Canadians....abo0t the other election coming this year...

[GONNAFISTYA]

I think it's a combination.

Don't get me wrong...there aren't book burnings, personal-feud-settling and shady government/business deals going down everyday in Canadain politics...well...maybe there is but it's not that bad. It's just that the crap that has been happening in this country due to adopting an apparent "strong arm" approach isn't helping matters. The increasing taser incidents are a small, minuscule indicator of a larger problem that is lurking below the surface in some Canadians. I fear a Harper government will create an environment for the slimey, greedy, moronic element to flourish...just like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Kristol did for the states.

I've always felt Canada was above that level of bullshit but the indicators are not encouraging.

[Bilirubin]

Harper won't go for book burnings yet. He still has a few speeches to copy first.

[Tormentius]

The increasing taser incidents are a small, minuscule indicator of a larger problem that is lurking below the surface in some Canadians.

The problem with Tasers has little to do with the government in power and more to do with the RCMP's incompetent handling of the matter. Tasers are an effective tool but they should be one rung below lethal force instead of a first option like they are now along with pepper spray or batons. Its that lack of regulation that allows the deaths we've seen to happen.

With regards to the political parties Harper is seen by many I know as the least evil of the lot. The NDP absolutely fistfucked BC the last time they were in power and Dione doesn't connect with a lot of non-Francophone Canadians, myself included. The only real alternative to the Conservatives in my opinion is the Green Party. I'm hoping the Green can pull off a minority government.

[GONNAFISTYA]

The problem with Tasers has little to do with the government in power and more to do with the RCMP's incompetent handling of the matter. Tasers are an effective tool but they should be one rung below lethal force instead of a first option like they are now along with pepper spray or batons. Its that lack of regulation that allows the deaths we've seen to happen.

I think having your government leaders champion right-wing "pre-emptive" approaches to law enforcement policies and public security services such as those at airports you'll end up having more aggressive police/security forces. I agree that tasers should be put away and used only if a cop feels threatened (pretend it's a gun) but I have every confidence that the Conservative Party has everything to do with it on the local level as the result of a trickle-down effect of "us and them" government. Nobody is punishing the officers for blatant use of force, so they continue. While you think it's a lack of regulation, some right wingers would think the opposite and agree that cops should be more aggressive and authoritarian and "free to do what's needed". It is the attitudes of the superiors that the rank and file take their leads from. And this attitude is trumpeted by Harper and his ilk. And it stands to reason that it could get worse if Canadians are convinced they're targets for terrorism or believe violent crime has increased.

With regards to the political parties Harper is seen by many I know as the least evil of the lot. The NDP absolutely fistfucked BC the last time they were in power and Dione doesn't connect with a lot of non-Francophone Canadians, myself included. The only real alternative to the Conservatives in my opinion is the Green Party. I'm hoping the Green can pull off a minority government.

I was very impressed by the Green Party candidate during the debates. She had no problem saying the word "fraud" wherever it was needed.

[plained]

liberal is the only way to vote

anything else is a massive diservice to urselfs and country

imo

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

noe wai

Green party for teh win.

[shadd_]

and if they win puff i hope you push for the green party to start reclamation with the scab that is southern ontario. the most polluted and deforested area in canada.

the toronto region was once one of the most majestic forested regions in our country.

cities, lol.

[shadd_]

http://activism.ca/wiki/Elizabeth_May

and not even canadian born. what a fucking nightmare should she ever get some power. the sierra club, rofl.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://activism.ca/wiki/Elizabeth_May

and not even canadian born. what a fucking nightmare should she ever get some power. the sierra club, rofl.

yeah but you don't even think that climate change is happening due to human activity so...

[shadd_]

no. i said i wasn't convinced. if you actually took an honest look at it, without green peace/sierra club glasses on, you would see it's not so clear cut either way.

does that mean i don't support cleaner air?

there are many other reasons why you could support cleaner air besides global warming. health is probably number one in my book.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

if you actually took an honest look at it, without green peace/sierra club glasses on, you would see it's not so clear cut either way.

