Alberta flooding sets records, prompts calls for action on climate change


OTTAWA – Water-logged southern Alberta is on track to set a new Canadian record for flood damage, both in terms of cost and the number of people forced from their homes.

The severity of the flooding has a former top federal environmental adviser hoping that the Alberta-centric Harper government will finally get its “head out of the sand bag” when it comes to climate change.

“It’s a helluva warning, really, about unpredictable, extreme weather events and the need to prepare for it,” said David McLaughlin, former head of the now-defunct National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

While one can debate the causes of climate change, McLaughlin said it’s indisputable that the planet is warming and setting off more frequent extreme weather events: floods, tornadoes, drought, freezing rain, prolonged heat waves or cold snaps.

The changes usually “happen so slowly that we typically don’t pay much attention to them until we have this incredible event taking place before our eyes so quickly,” he said in an interview.

“And that’s why the Calgary flood and southern Alberta floods may really mark a change in how people view climate, the issues of climate.”

In terms of property damage and lives up-ended, the flooding appears to be without precedent.

The Alberta government estimates 120,000 people have been forced out of their homes since the flooding began in earnest last week — and more may yet face evacuation as the torrential flow of water moves downstream.

Premier Alison Redford committed $1 billion to the recovery effort Monday — and that’s just to kick-start the operation.

Until now, according to the Canadian Disaster Database, the 1950 Winnipeg flood was the largest flood-related evacuation in the country since 1900. One-third of Winnipeg’s population — 107,000 people — were forced out of their homes as the Red River submerged a tenth of the city.

The database also pegs the 2010 flooding of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan as the costliest — $984 million in damage — until now.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who represents a Calgary riding, has dismissed suggestions that climate change has anything to do with the magnitude of flooding in southern Alberta, which he has called “a once-in-a-century event.”

But McLaughlin noted that the 2005 flooding in southern Alberta — which seems like a trickle of water compared to the deluge over the past few days — was also said to be a once-in-a-century event.

“Now we have in 2013 the second once-in-a-century flood in less than a decade,” he said.

“Denying that climate change is a cause is akin to putting your head in the sand — in this case, your head in a sand bag.”

McLaughlin noted that polls suggest Albertans tend to be the most skeptical among Canadians that climate change is a real problem. And he said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a Calgarian himself, and his government have tended to “reinforce” that skepticism.

But now, under the federal disaster financial assistance arrangements, the Harper government could end up paying as much as 90 per cent of the costs of rebuilding southern Alberta.

That billion-plus price tag, along with the cascading economic costs of shutting down the country’s fourth largest city, may finally force the skeptics to come to terms with reality, McLaughlin hopes.

“Maybe there’s going to be a more acute awareness now that this can hit home anywhere and, if it hits home in downtown Calgary, we can see because of the importance of that city … it can have an effect right across the country.”

Apart from Canada doing its part to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, McLaughlin said governments need to focus on adapting to climate change, making cities and towns more resilient in the face of extreme weather.

Among other things, that means building stronger, less vulnerable infrastructure, prohibiting development on flood plains, investing in back-up power systems and better emergency planning.

It also means paying more for insurance, he said.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the amount insurers pay out in damage claims due to severe weather has doubled every five to 10 years since 1980. And that doesn’t include most of the damage wrought by floods.

Home insurance policies generally don’t include coverage for damage caused by overland flooding — that is, water that pours in through doors or windows as was the case in Alberta. They do, however, cover water damage that seeps in through the basement or is the result of backed up sewer pipes.

Steve Kee, spokesman for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said overland flooding isn’t offered because only a relatively small fraction of Canadians live in flood plains or near rivers and lakes.

With so few prospective policy holders among whom to spread the risk, the cost of flood insurance would be prohibitive, he said.

Still, even without having to pay staggering overland flood claims, water damage is now the leading cause of property damage in Canada, costing insurance companies an estimated $1.7 billion per year. The bureau says the damage is typically the result of municipal infrastructure failure.

Filed under:

Alberta flooding sets records, prompts calls for action on climate change

  1. They are called flood plains for a reason, these rivers have been around for millions of years and the plains were cut from the prairies by multitudes of floods.
    What climate change is it that reoccurs over millennia?

    • Um….every city in Canada is on a flood plain. Rivers were an early transportation system.

      • I agree that rivers were an important mode of travel in the past, but if you look at Calgary you will find 90% of the city is high above the flood plain.

        To say every city is on a flood plain is as accurate as blaming climate change for this event.

        • LOL I’m sorry but ‘high above’ has no meaning whatever on a flood plain…..and yes indeedy, it’s climate change.

          • Give it up, there is no global warming. Even the NYT and New Republic have stated that there has been no warming for at least 15 years and that the computer models simply can’t predict anything.

