I don't think so...
Then Hydor will belly ache that tehy aren't makeing any money ad raise their rates again...

OH NO!!!!....not the tree lights...oh my god!!!!!

now we should all stop driving for a month maby they would lower the gas.1.02 a liter in vancouver and 1.22 a liter in pg.wat a scam?????

I'm looking forward to tonight. I love sitting around with the kids and hearing what's on their minds. Cute and honest.
My oldest daughter is so kind hearted she already goes behind me and says,"Mom turn off the light and save the polar bears!"

Her idea to bring in our bottles and donate the money to SPCA....I still need to do.

:)

I know sometimes I may seem i'm in dreamland but is there going to be any sort of sattelite taking pictures of the earth tonight?

ah...can i come over heidi.

"....is there going to be any sort of sattelite taking pictures of the earth tonight?"

It won't have to use its flash if there is. There'll be plenty of light from our house, and all of us opposed to this mindless, further pre-tax grabbing, it's all human caused, global-warming propaganda.

socredible - do you have grandchildren?

Foo738 do you like people getting filthy rich of this scam. Folks sorry to say but the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years. The polar bears are not under any threat. Why do people believe all this hype from mainstream media and not do their own reseach before handing over money is beyond me. I have a slightly worn wooden bridge for sale, just trust me, its in great shape, trust me, just send the money.

I DO have grandchildren and I would rather they grew up questioning the real reasons behind much of this mindless global- warming bulls**t that we are all supposed to buy into.
With "buy" being the key word!
There is no doubt SOME of what we are told is true, and we need to be aware of that,but a very LARGE percentage of it is fear mongering to generate dollars for some opportunist who figured out how to turn a buck on it!
Hey,it worked for the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki did it not?
Our governments would also be right at the top of the list of opportunists.
Can you say "carbon tax"?
If the words are not familiar to anyone,they soon will be!

lol......socredible.

A lot greater minds than ours have looked at this and yes the planet is warming. But if you want to bury your head in the sand, go for it foo. Next you will be saying the holocaust didn’t happen.

After you turn your lights back on , go ahead
and book your trip to Mexico ?
Makes you feel good saving on energy.

I am curious. Who will be making money from turning the lights off for an hour?

There was a relationship I learned in school.

As the a debate deteriorates the probability of a hitler reference goes to 1.

And really, there is absolutely no reason for even associating this global warming issue to the holocaust.

I for one will not be turning off my lights tonight, I have built up enough carbon credits in the last 5 years while I was a student that I feel I can leave the lights on tonight. I have consumed way below the average person for so long I figure I have built up enough "credits" to double my "carbon footprint" for the next 5 years. I don't really see a diference in this than the scam of purchasing carbon offsets.

Just like when they fear mongered everybody in 1999 when all the computers where supposed to crash...somebody made money off that too!

Weezer, that sounds like something Hitler would say!

For all you who believe the hype about global warming, check out icecap.us

Doneright, these guys have great minds.

Thats www.icecap.us

Well the restaurant that I work at is going to at least dim the light and turn off some but try and reduce energy for mother earth. Candles will be available and will be somewhat romantic even though we are a family style restaurant. eh what the heck its for a good cause.

doneright: "Next you will be saying the holocaust didn’t happen."

Holocausts happen all the time, like the one that has been done to the civilian population of Iraq. Perhaps you mean that one? Or Stalin's? No, of course not.

On the topic: If people wish to believe that the combustion of many billions of tonnes of carbon based fuels annually for the last 100 years or so is without any consequences - well, then the propaganda of the oil companies still works!

Remember the Marlboro Man and how good for your health smoking was advertised to be?

Ignore the signs (warming, pollution, melting glaciers, crop failures, weird weather patterns...) and suffer the consequences of not doing things differently.

