Rona Ambrose, Darrel Reid & Global Warming

[August1991]

Rona Ambrose is Canada's Environment Minister. Darrel Reid is on Rona Ambrose's staff. Darrel Reid was a defeated Conservative candidate in Richmond BC in the 2006 election.

The Liberals and CBC say this about Reid:

The federal Liberals have denounced the new chief of staff to the Tory environment minister, saying his past comments on gay rights and Muslims disqualify him from holding the post.

CBC

For the record, his current Wikipedia article notes:

Darrel Reid was heavily criticized by his opponents for being pro-life, even though he promised not to change Canada's abortion laws at the current time if he was elected. He also said he opposed same sex marriage, but that he did support "registered domestic partnerships" for same sex couples.

Wikipedia

I could not care less about these views. He's a Canadian with the right to an opinion. I am impressed by his willingness to accept in a civilized way that a majority may disagree. Wilfrid Laurier would approve.

IMV, more serious for a Ministerial appointment to the Environment portfolio is this charge:

Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard told the House that Reid had headed an unnamed organization that disputed the science of climate change, perhaps a more germane criticism of his new job as chief to the environment minister.

CanWest

What does Robillard mean? What was this organization and what did Reid do? What does he think now? Al Gore himself asked many good questions and disputed many claims about global warming.

----

The Liberals are the opposition but raising gay-marriage, abortion questions about the Environemnt Minister's Chief of Staff is not the way to oppose. It's pathetic or empty.

I'm curious about Reid's global warming opinions but Robillard is vague. It seems a tempest in a teapot. I fear that the Liberals are back into "scary, scary" mode. If this is the Liberal approach to opposition and politics, they need some serious time on the bench.

Harper has delivered on "sort of" 4 of his 5 promises. (Medical wait times are pending.) Nevertheless, Harper has credibility - very strong because of the GST cut.

At the same time, IMV the Tories must present a credible, complete, feasible and politically defendable environmental policy if they are to win a majority. Environment is make or break. Incidentally, anyone who suspects Harper is not a feminist is mistaken. Harper has entrusted Ambrose with his government's future. Harper trusts Ambrose to carry the ball.

The other make or break issue issue is gun control. The Tories have the power to make it happen, and win votes as a result.

The environment and guns are cross-over issues for the Tories. These two issues reassure middle voters.

[bradco]

Richmond being my riding I had the priviledge of receiving this guys campaign literature in the mail. Just happy he lost handidly....and I dislike Chan (liberal MP for Richmond).

Either way his immoral and intolerant (my opinion) views are not really relevant to being a part of the staff for the minister of the environment. His inclusion with full knowledge of his beliefs does show why the Conservatives will have a real tough time getting a majority.

[Argus]

Richmond being my riding I had the priviledge of receiving this guys campaign literature in the mail. Just happy he lost handidly....and I dislike Chan (liberal MP for Richmond).

Either way his immoral and intolerant (my opinion) views are not really relevant to being a part of the staff for the minister of the environment. His inclusion with full knowledge of his beliefs does show why the Conservatives will have a real tough time getting a majority.

What do we know about the staffs of other ministers? What did we know about the staff of Liberal cabinet ministers?

Nothing.

It's never been an issue. These are political staffs headed up by party insiders. No one, so far as I can remember, has ever raised the issue of the political views of a chief of staff to a minister before. So he's opposed to SSM? So what? Half the Tory party is. Why raise it unless it's part of a Liberal effort to again portray the Tories as scary, and, not incidentally, to try and portray being against SSM as somehow illigitimate and unacceptable. As for views on climate change, well we don't really know them, but there is a lot of skepticism in the Tory party, so that wouldn't be entirely unusual either. If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good.

[gerryhatrick]

You left out the relavent criticism of the guy:

Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard told the House that Reid had headed an unnamed organization that disputed the science of climate change, perhaps a more germane criticism of his new job as chief to the environment minister.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...379&k=79240

Given that he's assisting Rona Ambrose that's pretty disturbing.

[scribblet]

Many people dispute the science of climate change, there are many skeptics on that issue, it doesn't make someone unfit for office, as long as he is willing to look at both sides.

Dinosaurs suffered climate change too

03 October 2006

From New Scientist

Dinosaurs had to cope with dramatic swings in the climate around 120 million years ago, with ocean surface temperatures changing by as much as 6 °C. The finding suggests that natural climate variations are much more complex than previously thought.

