How a Civilization Dies

Our civilization is coming to an end, sooner than later. It won’t end with a war, or a disease, or a flood, but rather with an abandonment of reason and hope. The Harper Conservatives will be reviled in the history books (if there are history books). Why? Greed.

There’s no other logical reason for the Conservatives’ stance on ignoring the imminent threat of climate change. It’s not personally impacting the lives of Conservative MPs in ways they comprehend, so they put it at such a low priority that making money is more urgent to them all. It’s a bloody disgrace, to themselves, and to our country.

Regina sunset

Nations and species are literally going to be wiped off the Earth because of their greed. And they won’t even allow the politicians who do care about those people and animals to debate it in the House of Commons, despite their supposedly firm grip on any vote that takes place inside Parliament. Cowards!

When Minister Kent was confronted the other day about his government’s secret plan to remove Canada from the Kyoto agreement (which does not even go far enough according to more recent scientific understanding), he refused to comment on being found out. He sputtered that it wasn’t time to announce it yet, obviously confused about what to say now that his evil plot had been revealed ahead of schedule.

To avoid runaway global warming, all the 192 parties of the UNFCC and all 191 parties to the Kyoto Protocol, have agreed that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced dramatically to avoid global average temperature exceeding a 2 degree Celsius rise above the average global temperature at the time of the Industrial Revolution. We are already approaching one degree C above those levels. For those who think the global average temperature of 1-2 degree rise sounds trivial, it is worth noting that to melt the last ice age took a warming of only 4-5 degrees C. Two degrees C is huge. Many scientists believe that 2 degrees C is far too high. Probabilities of avoiding runaway global warming at 2 degrees C may be on the order of 50-50.

That is why in Cancun at COP16 it was accepted that nations should consider efforts to more deeply reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid exceeding 1.5 degrees. Low-lying island states have adopted the rallying call “1.5 to stay alive.”

The best scientific advice suggests that in order to avoid exceeding 2 degrees C it is imperative that the rise in global emissions be arrested by 2015. In fairness, it must be noted that some respected scientists believe that exceeding 2 degrees C is now inevitable.

What May writes is not in dispute by scientists. Greedy politicians who are too eager to tell you that you can have everything you’re used to without consequences damning us to an unlivable Earth, are lying to you. The Conservatives are lying to you. Quite literally the future of the world hangs in the balance, and the forces of darkness are winning.

About these ads

206 responses to “How a Civilization Dies

  1. It’s incredible just how inconsistent this is with conservative values. Global warming is a probl;em aused by the West, and yet, despite supposedly being champions of personal responsibility, conservatives pass the buck. Despite being big on making those responsible for offenses pay, conservatives argue that guilt shared is diminished. Despite arguing how wrong it is to pass fiscal debt on to other generations, it’s fine to pass on mammoth fiscal debt arising from environmental destruction onto other generations.

    Indeed, the only consistent theme here is this: conservatives value greed.

    • hey all you greentards in here especially if you live here in canada, i have a few point’s to make.

      a)Smoke another bowl you bunch of numpties.

      b)How does forcing people to starve and be killed off end glo bull warming? How does forcing rich nations to pay poor nations end glo bull warming? Have not herd of climate gate? google it retards.

      c)There is no MAN made clobal warming the climate changes naturally and some times it getter really really hot and somewtimes it gets really cold .

      I cant beleive a dip sh!t from saskatchewan could be so oblivious to the last three years of winters we have had , they have been way beleow average temprature wise and way above average snow wise.

      Briton and other countries that have “superior knowldge of glo bull warming have been calling for snowless winters for decades and here we are decades later and they are getting more snow and it is colder than normal ….oh yeah your right sorry i forgot as the world get warmer it get’s colder …you idiot’s are something else.

      • Its funny that you OBVIOUSLY have done your homework on “greentards” and that anyone who supports them must smoke bowls and thus can’t have anything worth while to say. Wow you’re totally awesome dude.

      • “the last three years of winters we have had , they have been way beleow average temprature wise and way above average snow wise. ”

        It’s almost like it’s way different… Different, like changed somehow, but the same. No, no, I mean it’s way the same!

    • Except when the greed comes from the liberal left. The idea of controlling the forests of other nations by owning the carbon stored in them seems perfectly alright to greenies like you.

      I suggest you lefties start looking into the World Bank backed ‘REDD program’, especially how it is being used to take ownership of forests from indiginous people of the Paruvian rainforests, all in the name of saving the planet. Then we’ll see who truly values greed.

      REDD has got to go. Now.

  2. This government isn’t conservative. It destroys markets, social institutions, the environment. It will leave nothing behind it but debris — human, financial, environmental.

  3. Both right. There was a time when conservatives valued conservation – of structures both political and real-world. This government values neither, and holds contempt for both.

  4. What’s ridiculous about this post is that regardless of what is happening with respect to global warming, Kyoto is not a solution. Kyoto is a very very bad idea. If global warming must be stopped (not sure it can be and certainly not by Canada), they had better come up with something more effective than Kyoto.

    • I’m not sure Kyoto is drastic enough, but a decade ago it was at least physically possible. Now I’m not sure anything other than a technological miracle can save us from the demise we’ve constructed for ourselves unintentionally.

      As May said though, Kyoto is our best shot that’s already agreed upon, so no time like the present to get started.

      • The Kyoto Protocol was a decent first step (and that is all it was ever designed to be) when it was initially adopted in December 1997. But it is now hopelessly out of date, and doesn’t include, in any meaningful way, major emitters like China and india. So it wont suffice in today’s world.

        What we need now is for rich countries to show real leadership, and implement real polices to reduce GHG emissions now. But unless there is a mechanism that requires all major emitters to take action soon there is little hope.

        In short I don’t think Kyoto is our best shot. What is?
        This article from Forbes I think comes very close.

        http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0324/035.html

        Of course that isn’t the direction the UN talks are headed.

      • Kyoto will fail and with it the corrupt EU carbon trading market. I can’t wait to see it go down like the Chicago Climate Exchange last year.Wahoo!

        And good riddence.

        cheers

      • @Dan Moutal:
        But unless there is a mechanism that requires all major emitters to take action soon there is little hope.

        As always, when people won’t do what the left wants them to do, the left puts on its steel shod boots and picks up its cudgel.

      • A petition is not the same as a survey:

        http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

        http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html

        http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html

        Bottom line (if you refuse to read those links). A petition says nothing about the views of the overall population in question. And their supposed “big” number is signers is actually not very large at all since the fields they are including are huge. And most of them have NOTHING to do with climate.

        Now for some actual surveys:

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

        http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

        http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=3682

      • “And most of them have NOTHING to do with climate”.
        That’s funny I could say the same thing about your example of so called scientists from the IPCC onwards.
        I’m sure you are aware that the numbers in which you get your faulty information are from “consensus Scientist’s who have not once but twice now have been caught doctoring their numbers. Not only that but they have also been doctoring the numbers of other scientists whose own findings did not tally with theirs even after their so called peer revue. What a joke. I other words the so called Scientists in which you ideologues get get your information from are nothing more then a bunch of fraudulent liars out looking for their next government payout to cover them for the following year. If you wish I can provide this proof. Not that it would do any good.
        Just one more thing that I would love to hear coming from brainwashed ideologues such as yourself. Explain to me why that during our natural warming trend from the mid 70′s to the mid to late 90′s (the Earth has been cooling for a little over a decade now) the other other planets in our solar system have been warming as well? Most of these planets were and are warming at a far greater rate then our own Earth. This is indisputable. The only exception being Uranus because of its side rotation. The most obvious fact of this was the recession of the Martian icecaps. Now forgive me but unless there is a large secret government organization running around on Mars in SUV’s that we don’t know about the only possible answer could be the Sun. Of course you wouldn’t know anything that because it wasn’t fed to you by the consensus media.
        As for you Saskboy I can’t tell if you are joking or not. Surely nobody could be this dumb.

    • Petryshyn,
      Just because someone could sell you phony house insurance doesn’t mean your house can’t be flooded.

