Do the city employees passing this resolution read the news? Have they not come across the information that supports that global warming is a complete lie? developed in the 80's and jumped on by save the world campaigners. The temp on the earths surface has not changed in 20 years! Only in 1998 was their a slight increase do to the effects of El Nino. The world is cycling off of a small ice age mearly 500 years ago and most would only assume its warmed up since then???

Then why is the Arctic ice cap melting faster and more thoroughly every year? Why are the glaciers receding every year?

Did you actually investigate the reports in the news? Disd you even go to the East Anglia University web site to see what they say about the theft of e-mails? Did you do an analysis of the raw data?

Merely jumping on the bandwagon without any investigation is ridiculous, particularly when the people pushing the bandwagon are so clearly biased against any scientific evidence.

I don't think it matters whether it's real or not, or what buzzword is attached to it. The fact is that we have to learn to live within our means and realise what impact our lifestyles are having on the finite resources of the planet.

The earth's temperature has been rising for 12,000 years. The ice caps are the result of the last ice age and if they had never melted we wouldn't be here! Dig a little and you will clearly see that the bandwagon is already full and its going towards global warming. Did you know the ice caps on mars are melting to? maybe we should stop driving cars and refining oil there too. Just maybe this has nothing to do with us.

I read recently that the antarctic ice was thickening...Really ammonra if you are so convinced about global warming, and you dont care to believe anything could be fishy (like the CRU guys) then ask yourself this: If the world is warming up (and that is still the premise behind all the disaster predictions, and if the 'real' scientists all believe this, then why did they change global warming to 'climate change'? A small point, i suppose but the kind that gives a hint as to where the minds of the 'scientists' and promoters are. I guess the data said the world was not, in fact warming, so we had better change the question.
Maybe Al Gore could sign on and use his bottomless pockets to bet us all into silence....You know, that's where someone with a lot of cash (or no intention to pay anyway, or who cheats) challenges people who disagree with him to a monetary wager. The intent being, of course, to bully the person into silence. The implication that unwillingness to bet to support your belief means you dont really believe it is garbage!
There , i got it off my chest. Hey, anybody want to bet on that? I will wager 1000 dollars on any thing you want. Oh yeah, on the condition that people who already agree that i am right will be the ones deciding the outcome.....
Anthropogenic global warming is a subchapter of the environmentalist religion. As such the followers are only interested in the science that supports their beliefs. Folowers consider themselves rational, open minded people who have weighed the facts when in reality the are spoonfed acolytes who have not bothered to actually do any in depth reading. Most annoying to me are the so called 'scientists' who try to use the popularity of the theory as evidence of its validity. "Most reputable scientists believe in global warming" or '30,000 scientist signed this paper..." I guess these guys never read any scientific history, esp re the shape pf the world, the orientation of the solar system, you know that kind of thing.
To Dr Suzuki, and all the armchair scientists out there: Declaring that the science is settled because 'everybody of importance says so' isnt science, its activism. Open your eyes and minds and discuss the evidence objectively. That means read the CRU emails too, then tell me why the science is settled.

Haha! Just read an above post! Talk about the pot calling the kettle something. Since when is reading the CRU emails and deciding you smell a rat called jumping on a (non scientific) bandwagon? Since when is blindly believing in the 'science' of global warming (and thus, by necessity disregarding any contrary evidence , even IF you had been bothered to read it) something better? Oh... I suppose when the activists rode up and yelled: "hey! the world is burning up, the sky is falling, and its all rich people's fault! Some scientists told us that! We are off to change the world and maybe ride in to hell in a handbasket" they were NOT ACTUALLY ON A BANDWAGON AT THE TIME. So your jumping on didnt qualify as such....Were they in the proverbial handbasket?

Ammonra you really have to broaden your reading. In 2007 there was a change in ocean currents and wind in the arctic. The ice that disappeared was blown out of the arctic and down the east coast of Greenland. The ice has been recovering ever since.

Davey, climate change, can you clarify what you mean. Is that warming, cooling or just what? If this is an example of how you research and gather information, you will never get a vote from me. I will also not recommend you to anyone else.

