Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prize

[Bellyhungry]

Are you for or against him winning? Especially after the London High Court ID'd 9 errors in the film http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm.

Also, should he use the momentum to run for the White House? Obama-rama apparently have been losing some steam...The thought of Hilary in the office simply makes me gag.

[TourIQ]

...The thought of Hilary in the office simply makes me gag.Hi Bellyhungry

I'm sure the thought of Hillary and Bill [as the First Man] in office make Monica gag too :eek: :eek: :rofl: :rofl:

[hogannut]

Whether or not there are flaws in the film I applaude him for at least trying. We all know global warming/climate change is happening. The physical evidence globally is simply to great to argue it. Melting glaciers, melting ice caps is something you cannot argue. How much of it is man-made can be debated, I suppose, but the ONLY thing that has changed in the last 200 years is how much carbon is being released into the atmoshpere by human beings, so IMO it doesn't take a scientist to conclude it is probably man-made.

Ironically one of the computer simulations in Gore's film shows a drought in the Great Lakes basin and we all know this is happening. Low levels in all lakes, big time in cottage country is a fact.

Politics aside, it is happening and for anyone who is over 35 years old you know darn well how much snow we used to have when we were kids and that we skated on outdoor natural ice rinks from December to March every year. THis doesn't happen anymore.

[cldale]

Whether or not there are flaws in the film I applaude him for at least trying. We all know global warming/climate change is happening. The physical evidence globally is simply to great to argue it. Melting glaciers, melting ice caps is something you cannot argue. How much of it is man-made can be debated, I suppose, but the ONLY thing that has changed in the last 200 years is how much carbon is being released into the atmoshpere by human beings, so IMO it doesn't take a scientist to conclude it is probably man-made.

Wow, I know I will get run through the ringer for this, but...

The evidence is not as clear or obvious as the media or the UN is portraying. All the conclusions are based on a recently evolved model of historical temerature variation, which shows a very sharp and pronounced rise in global temperature throughout the last decade. This model (based on data gathered from tree-ring samples around the globe) is a marked departure for the model which was generally accepted for decades, which shows cyclical periods of hot/cold throughout the last thousands of years.

The switch of models is what made the UN suddenly come out and say that Global Warming is a big issue, but they mention nothing about why that model was used now, and in the scientific community there has been little debate regarding the authenticity of the new model. Was was pretty much just taken as fact one day. I am not saying which is correct, but as someone with a technical/scientific background I am always worried whenever theories are adopted/discarded without sufficient debate and analysis. It smells of political/ideological motives to me.

There is a tremendous amount of data which suggests that current temperature variance is within historical norms (which is to say, the short run increases in temeperature are not unheard of historically, in fact, they are somewhat expected... think of it this way, we have ice ages, wouldn't it make sense that pendulum would gradually swing the other way?).

There has also been an increase in measured solar activity in the last several decades. This would definately result in an increase in global temperatures as the planet absorbs more solar radiation.

Atmospheric evidence gathered for physics research suggests that average global temperatures have actually be slightly decreasing for the last couple years, despite local anecdotal experiences.

The ice-shelf in antarcica is GROWING. Yes, thats right, its GROWING. What you see in Al Gore's movie is a VERY VERY small part of the antarctic penisula, which is the most dynamic area of the continent. Increasign ice-mass on the continet results in ice being "pushed off the edge" into the ocean. So all those grandiose pictures of ice falling into the ocean are actually indicative of more ice forming behind.

Global Warming is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING compared to the toxic pollution we are putting into our water, our food, and our atmosphere. It was estimated that 1000 deaths per year in Toronto can be directly attributed to air pollution. Why is this not being addressed?

I am not saying I think GW isn't valid, I don't doubt we're doing SOMETHING to the atmosphere, I just think the science is not as straightforward as its being presented, the unanimous agreement of scientists is anything but, and there are far more pressing environmental issues which will damn us in a much shorter space of time than GW will.