      That’s an example of your reasoning. There will be people who will try to take advantage of crises for their own gain. That doesn’t mean the crisis isn’t real.

      • True but those who take advantage have done a wonderful job of killing it.

        Climate change is dead, Durban will prove it.

        cheers

  5. Global warming? That was so last decade. That bandwagon has ground to a halt, wrecked by bad predictions, laughably shrill alarmism, and a callous disregard for how the proposed fixes absolutely devastate the poor.

    • Do you not care about those people that will lose their land permanently due to flooding? Do you think all of those people will just die, and not try to be refugees in places that do not flood. Disguising your intentions as caring for the poor is the work of a Madman.

      • So your discredited theory is right because you care about the poor, and his reference to a clear disproof is ignored because his expression of concern for the poor is false? Show me the flooding, science boy, and maybe some logic too while your at it.

        Also, don’t blame the evil Harperites, I told them to do this at the meeting before the election.

        PS Is it true 75% of your traffic today is people coming from SDA to gape at your opinion like a car wreck?

      • “Disguising your intentions as caring for the poor is the work of a Madman.”

        That describes the World Bank’s REDD program to a Tee. Putting third world forests off limits to harvesting because they own the carbon in them will keep the poor in the poor house, all to save the planet. What a scam.

    • So which scientific institution’s have changed their official position statements? NAS, AAAS, the Royal Society? How about AGU? Or APS? Nope, none of them have.

      SO do I trust a self described Madman? Or the worlds best minds? hmm… tough choice.

      • Perhaps you should embrace the motto of the Royal Society. The Society’s motto, Nullius in verba, is Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”.

        I don’t take thier word for it either.

  6. Even more amusing is that the misguided, sanctimonious radical leftists on this board actually believe that CO2 is tied to global warming. It’s really cute. Excuse me while I hop in my Ford F-350 — this will be the last weekend to go hunting and kill some wildlife. My freezer is just about out of meat. Oh, and I’ll use an un-registered gun, too.

    By the way, why were you not, with your wonderfully heartwarming ideas, and your CBC cheerleading for you, *not* able to convince more Canadians to vote for a left-wing party?

    • “Even more amusing is that the misguided, sanctimonious radical leftists on this board actually believe that CO2 is tied to global warming.”

      *headdesk*

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

      Don’t let science get you! It’s *magic*.

      And to your last question, why didn’t more vote for ‘not-Conservative’? More did vote that way than Canadians who voted for Conservatives. Why weren’t even more convince-able? Because they have the science mis-education that you do, and the Conservatives have tapped into exploitation of greed and ignorance very well. They had successful political models from last century to learn from.

      http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

      • John, I’m not going to argue global warming because I honestly don’t know enough on the topic to have an intelligent argument. You may be right about C02 or Mike may be right, I really don’t care either way but maybe use an actual science based website to prove your point instead of one where anyone can edit an article to say that stingrays hate Australian people, or where Stephen Colbert can edit the Elephant article on television.

      • Ross, the point is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and there’s no disputing it. Wikipedia was a top result in a google search, because it’s reviewed by experts who’ve confirmed popular articles like that one using the references provided within.

        Mike’s claim that CO(2) might not be tied to global warming is hilariously off the mark. By its defining properties, CO(2) is a greenhouse gas, and thus contributes directly to global warming. Too little, and the Earth cools. Too much, and the Earth heats.

      • Thanks for the reference. Wikiedia also says more about CO2.

        According to Wikipedia “When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: water vapor which contributes 36–72%, carbon dioxide which contributes 9–26%, methane which contributes 4–9%, ozone which contributes 3–7%.”

        However, when you include cloud’s contribution to the greenhouse effect, Wikipedia says “When considering water vapor and clouds together, the contribution is between 66-85%.”

        CO2 is nothing compared to water vapour as a greenhouse gas, and humans only contribute 3% of the earths entire annual CO2 output. Humans are utterly insiginificant. And Canada contributes only 2% of that.

        Face it guys, your demonizing of CO2 has failed.

        Thanks again for the Wikipedia reference.

        cheers

  7. How intriguing, saskboy. Maybe you should occupy a park or something to help get the word out.

    Or even better, you could occupy a job in the brakken oil fields located 100 miles SE of you.

    • Brakken is huge and only shows that the world is absolutly awash in fossil fuels. If you thought the fossil fuel industry was big up to now, it may turn out that all we’ve seen so far is its infancy.

      And sorry to burst your hopes and dreams but peak oil has been pushed back again.

    • Yep. If you see a stream of people willfully blind to science when it makes their dear leader look like the greedy idiot he is, you know it’s the Blogging Tories.

  8. it is worth noting that to melt the last ice age took a warming of only 4-5 degrees C. hmmm…. and whose fault was that I wonder? Vikings? Neanderthals? Australopithecus? The IPCC? George W. Bush? Stop me when I am close. Sarah Palin, Ezra Levant. Should I just name any Conservative Boogey Man? Perhaps the SUN had something to do with it. Naaah, too obvious. Under recent progressive thought, Science has become Political. It is hive-minded liberals who selected who would sit on the IPCC. No one whose opinion differed from the hive was allowed to sit on it. Consensus was formed before the report even came out.

    • It wasn’t the fault of people last time the climate’s natural cycle changed, there was no industrial age.

      I’d ask you to engage your brain, but you’re here from a location where thought is discouraged, and you’re pre-programmed to parrot garbage that you can’t explain.

    • Your Honour, I intend to prove that my client (anthropogenic CO2 emissions) could not be responsible for the murder in question (AGW) because there is conclusive evidence that murders were committed well before my client was even born!!!

      Or if that analogy was too much why not read about how the geological record informs our knowledge on how the climate system works.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Geological-Society-discuss-climate-change-evidence-from-the-geological-record.html

      • I’d say that the evidence that we can stop it is lacking.
        Kyoto, even if people followed it, wouldn’t stop it. Short of occupying China, USA, Germany, Britain, etc. and shutting down every factory, it won’t stop it.
        The kinds of changes that would make a difference (according to the models) would put most people at a 3rd world living standard. This would necessitate a huge rise in infant mortality, a drop in life span, and a lower standard of living (durh).
        IF AGW is accurate (and I’m of the opinion that the ‘science’ has been manipulated too much to trust it), we’d be far better off finding ways to adjust to it, rather than stopping it.
        Of course, there was a solution of pumping sulfur into the upper atmosphere (to block sun rays) that I read in Super Freakanomics, but most of the people who supported Kyoto wouldn’t even consider it.

  9. “It wasn’t the fault of people last time the climate’s natural cycle changed, there was no industrial age.”

    But this time it is the fault of people.

    They just named a newly discovered species of dinosaur discovered in Saskatchewan, Must have been a woolly dino to survive those Saskatchewan winters.

    Jesus spare me from the fanatics at the Church of Man Made Global Warming.

  10. Stipulate, for the moment, for the sake of argument, that 1) The planet is experiencing a long-term warming 2) human activity is causing the warming 3) it is possible to reverse the warming trend by definitive changes in human activity.

    The question remains: Would the degree of warming that those who worry about climate change claim would occur be a bad thing?

    The answer is: There is NO evidence. NONE whatsoever to suggest that it would. It might very well be a good thing, overall.

    The best response that those fretting about “global warming” can come up with is that worst case computer models suggest that global warming would be a bad thing. But computer models can be made to say anything and the current models of the so-called climate change “experts” don’t accurately predict the past when time is reversed in the models.

    So what the worry-warts are demanding is that the entire political-economy of the world should be changed in order to deal with a problem which is nothing more than a vague speculation. This is simply not rational

    • Yeah, it’s fine to run untested experiments on the earth instead of in labs. That’s why they release drugs straight to the public whenever scientists think they’ve found a cure for something.

