Global Warming

[B. Max]

Max, I don't have to present an argument. The whole world of science has. You are swallowing the absurdity that temperatures have not been increasing in the past forty or so years. Only a blind and deaf fool could do that.

And, your argument seems to be limited to "Socialist " are behind it. You must be quite limited in your understanding of political views. I can't be bothered dealing with that one. Only an egregious stupidity could say it.

Putin has not said what you claim. And the "advisers" who are supposedly saying that it is not happening have published no research.

There is not a single peer reviewed study that would support the absurdity that temperatures are not increasing. Not even from those who try to give you comfort.

This is serious and I am not remotely interested in discussing it with you. Your arguments are about on the same level as those made by the interests that thought Mr. Hitler was doing good.

It would seem that dodgeball is where your limited talents and knowledge of the subject are vested. I never claimed putin said anything. Actually i understand many peer review articles HAVE poo pooed the global warming theory, and anyone who has looked at the claims of the fearmongers have found them to be without substance.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...92-fa78432433bf

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/l...lec19/lec19.htm

[Guest eureka]

You really are rather pitiful The Hocckey again is old news and is not wrong, by the way. It is just a crude measurement. There are all sorts of measures.

The NP writer wants his head examining. We know what the temperatures were in the nineties and for many decades before that. They have nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick.

As for your other site, a university lecturer giving a collection of information that he thinks favours his bias is not a peer reviewed study.

As I said, there are none that support the absence of Global Warming and the whole world scientific community agrees on that. The only questions now raised are those relating to thresholds of tolerance for different ecosystems and for life itself.

Those thresholds are close for some.

Of course, things might be different on Vancouver Island. They will be until Victoria is under water or the "big one" hits.

[B. Max]

You really are rather pitiful The Hocckey again is old news and is not wrong, by the way. It is just a crude measurement. There are all sorts of measures.

The NP writer wants his head examining. We know what the temperatures were in the nineties and for many decades before that. They have nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick.

As for your other site, a university lecturer giving a collection of information that he thinks favours his bias is not a peer reviewed study.

As I said, there are none that support the absence of Global Warming and the whole world scientific community agrees on that. The only questions now raised are those relating to thresholds of tolerance for different ecosystems and for life itself.

Those thresholds are close for some.

Of course, things might be different on Vancouver Island. They will be until Victoria is under water or the "big one" hits.

No the whole world does not agree. The historical records show cooling over the last 40 or so years, not warming. The hockey stick is part of the faulty computer models they used to claim global warming when the actual temperatures were saying otherwise. Fact, there is no global warming, that is a myth.

[Guest eureka]

That is the porest rubbish and not worth any response.

[B. Max]

It's not rubbish at all. What you are peddling is the rubbish.

[I miss Reagan]

Given the decision making by our government lately with respect to asserting our "sovereignty" by rejecting a say in the process. Not to mention such programs as gun control, which punishes the law abiding citizens rather than the criminals, or Kyoto which attempts to curtail the emissions of a natural occurring gas rather than carcinogenic pollutants. I think it would follow if the Liberal Government of Canada cut down all the trees so as to reach our goal of the "One Ton(ne) Challenge". Come on we're Canadian. We're up for a challenge!

Even if every Canadian met the government's "one-tonne challenge'' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the whole effort could be wiped out by a few big forest fires, researchers say.

In a bad year, forest fires in Canada can produce pollution equal to that generated by industry.

The National Forest Strategy Coalition says such fires across the country can produce 150 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in a single year, five times what the one-tonne challenge program would save.

Canada's 402 million hectares of forest represent 10 per cent of the world total, storing a sizeable portion of the world's carbon. But when they burn they throw that carbon back into the atmosphere.

Forest Fires and Kyoto

[Guest eureka]

Does that not strengthen the argument for doing something? Does it make you happier to add to natural problems?

Have you noticed the latest release concerning Arctic Lakes? It is now confirmed that CO2 levels have been rising dramatically and that temperatures are in direct sympathy with that.

For those who argue about pre=historic levels, the situation is that in the past 420,000 years, CO2 has never been as high as it is now. about 300 ppm is the maximum in the past and we have broken through that now. Temperatures have been conclusively shown to be in correlation with the CO2 measurements. There has never been more than a short lag, geologically speaking.

[Montgomery Burns]

And in another few years, people like Maple Syrup will be bleating about another Ice Age, just like they did a couple of decades ago.

The loony left...always good for a laugh.