Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

[jdobbin]

Come on, the six million number was arrived at long before they were doing computer models or even had computers that could do models. I remember hearing the number when I was a kid. Six million disappeared and there were enough witnesses and physical evidence left to know where most of them went.

Actually, there's where you're wrong.

The computer modelling was done using the German Dehomag punch cards, an offshoot of what is now IBM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag

It is one of the first uses of computer modelling.

How do you think those numbers came about?

[Wilber]

Come on, the six million number was arrived at long before they were doing computer models or even had computers that could do models. I remember hearing the number when I was a kid. Six million disappeared and there were enough witnesses and physical evidence left to know where most of them went.

Actually, there's where you're wrong.

The computer modelling was done using the German Dehomag punch cards, an offshoot of what is now IBM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag

It is one of the first uses of computer modelling.

How do you think those numbers came about?

There was still plenty of physical evidence including records kept by the Germans, the camps themselves, the remains of victims and mountains of personal effects. Not to mention the many witnesses to what went on, a lot of them who are still alive although getting on. I wonder what they would make of your comparison. It amazes me that you would compare that which we know to have happened to computer models predicting what may or may not happen in the future.

[madmax]

I would start a "Toronto" protocol and attempt get the US,China And India on side, to get them to clean up their aIr and water quality problems.

And if I'm chosen Miss Canada, I would want peace and happiness for everyone in the world.

How about the "Miss Canada Party" ?

Either those are great ideas, and I am not saying they aren't

or

We will miss Canada as it goes underwater in 200 or 300 years.

thanks for your answer

and the laugh.

[madmax]

I vote that we hold a referendum.

I vote against it.

All those dumb enough to give away $10 billion on this nonsense get their taxes raised sufficient to cover the charge.

No individual is informed enough to make a decision on Kyoto or GHG.

People are elected to do the work for us and make decisions on our behalf. If I am going to make these decisions, then I don't need Harper or Baird.

If Harper makes the decision to give this money away then it is up to the John Baird to act on behalf of the government.

Not one piece of paper on creating a plan to address the Kyoto treaty has been presented by the government. We should wait until they propose their plan.

[jdobbin]

There was still plenty of physical evidence including records kept by the Germans, the camps themselves, the remains of victims and mountains of personal effects. Not to mention the many witnesses to what went on, a lot of them who are still alive although getting on. I wonder what they would make of your comparison. It amazes me that you would compare that which we know to have happened to computer models predicting what may or may not happen in the future.

I just pointed you to the first computerized records that the Germans kept. They weren't individualized by person. They were done on modelling.

And I'm not the one who has talked about both in this context. There have been several mathematical conferences on computer modelling that have taken place. In recent months, the Iranians have disputed the computer models that produced the numbers of Jewish dead. It is for this reason that I have heard about the connection on a discussion on National Public Radio.

[Wilber]

And I'm not the one who has talked about both in this context. There have been several mathematical conferences on computer modelling that have taken place. In recent months, the Iranians have disputed the computer models that produced the numbers of Jewish dead. It is for this reason that I have heard about the connection on a discussion on National Public Radio.

Well it's a sh--y comparison.

[jdobbin]

And I'm not the one who has talked about both in this context. There have been several mathematical conferences on computer modelling that have taken place. In recent months, the Iranians have disputed the computer models that produced the numbers of Jewish dead. It is for this reason that I have heard about the connection on a discussion on National Public Radio.

Well it's a sh--y comparison.

The mathematicians felt under pressure to defend modelling. It is an example of science and mathematics under pressure.

The Iranians at the conference said that in the absence of actual names of the people who died, they couldn't believe the computer models.

[madmax]

The Iranians at the conference said that in the absence of actual names of the people who died, they couldn't believe the computer models.

I am not certain how this discussion drifted from Kyoto to Holocaust. While their is a Zundel threat going this is thread creep:-).

That said, the Germans were diligent record keepers. The Iranians are just current day Jew Haters denying anything Jewish.