            The IPCC and even most of the global warming zealots also clearly state that extreme weather events and AGW cannot be linked.

            It is only political hacks and enviro freaks who spout climate change whenever it snows, rains, wind blows, doesn’t blow, its sunny, cloudy,….etc.etc

            Try reading to gain at least some understanding

          • If you stopped reading crackpot sites, you’d know better.

          • The IPCC regards Watts and Mcintyre as 2 of the most serious ‘denialists’ out there. The AGW crowd (Mann, Hansen, etc) has been repeatedly force to answer for their shoddy science because of these 2.

            To call them crackpot is quite revealing.

            Again, you show clearly that have nothing to add to a debate other than hypocrisy and hate.

          • They regard all of you as members of the Flat Earth society….as does everyone else.

            And again, there is no debate. You’re just wasting time. Ciao.

          • No, you don’t debate. You just run away after throwing around a few rocks.

          • There’s nothing to debate.

            Take up knitting or something else to waste time on

          • If you believe there’s nothing to debate, then why do you keep pushing your crap on these forums..?

            You’ve clearly not got any idea of the topics you discuss, but there you are pushing your beliefs/fantasies all the while telling others that they are idiots and have no right to push theirs.

            Seriously- who hires you for this? Do they ever complain about the lack of quality work, or was it in your job description to just attack anyone who takes a contrary position?

          • Science and facts are always important. Without them we are back to the caves.

            You may want to live there, but no one else does.

            You’re using a church tactic…..on everything you post actually….and it isn’t going to work.

          • Do you keep writing your last statements as a means to self-encourage? You know, like you’re trying to convince yourself that you’ve actually made an argument when all you’ve done is rant.

            I mean, even the lefties at NYT are back-tracking on AGW – you really should take a look around and see if you want to be the last koook in the room.

          • No one is backtracking on AGW…..that is your fantasy world talking again,

          • Feel free to make any assertions you like. However, there is NO credible scientific evidence for your claims.

            The delay pushed by doubt hucksters, the fossil tools of the GOP, and the misinformed are complicit in the hundreds of thousands, in the World Health Organization study,

            or even millions, in the DARA study,
            ( of climate change deaths per year.

            Sky’s full of fire
            And the rain is pouring down
            There’s nothing you can sell me
            I’ll see you around


          • Yup, you use Dylan to set public policy – much like the AGW crowd!

          • the 15 year lull in heating does not detract from global warming because the world goes through fluctuations. Right now the world is supposed to be in a cooling phase, but its actually not cooling. Over the last 100 years the amount that the world has heated, including 15 year fluctuations here and there, has been insane. Many of the scientists who were cited claiming the heating had stopped were Albertan engineers and meteorologists in the oil and gas industry. Its understandable that someone doesn’t want to whistle-blow on their employer, and its not surprising that Canadians, who are by capita one of the highest polluters in the world, don’t wish to see any sort of policy implemented that would change our lifestyle. It doesn’t matter right? Wrong. Even if the majority of political, social or environmental damages hit other countries, it will impact Canada huge if any other countries engage in nuclear war over limited water or resources, refugees, territory, et cetera.


          • AGW is based on models, none of the models predicted a lull in warming, any lull, because the BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL, CORE principle in AGW is that CO2 causes the temp to go up.

            This means, that if CO2 goes up, temp must go up – not that CO2 goes up, temp goes up for a while, then temp goes down for a while (for some unknown reason), then temp goes back up.

            If you don’t know this, then you clearly haven’t read any of the IPCC reports, any literature for or against AGW.

            The AGW crowed is desperately looking for where all ‘the missing heat’ has gone. When I say desperate, I mean deserate as NONE of their models can account for it.

            So, if the models had NO CLUE that this could happen, then clearly the models are full of it.

            Even NYT and the New Republic admit this!!

            No, the world IS NOT supposed to be in a cooling phase, NO AGW MODEL predicted this before the fact. The only models that show it now have been MODIFIED to show it, they did not predict it.

            Did you even read ??
            No, you didn’t becuase these guys don’t work for Alberta Oil, you are just spouting nonsense.

          • There is no natural lull that accounts for the past 15 years.

            Like I said, NONE OF THESE GREAT MODELS predicted such a period of cooling. All the gov’t policy based on these models IS WRONG.

            It is only after the fact that the AGW crowd now manipulate their models and tweak the data to explain away the data.

            For them, data is a problem for science – not the basis.

          • Ah, so if CO2 levels have increased from monday to friday, friday will necessarily be warmer than monday? Fascinating.

