236

Is Canada shirking its international obligations when it comes to climate change?


 

 
Filed under:

Is Canada shirking its international obligations when it comes to climate change?

  1. depends, i guess how binding you think the ratification of voluntarily entered, binding international agreements are…

  2. our motives shouldn't be based on the kyoto protocol, or whatever is about to be decided on in copenhagen, Canada should be making efforts to save the environment because its the responsible thing to do, i frankly don't care about the international agreements.

    • Its true that Canada should do this because it is the responsible thing to do. But an international agreement is in the works that will change how the world does business. Your position is one that always challenges me because it is typically used as an argument by people against doing anything about global warming, and yet it is really far more radical that most environmentalists, who want to work with other countries on this global issue.

      • I think that you're right, an international agreement will make it easier for Canada to become greener, my point was really just that we shouldn't do because we are being pressured. We should do it for ourselves

    • International agreement underlines the fact that global warming is transnational and that it needs a concerted approach to have an efficient effect on the problem.

  3. Thanks for finally giving us "deniers" a viable option in a poll about "global warming".

    • yeah, that free speech is some nasty stuff.

    • You ''deniers'' should call yourselves unwilling to make changes as your supposed denial is a front or excuse to hide your fear to change your spoiled way of life.

      • I am getting so tired of this worn-out argument from self-righteous Greenies. I am evironmentally conscious by my own free will. I am a small-scale organic farmer. I recently did a full energy efficiency-retrofit on my house, which I heat with wood (supplemented by electric, which comes from the largest hydro dam in my province, about 15 kms away.). I will be building and installing a solar hot water heater next summer. I don't believe anthropogenic CO2 has any crucial bearing on climate, but if that's your belief, I own a woodlot large enough to more than offset my CO2 emissions.

        I drive a Toyota Corolla, from which I milk as much mileage as reasonably possible (45 mpg highway). I come from a long line of resourceful, self-sufficient recyclers and re-users, who did so because it made sense and saved money, not because of a guilt trip from Al "I use 10x more electricty than the average American" Gore.

        So I already live (by western standards) a low impact life. Excuse me if I'd rather not hand over more control to a perpetually incompetent UN.

    • the science is real. there is no "scam" behind climate change. obviously the "skeptics" haven't taken the time to do some homework, or they are just refusing to accept the truth.

    • Everyone has a right to be a denier. However, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s conclusions about global warming are solid, if short on accuracy in their projections of detail. When it comes to deniers, however, not one of them has convincingly shown that the models projecting global warming are flawed. In science, proof of the wrongness of conclusions is always welcome, as this corrects the error(s) in the science and sets it straight. In this, the entire company of deniers has failed utterly, since they have failed to determine the flaw(s) in the general approach. The conclusions of the majority, those who agree with the IPCC, therefore stand. In the meantime, global warming is proceeding faster than most models were projecting.

  4. every true scientist is a skeptic. when skeptics are mocked as "deniers" the science is dead.

    • Yeah, those skeptics of a spherical earth are fully deserving our time and consideration.

      There's a difference between "skeptic" and "ignorant"

      • Yes…the willfully ignorant will follow the crowd without examinaing the truth, and not question the self appointed gurus, and then expect others to hand over their money.
        Sorta like the AGW crowd

      • The earth is not a sphere…it is flattened somewhat.

        If a scientist somewhere had not doubted the sphere concept, we would not know that.

        But you would call them a skeptic or a denier for pursuing alternate thories it appears.

        • Skeptics are the ones who say it's not clear enough to them that AGW is confirmed. Deniers are those who say there is no AGW because some very very well respected scientist that can't be named has said so and if we take measures to fight AGW then we'll go bankrupt and there's too many people liking AGW anyway and they are all raving lunatics and the governments are stupid and so on. I'm not going to use the word "willfully" because that denotes intelligence but I will use a definite "ignorant" to describe that lot.

          I'm a partial skeptics when it comes to AGW but I'm definate believer in climate change because the correlation between atmospheric CO2, Sulphur from volcanic emissions, solar cycles, and polar ice thickness for the past 30 years is out of whack compared to the years before that.

          I'm also a partial economist and I think the benefits of some of the measures proposed to fight AGW far out-weighs their problems, so why not!

  5. Well, it is a non-scientific poll so it's understandable that the anti-climate-change-science nutters would hijack it. Bravo Maclean's for giving the uninformed, loudmouth minority another venue to spew their BS.

    Perhaps for the next poll you are considering a question on who was responsible for 9/11. That'll pull in the website hits, eh?

    • I don't think the numbers are all that skewed.

    • Sorry Dee, but we're not in the minority anymore. And characterizations like "nutters" do more to hurt your side of the argument than help it. So thanks for that.

      About 9/11….. ever watch the Fifth Estate?

      • Your last sentence just made my point JimD. Thanks for that.

        But I suspect you were busy listening to some cherry-picked facts in the Fifth Estate piece on 9/11 "truthers", instead of looking at the whole weight of evidence the program more-or-less presented (commentary from the explosives expert, the Popular Mechanic's editor, etc.). Kind of like how anti-climate-change-science nutters cherry-pick facts. Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way…

        • Ah Dee…you are sooo worldly
          I would imagine it comforting for you to condescendingly relegate us to minority status.
          Remember your history man…in 1789 the French aristocracy thought themselves immune to the travails of the common man.
          Look what happened to them!

        • Get off you pulpit. The credentials of the truthers are far more impressive, but, like the climate change debate, its not a popularity contest. Popular Mechanics? It is owned by Hearst (coincidentally, the progenitor of "yellow journalism"). The fact that we cannot rely on the mainstream media to even cover contentious subjects, let alone do so objectively, has been completely driven home by their attempts to initially suppress, then deliberately diminish, Climategate. If you want to keep believing that they will keep you informed, do so at your peril.

    • Sorry Dee, but we're not in the minority anymore. And characterizations like "nutters" do more to hurt your side of the argument than help it. So thanks for that.

      About 9/11….. ever watch the Fifth Estate?

    • Dee,

      Where are all the believers? You have just as much access to this poll as the smarter more informed voters.

      There are as many Liberal blogs as conservative one's aren't there? You have the entire main stream media on your side and the educational system and most government bureaucrats all on side. So how is this poll being skewed.

      Could it be that the vast majority has has the time and evidence to know that this whole global warming thing is a scam.

      Yes that must be it.

    • I'm a nutter? You don't even know me. By reading your post I can draw some conclusions about you though.

    • No DEE….currently a warmist remark such as yours underscores the reality, exposed by Climate-Gate that use of the term “nutters” for informed, rational opinion just reinforces the reality that warmists are the genuine deniers and nutters.
      Do yourself us and yourself a favour and be responsible and read the material contained in the Climate-Gate leak. The truth will set you free. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
      Maintaining a belief in MANN-nade global warming is consistant with a troglodite mentality.

    • You are an idiot! Since all the so called global warming/climate change science has been proven to be either fake or rigged for nothing more that a political redistribution of wealth, you are the denier! As for being uninformed, look in the mirror!

    • Dee

      Stereotypes are the comfort blanket of the misinformed and ideologically blinkered. However, if you are indeed looking for insights from "Truthers" re 9/11 you need look no further than the Democratic Party in the US, including some recent Obama-appointed Czars, and of course our very own NDP and Liberal parties here in Canada. As for anthropogenic climate change, ideology has no place in true science. Self-examine please.

    • The 9/11 'truthers' don't have the world's largest corporations (Exxon et al) backing their conspiracy theories. This is the only difference and the only reason why we won't see the poll you mention.

  6. Another poll destined to go horribly wrong for the Right Position, I see…

  7. No overwhelming consensus here but alarmists would likely claim that 43% is enough to suggest the debate is over.

    • Consensus = opinions = means basically nothing at all. You can't form your opinions on other opinions otherwise you're just playing telephone like a bunch of high school girls (not to pick on high school girls, but I needed a simile).

      Go read the Science people. Read the raw reports from the field. In all disciplines of Science, raw data in biological systems, chemical systems, earth and atmospherical systems show general trends that indicate not warming but climate change trends. Warming is happening as an overall scale average but it is not actually warming everywhere.

      Remember that climate change has little to do with opinion or whether "humans can take it." This shows that the uninformed masses often forget that being at the top of the food chain requires that the foundations of the pyramid not crumble at the bases. Realize that this is what is happening right now in virtually every biological foundation and simple ecosystem that allows us to maintain our lifestyle.

      You can't get your information from the media, or the IPCC. You have to decide for yourself. Form your OWN opinion.

      After you read the Science, I'll have no doubts that you'll come to the same conclusion as Al Gore but from your own research and conclusions.

      • I've read more science than most, and the more I read, the more convinced I am that humans have no discernable impact on global climate.

  8. Actually, those who you refer to alarmists claim that the debate is over because of the science, no matter what the uninformed masses think.

    • I've met 2 types of alarmists:

      1) The type who is scientifically trained/intelligent, whose employment is dependant upon government grants to prove or study global warming.

      2) The type who pretends to understand science, but really doesn't have a clue about it…blindly following the AGW crowd.

      What type are you Thwim?

  9. I prefer to think of them as wishful thinkers.

  10. I suppose that's a more charitable way of referring to the uninformed masses.. but I'm not a terribly charitable person.

