According to Google earth, it's 30C degrees in parts of Mongolia today.

Time to move.

OMG! Everyone panic! Better impose more carbon tax; that should put an end to this white stuff outside this morning.

The people who benifit from this "Global Warming" screem the loudest because they directly benifit from it. Just look here in B.C. the carbon tax. Taking it from people who have to purchase fuel, (to go to work and pay taxes), heat your home, (we are warmed blooded animals and need to be warm or die. Then giving this tax money to poor people does not make sense. If this money was spent on companies who make home heating products and they get grant money to design and build beter furnaces, great then you would not mind paying. This seems to be a "Robin Hood" tax, take from who can pay and give it to people who can't. When you buy batteries or tires this fund money is spent on ways to recycle or re-use these products, and then we all win. Giving this money to poor tire manufactures or battery companies would bring an out cry from the public, so what is really the difference?

Here is a scientific fact, when Al Gore lost the election he was worth 2 million. Now with his globull warming trade show he is worth over 100 million, makes ya wonder. Here is a couple of good websites to read up on, icecap.us and wattsupwiththat.com. Read the information and check out the links, see how we are being scammed.

Yes the climate changes, it always changes, we are now entering a cooling phase and eventually we will enter another warming phase. Check history, the climate is always changing.

The whole tax system is supposed to be based on the "Robin Hood" idea, Monekate. On a belief that the "poor are poor, because the rich are rich". (Something, by the way, that would only be true if the quantity of money were absolutely fixed, as if by the laws of nature. There's no evidence that it is.)

So the conception is that if we make the 'rich', or, more correctly, those moderately well off, a whole lot poorer, somehow that's going to make the 'poor' a little richer. "Little", because there always seems to be more that are 'poor'. Especially when we're continually adding to their ranks through taxation of those who "we're" moderately well off with goofy carbon taxes and such like.

The real 'rich' seldom seem to suffer, and it's quite easy to see why. If you were making $ 5 million a year in income, and the government taxed, say, 75% of it away from you, you've still got a $ 1.25 million annual stipend to eke out your miserable existance on! Hardly slumming it, I'd say.

While just how much of that $ 3.75 million taken from you actually goes to the "poor", might be an interesting question, lets just say even "Robin Hood" and his merry men needed a little something to keep them "merry".

Well, whether the weather is Saharan hot or high-Arctic cold, those people who have a penchant for reducing everything to numbers are still telling us that, on average, we're all working over half the year now just to meet all our various tax obligations.

Now, it's true enough that we do get back lots of services from governments in return for what we pay to governments.

And that the delivery of those services through government is probably the best overall way to provide them. Or they'd be delivered some other way, by hue and cry from the general public.

But why, if this is so, and we're paying as much as we are, do all our governments still slip further and further into debt every year? No matter how they try to hide it, and preach to us, as they have been doing until recently, that their budgets are, and have to be, 'balanced'?

And if they were truly 'balanced', would 'our' own 'budgets' be? Statistics don't seem to reveal any such thing. Overall 'debt' continues to increase far faster than the costs of any improvements to our standard of living do. Seems as mysterious as the vagaries of the weather.

How many people would keep on working if they had no debt and simply kept on adding to their assets?

How many people would keep on working if they not only had no debt, but also had enough assets to get them through the rest of life?

I think that if debt were progressively outlawed, say over a decade or two or even three, the end result would be no different than our lives with loans for this that and the other things.

Does anyone seriously think that global warming isn't occurring? As best as I can tell, most everyone agrees on that fact. The thing that causes disagreement is the cause of it . . .

Anyone who has lived in Prince George for any period of time (yes that includes you Ben) must be losing their mind if they think our average climate now is what it was 20 years ago. Mountain Pine Beetle anyone? What about brown lawns at Christmas? Remember wading through snow on Halloween in years past and having masks stick to your face? I sure do, although I can't say as though kids now can share in those memories. One snow flurry in May doesn't change all of that.