            Likewise, “seasonal theory” postulates that the increasing tilt of the North Pole towards the sun causes temperatures to be warmer in summer than spring. Is the theory then disproven if a day in June is cooler than a day in May, despite the tilt continuing to increase during the interval?

          • Weather ain’t climate – if you don’t know that then best to put down your keyboard before you hurt yourself.

          • “Weather ain’t climate”

            Eureka! You know what climate isn’t!
            Now, if you could just learn what climate is you could stop embarrassing yourself.

          • wow – your bunch of red herrings have certainly shown me the errors of my ways!

          • Sadly, you can’t to tell us why co2 forcing is supposed to result in a linear increase in temperature, yet forcing from axis tilt doesn’t.

            Maybe it’ll all go away if you just call it a “red herring” or tell me to go read the radio weather guy’s blog.

          • Ok, look I tried to give you a chance to walk away without embarrassing yourself too much, but it is apparent you like the taste of your foot in your mouth.

            So, let’s be clear – I do not argue that CO2 forces an increase.

            Indeed, it is the AGW crowd that have pushed the CO2 forcing and the assumptions that it drives heating. It is YOU and the AGW crowd that push this point. You NOT me, you are arguing with yourself.

            Also, I never said it forced a linear change, in fact neither do the AGW ‘scientists’. They only say that as CO2 goes up, so to must temperature – the word linear is NOT used. Again, only you have said this in your attempt to create a stupid strawman. Again, you are arguing with yourself, I would suggest to stop before you are locked up with Em.

            As for the earth’s tilt, since you don’t understand even that I would recommend that you return to grade 1 and start all over again.

          • Ahh, so you weren’t arguing the warming has somehow been disproven because 15 years of the temperature record doesn’t show a linear trend.

            Oh woops, you were:

            “This means, that if CO2 goes up, temp must go up – not that CO2 goes up,
            temp goes up for a while, then temp goes down for a while (for some
            unknown reason), then temp goes back up.”


          • Do you know what linear means? No, really – do you?

            I repeat again (dumbed down even more):

            You & AGW crowd believe that as CO2 goes UP so does temp

            The MODELS predict that.

            I don’t believe that.

            The real world does not act like that.

            You, the AGW crowd, and the MODELS are wrong.

            Do You Understand? Are you capable of Understanding?

            Climate models, as we are discussing here, are NOT weather models and do not predict Mon-Fri, your strawman is burning.

          • That’s right – climate isn’t weather. It’s not mon-fri or 15 years.

            As you say, the “AGW crowd(scientists)” have projected that temperature will continue to increase, as they’ve done for the past century, as CO2 concentrations increase.
            They don’t predict a linear increase as your strawman suggested (thanks for acknowledging your bad faith, though you mistakenly used the wrong possessive), nor is greehouse gas warming somehow disproven by a lack thereof, anymore than a ocean wave during an ebbing tide disproves the tides, or a cool spring day following a warm one disproves the seasons.

          • You are really thick.

            You set up arguments, attribute them to me, then poorly refute them and claim victory.

            Why don’t you keep yourself busy and go back to the start all over again.

          • Sure. To make it even more fun I’ll only use your words:

            “This means, that if CO2 goes up, temp must go up – not that CO2 goes up, temp goes up for a while, then temp goes down for a while (for some unknown reason), then temp goes back up.”
            “I never said it forced a linear change, in fact neither do the AGW ‘scientists’.”

            “There is no natural lull that accounts for the past 15 years.”
            “Weather ain’t climate.”

          • Wow, just like a monkey – you can repeat what you see yet not understand.

          • Science advises differently. Global warming has, if anything, accelerated over the last 15 years. You are confusing the land and atmospheric warming which has plateaued for the moment with the warming of the planet. Most uptake of warming ocurrs in the oceans, and measurements suggest this warming of the oceans is proceeding to much greater extent and to deeper levels.

            Although it is difficult to provide a direct causal link between climate change and any one single extreme weather event, statistical modelling – fractional attribution risk – can indicate with high probability that some single extreme weather events are linked to climate change. Maybe this Alberta Flooding event may be modelled in this way to determine the causal attribution.

            But we are already living in a world with a changed base climate with the atmosphere able to carry an extra 5 per cent of moisture, and higher sea levels for storm surges to have a greater impact.

            Try reading the climate science blog‎

          • Watts and Mcintyre have torn apart that site, along with many other AGW sites.


            Simply: they focus on the data, not the beliefs.

            Global warming has accelerated, but the earth has been cooling -go figure this proves the heat has been stored somewhere.

            Yah, yah -deep ocean – but where is the data?
            There is none, there is only THEORY that it is being stored deep ocean but no data. Read Watts, this topic has been thoroughly discussed.