  11. the difference is that there is reasonable and growing doubt about the scienceof climate change. it is unscientific when spporters of that theroy put their fingers in their ears and say 'BLAH BLAH BLAH ICANTHEARYOUYOUAREANIDIOT' and then start a smear campaign painting skeptics as ignorant oil stooges.

    • No. There isn't, actually. Not among reasonable people who actually look at all the data and understand physics.

      • Like these willfully ignorant people? http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
        Surely none of them understand the physics and have looked at the data? Just to make sure let's make sure there are no nobel laureates in physics who are not convinced: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/

        Hmmm, is AGW necessarily wrong? No. Is it far from convincing for a lot of scientists? Yes. Does it have anything like the scientific consensus of evolution, or the standard physical models? No

        • It's funny how the articles used to support climate science skepticism are always covered with cheesy ads and atrocious spelling. One can always find some website that will support their ideology.

          My favorite quote from the CFP article:

          “First of all, I didn't want to be on this panel. Second of all, I am a skeptic. Third of all, if I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?"

          In other words: "I'm skeptical about climate change but even if it's happening, so what? It might even be a good thing for me." Well which is it Ivar?

          I would also like to point out that his argument about the ozone and acid rain in defense of doing nothing is complete b.s. Both problems are now on the decline as a result of direct human intervention: the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act respectively.

          And I'm sorry but a Nobel Peace prize for superconductivity in 1973 hardly makes you a credible expert on climate science nor does it guarantee that you've retained even a modicum of critical ability.

          Please people, slapping up a link to some website is not good enough to back up your theory that climate change is a hoax. There is good evidence and bad and while I have read a lot of your articles about how climate science is a scam, I have yet to come across anything even remotely convincing. Have any of you actually read the IPCC reports or do you cherry pick your information?

          • Yes I've read the IPCC reports but find the litany of stories like this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-st… more convincing.

            Yes it would matter if it was warming and had something to do with us. What I find more maddening is the century long story of 'luddites' trying to tag CO2, a trace gas as a link to AGW. The blanket effect is not the radiative effect. Venus' dense atmosphere is not a model or even instructive of Earth's as some naive observers once surmised. Badly used statistics and modeling techniques don't make things proven wrong a century ago right now. Try to build a greenhouse taking advantage of the radiative effect … its negligible which is consistant for a trace gas just above the suffocation level for plants.

            The fact is its cooling and regardless of some pitiful scheme to tax us and give the money to despots so they can watch their beaches expand in the next 20 years … I'm preparing for cold. Landscheidt Solar Grand Minimum and the PDO and AMO have both gone cold after blowing off all the stored heat in the first decade of this century.

      • As both an engineer and a scientist who practiced his discipline for 35 years, I find that typically smart-alec warmist crack infuriating.

      • It isn't physics. Physics allows for repeated experimentation in laboratories. Climate science, by its very nature, does not. Thus the over-reliance on computer models. (It has that in common with economics.) That's not the fault of climatologists; it's simply a physical reality, and a limitation they must work within. It means they must work that much harder to prove their conclusions. I'm neither a denier nor a believer. I just haven't been convinced yet. But I don't see climatology ranking as anywhere near the level of "real" science as physics.

  12. in a scientific issue the debate is NEVER over. unfourtunatly, this is no longer a scientific issue but a political issue, a social issue, a moral issue (curse you al gore), and a financial issue. the science got left in the dust years ago.

    • You only wish it had.

      • Of course "you only wish it had" because then there would be no global warming!

  13. I could care less about Canada's reputation amunst the hypocrictal Eurotrash. Do you think if any of those countries had our energy resources that they wouldn't be exploiting them? Dream on. They want us all dependant on windmills because that's all they have. Screw them. Last month Obama quietly approved another pipeline to bring more tarsands crude stateside to be refined there. He has also stated that the U.S. coal industry is to be exempt from any agreements. Coal is produced by 25 states. It supplies half the energy to their electrical grid. They have hundreds of years supply. Think they are just going to leave it there?

    • C'mon Wayne … you mean "you 'couldn't' care less.
      What you said means the opposite.
      But I do agree with your comment.

    • Have you ever heard of Norway? I'll help you: it's an European country and the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and third- biggest natural-gas supplier.
      They are going to cut their emissions by 30% of their 1990 amount by 2020.

      • Right on, DivisionBell. And Norway wasn't dumb enough to be bound by Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It isn't required to supply the US with oil whether or not it has any reserves for itself.

    • That's becaues coal has made commitments in the past 5 years to clean up their act, while not derailing their duties as an energy giant. The tip of the iceberg is the Carbon Capture technology because the coal companies have much more in store in their transition from a polluting energy giant to a Carbon Neutral energy giant.

      The Oil companies have not done the same thing.

      Your argument is flawed: just because the U.S. does something doesn't make it right. Nor does it make any sense to think that the Canadians should decide on climate policy based on the opinions on Europeans or anything else.

      Their decision should be based on CLIMATE SCIENCE alone. If Stephen Harper and his cabinet decide using other methods, you should be concerned.

    • who cares what the Europeans think of Canada – what do we think of them? bunch of morons.

  14. Given that this site attracts many of the far left crowd, the results of that poll are startling.

    The question now seems to be: which side are the real "deniers"? With the revelations in climategate, I'd suggest the warmers are.

    • exactly. the warmers have no right to call skeptics deniers after the release of those e-mails.

    • Global warming is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Anyone who has been paying attention to the scientific developments of the past twenty years would know this. Just because you "think" something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because the "majority" of people "think" something doesn't make it true. That's the difference between fact and belief.

      You may believe Gore to be a profiteering nut, but the reasons for criticizing his "green ventures" are the same as the reasons being tossed about to vindicate the continuation of the majorly polluting Oil Sands.

      Clearly, there is no question of who is in denial because some people have formed opinions without all the facts.

      That's just plain stupidity.

  15. Uninformed masses?

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    (I've got a few hundred more – no exxageration – if you've got the time)

    • People who think that climate change science is based entirely upon climate models is wrong. The IPCC itself is flawed because it is a system based on a large group of renowned scientists, some of which believe in global warming, some of which who don't. They came to their position on a basis of consensus – majority rules.

      In Science, there is no such thing as DEMOMCRACY.

      Another myth is in Science is THE RIGHT ANSWER.

      Science is a continually updating set of theories which point towards THE BEST ANSWER, not THE RIGHT ANSWER.

      The IPCC is basically the OPINIONS of a bunch of scientists. Their consensus was that global warming is happening, and your boy Dr. Itoh was one among few that denies it. Whether he is in the minority or majority IS NEGLIGIBLE.

      What you need to do is read individual studies from different scientists in the environmental, biological, chemical, and atmospheric sciences. Getting your facts from the media (a bunch of opinions), from the IPCC (a bunch of opinions), and your friends (evidently not scientists) will do you no good.

      Read the science, and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

    • actually from the poll it looks like about 50 % of the people aren't gonna feel " fooled " at all. We all knew the global garbage Gore and his ilk was bogus.

  16. More world leading scientists for the tolerant left to slander:

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    • Biff,

      The real question around the Nobel Peace Prize is …. what has keeping or promoting peace got to do with the sale of a false climate change theory. It doesn't make sense. But then, they gave one to Arafat too. They also gave on to the guy who just ordered tens of thousands more troops into HIS war zone. Etc.

      The Nobel organization is filled with the same kind of idiots who are running the IPCC and the UN and the Whitehouse.

  17. You might want to stop quoting people out of context, after all, she goes on to say:

    "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

  18. Actually, I find it kind of funny how many of the few scientists those who choose to deny AGW like to quote are geologists and chemical engineers. Hmm.. what industry is it that hires a preponderance of geologists and chemical engineers?

    Beyond that, being able to find a few scientists that say "No, I don't think it's that" means nothing until you get someone who can come up with an alternative explanation of what it is that isn't disproved by the evidence. That's how science works. Saying "I don't believe it" doesn't mean diddly squat without some alternative theory to explain the facts, or at the very least some facts that disprove the main theory.

    • How about sharing with us the qualifications of Suzuki and Gore to comment on this issue. I don't seem to recall either of them having any expertise in climate science and Gore has demonstrated he is totally ignorant of even basic science with his recent comments about the temperature of the earths core. To debunk the AGW data merely requires a grounding in basic statistics and one of the best examples of demonstrating that most US "global warming" was given in a youtube video by a grade 6 student.

      You haven't a clue how science works and science doesn't operate by concensus. 100,000 scientists can be convinced that a theory is correct and it takes but one scientist with contrary evidence to prove them wrong. Perhaps a reading of Thomas Kuhns "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" would be appropriate to see what happens to generally accepted theories when contrary evidence starts to come forward.

      • "100,000 scientists can be convinced that a theory is correct and it takes but one scientist with contrary evidence to prove them wrong."

        I believe this goes to Thwim's point. Where is the contrary evidence? If a scientist could prove conclusively that AGW isn't happening and won't happen, they would win the Nobel prize. A few emails to quote without context of thousands is no proof that AGW isn't real.

        • you apparantly aren't too familiar with the basic tenet of disprovability in science,

          and the more widespread version of "he who asserts must prove" not, "he who disbelieves what the other asserts must disprove."

          Though I very much agree that most warmists are of the opinion that unless "deniers" prove a negative, the science is settled.

  19. What about the idea that pollution is just plain bad? Global warming aside, it's like the planet itself has been forced to take up smoking and is gradually increasing the number of packs smoked per day. That can't be good.