Simon Brassell from Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues examined telltale carbon compounds in fossilised bacteria. The proportion of these compounds varies with water temperature, and bacteria from different rock layers revealed that the ocean surface temperature went from around 30 °C to 36 °C in the space of 10,000 years (Geology, vol 34, p 833). "The changes appear step-like, as if the climate is switching from one mode to another," Brassell says.

http://www.newscientist.com/chan...aurs-.html

__________________________________________________________

CO2 Science Magazine

www.co2science.org/

"A weekly review and repository of scientific research pertaining to carbon dioxide and global change." Managed by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a group critical of climate change claims. Information on the site includes data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, model experiments for measuring the effects of CO2 on plants, and journal and book reviews.

Global Warming Information Page

{http://www.globalwarming.org/}

The Cooler Heads Coalition is a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition, and was founded by that group to "dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis." Features of the site include economic arguments against the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change policy documents as well as regular legislative upd

[geoffrey]

I dispute the science, not completely, but I think there is a lot of money grabbing fear mongering in progress.

It seems like no matter what happens, it's global warming. Oceans are higher this year! Global warming! Lower? Also Global Warming! Colder? Definitely global warming!

Cash grab by 'green' industries.

The CPC has already saved more lives with their ban on PFCA's, a real environmental policy that could very well save your life, then any party ever has in Canada. The other parties are bickering about CO2, and things like that, the CPC is taking agents out of the environment that are known to kill you. In the Western world, your pretty much guarnteed to get cancer and likely to die of it due to all the exposure to carcinogens. The CPC has already been lauded by the Canadian Cancer Foundation.

I really wonder who's doing it right... I'm really glad our government is protecting us from real, imminent threats, instead of something that may or may not happen over the next 200-500 years.

[watching&waiting]

In science it can only be called a theory, if there is not a reproducible cause and effect proof of just exactly what is being tested. That is why you find proofs by both sides in this debate. Even though we have seen that the eveidence for this is exptrapolated to 100 years in to the future, we seem to be more worried about the here and now. There have been proven climate changes in the past and they have been much larger in nature then we see today. But there were no industrial pollution back then, so why did this happen. We have seen eveidence of the cyclical nature of these events and that we ore over due for one now. So can anyone say with certainty that we are the main cause of what is happening today, or are we just a tiny portion of the cause.

I can not and will not claim that we have not affected the lives and health of many people with our air pollution. That has been conclusively proven. Yes we do dump large greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and yes it will have some effect, but nobody can say for sure how much that affect really is, only that we would be better without it. Now that would seem true, and many will take it even farther.

One solution would be to stop the population from congregating in the cities. Force employers to build their factories spread out over more areas. Make Governments setup the departments they have over the whole area of the provinces and the country. There would be an easy and viable solution, that could easily show us results, but it would never happen. But it would be the answer to the problem and it would definitely improve the air quality. It will not be done though because we do not want to be spread out. We want to have everything we want at our arms length for convenience.

So we struggle and debate on the other issues and ways to reduce our emissions and it is just as with everything else, we can not agree and any one solution. Walking away from civilization like the Mayans did, is not going to be the answer. I would rather though have the CPC take a shot at this and see what results they can come up with abd be accounted for, then the Liberals who spend billions and 80% can not be shown where it went and it did nothing but increase our emissions by 27%. To me it is not a hard choice to make and I hope the CPC do a good job of this task. They have come thru in al the other task so far, so why would this be any different?

[JerrySeinfeld]

You left out the relavent criticism of the guy:

Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard told the House that Reid had headed an unnamed organization that disputed the science of climate change, perhaps a more germane criticism of his new job as chief to the environment minister.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...379&k=79240

Given that he's assisting Rona Ambrose that's pretty disturbing.

I say we exclude all people from the political process who have different religious or political beliefs from the "accepted norm."

That includes pro-lifers, anti-same-sex marriagers, muslims, ALL OF THEM!!!!

[bradco]

Richmond being my riding I had the priviledge of receiving this guys campaign literature in the mail. Just happy he lost handidly....and I dislike Chan (liberal MP for Richmond).

Either way his immoral and intolerant (my opinion) views are not really relevant to being a part of the staff for the minister of the environment. His inclusion with full knowledge of his beliefs does show why the Conservatives will have a real tough time getting a majority.

