Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

[gerryhatrick]

Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, October 16, 2006

OTTAWA -- Canada's top climate-change "skeptics" say they're encouraged by a recent statement raising questions about global-warming science by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose government will table this week legislation to reduce smog and the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.

snip

Harper, in a recent French-language interview with Montreal newspaper Le Devoir, raised doubts about global climate-change research.

"It's a complicated subject that is evolving," he said. "We have difficulties in predicting the weather in one week or even tomorrow."

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...6e-021b2d0f8065

In my view, Harper has absconded his right to lead Canada with this kind of comment.

He is not leading on the issue of Global Warming, he is delaying.

To equate the science of Global Warming with that of predicting what the weather will be in a week is so stunningly dishonest and so obviously playing to the industry denial croud that he must go.

If he cannot look out for the interests of Canadians he should not be PM.

[B. Max]

I would say Harper is looking out for canadian interests. As opposed to those who promote leftist one world government.

[Shakeyhands]

what do you mean B.Max?

[B. Max]

what do you mean B.Max?

Be more precise because that is a large subject.

In the mean time have a look at this. As you will see and is claimed by the socalled science skeptics but never mentioned by promoters of CO2 driven temperature scientists. Most global warming took place before 1940 and since then has actuallly cooled at a time when CO2 was suppose to be increasing.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

[cybercoma]

Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, October 16, 2006

OTTAWA -- Canada's top climate-change "skeptics" say they're encouraged by a recent statement raising questions about global-warming science by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose government will table this week legislation to reduce smog and the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.

snip

Harper, in a recent French-language interview with Montreal newspaper Le Devoir, raised doubts about global climate-change research.

"It's a complicated subject that is evolving," he said. "We have difficulties in predicting the weather in one week or even tomorrow."

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...6e-021b2d0f8065

In my view, Harper has absconded his right to lead Canada with this kind of comment.

He is not leading on the issue of Global Warming, he is delaying.

To equate the science of Global Warming with that of predicting what the weather will be in a week is so stunningly dishonest and so obviously playing to the industry denial croud that he must go.

If he cannot look out for the interests of Canadians he should not be PM.

Science has shown that computer models cannot even predict past weather patterns, let alone what future events will occur due to global warming. Stephen Harper is not being dishonest, what he's saying is a fact. He hasn't denied the existance of Global Warming, instead he is saying more questions need to be answered about the effects before the government starts sinking billions of dollars into this thing.

There are much more pressing issues facing this country than the effects of a global problem that will require a global solution, one which doesn't involve buying "credits" to shirk ones responsibilities.

[gerryhatrick]

Science has shown that computer models cannot even predict past weather patterns, let alone what future events will occur due to global warming. Stephen Harper is not being dishonest, what he's saying is a fact. He hasn't denied the existance of Global Warming, instead he is saying more questions need to be answered about the effects before the government starts sinking billions of dollars into this thing.

There are much more pressing issues facing this country than the effects of a global problem that will require a global solution, one which doesn't involve buying "credits" to shirk ones responsibilities.

That is your argument against Global Warming, that computer models are not perfect? But wait, you're hedging your bets in saying that Harper hasn't "denied the existance" of Global Warming. So what then, is he playing cynical politics? Does he honestly not believe in it, in your opinion?

If you agree that Global Warming is happening then it's hard to imagine a more "pressing issue".

And if you agree that Global Warming is happening then it's hard to understand your argument against a system of credits. It's an excellent way of making it a global issue.

In either event, I love this story. It points to where Harper truely stands on the issue, which is something Canadians need to know.

[PocketRocket]

In my view, Harper has absconded his right to lead Canada with this kind of comment.

ab·scond (ăb-skŏnd') pronunciation

intr.v., -scond·ed, -scond·ing, -sconds.

To leave quickly and secretly and hide oneself, often to avoid arrest or prosecution.

He has run away and hid his right to lead Canada???

To avoid arrest or prosecution, perhaps???

[jbg]

what do you mean B.Max?

I'll take a stab at this. Kyoto's base year for reductions was picked as 1990. This was no accident.

Canada and the US were in recession at the time, meaning their so-called "greenhouse" emissions skyrocketed during the recovery years of 1992-2001. In Europe, 1990 wa a peak year. The emissions from the former East Germany, and much of Poland's, Czechoslovakia's and Hungary's emissions were subtracted. Iceland's new aluminum smelter was "exempted" from Kyoto.

Thus, Kyoto is a dagger aimed at US, Canadian and Australian growth, to the advantage of a highly gerrymandered Europe. Any Canadian PM or US President supporting Kyoto is either incompetent, treasonous or both.