    • Actually, there’ve been plenty of studies on that too. The answer is the reverse of what you claim based on zero.
      For instance, turns out that the way earth’s climate works, noticeable warming is likely to result in drier climates, starting with drought, in many important agricultural areas. Actually, seems to be starting already in places like the southern US. Also generally more turbulent weather–heat is only one part of the issue, if you add energy to a system it gets more, well, energetic. But turbulent weather, whether floods or droughts, heat waves or sudden frosts, causes crop failures. Overall, climate change is predicted to significantly reduce global food production capacity.
      And that’s not even getting into the damage to coastal cities (i.e. most of them), populated islands, mass extinctions (made worse by all the other environmental pressures we create). Oh, and then there’s another byproduct of the increased CO2 besides warming: Ocean acidification. One result is shellfish and a significant portion of plankton forming (already) thinner shells, but if it goes much further, unable to make shells at all. So that’ll directly kill off a big chunk of the ocean’s food web (bye clams, mussels, oysters, yadda yadda yadda, bye half the stuff that lives on plankton and the stuff that lives on the stuff that lives on plankton–which would be almost everything in the sea). So yeah, climate change or its driver, too much atmospheric CO2, is likely to result in a largely dead ocean. Indeed, the fossil record shows huge ocean extinctions before that appear to have been caused by sudden acidification from CO2 (due to massive vulcanism not industrialization, I believe).

      Oh, but I’m sure climate change will be benign. No harm done, just mass starvation and dead oceans–like it’d be worth spending a few bucks over little problems like that.

      • Wow you people are out to lunch. Do you rally believe the planet will die, we’ll starve, the oceans will be dead, the polar ice sheets will melt away, deserts will expand, oceans will rise all because we added a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere? What a bunch of depressed, pessimists. yuck.

        How can you live every day like that?

        It’s great being a denier, we don’t care about the end of the world becasue we don’t beleive this is the end of the world. If I had to deal with your type of pessimism every day, I’d end it. Gad.

      • What klem and so many of the SDA crowd fail to understand is that this isn’t a Bible prediction, this is predicted based on observable facts, and fossil records (more facts).

        How can we live like this every day? You make it a lot tougher, because your ignorance klem goes to removing hope that people will be able to work together on solutions to our pollution problems.

        Adding a bit of fire to a house can have dangerous consequences too. If it’s in a fireplace, it usually doesn’t matter, but our metaphorical fire is burning everywhere, and it’s out of control. If you don’t have a bit of pessimism, you are blissfully ignorant, while your house burns down around you.

      • Everything you have listed is speculation. I repeat, this is NO evidence that warming the planet by a few degrees would be a bad thing.

        For instance, turns out that the way earth’s climate works,

        Works according to whom and on what basis? The same self-proclaimed “experts” who are crisis mongering and getting wealthy and famous in the process. It is speculation. No one has run or can run experiments to proof that it is true.

        noticeable warming is likely to result in drier climates

        Based on what? Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Warming would also melt ice, adding water to the environment. There is no a priori reason to believe that a little warming would result in an overall drier climate.

        Actually, seems to be starting already in places like the southern US.

        To throw back a talking point that climate crisis mongers use, you are confusing weather with climate. A short-term, localized drought says nothing about the climate 100 years from now.

        if you add energy to a system it gets more, well, energetic

        Yes, by definition. But making a system more energetic does not necessarily make it more turbulent.

        But turbulent weather, whether floods or droughts, heat waves or sudden frosts, causes crop failures. Overall, climate change is predicted to significantly reduce global food production capacity.

        More speculation and assertion without evidence. Do unexpected weather changes cause crop failures? Sometimes. Sometimes it increases crop yields. In any case, there is no evidence that warming the planet by a few degrees would increase the unpredictability of the weather or cause a net decrease in agricultural production even without technological changes to food production that would minimize or eliminate the variability of crop yields due to weather.

        And that’s not even getting into the damage to coastal cities

        Damage? What damage and according to whom based on what evidence? More speculation and assertion based on NO evidence.
        [ADMIN NOTE: This comment was after Katrina, but before Sandy. Feb. 25, 2013]

        mass extinctions (made worse by all the other environmental pressures we create)

        Stick to the issue. By bringing up an entirely different issue, you make yourself sound like you are suffering from some sort of hysteria.

        too much atmospheric CO2, is likely to result in a largely dead ocean. Indeed, the fossil record shows huge ocean extinctions before that appear to have been caused by sudden acidification from CO2 (due to massive vulcanism not industrialization, I believe).

        Do you really believe that people know with great certainty what the composition of the atmosphere was millions of years ago? In any case, the levels of atmospheric CO2 needed to significantly change the pH of the oceans is many, many orders of magnitude higher than that predicted by the computer models of the crisis mongers, even assuming the models account for everything else accurately, which they don’t.

        No harm done, just mass starvation and dead oceans–like it’d be worth spending a few bucks over little problems like that.

        To repeat, there is NO evidence that doing nothing about “climate change” will result in mass starvation or dead oceans. There is only hysterical hand-waving by a small number of taxpayer funded scientists who have a powerful personal interest in convincing the political class that the sky is falling.

        Importantly, “solving” the “problem” of AGW is not about just “spending a few bucks”. The proposed solutions all involve massive changes to the political economies of the free nations of the world and very few changes to the tyrant nations of the world which are the worst polluters. Carbon taxes would massively decrease the standard of living of citizens, resulting in shorter lifespans (due to having less money to spend on medical care amongst many other reasons) and slowed technological development (including development of more environmental friendly means of production, by-the-way). Carbon trading schemes would massively enrich market traders without actually generating any real economic output and would result in a dramatic increase in the kind of crony capitalism that has made many people very angry lately. Micromanagement of the internal economies of countries by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, part of the “solution” proposed in the Kyoto treaty, would do nothing but destroy the most advanced economies in the world and would completely abridge the political freedom and popular sovereignty in those countries. Do you like free speech? The freedom to assemble? The freedom to travel? The freedom to own property? The freedom to choose your political leaders? All of those freedoms would go away if Kyoto were ever to be adopted. Furthermore, the colossal direct wealth transfers from the free industrialized nations of the world to third world dictatorships and totalitarian regimes would impoverish the free and prosper nations of the world, including Canada. You, Purple Library Guy, would be reduced to a state of destitution in a country unable to defend itself militarily from whatever despotic country decided it wanted Canada’s land and resources. The proposed “solutions” to AGW should clue you in to the real politcal agenda behind the crisis mongering and that agenda has nothing to do with either the climate or even the environment.

      • I always find it hilarious in a despair-inducing kind of way that people who implicitly believe propaganda paid for by the likes of Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers, without bothering to think for a second about just who’s profiting from by the billions from having people not reduce fossil fuel use, can then turn around and invent bizarre theories that say thousands of scientists have arranged an undetectable conspiracy about a massive disaster . . . in hopes of getting slightly higher paying scientist jobs. Apparently the plan goes
        (1) Adopt a false theory that nobody wants to hear because everyone always hates bad news,
        (2) ???
        (3) Profit!!!

        Shyeah, because climatologists are all about the bling, baby–why else would they have gotten into a game like that? Whereas oil company executives and owners are altruistic souls who look at the millions of dollars somehow ending up in their pockets with vague chagrin, and are only funding all that PR in the hopes of combatting the hegemonic hold of those titans of world domination, university researchers in climate departments with their greed for ill-gotten gains. Yes, those climatologist monsters, all lying through their teeth to blacken the name of their discipline forever, fraud on a scale that’s never been seen in human history much less the history of science, but it’s all worth it to them because every one of the thousands of them gets to become wealthy and famous, like . . . that guy, and . . . um, that other guy, whatsisname . . .
        But shooting the messenger is all you got, because those messengers (a) pretty much all agree, and most of the exceptions are unqualified, and (b) they publish their data and reasoning and it seems to be good enough for an awful lot of the people who start looking into it. Thus unless you posit that they’re basically liars and/or frauds, it’s deeply unlikely your opinion on the subject is worth as much as theirs. You have to start by demolishing the climate scientists. But it’s the stupidest damn attempt at a takedown I’ve ever seen.