    • If by "pollution" you mean smog, acid rain, etc. you are correct, however the the alarmists are now using the term "pollution" for carbon dioxide, which is categorically false.

      Carbon dioxide emissions are NOT pollution!!!

    • Ahh but define pollution Derek. The IPCC would have you believe that carbon is a pollutant and every time you exhale you are polluting the environment. That is the essence of their shaky warming argument. No one is arguing that it's a bad idea to dump chemical in a river, but that is a different discussion.

  20. Yeah, the real tragedy is how these "scientists" couldn't find the data to support their climate alarmism so they had to create it. Furthermore, if this issue is such that it will end life on earth, you'd think we'd be prepared to go to war to stop China et al from continuing their two-a-week coal-fired power plants from firing up; but no, this isn't about that, it's about the "climate debt" we in the true north strong and freezing apparently owe to those who still hack each other to death with machetes.

    The real deniers are those who avert their eyes from the sun, as if that nuclear fireball in the sky is just a light that gets turned on in the daytime.

    Now CO2 is a "pollutant." So, that means plant food is itself lethal to plant development. Comedy has never been so funny and the Leftarded never so humourless.

    • Any substance that appears in greater quantities than it would in a natural occurring state can be considered a pollutant, if there is detriment caused.

    • Some consider BigMac is plain food…
      Considering the waist size of many "gourmets", is it so far-fetched to consider that when junk-feeding sores so high, some type/amount of food can be considered as pollutant?
      CO2's necessary, for plants and ourselves, but too much CO2 would make you kind of tired, wouldn't it?

    • Thank you, TomK. You've crammed a lot of insight into a few sentences .
      I'm posting that in the staff room. I particularly like the phrase "true north strong and freezing".

  21. Cimategate shows that the only "warming" was that from adjustments made to the data. The earth has been cooling for 10 years now despite rising CO2 levels. When a theory is wrong it is time to reject the theory. Steve McIntyre has demolished the underpinnings of the AGW yet the warmists are unconvinced because this is a religion for them and has nothing to do with science.

    We are likely headed for a grand solar minimum of the same magnititude that was present during the little ice age. Throw in restrictions on fossil fuel use along with lower temperatures and you've got just the setup needed to kill off billions of people in the world. Of course that's probably just what the warmists want to happen.

    Read wattsupwitthat.com or smalldeadanimals.com for details of how big a scam AGW has been.

  22. Just to be clear.
    Climate changa is a constant as constant can be.
    The Maclean's is trying to manipulate the response.
    There is a difference between climate change and anthropogenic global warming.
    That you would like to manipulate results to suit a decption in very, very naughty.

  23. Global warming is a fraud. Only thing scummier then the scientists perpetrating this fraud are the journalists and media organizations backing the fraudsters. The MSM would make Pravda proud.

  24. "They seem to be Geologists"

    I got physicists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists,

    what's your pleasure?

    Hundreds to choose from.

    You didn't really believe the MSM parroting of the warmer ideologues that there were virtually no qualified dissenters, did you?

  25. I would suggest an edit to your choices. Man-made climate change is a myth. Climate change has been happening since the beginning of time and will continue to happen regardless of what pointless actions we take.

    • Climate is always changing, but now the doomsday people are trying to make a profit out of this. It is all about money and who is making money out of all this political nonsense.

  26. I appreciate Macleans providing this survey for clear thinking Canadians. I hope continued honest journalism will expose more climate lies.

  27. Any chance of convincing Canadians that anthropogenic climate change is a reality went out the window with "climategate" which gave hard evidence of data manipulation and an agenda driven phony scientific "consensus", something that many of us suspected anyway.
    Further, tell me that Port of Churchill is going to be open 5 months of the year heading for 6 and trade between Murmansk and Churchill now a real possibility, and you expect me to NOT like that? Now, according to Al, the entire East Coast of the US will be flooded. Tough break New York but hey look at the bright side…you can still buy some waterfront property on Hudson's Bay.

    • Do you even know how what's in the "Climategate" e-mails? do you realize that there is nothing there that isn't part of the normal scientific process? They debate, they question, they analyse, they bounce ideas around, etc. If you think science is somehow not subject to interpretation, then i'm afraid you've got the wrong idea. This isn't an elemntary school science class where everything is black and white.
      And as for the second part of your post, well, it just shows an utterly selfish lack of concern for fellow human beings around the world. you should be ashamed of yourself.

      • How can you explain away "hide the decline" with interpretation? They show deliberate, concerted efforts to a) skew the results, and b) blackball anyone, climate scientist or not, that disagrees with them.

    • Uh-huh. Take a look at the stats on climate refugees around the world NOW. And then imagine it getting far, far worse. Cimate wars, that's what we're going to see, and if you think Canada is going to be immune, you are dreaming in technicolour.

    • By the way selfish, look at the geomorphology of Hudson Bay, and realize that when the seas will rise by 2050, Churchill, Manitoba will be a souvenir… Nothing more nothing less : a bunch of climate refugees on our own soil and millions of dollars will be spent to move the port south or west… or leave it there and make a New Orleans out of it (could have also said Amsterdam)

  28. My mistake. I honestly thought the poll was for anyone to vote on. I hadn't realized that you only wanted one opinion.

  29. You forgot the word "anthropogenic" in front the phrase climate change in option 3. Of course I believe in climate change – the climate is always changing! Have you read about how much the Earth warmed after the ice age?
    However the "deniers" question to what extent man's carbon emissions have an effect on this.
    I wish Harper would unveil this freaking hidden agenda we have been hearing about non-stop from leftists for the past 4 years.

    • Good point Angela. It's the change that the CRU people were trying to hide.The Midieval Warming Period obviously was not anthropogenic.

      • Second person to comment using the word medieval and didnt know how to spell it… curious.

  30. Agree. The question is badly posed. Climate change has always existed. The real Q is the net effect of man's carbon footprint on climate change … with the follow on issue of what (if anything) to do about it. And I agree that the "Gore et al" crowd is skating on ice that is getting thinner every day. OK … lousy metaphor … given that during the last decade the ice is getting thicker ….

    • Neither Mike knows anything about the ice thickness. Since the ocean level is rising 3 mm per annum, the water must be coming from somewhere. The idea that rather a lot of ice is melting (as has been observed) makes a lot of sense.

      • Gee Derek, 3mm eh? I suppose you obtained those stats from East Anglia as well?
        I understand that the Icebergs have been melting and thawing for millennia, long before EXXON.
        What happened to the mini-ice age, and the Medaevil warm period in that Hockey stick scenario? Gonzo. Deleted.

        It will be difficult for these "scientists" that did not do proper peer reviews of this work and signed on to it in BLIND FAITH ( also for personal financial gain and more govt grant money), and have their reputations to lose to become an AGW Apostate. However when the religion is flawed, you have to take the high road, and run – not walk away – from the Charlatans that created this mess.
        REPENT!

  31. The political left have hyjacked environmental issues for decades and as a result nothing has improved or changed via polluting our air, soil and water. They've imposed stupid policies like having snivel servants search our trash for contraband recycled items but that's purdy must the apex of their improvements-garbage police. I want sound policies to keep mother earth clean, I want no part of a global hoax, that's what climate change is a hoax it's called the weather.

  32. Biff

    Your compendium of scientifically qualified deniers cannot be considered relevant until you have at least one fruit fly specialist in the mix.

  33. I just read yesterday,that P.M. Harper is going to sign on. That, people is frightening. I urge you to search Lord Monckton on youtube to see what the real plan is.

  34. Lev and Mike above are mostly right. The questions are poorly posed. The climate is always changing – such change is not a myth – but there are anthropogenic influences on climate, particularly local and regional effects (from agricultural and forestry practices for example). The issue is the extent to which anthropogenic carbon dioxide is affecting the climate. The best evidence is that it is a minor contributor. Hence, the question to be asked is whether Canada should be drawn into schemes to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The answer is a resounding "NO".

  35. The earth has warmed and cooled many times before. It will continue to do so and there is very little humans can do about it. Stop the fraud!

  36. Couldn't agree more!!

  37. The tar sands contribute 5% of Canada's 2% of emissions. A miniscule amount. Do the math! As a country we are really losing our common sense.

  38. I voted #3 with a caveat. Climate ALWAYS changes. Warm? Cool? No one knows. All we really know (if we're honest with ourselves) is that we can't stop it. The climate will do what the climate will do.

  39. Can someone explain how shutting down the clean industry here and moving production to the dirtier factories in China will reduce pollution?

  40. If AGW is true, why did they have to lie to 'prove' it?

  41. The greens constantly harp at us that we should buy our vegetables locally to reduce the pollution from transporting them from far away.__Then they insist we sign a treaty that will result in the transfer of production from the clean industry here to the much more polluting industry in China.__So locally grown tomatoies are good for the environment because that reduces pollution but we should shut down our auto industry here and buy our cars from China?__Why is shipping a tomato bad for the environment but shipping raw materials to China and shipping finished products back here good for the environment?__Especially since the factories here pollute less than the factories in China.

    • because the greens are right-wing idiots out to make a quick buck out of people's good conscience. they are not environmentalists.

      • OMG! Now you're trying to lump the Greens in on the right side of the political Spectrum like the Lefties like to do with the NAZI's (National Socialists)?
        Come on Georges.
        You are correct about them not being Environmentalists (first). It is merely their vehicle to meet the end (Socialism, or at least the end of Capitalism).