[hogannut]

I've read these reports too, and I question these findings you are claiming. If the climate isn't changing then how come the polar ice cap has shrunk over 20% in the last 3 decades, that can be confirmed by satelite images?

THis is the debate.......and I agree there are other environmental issues besides climate change. THe point is IMO....the planet is in big trouble and these unnatural occurences and changes are real and are happening.

I would also say that since the last ice age there have been solar flares and the ice cap survived that. IMO....the increased solar activity is simply mans ability to measure it better over the last 3 decades, compared to our technology of 30 years ago. The sun has been producing solar flares for millions, billions of years, but the reason why it is hotter now than it has been in over 500 years is because of solar flares? I find that hard to believe. I'm sure there is more solare activity but I don't think that and that alone is causing this.

There is more evidence to support it than there is to refute it. All I know is growing up in Toronto the weather is different now than it was 30 years ago. The winters were longer and colder and the summers not as hot. We don't get rain and snow here like we used to and there is a photo evidence glaciers all over the world are disapearing.

Call it what you like, but our grandchildren may be going to war over whatever fresh water is left in North AMerica in another 50 years or so.

[cldale]

I've read these reports too, and I question these findings you are claiming. If the climate isn't changing then how come the polar ice cap has shrunk over 20% in the last 3 decades, that can be confirmed by satelite images?

THis is the debate.......and I agree there are other environmental issues besides climate change. THe point is IMO....the planet is in big trouble and these unnatural occurences and changes are real and are happening.

I would also say that since the last ice age there have been solar flares and the ice cap survived that. IMO....the increased solar activity is simply mans ability to measure it better over the last 3 decades, compared to our technology nowadays. The sun has been producing solar flares for millions, billions of years, but the reason why it is hotter now than it has been in over 500 years is because of solar flares? I find that hard to believe. I'm sure there is more solare activity but I don't think that and that alone is causing this.

There is more evidence to support it than there is to refute it. All I know is growing up in Toronto the weather is different now than it was 30 years ago. The winters were longer and colder and the summers not as hot. We don't get rain and snow here like we used to and there is a photo evidence glaciers all over the world are disapearing.

Call it what you like, but our grandchildren may be going to war over whatever fresh water is left in North AMerica in another 50 years or so.

My point was that there evidence isn't all pointing to a single conclusion, especially not the kind of certainty which the UN and the media portrays.

If its science, TRUE science, shouldn't contrary evidence be accounted for and explained? Why isn't this evidence being explained? You say yourself that you choose to disregard certain findings, but you accept others. What basis do you personally use to determine which scientific results you do or don't believe?

Basically, I believe that the facts and scientific conclusions based on them are being cherry-picked to support a particular political/ideological platform.

Its also interesting that 30 years ago, newsweek actually ran a cover story about the Global Cooling, that the scientific community was alarmed that the planet was going to freeze over and the suggestion actually was to melt the polar ice-cap to prevent this.

Here is a pdf of the article:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


My point: Climatology is barely a science. Your weather forecaster cannot accurately predict temperatures next week, let alone next year. Why? Because the global climate system is impossibly complex, with infinite variables coming into play. Why do we then think that we can isolate a single cause of a short-term trend, a trend which isn't even unanimously agreed upon in the first place.

One other point: you said you have noticed winters are shorter/warmer in the last 30 years, that would be about the time-period of this article, so perhaps what you are noticing is a reversion from a period of unusual cold? (Just being facetious :) )

[hogannut]

I agree...it is easy to pick and chose to support your particular opinion espeically these days with so much info being so readily available.

I guess my biggest concern is if this is truly happening and it gets to the point of no return it will be hindsight like mankind has never experienced before.

Time in terms of the planet is almost incomprehensible to people. If you consider what changes have occured on the globe over the last 500 years and compare those 500 years to previous natural changes that can take tens of thousands of years, 500 years is like 5 heart beats in a person.

