November, measure all of the foregoing, how come no forecaster can tell me how much snow New York City is going to get this winter, or what my heating bills will be like?

Yup, they can account for result of ENSO, PDO, NAO, sunspots and the Quasi-Bi-ennial Oscillation (QBO) when it comes to global warming.

Is New York City the globe now?

[jbg]

Yup, they can account for result of ENSO, PDO, NAO, sunspots and the Quasi-Bi-ennial Oscillation (QBO) when it comes to global warming.

Is New York City the globe now?

So, jdobbin, how much snow for NYC this winter? For Winnipeg? For The Pas?

[Riverwind]

Most scientists have said that the sun and ocean currents do play a role in CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2) is methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Global warming has happened many times in the past. There is nothing in the empirical data today that shows that the current warming is any more significant than previous warming events over the last 500,000 years. GW advocates rely on computer simulations to 'prove' that the current warming event is somehow different but these simulations, however, these simulations are poor predictors of the future at the best of times.

[jdobbin]

Global warming has happened many times in the past. There is nothing in the empirical data today that shows that the current warming is any more significant than previous warming events over the last 500,000 years. GW advocates rely on computer simulations to 'prove' that the current warming event is somehow different but these simulations, however, these simulations are poor predictors of the future at the best of times.

And it is with this thinking that the right wing basically says that nothing should be done about greenhouse gases because it is no problem.

[jdobbin]

So, jdobbin, how much snow for NYC this winter? For Winnipeg? For The Pas?

Don't think that the scientists have ever tried to say they could predict local weather patterns.

[Riverwind]

And it is with this thinking that the right wing basically says that nothing should be done about greenhouse gases because it is no problem.

What is the point of wasting time trying to fix the unfixable? The empirical evidence clearly suggests the world is heating up which means we should be investing heavily in technologies required to *adapt* to climate change. Once we have prepared ourselves for the consequences of GW we can then think about doing things that *might* lessen its affects over time.

If you know that people are going to try and break into your house next week do you:

1) Spend money on an alarm system and/or better locks

2) Spend money on a drug rehab program for addicts.

It is silly to ignore 1) and focus entirely on 2) even if you believe that 2) would solve the crime problem in the long run.

[jdobbin]

What is the point of wasting time trying to fix the unfixable? The empirical evidence clearly suggests the world is heating up which means we should be investing heavily in technologies required to *adapt* to climate change. Once we have prepared ourselves for the consequences of GW we can then think about doing things that *might* lessen its affects over time.

I'm not surprised by the "do nothing" approach. I believe it is what motivates Harper on the issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

And it is with this thinking that the right wing basically says that nothing should be done about greenhouse gases because it is no problem.

But it's not just the "right wing". Regardless of the merits for "anthropogenic forcing" of global warming, would you deny political and economic choices by individuals and nations because you know better? Do we not have the right to say "do nothing"?

[noahbody]

And it is with this thinking that the right wing basically says that nothing should be done about greenhouse gases because it is no problem.

Again, all you seem to do is try to position this as right wing vs left wing. This kind of thinking is the problem.

You don't have to make decisions based on your political affiliation. Really. I'm not kidding.

Watched that lecture yet?

[Wilber]

Harper's right, any agreement that doesn't include the US, China and India is just window dressing. I would like to see him putting pressure on them to sign onto a plan that Canada would support if they became a part of it. Why should Canada put its economy in danger to achieve CO2 emission targets that will do nothing on a global scale if the major emitters aren't on side. While the reasons for climate change are debatable, decreasing CO2 emissions and other pollution can't be a bad thing for the environment in general.

[jdobbin]

Again, all you seem to do is try to position this as right wing vs left wing. This kind of thinking is the problem.

You don't have to make decisions based on your political affiliation. Really. I'm not kidding.

Watched that lecture yet?

I did. And I think Carter cherry picks the data to indicate global cooling.