I know a guy from Quebec who goes moose hunting during the same week every fall and he told me about how their regular attire has changed from layered clothing and heavy boots from decades ago, to shorts and light shirts in recent years.

Granted, there is allot of hypocrisy when it comes to the whole "green" movement and there have certainly been things adopted by governments that will have no impact on these issues, however, I don't think any sane person could deny that the climate is changing. Our seasons have shifted 1-2 months ahead of where they used to be, our winters are less defined and quite mild by historical PG standards and our summers are wetter than they used to be.

What we are seeing IMHO is the natural response of the earth to some form of stimuli. The big question is whether that stimuli is out of our control, whether it is a natural phenomena or whether it is completely artificial and man made.

At some point common sense should dictate that the earth's ecosystem will react to changes that are taking place around it. It's also not a stretch to think that the global changes resulting from man in the past 30-50 years (less than inconsequential given the age of the earth), have likely been more impactful than all of the impacts of man in the years before that. One has to wonder how the earth would respond to such a rapid and intense stimuli. I'm certainly no scientist, but my common sense radar would tell me that we're having some sort of impact on our climate.

While i agree that one or two snows in may don't refute global warming i have some problems with your arguments NMG. For one thing'strength in numbers does not cut it as an argument'. The whole idea of saying 'most everyone agrees' makes not much sense and carries no weight. Perhaps most people agree because they are uninformed. Perhaps most people dont actually agree at all, they just dont want to be called a heretic. What ever the case may be, you dont discover scientific truth by polling people.
The evidence that the pine beetle outbreak was caused by long term global warming is poorly supported at best. The outbreak had a lot to do with food supply, fire suppression and a short term abscence of extreme or unseasonal cold. Thats not the same as gradual global warming. WHile it is trendy to claim every significant event (including vulcanism!) on global warming it isnt even close to proper science.
Battling anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence is also pointless. What sense is there to say Ben's observations are irrelevant because you friend can hunt in his shorts?
I dont thinkn anyone is claiming the worlds climate is static, be they sane or not. However, your next statement is nonsense. Our seasons have shifted 1 to 2 months ahead? Since the ice age maybe.
All i want is to see good science on the whole issue. Unfortunately research funding is not doled out objectively and both the scientific community and the public seem to have embarked on a global warming crusade, complete with the burning (in the web sense at least) of heretics and naysayers along the way.

While I think there may be some basis for this whole global warming concept,it has also become a very unique way of creating an entire industry that a lot of people are making a damn fine profit off of!
I also think it is exaggerated to some extent.
Some of it is legitimate,but some of it is simply opportunism.
Even our government/s have jumped on the green gravey train and it all costs us money, one way or the other.
Carbon Tax,Carbon Foot Print,Carbon Credits,etc.etc. are all new realitively terminologies that really mean "it's going to cost you money!".
So, are our annual costs for gasoline,heating fuel,hydro,etc.going up because of global warming?
No...they are going up because somebody raised the prices,taxes,etc.and continue to do so.
That's called gouging and opportunism.

I've lived here my whole life and this winter/spring/summer was worse than any I can remember since at least the 80's. If I had to guess I would say we broke a record this year for days with snow where the temperature was near the freezing mark making roads horrendous. We used to get really cold and then warm up and not a lot of this freezing mark fence sitting that I remember anyways.

Socred, you know what I always find interesting. All politicians and all the statisticians equate success in the economy with GDP growth. The problem with that is that it can often look like growth, but is more often no more capable of creating 'wealth' than a hall of mirrors is capable of creating people. Often GDP is just another sign of further debt loads and not real wealth creation, or real growth. We as the general public get hoodwinked by the media and politicians who have a vested interest in selling their manufactured positive story.

IMO political party manipulations for their special interests, banksters, and GDP growth are all symbiotic... and have no relation to the real 'public good' of wealth creation and sustainability.

I agree completely Eagleone!(10:24 AM)

Where is Suzuki? He is probably sunning himself after helping Campbell, the greenwasher, win the election.
However instead of using the term "global warming," environmentalists prefer the term "climate change." This sort of works for any change that occurs. I personally prefer "environmental alteration" as it also includes the effects of polluting poisons, such as sour gas, ozone or plastics in the oceans.

