Looks like they needed a little global warming last night!

Wondering if those candles were emiting Carbon??

So how did they get there? The clothes they are wearing seem to be evil oil based. The manufacture of the concrete they are sitting on has a huge carbon based history. I could go on and on.

They don't seem very smart considering the clothes they were wearing.

I didn't know they were going to hold this vigil. Had I known about it I would have gone and joined them!

I commend them for their enthusiasm and concern about the future, which after all belongs to young people like them!

Three cheers for you and don't let grumpy old men and women discourage you!

Bet they didnt read the "climategate" report.

Can't figure out why they went to Harris's office after it was closed. Had they gone earlier they might have gotten some coffee and doughnuts from their MP.

I agree with diplomat. The rest of you think your so smart with your negative opinions....

Its not negative opinions, its fact. They are sucked into the scam. To bad our schools don't allow independent thinking.

This article, in keeping with Opinion 250's style, is woefully inaccurate. I was at the rally, and there were closer to 100 people involved. I counted 80 just prior to starting the walk, and several more joined us after that.

I'm very impressed with the spirit and enthusiasm of the organizers and participants. They were well informed and had real passion for the cause. Hat's off to the bunch that showed up on bicycles!

If sitting at home making negative comments is your idea of adding value, then you are just part of the problem.

Well they don't look like communists... staying with the positive theme.

I respect folks who go out and stand up for their convictions. Even if I don't neccesarily agree with them, at least they're putting in an effort. It's easy to sit at home or at work on your computers concealing your identities and trashing people.

I know one of the girls in the picture. She is about as smart, astute, and independent a thinker as they come.

In fact, she is the kind that understands the hurdles that are in her way such as expressed by many on this site.

But hey, they said the same about Civil rights protesters, anti Vietnam protesters and so on.

Luckily we have some in our Society who are leaders rather than followers.

I also thank her parents for the support they gave her to get her to this stage of her life and the support they continue to give her in everything she does.

Those poor deluded people are just being duped into supporting a further tax grab that'll only make everything still more expensive. While it really does nothing to change the temperature one iota. (Except maybe raise each of ours, when we realize how much extra money their stupidity has cost us after "our" governments tax us further.)

If it weren't for global warming we wouldn't have come out of all those ice ages. I wonder what caused that?

Climategate Disproven

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

A very indepth study of the illegally obtained emails by The Assosiated Press and others.

Great read.

Climategate Disproven

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

A very indepth study of the illegally obtained emails by The Assosiated Press and others.

Great read.

Too bad youth is wasted on the young. Brrrrr.

I'm sure they are great people with good intentions or they wouldn't have been out in the cold to uphold their convictions. My prior comments were in jest... I don't agree that we can tax our way to a better climate thats all, and I don't believe in industrial redistribution of wealth based on sketchy science and not real world goods and services trade.

Its the principles of the climate 'solutions' that I have a problem with as I see it has nothing to do with actually fixing any problems, but rather a new revenue model for some.

"Its the principles of the climate 'solutions' that I have a problem with as I see it has nothing to do with actually fixing any problems, but rather a new revenue model for some."

Exactly, Gordon Campbells little carbon tax scam has done zero to reduce pollution or CO2 emmisions.

David Suzuki mentioned my photo essay on the Thames River in London Ontario in June of 87 city wide contest called Healing The Planet which I won an honorable mention. I have been showing examples since on how to Heal our Planet. I as most know about me do not drive. I mountain bike year around. I am in planes for Europe to see Vimy Ridge. I learning some French. I can go despite my past and I am transparent. Unlike some I know. Thats what I have done and still do for my Earth. I got my game on do you have yours on.

For those who might want to see where the protests are as opposed to the local vigils.

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20091212%2fcopenhagen_talks_091212

Gobal warming or not.
Man made global warming or not.

One thing is for sure, this earth will be running out of fossil fuel, possibly in the time that those youngsters in the picture will be in thier senior years.

The notion of sustainability - “leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life of the environment, make amends if you do”

Thats all good if one can make the notion of sustainability work Gus, but the facts are we have reality too.

Yes, the Earth will be running low on resources in our life time and that will create many issues for us in the future. I don't know if taxing those limited resources based on global market prices is the solution though... for a sustainable society in Canada.

Like it or not carbon based fuels are a basis for wealth generation that subsidizes our lifestyle. The energy surplus from the extraction and use of carbon based fuels has a multiplier effect that in a perfect world sees the money recirculate in the Canadian economy creating wealth the more times that same unit of money changes hands.

An argument can be made however that the monopoly of those resources doesn't always see the surplus values reaching the Canadian public at a local level even now without a carbon tax. That however is another argument separate from carbon taxation.

In a time when we have record deficits by our governments they are essentially printing money we don't have that is a form of savers taxation if the new money in circulation doesn't have a corresponding increase in real economic wealth being created. We are at a serious risk of currency imbalance at this time, and to tax an enabler of wealth generation (carbon based fuels), so as to transfer that wealth to foreign countries, while carrying record deficits, is like giving 'cool aid' to the economy Jonestown style.