The overall atmosphere of the planet has been greatly altered by people over the last 500 years and I for one don't like the fact we as a species are doing whatever we damn well please and think it won't have an effect. Maybe it will maybe it won't, maybe it won't be as much as the hippies say, but the fact we as a species are playing God with our "home" could be a recipe for disaster IMO.

[cldale]

I agree...it is easy to pick and chose to support your particular opinion espeically these days with so much info being so readily available.

I guess my biggest concern is if this is truly happening and it gets to the point of no return it will be hindsight like mankind has never experienced before.

Time in terms of the planet is almost incomprehensible to people. If you consider what changes have occured on the globe over the last 500 years and compare those 500 years to previous natural changes that can take tens of thousands of years, 500 years is like 5 heart beats in a person.

The overall atmosphere of the planet has been greatly altered by people over the last 500 years and I for one don't like the fact we as a species are doing whatever we damn well please and think it won't have an effect. Maybe it will maybe it won't, maybe it won't be as much as the hippies say, but the fact we as a species are playing God with our "home" could be a recipe for disaster IMO.

Haha, always comes back to those darned dirty hippies.

Yeah, our environment has definately been impacted, but I myself am far more worried/concerned with toxic pollution than I am with climate change. There is too much uncertainty around GW, and far to much certainty about things like mercury contamination and what it does to you.

Why Mercury, well, do a bit of research into those CFL bulbs that David Suzuki is ramming down your throat. Sure, they save on power, but they also contain large amounts of mercury vapour. 1 CFL contains enough mercury to contaminate something like 16,000 cubic meters of soils. In the US they estimate that enough CFL's will be thrown into landfills next year that if that mercury reached the groundwater it would completely pollute every river/stream/lake in the country. And thats in 1 year.

But our government is about to outlaw the old style bulbs and force these into use? Seems like a disaster in the making to me, and for what? To save a pretty small amount of electricity, and allow us all to feel like we're doing something significant?

And yes, better alternatives DO exist. LED bulbs use much less energy, last much longer, and contain no toxic contaminants. They're more expensive per-bulb (~$40) but the cost of ownership is actually lower than CFL's due to their low energy use and long life.

Also, meat is responsible for more than 1/2 of humanities carbon footprint. The average human eats more meat than they should (quite a bit more) and the livestock raised to feed this appitite for meat contributes a lot of methane and CO2 to the environments. But this is completely ignored by AL Gore and environmentalists.... why? If its part of the "problem" shouldn't cutting down on your meat intake be every bit as important as cutting vehicle emmissions or more so?

I just think that its sexier to sell the message that industry is bad because it tugs on the general yearning for simpler times when the world was less confusing and technology wasn't as all pervasive.

[slicendice]

a thought: if, in the final analysis, if we prove that Global Warming IS NOT a direct result of human activity on earth, and all the scientists are wrong, what have we lost? We've lost all that nasty fossil fuel buring? We've all learned to walk rather than drive? We've found better ways to harvest and produce energy in a way that doesn't negatively impact the environment?

Wow - that's terrible...

How dumb if, in 50 years, we discover that "gee - all those scientists were right - we are screwing up the earth"...but now it's too late to do anything about it because we should have started 50 years ago.

We're going to feel pretty dumb and our kids will pay the price. Yes, it's a gamble - but which way would you like to bet? Because remember, you aren't betting your life, you're betting the lives of your kids.

If you had been diagnosed with cancer and you consulted all the doctors in the world. half of them say - yep, it's cancer, you need treatment. the other half of them say - no, no - you don't have cancer. What do you do? Do you seek uncomfortable, painful treatment? Do you hedge your bets? Sure, you get the treatment just in case you do have cancer. will discomfort and pain now be worth living a long and full life? I think so.

Remember that many naysayers to global warming have an agenda - they work for, or represent people for whom GW is a very bad thing. Would it be so bad to do what we can to reduce or neutralize our carbon footprint? Probably not.

[hogannut]

Good points...I was unaware of the curly cue bulbs and now feel guilty we put them in our house.