What do we know about the staffs of other ministers? What did we know about the staff of Liberal cabinet ministers?

Nothing.

It's never been an issue. These are political staffs headed up by party insiders. No one, so far as I can remember, has ever raised the issue of the political views of a chief of staff to a minister before. So he's opposed to SSM? So what? Half the Tory party is. Why raise it unless it's part of a Liberal effort to again portray the Tories as scary, and, not incidentally, to try and portray being against SSM as somehow illigitimate and unacceptable. As for views on climate change, well we don't really know them, but there is a lot of skepticism in the Tory party, so that wouldn't be entirely unusual either. If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good.

Do you have a problem with the staffs of ministers being subjected to public scrutiny? Im not sure that its really a bad thing. These people have influence over important elected officials so I dont see anything wrong with their beliefs being subjected to public scrutiny. As far as Im concerned the more open anything in politics is the better. Isnt that something the conservatives were saying?

"So he's opposed to SSM? So what? Half the Tory party is."

-Isnt it way more than half? That was my point in my comment anyways. It will be incredibly difficult for the Conservatives to get a majority because so many of them are against SSM. In urban areas outside of the praries this is a major roadblock for them.

"If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good."

Doing good amongst their base who have the same social beliefs and views toward climate change. But there a lot of people who have strong beliefs that are incompatible with Tory views. These are, for the most part, the people in areas the Tories will need to gain support to win a majorty. Thats all I was trying to say in my comment.

[August1991]

You left out the relavent criticism of the guy...

Gerry, do you even bother to read anyone else's posts? The quote and link are right there in the opening post.

[geoffrey]

One solution would be to stop the population from congregating in the cities. Force employers to build their factories spread out over more areas. Make Governments setup the departments they have over the whole area of the provinces and the country. There would be an easy and viable solution, that could easily show us results, but it would never happen. But it would be the answer to the problem and it would definitely improve the air quality. It will not be done though because we do not want to be spread out. We want to have everything we want at our arms length for convenience.

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, greenhouse gas producing concept is cars and trucks. Transportation of people and products is where the pollution comes from, spreading things out would worsen pollution significantly. Focusing on making bike friendly cities (at least in the summer) would reduce pollution and obsessity, two things that are killing people everyday.

[Argus]

Do you have a problem with the staffs of ministers being subjected to public scrutiny?

I object to no one ever thinking it necessary or worthwhile to scrutinize ministers staff except when the Conservatives come to power.

"If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good."

Doing good amongst their base who have the same social beliefs and views toward climate change. But there a lot of people who have strong beliefs that are incompatible with Tory views. These are, for the most part, the people in areas the Tories will need to gain support to win a majorty. Thats all I was trying to say in my comment.

First, climate change. I watched the sad spectacle on TV this afternoon, of a Liberal I'd never heard of. He appeared to be a particularly sleazy and self satisfied example of the species named Pablo Rodriguez. Senor Pablo is introducing a private members bill which will demand the Conservatives meet Canada's obligations under Kyoto. It seems certain all three parties will vote for this, mainly because, while it's a total waste of time, they can tweak the Tories's noses. Also, they hope the majority of Canadians who believe in Kyoto - who are, remember, idiots - will look kindly upon them for their self righteous concern over the environment.

Senor Pablo glossed over the fact the Liberals only signed Kyoto as a PR stunt, and had done absolutely nothing since then to live up to it, played up his righteous concern for the environment, and denounced the Conservatives for not protending to follow Kyoto like the Liberals did.

Speaking of self-righteous political sleazes, we have Lucienne Robillard criticizing Rona Ambrose for "dismissing Quebec's environmental concerns". Even though it was very, very clear in the context of her statement and what she was responding to that she was doing no such thing, Robillard counts on the fact she was speaking English in hopes that making his complaint would help guide the Quebec populace into believing (again) that Conservatives don't care about the environment, while LIberals do, and, to add to that, Conservatives don't care about Quebec.

Mind you, if the French media is as unprofessional as the English media (by all acounts they're worse), they'll all lead with the same headlines you can find on-line -repeated ad nauseum "Ambrose apologises for dismissing Quebec's Environmental Concerns".

In fact, Ambrose did no such thing. She apologised "if her remarks were misinterpreted".

[gerryhatrick]

You left out the relavent criticism of the guy...