Ammonra Davey there are many websites out there for information but this might be the best one. Check it out if you dare,,wattsupwiththat.com

City council should try & focus on local issues instead of this inane 'feel good' bs.

"We recognize that global warming is real" says Resolutions Committee member Dave Wilbur.

Dave what are you using as a source of information? Like it has been said, read the news. Do a search on climategate.

Global warming or climate change. Potayto, potaato, they are both the same. Increases in the mean temperature of the world lead to changes in climate patters, like those Seamutt refers to. In our time that change occurred, but not in the past for thousands of years - isn't that a change in climate?

I already read everything I can get my hands or eyes on, so it would be a little difficult to broaden my reading list. Also, I don't need anybody's vote for anything and I don't understand the context or relevance of such a comment.

Interestingly, the post by hunterbill says the temperature has been rising for 12,000 years, then Caramancil inferentially contradicts that. Both then disparage my post. Arguwe both sides of the coin at once is certainly an innovative discussion technique, I must say.

I say again, go to the University of East Anglia web site and read what they say. Actually look at the two temperature graphs they display, one with the disputed interpretation, the other with the raw data interpretation. Then describe the difference to me. Explain to me how the raw data graph disproves global warming/climate change.

By the way, the scientific method is based on data and interpretation. Disparaging and rhetorical sniping are NOT part of the scientific method and merely serve to demean the person doing the sniping. Interpret the data. Describe to me in scientific terms and according to scientific standards how (1) what the climatologists did wrong in their data interpretation, (2) how if affected their conclusions, (3) how they should have interpreted the data, and (4) what their conclusions should have been. That would be scientific, not these unsubstantiated opportunistic attacks based on politically (small p) motivated posturing.

I would also like to know whether any of you know what the source of the temperatures in the disputed graph is. If you do, what is the consensus of its reliability for estimating long term temperature fluctuations?

In the past the drifting of the continents (plate tectonics) has caused huge changes in the climate of the earth by volcanic eruptions emitting gigatons of GH gases into the atmosphere.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution ever increasing amounts of GH gases have been released into the atmosphere, lately amounting to several billions of tons annually.

It's like a massive volcano steadily erupting and spewing away for the last two centuries.

Anybody who agrees that natural volcanic eruptions can have an effect on the climate (and that is a scientific fact!) but argues that an artificial man-made volcano can be kept erupting without any consequences is dreaming in technicolour.

For me scientific evidence is more convincing than the usual denial agenda.

Is it not just common sense to accept the fact that if you have increasing levels of heat producing variables (industrialization and population growth) within an enclosed system (the earth), that over time, those activities will result in increased temperatures within that system? How could they not?

Getting back to the article though, am I the only one to find it incredibly ironic and hollow that the City of PG would pass a resolution asking other parties to take a stance on environmental issues, when they have failed so miserably on them in their own backyard? I mean really, they city which consistently has some of the worst air in Canada now thinks it has the moral authority to pass such a resolution? Comical!

Ammonra, you miss the point completely, and you have NOT read the CRU Emails. They indicate the East anglia data might be doctored, that the original data was destroyed, that the scientists involved were actively trying to suppress dissent and manipulate the peer review process. Your decision to quote their work as if it were sacrosanct gives the lie to your statement that you read everything.
Your potato potahto reference is nonsensical, but not in a humourous way. Do you really think that global warming and climate change are the same thing? Did you miss my point? I am suggesting that the term 'climate change' was and is being used to continue the co2 crisis in the absence of increased global temperatures over the last ten years. By the way, the lack of warming, and the inability of models (the same one used to predict global catastrophies) to predict our current weather are admitted by the Anglia scientists and lamented by them as well.
I would LOVE to analyse their data, as would the people who requested it under freedom of information laws. The trouble is that IT WAS DESTROYED. You ought to know, as you read everything. As well, some of the relevant information and correspondence was also (in this case willfully) destroyed to avoid making it public. You didnt read that either i guess. I will give it a try nonetheless: They took out or otherwise modified sections of the data that did not reflect increasing temperatures. They did so, in their words, to 'hide the decline' (in world temperatures). Is that good enough for you? It ought to be, if you believe in science (if you actually understand it that is) and are not just a small a activist.
Science is not the same as activism. When 'scientists' start trying to prove a point for personal or financial or political reasons they are no longer following the scientific method, period. In no way is questioning the validity of ANY study going against the scientific review process. On the contrary, intense review is an essential part of the process. Those people who advocate constant review of our understanding of climate change (or lack of it whatever the case might be ) are, in fact the ones to be applauded. Those who seek to trivialise dissent or (in the case of some east anglia scientists) to actively suppress it are villains, plain and simple.
If you want to put it all down to ploitics, suit yourself, but don't paint yourself as being a scientist or as siding with the scientific method. You are neither.