What the he** trash the planet.....I am not complaining about golfing in December that's for sure!!

The next topic is.....is the end of the world going to happen Dec 21/2012?

[laps]

I am in the camp with those who don't buy the argument that there is global warming. Living in Canada I don't necessarily agree that global warming is a bad thing. I don't agree with the Kyoto accord to reduce global warming. the former liberal government wanted us to be taxed so that we could send money to other countries to buy credits. How does that reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

However, I do agree that we are damaging the environment and that we should all try to reduce polution and our fossil fuel consumption. Not only will we be healthier, but our natural resources will last longer.

[Bellyhungry]

When the sun runs out of fuel in about 20,000 years and turns into a White Dwarf, it won't matter what we do today to save the planet.

[jamesduncan]

bored at work here so dont take any of this personally lol


but!

Im at a loss as to how someone could really still be in doubt of global warming and the fact that its being accelarated by human behaviour.

fighting GW and fighting smog/pollution issues are in essense some of the same things so trying to wrap my head around that one too.

re: Kyoto - A number of US states have adopted a syncronized carbon emmisions trading system based on Kyoto, despite the fact that the US didnt ratify the Treaty, so to paint Kyoto as some scheme to tax people is a little bit much.

Carbon footprinting and offsetting is an excellent way of addressing C/02 production because it rewards those companies/industries that take steps to reduce their footprints while penalizing those who put it off. Eventually those who are relying on offsets bought and sold on an open market (how Kyoto works) will be priced out of the market.

Also: all individuals can compute their own personal carbon footprint and offset the major emmisons they cause.

For example: you can buy a Terra Pass for any flights you might take ($25 offsets a transatlantic flight), plus other things like lightbulbs etc etc mentioned here already. Its a great way to contibute to lowering emmisions while still having to engage in carbon emmitting activities that you can't "change" lets say (ie: cant take a subway to the EU lol..yeah)

Anyways here is some info for the non-believers:

http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2465
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.energyideas.org/default.cfm?o=h,g,ds&c=z,z,2937

anyways, im not trying to dis-respect peoples opinions, but the argument against scientific evidence is one that doesnt really stand up to reality based on the body of research coming out of the scientific (read: not political) community.

Cheers



How dumb if, in 50 years, we discover that "gee - all those scientists were right - we are screwing up the earth"...but now it's too late to do anything about it because we should have started 50 years ago.


lol..well, we'll be to busy finally figuring out we've run out of oil to worry about those silly scientists

Most of the world's known major oil resourses are pegged to run out in about 50 years.

See you in 2050!



Also, meat is responsible for more than 1/2 of humanities carbon footprint. The average human eats more meat than they should (quite a bit more) and the livestock raised to feed this appitite for meat contributes a lot of methane and CO2 to the environments. But this is completely ignored by AL Gore and environmentalists.... why? If its part of the "problem" shouldn't cutting down on your meat intake be every bit as important as cutting vehicle emmissions or more so?

no actually Meat intake reduction is included in most footprint calculation models and Gore has been taken to task a number of times for not including meat reduction in his film.

Infact thats a major driving factor behind the "grown local" and "slow produce" movements currently happening in much of the US and the EU.

[cldale]

a thought: if, in the final analysis, if we prove that Global Warming IS NOT a direct result of human activity on earth, and all the scientists are wrong, what have we lost? We've lost all that nasty fossil fuel buring? We've all learned to walk rather than drive? We've found better ways to harvest and produce energy in a way that doesn't negatively impact the environment?

Wow - that's terrible...

How dumb if, in 50 years, we discover that "gee - all those scientists were right - we are screwing up the earth"...but now it's too late to do anything about it because we should have started 50 years ago.

We're going to feel pretty dumb and our kids will pay the price. Yes, it's a gamble - but which way would you like to bet? Because remember, you aren't betting your life, you're betting the lives of your kids.