As far as the science, there are so many cycles in weather. Does anyone really think that giving Power Corp. some emissions-trading credit commissions is going to change those cycles?

[cybercoma]

That is your argument against Global Warming, that computer models are not perfect? But wait, you're hedging your bets in saying that Harper hasn't "denied the existance" of Global Warming. So what then, is he playing cynical politics? Does he honestly not believe in it, in your opinion?

I wasn't arguing AGAINST Global Warming, I was arguing against wasting money on something that isn't yet fully understood.

If you agree that Global Warming is happening then it's hard to imagine a more "pressing issue".

And if you agree that Global Warming is happening then it's hard to understand your argument against a system of credits. It's an excellent way of making it a global issue.

In either event, I love this story. It points to where Harper truely stands on the issue, which is something Canadians need to know.

It's not hard to imagine a more pressing issue. Actually, it's almost hard to imagine an issue that isn't more pressing than Global Warming. Sure our environment is important and we shouldn't stand for hazardous toxic waste being dumped and other such things which are already illegal, but the extent of Global Warming's effects is not yet fully understood. It's not known whether we can make an impact on it, yet.

All I'm saying and all Harper is saying is that we should know a little more about what we're fighting before jumping headfirst into it and wasting taxpayers' money on things that may be ineffectual.

[geoffrey]

Harper has been incrediable more successful on global warming than the Liberals... it hasn't got worse yet.

13 years of Liberal environmental policy got us massively increased greenhouse gases... it works so well right Gerry. We should definitely be taking advice from the party that made our environment so much worse.

Give the plan a chance, if it doesn't improve things, then it's considerably still better than the Liberal plan that saw our money leave the country to worsen other countries emissions while ours skyrocketed at home.

[gerryhatrick]

It's not hard to imagine a more pressing issue. Actually, it's almost hard to imagine an issue that isn't more pressing than Global Warming. Sure our environment is important and we shouldn't stand for hazardous toxic waste being dumped and other such things which are already illegal, but the extent of Global Warming's effects is not yet fully understood. It's not known whether we can make an impact on it, yet.

All I'm saying and all Harper is saying is that we should know a little more about what we're fighting before jumping headfirst into it and wasting taxpayers' money on things that may be ineffectual.

That's fine by me. If Harper wants to lend his credibility to the liars and deniers then he'll go down the garden path with them.

You clearly don't consider Global Warming a threat. That is quite simply a view along the same lines as thinking that George Bush ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center.

There will ALWAYS be a couple of industry-funded nutjobs like Bob Carter and Tim Ball. They will never change their tune because it's based on bullsh@t, and People who can't handle reality will dance to their tune until they die. Those people need to just get out of the way and let others with the mental strength to face reality deal with it.

[cybercoma]

That's fine by me. If Harper wants to lend his credibility to the liars and deniers then he'll go down the garden path with them.

You clearly don't consider Global Warming a threat. That is quite simply a view along the same lines as thinking that George Bush ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center.

There will ALWAYS be a couple of industry-funded nutjobs like Bob Carter and Tim Ball. They will never change their tune because it's based on bullsh@t, and People who can't handle reality will dance to their tune until they die. Those people need to just get out of the way and let others with the mental strength to face reality deal with it.

Do you want to argue facts about the causes and effects of Global Warming, or would you just like to continue making posts attacking people?

[cybercoma]

One of the factors for global warming is the consumption of oil. In the 1970s there was an oil shortage and Global Warming was a problem. Greenpeace is telling us now that "the problem is that we have too much." Obviously, fossil-fuel scarcity due to overconsumption is NOT the problem. We're much more efficient with our fuels today than we were 30 years ago and lo and behold, Global Warming or the new trendy phrase Global Climate Change is still the most pressing issue facing the world today.

Quite frankly, it looks a lot more like interest groups are trying to hamper the wealth of North America by limiting production and manufacturing. These types of drastic measures are justified by the supposed severe consequences of global warming. There is no doubt that man-made global climate change is real, what's in question is the best course of action. Dumping resources into programs that may have little to no effect on the climate, but a huge lasting effect on the quality of life in this country and our economy is idiotic at best.

[gerryhatrick]

That's fine by me. If Harper wants to lend his credibility to the liars and deniers then he'll go down the garden path with them.

You clearly don't consider Global Warming a threat. That is quite simply a view along the same lines as thinking that George Bush ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center.

