I don't think the Conservatives are questioning global warming, just the claims that its primarily man-made. They are also realists, seeing through the wealth re-allocation plan that won't really improve squat in Canada. They also recognized that the Liberal environmental programs weren't delivering reductions.

Have a look at the world's most polluted city in the world's most polluted country...

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/05/28/grant.china.most.polluted.cnn


I guess we could do the 1 tonne challenge.:rolleyes:

The reality is that Canadians in general (rightly or wrongly) don't really care about Kyoto.

Quote:
Nearly 89 per cent of Canadians have heard about the Kyoto accord, but 68 per cent say they don't know any of the details, according to an Ipsos Reid poll of 1,621 Canadians completed this spring.

Stats lie and liars use stats.

While most Canadians don't know what is involved in Kyoto, they do know what Kyoto represents. It represents saving the environment which most Canadians are on board with. Since they do not know any better, they do not know how flawed Kyoto is. Thus the reluctance to abandon it or force revisions.

We want to believe we have the moral superiority even if the facts do not back us up.

Whether the conservatives are realists or not is irrelevant. The environment is turning into a hot button issue. The frenzy is starting that global warming is caused by our pollution (rightly or wrongly). Since this issue has become so important to Canadians and to our feelings of american superiority Harper would be unwise to promote the idea that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Instead, he would be smart to act as decisivley on the environment as he has on the military.

Stats lie and liars use stats.

I personally don't consider myself a "liar" but thanks for the insinuation:p .

While most Canadians don't know what is involved in Kyoto, they do know what Kyoto represents. It represents saving the environment which most Canadians are on board with. Since they do not know any better, they do not know how flawed Kyoto is. Thus the reluctance to abandon it or force revisions.

These are the same Canadians that moan and wail every time that gas prices go up 10 cents. You'd think they'd be cheering something that would directly result in lower fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.

Instead, he would be smart to act as decisivley on the environment as he has on the military.

I hope he does, too. But, I also believe that any plan that ships hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries will get a big thumbs down from me.

Stats lie and liars use stats.

Especially when they dont prove your point, or help your case.

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System


Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Gore says in his silly movie that the scientific debate on global warming is over, apparently alot of independent scientists have a different opinon.:rolleyes:

Check out the Oregon petition, over 17,000 indepentently verified professionals think Gore is nuts.

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

Instead of using words like "silly" and "nuts", perhaps you can tell us why you fell for what came out of OISM in its 1998 petition, which has been roundly condemned:The OISM is known mostly for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

When the petition was circulated, many educators and experts were deceived into thinking that they were evaluating one quasi-academic research review of several academic papers on the question of whether it is possible to separate global warming causes as being human or natural in origin, and not about whether global warming exists.Mailings of the petition include a copy of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and an eight-page report, both written by Robinson and his 21-year-old son Zachary.

"We're not specialists in climate change," Robinson acknowledged. The paper didn't contain original research; rather, it contained a review of several research papers. The Robinsons concluded that there is no data to support human-caused global warming.

Robinson declined to say how much the campaign cost or who financed it--only that a retired Portland man paid for about 18 percent of the petition drive. C. Norman Winningstad, a philanthropist and founder of Floating Point Systems, is perhaps the most prominent name among Oregon petition signers. Winningstad said he thought the paper was succinct and well-written. He said he did not know Robinson or contribute to the petition drive.

The paper was co-written by astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Mount Wilson Observatory. Included is a cover letter by Frederick Seitz, physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences. Baliunas, Soon and Seitz are with the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.

"The paper is very selective on what it talks about," said Michael C. MacCracken, director of the National Assessment Coordination Office for the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Nobel laureate F. Sherwood Rowland, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Irvine, said the article has little scientific merit. And Rowland objected to the paper resembling a published, peer-reviewed research article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The academy's governing council took the unusual step of disassociating itself from the petition and the eight-page paper.