      • OMG! Now you're trying to lump the Greens in on the right side of the political Spectrum like the Lefties like to do with the NAZI's (National Socialists)?
        Come on Georges.
        You are correct about them not being Environmentalists (first). It is merely their vehicle to meet the end (Socialism, or at least the end of Capitalism).

  42. Wow! Look at that poll! Colby must have managed to find a way round the one vote rule; either that or the hackers have struck again. :)

  43. The nonsense that Canada has any international obligations about anything should be put to rest. We don't. Canadian voters decide what Canadian policy is and that may change with each government. We should not be allowing our current governments to obligate Canadians to anything.

  44. The greens constantly harp at us that we should buy our vegetables locally to reduce the pollution from transporting them from far away.
    Then they insist we sign a treaty that will result in the transfer of production from the clean industry here to the much more polluting industry in China.
    So locally grown tomatoies are good for the environment because that reduces pollution but we should shut down our auto industry here and buy our cars from China?
    Why is shipping a tomato bad for the environment but shipping raw materials to China and shipping finished products back here good for the environment?
    Especially since the factories here pollute less than the factories in China.

  45. One of the biggest fallacies is that the dreaded and cursed "deniers" are saying that pollution is OK. This is an argument that comes ONLY from the "warmers" as a further example of our disregard for the earth. Anybody who suggests this is either being disingenuous (liars) or completely moronic. One point they don't relate to is that IF the industrialized west is forced (binding agreements like the Copenhagen protocols) to cut back on CO2 we will not have the resources or finances to switch to greener energy sources. We should ALL do our part to clean up this beautiful planet but the idiots out there who think Kyoto and Copenhagen are still about climate change should take the time to actually READ them. They are ONLY about the re-distribution of Western wealth to the UN bureaucrats and 3rd world dictators.

    • Bravo!

      Perfectly succinct the REAL TRUTH behind the Global Warming…ooops, Climate Change Hoax.

  46. Only one thing to learn here.

    Do you have stock in a solar panel company? Sell it.

    Private enterprise will always back the winner, even if the winner is corrupt. But none of this matters anyway. Next year at this time, we'll have far more serious worries. Like where is my family's next meal coming from?

  47. Whether you believe Al Gore or not, whether you believe its short term changes or not, whether you believe the Insurance Bureau or not, whether you believe all the statistics produced or not, there is one inevitable realiszation one must come to: there are more and more people on this planet and a finite amount of resources. So do we act now or wait till we hit the wall?

    Nicole

    • Well Nicole as our population in Canada is quite small and we have a large land mass, I think we are safe. Maybe you should take your problem of overpopulation into the Muslim, Hindu communities of the world, where they have a real problem with Birth Control. Quebec is on the demographic death Spiral, most of the West is, Japan, Russia, China has curbed its out of control problem for the time being. But look at some of the worst "hot spots" in the world, and you'll find over population is a problem there. NOT HERE!

  48. Well, the choices weren't worded properly but I was forced to vote for #3. Climate change is what climate does. It's why we have a word for it. However, anthropogenic global warming is a political plot cooked up to replace communism with greenism. Both are attacks on our way of life from the extreme left who want to destroy capitalism and control every aspect of our lives. Not on my watch.

  49. Hide the decline!

  50. What a treat. A poll for the challenged. This from a magazine that went from an interesting monthly to a noteworthy weekly to a writing style that was semi-literate to a right wing rag. Of course your numbers poll the way they do. Any intelligent person doesn't even bother with this website.

    • Interesting only when it eschewed your Leftist point of view eh Blais?
      Nothing but contempt and condescension for dissenting opinion is an idiosyncrasy of the left.

  51. Further, I was directed here so I could vote. I did. Now, I'm gone and won't return.

    • I see. So the "Warmist" Socialist side has been spammed to their Lefty sites to come here and freep the poll to as to skew the results. I see.
      The left always likes to fight fair.

      Honourable.

  52. Condemned by your own words. Oh the irony.

  53. Great poll – I have been a climate change campaigner for 25 years, have attended numerous international conferences, talked to legitimate scientists and read numerous books on the subject. Climate change is real and so is the embarrassment caused by Canada's lack of action under Stephen Harper.

    • Church Doctrine. Have you read anything that is not on the Al Gore Approved Reading List?
      I thought not.

      How about some sort of offset for the fact that we live in a country that needs to heat the abode for 9 months of the friggin year!
      it is much easier and much more humane for Mexico to cut back on their use of CO2 than it is for us freezing in the cold. There must be a provision for geographical requirements.
      Otherwise this whole argument is a complete non-starter with me.

  54. I'm sorry, but people who believe climate change is not occuring are doing so for their own political or ideological purposes. It is a fact, and no serious scientific organization will question the fundamental role that humans play in altering the environment. We know what role CO2 plays in regulating the earth's temperature, and its hardly a leap to note that increasing the amounts of CO2 drastically will have effects on the climate.

    Furthermore, the IPCC report – which essentially settled the debate (though climate change deniers remain vocal, and funded by major oil companies and those with a stake in denying the phenomenon) was quite conservative. So conservative, in fact, that recent data suggests it underestimated the future effects of climate change.

    We will see fire seasons grow longer and more intense. Storms and droughts that were once uncommon will become more so, and will also gain in intensity. Denying climate change means avoiding taking measures now to cushion the effects, and that's not only dangerous its also immoral.

    • As many have pointed out – climate change appears to be part of the natural cycle of Earth's lifespan.
      The argument is not with that – it is with how big our egos must be to think that breathing in and out is going to cause the Earth to pop a blood vessel and be unable to support life. C02 is essential to life and don't tell me that we can do anything about it. If we stopped all industry for one entire year, the impact would be minimal at best.
      Please don't tell me I am on "Big Oil's" side or on some advocacy group's payroll… I do this for free, as I have every right to do.
      I am not denying climate change. Further to that, it is essential that we be good stewards while we are here on this Earth, as there certainly are things that have been done in the past and present that are harmful to our well-being. Just don't tell me that C02 is one of those things.

    • "We will see fire seasons grow longer and more intense. Storms and droughts that were once uncommon will become more so, and will also gain in intensity."

      Did Al Gore personally come to your house and brainwash you? These claims have been thoroughly debunked.

      And what role does CO2 play in regulating the earth's temperature? It is a relatively inert gas that makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Over 96% of the CO2 that is there is the result of natural processes not influenced by our presence on earth. The largest driver, by far, of the greenhouse effect is water vapour, which we have no control over at all. That is why we use hot water bottles to relieve pain, rather than hot CO2 bottles.

      Yet you think we should completely cut the legs out from under entire economies to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air by a completely insignificant amount.

      Did you also fall for the "there are no peer-reviewed journal articles" expressing skepticism in AGW? Sorry, wrong again.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-4

      • "The largest driver, by far, of the greenhouse effect is water vapour, which we have no control over at all. That is why we use hot water bottles to relieve pain, rather than hot CO2 bottles."

        That's super-funny.

      • 1. If cyanide made up 0.04% of your body mass, you'd be dead. A small relative amount of any particular chemical does not necessarily speak to its effects.

        2. Yes, natural processes generate 96% of the CO2. They also remove it. It is that excess 4%.. which is growing every year due to our activities, that we are concerned about.

        3. Yes, water vapour is a larger driver of the greenhouse effect than CO2. It is also extremely short-lived in the atmosphere. When it starts raining diamonds, your point will have merit. Until then, it doesn't.

        4. There is no evidence that reducing the amount of CO2 in the air by more than an insignificant amount would "completely cut the legs out from under entire economies". There is some evidence that, if done carefully, it will benefit some economies and some evidence that it can cause a temporary dislocation to an economy.

        5. Rebutted here: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-mor

      • 1. If cyanide made up 0.04% of your body mass, you'd be dead. A small relative amount of any particular chemical does not necessarily speak to its effects.

        2. Yes, natural processes generate 96% of the CO2. They also remove it. It is that excess 4%.. which is growing every year due to our activities, that we are concerned about.

        3. Yes, water vapour is a larger driver of the greenhouse effect than CO2. It is also extremely short-lived in the atmosphere. When it starts raining diamonds, your point will have merit. Until then, it doesn't.

        4. There is no evidence that reducing the amount of CO2 in the air by more than an insignificant amount would "completely cut the legs out from under entire economies". There is some evidence that, if done carefully, it will benefit some economies and some evidence that it can cause a temporary dislocation to an economy.

        5. Rebutted here: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-mor

        • Thwim, cyanide is a deadly poison, CO2 is not. That is a ridiculous analogy.

          I don't get your point about water vapour. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at any given time is relatively constant, and it exists at concentrations 50-100 times greater than CO2. What is lost as rain and condensation is replaced by evaporation. I appeal to your common sense to recognize that overnight temperatures remain higher under cloud cover than under clear skies. That is because the heavy concentration of vapour contained in the clouds is a highly effective insulator.

          If you don't think the same monied interests that have control over oil & gas, insurance, banking etc, to the detriment of all but the upper class, will end up controlling carbon markets, you're woefully naive.

  55. And, by the way, quotes from a few prominent scientists mean little. I can find millions who believe 9/11 was an inside job, or that Kennedy was assasinated by members of a vast conspiracy. There are nutjobs everywhere, even in science. A degree – even a Ph.D – does not make one intelligent.

    • Well if quote from a few prominent scientists mean little, it logically follows that your opinion means absolutely nothing.

      • In that your correct. Opinions don't mean a thing. The facts, data, and evidence do, and all of that points to global warming being real, and man-made CO2 being the most significant driver of that warming trend.