        Meanwhile: Any discussion of the future is speculation. Check a dictionary. But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence about what the future will be like. I speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow; I base it on a combination of induction, vague understanding of laws involving angular momentum (the earth will keep turning) and reading that suggests the sun is sufficiently stable it is unlikely to go nova in the next few hours. There is considerable evidence that my speculation is correct. Similarly, unless you start by just ruling out of bounds all research on climate done by professional researchers on climate, there is lots of evidence that the speculation that climate change will do a great deal of damage, is correct.
        Damage to coastal cities? Do try to think. Higher sea levels, cities on the edge of the sea . . . hmmm . . . nope, no idea what the problem could be. Maybe you could ask someone from Holland. Or Bangladesh.
        As to the ocean thing, sorry but the pH of the oceans has already changed significantly. Many orders of magnitude my ass. Whoever told you that was flat-out lying. Shells are thinning *now*, and researchers have found using tanks with sea water only acidified to levels we’re predicted to reach in 20 years or so if current emission trends continue, that critters grown in them are failing to form shells. Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.

      • Purple Library Guy:
        … without bothering to think for a second about just who’s profiting from by the billions from having people not reduce fossil fuel use

        Who profits from continued fossil fuel use? Everyone in society. Our civilization is made possible by energy use and fossil fuels are the most efficient means of providing that energy. That’s part of the point. Dramatic reductions in energy production will mean the destruction of our civilization. Don’t call me crazy because I say that we shouldn’t destroy our own societies without having a really, really good reason for doing so. I like the culture in which I live. Do you? Do you really want to destroy and impoverish your society to the point where it can no longer control its own destiny based solely on the proclamations of a few self-appointed “experts”?

        say thousands of scientists have arranged an undetectable conspiracy about a massive disaster

        The conspiracy is not undetectable as the climategate emails reveal and the conspiracy doesn’t involve thousands of scientists, just a few like Mann and Hansen. Most of the proponents are just bandwagon joiners hoping to score some grant money or some speaking fees.

        in hopes of getting slightly higher paying scientist jobs.

        You obviously don’t understand the motivations of academic scientists. Academics are welfare queens in labcoats. They must beg the government for handouts. The more handouts they get, the better they are treated by the institutions which employ them. They get bigger and better office space, parking privileges, more leniency if they sluff on their teaching duties or, sometimes, exemptions from teaching altogether. More handouts also frequently come with salary supplements and money to buy fancy toys to play with and graduate students and research assistants – all things with which to build a fiefdom within a university. The big score, though, comes from setting up a new department or research unit, like say, a Center for Climate Studies, which allows the renowned climate expert to command a higher salary and have a whole staff of subordinates with which to boost his ego and his reputation. An important key to begging handouts for scientific research is convincing the political system to allocate more funding. Crisis mongering is one method of trying to get the politicians and granting agencies to care.

        Apparently the plan goes
        (1) Adopt a false theory that nobody wants to hear because
        everyone always hates bad news,

        This is just false. Prophets of doom have existed throughout history and their predictions have been exploited for personal gain for just as long. The IPCC wouldn’t exist without the crisis mongering over AGW. Everyone who works for IPCC benefits personally. They get fancy offices, media attention, they get to arrange and attend conferences, write books, ride in limos, sport impressive-looking UN logos, etc.

        (2) ???

        There’s no need for your question marks. The path to profit is quite clear and based primarily on taxpayer largesse although money is laundered through private sources as well.

        (3) Profit!!!

        And plenty of it. Hell, Jim Hansen was given a private donation of $250,000 by Theresa Heinz Kerry one year. Al Gore has famously become a billionaire – not bad for a washed-up, has-been politician.

        Shyeah, because climatologists are all about the bling, baby–why else would they have gotten into a game like that? Whereas oil company executives and owners are altruistic souls

        There is nothing about drawing a salary from the public treasury that confers moral virtue on an individual nor does being paid by a corporation imply moral depravity. People are people. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are honest. Some are dishonest.

        You seem to be trying to imply that all opposition to the climate crisis crowd stems from oil companies. This is simply not true. The proposed solutions to the alleged problem would profoundly impact the lifestyle of everyone in society and do so in a negative way. One does not need to work for an oil company to be leery of such overarching, radical changes.

        climatologist monsters, all lying through their teeth to blacken the name of their discipline forever

        The “discipline” of climatology was largely invented to promote the crisis anyway. There are a good many scientists who jumped on the AGW bandwagon in hopes of getting grant money who are regretting the damage that they have done to their personal scientific reputations. Just continue to watch as more and more scientists recant their previous support.

        they publish their data and reasoning

        No they don’t. It took some digging to discover the cherry picking of the tree ring data for instance and there are lots of questions about corrections to satellite data and almost no one releases the computer code that they use to process and analyze their datasets.

        Thus unless you posit that they’re basically liars and/or frauds,

        That is exactly what I am saying about the ring leaders. Most of the scientists who allegedly support AGW are people who just throw a speculative paragraph or two containing some climate change buzzwords into their publications. This is done all the time in science – throw in some fashionable buzzwords to catch the eye of granting agencies. “The increase in the jelly fish population in the South China Sea may be an indication that climate change has affected the ocean currents in a way that has increased the jelly fish food supply or altered the territory of the nature predators of the jelly fish.” That kind of a statement in a scientific publication may get cited as “evidence” for the existence of climate change, but it has no scientific weight whatsoever. Believe me, that kind of stuff is put in scientific papers all the time, not just regarding climate change, but regarding whatever the scientific fashion of the day may be.

        Furthermore, the left does not tolerate dissent from their dogma and the intellectual climate at most universities is such that most professors “go with the flow” and espouse leftist attitudes if only to avoid ostracism and harassment. If you don’t believe me, just try to publish a paper, which, for instance, details a study which finds no genetic basis for homosexuality and see what happens to you. For extra credit, try to do that at a place like U.C. San Francisco.

        I speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow

        Hardly a valid analogy. Every healthy human who has ever lived has personal experience on which to base their belief in the sun rising. Nobody has personal experience to base a belief that humanity is threatened with calamity a hundred years from now because of AGW.

        Similarly, unless you start by just ruling out of bounds all research on climate done by professional researchers on climate, there is lots of evidence that the speculation that climate change will do a great deal of damage, is correct.

        Not true. I don’t have to rule all such research out of bounds to draw conclusions about what I am glad to see you have acknowledged as speculation. Speculation is speculation. It is not evidence and it is not proof. It is not something on which to base a deliberate disruption of the entire world’s economy.

        Damage to coastal cities? Do try to think. Higher sea levels,

        Who said the sea level is going to rise? Once again you accept speculation and assertions based on secretive computer models which can’t even predict the past and do so without skepticism. Even if the sea levels did rise, the timescale of the supposed crisis is such that people could just move to higher ground as the sea level rose. Not a big deal.

        As to the ocean thing, sorry but the pH of the oceans has already changed significantly.

        The pH of the Oceans has changed globally? In the last hundred years or so? Yeah, sure it has. People have been sampling sea water all over the world, including in the deep ocean for a hundred years so we KNOW that this is true.

        researchers have found using tanks with sea water only acidified to levels we’re predicted to reach in 20 years or so if current emission trends continue,

        Predicted by secretive computer models which fail to predict the past. I think it’s time for everyone to panic. I’ll tell you what. Let’s not worry about this impending doom which we are facing and, in twenty years, you can tell me that you told me so. Get a grip. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little. The apocalypse is not nigh. I’ve lived long enough to have heard a great deal of caterwauling about one crisis or another and I know enough about politics to recognize that this is just the latest attempt at a power grab. The earth was going to experience an ice age soon, DDT was going to kill all of the birds in the world, millions of people were going to starve to death because the earth couldn’t support more than 4 billion people, everyone was going to die of AIDS, everyone was going to die because the ozone layer was being depleted … those are just a few doomsday scenarios that I have managed to live though. I fully expect to live through this latest one.

        Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.

