Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

What disastrous effects have we seen that demand an immediate crippling of our GDP? What can I expect to see in the future and how is it linked to the human impact on the environment?

And if you're not going to read the article I posted, I don't know why I'm even bothering replying to you.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

Oh....and this is for the hurricane argument you'll undoubtedly raise:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

"It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have."

And so on...

Yes, there are greenhouse gases. Yes they change the odds of things happening. Drastic measures needed to stop global warming? If you do stop it....these anomalous weather patterns WILL still occur. Is putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and crippling our GDP and standard of living worth it?

Not sure. Neither is Harper, or anyone else with a shred of intelligence.

gerryhatrick · October 18, 2006

What disastrous effects have we seen that demand an immediate crippling of our GDP?

I reject the premise of your question.

Look, let's discuss the topic.

I'm all too happy to see the skeptics hopeful over the PM's view. I hope they sing it from the rooftops. Canadians need to understand how seriously this PM takes Global Warming so they can make an informed decision at the balot box.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

What disastrous effects have we seen that demand an immediate crippling of our GDP?

I reject the premise of your question.

Look, let's discuss the topic.

I'm all too happy to see the skeptics hopeful over the PM's view. I hope they sing it from the rooftops. Canadians need to understand how seriously this PM takes Global Warming so they can make an informed decision at the balot box.

A complete side-step. I'm surprised I didn't see that coming. The topic is that you feel our Prime Minister is an idiot for not taking drastic measures immediatly. I'm trying to find out WHY we would need to do such things. You haven't proven anything, other than the fact that you believe your word is gospel.

gerryhatrick · October 18, 2006

A complete side-step. I'm surprised I didn't see that coming. The topic is that you feel our Prime Minister is an idiot for not taking drastic measures immediatly. I'm trying to find out WHY we would need to do such things. You haven't proven anything, other than the fact that you believe your word is gospel.

I'm sorry cyber, but I've been through it all before on other forums. I've presented links that showed the science and the consensus. Whatever link I provide, there's a skeptics link from some industry-funded liar...or some general non-specific argument like "all scientists are being paid" for example.

It's an endless dance and I won't do it any longer.

The debate is over...global warming is happening and we're causing it.

We need to take action. Maybe you disagree, that's fine. If so, the vast majority of Canadians disagree with you, which is why I don't think this topic needs to go down the road you wish to take it.

This topic is about the PM and his comments which offer hope to the skeptics.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

I'm sorry cyber, but I've been through it all before on other forums.

Doesn't do me any good on this forum.

I've presented links that showed the science and the consensus. Whatever link I provide, there's a skeptics link from some industry-funded liar...or some general non-specific argument like "all scientists are being paid" for example.

I never once said "all scientists are being paid". Although, in this same quote you're saying all scientists who encourage debate are "paid" liars.

It's an endless dance and I won't do it any longer.

It's not endless, I'm asking you to back up your assertions. You keep saying things like....

The debate is over...global warming is happening and we're causing it.

...and I never disagreed with you that Global warming is happening, nor did I disagree that we're causing it.

What I disagree with is that...

We need to take action.

...But only in the context of the type of action you think we need to take. You're calling for drastic measures that would destroy our country. You would affect the lives of nearly millions of canadians by destroying our GDP and bringing the standard of living down.

I don't disagree with taking action. I disagree with taking irresponsible action that would be more damaging to our society than the global warming itself and I'm begging you to show me otherwise. I want you to show me that the situation is as dire as you're keep saying it is. I want you to prove to me that drastic measures are needed immediatly. This way you can show me that...

the PM and his comments which offer hope to the skeptics.

...are wrong and as damning as you make it out to be.

gerryhatrick · October 18, 2006

I don't disagree with taking action. I disagree with taking irresponsible action that would be more damaging to our society than the global warming itself and I'm begging you to show me otherwise.

I agree with you on that.

Let's responsibly reduce our C02 output as much as is humanly possible. Let's put all of our brain power into doing it. Let's elect leaders who speak about it as a priority and have solid proposals for doing it.

It would be hard to damage our society more than Global Warming will.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

I agree with you on that.
Let's responsibly reduce our C02 output as much as is humanly possible. Let's put all of our brain power into doing it. Let's elect leaders who speak about it as a priority and have solid proposals for doing it.