          • How does he find the time? He must be exhausted after reading the weather on the radio.
            I guess that’s why he hasn’t gotten around to publishing any of his the work that’s “torn apart” the science.

          • Now you’re trying reverting to plain old lies to confuse the issue.

            Watts and Mcintyre have published and have participated in many reviews of papers as well. While YOU may not consider them relevant, the AGW crowd INCLUDING THE IPCC consider them significant players because their reviews are so thorough.

          • *snort*

            It’s too bad – if he was a little prettier they may have let him read the weather script on national teevee.

          • No, accurate science doesn’t advise differently. New British research date shows that any warming has stalled since 1998. These appear to be reports based on scientific date that hasn’t been ‘fudged’ as the East Anglia temperature scandal info was revealed to have been. I advise anyone to look at data by scientists who are not funded by those who would stand to gain from new taxations.


          • Bullshit. And a little past it’s date for anyone who pays attention.

            Funny how self described “skeptics”, sitting in front of computers connected to the internet, simply regurgitate whatever crap they like the sound of, and without even the most rudimentary fact checking.

          • A new study by the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service, known as the Met Office has concluded that no significant rise has been noted in global temperature readings between 1997 and 2012, essentially indicating that accelerated global warming
            has stopped as far as 15-16 years ago.
            According to the study, “There has been no noticeable increase in
            global temperatures since early 1997… The warming trend observed from 1980 to 1996 was about as long as the current ‘plateau’ period and prior to that… global temperatures had been stable or dropping for decades.”


          • see above

          • Lenny, you certainly aren’t helping your cause.

          • Really? Take a look at this very careful, precise “decadal report” from the Met Office that concludes, “The latest decadal forecast, issued in December 2012, show that the
            Earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed
            over the last decade, and furthermore a substantial proportion of the
            forecasts show that new record global temperatures may be reached in the
            next 5 years.” Here’s the link with very telling temperature graphs that all go up:

    • I wonder who was in charge of siphoning more tax bucks for ‘climate change’ when the annual snow melt City by the Rockies flooded in 1932? Add tons of snow this winter, ground that hadn’t quite thawed and thus couldn’t absorb much rain, a saturated weather system from the Pacific and another direction that hung around and added a glut of rain, and it must be climate change. The snow melts in the massive Rockies every year. I just read an article that stated that ‘the Rockies will never be the same.’ Sure. It melts every year, so in about 900 million years, there will be a few more furrows because snow melts. Yearly.

      • That’s not to say that I don’t think the climate doesn’t ‘change.’

        Look at the dust bowl of the dirty thirties. What I’m saying is pounding
        the fear drum at cyclic weather events is henny penny. Let’s simply
        do what we can. Recycling is happening along with a lot of other good
        things. Let’s keep adding to it.

    • The plaines were ‘cut’ from the prairies?? A little redundant aren’t we? In actual fact the plains are the result of erosion caused by glaciers, NOT river floods.

      • Reread. I was obviously referring the ‘Rockies’ that ‘will never be the same.’

  2. Macleans readers are more up to date than it’s lazy copy and paste news editors:

    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
    *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
    *Obama had not mentioned the crisis in two State of the Unions addresses.

    And not one single IPCC warning ever said any crisis WILL happen, only might and could and possibly and………………’s been 28 years of a catastrophic “maybe” crisis.

  3. Boycott the fear mongering climate blame media. Delete this site and don’t buy their mags people!

    • Why yes, ignoring science will make it go away.

      • Fantasy isn’t science, why EM – you of all people who continually trash christians should equally understand that earth worship of enviro freaks is nothing more than a religion.

        Want to see behind the curtain a little, read as these guys know the science and they have shown the manipulation that the AGW hacks are doing to push their agenda. The IPCC has even had to move their statements based on the works of Watts.

        • Well you’re not a christian so don’t worry about it.

          And stop with the crap

          • yet another demand from such a tolerant leftie to stop discussion.

            Why don’t you actually read instead of making hundreds of posts here showing your ignorance.

  4. So why not open the flood gates half way but 3-4 days earlier

  5. “But now, under the federal disaster financial assistance arrangements, the Harper government could end up paying as much as 90 per cent of the costs of rebuilding southern Alberta.”
    Are you serious? The Harper government pay for nothing. As always the Canadian taxpayers pay regardless of which government is in power.

  6. Climate change WHAT climate change. Wow, we really got sick and tired of hearing that rant from the Albertans for the past 20 years. Oil and Gas is where it’s at. Them Ontarians and French Frogs are jealous of us having it all and are lying through their teeth just to take our new found wealth. Alberta extracts oil in the safest manner possible in the world. Those fresh water oil mixed fake lakes that we’re creating that kill thousands of birds every month are just stories that Liberal and NDP liers like to tell the East and the world. Europeans are violating Canadian sovereignty by saying that Canada produce “Dirty” oil.