And as far as I can see it is a right wing versus everyone else. So far all I have seen in right wing supporters that don't believe in emissions.

Edited November 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Harper's right, any agreement that doesn't include the US, China and India is just window dressing. I would like to see him putting pressure on them to sign onto a plan that Canada would support if they became a part of it. Why should Canada put its economy in danger to achieve CO2 emission targets that will do nothing on a global scale if the major emitters aren't on side. While the reasons for climate change are debatable, decreasing CO2 emissions and other pollution can't be a bad thing for the environment in general.

I'm not entirely sure that Harper really will pressure other countries to become involved. It seems this is more of a strategy to do nothing.

[Riverwind]

I did. And I think Carter cherry picks the data to indicate global cooling.

You obviously did not listen to his lecture carefully. He is *not* claiming that the evidence shows global cooling. Is is saying that the evidence does *not* support the view that the current episode of GW is unusual or alarming when you look at the last 500,000 years of history. There is a huge difference. Edited November 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You obviously did not listen to his lecture carefully. He is *not* claiming that the evidence shows global cooling. Is is saying that the evidence does *not* support the view that the current episode GW is caused by humans.

I spent some time reading his material as well and he has been lecturing for some time that a global cooling is happening.

[Riverwind]

I spent some time reading his material as well and he has been lecturing for some time that a global cooling is happening.

That does not alter his most important point: there is no empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans cause GW. All we have are computer models that suggest that there is a connection. Edited November 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

That does not alter his most important point: there is no empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans cause GW. All we have are computer models that suggest that there is a connection.

That's enough for me to go on. It's obviously not enough for you or for many in the Conservative party.

[Riverwind]

That's enough for me to go on.

His arguments are clear. None of the so-called 'rebuttles' you posted address his core argument - they choose to focus on irrelevant details or use data which has be since shown to be wrong. You simply wish to ignore it because you have drunk the global warming kool aid.

[noahbody]

I did. And I think Carter cherry picks the data to indicate global cooling.

And as far as I can see it is a right wing versus everyone else. So far all I have seen in right wing supporters that don't believe in emissions.

Cherry pick data? He takes the time to explain how the cherry picked data has been used to sell GW. Watch all four parts, with the sound on this time.

Why wasn't it again that polar bears don't exist?

[Oleg Bach]

Cherry pick data? He takes the time to explain how the cherry picked data has been used to sell GW. Watch all four parts, with the sound on this time.

Why wasn't it again that polar bears don't exist?

Forget climate change call it what it is, climate distruction. Whether it is cooling or warming is not the issue. The issue is - to remove the filth from the air and water and land is not good for buisness. Harper represents those that would fear their bank accounts dropping by so much as five bucks - so they are willing to destroy the world rather than do what is right - these habitualist plundering and mentally ill buisness types...yes mental illness is not just a disease of the poor, it effects even those who control billions. So with a poor person you can say they are nuts - but the super influential can hire spin doctors to give themselves a clean bill of mental health. The lunitics have toatally taken over.

[margrace]

It seems to me that cleaning up our air is the most importatant thing. Especially for those who suffer from the bad air. So changing emissions on things costs money, all that money will not make us healthier, clean air would be a start.

[Argus]

Most scientists have said that the sun and ocean currents do play a role in climate warming. They account for it and still are left with a rising figure which the say is greenhouse gases.

No they actually don't.

[Argus]

I'm not convinced the Harper government is interested in the least in the environment. Their one line policy in the last election makes me think that it is not a priority and never will be.

And it is for the Liberals? It certainly wasn't when they were in power.

[Argus]

1998 has been the warmest year on record in the past 150 years so it is misleading to pick that one year and say the planet has cooled since.

So uh, if 1998 has been the warmest year on record - in 150 years - then uh, what made 1848 warmer?

Fossil fuel emissions?

[Canuck E Stan]

1998 the warmest year? Only if believe James Hansen and J.Dobbin.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.