If you had been diagnosed with cancer and you consulted all the doctors in the world. half of them say - yep, it's cancer, you need treatment. the other half of them say - no, no - you don't have cancer. What do you do? Do you seek uncomfortable, painful treatment? Do you hedge your bets? Sure, you get the treatment just in case you do have cancer. will discomfort and pain now be worth living a long and full life? I think so.

Remember that many naysayers to global warming have an agenda - they work for, or represent people for whom GW is a very bad thing. Would it be so bad to do what we can to reduce or neutralize our carbon footprint? Probably not.

In your analogy, you are presenting no downside to getting cancer treatment. If the results of cancer treatment were your hair falling out, loss of energy that would mean you were unable to work (these are real side effects of chemotherapy), would you do this if you weren't certain you needed to?

[dekker]

Gore sharing the Nobel peace price with the UN is comedy of a high order,on par with the Post Office receiving the Order of Canada for on-time stuffing of your letterbox with junk mail.

I watched Soylent Green a few weeks back. It is comforting to know that our food supply is guaranteed for generations to come.;)

[Andru]

Wow, I know I will get run through the ringer for this, but...



You're going to get run over because your propogating Exxon Science. No offence honestly it takes time and intense reading to separate the facts from the 'fax'

And I'd say 99.9999% did not read the scientific data or testing methods used to formulate this scientific theory. If you had, you would never say, "It's unclear what's causing Global warming" The cause of Global Warming is us.

The debate is about as one sided as Creationism vs. Evolution. There's no contest, one is a peer reviewed theory the other is hearsay and anecdotal Hypothosy. Most people can't know the difference. It doesn't help that scientist are so painful to listen to.

[cldale]

Im at a loss as to how someone could really still be in doubt of global warming and the fact that its being accelarated by human behaviour.

Like I said, the lack of debate about the replacement of the climate model, followed by the complete dismissal of contrary evidence, it makes you think there is more at stake here than simply scientific truth.

fighting GW and fighting smog/pollution issues are in essense some of the same things so trying to wrap my head around that one too.

My point about CFL's. We are being strongly encouraged to use CFL's in order to cut electricity usage, which is tied to CO2 emissions. The problem is that CFL's have the potential to release enough mercury into the environment that we wouldn't need to worry about global warming because we'd all be poised by mercury long before the effects of a warmer earth would be felt.

When you present an alarmist view of global warming as an immediate short term threat (which it is not, its a long term threat) then you reduce the ability of people to think rationally about long term answers, so you get knee-jerk reactions like 'quick, ban normal light bulbs'.

re: Kyoto - A number of US states have adopted a syncronized carbon emmisions trading system based on Kyoto, despite the fact that the US didnt ratify the Treaty, so to paint Kyoto as some scheme to tax people is a little bit much.

Carbon footprinting and offsetting is an excellent way of addressing C/02 production because it rewards those companies/industries that take steps to reduce their footprints while penalizing those who put it off. Eventually those who are relying on offsets bought and sold on an open market (how Kyoto works) will be priced out of the market.

I am always an advocate of open markets and I've long felt that the major flaw in markets right now is that pollution and neighborhood/secondary impacts are never priced into good/products.

This is why I like the green party. They are the only party that is proposing to introduce secondary costs into the market, to put a price on pollution that encourages product/factor substitution.

Also: all individuals can compute their own personal carbon footprint and offset the major emmisons they cause.

For example: you can buy a Terra Pass for any flights you might take ($25 offsets a transatlantic flight), plus other things like lightbulbs etc etc mentioned here already. Its a great way to contibute to lowering emmisions while still having to engage in carbon emmitting activities that you can't "change" lets say (ie: cant take a subway to the EU lol..yeah)


Question, how do they convert your money into carbon reduction? This isn't a snarky response, I am genuinely curious how they equate dollars into good carbon karma.

anyways, im not trying to dis-respect peoples opinions, but the argument against scientific evidence is one that doesnt really stand up to reality based on the body of research coming out of the scientific (read: not political) community.

