Marzo... yes. at the moment climate change (it's very clearly a real phenomenon and it's very clearly either largely or wholly (that's the scientific debate) the result of human activity. At the moment, the problem is making the future of the planet something that will produce profits for the very people and systems that have already profitted from vreating the mess in the first place: this is seen as necessary because these people and systems hold the bulk of global wealth and power. 

Well yes MO5 I am supicious when there is such "unanimity".  I am especially suspicious when they talk about the "protests"  and "protestors" at Copenhagen.  These groups are mostly present to urge the governmental organizations meeting there to do exactly what by all indications they intend to do anyway.  I would have thought the term "cheerleaders" would have been more appropriate than "protestors".  I note that when some were removed from the scene yesterday for being a little too strenuous or enthusiastic they were detained but none were charged.  No heads are being broken and no charges being laid.  It's not serious ... the cheerleaders are just a little giddy.  We'll be seeing the institution of some sort of cap and trade (which should revive the fortunes of the financial houses that are still cleaning egg off their faces from the debt crisis and need something new to sell).  New technologies that supplant oil (not so much for coal) will be developed at a cost which society is unwilling to pay in order to deprive the middle east and the Muslim world of its power and wealth (but which first world populations will tolerate if they are told they must do so to save mother earth.  Once they have shaped the world economy around "carbon credits" though, it will be very important to make sure nobody comes forward with proof that global warming has a cause (or causes) other than the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or else our whole economic system will collapse.  The comments above show that the latter process is well underway.

By the way, how does our present CO2 centric climate warming theory explain the "little ice age" or the "middle ages warming period"?  (I'll give you a hint ... It doesn't and if it were any good, it ought to.)  But when you consider the bigger picture did it really matter all that much for all the hundreds of years after Ptolemy (and before Copernicus) that the sun did not to orbit the earth as Ptolemy postulated?  What is more important, having the right facts or using the facts (or misconceptions) you have to put money in your pocket and keep the status quo in place (ie.: maintain your position of power)? 

imho, the climate change debate comes down to this... we can spend some money now to alleviate the problem now, or we can spend A WHOLE LOT of money later on, when it becomes a crisis.  its our choice.

for me, i'd rather make the change to sustainable energy and a sustainable lifestyle now, rather than have to struggle in a few decades when it becomes a survival IMPERITIVE.

if dudes like harper want to yap about how we simply CAN'T do any more because of the cost, they can do so at their own peril.  because from what i have heard, by about 2020 it will become a crisis, and when it is staring us full on in the face, the cost to deal with it will be far more than he can imagine at this point.

geez, we recycle compact florescent lights here, MO5... you just take them to home depot or RONA.  

they also recycle batteries there.  the bins are ALWAYS full whenever i drop mine off...

as far as the whole 'lobby the government' stuff, i would suggest that is not something everyone can do.  i simply cannot drop everything and go to a protest, or campaign on behalf of the green candidates in my riding.  i can vote, and thats the best i can do on that front.

i think that there ARE people who can do that... i have friends who are GREAT at lobbying, calling, campaigning, etc.  but i can't.

what i CAN do is what i've outlined above. 

personally, i think that everyone needs to do that.  you have to do what you CAN.  to fret and wring your hands over the government leaves you with a feeling of hopelessness and anger.  as a human being, i can tell you that is a CRAPPY way to live... and honestly, what good is working hard to save humanity if you don't ENJOY the world that you are living in??

Mo5

I also have no doubt that we are "mistreating our planet" in many ways.  However, many of those ways have nothing to do with human caused increase in C02.  I am not arguing that we should be doing a better job on pollution, fishery management etc.  I am not yet convinced that a) C02 increases are causing climate change and b) all fluctuations in C02 are human related. 

I agree with you on the need for a community approach to many things.  However, I am not sure that C02 issues are the most important thereof until we know for sure that C02 is the culprit.

As for the "stolen emails", and many signs point to an inside whistleblower rather than a hacker, to my knowledge none of the parties involved have stipulated that the emails are in fact false.  My limited understanding of the emails show that the writers of those emails were performing a lot of smoothing of data etc that places their results under question. 

Sigh

When the alarm bells were first rung by the science community it was referred to as "global warming".  Now it is climate change.  I don't really care what we call it but the key arguement by some is that we need to reduce C02 to stop the climate from changing (stop it from warming to my way of understanding).  I won't argue about the ice as I have no knowledge of that.  My question is what is causing that?  Is it C02?  We do not seem to have proof of that and have even less proof now that the leaked emails are showing shennanigans within many of the key writers of the IPCC reports.