Sorry but I just don't agree with the above statement. Do you actually look into this shit at all?

Case in point. You posed a question in a recent thread about ice build up in the arctic implying that it couldn't be happening if climate change is real. Did you think of looking into the matter to help yourself be well informed on the issue?

Published on Friday, May 20, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
As Climate Shifts, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing
Increased snowfall on the central icecap partly offsets effects of melting glaciers, researchers say.
by Robert Lee Hotz


As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday.

The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet — a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring — increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.

"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.

In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.

"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall."

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by the journal Science.

Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities, is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands and some areas of Antarctica.

Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion tons of water a year.

The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise by a fraction of that — about 0.12 millimeter a year — the researchers reported.

All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said.

"It is the only large body of ice absorbing sea level rise, not contributing to it," said Curt H. Davis, a radar mapping expert at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who led the research team.

The researchers based their conclusions on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites from June 1992 to May 2003.

They determined that the icecap appeared to be thickening at the rate of 1.8 centimeters every year. The ice is thinning in West Antarctica and other regions of the continent.

"The changes in the ice look like those expected for a warming world," said glaciologist Richard Alley at Pennsylvania State University. "The new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new result supports global warming."

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

oh and you might want to check this out too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

[shadd_]

yeah i made the comment about antartica in a playful/humorous manner, obviously.

i've read all those links before, nothing new there. i just find it a bit funny that global warming would be your number one reason to clean up the air, rather than the more pressing need of its effect on human health.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

yeah i made the comment about antartica in a playful/humorous manner, obviously.

i've read all those links before, nothing new there. i just find it a bit funny that global warming would be your number one reason to clean up the air, rather than the more pressing need of its effect on human health.

It's way more pressing than you know. And I never said it's my number one reason, it's not always useful to prioritize issues that way.

I find it a bit funny that you concede we pollute the air but somehow can't see how we could be polluting the air with methane and co2 enough to warm the planet.

As for your blanket dismissal of the link I just posted, I'd like you to go a bit further please as you did state, "i think, quietly, most scientists are still not convinced "global warming" is happening right now."

So when for example (see the link I just posted that has "nothing new")

The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.[39]

what makes you doubt them shadd_?

Another example:

American Physical Society

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."[38]

What is your argument to counter them and the dozens of other groups issuing similar statements?

Who are the scientists you are referring to?

[shadd_]

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased
Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites
Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]

* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

* David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."[11]
* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[12]
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[13]

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[14][15][16]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[17]
* Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[18]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[19]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[20]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[21]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[22]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[23] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[24] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[25]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[26]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[27]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[28]
* Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[29]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30]
* Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[32][33]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[34]
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction".[35][36]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[37]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[38][39] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[40]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[41]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor"[42]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[43]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[44]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[45]

Believe cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

* Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[46]

* Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[47]
* Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[48]
* John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[49]
* Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[50]
* William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[51]
* Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[52]
* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[53]
* Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[54] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[55]
* Jennifer Marohasy, biologist, director of the Environment Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs: "It's ambiguous. It's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change."[56]

Believe global warming will benefit human society

Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

* Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[57]
* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[58]
* Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit."[59]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... has_ceased


_________________________________

all the above listed people are just as knowledgeable as any you post.

and please refrain from pushing me in the direction of a disbeliever. i said i wasn't convinced either way, big difference.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Dione doesn't connect with a lot of non-Francophone Canadians, myself included. The only real alternative to the Conservatives in my opinion is the Green Party. I'm hoping the Green can pull off a minority government.

One thing I forgot to comment on: Regarding politicians "connecting" with non-francophones...do you really think that's an important issue with everything else happening? I can see it being an issue for voters who look at personality before platform...but I have to ask...are you one of those people?

