Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

cybercoma · October 21, 2006

All of the unwanted Global Warming that is happening is caused by us. This is just a simple truth.

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not. Since we were on a downswing for about 5 centuries before the 1900, we were due for a warming period. None of us will be around, but it'd be interesting to see what happens around 2400, perhaps the earth will cool. Regardless, the point being...there was bound to be some warming and yes we are adding to that warming, but by how much? I want to know the numbers, since you're so keen on the subject. Tell me how much of the warming is "unwanted" and directly caused by people. If it's a hard accepted fact it should take you seconds to find.

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

All of the unwanted Global Warming that is happening is caused by us. This is just a simple truth.

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not.

You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the established truths surrounding Global Warming.

There is no debate on the things you are tossing out anymore. It is over and done with. The only question now is who has the courage and the morality to make something happen.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not. Since we were on a downswing for about 5 centuries before the 1900, we were due for a warming period. None of us will be around, but it'd be interesting to see what happens around 2400, perhaps the earth will cool. Regardless, the point being...there was bound to be some warming and yes we are adding to that warming, but by how much? I want to know the numbers, since you're so keen on the subject. Tell me how much of the warming is "unwanted" and directly caused by people. If it's a hard accepted fact it should take you seconds to find.

Who's work are you citing here?

Is it Tim Ball?

B. Max · October 21, 2006

All of the unwanted Global Warming that is happening is caused by us. This is just a simple truth.

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not.

You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the established truths surrounding Global Warming.

There is no debate on the things you are tossing out anymore. It is over and done with. The only question now is who has the courage and the morality to make something happen.

What debate, what truth.

jbg · October 22, 2006

What debate, what truth.

A truth is a truth.

cybercoma · October 22, 2006

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not. Since we were on a downswing for about 5 centuries before the 1900, we were due for a warming period. None of us will be around, but it'd be interesting to see what happens around 2400, perhaps the earth will cool. Regardless, the point being...there was bound to be some warming and yes we are adding to that warming, but by how much? I want to know the numbers, since you're so keen on the subject. Tell me how much of the warming is "unwanted" and directly caused by people. If it's a hard accepted fact it should take you seconds to find.

Who's work are you citing here?

Is it Tim Ball?

Look at any of the data: Mann, Jonas, Briffa or Pollock and it's evident that the earth was cooling leading up to the 1900s. Not that the data is very accurate, since we didn't start using thermometers globally until around the 1850s, but it's there. Denying that the earth was cooling prior to the 1900s is akin to denying that increased CO2 density traps more heat.

Tim Ball on the otherhand is determined to prove that the earth has been cooling since 1940. He's not altogether wrong, it did cool from 1940-1980ish...but all of his banter about it continuing to cool and weather stations being wrong is mostly unfounded.

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

Look at any of the data: Mann, Jonas, Briffa or Pollock and it's evident that the earth was cooling leading up to the 1900s. Not that the data is very accurate, since we didn't start using thermometers globally until around the 1850s, but it's there. Denying that the earth was cooling prior to the 1900s is akin to denying that increased CO2 density traps more heat.
Tim Ball on the otherhand is determined to prove that the earth has been cooling since 1940. He's not altogether wrong, it did cool from 1940-1980ish...but all of his banter about it continuing to cool and weather stations being wrong is mostly unfounded.

Tim Ball has been retired for years and hadn't done a peer reviewed work for a very long time. Certianly he hasn't published anything nor researched anything. He is simply hosted by oil company money. This was well documented and not disputed. The University of Calgary through the Calgary Foundation via Barry Cooper set up a special fund that allows for anonymous contributions to the Friends of Science. The Globe and Mail in a very long expose showed all of this. The University of Calgary ordered the professor to desist from using University of Calgary letterhead on this fund.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

Look at any of the data: Mann, Jonas, Briffa or Pollock and it's evident that the earth was cooling leading up to the 1900s. Not that the data is very accurate, since we didn't start using thermometers globally until around the 1850s, but it's there. Denying that the earth was cooling prior to the 1900s is akin to denying that increased CO2 density traps more heat.

Tim Ball on the otherhand is determined to prove that the earth has been cooling since 1940. He's not altogether wrong, it did cool from 1940-1980ish...but all of his banter about it continuing to cool and weather stations being wrong is mostly unfounded.

Tim Ball has been retired for years and hadn't done a peer reviewed work for a very long time. Certianly he hasn't published anything nor researched anything. He is simply hosted by oil company money. This was well documented and not disputed. The University of Calgary through the Calgary Foundation via Barry Cooper set up a special fund that allows for anonymous contributions to the Friends of Science. The Globe and Mail in a very long expose showed all of this. The University of Calgary ordered the professor to desist from using University of Calgary letterhead on this fund.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

You are wasting your time trying to convince Global Warming deniers.

They don't care about the truth behind the Global Warming skeptic scientists. To them it's a partisan/ideological issue much more than it will ever be one based in reality and science.

Charles Anthony · October 22, 2006

They don't care about the truth behind the Global Warming skeptic scientists. To them it's a partisan/ideological issue much more than it will ever be one based in reality and science.

Global Warming supporters seem to use it as a partisan issue too.

Does anybody have any recommendations on how to tackle the politics of reducing Global Warming -- other than NOT voting for the Conservatives?

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

Global Warming supporters seem to use it as a partisan issue too.
Does anybody have any recommendations on how to tackle the politics of reducing Global Warming -- other than NOT voting for the Conservatives?