The world is a competitive place and disadvantaging one society to assist another is not the solution. Any taxation on the fuel to heat your home, or the fuel to get you to work and allow you to work, or the fuel to run our industries will be more than made up for by foreign consumption. In the long run the only real way we can limit foreign consumption is to limit foreign supplies... and the only way to limit foreign supplies within our control is to limit what we export and who we export it to.

A pipeline to Kitimat to export more tar sands oil to the Chinese (carbon tax free), while taxing Canadians on our own consumption... so we can transfer that wealth to help the Chinese become more efficient... is not the answer. That is the road to international economic communism. I say let the Chinese make the hard choice of finding green sources of power now that they are the largest car market in the world, and in the mean time we will do what we can with a made in Canada solution from our end that meets our economic needs... always working towards green, but without sacrificing Canadians in the process.

With that said, I am not totally against a carbon tax if it is a neutral tax meaning that we see a reduction in other areas such as municipal property tax that are equal in amount to the carbon tax. Although I fear government will take the tax neutrality position and apply it to industry and not the citizens of this country and they will sell it from that angle.

If the tax stays in the local economy and is not exported, than the local economy still has the same amount of wealth being circulated in the community and it just becomes a reorganization of taxation from a local perspective. Linking climate change however with international or even interprovincial transfers of wealth is nothing but a scam meant to harm our economy and society with arguments of fear that can hardly be proven for the most part conclusively.

I'd be all for the municipalities collecting the lions share of any gas taxes transfered to the municipality no differently than how the proposed HST administration would work if it meant they could no longer hold me hostage to the municipal spending plans as a home owner. That would be the only climate change tax shift I could support because it stays local and keeps local money in local hands.

It comes from each and everyone of us. You drive to much, use to much heat to heat your homes, fly to much, support dirty oil when it should be left in the ground and find better ways of transportation. People that drive to go pick up their kids from school instead of putting them in school near your homes. All kinds of things people do to kill the planet and to little to save it. It's a running joke. Canadians by in large just could care less about the environment. Tell me would anyone go for a weekend to build trails in old growth forest where there is logging to stop the clear cut. Most people rather sit at home and complain from the arm chair.

So there are people who believe that our actions are contributing to climate change and there are those that don't. Both of these groups express their opinions after thinking about the issues, doing some reading, etc. So for all intents and purposes, these groups of people have gone through similar processes to establish their positions, they just arrived at different conclusions.

So how then is it possible for one group to be "duped", "close minded", "naive", "not independant thinkers", while the other group (following essentially the exact same thought process) is not those things? Could those same traits not apply to that group as well?

I find it very interesting how some people fail to realize that their criticisms of others would apply equally to themselves if they were being used by people on the other side of the debate. I suppose it's easier to just call people names and try and discredit them with simple monikers than to put some thought into one's rebuttal :)

Lots of writing...... fact is, there has been a considerable price difference of gasoline at the pumps in Europe versus North America for decades.

They did not call it a carbon tax. It was not tied to global warming. It was simply tied to the fact that they wanted to reduce the dependency on that fuel since the supply was considered to be finite.

The result? They are the leaders in fuel efficient cars, solar energy application and wind power applications.

All of those are manufactured items which are exportable and are exported to countries like Canada that are just now starting to wake up.

That is what happens when one is a country that has the resources. Keep on spending .... unitl there are none left.

On top of that, people seem to forget that we have a very expensive oil resource we are tapping. we get three barrels out for every two we put in to extract it from the sand. Carbon tax or not, that is a very inefficient method of extraction. The vehicle that uses that oils source is considerably less efficient than the one which uses Mexican oil.

As a result, we are energy gluttons now more than ever before.

But hey, people don't like to talk about that little fact.

Nicely put NMG!!!!!

Papermaker I suggest you read this about Borenstein of the associated press, go to this site wattsupwiththat.com Read what it says about AP.

It is unforunate that all the comments made on this site that the commentators did not turn up at the rally to support our youth whos future lies in our hands and we are doing everything we can to muck it up for them.

Simply put, is mother nature giving us a wake up call and will we listen.
Cheers

I think the "youth" that call for drastic changes would change their tune very quickly if they knew what drastic changes meant. Those fancy clothes they wear and phones they use would double or triple in price. It takes fossil fuels to move them and make them. Food prices would go up dramatically as well.

Now you are getting somewhere RUEZ. There is to much of good life.

NMG, do you honestly believe that things like increased "Carbon taxes", "Cap and Trade" schemes with a financial market for "carbon credits", etc. are going to do ANYTHING towards reversing so-called man made global warming?

They are simply going to drive up the "cost of living" in the face of a country like Canada increasingly mandating its citizens maintain a certain "standard of living". Or exist as homeless beggars when an increasing number of its citizens can't meet that "cost". Those are the two alternatives we're faced with.

The ONLY benefit derived out of going the way that those who truly have been "duped" into the state of mind those who hold candle-light vigils are in, will be a FINANCIAL benefit to those who literally have the monopoly of "money" creation. All the EXTRA "money" that will be needed to 'financially' pay for these inane schemes and will show as a debt to its creators.