    I truly regret the loss of life and property in Alberta but what the hell do you think the ‘green’ world has been bitching about? Seychelles is worried that the Island nation will disappear under the water once some more of the ice caps/glaciers/ice shelves melt. Imagine if they found Tar Sands in the middle of the island. Would they be considered very pragmatic if they started destroying the island and promoting the global warming? Their answer should be what your answer should be, Alberta!

    • Yeah, Albertan karma finally bit their dogma in the ass…..and I have nooooo sympathy

      • Your gloating is a little distasteful.

        There are many different types of people in Alberta and all of those types of people were affected.

        I understand that the present Federal government upsets you, but seriously casting all Albertans as the enemy and deserving of the suffering they are undergoing is juvenile in the extreme.

        • ‘Gloating’ is your fantasy, no one elses

          Albertans need to face reality.

          • “…. and I have nooooo sympathy”
            not really.
            Do you seriously think everyone affected has bought into “Albertan dogma” whatever that is?
            You sound like a child.

          • The Cons have ruled Alberta for what….40 years?

            Their other choice is even more dumb.

            How is this not their fault?

          • Last time I looked Climate change was a global affair or is it just the good folk in Alberta who caused it?

            I’m sure your message to the relatives of the folk who died and those who lost their homes that it is their adherence to a dogma that caused their suffering and they should change their ways.

            Nobody else is responsible just Albertans.. not the industry in Ontario over the last century, not the Chinese burning of fossil fuels, not European coal etc.

            Nope just those Albertans. The demand from Ontarians, BC residents and in fact everyone worldwide is just the fault of Albertans hey?

            Damn it you are one thick, vindictive, petty, simplistic, nasty piece of work aren’t you?

          • Are you not paying attention??

            Of course it’s a global affair….and it’s time for Alberta to do their part

            Now stop being silly and go to bed

          • It’s time you showed a little humanity and less partisan crap

          • Since I’ve been the globalist on here for years….and not a member of any party….I’ll have to conclude you’ve been living on Mars.

          • Conclude what you want, cheering on the devastation as karma to people you clearly have chosen to dislike blame for a global issue says more about the shallowness of your personality than anything else.

          • It’s late, and your confused. Off you go.

          • I’m not confused and it isn’t late in Alberta.

            You however are trying to walk back your gloating. You know you could just say you didn’t mean to be so heartless and cold.

          • For you…it’s late. You are fantasizing….off to bed

          • stop nagging
            god no wonder you’re on line all the time

          • LOL It’s 2 in the afternoon in China. I’m working.

          • So the next time Ontario has a tornado, or B.C. has a large seismic event, or Manitoba has another huge flood, I’ll be looking for you on here telling those provinces that it’s time to do their part if you’re logical and consistent. Alberta bears more than its share of the national load…and if you’re not, then we will all know you
            are merely grinding your trolling axe. I know that already.

          • Ont has tornadoes all the time, BC has earthquakes and Manitoba floods every year…..those are known events.

            GW and CC mean the events have become extreme and frequent…all over the world. Massive droughts or flooding, huge snowstorms and so on. Alberta has never worried about that happening elsewhere and scoffed at GW

            Well now the chickens have come home to roost….what that has to do with equalization payments I don’t know….but I consider it poetic justice.

          • Alberta has always sent crews and aid to all of those regions, but as in emergencies mostly goes unheralded; but it appears in Alberta’s papers. They were one of the first to get crews of search and rescue with canines to Katrina and other international disasters as well. Alberta has NEVER scoffed at anything; it’s your uninformed and sad lack of perspective that ascribes that attitude within yourself and speaks volumes; and it’s the same attitude you are displaying in kind now. If you speak of ‘karma’, I’m pretty certain that with the thinking you continuously display that karma did, does, and will visit you quite often. Anyone who gloats or wishes ill on a disaster zone? Enough said.

          • Everybody sends aid to disaster areas.

            Alberta has scoffed at GW and CC….pay attention.

          • That same western response of volunteerism you see in Calgary now, with so many volunteers that they are being turned away?
            That is the same response Alberta displays in all disasters where
            possible and help is needed or can be given. The proof is in the
            pudding. Alberta has had much help on the ground from the people of Saskatchewan, and offer of medical help from B.C. if it were needed; but it wasn’t, and it’s wonderful. Your support? Not to be expected.

          • Everybody volunteers everywhere. It’s not ‘western’

          • Of course, Emily. That goes without saying. It’s usually the regional media that carries the most coverage of those things.