"Your decision to quote their work as if it were sacrosanct gives the lie to your statement that you read everything."

I have not quoted their work. I have criticised other people who have presumed that POSSIBLE malfeasance by one or two scientists negates all scientific research into climate change. It does not.

Global warming has led to climate change. They are closely interconnected. It is quite clear from direct visual observation in the Canadian Rocckies that glaciers are receding at an increasing rate. The heat for that is coming from somewhere.

"The trouble is that IT WAS DESTROYED." (referring to the raw data).

Not according to the university it wasn't. They say it is available and will be made public when the owners of the data agree to release it, which should be soon. Please confine yourself to verifiable statements.

I do understand what the professor did, and if it was done with the intention of misleading the scientific community he should be castigated, like other research workers at universities have been for fabricating results. I have absolutely no problem with that. I agree with you on that.

However, how does his possible unethical behavior negate NASA's work on climate change? How does it negate the visual observation of receding glaciers in Alberta? How does it negate the thinning of the ice sheets in the Arctic? It does none of those. They are still valid observations and need to be explained.

Incidentally, I understood that his data is from tree ring analysis. He was determining climate changes from tree rings. A very quick search on that indicated there is disagreement about the validity of doing this. Tree limit data is suggested as a much better indicator. I don't know enough about it to comment.

As to me being a scientist. I am an applied scientist, but not in a climate relevant area. I am actually quite well known in my discipline. My peers do consider me to be a scientist.

My reference to politics was stated to be small p. Not partisan party politics in our usual narrow sense on this site, but in the larger sense of how human society should progress in the future.

BRAINWASHED

"BRAINWASHED", perhaps, but at least I have one!

For another viewpoint please read this at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change

And this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

It may not have been tree ring data. It may have been ice core data compared to tree ring data. Does anybody know?

Ammonra I suggest that you go to wattsupwiththat.com I don't think you have done enough reading. Phil Jones of the CRU has stepped down. The CRU is from where the email scandle has oringinated is the main source of information the UN IPCC uses insaying we are going to melt.

The science of global warming seems to have been corrupted and by your views we should continue spending billions chasing bad science. Lets not confuse CO2 with pollution.

Glaciers are receding, expanding and stationary all over the world. Do not forget we are still recovering from the little ice age that ended about 1850.

Climatology is a very young science, there is much, much to learn yet.

I used to believe in man caused global warming but changed after a lot of reading.

I am not saying man has not had some effect but how much compared to the rest of natural variables.

The earth stopped warming 15 years ago and seems to be on a cooling trend for the last 9. That, was not predicted by any of those fancy computor models.

Been there. Tried to download the e-mails but can't find anywhere that still has them. The CRU at UEA is just one research unit of many. I don't know how many independent research projects they have, but only the one project is under dispute. Any others are not involved at that university or any other.

I never made any mention of spending anything, so please don't put words in my mouth. I merely pointed out that suggesting that ONE research project MAY (or may not) be defective does not mean that ALL research projects on climate change are defective.

Please explain the melting of glaciers in Alberta instead of dismissing it as inconsequential. If you don't know, then say so. That's the scientific approach.

Interesting that nobody has told me the source of the data. Doesn't anybody know? You don't know what it is, but you know it's wrong! So much for being informed.

If the temperature trend shows no sign of global warming then why are the alberta ice fields melting? Its a good question? And why are some glaciers growing? why is the artic ice cap melting and the antartic growing? why right here in PG are we setting record high's and record low temp this year.