If the whole population of Canada were to commit mass suicide tomorrow in an altruistic effort to "save the Earth", do you really believe the temperature of the planet would come back to an acceptable normal ~ whatever that is?

For all of your information, the world has been running out of this or that continually for thousands of years, yet its overall population continues to increase.

The reason ~ scientific discovery, and invention, and technology. The great steam locomotives that once pulled our trains dissipated most of the heat content in a ton of coal or barrel of oil that fired them uselessly into the atmosphere.

The diesels that replaced them were far more thermally efficient, and an electric powered locomotive, even if its power is derived from a thermal-electric stationary power station, is more efficient again.

We learn, continually, how to make better use of the resources we have. How to substitute one thing for another. If we didn't, we would have gone extinct long ago.

Our problem today is NOT, nor has it been for the last hundred years, a 'production' problem. We can easily make more production than we can ever use, and continually do. The latter "waste" being forced upon us by a flawed "financial system" that fails to reflect physical reality. If we meet our demise through 'shortages' of resources, it will be a "financially" induced demise and nothing else.

Chris, the fact that you are living "down town" seems to be a part of your problem. Go back and try to live "out of town", off the land, so to speak, and not somebody else, and then come back and tell us that there is "too much of the good life".

"For all of your information, the world has been running out of this or that continually for thousands of years, yet its overall population continues to increase."

Interesting .... but not quite true ....

It has been running out of this or that LOCALLY....

It had plenty of this or that elsewhere.

The way to get more of this or that was to explore for more of this or that and find it in other parts of the yet "undiscovered" world by those who needed this or that.

We started running out of those opportunities some time ago.

We are now left to our more complex ingenuity ... scientific discoveries leading us to find how to do more with less .. the industrial revolution which came after the discovery revolution (of course, no one talks about in in that fashion, but that is essentially what it was).

Generally things are finite. We have been picking up more and more information about our "space ship earth" that we are on as well as about our own ingenuity. I think it is fair to say, that we have come a long way to begin to come to the realization that we are getting closer and closer to the limit of our ability based on current knowledge.

It is quite possible that 100 years from now we will have discovered a safe and unlimited energy source, such as the sun and the energy "crisis" will be over for a while.

Then we will have a food crisis? No! We will discover a way around that too.

Then a living space crisis? No, there will be a solution for that as well.

Whatever crisis there will be, we will discover a way around it.

We will grow to 10 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion. By which time we will be travelling at warp speed through the Universe.

So we will tell our kids that we have given them the best we can to survive ... the brain between their ears and how to use it just as our many ancestors have done.

That's our story if anyone asks what have we left for the future generations. Let them figure out their own problems just like everyone that has come before has had to do.

Right? Hard love!! So stick to it!!!!

to,two and too, lets go nuclear power.

Gasoline prices around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Average_gasoline_prices_around_the_world

Norway, the oil rich nation, has the 7th highest price slightly more than double the price in Canada. The same witrh most European countries.

Socredible wrote: "They are simply going to drive up the "cost of living" in the face of a country like Canada increasingly mandating its citizens maintain a certain "standard of living". Or exist as homeless beggars when an increasing number of its citizens can't meet that "cost". Those are the two alternatives we're faced with."

So, please explain to me why with European energy prices having been considerably higher than North American energy prices for about 3 decades now they have not ended up where you said we would end up if we were to follow the same strategy.

In fact, they have improved their living standards over that same period of time.

I agree with the nuclear power comment! I think nuclear power is a low risk enterprise. I think one of these days, in the not too distant future, we will be able to dispose of the nuclear waste by shooting it into the sun as a for instance.

Gus, you have joined the eternal optomists.

You tell a great story but is it fact or fiction.

It appears you dont believe in "reality". You are on your own spasce ship. I hope it dosent crash. My web site gives me the current information that the earth will only support eight billion people.And I could direct you to it But I'm sure you would it would be pointless. Talk is cheap.
Cheers

About almost a week ago I read about "European fraudsters steal $7Billion dollars in carbon credit scam". I am still waiting for CBC or CTV to make this news item appear in their news broadcasts. I wait. And I wait. Anyone know if or when this will be news to anyone who cares? United Nations is synonymous with the word BIAS. Like the Climategate emails, this carbon credit scam will be spun as if to say "the money was taken out of context".Ha ha ha . Hey! I cracked a funnee.

Gus in Europe 450 million people live in an area the size of BC. Canada is a vast and large country built around resource extraction in remote areas in a climate that would be inhospitable to our expected lifestyle of modern amenities if we had to pay the 'fuel taxes the Europeans pay' on top of the 'property taxes and income taxes that we pay'. Thats the tax neutrality thing I was talking about... they simply have a different model where they pay more in one area and less in another... Europeans can tax fuel because they live in large urban clusters which are easily serviced by alternative public transportation.