One of the Oregon scientists who signed the petition was Paul E. Hammond, professor emeritus of geology at Portland State University. "The article opened up the argument about how difficult it's going to be to separate human-caused conditions from natural conditions," he said. "He's not just a flag in the wind. There are others that are making the same point."
http://www.sepp.org/reality/icono.html

The "Friends Of Science" are much more serious global warming theory opponents, although they are based, funded, and supported by Alberta backers, in a province in which the Oil & Gas industry and the Premier are both very vocal critics of the Kyoto Accord:Friends of Science is a four-year-old society incorporated under Alberta provincial law. Although its 200 members include people from all walks of life, the key organizers are mostly retired earth scientists. There is an oil and gas flavour to the association, but Loughead insists that earth scientists must take part in climate debates because their disciplines are directly relevant to the research.http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2
Here's another in the recent Friends of Science (FOS) flurry, a story in the Daily Oil Bulletin (DOB) that (surprise!) takes issue with the science of man-made climate change.

It raises a series of questions. If FOS cares about science, why does it expend all its energy and a huge anmount of money on politics and public relations?

If DOB cares about accuracy or balance, why would it report that 60 scientists signed a letter challenging climate science -- without reporting that a week later, 90 more senior scientists responded with a letter attesting to the reliability of the current scientific consensus.

Finally, if Dr. Tim Patterson wants to be taken seriously on his theory that sunspots have caused global warming, why is he afraid to share any graph that extends beyond 1980 (when sunspot intensity went one way and climate and temperature went another)?

Friends of Conservatives? Clearly. Friends of the oil industry? Absolutely. Friends of Science? Woefully, there is no evidence to suggest so.http://www.desmogblog.com/friends-of-science-a-political-not-scientific-clique
The momentum for the work of the Friends of Science appears to come from conservative think thanks such as the Fraser Institute and its like-minded think tanks in the United States that receive funding from ExxonMobil, described in its corporate reports simply as "climate change'.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Friends_of_Science

In yesterdays news and from a Bush administration report done by the National Research Council

A panel convened by the National Research Council reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific studies, reporting that the evidence indicates “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years.”

The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree F during the 20th century.

It took a long time before "everyone" agreed that cigarettes caused cancer too. The CEOs of the cigarette companies lied to people for years about addiction, chemicals, cancer, etc.

I would expect nothing different from those affiliated with the oil and auto industries...

However, if we wait 50+ years (the time it has taken for cigarettes to be "condemned" in the civilized world (a major portion of the world has not yet condemened cigarettes)) then we may be out of luck when it comes to climate change.

I likely won't be around then, but YOUR children will be, and you'll be reviled for what you did to this planet, if you were part of the "big footprint" brigade.

Even if global warming is mostly due to "natural cycles" everyone should be on board to reduce OUR footprint on this planet. 10 Billion people with big feet cannot be supported by even 4 earths, so let's get on with it.

WASHINGTON - The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities.Well, that's pretty clear.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming

Watch CBC Newsworld tonight 10PM and 1AM - Passionate Eye - about how the Bush administration supposedly ignores/suppresses most Global Warming warnings... BBC programme.

http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/index.jsp?program=Passionate+Eye&network=CBC%20Newsworld&startDate=2006/06/26&startTime=22:00

Oh sure the CBC/BBC will have a fair and balanced report on the Bush administration.:rolleyes:


Truth of the matter is US climate policy has a much better record than Canada the past 12 years.
Bush understands Kyoto is a flawed unworkable policy.
The Liberals were good at making promises very poor on the reality of reaching those goals, something Harper is now trying to resolve with a made in Canada approach.

More facts.
95% of greenhouse gas found on Earth come from water vapour, clouds and stuff.
Man made greenhouse gas makes up part of the remaining 5%.
Volcano's and earth made pollution contribute to more than half of this remaining 5%.
If you want to buy into the hysteria that we need to stop running our SUV's to save the Earth than I got another bridge to sell you.

Bush remarked on climate change today.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626184958.a9erm3mw.html

There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused,That debate is now over, as indicated previously in this thread. The magnitude of man's impact may be somewhat debatable, however, what I said in post 47 still holds and that's the point that Bush and many first world citizens don't seem to understand. The way we currently use the world is not sustainable and needs to be changed.