BTW: Just watched a DVD movie called *Global Warning* - not global warming. Very interesting.

weezerfan I was a single mother of three a few years ago living off my student loan ONLY, well and child tax, while taking a course and my heat was cut off in my home I was living in at the time that the bank was taking back.....ooooops on me.(Too bad I didn't read Suzy Orman's book before all this happened). The course I took was from Oct.-March sooo yes bbbrrrr.(Used a heater) So really i've banked quite a bit of "you owe me so i'm not going to bother" attitude...lol.... NOT! That's silly.
Tonight i'm turning my everything electrical off because i'm trying to look outside of the political box.

Diplomat is this what you meant?
http://www.leonardodicaprio.org/whatsimportant/globalwarming_movie01.htm

Can't wait to watch it now.

For those who do not want to participate, this event is not for you anyway. It's for those who want to. So, why all the opposition? What does it matter to you? Focus your energies on something you would rather do. Chester

icecap, icecap, icecap........alright we get it!!

I think, Chester, it's because it's constantly being rammed down peoples throats.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Follow the white rabbit folks... ;)
Seriously, the link is from the National Resources Defense Council... Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.
The only reason Al Gore got in to politics was because of this very issue.
All we humans are about is consumption, it is important to minimize our footprint in this world for future generations. There is nothing wrong with recycling, composting and preserving our natural resources and looking for other "friendly" sources of heating, etc.
So turning your lights off for one hour isn't to make anybody rich or solve the problem... only to draw attention to it. What is WRONG with that?

There was a time when some poor guy nearly got burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth was not at the center of the Universe.

Then there were the people, and still are, that claimed no Jews were murdered by the millions.

Then there were the people who - some doctors even - claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS.

Suppose every generation has to have it's own head in the sand types. No matter how much evidence you come up with to prove a theory there will always be the arrogant and prideful who will never admit they are wrong. It's been going on since the beginning of time and will most likely never end. The global change deniers are simply our generation of these people.

Ignore them and get on with the business of saving our world.

Ah Al Gore and consumption now there is a good relationship. His home burns more energy in a month than most homes do in a year. Good old Al is so scared of sealevel rise that he bought a condo on the San Fransico water front. In England his fictional movie cannot be shown in schools without a disclamer pointing out that most of it is fiction.

How 'bout I walk to work more often or do something else that's actually useful? I have no prob with conservation. I have a BIG problem with people jumping into the latest flavor of the weak with both feet. Wanna turn off your lights? Go nuts. I won't try & stop you. I celebrate Earth 8 Hours every night.

BTW - what about all the toxic candle smoke? Huh?

Also, Al Gore is one annoying dude. So is that Suzuki dipshit for that matter. They need some kind of eco spokes-hottie to really get peoples attention.

Kevin1006:"Then there were the people who - some doctors even - claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS."

Then there are some Bible thumping preachers who claim that AIDS was sent by God to punish homosexuals....

If we don't learn to live without turning our environment into a hellishly polluted wasteland - who are we going to blame THAT on?

Some inescapable predictions? Al Gore and David Suzuki are like the proverbial canary in the mineshaft!

One would think that the horrible breathing air in Prince George would be sufficient evidence of what industrial pollution can do in our very own backyard...well, perhaps evidence is not enough.

Multiply our pollution by that produced by 6.4 BILLION more humans and their industrial complexes and gas guzzling chariots...

I'll switch off the lights for an hour because the statement made by that is important.

I am going to turn the lights off, turn the heat down, put on a warm jacket, get in the car and not go anywhere and not turn on the engine.

In preparation, I took a picture of an idle free zone sign, ran it through the printer, laminated it and hung it up on the front of the garage.

So, I will save electricity, gasoline, natural gas, reduce pollution considerably and use up calories to keep my body warm, so well loose some weight.

After the hour is up, I will go in, turn on the heat and electricity, get back into the car and drive to do the errands I had to do anyway, just an hour later now, and then come back home and stay up an hour longer to finish off the work I had to do tonight, so will keep the heat and the lights on for an hour longer than I would otherwise have.

All in all, a great exercise of solidarity.

As far as impacting the footprint I made on the earth, I have not done a thing.