        • "The facts, data, and evidence do, and all of that points to global warming being real, and man-made CO2 being the most significant driver of that warming trend."

          What? The FACT that thousands of emails leaked showed quite handily how easily those "facts, data, and evidence" was "cleaned, destroyed, and propagandized" shows that you are too loyal to your religion and have thus ceased to function as a reasonable arbiter with common sense.

          It is very reasonable to question everything, especially that which smells to high heaven. But the Leftists and Warmers will have none of this Blasphemy!

    • The 9/11 'truthers' don't have the world's largest corporations (Exxon et al) backing their conspiracy theories. This is the main difference between the conspiracy theories of the deniers and the truthers.

  56. Candlelight Vigil for Copenhagen. Lower Mainland residents will join citizens around the world in gathering for a Candlelight Vigil to send a message to world leaders at the climate change talks in Copenhagen that we want real action – an ambitious, binding and fair successor to the Kyoto Accord.

    The vigil will be held on the steps of Richmond City Hall, 6911 No. 3 Road between 5:30 and 6:30. An appeal by Bishop Desmond Tutu will be broadcast on a largescreen outdoor TV.

    Please bring your own (preferably lead-free) candles.

    • Its now official – AGW is a religion.

    • Bring a pound of weed too, man. Groooovy

    • Yes, Donna by "we" you mean "YOU". Let's have a vote on it, shall we?
      how about we put the Copenhagen accord up like the Charlatan Accord, and see if the public goes for it. But of course you wouldn't be so in favour of this accord if it meant $1000 more per year on your Electrical bill, another $1500 per year for the heat, another $1500 per year for Gasoline/Diesel, and of course you'll have to buck up a few more thousand to pay for the Govt bureaucrats to oversee the extra 15 departments of CO2 control that will need to be set up.
      The Left always thinks that somebody else will pay the price (and they will get gov't subsidies for their part), but we all pay the price for foolishness.

  57. Just because there are pretty graphs and trends, doesn't mean they have anything to do with your argument. Both sides of the argument have pretty graphs and trends…
    Maybe watch this video and tell me what you think:
    http://vimeo.com/8023097
    It's a bit lengthy, but not nearly as long as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Windbag."

  58. Climate change is a myth and believe that Santa Claus will resolve all our problems is the same thing to me = Ridiculous.
    It's too easy to continuing to think that everthing is fine. We are experiencing many climate changes now, all around the word. Please open your eyes to accept that fact and it will be more easy for you to do something to get a better world for everyone.

  59. Climate change is a myth and believe that Santa Claus will resolve all our problems is the same thing to me = Ridiculous.__It's too easy to continuing to think that everthing is fine. We are experiencing many climate changes now, all around the word. Please open your eyes to accept that fact and it will be more easy for you to do something to get a better world for everyone.

  60. Option 2 is ridiculous. Combating a global problem cannot be done with each nation doing its own selfish thing.
    Option 3 is the ostrich with its head in the (tar)sands. Enjoy your dreams while you can. Your children will not thank you.

  61. Why on earth are so many supporting the fossil fuel giants' campaign to keep the status quo that has made them enormously rich while poisoning the planet? You cannot argue with the records of the World Meteorological Organization (backed by NASA and National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) showing that the first decade of this century is by far the warmest ever recorded.

    • "the first decade of this century is by far the warmest ever recorded"

      I think you mean "warmest ever recorded since global temperature measurements began sometime in the 1800's". Sample size is the most important caveat in statistics.

      • No, I mean "the first decade of this century is by far the warmest ever recorded." I saw no sense in excluding records that do not exist, even if that is one of your ploys.

    • "Why on earth are so many supporting the fossil fuel giants' campaign to keep the status quo that has made them enormously rich while poisoning the planet?"

      Years of conditioning. Pity the fool that stands in the way of a consumer's food pellet.

  62. How many people have taken this poll? I would like to see the total number votes posted and for people to select which province they are from. I think that would give us more meaningful sats.

  63. Well, if the EU and US have their way, the agreement will be the biggest piece of greenwashing in history. Thanks to the "flexibility" mechanisms created by the carbon market and its REDD/CDM schemes, countries can claim non-existant reductions as part of their efforts and perpetuate old colonial dynamic of the exploitation of the South's ressources by the North. Signing such an agreement is worse than not having one because people will sleep well at night and start forgetting about real solutions while the pillage of the earth's atmosphere goes full steam ahead. In a way, if Harper manages to sabotage Copenhagen, he'll be inadvertently doing a favour to the environmental movement and a disfavour to his friends in the banking sector and who invest in developing countries. Being stubborn and crooked as he is might actually help us all….

  64. The debate seems to still be out for global warming .. however we are polluting the planet and creating a real toxic mess for ourselves that has resulted in an epidemic of cancer and other diseases … any agreements at Copenhagen will contribute to the cleanup and create a healthier more viable place to live. I don't care if global warming is a hoax or not, I just want the changes in how we treat our beautiful blue home.

  65. Climate change aside, how is it ok for us to fill rivers with toxic waste that causes high rates of cancer in, especially, our indigenous population? (Athabasca River, for one.) How is it ok for us to emit toxic particles into the air that cause lingering smog, widespread lung complications like asthma, and death? How is it ok for us to use as much energy and consume as much material goods as we please, while running out of resources to keep up with it and space to dispose of it — and if everyone lived as we do, we'd need five Earths? How is it ok to be polluting our oceans to the point of dead zones just so we can produce cheap, poor quality meat in factory farms that treat animals without dignity, and then truck the stuff across the country, where it is fed in copious amounts to an unhealthy population? How is it ok to sit back idle as populations, who are, by the hand of the Western world, no longer self-sufficient, suffer the effects of deforestation, erosion, drought and flood? How can we spend so much on insurance for risks that are much less likely to happen than catastrophic effects of climate change but do nothing about the latter? How can we be so selfish? How can we be so lazy?

    • Don't worry about your insurance premiums going up. If the "Warmists" get their way, you'll be paying thousands if not tens of thousands more per person for everything you do including heating up your TOFU and Granola.

  66. People who think that our country is not responsible to helping with global warming are either deluding themselves and are in denial, or they just don't care! The whole world is involved in what the planet is going through! The planet we live on IS another being, and being destroyed by OUR pollutions! This makes it all of our responsibility to clean our mess up!!!
    Line
    Cambridge, ONT.

    • I don't care that I am denying my delusion.

    • Line, yes pollution is bad, and I'm sure everyone of the people expressing opposition to the Copenhagen conference would agree with me. The simple fact of the matter is thart CO2 and carbon are NOT POLLUTION! CO2 produced by human activity has not and will not contribute to global warming in any significant way. Any agreement signed in Copenhagen will do nothing other than make some rich people and corporations much richer, at the expense of everyone else.

    • I lived during the melting that occurred during the ice age-thankfully we had Jack Layton who stepped in and had a bill passed to prevent flooding .

  67. Canada must absolutely commit to the science-base target of reducing its global warming pollution by 25%-40% below 1990 levels.
    It all boils down to whom you want to believe – respected climate scientists who have been researching this subject for at least 20-30 years, or a motley crew of closed-minded sceptical ignoramuses with their knee-jerk reactions to everything and next to no qualifications.
    The reality is that there's a 95% chance the scientists are right – and only a 5% chance that the emotional sceptics are right. It would be reckless to bet the future of our planet on the sceptics.
    See RealClimate to see how the sceptics lie.

    • Respected as in CLIMATEGATE? Persecute real peer review, cook the books and temperatures? Skew the results?
      Yes, indeed "respected". If that's your idea of respect then I don't think your opinion matters much to people of "Common Sense".

      Al Gore admitted he lied, but claimed it was for the "greater good". Liars, Cheats and Thieves. Swindlers all these "warmists".

  68. See the Film H2OIL –
    And sign the Bill C-311 petition for a real climate plan at the Sierra Club Canada website.
    The film H2OIL gives a wealth of info on Alberta's tar sands pollution not only in terms of the enormous quantities of global warming pollution it releases, but also the toxic chemicals its leaks into the Athabasca river which are wreaking havoc on eco-systems and local communities.
    Bill C-311 supports a real climate plan for Canada

  69. Who is Stan and why does he keep posting the same comment over and over and over again….there are a few other commentators on this poll who keep posting the same message that climate change isn't happening? Who is moderating this? Why are the same people posting the same message – repeatedly!?! Who has the time? Makes you wonder about their vested interests….you should all read: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming," by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

    • You have replied numerous times. What are your "Vested Interests", Amber?
      Remember dear Amber, it is not for those of us to prove AGW exists. It is up to the claimers to prove it. We don't have to deny anything other than there is something that stinks to high heaven in this whole mess. Open the nostrils and take a sniff. Maybe, just maybe the other side actually does have a point about not being convinced when not only the data has been tampered with, but the whole concept of AGW falls beyond credulity due to so many common sense principles, such as:
      In Science, there is no such thing as "Consensus". It is either what the publishers say it is or it is not. The data (uncooked of course) must be published in a proper scientific journal and be PEER REVIEWED. This means that all data and conditions must be DUPLICATED and VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY. It is then either yeah or nay, not some "Consensus". Science is a world of absolutes when trying to make a point.
      Cooking the data and hiding the real facts when you are the official keeper of the raw data from which all reviews are based on means that the science is far from "settled".
      Why should we read your suggested propaganda? having some anxiety that maybe people are catching on to your game?
      And how about taking in some good viewing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from the BBC? Not on your approved list in the AGW Church, so I doubt you will.