British Lord Monckton said it right to the youth protesters in Copenhagen. Weird to see a politician with a spine in his back for a conviction based on real world science calling it for what it is and calling out the so called 'global warming crowd' for the brown shirts they are in their tactics to limit debate and inflict harm from their policies on the most vulnerable in society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8WawButqIc&feature=related

Go to an event against global warming on the coldest weeks of the winter. Kind of ironic timing. Good for the ones who did come out for this event.

socredible how do you know if I am still living downtown. Maybe I moved and just keep the nic name fool.

retired wrote: "Gus, you have joined the eternal optomists"

Actually I have not. I am talking of socredible's idea that "we learn, continually, how to make better use of the resources we have. How to substitute one thing for another. If we didn't, we would have gone extinct long ago."

In other words that we have survived for several hundred thousand years and we will continue to do so for many hundreds of thousands more.

Your guess of what it will look like in the year 102,009 is as good as my guess.

Now, as to the guess of what it will look like in 2050, well that is another story altogether. That is closer at hand and, whether we have global warming or not, we will be faces with several facts of the physically impossible given today's technology that will cause considerable unrest in this world between the haves and have nots.

Gus:-"So, please explain to me why with European energy prices having been considerably higher than North American energy prices for about 3 decades now they have not ended up where you said we would end up if we were to follow the same strategy.

In fact, they have improved their living standards over that same period of time."

------------------------------------------

European prices for petroleum products have always been higher than those of North America, Gus. Not just for the last three decades, but going way back to the years after World War One.

Part of the reason was to maintain "balance of payments" targets with oil exporting countries by restricting personal motor fuels consumption through punitive taxation.

The British government also imposed punitive taxation on gasoline engine horsepower, something which greatly retarded the development of the British auto industry in its ability to export in the inter-war period.

The main oil exporter to Europe, prior to World War Two, was the United States. And European oil purchases were affected by limitations placed on American imports of European goods through various tariffs imposed by the USA.

While the Americans undoubtedly wanted Europeans "in debt" to them for political purposes, such debts were necessary even more so because "foreign credits" from exports were necessary to provide sufficient "effective demand" for consumer goods in a US economy that was continuously displacing overall consumer incomes through mechanisation and automation.

As Eagleone has commented, we can't really compare a closely concentrated Europe which already had substantial transportation infrastructure in place based on modes of transport other than the automobile with the North American experience. I hardly think Norway's government, for instance, would move to abandon its previous modes of developed public transportation in favour of increased use of motor cars, just because it now has enough oil to be self-sufficient.

Gus:-"In other words that we have survived for several hundred thousand years and we will continue to do so for many hundreds of thousands more."
-------------------------------------------
This is true, Gus, though certainly there have been previous civilizations that have reached the limits, not particularly or necessarily of their "resources" themselves, but of the necessary "knowledge" of how to more adequately utilize them. And have gone into decline, or even a 'cultural' extenction. The Mayan, of central America, is one that comes to mind.

=======================================

Gus:-"Your guess of what it will look like in the year 102,009 is as good as my guess.

Now, as to the guess of what it will look like in 2050, well that is another story altogether. That is closer at hand and, whether we have global warming or not, we will be faces with several facts of the physically impossible given today's technology that will cause considerable unrest in this world between the haves and have nots."

-----------------------------------------

Not the "physically impossible", Gus. But rather the "financially impossible". Currently, at least, the way global finance is steadily moving. It doesn't accurately reflect 'physical' reality, but rather increasingly mis-represents it. This will result in a great deal of real 'wealth' being continuously 'wasted'.

But those who want to hold candle-light vigils, sincere as I'm sure they are in the innocence of ignorance, won't try to understand that. Rather they're like those poor deluded Chinese students who ran around waving Chairman Mao's little red book a few decades ago, denouncing and destroying the very knowledge and accumulated cultural heritage that held the key for a better future.

chrislivingdowntown wrote..." You drive to much, use to much heat to heat your homes, fly to much, support dirty oil when it should be left in the ground and find better ways of transportation. People that drive to go pick up their kids from school instead of putting them in school near your homes. All kinds of things people do to kill the planet and to little to save it. It's a running joke. Canadians by in large just could care less about the environment. Tell me would anyone go for a weekend to build trails in old growth forest where there is logging to stop the clear cut."

Yes, I will heat my home with wood, gas or whatever it takes to keep my family warm & comfortable, especially with the current temperatures. And my kid's education is far more important than how you feel about it. I live up in the Hart & there are no Catholic schools up here so they have to go to one of the Catholic schools in the bowl. And I work for Canfor so NO, I'm not going to try & stop the clear cutting. That would be like cutting my own throat. That clear cutting is what gives myself and several thousand others in Prince George a pay cheque. In this weather with temperatures getting below -30C, I'm also using my remote start to warm my truck. I don't believe in all this global warming crap but do respect those young protestors for doing what they believe in, especially in this frigid weather.

So you don't do anything for the Planet. So I was correct earlier in the day. Most Canadians don't really care to do anything for the Planet. Look I care what the world thinks as well about me as a Canadian. I always cared about the Planet and live my life by it. You don't care fine thats your game bud but I am not going to back down one this because I know I am write and you are wrong. You should be ashamed and you are not. I sleep well at night knowing that I am not the cause of the Planet over heating. What ever man when the forest is burning up your house this summer coming you will be the fool crying on CBC about losing your house. LOL

"Not the "physically impossible", Gus. But rather the "financially impossible"."