        That’s one of favorite movie quotes, but it means “don’t try to work an obvious deception on me” and, in this case, the deception is the climate change scam.

        Don’t presume objectivity on the part of either taxpayer funded scientists or privately funded scientists. Scientists are people and are just as susceptible to the temptations of self-interest as anyone else. The difference between the field of science and other human endeavors, though, is that it is assumed that, in the end, the truth will eventually prevail. Real scientists understand this and invite a thorough critique of their work. The climate crisis mongers try to suppress dissent, discredit their detractors and demand that their claims be accepted without examination. They are not real scientists.

    • You’re here, indirectly, because wealthy people have paid people to tell you to behave like this, without thinking. You are a drone in the forces of darkness. All hail Darth Koch. Isn’t that the language you understand? The one that calls David Suzuki cute names like “Fruit fly scientist”?

  11. Saskboy, you just blew away your own argument. There WAS NO SUV’s or Harper governments when the last SEVEN ice ages melted away. 12,000 ft of ICE over Toronto and it MELTED away – at least SEVEN TIMES!! How can any fool fall for the ICCP/GORE/MANN claims that gloBULL warming is ALL manmade and the only way to stop it is for the industrialized nations to PAY the UNindustrialized nations for the privilege of continuing to pollute? None of those accords had ANYTHING to do with greenhouse gas emissions. It was redistribution of wealth. OUR wealth to 3rd world dicktator’s Swiss bank accounts – oh and Gore’s greenhouse gas exchange. All that a bit TOO transparent for a committed leftest or are ya just a tad too dim to see the obvious?

    Koyoto, BTW, was signed by Chretien – who did NOTHING about CO2 gas emissions from Canada for FOURTEEN YEARS. Were you squawking and posting then or does partisan politics only count when you’re knocking Conservatives? That was a question and the anwer is obvious too.

    • The answer to your last question is obvious. I was posting about Liberal inaction while Chretien was in power. I became a Green in large part to his party’s inaction.

      As far as “blowing away my own argument”, please engage your thinking cap instead of thinking you ‘got me’. Where are you getting this “seven times” crap from? You claim to be able to use logic, so figure this out:
      There are natural climate cycles, that even you admit do not require human intervention to take place. Adding human pollution to a system has… no effect? Where does the pollution go? What does it do, and why?

  12. I’m going to surprise and shock you. Up until the end of last year I was a warmist too. I had heard of the “deniers” and “sceptics” though and started to look for evidence of man-made global warming. Guess what? I couldn’t find any. Now after several hundreds of hours investigating AGW I am clear that the whole thing is a scam pushed mainly by, yes, greed. Greed of taking government subsidies, greed of taking funding and the greed of manipulating governments.
    I say all this as an unwilling convert. I even wrote arguments in favour of AGW. However I am now as sure that this whole thing is a fraud as I am that there is no God.

      • Look at the data saskboy. It is in fact likely to get a lot cooler as the Sun has probably peaked in it’s 206 year cycle. The information is there for the asking. Al you have to do is look.

      • I am not a believer in man made global warming.
        However, I’m willing to be convinced.
        Two basic conditions is all it will take.

        1. Actions speak louder than words. When the alarmists start behaving like there is actually a problem, then I might listen to what they are saying. Until then, the lifestyles and choices that Suzuki, Gore, Friedman, et.al. make speak much louder than the hysterics and proclamations of doom.

        2. Put YOUR money where your mouth is. (This whole thing is about other peoples money). Do you remember the atheists who were amused by the prophesy that the world was going to end sometime last year, but also saw an opportunity. They offered a service to the believers. The service was simply that if these believers were taken away to heaven, then the opportunists would take care of their pets for them. Wouldn’t want Fifi or Rover starving because their owner has just gone on to eternity. Thing was….for this service, they had to pay cash, up front, non-refundable.
        So here is my similar offer you: let’s strike a deal on some land that will surely be flooded on the near future. I will buy an option from you today. The option contract will state that on a certain date in the future (if we listen to doomsday proclamations on global warming, the usual estimate is 5 or 10 years from now) that I have the opportunity to purchase this land from you. Now….this is where putting your money where your mouth comes in……the price that I would need to pay would be substantially below current market prices.
        I will pay you today for the option contract. And then I will not be able to exercise the option if the land is flooded. You can’t lose….that is unless you don’t really believe what you are saying. (We would of course have a clause that nullifies the contract if legislation does come into effect that will save the world.)

        Two simple things that show that the alarmists truely believe what they are saying and not just looking at taking money from one group of people and redistributing it elsewhere.

        P.S. Now that I’ve written this I’ll go get my payment from the Kochs…….that is how it works isn’t it?

      • Miles, you’re not high enough up the food chain to get a Koch payment, they didn’t get rich by writing a lot of cheques to people who don’t understand climate change.

        Peter, the data is that we add more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than there would be added if we didn’t burn fossil fuels. The melting of white ice reveals more dark surface to heat too. If you can’t accept these observable facts, then I really doubt you can be convinced by reasoning. I do think you’ll be convinced when you see more people taking it seriously, however. Sadly, that will be too late.

  13. Whether or not you believe human beings have altered the Earth’s climate, you have to admit the notion that we can change it back is utterly insane.

    Better yet, I’d love to hear the scientific argument that says we can control a planet’s weather by passing laws against it and increasing taxes. Surely there’s a Nobel Prize to be had there.

    • No, it’s insane to think that we can’t change climate. We can’t change the ozone layer too you’ll say next. We can’t change the toxicity of water either by adding pollutants to it. That lake with too much mercury in it now — it was always like that (after we dumped our garbage nearby, coincidentally). Your notion that humans cannot have a global impact, while you talk to me on the Internet, is not only hilarious, but insane.

      • Hmm, I think I’m beginning to understand your logic here –

        If human beings are capable of doing a given thing, then, necessarily, it must follow that they are be able to do absolutely anything.

        Better yet, being hypothetically capable of doing something, is really the same as having already done it.

        So, by using your cunning tautologies, the fact that I am capable of pissing a hole in a snowbank, definitively proves I single-handedly created The Grand Canyon. Q.E.D., Case closed!

        Ingenius …

        Although your claim, as ever, remains completely unfalsifiable, your charmingly irrelevant and childishly naive analogies have completely won me over. Like, totally.

        Bravo, sir!

  14. Another 5000 e-mails have just been released that confirm what the last batch of e-mail exchanges between globull warming scientists(?) told us-that globull warming is, and always has been a scam. A political movement rather than a scientific one,. Oh yea, there hasn’t been an increas in temperature (despite an increase in C02) since 1998.

    • Your ability to turn “global” into a pun on bullshit, amuses me and I wish to subscribe to your newsle.. oh wait… No. I don’t want to hear from you again.

    • That’s right about 5000 new ones were released to help destroy the Durban meeting. Its going to die anyway. What’s really interesting is they released anotheer 200,000 emails but kept them encrypted. If they get arrested they will release the encryption code for them. Aperently there are alot of emails between climate alarmist organizations, climate science organizations, government officials, politicians and the IPCC. The real dirt is in the encrypted emails.

      I can’t wait for them to be released.

  15. I have to appologize for the last post. After reading a little further I realize that you are just as insane as the Norwegian(Swedish) guy who was just found insane for killing all those people.
    Its not nice to make fun of the mentally insane.

    Sorry.

    • I have to say that you’re an asshole for comparing me to a mass murderer. See why I didn’t want to hear from you anymore? Your comments are useless and wrong.

      • SB: “I have to say that you’re an asshole for comparing me to a mass murderer”

        Rich.Have you considered the roots of the “denier” epthet? Coined by a warmy with deliberate reference to th Holocaust.

        I guess you took a day off the day they handed out the irony meters, right?

      • The above butt-hurt outrage coming from a guy who just credited Stephen Harper with single-handedly wiping out civilization.

        And they say irony is dead …

      • SB, every time a warmy uses the “denier” slur, he’s associating us with the Holocaust deniers – the original coinage was deliberate – and by immediate connection, with the Nazi genocide. Whichever way you slice it, that’s a good deal more offensive than trying to link you with a lone madman.