Overall I guess my question is

If the human race was putting as much effort and dollars into identifiable and unargueable pollution and other issues would we be better off than having all this effort and energy going into C02 issues?

I didn't mean for my earlier post to imply that my mind is made up.  Rather, I am curious as I find it hard to believe even 1/2 of what I hear from both sides.

Here is another interesting article regarding the inaccuracy of the temperature data sets being used to support the "climate change crisis"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/ 

 sighsnooties --- ask your friend at Carleton what one of his or her colleagues, Tim Patterson has to say on the subject ---- and also what happened to him when he started disagreeing with the UN's panel on climate/global/shift/warming/change.

We just experienced the hottest decade in history. Even before that we had been having record and near record temperatures year after year and yet some idiots still want to say that's just a coincidence, it's all made up, and you grasp onto the flimsiest straws you can find. The science IS settled and has been for some time. EVERY piece of new evidence and new data either confirms our current understanding of this or suggests that it could be WORSE that is currently accepted. People who pay attention to reality know this regardless of the illiterati (Granton, anonymous, etc.) would rather con people into thinking.

What's wrong with that is that it's based on a lie, the premise that there's doubt on the science of global climate change. The fact that it is happening has been proven repeatedly and is an absolute certainty. The only point of doubt is the exact pace that we're cooking ourselves. An old Sunday school teacher used to use an analogy. You can put a frog in a pot of water on the stove. If you very slowly turn up the temperature you can cook the frog alive. All it has to do to get out is one simple hop and he's free. The thing is if the temp. increase is gradual enough he won't realize that he's in trouble and will just stay put. Myself and other "reactionaries" are saying "hey it's getting really hot, let's jump" and deniers like you are saying "it's not so bad, let's stay put". On the issue of global climate change inaction brings us that much closer to death.

Btw. I have no idea if the "frog trick" would actually work on a real frog, I've never tried and it works as an analogy regardless.

 "What's wrong with that is that it's based on a lie"

- I just can't go along with that sentiment.  That doesn't mean good eco-stewardship isn't important to me.  How about re-forestation everyone?

Yes. I really like the truth, I'm funny that way.

 I think there is a certain arrogance on "our" part - and by "our" I mean more "developed" countries:  that for the better part of this century, economies and countries have thrived by pillaging natural resources.  I won't get into the fossil fuel issue, but certainly see things like clear cutting forests as a badge of shame to all of us.  So now we get these agreements, Kyoto in particular, telling now developing countries to keep environmental stewardship at the fore - when in reality - we are dependent on their ability to make cheap consumer goods - and can only do so when they aren't required to care for the environment.  Although it is more than curious, or perhaps flawed, that Russia and China were given a pass on Kyoto.

Reforestation isn't as popular because it is a more difficult solution that doesn't as easily lend itself to global taxation like cap and trade.

Of course the climate changes, it changes everyday.  I don't think anyone is denying that.  Starting to sound like a broken record here, but it is the extent to which humans are absolutely controlling or impacting that, that is still the question.

What concerns me the most is that it seems that the 'consensus' isn't like that wonderful elephant up there but, rather, focussed on just one part of the elephant, the one that seems to say "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T STOP THIS!"

And what we end up getting is shunning and politics interfering with the scientific investigations.  The data says what the data says, no matter how uncomforable one feels aboot it.

When I hear 'DENIER!', I cringe and chuckle.  It's just another word for 'Sinner!'

It reminds me a bit of Fascism.  Just a bit (I try not to take that literally, of course).

The good things aboot the reactions;  I felt like, at the Copenhagen Conference, that looky here, all these different people can come together and potentially come together on something.

I think there are better things we can spend our money on.  Like getting rid of poverty.  Clean drinking water for all.  Malaria eradication in Africa.  Uplifting everyone economically so that no one has to struggle to survive.  Getting solar power.

I think the fear is a...distraction from the real things that we can (and are, slowly) changing.  The less-sexy things.

I have great hopes for us.  We've done a good job of surviving ourselves so far :3

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

Is Carleton University considered fringe?

Did you read the stuff I posted about the Glaciers not melting - and those who said they were admitting they made a mistake and had to apologize?

Posting something doesn't make it true. The glaciers are melting as is the ice cap on antarctica and the most recent data shows it's going at a FASTER pace than originally believed. These are facts, deal with it.

Granton, I'm telling you, don't waste breath on this guy. He's not going to budge, even if you show him the information that he's using against you to be totally false.

Popular science has told him all he ever wants to hear.

No, it's another word for fool.