I am sorry. Financial matters are a human contruct and is unlimited as to where it can go. If you want to make beaver pelts, gold, clam shells, steel axes, pigs, diamonds, etc. the elements by which financial success is measured, so be it.

If you do not have enough food to survive, it does not matter how much gold one has.

I assume the Mayans had lots of gold, but it did not help them. The same with the Egyptians. Grave robbers in search of gold only came in relatively modern times.

No matter how much gold one had, corp failure after crop failure could not be improved on with gold or expensive dances held by priests.

Neither could the crop failures of the 30's in the mid west be prevented. Nor the dying of the fisheries on the east coast.

Those types of disturbances are not brought about by financial mismanagement. Some are brought on by resource missmanagement, others by acts of God that no one could do much about.

Tell me, what is your personal "real wealth"? Your house? car? clothes? books? Gold? Money? Knowledge? Skills? Attitude? Tendency to succeed at things you do? Tenacity?

Lots of ignorance on this site and Gore has made over 250 million so far, laughing all the way to the bank.

From the “weather is not climate” department. 815 new snowfall records, 304 low temperature, and 403 lowest max temperature records were set this week in the U.S. alone. Edmonton hit 46 below, a record.

Check these sites for education, icecap.us, wattsupwiththat.com, climateaudit.org, www.friendsofscience.org, www.climate4you.com

I was a warmer once but after some research I have the guts to say I am now a skeptic. I know lots of people on this site and other sites are in so deep to say they are wrong. It would be too embarresing for a turnaround. Also a closet skeptic taking research grants, say at UNBC for one, on climate change would be committing financial sucide if they admitted to being a skeptic.

I bad, I left my diesel truck running for half hour this morning. Yep, it was nice and toasty in the truck.

so whats all this talk about global warming. Stepped outside..... no fruit trees in the front yard yet.

my thoughs, I agree. We will not go out of our way to be wasteful. We will try to recycle what we can, and use as little as possible. But damn it, I like to keep the house warm by the most effective manner. Wood heat comes out of a energy efficient stove. Hi-efficency furnace, Hot water on demand, and a 2008 duramax. We try to do our part, but we work hard, and we should enjoy the fruits of our labor.

All the bleeding hearts probably live in homes with drafty windows, mid efficient furnace, hot water tank and run a gas guzzling 1990's crap cars. They probably have not yet figured out that the education system is run by a bunch of left wingers, and still clinging on to the high school knowledge.

Seamutt wrote: "Lots of ignorance on this site ...."

Wow!!!!! could not aggree with you more..!!!

The following quotations are not about global warming or the cause of the rise in average earth temperature but about climate change. The change is a fact, just as registering the change in rising water temperature as it is being heated is a fact.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

From the above site
----------------------------------

Is our climate changing?

Experts generally agree that the Earth is warming up. How much this has been directly attributed to or caused by human activity—the effects of which are extremely difficult to assess—is not clear, though increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are more than likely taking their toll. What is clear is that, globally, 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded and eight of the 10 other top annual mean temperatures have occurred during the last decade. The upturn has likely been responsible for melting ice sheets in both polar regions. Mountain glaciers around the world have been on the wane as well. A rise in global mean sea level of between 0.09 and 0.88 metres by 2100 has been projected, mainly due to the thermal expansion of sea-water and loss of mass from ice caps and glaciers.
-------------------------

How will this affect our climate over the coming century? (note, not over the coming year)

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) projects an increase of globally averaged surface temperatures of 2.1 to 6.1 degrees Celsius, compared to the middle of the 20th century, by 2100. Nearly all land areas are projected to experience more hot days and heat waves and fewer cold days and cold waves. In a warmer world, the hydrological cycle becomes more intense, with heavier and more frequent precipitation and flooding in many areas. Increased summer drying and associated risk of drought over most mid-latitude continental interiors are also predicted. Climate change is expected to decrease water availability in arid and semi-arid regions, which could lead to a doubling of the population living with water scarcity in the next 30 years. Areas affected by diseases such as malaria (and waterborne illnesses) could well expand, while crop models indicate a decrease in yields for tropical and sub-tropical areas. It has also been calculated that a rise of more than a few degrees would trigger a fall in plant productivity throughout most regions of the world. IPCC has started work on its Fifth Assessment Report, aimed at refining a number of the previous conclusions, but the whole report, which requires the coordinated work of about 2000 scientists, will not be completed before 2014.
------------------------------

What is the difference between climate change and climate variability?