  70. Oh, for god's sake. 'Climategate' does not 'prove' anything. It was a few emails regarding trends from BEFORE 1999 which are irrelevant today. Since 1999 the data has been even MORE supporting of global warming trends.

    The few trends they were talking about in those emails are in no way representative of EVERY SINGLE DATA SET in the world AND they're outdated now. There are always going to be some oddities, but the majority of the data still supports global warming.

    And lastly, isn't it CONVENIENT this so called climategate happened a couple of weeks before Copenhagen? Nobody seems to find that odd. Also, why is nobody mentioning how hacking emails is actually illegal? Or perhaps investigating who funded the hackers? That would be the logical thing to do, but when the excuse the are looking for an excuse, it seems that they'll conveniently put blinders on their own eyes… Once the Arctic melts (if you're still insisting the world is cooling, talk to the Inuit first) maybe y'all will come around.

    • Sorry to burst your bubble, but some of the emails were as recent as two months ago.
      And of course if you have access to the base records, and can delete and modify at will, (and somehow they claim they can't find them now) how reliable do you you think this data really is?
      When you start with a false assumption, or false data sets, all get is false data out. Garbage in, garbage out in programming language.
      Lastly it IS CONVENIENT and I find it wonderful, not odd. How do you know it wasn't a conscientious whistle blower out there that and didn't have any agenda or funding? If it was a hislte Blower it certainly isn't illegal. The Blinders I am afraid are being borne by you. Making accusations about funding of hackers. A wild claim swinging in the dark.
      Why don't we wait to see if the Arctic melts first? There's too many people on the earth anyway according to the "Warmists".

  71. This comment board in and of itself seems to be evidence that the issue is not settled and that we can not say climate change is a fact. There are many rational arguments posted for and against climate change, and quotes from extremely educated people on either side of these agruments. That alone should make us second guess the statement that the science is settled. I cannot say if climate change exists or not but I can say neither point of view should just be disregarded as nonsense based on the state of research right now. Both sides need more research and the ability to present their results without being ostracized. Unfortunately those that speak out against climate change are not being given that oppurtunity because the political nature of this issue.

    • first, comment boards such as this one don't have any bearing on the debate between people who actually know what they are talking about. On comment boards, we merely parrot what they say, but somehow the minority of experts seems to have more people who parrot what they say.
      second, contrary to your statement, i'd say that it is those who speak out against climate change that ARE given DISPROPORTIONATE opportunity to speak precisely because of the political/economic implications of climate change. i.e. if not for industry funding and industry friends in high places, including publishing houses, media, and government, they'd be just blogging from their mothers' basements.

      • I find the exact opposite. Al Gore won a nobel peace prize for speaking out for climate change not against it. There is little or no outrage when it is found that some climate change scientists "fudged" the data. Anyone who speaks out against climate change is usually considered to have alterior motives as opposed to disagreeing with the majority opinion (not FACT). Also, things like "they'd be just blogging from their mothers' basement" doesn't really add anything to the debate does it. There are extremely intelligent and successful people on either side of the debate, and some less than credible people on either side. See what I did there, I managed to expression my opinion without demeaning those that disagree with me.

  72. Unfortunately, that's because while we sit around debating, also because the deniers have vested interests in seeing NOTHING done, we lose the opportunity to act. THAT is why the scientists fudged their data.

    • Science with Fudged data isn't real science. It is just conjecture. If the science can not prove that climate change is occuring than any action taken now is a waste of money isn't it.

  73. I'm sure others have noticed you can vote multiple times on this poll.

    • I am sure the "A" voters have noticed and taken exuberant clicks of the mouse. It has been admitted to that some have come here just to vote for the "A" side.

  74. To Common Sense:
    Bill C-311 makes room for carbon trading, carbon credits, and most alarmingly carbon offsets. Under these mechanisms, reductions claimed by countries or companies are mere illusions. If anything, we need a strict quota system with harsh sanctions in case of over-quota emissions (sanctions higher than the cost of investing in technologies that cut emissions). All currently existing cap-and-trade schemes are NOT quota systems. They essentially create a new commodity, a "permit to pollute", and private companies will find all sorts of exploitative ways to create more and sell and make money off of these permits.

    Whether it's a gold mine or a carbon offset project, our multinationals will be up to the same old tricks: dispossess the locals, exploit the workers, sell to the highest bidder. And of course, the more permits, the more pollution, we're worse off that when we started! I am not exaggerating, this has already been documented wherever carbon markets exist (see http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194). You can only ignore the evidence for so long. That's why the US and EU actually proposed limits on how much of total reductions can be claimed through offsets (i say "claimed", not "made", because they are often in fact NOT made). If the NDP, Bloc, and Liberals (well, half of them maybe if Ignatieff lets them vote freely) want Canada to be a leader in climate, then the percentage of reductions allowed through offsets needs to be… 0%! In other words, scrap the carbon market!

      • he's fine. enjoying his retirement, writing newspaper columns and the like, i think.
        now that that's out of the way, can you please explain to me why what i said is wrong and how the carbon market, as it currently exists, will reduce GHG emissions?

  75. i'm affraid!!!!!!!!!!

  76. There's a trend toward realism and support for proposition 1 showing up now. Maybe the deniers are down for their naps, leaving some room for those who believe science has provided a solid base for accepting global warming and man's significant role in it, and for actually DOING something to combat it.

  77. I noticed I was able to refresh the screen and vote multiple times…. hmmm. I'm thinking this might be some really bored climate change deniers stacking the vote here. Get a life and wake up!

  78. What if there is really no human caused global warming. If we put our resources into fixing the problem and it doesnt exist what is the worse case scenario, "we live and breathe a cleaner environment". Now what if we really do have a problem and we ignore it and say it isn't happening, Final outcome, "we are doomed fools". It's very simple!

  79. I don't understand the position of those who want to do nothing to address climate change… just in case there is a giant conspiracy amongst the scientific community.

    Here's how I see it:

    Column 1 – AGW is real
    Column 2 – AGW isn't real
    Row 1 – Do something
    Row 2 – Do nothing

    C1R1 – Despite perhaps being too late, we make an effort to prevent massive disaster. Economic stimulus helps 'green' growth while potentially harming fossil fuel industry. Crisis may not be averted but valiant efforts unite the nation and the world.
    C1R2 – Worst case scenario. No effort is made and the results of AGW create misery, war, famine, climate refugees, and eco-terrorists who have a real bone to pick with Canada and USA.
    C2R1- AGW isn't real but effort is made anyway. Green industry receives stimulus at taxpayers expense, thus leveling the field with the massive subsidies given to fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel industry is no longer sucking up all the taxpayer subsidies and has real competition for the first time.
    C2R2 – Status quo: we continue to subsidize fossil fuel industry at the expense of free market until green technologies are finally able to overcome the gov't coddling of fossil fuel industry and wind/solar/geothermal displaces fossil fuels with undeniable cost-savings.

    • Is that how you see it, or how the guy on Youtube saw it?

  80. In the right-of-centre Globe & Mail recently, columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote: "Far offstage, a shrill chorus of climate-change deniers keeps up its noise, but no government in the world takes notice of them, to their furious consternation." Aside from the convenient untruth of the cherry-picked Emails incident, the deniers (many of them backed by the oil and coal interests) resort to simply contradicting what science says by repeating lies, over and over.

  81. Judging from the rapid change in the graph, it looks like the New Religion Priests have gotten motivated!
    We treat this topic very casually, as if it's a given that climate change (weather?) is easily predictable. We are fortunate if we can actually predict much more than a week into the future. Hurell et al., in an abstract from Aug, 2009 , and the excerpts/comments show just how difficult this "science" is. Following is one excerpt:

    Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as long-standing systematic errors in weather and climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding and capability to simulate the complex, multi-scale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic and cryospheric fluid motions.

    Comment By Roger A. Pielke Sr.:

    If they are “partly attributable to our limited understanding”, what are our other barriers? The fundamental barrier is our limited understanding as to how the real world climate system actually works. The examples presented in the Hurrell et al paper actually show how difficult this subject is.

  82. Well, if nothing else, this poll may determine that Canadians rank as among the world’s most ignorant people. Who knows: maybe we’re number one!! The issue of whether climate change is a reality or not is ludicrous. Denying its reality is equivalent to denying the Nazi holocaust.
    Lurking behind it all is the question of social power: Not taking action, or worse–taking the reverse action of emphasizing tar sands development–benefits only a very small rich powerful elite. Some environmentalists sometimes aggravate the problem by ignoring the fact that the crisis is not just about environmental destruction, but about the suppression of vast human potentials. These potentials are intrinsic to truly ecological development. Do we want resource-intensive development, McJobs and eco-catastrophe, or people-intensive, knowledge-based development generating new levels of qualitative wealth?

    • "Denying its reality is equivalent to denying the Nazi holocaust."

      Note to Mr. Milani. Reality is based on the present and the past, not what a flawed model using flawed data says will happen in the future. Your argument is one of the most offensive comments I have ever read, and shows the depths to which your side of the argument will go to try and gain support.