Why are all of these people laughing???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg&feature=player_embedded 

Truth is not what you deal in. Truth in itself is enough, truth benefits from facts, from the dispersion of information. But frankly, you don't make the effort, it's been posted before that NASA has released average temperatures for planets in our solar system and that several of them have increased in mean temperature. Ignore this though, because at the end of the day, you don't have facts, you only have your opinion. Unfortunately, on the internet, shouting someone down just doesn't cut it.

Where are these studies? SHOW ME THE INFORMATION. You won't, not because you don't want to bother or don't have the cogence to defend your arguments, but because they aren't generally available to the public. They keep the descriptive statistics behind bars while they only release the inferential data. If you don't understand the difference, please look it up.

Wow jon, way to take the highroad on an issue that you feel is "super serial".

Beshpin you clearly don't care about the truth. "show me the proof" is a lame excuse. Have you once opened up a newspaper or watched a news report in the last 20 years.  For that matter what about in the last few weeks. The past ten years was the hottest decade in history. Was that a coincidence? What about all the record and near record temperatures recorded in the decade before that? How many consecutive years of record and near record temperatures have to occur before you start to realize something is going on? This is settled science and has been for a long time. You either accept that or you accept that you will have no credibility. That is your choice but I will not pretend to take you seriously when you are completely unworthy of being taken seriously.  Look at you, you're trying to make what's supposedly happening on other planets an argument about Earth. Who cares? I am concerned about our climate change, not what might be happening somewhere THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE. The fact that you have to stretch that far to find an argument to the contrary is a concession on your part. If anyone should need to be convinced about man made global climate change I'd recommend they look at how desperately the deniers have to grasp at straws in order to make a "case" for what they believe.

In my lifetime I have seen the disappearance of two species from our area - both as a result of man's interference with nature.

The Luna Moth

As a child I would see at least one of these beautiful creatures every summer.  I haven't seen one in decades and they are on the endangered list.

This little nondescript fellow is a whip-poor-will.  Again this bird was a part of my youth and the distinctive call in the night a regular feature.  He too is on the endangered list and rumours of his call are viewed as urban legend in Muskoka.

Both these creatures did not survive the chemical and biological weapons used to try to eradicate black files and mosquitoes that posed no threat to humans other than potentially driving them mad.  The black fly and mosquito remain, the moth and whip-poor-will are gone.

The Northern Loon a mascot of Muskoka, found on tourist cups and company logos, was equally threatened.  During the 80s their call was silenced in the area.  However the damage was not as severe and the resulting outcry at the impending loss was finally loud enough to ban pesticides, phosphorus soaps and improve human waste disposal systems into the watersheds.  The loon numbers increased, the siting of mother loons with multiple babies returned and the call was heard again.

However their numbers are declining again and the decline can be partially attributed to the rise of the wake board boat and larger wake producing watercraft that causes soil erosion and destroys the loon's water nests.  It begins again.

In my youth I heard the arguments supporting pesticide use, the claims that improving septic and sewers were too costly, that the damage caused to the natural life forms not as severe as those "tree huggers" were claiming.  I've heard it all before.

It took the very real silencing of summer to wake people up.  It took tourists breaking out in skin rashes from swimming in our lakes.  Dead fish fouling public beaches.  It took death to provoke change.

My question, as it was then, remains:  Why do we wait until the last loon's call echos across a lifeless lake.

LB

The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.         Gaylord Nelson

You're an idiot, if temperature change is occuring on planets with no climate, then it's very likely that our temperature is changing regardless of our climate.

Do you understand how that works? If you have a 100 chickens and they all lay an egg at least once a week, wouldn't you find it odd that one of them doesn't lay any eggs?

Frankly jon, I suggest you go back to school and start learning. Even in university we joke about climate change and the people who fudge the numbers (anyone remember the al gore video scandal?).

Thank you for returning some relevance to this thread. We are losing species at an alarming rate. In addition to the inherent tragedy of each of those losses it all has a domino effect. Every species eats other plants and/or animals and most are eaten in return. That means with each extinction either locally or globally, the effect spreads throughout the food chain. This will always affect us in ways big and small.

I read a while ago about engineering students being tested. They would build bridges with a certain number of supports. The prof.s would randomly knock out those supports. The best build bridge was the one that was still standing with the most supports gone. Earth is like that bridge. Yes, GOD built it extremely well, but there is a point where we will have destroyed one pillar too many. I want to stop the destruction before it is too late. The deniers are saying "we aren't dead yet, let's continue the destruction". I can't think of a bigger example of a fool than this. It's also a violation of GOD's commandment in Genesis to be good stewards of the Earth. The Bible clearly states that the Earth belongs to GOD and we are held responsible for it during our time on Earth, but it does not belong to us. We have been abysmally bad stewards. I hope more of us wake up and sharply change course before it's too late (hoping it's not too late already).