[jdobbin]

I am not certain how this discussion drifted from Kyoto to Holocaust. While their is a Zundel threat going this is thread creep:-).

That said, the Germans were diligent record keepers. The Iranians are just current day Jew Haters denying anything Jewish.

I have no desire to even raise the profile of Zundel. The Germans were diligent record keepers but didn't keep all the names of the people they exterminated. As I said, computer models had to be done to determine the extent of what they had done.

[Wilber]

I am not certain how this discussion drifted from Kyoto to Holocaust. While their is a Zundel threat going this is thread creep:-).

That said, the Germans were diligent record keepers. The Iranians are just current day Jew Haters denying anything Jewish.

I have no desire to even raise the profile of Zundel. The Germans were diligent record keepers but didn't keep all the names of the people they exterminated. As I said, computer models had to be done to determine the extent of what they had done.

Sorry but I still don't see what it has to do with predicting the future.

[jdobbin]

Sorry but I still don't see what it has to do with predicting the future.

It didn't. It projected overall numbers of deaths in the Holocaust based on a model. The same basis that was used to project global warming numbers.

There were never actual figures saying Germany killed so and so many people in World War 2. Mathematical models were used with German, Polish, French and other nation's statistics.

You can look it up if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

[Argus]

I vote that we hold a referendum. All those dumb enough to give away $10 billion on this nonsense get their taxes raised sufficient to cover the charge.

If a referendum for this, why not for war in Afghanistan that will cost as much or more?

At least that has a possibility of accomplishing something worthwhile.

I draw your attention to the following quote I am still waiting for you to counter or at least deny.

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

[jdobbin]

At least that has a possibility of accomplishing something worthwhile.

I draw your attention to the following quote I am still waiting for you to counter or at least deny.

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

It would help if I knew what the link was for your quote.

[Canuck E Stan]

At least that has a possibility of accomplishing something worthwhile.

I draw your attention to the following quote I am still waiting for you to counter or at least deny.

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

It would help if I knew what the link was for your quote.

You could easily have found a source yourself. The information is not a secret, it's fact.

Here's one source. You do the math.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

[jdobbin]

You could easily have found a source yourself. The information is not a secret, it's fact.

Here's one source. You do the math.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

I did the math. I know of Singer's work. He concludes that glaciers are advancing and cited articles that don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer

I'd like to see a lot more of his research and peer review of it before I take it as true.

The institute that Singer works for listed deceased scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_E..._Policy_Project

And that wasn't hard to look for either.

[Riverwind]

You could easily have found a source yourself. The information is not a secret, it's fact.

As with most facts the devil is in the detail. In this case, I cannot find the orginal source for DOE chart that compares Natural additions vs. Man-made additions to the GHG. The analysis means nothing if it is not possible to verify that the DOE numbers are being interpreted correctly.

In addition, the author of this page criticises the DOE source for not accounting for Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the different GHGs, however, the author fails to account for the GWP of water vapour. This means it is even more important to verify all of the numbers quoted in the report.

[August1991]

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

If I take these numbers at face value for the sake of argument, the seemingly small part of GHG due to humans is critical.

Our atmosphere, interacting with the oceans and plantlife, achieves a balance permitting life as we know it. A small upset in this balance, so the theory goes, can lead to large scale changes. For example, a small rise in CO2 in the atmosphere can lead to a small rise in temperature and then more water vapour and higher temperatures and so on.

As to your argument that Canada contributes so little that we don't matter, why stop at Canada? Let me carry your logic further. Argus, your personal contribution to GHG emissions is microscopic and so even less signficant on a global scale.

No single soldier wins a war but Hitler was defeated.

[B. Max]

Sorry but I still don't see what it has to do with predicting the future.

It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It is a diversion. Just as the computer climate models are nothing more than a magician's box of tricks which are being used to create an illusion, to divert attention away from observations. Observations that don't match what the models predict.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...2/messy-models/

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-atd021207.php

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20514

[Canuck E Stan]

You could easily have found a source yourself. The information is not a secret, it's fact.