Good thing I took Jos' expert advice and held off planting this weekend!

NMG you have to look at climate over the long termn not short term. From 1900 to 1940 the climate warmed with 1934 being the warmest, warmer than any temps in recent years. From about 1940 to 1975 the climate cooled. IN the early 70's scientists where warning about an ice age. Now from 1975 to 1998 the climate again warmed, but from 1998 the climate has been cooling. I take with a grain of salt what scientists say, about anything, without checking into it further, follow the money.

For a long term overall trend the earth has been cooling for the last 7000 years and for the last 1000 years the cooling has increased.

Climate change is natural and driven by the sun, by the way whose activity has been decreasing in recent years.

Don't confuse climate with environment.

Many very good points in this thread!

That being said, I have a hard time believing that the increase in the human population and the related DRAMATIC increase in industrial development across the globe has had no negative impact on the environment in which we live.

I know we like to think that the world is a big place and we can do whatever we want without consequence, but the world is still a self contained ecosystem that will eventually start to break down when it reaches its limits or becomes stressed too much.

Whether the world is warming a degree or cooling a degree, we need to find a way to stop treating it like our own giant garbage dump.

I planted my garden on the long weekend in 5 large raised beds. One has a greenhouse cover on it with tomato, cucumber and pepper plants. I have cabbage, brocolli and cauliflower that I cover with plastic every night since they were planted. All my seeds are in as well. Things look good and the snow today did no harm so I am happy. :} Even though we get crappier weather than Whitehorse I still would not want to be anywhere else. I cant wait to sink my teeth into my home grown vegetables and fruite. Have a nice short summer all!

Read "Sea Sick" written by a Canadian.

Do not take Sea Sick as gospel. There are pollution issues, over fishing but the coral reefs are doing just fine and the PH, no problem. Don't confuse climate change with environmental issues.

Co2 has been 20 times higher in the past and life flourished. If taken over time todays Co2 levels are quite low. Man more than likely has some effect on the climate but very little, not outside natural variability. Chasing carbon is bad science which is taking money away from real environmental issues. It would take over 30 trillion dollars, yes trillions to reduce Co2 levels enough to lower just one degree. You won't find that information on Gore or Suzuki's website, and that would be putting us back into the stoneage but no fires allowed.

Co2 is not a pollutant or the culprit. Methane is the culprit and the garbage dumps of the world produce it. It is the worst greenhouse gas. Co2 is much less than 1% of our atmosphere. The Co2 that man has produced can be compared to a fart in a hurricane. There are continuous volcanoes under the ocean and the Co2 given off is incredible; still, the atmospheric trace gases are 1% of the total. Freon is the most abundant in those trace gases. Think about volume of the atmosphere: 12 miles high, 25,000 miles around at the surface.

Now--todays lesson--the sun and sun spots are the cause of warming and cooling. This year there have been ZERO sun spots. We cannot change the actions of the sun any more than we can control Co2. Climate change is here to stay forever and life on this planet must adapt or perish. A constant climate would be boring to say the least.

here is something from David Suzuki, 2008, so much for open science. He must be worried about loosing money from his speeches.

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime.

… “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

“It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”

The statement elicited rounds of applause.

“He sounded serious,” said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, who covered the event. “I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue.”

A spokesman later said Mr. Suzuki didn’t really mean it. Could you imagine if a prominent conservative called for putting political opponents in jail? The alarms would be sounded to alert all the world that the Nazis have arrived in North America. But when leftists say things like this, well, you know, they don’t really mean it.

thats not the first time he suggested such aa thing. If there is a singular trait of mr. Suzuki it has to be arrogance. How else could someone come up with a scheme to create an environmental inquisition with himself as judge. It is poor science to be so self assured and ultimately convinced that one science is so absolute. It is also only through ignorance of science history that a prominent scientist could preach such absolutism.