I'm not a scientist, I don't have access to all the data. But nothing I've read indicates anything more then a shifting of the freeze/thaw. Has anyone put into consideration, the ever changing orbit around the sun and our ever changing orbit in our galaxy? what about the wobble effect, the inconsistant axis the earth takes around the sun? could maybe this all be a little bit out of our hands. Are we being consumed by something we have no control over?

The situation in the antarctic is explained by the second of the web sites I provided the url for.

Hey Dave, if yer reading this. Al Gore is being sued. Google or Youtube. Pick one. Oh yes, there are other related stories also. Get a clue.

Ammonra are you just trying to be difficult. Go to at least these two websites and sift through the information. Check their links, use their search fields for the questions you ask. wattsupwiththat.com icecap.us

The information you seek is in these websites, there are many more. Have an open mind, I do, that is why I can now see what a scam man caused global warming is and if this scam proceeds, will cost you big money, and nothing will change.

I'm not taking sides, but since when did 'wattsupwiththat.com' or 'icecap.us' become the definitive voice in the debate? Any shmoe can put up a website and say whatever they want. Look at this one for example...

"...and nothing will change."

A whole lot will change. Fossil fuels are dirty sources of energy. However, geothermal, wind, solar, wave and tidal are clean non-polluting sources. We have plenty of the above!

Canada will have to stop being Neanderthals and get in sync with the rest of the advanced nations who are already on board and will soon have laws forbidding them to trade with countries (like Canada) who stubbornly refuse to get the message that it is high time to change.

It is a huge scam! It is a way for more money to go from the poor to the rich! People have been warning about this for two decades now. There would be taxes put on everything even the right to breath. Now we can’t even die in piece without it costing our families for our carbon footprint for merely dying. It is happening right in front of your noses and you still can’t see it. The hacked emails which found a scientists diary journal should be the first thing you read. They fudged the numbers showing a cooling trend. WAKE UP SHEEP!

MrPG you never read the information in those websites did ya. So then what gives you a right to comment!. I guess you mean any shmoe like Suzuki or gore, right, glad we can agree on that point.

diplomat you are confusing pollution with the global warming debate.

If I read every website that had something to say about global warming or climate change, I'd be busy for the rest of my life. My point is not to give too much weight to ANY website. A website called 'wattsupwiththat.com' does not exactly give one a sense of confidence about its validity for what it's worth.

Mr PG the reason that we are using websites for information are twofold (at least). One: the mainstream press, including our paper and the CBC are not covering the story. Certainly not the content of the emails. Two: When the powers to be (in this case the political/scientist classes ) appear to be doing something shady we cant count on them to come clean. The name might not suit you but what is in a name? The Canadian Broadcast Corporation is a confidence inspiring name, yet they have chosen to be political and barely even acknowledge the the whole scandal exists.
Ammonra, i dont know what data you want us to tell you about. The source? The data that i spoke of, and i think i was clear, was the original data used in the East Anglia climate studies. These were, i believe temperature recordings from all around the world, stored on tape, and presumably printed at some time . These WERE destroyed. That is my point, you have not read into the whole scandal issue at all or you would have read that, at least. It is widely covered and admitted by East Anglia. Please stop suggesting i have not done my research.
As a 'respected' applied scientist, surely you can see the link between action to fight global warming and massive impacts to the economy of the western world. Again, if you read up on the issue or even listen to the radio you will find that every authority, on both sides admits that the measures proposed to fight AGW are going to cost us all, big time.
I didnt say that the earth is not warming. I suggested that the AGW crowd changed the popular term rather than admit to uncertainties in their models (ones that have lead to the models failing to predict any actual weather so far) which would cast suspicion on their doomsday forcasts. I believe we may be warming, and i believe that the time frame involved, the degree of warming that will occur before the next ice age (it is coming after all) and the CAUSE of global warming are all still scientifically up for grabs. These are statements of scientific facts, if you believe in the scientific method.
By the way, even the polular media admit that the East Anglia research made up much of the foundation from which the global warming models were derived. The study involved was more 'the' study than 'a' study when it comes to climate modelling.
What galls me is when 'scientists', pseudo scientists and the general populace declare that 'the science is settled' without actually knowing what the heck they are talking about. They might as well say 'the moon is made of cheese'.
I suspect the 'thousands of scientists' who have sigh=ned onto the AGW bandwagon have NOT familiarized themselves with the studies involved, nor any contradictory ones (other than perhaps reading the abstract of the anglia results...was it taped to the petition?). Even if they had, they certainly did not look deeply into the study methodology and analysis. (once again, those who did try were stymied but the crew of East anglia. Read the emails). Therefor, stating that 100 billion scientist have all agreed so it must be so, is as convincing and scientific as a statement Dr David Suzuki made. Not the one about how AGW deniers whould be thrown in prison (now thats science) but the one that goes: The earth is warming, Humans are spewing tons of co2 into the atmosphere, we THINK co2 causes global warming (though there are studies from the recent past that it would cool the atmosphere) therefor man is causing the earth to warm up. If you think that that is actual science, then you are no kind of scientist at all.