      Your last paragraph shows YOUR complere ignorance of economics. The "rich powerful elite" are set to make more money from carbon trading than any other sector of the world economy. ExxonMobil has already realized this, which is why they switched sides and are one of the world leaders in the useless exercise of carbon capture and storage. There are already plans to leverage profits from carbon trading through speculative complex financial instruments similar to the credit default swaps that brought the US economy to its knees. Were you aware the the whole idea of carbon trading was introduced by Enron??

      If anything is going to suppress our "vast human potential" it will be the prohibitive costs that will be tacked on to every activity you can imagine, including breathing.

      • I'd say his first paragraph shows his ignorance. Just because I can't swallow some faked science means I am equivalent to a NAZI?
        Come on now. Give your side a chance before you shoot yourself in the face.

  83. Canada is shirking its NATIONAL obligations if it spends any time, money or effort on the nonsense of Climate Change.

  84. At the risk of sounding naive … wouldn't global warming/climate change on the balance be favourable to Canadians, who suffer with some of the world's coldest and most inhospitable climate?

    This is something I truly don't understand. As far as I can tell, in all accounts, positive consequences of global warming are swept under the rug, while the negative aspects are exaggerated 10 times.

    If given a choice, with all the factors considered, I would be surprised if most first-worlders, suffering through frigid winters, would not prefer a warmer climate overall and would therefore support global warming.

    Why are people who suffer through cold winters being asked to deny themselves the benefits of energy use, while whatever benefits exist only go to third-world countries (impacted far more by sea level changes), who wish to do nothing on their own behalf?

    If global warming does exist, I want to see it happen! Ban Winter, which kills more people than all other natural disasters combined!

    (I would be serious about this if I thought it were actually possible!)

    D

    • It is incorrect to say that climate change would "just make Canada warmer". It would also raise the sea level and cover – and destroy – for example, Richmond BC and any other community on or near sea level.

      If you talk to elders in the Canadian north, Climate change is indeed making Canada warmer but the effect is not good. Polar bears, for example, are coming closer to populations. The permafrost is melting, and the houses, built on permafrost, are becoming unstable.

      And personally I find the belief that "I'm okay Jack and I don't care if my actions or my country's actions affect other people negatively" is such a far cry from the Golden Rule that it makes me want to cry. "I'll do unto others however I feel" . Really? That is the moral equivalent of saying, "I don't live in Nazi Germany, and I don't care that Canada is turning away the Jews."

      It's the first world's creation, we're the ones using most of the energy. It's our responsibility to care for the planet.

      And besides all of that, do you really believe in your heart, that the pollution in the air we breathe isn't a problem?
      Do you remember when you were a kid and the water was clean? Do you really think we can keep on like this? What about our children, and our children's children?

    • The biggest danger inherent in climate change is that to our food supplies. Increased temperatures expand the range of various pests and diseases that like to eat our crops. More extreme weather phenomena means more droughts and flooding.. much of which will affect our crop-lands.

      And this is even without considering how a different climate may, in and of itself, make our crops weaker or unable to grow. With some effort, I imagine we'll be able to find replacements, but remember that plants grow where they do not just because of the temperature, but because of the specific nutrient content and characteristics of the soil. Slow climate change, which is always happening, gives plants the time to adapt to new soil characteristics as they change their location due to temperature (or alternative, change their sensitivity to the temperature in their location) The faster climate change that we are causing makes that much more difficult.

      • The biggest threat to the food supply (and its already proven not to be a hollow one) is the misguided practice of growing corn and other crops for use as "eco-friendly" fuel instead of food.

        • Not the biggest, but certainly not helping matters. Subsidizing the growing of corn for biofuel uses is pointless, though, I'll agree. About the only useful result of it is that it provides some supply to expand the biofuel delivery market, and if we're ever going to get off of fossil fuels, we're going to need alternative energy sources available to "fill up" on.

  85. i fully agree about the profiteering bit, but that doesn't make climate change any less real. if anything, it means we have to scrap all this nonsense about carbon markets and expunge all those private moneyed interests that have hijacked the environemtnal movement and focus on solutions that really cut GHGs and help build and maintain a healthy environment.

  86. Ever notice how the size and scope of public fraud, corruption, waste and scandal is proportional to the size and scale of the government in charge (rural municipal/town vs metropolitan vs provincial/state vs federal/national vs global… Guess what'll happen to our money and vestige of self-governance when we join this gang of neocommunists.

    Do a low fly-by over Copenhagen Mr. Harper, and plant your butt-cheeks on the window!

    • And bigger than all those governments, of course, are corporations with enough wealth and clout to extend past international borders and shirk their laws.

      Like, you know, Big Oil.

  87. Details – the difference between the ANTI-CLIMATE SCIENCE SCEPTICS and CLIMATE SCIENTISTS is this: 2,500 scientists including the most prestigious and respected scientists in the world endorse the current climate science. They have been studying this issue methodically for 20-30 years and compiled a tremendous volume of data supporting their science. THE SCEPTICs, of dubious qualification, with their emotional, knee-jerk reactions, some of whom are funded by BIG OIL, have posted hoax science online, and stole and carefully selected private informal emails between a few scientists at one location. The emails used scientific jargon and informal language typical of conversation settings, which the sceptics in all their misguided ignorance then misinterpreted and misrepresent online. The website REALCLIMATE explains the sceptics' lies about climate science.

    • Big Science always gets a pass when trotting out the "funders".
      These Scientists have a dog in this race as surely as Big Oil does. Big Oil can handle it -they have deep pockets (about to be cleaned out by the Commies), but these scientists have signed on to something that is not peer reviewed, meaning it has no way of being independently verified and duplicated because the baseline figures have been tampered with. They will lose their professional reputations, and their livelihoods (if the funding from GOVERNMENT AND GREEN INDUSTRY dries up). So it is in their interest to stick to it.
      Socialists have a dog in it too. They get to over govern and over regulate and over tax- their wet dream.
      Before jumping out and claiming the "other side is posting hoax science", I think you better take a hard look at your side first.
      I respect Dr. Timothy Ball as an actual Climate Scientist. He asked a few questions and was shunned from the community as an Apostate. Now would real scientists that were objective do that to a vetted and respected member of that scientific community if they didn't have an agenda?
      Come on Common Sense, you seem to be lacking a bit of your namesake.

  88. I guess the dinosaurs never really went extinct at all.

  89. Globaloney always was about enriching the rich and wealth distribution from the nations that work to those who do not. It was simple fraud, lies, and dishonesty, as were the people pushing it.

  90. I find it totally incomprehensible that there are as many deniers in this pole as there are activists. Just how many lobbyists in this group are there? Nice job in turning the waters very muddy here people. Nobody is denying that there is always historical climate change but you only have to open your eyes and nose to be aware of the evidence brought about by massive human pollution-accelerator factor. Wake up people! It's called self-awareness… use your brains please!

    • Hey genius, did you mean "poll"?

  91. The Golden Rule. Can we just put ourselves in the place of those people, places on the globe, that are on the receiving end of thoughtlessness and selfishness.? Would I like to live where there is drought? Would I want to lose my home to the rising sea? Would I want to fear to walk down the street because the polar bears couldn’t get out to sea ice, so they turned to the local “wild”life on land … me? NO!

    Would I want someone to care? YES! PLEASE!

    This is for my children, my grandchildren, and for their children, their grandchildren.

    Please Canada, commit so much that is hurts a bit. Only then will it be enough.

    • Susan, the polar bear population is higher now than its been for over 50 years. Polar bears are well-adapted marine mammals – they can swim very well. The only documented case of a polar bear drowning was of one that got caught in a severe storm. That was one of the many untruths promulgated by Al Gore.

  92. Ok, what do scientists gain by making up facts about climate change? Seriously? Is there any motive at all? Scientists gain nothing by "covering up" the "truth". All of the most well recognized scientific institutions in the world, such as NASA, are telling us that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. We trust scientists to put people on the moon, make drugs we ourselves injest, check and regulate our food, and safely invent the latest technology. So why is it that when scientists tell us that maybe we should drive our hummers a little less we say that they're just making stuff up.
    There is no debate in the scientific world about man-made Climate Change. It is a fact. To deny it is as ridiculous as saying that the world is really flat and man has never landed on the moon. We should listen to our scientists(just like we do in all other issues), stop giving any credibility to baseless arguments like most of the above stated, and take action.

  93. I think climate change is an evidence, but to which extent is the real question. However, there is a consensus among climate scientists that CO2 contributes to global warming. Where is the scientific evidence to the contrary? I cannot wait to read that. Global warming is a tough pill to swallow in North America, because it calls for thinking out of the little black box…

    Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
    Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster…

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&amp

  94. Hey CANADA…. time to wake up !!! What's wrong with us. Even if you're not sure of the impacts what can possibly be bad in trying to make to world better? The decisions we make today will impact the lives our children will live then. Our government needs to put his pants and start contributing to the environment… as we, Canadian citizens, must also do. For once, let's stop searching the what, the when, the how, etc… and start acting like responsible people. Just take two seconds each time you do something and ask yourself… could I do this using less lighting, water, hot water, gaz, etc. You'll see how much we waste each time we do something.

  95. Ok, what do scientists gain by making up facts about climate change? Seriously? Is there any motive at all? Scientists gain nothing by "covering up" the "truth". All of the most well recognized scientific institutions in the world, such as NASA, are telling us that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. We trust scientists to put people on the moon, make drugs we ourselves injest, check and regulate our food, and safely invent the latest technology. So why is it that when scientists tell us that maybe we should drive our hummers a little less we say that they're just making stuff up.