As long as people continue to act as though they don't have any effect and that "the changes to the world are natural", the effect will continue to grow.

Only when people realize that we need to reduce our footprint by 75% (or more) will there be any positive impact on our little blue planet. If we don't reduce, we are either sentencing 9 Billion people to poverty, or sentencing the earth to "death" from unsustainable plundering. And that's aside from the global warming issue, which, if true (very likely according to the vast majority of scientists not paid for by Auto/Oil companies), will only make matters worse still.

95% of greenhouse gas found on Earth come from water vapour, clouds and stuff.

Got a source?

Interestingly, increased carbon in the atmosphere increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere thereby making GW even worse

There is no debate in the scientific community only in the oil and gas lobbyist community.

My father works for Environment Canada (as a metorologist for 35 years) and has been involved with many of the GW meetings in Canada and he still tells me that in actual reality, there is still no TRUE consensus. There ARE those on both sides that spout very hard for their view and show very compelling evidence. However, there are things that we are not being told that are rather concerning.

One of them is the fact that the required precision of temperature measurement with digital equipment is actually more lax than with mercury thermometers. This alone can easily constitute some of the veriance that may occur in some measurement zones.

Also, a very important fact is that there has only been a 30 year window of even moderate to high precision weather tracking. This is WAY too small a window to start saying that one know FOR SURE that we are in over our heads, so to speak.

Personally, I am more of the opinion that we are going through a period of climate instability. HOWEVER...

The fact of the matter still boils down to the fact that there are cleaner, more "environmentally friendly" ways to do MANY of the things that we do and these better ways are here NOW and are NOT more expensive overall than the currently accepted "normal" ways to do things. They even SAVE YOU MONEY if you do them!!!

The most important thing that we ALL have to watch out for is if the Libs that are embracing all of this extreme "tree hugging" aren't just playing us like the Cons that I am sure are out there in Ft. McMoney.

Here is a quip that I posted elsewhere on the Internet about the impact that we have on the price of oil. I will quote the whole thing as it does have direct bearing on this subject whether I agree that there is Global Warming or not.

Yes, the greatest cause of the rise in price of hydrocarbon fuels (Oil, gas, natural gas, etc...) is the EVIL futures market. It's name is NYMEX. If the futures market was outlawed, the price of oil would be tied to the TRUE supply and not the speculated one.

The second greatest cause is all of us North Americans.

We live the single most opulent collective lives in the world and refuse to allow ourselves to be truly goverened. If we did, we would have allowed some of the more radical run away dangers of unchecked capitalism to be stopped or reigned in.

Here are some examples...

- Allowing SUVs to even exist (Their operation AND production consumes large amounts of oil)

- Allowing anything other than GeoThermal heating and cooling to be used in homes and businesses (All other forms of heating and air conditioning cause greater demand on an electrical grid that is powered majority-wise by coal and oil)

- Allowing people to own homes instead of forcing the population density up by mandating apartment complexes (Keeps public transit from working its best)

- Allowing any other vehicle than a truck to have a V-8 or large displacement engine in it (Allows TOTALLY unnecessary consumption of oil)

- Allowing sports cars (same as above)

- Allowing ATVs/SeaDOOs/Snowmobiles to be sold to anyone that cannot prove that they NEED it (Same as above and it also consumes a great amount of oil and coal to power all of the manufacturing of these products)

- Allowing people to own any more than 2 of any major appliance/electronics (Same as the second half of above)

- Allowing NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) to interfere with the installation of Wind Power (PURE vanity interfering with the goal of reduced oil/coal dependancy)

- Allowing any lightbulb other than Compact Flourescent or better to be on the market (Allows unadulterated waste of electricity and therefore is in the same category as non Geothermal heating and cooling)

And if anyone wants to quickly realize why all of these examples are VERY important, it is because EVERY one of them causes the increased consumption of oil, coal and natural gas.