Diplomat, you ought not to run down Canada as neanderthals without knowing what you are talking about. The fact that SOME european countries are getting into alternative energy doesnt make them enlightened. Their decision to do so was motivated by the cost and availability of fossil fuels. To suggest it was because they are more evolved is pretty caustic and, well dumb.
Here is a point for all you Canada bashers out there: The actual fact is that if every country was like Canada there would be no environmental crises. While our per capita resource use is very high, our overall use, per square mile of country is very low. Perhaps the crowded european states ought to do their part by letting their populations shrink by 70 percent or so. Easy to do, just stop importing young people to finance you rich lifestyles in your retirement years.
By the way, if folks keep bitching that i use too much fuel i am going to stop using it to grow food for them. Maybe that is what canadians ought to be saying (for oil, gas and wood too) rather than being so quick to hang our heads in shame.

"diplomat you are confusing pollution with the global warming debate."

I don't think so. The burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) produces CO2 and other polluting components.

CO2 from fossil fuels is a GH gas and causes global warming as the scientists have determined.

A drastic reduction in the burning of fossil fuels will a) put a stop to runaway global warming b) reduce the emission of dangerous components into our breathing air, such as mercury, oxides of nitrogen etc.

Global warming and pollution are two aspects of the same problem.

The vested interests (oil, coal and natural gas industry) have done a very good job of protecting their investments by spreading confusion and mis-information and they will keep doing so as long as they find people who will listen and join their cause.

It's the same tactic that was used by the tobacco industry for decades: Smoking does NOT cause cancer - they knew it DOES and they knew already in the thirties of the last century!

I suggest that rather than *invest* a trillion dollars in global warfare the money should have been used to clean up our air and reduce the use of fossil fuels which rested for hundreds of millions of years underground.

Underground is a very good place for these.

Canada will have to stop being Neanderthals and get in sync with the rest of the advanced nations who are already on board

Those so called ADVANCED nations don't have the resouces that we Canadians have and are just plain jealeous. Any of you Global Warming Thumpers I sure hope your walking to work, tossing your cell phones, not shopping at Walmart or any so called Dollar Store because most of the products come from China. How come The Great David Suzuki doesn't go to Communist China and Preach there? Why is the rest of the world picking on Canada, were only made up of millions not BILLIONS. If you believe everything you read on the internet and what your told to believe on T.V. then I've got 2 buckets of sunshine I'll sell ya real cheap. And taxing people to death is going to FIX it all, come on people this global warming/climate change is just another way for you to pay more taxes. The giant corporations will still sell their wares,the Global hypocrites will still be supporting the giant corporations. You and I will still be taxed to death

caranmacil, you have clearly made up your mind based on the information that you have researched. What about the people with the opposite view? Is the information that they used to make their decision invalid?

People will tend to gravitate to information (and yes, websites) that support what they already believe and reject information that doesn't.