Climate variability is the term used to describe a range of weather conditions that, averaged together, describe the “climate” of a region. In some parts of the world, or in any region for certain time periods or parts of the year, this variability can be weak, i.e. there is not much difference in the conditions within that time period. However, in other places or time periods, conditions can swing across a large range, from freezing to very warm, or from very wet to very dry, thereby exhibiting strong variability. A certain amount of this is understood and accepted by the region’s inhabitants. Occasionally, an event or sequence of events occurs that has never been witnessed or recorded before, such as the exceptional hurricane season in the Atlantic in 2005 (though even that could be part of natural climate variability). If such a season does not recur within say, the next 30 years, we would look back and call it an exceptional year, but not a harbinger of change. For the scientific community to recognize a change in climate, a shift has to occur, and persist for quite a long time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is conducting considerable efforts in trying to determine, for various hydrometeorological hazards (e.g. tropical cyclones and tornadoes) and for related events (e.g. flash floods), whether their occurrence is affected by human-induced climate change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report provides evidence that climate change affects the frequency and (or) intensity of some of those events, but further work is under way to refine those findings and prepare a more comprehensive assessment as part of a Special Report to be published in 2011.
---------------

The temperatures you are feeling these days in PG is well within the climate variability at any given point of the earth at any given time. It means nothing in the bigger scheme of things. It does not point to either warming or cooling.

Even the fact that there is an iceberg twice the size of Manhatten floating somewhere around Australia may be within that variability. Ice caps continually receding are not.

Gus, personal "real wealth" would include all that which adds to our "well being".

Overall, "real wealth" would include all of the nation's resources, both natural and human, and the vast body of knowledge that's been accumulated and is continually being added to in regards to not only utilizing them, but in increasing the efficiency in better utilizing them to serve our individual needs. 'Physically' we have made vast strides in doing just this. But 'Financially' much of our actual progress continues to be increasingly mis-represented. And this is one of the main causes of Man's deleterious effects on his natural environment, premature resource depletion, etc.

I would not include either "gold", in the sense that it has been used as "money" in times past, nor modern "money" itself in this description. But rather recognize that it's our knowledge, or apparent lack of it, of how to use 'money' that's important.

That both of them merely represent "financial credit" which should, but currently is not, an accurate numerical reflection of "real credit", i.e., a correct estimate of the RATE at which goods and services can actually be provided as, when, and where required. Currently the two are becoming increasingly divorced, and instead of the "figures" reflecting the "facts", as they could, and should, do, we increasing try to bend the "facts" to fit the "figures". Carbon Taxes, and Cap and Trade Schemes, are perfect examples of this type of perverted thinking.

Seamutt posted:
From the “weather is not climate” department. 815 new snowfall records, 304 low temperature, and 403 lowest max temperature records were set this week in the U.S. alone. Edmonton hit 46 below, a record.
---------------------------
Hey nice objective post there Seamutt.... LOL
--------------------

To which gus posts ....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252

See if you can trump that one Seamutt ....
----------------------

for those who do not like to click through to other sites ... just some "local" statments from 2009 on it:

California
California is facing its worst drought in recorded history. The drought is predicted to be the most severe in modern times, worse than those in 1977 and 1991. Thousands of acres of row crops already have been fallowed, with more to follow. The snowpack in the Northern Sierra, home to some of the state's most important reservoirs, proved to be just 49 percent of average. Water agencies throughout the state are scrambling to adopt conservation mandates.

Texas
The Texan drought is reaching historic proportion . Dry conditions near Austin and San Antonio have been exceeded only once before—the drought of 1917-18. 88 percent of Texas is experiencing abnormally dry conditions, and 18 percent of the state is in either extreme or exceptional drought conditions. The drought areas have been expanding almost every month. Conditions in Texas are so bad cattle are keeling over in parched pastures and dying. Lack of rainfall has left pastures barren, and cattle producers have resorted to feeding animals hay. Irreversible damage has been done to winter wheat crops in Texas. Both short and long-term forecasts don't call for much rain at all, which means the Texas drought is set to get worse.

Augusta Region (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina)
The Augusta region has been suffering from a worsening two year drought. Augusta's rainfall deficit is already approaching 2 inches so far in 2009, with January being the driest since 1989.

Florida
Florida has been hard hit by winter drought, damaging crops, and half of state is in some level of a drought.

La Niña likely to make matters worse
Enough water a couple of degrees cooler than normal has accumulated in the eastern part of the Pacific to create a La Niña, a weather pattern expected to linger until at least the spring. La Niña generally means dry weather for Southern states, which is exactly what the US doesn't need right now.

....priceless... this long smelly pile of comments should be on the comedy network.....best ironic comedy I've read in a long time. Good for all of you!

Let's see if I can summarize...

"I've got it all figured out, the rest of you are all idiots!"

Hey, I got an idea, We will hook up a whole bunch of garden hoses and string it down to California. We will put our end in on Ootsa Lake, the other end, we will tell them to suck on this.

oh, i just witnessed global warming. it was -35 this morning, now its -34.

So our buddies, India and China is boycotting the party at Copenhagen. And the Americans are not signed up with Kyoto anyway.

I'm gonna do my own thing too.

Make up your mind. Is the topic Copenhagen or is it the recording of climate change over the last decades, centuries or millenia? The two are considerably different.

Start with something that has some measurability to it.

Causal factors are another thing.

What, if anything, can be done about it is a third separate thing.

Some of you have not learned your Sesame Street lesson yet about which of the four things (in their case) is different. It is one of the most important lessons one has to learn in life and it can be taught from the early years on ....
:-)

Woah, Gus, its not like you to loose it.

"Some of you have not learned your Sesame Street lesson yet about which of the four things (in their case) is different."