Homo sapiens is an interesting species.

*s*

Maybe someone should stockpile weapons of mess destruction, namely them new fandangled light bulbs with the mercury in them. Lob a few in some strategic places and have the Haz Mat teams come in and work overtime. I understand mercury is kinda dangerous. Right now only in tuna and dental fillings. Oh by the way, I'm gonna get me a few cases of them real incandescent type light bulbs and sell them in the underground economy when it will become against the law to use them one day. What a rebel I will become.

I noticed (couldn't help but) that there was no comment section for that missing transsexual feller. What? Are commenters not to be trusted about this to be nice?

In my history at school I was told that we were all covered in Ice a few thou. years ago did some one forget to turn the lights off then/???

Harb, we both know the sh*t will hit the fan no matter what you say on that one.

A few more generations down the road then everything will be acceptable and understood. In the meantime just be nice. It won't kill ya. I'm nice. Sorta.

diplomat, pollution is the issue, C02 is not pollution. My concern is money wasted chasing C02, which could be much better spent on the enviroment. The money is going the wrong way. Turns out recent research is showing the earth in a cooling trend that is why the warmers are starting to make so much noise right now. They see their golden egg disappearing and are in panic mode.

Anyone notice google has gone to blackout mode-cute.

I already have a stock pile of the regular light bulbs that we all know and love!
A bit premature I know....but the new style doesn't fit in my trouble light and I break a lot!
Some things are important!
If I broke as many of the mercury type,they would find me dead in my shop from mercury poisoning!

The light bulb thing is bullshit of the highest order. I hate cfl.

"I'll switch off the lights for an hour because the statement made by that is important." Exactly! :) Awareness to cut down is important. Little things like unplugging appliances like the toaster and can opener to prevent unnecessary leaks of electricity. Baby steps.

Like hell I'm turning my lights off!
Maybe Al Gore and his family should move out of his mansion that uses 12 times the power as a regular home.
Maybe HE should stop flying his jet all over the place preaching about global warming.
I ain't turnming any lights off, I'm turning more lights ON!

Why don't all those who worry so much about the negative impact human beings have on Mother Earth, and how we're running out of all the vital resources they say we should be saving for our grandchildren, (presumably so they can 'save' them for their grandchildren, too, if they have any, that is, and so on), all go commit mass suicide?

Follow the founder of Earth First! Dave Foreman's sage wisdom that, "Every societal and environmental problem could be solved by phasing out the human race". They could set a good example for the rest of us by phasing themselves out first.

Do they honestly think the Earth would then cool off enough to save the cute little polar bears? Which are becoming a bloody nuisance in the north, 'cause they'd sooner feed on dumped garbage on dry land than go after seals by diving off some ice flow. Or that would keep Antarctica frozen, and the Northwest Passage, a centuries old dream, still impassible?

Just look at how whacked out their thinking is. You reduce power consumption by turning out your lights for one hour. The thermal plants in Alberta and Montana, which burn COAL, and from whom BC Hydro buys lower cost power during periods of reduced demand, (which would be on a Saturday night at the 'lights out' hour, while it's own hydro generators are shut down), can't 'store' that power. They then have to run their steam turbines at a reduced capacity, which means their thermal plants can't operate at peak efficiency, and this just dumps MORE pollutants into the air. But that's okay, because we're "making a statement" that we're so concerned about global warming. That we dare not use any of the resources Mother Earth has to offer, "because we might run out." Give your heads a shake. You won't hear any 'brains' rattling around in them.

What did i miss? I was asleep on the couch and every light in the house was on.

Sure was bright in here. I don't think I've had all the lights on at once before. Anyhow someday the sun is going to fart, and poof, problem solved.

During this hour of darkness I had a lot of lights on. I went on Youtube and listened to Orson Wells do his radio program about invading Martians. Back then the gullible public only had radios. Everything from it was the gospel. I was the truth. Now we have global warming/climate change scaring

us into being paranoid. It sure shook up a lot of bozos back then. Methinks Al and Dave took a lesson from Orson and have learned how to manipulate the masses. But this is my opinion. I'm a denier. I need help. Got something like AA?