It would be hard to damage our society more than Global Warming will.

So we've come full circle.

The planet's temperature is rising for a number of reasons, part of which is CO2 emissions. We're not going to eliminate CO2 emissions, we're just going to reduce a part of them (considering we're one country reducing a part of our emissions, we're really only reducing a part of a part). So, to help stop the planets temperature from rising we're going to effectively control a part of a part of a part of the problem.

This will have little to no effect on the actual temperature increase on our planet, but will have major consequences for industry.

So, what would a solid proposal that won't harm society but address the issues be?

How about...

legislation to reduce smog and the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.

...instead of taking drastic measures, like you suggest, because...

"It's a complicated subject that is evolving"

Canuck E Stan · October 18, 2006

It would be hard to damage our society more than Global Warming will.

Yes, and let's not forget to pray for peace.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

Yes, and let's not forget to pray for peace.

Don't be ridiculous...

Global Warming is more important than doctor shortages.

Global Warming is more important than little girls being slaughtered in broad daylight in downtown Toronto by warring gangs.

Global Warming is more important than terrorists flying commercial airliners into buildings and packing explosives in their carry-on baggage.

Global Warming is more important than an ill-equipped military that is taking casualties as a result.

Canuck E Stan · October 18, 2006

Yes, and let's not forget to pray for peace.

Don't be ridiculous...

You're right, let's pray that the poor souls in Manitoba don't get flooded out like they did in the past, and turn Winnipeg into the Venice of Canada.

cybercoma · October 18, 2006

Gerry, given the information, is the CPC's legislation a solid proposal? And isn't Harper correct when he says it's a "complicated subject that's evolving"?

B. Max · October 18, 2006

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

That's not true and there is no, I repeat no proof of that. If there is put it up there. In fact all the evidence suggests that it plays almost no part in it.

daniel · October 18, 2006

That's not true and there is no, I repeat no proof of that. If there is put it up there. In fact all the evidence suggests that it plays almost no part in it.

Easy words to type. Can be applied to any topic of discussion by any side of any debate.

geoffrey · October 18, 2006

It would be hard to damage our society more than Global Warming will.

Then we should outright reject the Liberal Party forever and the Kyoto Accord. With both, our emissions skyrocketed. Big problem, no? Since you believe in all this human causation, maybe the real causes are Liberal governments and unenforceable wealth transfers between 1st and 3rd world nations (read: Kyoto)?

And global warming is many years away yet from hurting anyone. If it's in fact getting warm. The latest predictions are getting colder apparently. They've changed from global warming to just 'climate change'. Sheesh, your late on the facts gerry. Anyways, I'd say cancer is doing the most possible damage to our society, more than global warming ever will. And most of the cancer today is from human activity. Let's cut the release of cancer causing agents into our water and air and you'll see a difference.

If Canada cuts CO2 emissions, nothing will ever change. Canada is a minor player, without China, India and US, nothing will ever happen. And none of those parties will budge.

B. Max · October 18, 2006

That's not true and there is no, I repeat no proof of that. If there is put it up there. In fact all the evidence suggests that it plays almost no part in it.

Easy words to type. Can be applied to any topic of discussion by any side of any debate.

Well this applies to one in particular. The left likes to claim the debate is over. Laughable, what debate. There never was a debate. We had the left proclaim man made global warming and then set about to try and silence everyone else. The reason for that is because their evidence or proof won't stand up to the scrutiny and facts of proper science.

Black Dog · October 18, 2006

The reason for that is because their evidence or proof won't stand up to the scrutiny and facts of proper science.

Er.. you know that the scientific consensus pretty much supports the theory of climate change, and a large part of that is behind an anthropogenic explanation for the phenomenon. Meanwhile, the anti-climate change brigade (brought to you be Exxon Mobil) tends to skip the whole scientific/peer review stage altogether. IMV, you can argue about what course of action to take or the severity of the problem, but there's very few who will deny climate change altogether. Your kind are going the way of the flat earthers.

cybercoma:

So, what would a solid proposal that won't harm society but address the issues be?