  96. The fossil fuel czars have huge amounts of money to buy pseudo-scientists and fools to parrot this denial nonsense, because they believe that's cheaper than operating responsibly. Don't listen to them. Our governments make no real effort to represent their constituents; Harper and Prentice act for their friends in industry. Don't listen to them and don't vote for them.

  97. I see that 41% opted for the ''Climate change is a myth'' option. I always wondered how the heck Stephen Harper got to be elected Prime Minister of this country–now I have my answer.

  98. Whether our life style is affecting the climate over the long term or not, our carbon emissions do effect the air we breath now, and its getting worse as we travel more and make and consume increasingly more things. Plus what we discard and flush is adversely affecting our land and our water. We – all climate change activitists and nay-sayers – need to cut back our consumption of the world now before its too late.

  99. Well, people are paranoid about climate change… Nothing we can do about it.

  100. Le réchauffement climatique, un mythe?? Hé! Oh! En est-on vraiment encore là… c'est triste, triste comme d'appuyer ce gouvernement du Moyen-Âge .

  101. I'm appalled by the fact that 40% actually chose "climate change is a myth" I really hope that's not all of Canada's consensus.

  102. I wish, I really wish, that the denyers were accurate. But they are not. They have just joined the latest religion, spun into being by the OIl industry. I can understand why people are loathe to accept the awful truth. But it doesn't mean they aren't being childish and irresponsbile.

  103. I see that 41% opted for the ''Climate change is a myth'' option. I always wondered how the heck Stephen Harper got to be elected Prime Minister of this country–now I have my answer.

  104. Want to learn something, Google "Sea Level and Climate"

  105. Brilliant:

    I don't understand the position of those who want to do nothing to address climate change… just in case there is a giant conspiracy amongst the scientific community.

    Here's how I see it:

    Column 1 – AGW is real
    Column 2 – AGW isn't real
    Row 1 – Do something
    Row 2 – Do nothing

    C1R1 – Despite perhaps being too late, we make an effort to prevent massive disaster. Economic stimulus helps 'green' growth while potentially harming fossil fuel industry. Crisis may not be averted but valiant efforts unite the nation and the world.
    C1R2 – Worst case scenario. No effort is made and the results of AGW create misery, war, famine, climate refugees, and eco-terrorists who have a real bone to pick with Canada and USA.
    C2R1- AGW isn't real but effort is made anyway. Green industry receives stimulus at taxpayers expense, thus leveling the field with the massive subsidies given to fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel industry is no longer sucking up all the taxpayer subsidies and has real competition for the first time.
    C2R2 – Status quo: we continue to subsidize fossil fuel industry at the expense of free market until green technologies are finally able to overcome the gov't coddling of fossil fuel industry and wind/solar/geothermal displaces fossil fuels with undeniable cost-savings.

  106. Climate change began when the earth began and has been changing ever since and as long as the earth exists climate will be changing and there not much earthlings can do about it unless they can learn how to control the sun. So there is not much use spending thrillions of dollars for not much climate change.
    20,000 years ago one third of the earth was covered in ice and the oceans were 400 feet lower than they are today and some time in the past they were about 60 feet higher than they are today. Global warming, well that started about 20,000 years ago when the glaciers began to melt and I dont think there was too many SUVs running around nor were there any coal burning power plants spewing carbon dioxide into the air. So Gore and Suziki tell me why did all that ice melt and the oceans rise 400 hundred feet?

  107. First thing that got me suspicious of “global warming” was the fact that too many governments around the world agreed. That many governments NEVER agree on ANYTHING unless it’s a prelude to restriction of their people, and taking more money from them.

    Second thing that made me suspicious was the fact that less than 2 months went by and a global carbon credits SCAM was introduced. GLOBAL leglsiative packages are NOT born in two months. NEVER. It’s simply not possible to do anything like that in such a limited time frame.

    Third thing that got me thinking was the fact that polluters get to buy carbon credits from non-polluters, allowing the non-polluters to continie not polluting, and allowing the polluters to keep polluting, resulting in a net benefit of ZERO enviromentally, but in the trillions globally in the form of new taxes and price hikes that ultimately are born by consumers. The ONLY way to avoid this new “non-tax” is to stop consuming ANYTHING…and since that is not possible, the end result is that since everyone pays it, it is a form of taxation without representation…as are almost all forms of taxation today.

    Talk about “cow fart taxes” brought the whole idea to the point of utter insanity.

    While I am not anywhere near to being against green technologies, and I’ve been tyring to convince people to put up solar panels for decades already–and been either completely ignored or ridiculed–if we do such things as plant a few solar panels on our roofs, this WILL decrease the requirement for carbon-burning/releasing fuels to heat our homes or generate electricity, and if it proves that the many and obvious falsities being put forward have any basis in truth, the these carbon emission reductions will already be in place, at a long-term benefit to the environment, and to the consumer’s bank balance.

    The main trouble is that our governments see the only way to fix anything is to find new ways to steal money from the people, and we’re so accustomed to KNOWING that they’re lying to us that we also KNOW that they can not be trusted to do anything BUT lie to us to steal more of our money.

    The government KNOWS that the people are too stupid to run their own lives, and they seek to control ever more facets of our daily existence…but eventually, all the new government jobs are going to come crashing down when the time comes that there are more people working within government than are left to support it…it’s time to look at reality for a change, and stop buying into all of the propaganda from those very same people that we already know have been lying to us for decades.

    It’s time to get rid of the genocidal criminals who have allowed this world to become what it is…only after they’re gone will we be able to repair the damage that out of control governments have wrought against society.

  108. Will have the same results as those that thought Bush was an angel.

    Another 7 years on no activity and we will be that much closer to the truth.

    By then it will be too late to make any significant change, or those that say it is all a bunch of """"" are right. I hope they are right but personally think they are fools leading us down that path of no return and we will all suffer the consequences.. God, do I ever hope they are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  109. Again obfuscating the subject. Pollution is pollution. CO2 is LIFE GIVING!
    Nice to see the elders in the north being part of that "SCIENTIFIC" community. I wonder where they got their degrees?
    WHat if- just what if the models were wrong as they apparently are based on fudged data, and the world really has been cooling for ten years now (which it has been), and the previous warming was brought on by high sunspot activity, which is a fact, and you have now ripped apart your country and given its resources away to the third world which continues to overbreed and is not held to account for their contributions.

    Giving away your house so homeless people can have one is non-sensical. It makes you homeless too.
    Besides, the ice (which is much denser than water) displaces no more mass than the medium itself. Try melting 6 ice cubes in a glass of water, and see if it overflows. then get back to me with your "proof" on how the polar ice caps melting is going to cause the water levels to rise some 30 feet.

    • Ice is much denser than water, you say? Is that why ice floats on water? You have shot your silly arguments in the head.

    • Water is life-giving as well. Go stick your face in a pail of it for half-an-hour, please, would you?

      And no, it hasn't been cooling. The temperature data was provided to statisticians without telling them what the data represented, they all agreed there was no discernable trend of decreasing numbers whatsoever. See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/ma

      Sunspot activity has been on a lull for a long time now. Temperatures keep climbing.

      Ice is not denser than water, but you're correct in that it doesn't increase the level of the water, if it's in the water already. Unfortunately, in Antarctica, the ice is on a large land mass, and melting into the water.

      Really all just basic facts, which if you'd engaged in looking up the actual science rather than anti-climate change blog posts, you'd see.

      As for your other arguments, whether you've raised them yet or not, they're debunked here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  110. Q. Why do Canadians use 6 times more enegy than Mexicans,Algerians or Indians?.,

    A. See "World Map"

    • And why do we use more than swedes?

  111. With 2% of world GHG emissions even a 100% reduction is meaningless in global terms. Dwelling on per capita #'s (where our 33Mil population is amoung highest) is a distraction metric favoured by the GW fanatics. Need to focus on the global problem. Therefore, a made in Canada solution oblivious to programs major emitters develop would be the wrong plan. Must coordinate our program(s) with the majors.

    • How is it a distraction given that we know the rest of the world wants to live in the style that Canadians do, if not better?

      How is it a distraction when there are other countries, like Sweden, that aren't nearly as high on a per-capita basis?

      We're in a place where we have the opportunity, and the ability, to figure out how to do a lot more with a lot less.. and if we get off the stick and figure out how to do it first, it's a huge opportunity to sell that technology to the developing world and our more eco-minded neighbours.

  112. I think this poll and the large % of its responses it got can be summed up in one word. POINTLESS. I have other words I'd like to use. I don't want to seem like a hypocrite here as I did find myself reading through the conversations here, because honestly I find this form of debauchery amusing, but don't you people have something better to be doing with your time? Time to go bake some bread, sort my recycling and have some wild sex with the man…. Enjoy your weekend all. Wait my post was pointless too!! Yaaaaargh.

  113. Climate change is a natural phenomenom, Hope I spelled it right. Climate change happens year round. Too bad we can not choose a natural cause.

  114. I suppose this is not going to matter to those who have already decided anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, farce, or even conspiracy, but here is Scientific American's take on it. And this is not some "lefty" publication.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=

  115. dont read macleans.ca it is complete trash

  116. Anyone who votes that climate change is a myth is an embarassment to humankind.
    How can anyone be so blind? Or scared to lose their comfortable indecent lives…
    Yes it s a big show that can be criticized, but Groenland has shrunk by half, no matter
    how much lies and fake solutions are being thrown in our faces…

Sign in to comment.