      • nice compassion there, but I expect nothing less from you

        • Yeah, and here you were counting on some mushy idea you have about Canadians eh?

  7. “Action on climate change?” Let’s pass the hat and collect $200,000 to pay Al Gore his speakers fee. He could use the money now that he sold Current TV to Al Jazeera.

    • Al Gore was a multimillionaire before he ever went into politics….now try discussing the topic on here instead of trying to change the channel

  8. We need to stop planning for 100 year flood risks and start planning for 200 year events. Municipalities need to make sure residents prone to flood risks are reasonably informed. This includes renters. Keep development off flood zones. Too often planning is done using data that undermines water risks ie: Lack of 12 month creek studies, lack of regard for spring thaw, shallow bore holes etc. We need reasonable data to mitigate risks using manditory test times and methods including standardized units of measurements, mandated bore hole depths, test times and methods to show delta water levels to protect human life and properties. If we build it right, we can prevent these risks.

    • Good post and nice handle. Thanks for the pic so I know who you are.

    • You are being unreasonable RC.

      The cost of planning for a 200 year event would exceed the cost of paying for the damage. That’s why we already do cost/benefit analysis for these types of situations.

      Not every risk should be prevented because the cost of doing so would bankrupt our nation.

      • They’re already planning this way in Waterloo Region. It’s not an unreasonable request. It is simply a reasonable precautionary approach to address climate varients that indicate a trend of higher precipitation levels in fewer events. It’s based on actual data gathered by our Region’s Climate experts. More communities can and should be doing the same.

  9. “Action on climate change?” The ancient chiefs in Hawaii used to throw virgins into the mouth of the volcano to appease the Gods. They were not stupid people. The problem is where to find virgins in this day and age.

    • And then you need to find a live volcano.

  10. The difference between “dirty oil” and “clean oil” is not much. It is misleading to blame climate change on any oil producer. They are providing the fuel that you, the consumer , asked for because there is no cost effective alternative right now. The way to reduce CO2 emissions is for you, the consumer, to use energy from non carbon sources. A plug in electric car using hydro or nuclear powered electricity does not produce CO2 but is not an option in many parts of the country. There are many ways we can reduce our CO2 production. Most are far more expensive than carbon fuels. Consumers don’t want to pay for them but want to blame a big oil company for the problem. The oil sands are not the problem. people who burn the fuel are the problem. Do you fly on vacation? If so, you are a big part of the problem.

  11. Climate change? Oh no, just send Hair Harper and he will part the waters.

  12. The damage caused by the flood that happened last week who could have been less if the Alberta government had follow through with what 2006 report had recommended. The report was done after the 2005 flood. It was written by a Conservative MP and promptly shelved for six years.

  13. We already prepare for extreme weather events, that’s why the disaster response has been so quick and effective.

    For once, I wish these self-appointed climate ‘experts’ would just shut up.


  15. All in all, front groups have received over $100 million in order to generate
    misinformation and delay in facing climate change. The groups guarantee profits, not a better understanding of climate.

    For example, Charles and David Koch have dumped over 65 million dollars into
    front groups that attack climate science and policies designed to limit global warming. Now why would they do that?

    Many in this anti-science industry got their experience working for Big Tobacco. Nice folks?. Many smokers were hoodwinked and encouraged to keep smoking.

    So, much of what you will read in these Comments is the result of that $100 million
    “investment”. Minus those dollars, we would be having a very different conversation, more about solutions.

    Unfortunately, the horrific results of this delay will be with us for hundreds of years, as CO2 does not quickly leave our atmosphere and our seas.

    Experts predict trillions of dollars and millions (if not billions) of lives at
    stake. Each year’s delay to get carbon under control is estimated to cost $600 billion

    (; more important, each year hundreds of thousands of lives are taken as a result of our changed climate.

    Of course, all the top experts in the world have absolutely no authority or standing to a
    paid denier, who is clearly complicit in the growing destruction. The sole purpose of denial and misdirection is to make it easy for you to shrug your shoulders and just not care – though you should, if you care about your children.

    You will read their some denier comments here: if you enlist in their monkey army you are a fool.

  16. Yup global warming is very real. It’s not normal that the Calgary flooded, that the ice caps are melting. That temperatures are changing dramatically, sometimes in a matter of hours. Remember in Ontario the dramatic hot to extreme cold during the winter one day? That tornadoes are common now in Canada! Open your eyes people. We need to protect ourselves and the environment.

    Birth control. Population control. Too many people are being born. Families should only be allowed to have two kids. The earth’s extreme population make’s one visiting the hospital have to wait hours and hours.

    We need to get rid of nuclear energy. Solar and wind power are better energy sources to help our earth. Hybrid cars are a good start too. We need to change. Or else it’s going to get worst!