Suppose the two are mutually exclusive? What then? Would you sacrifice the long-term well being of the planet and inhabitants for short-term growth?

jbg · October 19, 2006

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.

Actually, in the 1970's the crackpots argued there was man-made global cooling.

geoffrey · October 19, 2006

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.

Actually, in the 1970's the crackpots argued there was man-made global cooling.

And in two years, it'll happen again no? They've been back and forth on it for years, no one has a freakin' idea what is happening.

I can draw the line that pollution is bad, but all this chicken little stuff is stupid. Cancer is killing us all right now, same with asthma. Let's deal with real pollution first, then worry about capturing our exhalations.

Never thought about that. An active population would increase CO2 emissions...... I wonder if biking to work is really helping?

gerryhatrick · October 19, 2006

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.

Actually, in the 1970's the crackpots argued there was man-made global cooling.

To equate that with the situation we face now is either dishonest or ignorant.

What you heard about in the 70's was a news story or two on a speculation by a scientist or two. It was never a fully accepted reality in the scientific community as Global Warming is.

And you're not an idiot, so I think you know everything I'm telling you here, so it's a mystery why you'd bring that up in an attempt to cast doubt on the reality of Global Warming.

jbg · October 19, 2006

And you're not an idiot, so I think you know everything I'm telling you here, so it's a mystery why you'd bring that up in an attempt to cast doubt on the reality of Global Warming.

GH, what I will do is search New York Times' website for articles when I'm less tired, i.e. not at 12:54 a.m. my time and after 1 1/2 hours of tennis, and I'll arrange to e-mail them to you if they say what I remember. I'm remembering this from over 30 years ago, and my memory tends, as most realize here, to be quite poor.

jbg · October 19, 2006

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Majority Press Release

Contact: MARC MORANO (202) 224-5762 ([email protected]), MATT DEMPSEY (202) 224-9797 ([email protected])

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

October 17, 2006

Excerpt:

Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See:

http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/doss....asp?ida=451670

Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Snip:

Global Cooling on the Horizon?

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Sun’s Contribution to Warming

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

Lot more

[line]

Is this the beginning of sanity? Can they continue to shun those who are not trying to scam everyone and label us all "skeptics"?

(Hat Tip to CodeTech of a Canadian site and SunsetTommy of an American site for this one)

cybercoma · October 19, 2006

No one is denying Global Warming, GH... would you shutup with that stupid line.

Global Warming si happening and CO2 emissions is playing SOME part in that. For the billionth time, it's the amount of effect it is having our environment that is in dispute. Even in worse case scenario models, which assume nothing will be done and CO2 emissions will continue to rise, the planet's temperature over 100 years only goes up a fraction of a degree. Scientists can't even come together and agree with exactly how much the change will be, nor can they agree on how "catastrophic" that type of change to the climate is going to be.

So to make the assertion that the situation is "the most pressing issue facing Canada today" is just plain stupid. Especially considering what I pointed out earlier, it's unknown how much of an impact human activity is having on global warming, so one country impacting one small bit of the warming problem is going to do absolutely nothing to solve the problem (which of course may not even be as big a problem as you're making out).

Get back to me when you can explain the spike in warming between 1900-1940 and then the subsequent plateau we hit for almost 4 decades, where the global average actually went DOWN. I'll give you a hint, take a look at the solar cycles and you'll notice there's a relationship between the two. When you're done looking into that, take a look at how particles in the atmosphere and cloud cover affect the temperature of the planet. You'll find that particles (see: sulphates and biomass burning) actually have a cooling effect. And unless you decide to continue being dishonest with your posts about global warming, you'll notice that scientists haven't the slightest idea how much effect sulphates, biomass burning, tropical aerosol and land use play in the temperature of the planet. It's known that they actually cool the climate, but it's not known to what degree yet.

Since you're in the game of speculating, I"ll say they don't have those answers because the scientists on climate change have more to gain from their doomsday hypotheses than having actual peer evaluated debate on the subject.

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

No one is denying Global Warming, GH... would you shutup with that stupid line.

Actually many people are.

And you better watch out, I told another poster to "shut it" and got jumped on by the resident rule nazi. Ever since I've been the moderators but-boy, apparently. "Special status", if you know what I mean. And if you do know tell me, because I don't know what I mean.