Gerry, do you even bother to read anyone else's posts? The quote and link are right there in the opening post.

I always read others posts August.

It's just that this time I got distracted by the first link and missed the second link. And quote.

Sorry about that!

[B. Max]

You left out the relavent criticism of the guy:

Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard told the House that Reid had headed an unnamed organization that disputed the science of climate change, perhaps a more germane criticism of his new job as chief to the environment minister.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...379&k=79240

Given that he's assisting Rona Ambrose that's pretty disturbing.

Actually he sounds like he could be prime minister material. Is this what they mean by the science of global warming. A fictional movie. The media has been part of campaign to hype global warming through fear mongering of outright lies. I have to agree with the CP member who earlier this year said that journalists who tell lies should be sent to jail.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308

[bradco]

Again I am utterly shocked that people dont believe human actions could effect the global environment. Head down to your local university and talk to professors that dont have agendas (besides the pursuit of knowledge in science) and see how many believe humans have caused, at least in part, global warming. Not having any science knowledge besides a little first year physical geography Im not going to try and explain any of the technical science cause I know Im fairly ignorant on that part of it.

"There have been proven climate changes in the past and they have been much larger in nature then we see today. But there were no industrial pollution back then, so why did this happen. We have seen eveidence of the cyclical nature of these events and that we ore over due for one now. So can anyone say with certainty that we are the main cause of what is happening today, or are we just a tiny portion of the cause."

-I believe they point to the speed of the increases in temperature. Climate shifts are supposed to take thousands of years not a century. The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

[scribblet]

I think people do believe that we are affecting the environment, but not to the extent the chicken littles say we are, the earth is cycling anyway, the best we can do is slow it down. It is not possible for the whole world to live in caves and go back to living in a pre-industrialized age, we would never be able to feed and cloth everyone. We all do what we can in recycling etc. but who here wants to live in a cave or a shack with out heat and hydro -

I will give credit to Bill Graham for admitting he was wrong about D. Reid though, as he has retracted his criticism of Reid's appt. Graham cited remarks alleged to have been made by Reid which linked the Muslim religion to terrorism. He withdrew the remarks, and said he has since found out that they were not made by Mr. Reid. Harper thanked Mr. Graham for admitting the mistake - Edmont. Journal page A6 and The Citizen page A5

[watching&waiting]

"There have been proven climate changes in the past and they have been much larger in nature then we see today. But there were no industrial pollution back then, so why did this happen. We have seen eveidence of the cyclical nature of these events and that we ore over due for one now. So can anyone say with certainty that we are the main cause of what is happening today, or are we just a tiny portion of the cause."

-I believe they point to the speed of the increases in temperature. Climate shifts are supposed to take thousands of years not a century. The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

Bradco I am very sorry to have to tell you that Iceages were very fast climate changes in terms if a year for the start and maybe decades to really cover the earth. If Ice ages took thousand of years, then all the dinansaurs would have migrated to the sountherm most areas and not be found still standing in their tracks frozen that way. For example a super volcano could cause the earth to become barren within one years growing cycle. The seas would become m0ore acidic and most of the species on the surface of the earth would die. That could happen as fast as tomorrow or take a much longer time. e could be hit by astroids, or any other of the many things that nature could throw at us and we would be helpless to react. We know that there are natural heating and cooling events. Also we are due for a heating event now as the cycle that these have taken is again saying this. Now yes many scientists will say we have made this one much more of an event because of our man made pollution. But I preferr to think that we are an enclosed little micro-environment in the vast universe. We do not have the ability to add or subtract much from our environment that would be considered from a new source. The greenhouse gases we put into our atmosphere had to be taken from some where and they will sooner and later again return to where they came. Think of it as the old " energy can not be created or destroyed" it can only be converted and used and then again it will return to its lowest form once again. Yes we can change things over time to make more and more thing suspended in our atmosphere, and many of thise things are harmful to man, and they will cause health and otehr problems, but they really have very little affect on the massive environment of earth. Yes they may heat up the world by a few degrees. But there then will cause other things to happen that will accellerate the rduction of these gases back to the soil, and await once again there release.

Remember what we are now seeing science say is that if we keep going and expoentially keep increasing our contributing factors that in a century or so, we will regret doing this. But who is to say that in a century we will not have ways and methods to return all this back to the soil in an even better method? I will say that we need to have emission controls because of the health issues that our pollutants cause, but I am not going to buy into the world is doomed if we do not claims, which I beleive are false to begin with.