        Motes. Beams. Eyes.

      • I like this though.
        However,there is an assumption that it is always the other world (or worldview, if you will) that takes the dent, and not our own. I don’t really believe that any of us are changing anyone else’s mind in a forum like this.
        I would say then that worlds or flying by each other, but no actual collisions taking place……that is unless you think any of us are actually changing someone’s mind?

  16. Look guys. Never mind this “belief” stuff. Also never take what is thrown at you at face value. You must, MUST look at the science. The current data, the historical data. And guys; it’s ok do do your own thinking. Apply your own logic. Just so long as it is a “first principle” logic and not one which is launched from a pre-defined doctrinal position.

    • Well I trust in looking at large amount of data and many opinions from all sides. However, large organisations such as NASA, CSIRO BOM etc., although they have many eminent scientists working in them, are not run by scientists, but by the mandarins, the bureaucrats. So what we end up with is a bureaucratic, and often massaged, version of scientific reality. The Climategate 1 & 2 emails are a clear indication that scientists in the climate discipline have a variety of views. It is also an indication of how the dissenting views have been systematically suppressed.

    • A random position, taken from Geologists, those friendly scientists who help us determine where to drill for oil:

      Geological Society of America

      In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction:

      Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

      • Look saskboy. Let’s not get into which authority says what. Otherwise we will be having an authority battle. You know the type. Where we throw authorities at each other.
        This then becomes a “faith” argument. Whereby we snuggle up to the authority we have faith in. However faith must be tossed out of the window here because it is a question of self-knowledge and application of lateral thinking tempered by the experience of all the past scams we have lived through. I am 61 years old and have seen a few let me tell you. One learns to recognise the signs. Took me a while in this case though. But now I am on to it. What a relief.

    • As I am sure you know, Dan Moutal, wikipedia the content of which is edited by users, can and does get manipulated for political or personal purposes. You should notice that most of the organizations listed on the page that you cite have an interest in increasing the power and scope of government. Many of them, in particular the medical associations, have no expertise whatsoever in earth sciences. They are simply jumping on the bandwagon or issuing statements about the fashionable topic of climate change. Many rely on the IPCC and its reports for its opinions on climate change and so can be disregarded as independent opinions. The activities of the IPCC and the small cabal which controls it have demonstrated some questionable behavior from a scientific point-of-view and so is itself questionable as a reliable scientific source. Furthermore, the members of IPCC have truly enormous personal motives for promoting climate change as a crisis.

      As a concerned citizen, I don’t need to rely solely on statements issued by the officers of organizations to form my opinion on the validity of AGW. I ask myself the usual questions of due diligence: Who is promoting AGW as a crisis to be addressed? What might be their motivations? What are the cost/benefits of any proposed solutions? Are cost/benefit analyzes even being performed? Who benefits from a given proposed solution beyond any overall benefit associated with the climate? Are the people involved in the AGW being transparent and open in their discussions? Has a “herd mentality” been formed amongst pundits and others in the media? Are dissenting views welcomed into the debate?

      As a scientist, I ask some additional questions the primary one, in this case, is “Are those who call themselves experts and are promoting the idea that climate change is something to be gravely concerned about acting like true scientists?” The answer to the last question is a resounding “No!”

      Science presumes the existence of objective truths about the natural world which can be discovered by human effort. As such, it has no place for any effort to suppress alternate interpretations of observed phenomena. In order to develop the best scientist understanding, all interpretations should be presented and explained openly and completely and with complete transparency. All data used should be presented and any corrections explained. Anyone who wants to review the methods and reasoning used to arrive at conclusions should be allowed to do so.

      The proponents of AGW are not transparent. They don’t allow access to or even explain what datasets they are using for their computer models and they don’t let others review their computer code. They insist that they have come to the right conclusions and that the rest of the world should accept their findings on faith. In fact, they get quite testy when others question the validity of their conclusions.

      In short, they are not acting like scientists. They are acting like self-interested parties who have something to hide. If they really believed that the earth’s climate was changing in a way that was detrimental to the human species, then they would set a server containing all of their raw data, all of their corrected data with a complete and precise explanation of all corrections that have been made and the code which they use in their computer models. They would make such a server mirrorable and accessible to as wide a range of people as they can. Instead of doing this, they make excuses and essentially say, “the dog ate my homework”.

      What would you do if you thought the human race was in jeopardy and could do something to change its future? I know what I would do, I would put aside all personal considerations of fame and fortune and make the most honest and convincing case I could so that the probability of averting disaster could be maximized. Are the pro-AGW people acting like that? Hell, no! They are being secretive and trying to milk the political system for every penny of every grant that they can.

      One other point, take a look sometime at the discussions and sanctions associated with the wikipedia pages on global warming. There is an ongoing war over the presentation of global warming information in wikipedia and, generally, the proponents are trying to present the image that an AGW crisis is a proven, undisputed fact. I remember a few years ago when I looked up global warming in wikipedia. At that time, the page presented AGW as a proven fact and when I looked at the discussion page, I saw that someone had previously added a short section titled “Dissent”. That section had been edited out of the wiki page within 45 minutes of its posting. It suggested that the wiki page was being continuously monitored and that the posting of dissenting opinions was being rapidly edited out. Does that seem like the work of people trying to arrive at an objective truth?

  17. One of the stupidest and least honest arguments used against those who question the veracity of AGW is that we don’t care about pollution and/or dismiss pollution as inconsequential. I have yet to talk to a “denier” who thought this. We deny bullshit but that doesn’t include dismissing REAL pollution. We should clean up our act here on earth.

    “”Where are you getting this “seven times” crap from?””

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

    Wikipedia lists FIVE major ice ages in our past. I’ve read seven from numerous scientific sources. Fact is there have been many. There have also been MANY INTER-glacial periods in between the ice ages. The changes that affect the Earth to the point of initiating any of these major climatic shifts are a LOT more powerful than our existence – pollution included.

    Does OUR pollution have an effect on the global weather? It might. Again it’ll be INSIGNIFICANT globally when compared to any one of several volcanic eruptions. Ferinstance the gasses escaping from Mt.St. Helens when it is not doing anything but passing gas exceeds all the man-made pollution west of the Mississippi River. Multiply that by a few actual eruptions including submarine eruptions and major venting and what we do with our SUV’s, bonfires and BBQ’s is, statistically so insignificant it baffles me why anybody would be foolish enough to bring it up in an AGW argument.

    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/category/earth-changes/volcanoes/

    I don’t mind a good argument especially when I KNOW the other person is WRONG but try not to take yourself too seriously saskboy. “Follow you on twitter and LIKE you on facebook??? Riiiiight!

    • Yup. Climate change can have very drastic results in the past, and will in the future. Why invite it sooner, is the issue.

      Natural occuring emissions have always been with us. Everything we do is on *top* of that.

      How much CO2 in the atmosphere is from us, not nature? Quite a lot. We can tell because the CO2 we create through combustion has a different isotope count than that created naturally. That’s how we know that the bulk of the increase in CO2 is most definitely from human sources.

      • Why invite it sooner, is the issue.

        That’s not the issue at all. The issue is whether there is a real crisis and whether the enormous cost in standard of living and loss of political and economic freedom is worth whatever benefit the proposed solutions allegedly provide.

        How much CO2 in the atmosphere is from us, not nature? Quite a lot.

        Look up the Krakatoa eruption sometime. You might find it interesting. Massive eruption within recorded history. Threw more stuff into the atmosphere than humans ever have. Temporarily affected the weather over large parts of the globe … and left no lasting effect.

  18. BTW many people seem to be misunderstanding what the study of past climate change tells us about the current warming trend. I strongly suggest people take the time and listen to this talk by Richard Alley at the AGU fall meeting in 2009

    http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2771

    The intro (about 1:10 minutes long) is very boring, but Dr Alley is anything but.