I wasn't claiming there was no evidence, just that there is contradictory evidence, but that the facts are being cherry picked to fit a pre-drawn conclusion, and any and all data which contradicts this conclusion is not being considered. I actually find that frightening because it screams that someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm


You're going to get run over because your propogating Exxon Science. No offence honestly it takes time and intense reading to separate the facts from the 'fax'

And I'd say 99.9999% did not read the scientific data or testing methods used to formulate this scientific theory. If you had, you would never say, "It's unclear what's causing Global warming" The cause of Global Warming is us.

The debate is about as one sided as Creationism vs. Evolution. There's no contest, one is a peer reviewed theory the other is hearsay and anecdotal Hypothosy. Most people can't know the difference. It doesn't help that scientist are so painful to listen to.

The following paper directly link global climatic variation to solar irradiance variation, and explore data showing a multi-decadal increase in solar irradiance levels.

Papers:

Crooks, S.A. and L.J Gray - Characterization of the 11 year solar signal using a multiple regression analysis of the ERA-40 dataset (J. Clim)

Dikpati, M. and P.A. Gilman - Simulating and predicting solar cycles using a flux transport dynamo. (Ap. J.)

Douglass, D.H. and B.D. Clader, Climate Sensitivity of the Earth to Solar Irradiance (Geophs. Res. lett)

Frohlich C. and J. Jean, Solar radiative output and its variability, Evidence and Mechanisms. (Astron & Astrophys Review)

These of course, are hypothetical, faith based accounts of empirical evidence obtained from a variety of sources, not the least of which is Nasa's SORCE project which is monitoring solar radiation levels from an orbital measurement station.

You estimate of 99.9999% might be right, but you can count me in the 0.0001 minority. I DO read the papers, and I DO have the tools to understand them. I have read the evidence being put forth and I can honestly say that I find strong evidence going both ways.

My contention is that data gathered from detailed atmospheric temperature observations and orbital measurement platforms MIGHT, just MIGHT be more reliable than tree-ring measurements and ice-core samples.

[dekker]

Good God guys! the answer is right before you and always has been. You can talk out of your butt and present scientific data till your cheeks ache.The simple and only solution is to consume less. Do you really need all the crap you have? Does that simple solution scare you because it infringes on some inexplicable and inalienable right to entitlement?

[jamesduncan]

I am always an advocate of open markets and I've long felt that the major flaw in markets right now is that pollution and neighborhood/secondary impacts are never priced into good/products.

This is why I like the green party. They are the only party that is proposing to introduce secondary costs into the market, to put a price on pollution that encourages product/factor substitution.
Im going to leave alot of your points alone because i just simply dont agree with them.

Thats not ment to be snarky either :)

But as far as open markets, thats exactly how Kyoto works. Its essentially an open market (much like the TSE or the Dow) in which companies/ultilities can buy and sell Carbon Emisson levels based simply on what the market will bear.

So when I hear open market "championers" riling against Kyoto (not saying this is you, more rhetorically), I really can only scratch my head.

Anyways, thats how the system works, in a more simplified version atleast.

I will say that for all the good things the greens stand for, they also stand for a number of really really questionable things.

Since you like to read the fine print and think for yourself, take a gander at their party platform, including the small print :)



Question, how do they convert your money into carbon reduction? This isn't a snarky response, I am genuinely curious how they equate dollars into good carbon karma.
theres a pretty good breakdown on their website:

http://www.terrapass.com/

If you buy airline tickets on expedia.com (dont know about expedia.ca) you can actually tag the pass onto you order, much like a hotel or rental car.


and ok...the Canadian Free Press..?

For someone trying to be so clean of influence and post un-biased sources of information, Im really having trouble taking you seriously!

The majority of columnists (i gave up about half way thro the list after they were all american!)..are mostly American! and one is the current vice president of the Assoc of Police Chiefs...hardly bullet-proof Canadian Journalist integrity here

And their Environmentalist Column represents this organization: http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html

"NRSP’s first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada needs CO2 reduction plans. CO2 is very unlikely to be a substantial driver of climate change and is not a pollutant. Global climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon and so governments should focus on solving environmental problems over which we have influence (air, land and water pollution being obvious examples)."