As with most facts the devil is in the detail. In this case, I cannot find the orginal source for DOE chart that compares Natural additions vs. Man-made additions to the GHG. The analysis means nothing if it is not possible to verify that the DOE numbers are being interpreted correctly.

In addition, the author of this page criticises the DOE source for not accounting for Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the different GHGs, however, the author fails to account for the GWP of water vapour. This means it is even more important to verify all of the numbers quoted in the report.

Forget about the DOE.

How about this from the IPCC.

A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.

Dobbin,

I'd like to see a lot more of his research and peer review of it before I take it as true.

Now that you have shot the messenger from my first link,how about shooting this one too,the IPCC.

How much better peer review do you want than when the IPCC says the same thing?

And if you don't like either,I suggest you give me a credible link to percentages of natural vs. manmade greenhouse gases.

[jdobbin]

Forget about the DOE.

How about this from the IPCC.

A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.

Now that you have shot the messenger from my first link,how about shooting this one too,the IPCC.

How much better peer review do you want than when the IPCC says the same thing?

And if you don't like either,I suggest you give me a credible link to percentages of natural vs. manmade greenhouse gases.

Here's the summary of the report you just gave. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

I wouldn't be shooting down the messenger if I could see the research material. His group doesn't do research. It says so on his own website. He has contributed just three pieces of work on climate change, some of which could not be verified when the sources were checked.

[Canuck E Stan]

Here's the summary of the report you just gave. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

I wouldn't be shooting down the messenger if I could see the research material. His group doesn't do research. It says so on his own website. He has contributed just three pieces of work on climate change, some of which could not be verified when the sources were checked.

You're talking temperature, I want to know about natural vs manmade greenhouse gases......how much for each?

[jdobbin]

You're talking temperature, I want to know about natural vs manmade greenhouse gases......how much for each?

I don't dispute the numbers that was made by the IPCC on greenhouse gases. I think the summary reveals that it is the man-made numbers that they think is likely for the spike in warming.

[August1991]

You're talking temperature, I want to know about natural vs manmade greenhouse gases......how much for each?

Canuck, I suggest you take a look at Figure 2 in the following EIA web site. (The data comes from the IPCC 2001.)

It shows that it is correct to say that, excluding water vapour, humans contribute about 5% of gross CO2 emissions (and natural sources the remaining 95%). However, this ignores that nature (oceans and plantlife) absorbs about 95% of atmospheric CO2. So, humans contribute to almost all net additions.

In fact, the earth's ability to absorb CO2 is really at the heart of the dispute. For example, burning forests both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and reduces the absorption possible. This is one reason third world countries should not be exempt from a Kyoto-like agreement.

Although water vapour is an important GHG, I think it is reasonable to ignore it since it acts as an amplifier dependent on the earth's temperature.

Incidentally, this web site details the claim that humans only contribute 0.28% of GHG emissions (if water is included) or 5.53% (if water vapour is excluded). These percentages are based on gross emissions and not net emissions. They ignore the fact that oceans and plant life also absorb CO2.

[Leafless]

Although water vapour is an important GHG, I think it is reasonable to ignore it since it acts as an amplifier dependent on the earth's temperature.

By golly gee!

If that's the case water vapour cannot be ignored since the earth's surface is directly affected by sun.

And if acting as an amplifier only compounds its actions as a thermal insulator which is the primary cause of global warming.

[B. Max]

Although water vapour is an important GHG, I think it is reasonable to ignore it since it acts as an amplifier dependent on the earth's temperature.

By golly gee!

If that's the case water vapour cannot be ignored since the earth's surface is directly affected by sun.

And if acting as an amplifier only compounds its actions as a thermal insulator which is the primary cause of global warming.

It gets worse. The IPCC report wasn't even put together by scientists, but by UN bureaucrats.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12319e.html

On top of all that the historical temperature records are being altered.

http://www.climateaudit.org/