  19. Time to take your meds and turn in sask. You’re 2 minutes of infamy and idiocy has passed. Those who KNOW, know this is ALL political and based on BS data that was aimed at the redistribution of wealth and nothing more. A few gullible dreamers bought into it hook, line and heavy bit but as you have read – MOST see it for what it is. GloBULL bull and communism at it old devious self. Don’t despair though. I’m sure Maurice Strong will have an Order of Canuckistan waiting for you.

  20. A question for you, Saskboy: What will it take to convince you that you’re wrong about global warming? Think carefully, because if your answer is “I’m NOT WRONG, and NOTHING can convince me I am!!!” you’re in trouble.

    Two things will convince me I’m wrong: 1) the planet actually starts warming, and 2) the leading eco-hypocrites like Al Gore, David Suzuki and Rajenda Pachauri actually start acting like they tell us to, and foreswear their private Gulfstreams for the bus like they tell us to.

    Not holding my breath……

    • My answer is here:

      http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2095

      As to your answers, 1) the world has unquestionably warmed. We see thing in the instrumental record, the satellite record and tens of thousands of natural indicators all over the planet,

      2) This has NOTHING to do with science at all.

    • “Al Gore, David Suzuki and Rajenda Pachauri actually start acting like they tell us to, and foreswear their private Gulfstreams ”

      Why does Al Gore or any of the other green gods NOT have any solar panels or wind generators on any of their mansions? Because they simply buys the carbon offsets to be carbon neutral, they do not need to spend thousands of dollars needlessly. For a few hundred bucks a year in carbon offsets Gore can achieve what $500,000 in solar panels would do. That’s why you don’t see any of these things near his properties, and he has a smaller carbon footprint than his tofu eating solar powered neighbors and for 1 /1000th the cost. They will simply spend a few hundred dollars yearly and buy the credits, done. Gore is no fool. Spending money on solar panels and windmills is for suckers. Ask yourself, which would you do, spend $50,000 for a windmill or $40 for a carbon certificate?..I thought so.

      • So we don’t need to change our lifestyle in order to fight AGW, all we have to do is pay Al Gore? And you’re telling me the oil companies are greedy????

    • Well why aren’t you convinced then? Your condition for 1) has already been met! As Dan pointed out, your 2) is bizarre, but whatever turns your crank I guess.

      For me there would be a livable world still in 2050. I hope we both live to see that I’m wrong.

  21. There’s more actual proof of AGW “scientists” being on the take and fudging their data than there is any proof that the world is getting warmer as a result of man’s efforts.

    I’ll take the readily available and searchable proof of my first assertion and leave the rest of you fine folks to your amusements. Because that’s all it can be after one realizes that there simply is not enough reliable data or proxies with which to venture anything more than a guess. A hypothesis.

    I will NOT lay down my life or my opportunities for comfort and civilisation for a hypothesis that is bankrolled by government entities that are going up against the enormous and overwhelming influence of the Sun on our planet. Or the volcanic core of our planet. Little scientists at their desks can’t stop Japan from sinking into the ocean after the earth shrugs again. They can’t stop Chilean volcanoes from bringing a new Ice Age about. Puny humans! Make your time!

    However, I WILL get a vaccine for the flu, or chicken pox, or whatever poxy tart of a pox that Mother Earth tries to throw at me because vaccine science is not hypothetical. But my bet is that many here on this thread are against it.

    • Look, if you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change then you don’t beleive in climate science, therefore you don’t believe in science in general, you are a science denier, therefore you cannot beleive that vaccines work.

      Face it, you believe you were dropped here by devine design and the earth is 6000 years old.

      • Your logic so tight that I can’t refute it. Keep that big brain of yours chugging. You’ll be a star someday.

  22. Awww, the real shame is that it is impossible to have a conversation with a believer in Global Warming caused by Carbon Dioxide entering the atmosphere by the burning of Petroleum.

    For these people, facts are only true if they fit their belief system. If, and I have tried this, you present someone like SaskBoy irrefutable evidence that the “majority” of scientists behind the Global Warming Thesis have been caught twice inventing, manipulating, massaging and outright lying about their Global Warming research in the Mann “Hockey Stick” scam, and again recently with the release of 5000 emails proving that these so-called eminent scientists are guilty of perpetrating a fraud……well what you get in return is that I/you/anyone who doesn’t agree with the fraudulent evidence is a person who is greedy. End of story, nowhere else to go.

    Its so sad that people like SaskBoy cannot see contrary evidence. Really sad that all people who prefer their science to be robust and accurate are in the opinion of the SaskBoy’s of the world to be either a dumb a shit, or greedy, most likely both.

    The irony is that the accusation of greed thrown at lucid and reasonable thinkers is actually going precisely 180 degrees in the wrong direction. The Mann’s, Jones, Bradley’s etc are actually the ones who are greedily manipulating science so that they can continue earning their incomes from money paid to governments in taxes.

    It doesn’t matter anyway. The greed argument is the same technique used to defend Obama’s disastrous economic policies. As anyone who has critiqued Obama’s economic policies to anyone left of center you soon find out that you are clearly a racist. If, and I mean IF you can successfully defend yourself from being a racist (helps if you have a black wife) then you’ll spend the rest of the “discussion” finding out you’re, er….GREEDY.

    I took the time to write this without a scintilla of hope it might change someone like SaskBoy’s mind. I took the time simply to underscore these global warming believers are immune to fact. They are also immune to reason. I think there is no hope at all of convincing them because its their favorite method of gaining taxpayer funding or social programs they favor. They will continue yammering until like the Occupy Wall Street gang just get too annoying for even the biggest hearted leftist and get swept from the stage. They will continue long after they have become an embarrassment using the Occupy Wall Street gang as the measurement. The same measurement makes sense since they are essentially the same people.

    OWS/Global Warming promoters just think that the world is a big evil place run by people who have become wealthy. Those who became wealthy by hard work and intelligence are as guilty as those who may have inherited it too. If they are wealthy they are evil. If they are wealthy they must be stripped of their wealth so that it can be given to OWS/Global Warming promoters who deserve it because of their superior moral position on…. apparently everything.

    I can only guess but I think OWS and Global Warming people believe they are standing on the ramparts defending civilization. The bullets they are so willing to absorb for the rest of us is ridicule. Ridicule we justly send in their direction for their inability in some cases, and unwillingness in others to absorb information contrary to their beliefs. Legions of them think (I am assuming here to be fair) they are so busy fighting for humanities outright survival they don’t have the time to work. In many minds these days thats courage and devotion.

    In the case of the Jone’s, Mann’s etc of the world their devotion to saving the planet in the face of accusations of fraudulent science really shows how wonderfully durable, benevolent and noble these people are for not batting an eyelid while bullets loaded with accusations of fraudulent science, corruption malfeasance hit them in the chest. Their not only tough, they should be awarded the Pulitzer prize because maintaining and promoting their shattered theory in the face of those kinds of accusations requires the assistance of the media. And no-one can say they haven’t been remarkably successful recruiting and maintaining the media corps. Both the Global Warming scientists/promotors like Mann, Jones etc AND the OWS have been successful in gaining the full and continuing support of the media.

    I suppose its possible, that just like OWS lost media support, the Global Warming folks will ultimately lose it too. Trouble is, after 20 years of stocking up parliaments, congresses, public corporations, even private corporations with powerful people who believe in the agenda for various reasons, I’m less hopeful. These folks will likely only be wiped off the media map when governments run out of money, yet we are already so far past that (read Europe and the USA) and they are still yapping. We are still hearing about it, practically hourly.

    Makes an old hockey fighter like me want to take an occasional SaskBoy out behind the shed and administer a good shit-kicking. Not to make any difference, there are too many of them. No, just to feel like I did something effective in shutting one of them up at least for a while. Lord knows, writing this didn’t change SaskBoy’s mind. Nothing written or spoken is ever going to do that.

    • After completely discrediting everything the leftist’s believe, (that’s ‘believe’ not ‘know’) they would still want to kill conservatives for leaving the cap off the toothpaste tube.