Cute Gus! Sesame Street taught me that C is for cookie not climate change or Copenhagen!

However, the meeting in Copenhagen and climate change are interlinked. Therefore they are not as distinct as you are trying to assert. I do agree that there is considerable variance on the list of "solutions" put forth by global leaders. Their "solutions" seem far more political than practical, IMO.

Why object to using geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, wave energy?

Fossil fuels are sources of GHG - green house gas. They also cause a lot of other pollution which is detrimental to our health and the environment!

How many environments do we have so we can switch from the one we live in now to another one?

One only: there is no other.

Even if the combustion of fossil fuels DOES NOT contribute to global warming and we reduce it as much as possible at least we will ultimately have a cleaner environment by gradually switching to renewable energy.

Eventually global coal, oil and natural gas reserves will be exhausted in any case and why wait until the day before that happens to go to alternatives?

Obviously arguments about the cause of global warming will rage on for many more years and the vested interests in fossil fuel industries will do everything in their power to make sure the confusion continues.

Why not get a jump on the inevitable and get cracking with the new non-polluting technologies?

Sure it will cost money to do this, but why pour more money into the old when it should go into the new?

From the dicussion here it is clear that there is a lot to discuss. Thats my beef with the whole 'the science is settled' argument. It isnt, science never is. WHile recent evidence suggesting collusion and possibly ev en fraud in the scientific community do not disprove the theory of man made global warming, they do pretty much eradicate the whole skeptics as heretics arguments.
I am glad not everyone is given to hyperbole. I would suggest though, that we, as a generation left this planet a hell of a lot better than we found it (or at least we will when we finally kick the bucket). Longer life spans, better living conditions, more leisure and wealth, you name it. This applies to most places on earth which we, as westerners have real input on. Its true, the wildlife of the world might think we suck, but our children ought not to think that way.
I applaud the folks out there for acting on their convictions, just as i do those people who go to church on sunday, even when they have something 'better' to do. I do not, however consider either of these religious groups as being morally superior to me, just because i do not believe in their religion. For those of you scolding people for not being supportive, you might want to consider whether you would do the same to folks going door to door looking trying to save peoples souls...
By they way, there is more at stake than a few bucks worth of taxes on your fuel. Have any of you read about the australian hunger striker? Any would be farmers ought to see where Kyoto took the australians before they go supporting the creation of a world government in copenhagen.
And by the way, we have ALWAYS run out of things on a local basis (if we even had them in the first place). As well, i was told by the enviro/media crazies of the day that we were going to run out of fossil fuels by now (this was in the '70's). That is, of course if fuel use remained constant (it was a call for fuel efficient cars). Of course, fuel use has skyrocketed and yet we still have 40 years worth of proven reserves.... THATS why people who have been around a little bit are skeptical about the crisis crowd. We have seen it and heard it before.

So Gus what does that prove. Some droughts are land use issues and considering the size of the earth your mentioned droughts cover very little area.

Here is something on snowpacks "In this story on Sustainable Oregon, George shows how choosing start and end dates makes all the difference in trend analysis. This is true because precipitation trends in the northwest are linked to the PDO cycle of 60 or so years. In the cold phase, La Ninas and heavy snowpacks are common (like the last two years) and in the warm phase, El Ninos and drier winters (as was the case from the 1970s to late 1990s). By cherry picking his start data as 1950 at the very snowy start of the cold PDO phase from 1947 to 1977 and ending in 1997 at the end of the drier warm PDO phase from 1979 to 1998, Mote was able to extract a false signal which he attributed to man made global warming."

Note about Texas " Meanwhile, after some early spring like warmth, an early spring snowstorms is in the cards for the central plains including the drought stricken western high plains from Colorado and western Kansas south to the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles. 12 plus inches is likely to fall Friday to Saturday."

As warmers like to say, if its cold and wet thats weather, If its hot a dry thats climate.

Maybe if I refuse to buy carbon credits, it might warm up. Or sumthin' like that.

Too bad people are not as interested in a cleaner environment as they are in endless arguments.

Some of you go too far. You say that the world is warming, and concede that it may or not be due to humans, so far so good. . However, if the planet is warming or the climate is changing then why exactly do we assume that we can do anything about it? YOU may have swallowed the global warming argument and include statements like 'most scientists agree' so it only makes sense that YOU believe that rising CO2 levels are causing global climate change. However, if we are not causing climate change, it stands to reason that we cant prevent it either, esp. if solar cycles are to blame or if the CO2 levels are an effect, rather than a cause.
I dont get Gus' point though. Are we all being told we have to agree that the weather is changing otherwise we are too stupid for sesame street? OK thats easy. I agree, the weather is changing (as it always has, we are after all still emerging from the last ice age) so I guess i am smart. But then there are all the IPCC projections he posted... does that mean we have to agree that the models (which have so far failed to predict any weather) are also valid? If i dont, do i fail the sesame test? Is there not some linkage between acceptance of all the 'facts' used in the climate debate and the likelihood of copenhagen producing some real 'results'.
This isnt really a sesame street kind of debate. Climate change vs warming is a significant distinction, the latter being necessary for EVERY disaster scenario promoted by those in favour of major energy reform. The actual cause of climate change is of prime importance because it is central to determining what, if anything we CAN do about climate change/warming.
It is misdirection to suggest that people are against alternative energy. People are against paying two, three or more times as much for their heat and transportation. They are also against the idea of punishing first world economies to subsidize third world ones. This is esp true when one considers that A: not all countries are likely to sign on and B: it is unclear whether we will end up sending money and business to china (if it is considered a developing nation). What's more, the efforts taken to curb mans effect on the environment go beyond taxation and cap and trade. Australia, for one, prohibits land clearing on vast portions of its territory. Farmers were SUPPOSED to be compensated but i take it this hasnt really happened.
By the way, if you know anything about european lifestyles you will not resort to using them as models for our nation. Canadians would not choose to live the tightly regulated and largely limited lives of the europeans I know. Nor are the economies of virtually any of these nations as solid as our own. We are not europeans, we (hopefully) never will be. Lets not argue what could or could not be done here based on folks who are nothing like us.