How about using actual peer reviewed work to show that global warming is *not* a problem? These scientists on the Friends of Science are not even climate specialists or don't publish in that area.

You can continue to vote Conservative if you wish but it like not liking the war in Iraq in the States but continuing to vote for Republicans.

jbg · October 22, 2006

Does anybody have any recommendations on how to tackle the politics of reducing Global Warming -- other than NOT voting for the Conservatives?

If every single factory in Canada were shut down, and every single car taken off the road, how much would it reduce the "global warming" problem, assuming it exists and is man-made?

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

If every single factory in Canada were shut down, and every single car taken off the road, how much would it reduce the "global warming" problem, assuming it exists and is man-made?

That's your solution?

How about environmental rules for new buildings and structures for energy efficiency? How about rules for new subsdivisions so that they are built with thermal heating and cooling? How about adopting California standards for smog and emissions?

jbg · October 22, 2006

How about environmental rules for new buildings and structures for energy efficiency? How about rules for new subsdivisions so that they are built with thermal heating and cooling? How about adopting California standards for smog and emissions?

Do you realize how piddling the reductions would be, and the cost of the very small reductions?

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

Do you realize how piddling the reductions would be, and the cost of the very small reductions?

Actually, the cost of the thermal heating and cooling is the same as placing pipeline down for gas and the savings outmatch anything on the market for the consumer. The emissions reductions for a 40,000 sub-division are incredible.

Emissions standards in California have helped reduce car smog and acid rain as well as make cars run more efficiently.

Building codes for energy use have reduced emissions and saved millions for owners in heating and cooling costs.

If emissions standards were set up with the explicit idea that they save money, more people would push for them.

What sort of left wing person are you? Driving a Humvee with a cigar clenched in your teeth?

jbg · October 22, 2006

Actually, the cost of the thermal heating and cooling is the same as placing pipeline down for gas and the savings outmatch anything on the market for the consumer. The emissions reductions for a 40,000 sub-division are incredible.
Emissions standards in California have helped reduce car smog and acid rain as well as make cars run more efficiently.

Building codes for energy use have reduced emissions and saved millions for owners in heating and cooling costs.

If emissions standards were set up with the explicit idea that they save money, more people would push for them.

I'll plead ignorance on the details of the California program, but I do know they've chased lots of businesses away, and significantly increased gasoline prices compared with other areas.

What sort of left wing person are you? Driving a Humvee with a cigar clenched in your teeth?

I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

Canuck E Stan · October 22, 2006

I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

Couldn't find an American built car?

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

I'll plead ignorance on the details of the California program, but I do know they've chased lots of businesses away, and significantly increased gasoline prices compared with other areas.
I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

I see no evidence that California is losing business because of its environmental laws. They are afterall one of the largets economies in the world.

Smoking shouldn't be a fear, right? Afterall, it is only a theory that it causes cancer and heart disease.

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

I'll plead ignorance on the details of the California program, but I do know they've chased lots of businesses away, and significantly increased gasoline prices compared with other areas.

I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

I see no evidence that California is losing business because of its environmental laws. They are afterall one of the largets economies in the world.

Smoking shouldn't be a fear, right? Afterall, it is only a theory that it causes cancer and heart disease.

If people went and had a look at Al Gore's movie they'd understand some of these basic economics surrounding Global Warming. Car companies threatening layoffs and profit losses are full of BS.

B. Max · October 22, 2006

If people went and had a look at Al Gore's movie they'd understand some of these basic economics surrounding Global Warming. Car companies threatening layoffs and profit losses are full of BS.

Gore duh's move has been fully debunked and found to have no credibility what so ever.

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

Gore duh's move has been fully debunked and found to have no credibility what so ever.

By whom? Scientists?

B. Max · October 22, 2006

Gore duh's move has been fully debunked and found to have no credibility what so ever.

By whom? Scientists?

By scientific fact.

jdobbin · October 22, 2006

By scientific fact.

I am all ears to hear the scientists explain it to us.

daniel · October 22, 2006

Ah, skepticism. It's all described in here:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...st1100775995758

As I was reading an international survey of experts concerning their views about global warming, I couldn't help thinking about Jared Diamond's book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed....
This is Jared Diamond territory: an acknowledged threat, and a disinclination to change. In analyzing why societies won't change, Diamond notes that failed societies are afflicted with "creeping normalcy" — deterioration occurs over such a long period of time that people think each stage of decline is normal. Consequently, they feel no urgency for change. Another phrase he uses is "landscape amnesia" — forgetting the past and being unable to see the slide toward trouble.

The good news, both in the survey and elsewhere, is that disaster can be averted. But as survey respondents pointed out, it will require governments to create an aggressive framework for change — and so far, in Canada, that hasn't happened.

B. Max · October 23, 2006

By scientific fact.

I am all ears to hear the scientists explain it to us.

No you're not, you've been to busy talking when the facts have been presented. What the rest of want to see is the proof of man made global warming, not some useless computer models.

But if you are all ears then watch these videos and hear it from the scientists themselves.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

jdobbin · October 23, 2006

No you're not, you've been to busy talking when the facts have been presented. What the rest of want to see is the proof of man made global warming, not some useless computer models.
But if you are all ears then watch these videos and hear it from the scientists themselves.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Discredited. Friends of Science are not scientists.