Are you really that shallow to fuck up a political party's ability to do right and correct mistakes of the past simply because you don't like their leader? Pretty fucking lame if you ask me.

When I rant about Harper it is not just about the man but the group/party/ideology he represents...the hundreds of minions who are both dumb and determined. I don't think for one second that if Harper got a majority that he'll be directly responsible for all dastardly deeds...but people in his cabinet/government doing things based on ideology. For me, it's about releasing the entire beast, not just its head.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

@shadd_

from pushing you? rofl

[GONNAFISTYA]

@ shadd_

While you may find many scientists who doubt man's responsibility for climate change/global warming you'll also find they are a very small percentage of the scientific community.

Like everything else in science based on probability (which is what 99% of scientific theory is all about) I think you should go with the odds....climate change is man-made.

[shadd_]

@shadd_

from pushing you? rofl

greenpeace, sierra club, elizabeth may, rofl.

[shadd_]

@ shadd_

While you may find many scientists who doubt man's responsibility for climate change/global warming you'll also find they are a very small percentage of the scientific community.

Like everything else in science based on probability (which is what 99% of scientific theory is all about) I think you should go with the odds....climate change is man-made.

nobody is doubting climate change. no one can deny the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age.

the question is what impact humans are having on the process. even without humans the earth would still continue to warm, as it has been doing for thousands of years. do co2 emissions from natural process remain constant or do they accelerate as temperatures warm? so many variables and inter-related causes.

we need to continue research. hopefully we can give other variables an honest look and not miss something that's right under our noses due to tunnel vision.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

yeah shadd_ you don't have tunnel vision

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

btw shadd_ I took one name at random (Ian Clark) from that list scientists you referenced and googled him and guess what, he's writing reports for the Exxon sponsored Fraser Institute.

Seriously I'd like to know how you can point to a handful of dubious people and compare them to scientific organizations that represent tens of thousands of people. Do you think for example that the majority of meteorologists would let they organization that speaks for them err in such a way with no consequences?

[GONNAFISTYA]

nobody is doubting climate change. no one can deny the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age.

the question is what impact humans are having on the process. even without humans the earth would still continue to warm, as it has been doing for thousands of years. do co2 emissions from natural process remain constant or do they accelerate as temperatures warm? so many variables and inter-related causes.

we need to continue research. hopefully we can give other variables an honest look and not miss something that's right under our noses due to tunnel vision.

Well..you really didn't address my point...which was what's responsible for climate change...instead of whether or not it's happening.

Don't forget that just a few years ago the argument was that climate change isn't happening AND humanity couldn't be responsible. Now that the naysayers about climate change even happening have been silenced and that we've established that it IS happening the naysayers have shifted their argument to focus on man's responsibility. I have no doubt that in the future when naysayers finally admit humanity is at fault they'll begin arguing what is needed to combat it.

In my opinion, people who change their minds like that really don't know what they're talking about to begin with...and because of that should have no place in discussions about how to solve it. Why? Because they'll do nothing but slow it down with ill-informed nonsense.

Seriously dude...get your head out of your ass and join the rest of us.

[shadd_]

yeah shadd_ you don't have tunnel vision

fuck you puff. i said right from the beginning i wasn't convinced either way. your the typical city dwelling tard who does work for greenpeace and only knows what your told rather than what you experience.

"i worked for greenpeace so i know what i'm talking about"

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

No I said I worked for Greenpeace almost 20 years ago so I have been paying attention to the issue for a long time. This includes having spent a lot of time looking at the science. You may find it hard to believe, but Greenpeace campaigners go by science. They find that experience can only take you so far in certain matters.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to what experience you're referring to which would inform one on climate change as opposed to say looking at levels of methane released into the atmosphere etc.?

edit: btw it's you're not your

Also, I wasn't taught to believe only what I was told, in fact one of my majors in university was philosophy which is a discipline that stresses critical thinking.