    • and where do you think them Solar and wind power and Hybrid cars come from?

  17. “While one can debate the causes of climate change, McLaughlin said it’s indisputable that the planet is warming and setting off more frequent extreme weather events: floods, tornadoes, drought, freezing rain, prolonged heat waves or cold snaps.”
    Really, who can debate the causes? The climate scientists sure aren’t. 99% of them know unequivocally that the cause of climate change is carbon emissions due to our burning of fossil fuels. Only in the media (and in politics) does this “debate” ever take place.

  18. Six months of rain in two days time is what Calgary saw. With Climate change we can expect more of that. It is actually a proven trend that we are having cycles of greater rainfall in fewer events throughout the year. It’s a design issue that can mitigate risk based on common sense principals.

    • Calgary had two 100 year floods in 10 years time. It’s not going to simply stop so if you build up again, build with resilience in mind.

      • Go to David Gray’s Facebook page (CBC news). He has a copy of the June 25, 1929 Calgary Herald on it. It is lamenting the terrible flooding…”the worst since ’02”. “Hundreds of homes affected”. Given the number of homes in Calgary at the time, that was likely a 100 year flood. Then you had 1932…another hundred year flood….2 hundred year floods within 3 years. Now they are guessing that it might be related to jet stream changes which are keeping weather patterns in place for longer. Let’s face it, no one is sure but these so called 100 year floods are misnamed obviously.

        • A 100 Year flood does NOT mean they will only happen once every hundred years. It is a statistical probability that a river will exceed a given flowrate in a given year, therefore the hundred year flood means there is a one in one hundred chance that it will happen. For the Bow River, the flowrate needs to exceed somewhere around 1600m3/s. The only flood to do that in recorded history is 2013. 1932 was 1520 m3/s which statistically speaking was a 85 year flood. 2005 hit 791 m3/s which made it a 14 year flood.
          Keep in mind…that is just for the Bow River. Calgary has the Bow and Elbow which complicates this.

          • Yes, I believe I tried to point out that 2005 was not a hundred year flood but people remain skeptical. Perhaps you will have much better luck explaining exactly how often a flood of this year’s severity actually occurs in Calgary. The Elbow River is very small if you are familiar with it. It floods often and their are properties right on its banks with expensive houses on them. In many places the water on the Elbow is typically one foot deep.
            I appreciate your expertise Mark. I hope EVERYONE reads your comment. Oh, and check out David Gray’s Facebook page. The old Calgary Herald front page from 1929 is worth a look.

    • A localized weather pattern is not Global .

    • There is no way we can really calculate whether an event is a once per 100 year, 500 year, thousand year, or whatever event. These are simply statistical probabilities based on very limited time series. In fact, these types of stats are typically quite useless, other than as a comparator to one another. For example we know a once in 100 year flood should be more common than a once in one thousand year flood. But the actual numbers are meaningless. They are simply quantitative window dressing placed upon qualitative, subjective estimates. Besides, the occurence of such events is totally non-linear. You can have back to back “thousand year floods”, then none for 10,000 years. We should prepare as much as we’re able, and not worry about calculating the odds, which are entirely incalculable.

  19. “That billion-plus price tag, along with the cascading economic costs of
    shutting down the country’s fourth largest city, may finally force the
    skeptics to come to terms with reality, McLaughlin hopes.”

    Nope, I don’t think so. Just read the idiot comments on this site. I lost hope in humanity a long time ago. Global warming is the solution. The problem is us.

    • We would accept the global warming if a lot of the once in a century flooding didn’t happen in the 1880’s, 1929, 1932…. Look up David Gray on Facebook (CBC) and see the front page of the Calgary Herald and announcing the devastating flooding.

  20. Indeed, once you get two once-in-a-century disasters in one decade, and
    Jason Kenney still doesnt get it, it’s because he is either a dimwit or a
    liar: ie someone who puts an obviously misleading spin (in his case, as
    everybody knows, in order to minimize the “climate change implications”
    of his government’s
    policy). Last time I heard, engaging in business profits that lead to
    the death of a lot of people –and especially, lying to protect those
    profits– was a crime. That’s the level we’ve fallen to….

    • It wasn’t once in a century. Go to David Gray (CBC news) on Facebook. You will find a copy of the Calgary Herald June 25, 1929…big flood. Biggest since ’02.