By Robert Felix

6 Jul 09

Dear Senator Begich,

As someone who loves my country, I urge you to vote NO on the upcoming Control-and-Tax bill, a bill purportedly designed to fight “global warming.”

What global warming?

Senator Begich, are you aware that glaciers are growing in your own state?

Yes, glaciers are growing in Alaska.

According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), glaciers are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years. In May, Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet per day - more than half-a-mile per year. And in Icy Bay, at least three glaciers have advanced one-third of a mile in one year, said Chris Larsen, a scientist at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Senator Begich, I wish you would ask the USGS for a list of glaciers in Alaska, and ask them to tell you - honestly - which ones are growing. I have a feeling that there are more glaciers growing in Alaska than any of us have been told.

My fear is that that there is a giant cover up going on, especially given the fact that glaciers are also growing in California (Mt. Shasta) and Washington (Mt. Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Glacier Peak).

Every time I read about another growing glacier, I’m told that it’s “the only glacier in the world that is bucking the global warming trend.”

But that’s not true.

Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Argentina, is growing. Pio XI Glacier, the largest glacier in Chile, is growing. Glaciers are growing on Mt. Logan, the tallest mountain in Canada. Glaciers are growing on Mt. Blanc, the tallest mountain in France.

Glaciers (230 of them) are growing in the Western Himalayas. Glaciers are growing in Norway. Recently, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand were growing. Glaciers in Greenland are growing thicker. And contrary to what we’ve being told, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, not shrinking.

More than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing, but all that we hear about are the ones that are shrinking.

Not only are glaciers growing around the world, temperatures are dropping precipitously.

Are you aware that low temperature records were set in 46 states during the month of June? According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), some 538 low temperature records were set in June alone.

This temperature drop is not restricted to the United States.

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that the earth has cooled an astounding 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.

diplomat you are confusing cleaner enviroment with Co2 chasing.

Hey seamutt, according to the USGS, Alaskan glaciers are "Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating" as per a Oct. 2008 report.

Who the heck is Robert Felix and why is he wrong?

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033

Robert Felix is an author, not a scientist.

Robert Felix knows that controversy sells books ands pays for speaker tours.

Robert Felix, like a carney, knows there is a sucker born every minute.

Robert Felix does not believe in Darwin's version of evolution.

Robert Felix does not believe in Global wraming.

Robert Felix, the non-scientist, has his own theory - magnetic reversal causes climate change. It also figures largely in his version of evolutionary change.

Of course, Robert Felix's version is much more believable than anyone else's version because, after all, he is a simple person who looks at things logically and has found the missing link.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/06/darwin-got-it-wrong-and-it%E2%80%99s-not-what-you%E2%80%99re-thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Exactly my point gus. Too many people only read stuff that they agree with or supports their view. Somebody else made this point and it was a good one, if you're not going to read critically, you're a pawn.

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 Years
By Michael Asher, Daily Tech

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area’s recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

“In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound”, said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years”. “On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August.”

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it’s been a “long time” since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance—an increase in the total amount of ice they contain. Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers. Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time—an area the size of Connecticut. One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn’t exist at all—only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn’t mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age. As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007. Read more.



Alaska is cooling due to the cooling Pacific (negative PDO) and likely low solar activity which produced a cold and snowy winter and spring and cloudy cold summer. This is the inverse of the step warming that took place in 1979 when the PDO went positive andf the sun neared the Grand Maximum.

Edmonton’s weather boasted two dubious distinctions Sunday: it was colder here than anywhere else in North America and it marked the coldest Dec. 13 in the city’s history. Environment Canada recorded a frigid minus 46.1 C (-51F), or minus 58.4 C with the wind chill, at the Edmonton International Airport at 5 a.m., said meteorologist Pierre Lessard. The old record of minus 36.1 C was set last year.

“To break a temperature by 10 degrees C (19F) is very exceptional,” said Lessard. The temperature record from Edmonton’s city centre was also broken Sunday, said meteorologist John McIntyre. Environment Canada recorded a temperature of minus 36.5 C downtown at 8 a.m. Sunday, beating the previous record for the day of minus 32.8 C in 1882, McIntyre said.