Actually, I dont know that i have hardened my position all that much. People seemingly cant read posts on this issue without putting them into one category or another. I freely admit to enjoying the fervor of a good debate, perhaps to the extent that i begin to sound more like an advocate of one side or another more than i really am.
The point is, I like debate, and i can usually see the other side, when one is actually put forward. However, the main arguments i read on the AGW side seem to be 'dont argue, the science is settled'. I dont like BS, no matter what the issue. If you believe man made global warming is a fact, then support it, with rational arguments (some have been put forward in this debate). If you are going to take the word of scientists, thats ok too. Lets face it, we do that all the time. However, if you are then going to listen only to those scientist who agree with you, (and who are technopolitically correct) then you are being a fool. This is even more true of those who now choose to ignore or cast doubt on the recent evidence of wrongdoing by perhaps the most important scientific body in the debate. Nobody seems to have a problem with being cynical of scientist employed by tobacco companies, or oil companies but they can't look the same way at eco-scientists. I think ther is a lot of pressure to toe the lline on global warming in the scientific community. If you dont believe me, read the damn emails from CRU. They suggest black listing a journal that tended to publish studies they didnt like, and getting rid of an editor that 'let articles slip through' that didnt support the AGW position. I am open to, even eager for argument and debate on this issue. Hell I am begging for it. I just hate the fact that so many people are ignoring it because it might challenge their belief system.
If you are taking issue with my statements on canadian resource use, then let me have it. I am tired of hearing the same old spin. We use a lot of fuel per person, true. How much of it is to grow food, mine minerals, pump and refine oil? How eager are the rest of the countries of the world to use those products? Are such factors taken into account when they are calling us neanderthals? Also, before people call for us to be like europeans, maybe they ought to try living like one. I have relatives in Holland who have been waiting for months for an apartment to become available. Try selling that kind of thing while you are trying to shame us for our extravagant lifestyle.
Recently, someone on 250 stated " I dont care what the definition of ....is, it is an indespuable fact that we have too much of it", (I paraphrased). I found that to be the most scandalous post i have ever read. THATS the attitude that makes people slaves to their PR masters. That, and a disdain for people who challenge other folks on their opinions (rather than laying back and say 'to each his own').

Good post, c! The keyword of *global warming* is the *global*!

There is only one atmosphere wrapped around the whole planet! The plan is to ask every country to reduce its GH emission by a percentage that still has to be agreed upon.

Its a percentage and the amount depends on how much each country has been producing on a certain date, that date being the same for everybody.

However, if a country wants to reduce even more, that's great too.

Sounds fair to me!

For someone who doesn't have a hardened position one way or another, one might get another idea by reading some of your posts. Maybe you're playing devil's advocate and it's coming across a different way, I don't know.

I enjoy debate too, but the problem with sites like this is that it's very difficult to do so. People have different ways of debating, they might say 'look at xyz website', but I don't really think a website or two adds any weight to a position. You just found a site that happens to agree with what you think. That was the main point I was trying to get across.

diplomat Co2 is not a pollutant, take it away and see what happens to the world. Going through earths history we are actually short of Co2

What about the scientists that discount how much Co2 has to do with warming. What warming by the way.

What runaway globull warming? Now you are onto something, the reduction of fossil fuels, but we are along way from that yet. The reduction of pollutants can be and are reduced immensely, at least in the western world.

Global warming and pollution are two aspects of the same problem. That is open to debate tied in with natural variations.

I am not defending the oil industry but Exxon spent 7 million promoting themselves where as big green industy received almost 100 billion last year, follow the money

Al gore has made over 200 million promoting the man caused globull warming scam.

Tillions of dollars will be wasted in big green chasing Co2.

MrPG the websites I quoted are a compilation of scientific fact and cretics of poor and falsified scientific facts.

Folks what do you think of an unelected world government telling you how to run your lives and the thousnads of dollars they will take out of your pocket. That is exactly what the UN will do if Copenhagen summit is passed. That being the case arn't you just a little bit curious that the so called man caused globull warming science is correct or not.

If you get your climate knowledge from newspaper headlines, oh man are you sucked in.

Do a web search of climategate!

"MrPG the websites I quoted are a compilation of scientific fact and cretics of poor and falsified scientific facts. "

So if I give you a bunch of websites that say otherwise, those are wrong? According to who?

My thought is that climate change is happening and has happened for millions of years and humans don't influence it significantly. I can find some websites that support this, and some that don't. If people disagree with my viewpoint there's not much I can do about it.