There will ALWAYS be a couple of industry-funded nutjobs like Bob Carter and Tim Ball. They will never change their tune because it's based on bullsh@t, and People who can't handle reality will dance to their tune until they die. Those people need to just get out of the way and let others with the mental strength to face reality deal with it.

Do you want to argue facts about the causes and effects of Global Warming, or would you just like to continue making posts attacking people?

No, I do not really wish to argue the causes and effects of Global Warming. That is all determined and accepted fact.

And how am I "attacking people", exactly?

[Borg]

No, I do not really wish to argue the causes and effects of Global Warming. That is all determined and accepted fact.

Is it? There are apparently many who would disagree.

Perhaps it depends on which side of the fence you sit upon?

Borg

[cybercoma]

No, I do not really wish to argue the causes and effects of Global Warming. That is all determined and accepted fact.

And how am I "attacking people", exactly?

You're absolutely right, the causes are not arguable, they are accepted fact; however, the effects of global warming are very much up for debate. The solutions to man-made climate change are also very much up for debate. What cannot be determined is how much the temperature will increase over the next 100 years and how much of that is a direct result from industrialization. What also cannot be determined is how it will affect weather. The situation may or may not be as bleak as you paint it and science suggests that it's not. The computer models consistently spit out HIGHER global temperatures for years that already have recorded results.

I don't think the government needs to create unemployment and severely damage our GDP for something as uncertain as global warming. Please, show a little intelligence and explain why you think this situation is of the utmost importance.

I'm not going to waste my time getting into a pissing match about "how" you're attacking people, it's quite obvious.

[watching&waiting]

I was in Ottawa today and so I decided to look up some of my buddies from College where we all atudied biochemostry. Over Luch I posed the question that if any of them would back the climate change position that it was irrefutable, and risk they jobs on it. That started to discussions and no one had said they would bet anything on it but went on to say that the proof points in that direction. Not even one would say that there was any proof that global warming was caused by anything. We all agreed that pollution was unhealthy and that was bad for people and yes they had no trouble stating that as fact, but every one of my six buddies balked when it came to saying it wasa cause of global warming.

There were many ideas about just what we can predict and what we can not, and global temperature can not be predicted for next summer let alone decades away. We kind of all agreed that nothing done so far by any country has ever had a reducing affect on this issue. We also had most agree that we should not expect reductions so much as accept the status quo, but not so stringently that we hurts economies, because there just is not that kind of evidence that would justify that kind of action.

Now on another note I found as funny that out of the six of us 4 were supporters of the views of CPC, I liberal, and One the Bloc. even though we have those divisions we all pretty much see things the same. So when it comes to climate change and things of that nature, while political parties try to claim ground for there own causes, it seem the people do not care about who it is that does the deed, but rather that the deed is done in a proper way.

[gerryhatrick]

No, I do not really wish to argue the causes and effects of Global Warming. That is all determined and accepted fact.

And how am I "attacking people", exactly?

You're absolutely right, the causes are not arguable, they are accepted fact; however, the effects of global warming are very much up for debate. The solutions to man-made climate change are also very much up for debate.

The effects aren't really all that arguable either. The general effects are known, and they're not good for anyone.

The part that is still being debated is who will do what and how fast. Some resent that others don't have as much work to do under Kyoto, for example, and so argue that those with work to do shouldn't have to do it.

That's akin to not helping put out a fire because someone with less ability to toss water on it isn't tossing water on it.

[gerryhatrick]

No, I do not really wish to argue the causes and effects of Global Warming. That is all determined and accepted fact.

Is it? There are apparently many who would disagree.

Perhaps it depends on which side of the fence you sit upon?

There isn't a fence anymore borg, there are those facing the open truth and there are the liars/deniars.

[cybercoma]

The effects aren't really all that arguable either. The general effects are known, and they're not good for anyone.

The part that is still being debated is who will do what and how fast. Some resent that others don't have as much work to do under Kyoto, for example, and so argue that those with work to do shouldn't have to do it.

That's akin to not helping put out a fire because someone with less ability to toss water on it isn't tossing water on it.

The effect of man-made CO2 on Global Climate isn't arguable?

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/CAS-statement.pdf

Take about 60 seconds to read through that. Hopefully that meets your standards of researchers who aren't nutjobs...being a United Nations group and all.....

The CO2 that we're adding to the environment no doubt has an effect on the climate. How big is the impact though? That you cannot answer. How much is actually caused by people and how much is nature? Not a single scientist will draw those conclusions yet.

[cybercoma]

There isn't a fence anymore borg, there are those facing the open truth and there are the liars/deniars.