[B. Max]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

[watching&waiting]

That line was actually attributed to another responding to what I said above. I agree that this is not true.

[bradco]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas. I can search the internet and find all kinds of left wing environmental hippie groups who will say the opposite, does that make it truth? Im not a science student but if someone sourced that in an technical science on climate change essay I bet it would be an automatic fail.

heres some stuff I found on the internet, not great sources but Im not spending hours flipping through academic journals because no matter what I say it wont effect your opinion. Your minds already made up:

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exh...cc/causes03.jsp

"CO2 contributes more to the recent increase in greenhouse warming than any other gas. CO2 persists in the atmosphere longer and longer as concentrations continue to rise."

-this page is clearly less biased since it immediately recognizes the importance of the economy of fossil fuel burning.

"They (scientists) have a high level of certainty that greenhouse gases contribute the most to warming, with increases in CO2 as the greatest contributor with about 1.4 watts/meter2"

-water vapour might be in the most abundance in the atmosphere but its relatively constant.....therefore its not causing change. The fact that your website mentions it is showing that its trying to use facts that dont matter to influence peoples opinion.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

"The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global increase of 2.5ºF to 10.4ºF by 2100"

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/web...46?OpenDocument

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities"

"Carbon dioxide is probably the single most important agent contributing to climate changes today, the report says. In addition, the other greenhouse gases combined contribute to climate changes approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ate-change.html

"There is no doubt anymore in the mainstream scientific community that the Earth is warming, and increasing evidence shows that humans have a significant part in it."

-they recognize human involvement is only a part....does that mean we should do nothing? Either way it shows a little balance you dont get from your right wing think tanks.

"In the IPCC's 2001 assessment of the scientific basis of climate change, the experts draw three important conclusions:

* Climate change is underway. Or in the IPCC's own words: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."

* Human activities do and will continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere.

The IPCC states, "emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate." Adding that trends of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities point further upward, the scientists argue that significant emission reductions would be necessary to stabilize the climate.

* Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

"As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/...in1415985.shtml

"Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But as correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring, this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science"

"What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea. "

""There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

Restrictions like an e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued."

-if theres nothing to hide than why censor? Maybe this guys just a nut?

"Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone."

[B. Max]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas.

Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

[bradco]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas.

Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits).

As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything?

[geoffrey]

If there was a consistant theory, one where the scientists can say, this is what's going to happen if we keep going, I'd buy it.

What we have is "ooo it's getting hotter, global warming, it's going to keep getting hotter." Then it gets colder... "ooo it's getting colder, global warming, it's going to keep getting colder for a little now."

Their outlook and reasoning changes nearly daily. There is no theory, the projections are continously changed... how can I trust a theory and act on it when it points to completely different outcomes and timelines daily.

What I do know is that the billions we've wasted on doing nothing on Kyoto could clean up many of the toxic waste sites in Canada that kill people right now. Or fund a ban of carcinogens in things like laundry detergent and fire retardant clothing that little kids sleep in.

The best thing CBC has published ever... maybe the only good thing other than hockey night in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/

Watch it if you get a chance, order the video. It'll open your eyes, CO2 is a waste of your thinking when you see the death our cancer ridden environment causes.

[B. Max]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas.

Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits).

As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything?

The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html

[watching&waiting]

The debate on just how each gas affects the climate, can and will go on for ages. But can anyone dispute the fact that one volcano like Mount St Helens give us many thousands of times the emmissions in one eruption then man has contributed in over 100 years? I remember back when Mount St Hellens erupted there were scientists saying that the gases it gave off during the eruption would make mans contribution insignificant. In the times after that there were dire predicts about nuclear winters etc. I am also pretty sure this was again said with the Pinatubuea eruptions as well. So if just normal day to day gobal happenings can overshadow mans contributions in just the blink of an eye, then should we not question the effects that man really has on his environment. There are many under water volcanoes as well that erupt all the time and these could also affect the temperature of the oceans, but has any of this been looked into and added to the equation? The answer is no, because when you do all this, you will find just how insignificant mans contributions are. Now that does not mean man is off scott free. While his emissions really do not affect climate the way some want to say, it does affect the health and welfare of the people on earth, and should still be looked at in that category.