Products need to be made and shipped/transported. All of us in North America are OBSESSED with consuming things. We are also OBSESSED with having the freedom to choose to add to the mess that we now blame on the government.

Let me put it this way...

Recently, I watched "Wal-Mart, the high price of low cost". When it was over, I realized one simple thing. The reason why Wal-Mart is raping the American citizen is because they are LETTING Wal-Mart do it. There WAS a choice and the people made it. Now, they have to live with it.

We all made a choice. It was to be swept up into the greed of consumerism. Now, it is time to take responsibility. I did the best I can by doing the following:

- Building a house that is more than twice as efficient than the average NEW house

- Driving TWO Hondas. One is a Civic and is used as the main family car.

- Replacing ALL my lights with Compact Flourescent bulbs

- Clustering errands into single trips or by getting things on the way home from work

- Living no more than 15 KMs from work

- Buying on the net and having things shipped to my house rather than driving around wasting gas and not finding anything.


In the last 7 years, I have reduced my families gas consumption by over 50%. Our house has consumed over 200,000 KW hours LESS than the average house over the last 6 years. We buy GOOD tires that have low rolling resistance. We DO NOT let our winter tires stay on too long. We keep the tire pressure at the proper level for the specific car. We recycle almost everything that can be recycled.

All of these things help GREATLY reduce MY dependance on oil. If we ALL did as many of these as possible (Not that are comfortable, but possible), then we ALL would depend less on oil.

que3jxp: You missed a few: ;)

http://digitalhomecanada.com/forum/showpost.php?p=385921&postcount=21

(and these are just for electricity). The other ones regarding transportation, living quarters, etc. each have a similar number of "things people can do"...

You are to be commended for your actions. (I have done many of the same and some others):

- I bicycle, or walk, for most weekly errands (keeps the weight under control too).
- Our vehicles, which average about 10 l/100km (actual, not estimated), are driven less than 10,000km/yr. combined, using less than 1000 litres of fuel total.
- Minimizing the things we buy (not getting caught up in consumerism)
- Buying quality - the items last longer, thereby requiring less energy to produce new things.
- Buying "local" goods, or buying food "in season" to minimize transportation costs.
- Living in a small, two story, efficient dwelling (1400 sq ft, R20 walls, R40 ceiling)
- Timed thermostat utilized appropriately year 'round
- AC off, windows opened in summer, if outside temperature lower than 24C (Humidex)
- plus many more.

As mentioned by que3jxp, these things all save money long term and increase, not decrease, quality of life.

My father works for Environment Canada (as a metorologist for 35 years) and has been involved with many of the GW meetings in Canada and he still tells me that in actual reality, there is still no TRUE consensus.

With all due respect to your father, the Weather Makers author draws from many studies and the science is impeccable. This is not about theories but empirical evidence.

The "thermometer accuracy" issue was raised over 15 years ago and although it is relevant to the accuracy of some of the data, it in no way discredits teh noticn Global Warming.

Since I started this thread, NOT one person has discussed the BOOK and pointed out where the Author was wrong.

All the lobbyists totally ignore the scientific evidence presented by the author and go straight to political lobbying.

I'd have some respect for the Anti-GW crowd if they actually took the authors thesis and then showed specific scientific studies that show otherwise.

With all due respect to your father, the Weather Makers author draws from many studies and the science is impeccable. This is not about theories but empirical evidence.

No problem.

The "thermometer accuracy" issue was raised over 15 years ago and although it is relevant to the accuracy of some of the data, it in no way discredits teh noticn Global Warming.

I just don't see how it doesn't?

I'd have some respect for the Anti-GW crowd if they actually took the authors thesis and then showed specific scientific studies that show otherwise.

Well, Hugh, I will take you up on that and actually read the book and then get back to you.

que3jxp: You missed a few: ;)

I figured... :p

You are to be commended for your actions. (I have done many of the same and some others).

Thanks! And remember, my actions were self rewarding to the tune of probably in excess of $500/month!!!

And to think my house runs at 70 F all the time that it is occupied (not counting sleeping) and even in the summer!!!