Youre supposed to be thinking for yourself no? ;)

Anyways dont take any of this wrongly or too seriously..its good to have debates and hear other ideas.

And I dont mean to be dismissive or disrepectful at all, hope thats clear :)

[cldale]

Im going to leave alot of your points alone because i just simply dont agree with them.

Fair enough, although I should emphasis that my point is simply that there exist dissenting viewpoints of scientific research (the papers I linked to) which are being completely ignored and dismissed by the IPCC and the media.

But as far as open markets, thats exactly how Kyoto works. Its essentially an open market (much like the TSE or the Dow) in which companies/ultilities can buy and sell Carbon Emisson levels based simply on what the market will bear.

So when I hear open market "championers" riling against Kyoto (not saying this is you, more rhetorically), I really can only scratch my head.


From what I have read of the accord, countries are allowed to trade emissions, but there are no guidelines or requirements for the establishment of domestic emissions markets. The method in which individual countries choose to meet their targets is entirely up to them...

I have also never understood how someone can claim to be for the free functioning of markets but think that environmental impacts should not be costed into those markets. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I will say that for all the good things the greens stand for, they also stand for a number of really really questionable things.

Since you like to read the fine print and think for yourself, take a gander at their party platform, including the small print :)


You can generally say that of any party... but yes, there are things in the Green platform I am not particularly enthused with as well. The alternatives to me a less palatable though.


and ok...the Canadian Free Press..?

For someone trying to be so clean of influence and post un-biased sources of information, Im really having trouble taking you seriously!

The majority of columnists (i gave up about half way thro the list after they were all american!)..are mostly American! and one is the current vice president of the Assoc of Police Chiefs...hardly bullet-proof Canadian Journalist integrity here

And their Environmentalist Column represents this organization: http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html

"NRSP’s first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada needs CO2 reduction plans. CO2 is very unlikely to be a substantial driver of climate change and is not a pollutant. Global climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon and so governments should focus on solving environmental problems over which we have influence (air, land and water pollution being obvious examples)."

Youre supposed to be thinking for yourself no? ;)

Anyways dont take any of this wrongly or too seriously..its good to have debates and hear other ideas.

And I dont mean to be dismissive or disrepectful at all, hope thats clear :)

Yeah, I am just trying to present other viewpoints.... don't confuse them as my own because they aren't always... as for the CFP, I have to admit that I don't read it myself, I was looking for a list of dissenting viewpoints... I probably should have checked into that list a little further... so apologies. The scientific papers I linked to though I HAVE read, and its interesting the data which is being collected from the SORCE project right now.

What bothers me is that global warming has become in essence a "Fad", its cool to be a global warming advocate and as a result I see knee-jerk policy being implemented/proposed that is not well thought out nor particularly effective.

I mean, come on, a ban on light bulbs? When the alternative being proposed could introduce dangerous levels of mercury into groundwater and soil? When better and more efficient technologies exist? How is that good policy?

I enjoy this debate though, and I definately don't take any of it personally.... so don't worry, your certainly not offending me... I knew I was "in for it" when I made the first post :)

[Golf_Goof]

Yeesh, what's next- Michael Moore for literature?

What exactly has Al done for the "preservation of peace" around the world?

[slicendice]

In your analogy, you are presenting no downside to getting cancer treatment. If the results of cancer treatment were your hair falling out, loss of energy that would mean you were unable to work (these are real side effects of chemotherapy), would you do this if you weren't certain you needed to?

sorry - been away from my keyboard.

Actually, I think I probably would - if there was a fifty percent chance that action taken now would save my life? yes!

I didn't mention the downsides to cancer treatment because it's implied, and it's why I used the cancer analogy - it's going to be painful and difficult and a pain in the *** to move this world to the idea of living greener.