Not true. There are those who want to efficiently spend our resources combating the actual problem. These same people believe more research is needed to decide how best to tackle the problem.

On the otherhand, there are people who are trying to ram an anticorporate agenda down everyone's throats. These people don't care about analyzing the situation, they just want something done now regardless of the consequences of crippling our industries. They don't care that destroying our GDP will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and create a worse situation for people than the CO2 concentrations they're fighting are creating.

Luckily, we have a leader who isn't a complete moron. He recognizes that we need an intelligent solution that is workable now and sustainable for the future; a solution that won't cripple our country.

[gerryhatrick]

The CO2 that we're adding to the environment no doubt has an effect on the climate. How big is the impact though? That you cannot answer. How much is actually caused by people and how much is nature? Not a single scientist will draw those conclusions yet.

The impact is Global Warming.

It's not hard to understand. Human production of greenhouse gases is responsible for the excess Global Warming that we're facing.

The debate that you wish to engage in is pointless. The questions you pose are moot. Our CO2 production needs to go down, drastically. As much as possible. People realize this, they know the truth when it's put in front of them. The rest is obviously agenda-driven lies.

Stephen Harper has an opportunity to respond here.....to tell this group that he has no doubt that Global Warming is being caused by humans and we need to reduce C02 production to address it.

He has an opportunity to confirm that he understands science has concluded we are causing Global Warming.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The debate that you wish to engage in is pointless. The questions you pose are moot. Our CO2 production needs to go down, drastically. As much as possible. People realize this, they know the truth when it's put in front of them. The rest is obviously agenda-driven lies.

Anybody opposing your viewpoint is pointless Gerry.

Please post some information to prove the poster wrong. You are simply taking up valuable bandwidth by never ceasing to attack the Prime Minister and treating everything you say as gospel truth that does not need to be supported.

[cybercoma]

The impact is Global Warming.

It's not hard to understand. Human production of greenhouse gases is responsible for the excess Global Warming that we're facing.

How much is the world warming? And what affect is that warming having on our environment? How much of that warming is directly caused by people?

This is the problem with the computer models. The answers to even the simplest question of "how much is world warming" can't even be answered. The models throw out figures anywhere from 1.3C-4.8C over 100 years. There are too many factors to be considered. Hell....the models can't even account for cloud cover. Most of the models when setup to predict temperatures in the past, they spit out temps that are WAY higher. The algorithms that are initially put into the computer are overshooting the goal, making the answers just shy of useless.

Is it necessary to spend trillions of dollars now, when we can wait and see what technological advances we see in the future? Not only should we wait for technological advances, but we should wait until the GDP of the industrialized nations increases so that more money can be spent on combating the problem.

The debate that you wish to engage in is pointless. The questions you pose are moot. Our CO2 production needs to go down, drastically. As much as possible. People realize this, they know the truth when it's put in front of them. The rest is obviously agenda-driven lies.

The debate is not pointless. I've thrown facts upon facts out at you and you've yet to show any shred of evidence that our CO2 production needs to go down drastically. I wish we could all be as psychic as those who ram this agenda down our throats, that way we we'd know exactly how much CO2 will be produced next year, in 5 years, in 10 years, in 25 years from now. It's not possible to determine that and therein lies the problem with your idea that drastic measures are needed.

Stephen Harper has an opportunity to respond here.....to tell this group that he has no doubt that Global Warming is being caused by humans and we need to reduce C02 production to address it.

He has an opportunity to confirm that he understands science has concluded we are causing Global Warming.

Global Warming is caused by humans.

Prove to me that we need to "drastically" reduce CO2 emissions. Prove to me the extent of human created warming. How much of the warming is caused by people, all of it, some of it? The oceans absorb CO2, trees and plants use CO2 to grow.... How much CO2 is beneficial and how much is a problem? If there was NO CO2, life would cease to exist.

There are plenty of unanswered questions and you're doing nothing to answer them because like the scientists studying it, you can't yet.

[gerryhatrick]

The impact is Global Warming.

It's not hard to understand. Human production of greenhouse gases is responsible for the excess Global Warming that we're facing.

How much is the world warming? And what affect is that warming having on our environment? How much of that warming is directly caused by people?

Why would you want to dither with questions like that? Serious scientists (the ones routinely dismissed by the liars and deniers) monitor the rate of warming. The effects on our environment are already being seen, and approaching affects are known. That is known. And all of the unwanted warming is caused by people. There may be cascade warming (i.e. melting permafrost in Siberia) but it is all traceable back to our impact.

What bearing do your questions have on the reality that it's happening, that we're the cause, and that we need to act?