      This is about envy and subsequent hatred of those who go and successfully get a life whilst these others languish in the shadows waiting to get some of our hard earned money through guilt and tax extortion. Politician scum bags who play into this through vote buying are just as evil and short sighted.

      Lazy, spoiled, misinformed, emotionally unstable, poorly educated, false sense of grandeur through trophies for showing up and not achieving anything. Also these folks are preoccupied with doing whatever the feel like doing or not doing anything at all. They are the stupid generation who cannot resist believing do-gooder liars.

      When your goal in life is to SAVE THE WORLD, you will never have to actually show any progress or work or results …. it’s the perfect cop out for the chronically lazy and devious under achievers in our society.

    • “For these people, facts are only true if they fit their belief system.”

      Thats why it is considered by many to be a faith or religion.

      • Hey Klem, did you study science at a university? I wonder because if you didn’t then you really have no first hand knowledge of any of the underpinning of science. Most of the AGW believers are so very smug about science when really the only difference between believers in science and believers in religion is the ‘priest’ they listen to.

        Me, I studied biology and took enough chem and physics to have a solid base to build on but I also learned a lot about skepticism. I learned that consensus isn’t science and I also learned that people will use science to push their own agenda. If you don’t believe ‘scientists’ will do that all you need to do is look at why no one takes the social sciences seriously. When arts majors go on about science they are blind to the fact that they’re just as open to abuse by their ‘priests’ as catholic altar boys.

      • Rat, I also have a background in science. It’s clear most SDA commenters do not, and when they do they are often more skeptical of governments’ intentions than actions, which is a shame. Because I don’t think most governments collectively have the intention of ignoring life imperiling threats to the world, but their actions speak louder than words and intentions.

    • “Makes an old hockey fighter like me want to take an occasional SaskBoy out behind the shed and administer a good shit-kicking.”

      Rephrased:
      “Grrr, I’m angry! Since I have no coherent thoughts to put my anger into constructive words, I’ll beat up the people smarter than I am.”

      Get lost, loser.

      • Guess you can’t read Saskboy. Seems your coherent points were “you’re angry”, “you’re stupid”, “you can’t use the english language constructively”.

        Those accusations actually make my coherent point, which was, for your benefit, that its impossible to talk to a lefty because when they haven’t got a coherent point to make they collapse into a string of insults just like:

        “you’re angry”, “you’re stupid”, you can’t use the english language constructively”.

        You made my point perfectly, thank you very much SaskBoy.

        Now, if you’ve like to give me a counter argument to my assertion that lefties like you can’t explain away the Gore’s/Jones/Mann’s and the climategate emails 1 and 2 so you reply in an insultive manner, usually Greed in this case, or racist when it comes to Obama’s economic pipe bombs.

        I am not holding my breath though, you can’t take back the personal insults you threw in my direction, and you didn’t counter my argument, so I predict you will not reply at all, or even better, you will dig your hole deeper by throwing another insult in my direction.

        By the way, my expression was indeed frustration that it is impossible to get folks like you to skip the racist and greed accusations when forced to explain away the Gore’s/Jones/Mann’s and the climategate emails 1 and 2.

        But it was frustration, not anger. Anger would have sounded quite different than the tone of my post. Not that you’d take the time to notice as it would be difficult for you to swallow that you and your ilk simply can’t explain away the Gore’s/Jones/Mann’s and the climategate emails 1 and 2.

        Like to see you try and explain them away though. Come’on SaskBoy, let us have our explanation.

      • You can’t threaten me on my blog, and think I’ll talk with you or read what you say anymore. In the unlikely event I do happen to be attacked in the coming days, you’ve conveniently added yourself to a short list of suspects to be investigated.

        Seriously, get lost Robert Zurrer, and don’t come back.

  23. There’s a way to keep this conversation nice and short:

    No, control of the global economy is not going to be handed over to the global environmental Left. Find something else to cry about.

  24. Die you dumb ass greenies . . die.

    Pullout of Kyoto, check.

    Stop the Eco Guilt shakedown payments to the 3rd world kleptocracies, check.

    Time to donate to the CPC & get Harper another term or two, check.

  25. Even with Climategate 2 you continue to refer to the “science” supporting your stance on climate change. You make yourself as phony as the science you refer to.

  26. It is almost amusing how many people resort to ad hominem attacks instead of arguments. I’m not sure what the point is… to kill time? Take up bandwidth? Illustrate the moral poverty of the neo-con right?

    It’s also interesting to see how many American (Fox ‘News’?) arguments are recycled here without any transposition to a Canadian setting. “Bankrolled by government entities”? Yeah, Peter Kent is behind this all.

  27. Doesn’t anyone care that the laws of physics will not allow any more than an absolute maximum1degree rise in temperature if all factors of the equation are pushed to the limit?

  28. Wow so the world will end because Canada, which emits about 2% of the worlds green house gasses, will turf Kyoto? Saksboy explain to me how dishing off millions to third world basket case countries will fix things? Tell my why these “scientists” you speak of must fudge numbers to show the planet is warming? Tell me why many scientists who are climate scientists, unlike Suzuki, have serious doubts about the research conducted by the IPCC? It was warmer 800 years ago, and colder 400 years ago then it is now-how the hell did that happen? “Useful Idiot” is to kind to describe you socialists dressed up as environmentalists.

    • Thats why CAGW will do trmendous damage to the enviornmental movement in the end. The public does not distinguish between enviornmentalists and soialists anymore. These people have willingly done it to themselves, they can deal with it.

    • If the third world develops the same way we do, then there is clearly not enough resources (or exploitable labour mind you) to achieve that, let alone portable space in the atmosphere. If we don’t find ways to arrest that pollution trend, things won’t go well for anyone. Canada has enormous influence in the world, although it is decreasing as we become outsiders in more areas. We also are fairly well educated compared to many nations, and if we can’t implement solutions, then others have no examples by which to follow.

  29. U.K. Dr. Richard Courtney (Climate and Atmospheric Scientist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer

    “The case for anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not stronger and stronger as many have claimed.”

    “To date, no convincing evidence of AGW has been discovered. Recent golbal climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

    “Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points’, runaway sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustifiable scares.”

  30. New Zealand – Dr. Vincent Gray (Physical Chemist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer. He has been involved in every report of the IPCC. He is the author of over 100 scientific peer reviewed papers.

    “The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous and unscientific nonsense.”

    “There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.”

  31. It’s always the government that has to enforce laws to make us do something we are unwilling to do ourselves. Question: What have you done in your own life to stop your CO2 emissions? If you haven’t personally done what your dear Kyoto Accord wanted, then shut up.
    If so many of you AGW crowd actually believe this then why aren’t you doing what you preach? Let me know when you’ve reached Kyoto CO2 emissions in your own lives and I might listen to you.
    I got tired of my parents adage: Do as I say, not as I do.

  32. Pulling out of Koyoto is not a secret. It’s been in the news.

    The majority do not buy the GW scam, It’s over fools. It is the greed and evil of the climate industry that we need to be concerned about. What are all those high paid idiots going to do for work? Oh well Walmart is expanding daily and they need greeters.

    And what you are suggesting is saving the world through poverty. If we all stop making money, the we will have a better world?

    Smoke another bowl, indeed,

  33. USA – Dr. John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist and UN IPCC Lead Author:

    “Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.”

    I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’”

    “Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author). The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the ‘informational cascade’) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the ‘ones who know’ (from the latin sciere, to know).”

  34. USA – Dr. Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT, UN-IPCC Lead Author.

    “The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”

    “Its not 2500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations each seeking their own benefit.”

    “Current climate models would have predicted a substantially greater increase in the past temperature than has been observed in the past 150 years, perhaps a +3 deg C compared to the 0.6 deg C we have witnessed. ” (testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee 2005.

    What he is basically saying is that the models that you are using to insist that the world spend 30 trillion dollars by 2040 and cause widespread economic hardship and even death, those models DON’T EVEN WORK BACKWARDS. I.Slanter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s