  21. Now the big question to validate the reality (or not) of a real live climate change crisis from Human CO2 circa 1985;
    What has to happen now for science to stop saying “*maybe” a crisis (they have never said it was as eventual as they like to say comet hits are) and start saying “inevitable” and or “unavoidable” or just WILL be a crisis? When it’s too late? Don’t scientists have doomed children as well or is it just ours that are condemned to the greenhouse gas ovens? How hard is it to say a crisis WILL happen not just might happen if it’s a REAL crisis?
    *They agree that “climate change is real and is happening and could cause… (they have never said anything close to being certain it is a crisis prove me wrong) a catastrophic climate crisis”.
    Science can END this costly debate instantly just by giving the planet a real warning for a real crisis!
    Deny that.

  22. “a former top federal environmental adviser ” A Former as .. he got fired for his Paranoid alarmist views . From the above article ,it was the appropriate move by his employer.

    • Hmmm…one wonders….
      The crazy thing is that he likely never even went to Calgary. Further, we now have the “wobbly jet stream” theory to explain the flooding.

  23. Water use to drain back into the earth after a storm. Then we built on top of flood plains and where water could still drain back into the ground? We cover them with cement or asphalt Then we divert all this excess water with drainage systems into streams and rivers ,without any thought if these streams and rivers can handle these waters. The More we built the more water is dump back where it does not belong. This not two 100 year floods in 10 years . It is two warning that there is more to come if they do not redirect these waters back into the grounds where mother nature intended it to be. Playing the Alarmist,Climate change, Global warming or whatever else it is called ,card is a diversion from the real problem.

    • You’r right Wilbert except you have to remember, the 2005 flood was NOT a 100 year flood. I know people call it that, but they base the 100 year flow rate on a flow rate around 1600 m3/s for the Bow River. The 2013 flood barely exceeded this but the 2005 was only around 700 m3/s. Not even close! I thought I read somewhere that the 2005 flood was actually like a 10-15 year flood.

  24. How is this climate change? There was a flood in Calgary in 1932 that was just as bad…was that climate change back then too?

    Its embarrassing to hear people categorize this in terms of damage done. For example, an F5 tornado rips though the plains of Oklahoma but misses the city and causes zero damage is not powerful? Yet, the same tornado rips through OKC and now its immense?
    These weather events need to be catergorized objectively and numerically. If you do that you will find that this flood was right inline with their 100 year storms. (of course if you don’t know what a 100 year storm is then please look it up….becasue it doesn’t mean that it happens every hundred years!)

    • Awesome observation, Mark. We are looking at things in terms of cost damage.

    • True enough. If another F4 tornado hit Edmonton today, and followed the same path as the 1987 tornado, it would cause hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths, not the 28 deaths that occurred back in 1987. It tore across miles and miles of empty fields in 1987 which are now full of suburban homes and commercial buildings.

      This is precisely what is happening in the US Tornado Alley. After a decade long orgy of building more and more suburban sprawl, the odds of tornadoes hitting built up areas have increased dramatically. Yet every time a new “record” tornado hits, it’s climate change. I’m not denying climate change. The weather had certainly changed quite dramatically since I was a kid. But to try to pin specific events to climate change is just dumb. And most scientists know better. The mouthy ones who get the media attention generally aren’t the most respected in their fields. True researchers are too busy to screw around with media interviews.

  25. Time to wake up, folks. This storm was a strategic attack on Harper’s home by the cabal because Canada didn’t go along with the U.S. to invade Syria.

    Global warming is a myth (now admitted by experts) and the cabal creates weather wherever they want it with HAARP, NEXRAD stations, spraying chemtrails with particulates that collect moisture… it’s all on the Internet if you look for it.

    Weather modification is not new to them. They created the conditions for the tornadoes in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy, and more. Google “geoengineering”. It’s proven. The media will not tell you the truth because most of it is owned by the cabal. Journalists don’t do any investigation. They’re told what to print/broadcast by the government.

    Go to Facebook and join the One People Canada group and learn what other Canadians know that you don’t about what’s really going on your world.

    • Oh, and now I hear the RCMP broke into the homes of evacuees in High River and confiscated all their guns. Same MO in America. It’s all about the gun grab, disarming the people so they can’t resist the feds. Canada is just “little America” now, folks. They did this after Hurricane Katrina, too. Since then they’ve launched all kinds of false flags to get people screaming to control guns. All the other countries who gave up their guns have told the U.S. NOT to ever give up their guns. This is all part of a long-term strategy to control the citizens of the world. PLEASE WAKE UP.

  26. The floods in Southern Alberta were caused by NEXRAD stations in the U.S. & Canada. The storm system was actively driven up north by various Doppler stations into southern Alberta, where the flooding worsened. These Doppler stations in southern Alberta were working in conjugation with those (NEXRAD) in Montana. Each Doppler (NEXRAD) station is capable of using electromagnetic waves to steer/intensify/weaken nearby storm systems, usually preceded by high altitude aerosol spraying.