Just wait til next Friday. Have I got a website fer you guys. You just wait.

I am in full agreement with NOT buying into this farce. What a joke. The planet is in a natural trend. Scientists have again stated that recently. Ah well, but it feels good doesn't it? To do something...ya sure, sure. Now as for the carbon credits...if we do this until 2010 we will have exchanged the use of all that power to light up Vancouver AND Whistler for the length of the games.

So go ahead..get in the spirit.

*shakes head at the silliness of it all*

The word 'wealth' in its original meaning was 'well-being'. That being so, your 'well-being' depends on what you CONSUME, not what you 'save'. The roast of beef in the freezer won't nourish you one iota until it's thawed, and cooked, and eaten. It's impossible for you, or anyone else, to get any "well-being" out of it in any 'real' sense whatsoever while it's still a frozen hunk of meat in the fridge.

Yet we have people here who are in a lather that we're running out of this, or running out of that, and life on earth will end if we don't start to 'save' our limited supplies of whatever "for our grandchildren".

Have you never heard of "discovery" and "invention"? The "progress of the indistrial arts"? Do you realize that we've already run out of many things, or would have, had not somebody discovered ,or invented, something that substituted for it? Often times something far better than the original?

There is NOTHING that is VITAL to man's needs that is in short supply on planet Earth. Nothing. Not one thing. If there were, we would have perished long ago.

There are, of course, artificial shortages, mostly through the disconnect between 'money', the financial representation of things, and those things themselves.

But in these instances it's the 'money' that's in short supply, and kept that way, not the actual 'things' it's supposed to properly represent. And that kind of shortage can be easily rectified.

We 'waste' more of the resources we're supposedly so concerned about running out of doing things we DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO. Trying to make the FACTS fit the FIGURES, instead of as it should be, the other way around. And if we do someday actually run out of all those things that we fear we're going to, it'll be for that reason, and no other.

There is only a shortage until the price goes up.

I turned mine off. Felt good.

Same here foo. We're not freaky about it, we just are more aware that we left a tv on in a room with nobody in it type thing. Works for us! Instead of having the tv, xbox, computer and lights on, which usually separates us into doing our own things, kids and I went for a walk together. So we got more out of it than trying to make a statement for one hour. Worked for us in many ways. Well this is nothing new to us but it just reminded us of what we forget after a long winter.

Okay, seamutt, I guess you are one of the thousands of world class scientists doing research on this? DOUBT IT! They have done studies, they aren't making this up as some sort of money grab/scam. Get you head out of your ass and quit being a stupid redneck!!! You are probably all over that bio energy joke of a plan for downtown too. I shake my head and roll my eyes!

If the burning of fossil fuels would just produce clean CO2 by the billions of tonnes annually we would be looking at just one issue.

However, almost every comment made here completely ignores the fact that the combustion of fossil fuels produces vast varying amounts of other contaminants like sulfur dioxide (ever heard of acid rain?) and mercury (ever heard of crippling mercury poisoning).

Smog. Where does that come from? Why is there a need to have breathing booths in downtown Tokyo where people who are gasping for a breath of clean air can stagger in to get a life saving fix?

With a net increase in the world's population of approximately 70 million new human beings each and every year it isn't good enough or smart to simply joke about and dismiss the obvious need to clean up our air and water before everything has gone to pot.

Go ahead and argue about whether a few billion tonnes of CO2 spewed annually into the earth's atmosphere causes climate change or not when kept up for a couple of centuries - the combustion process of fossil fuels is not a clean neutral natural process.

Until it can be made pollution neutral mankind has a huge problem. Over 1800 of the world's most renowned scientists (not politicians or CEOs of oil companies) submitted their conclusion about the causes of global warming to the United Nations global climate committee. Are they all a bunch of idiots?

"I turned mine off. Felt good."

Brighter the better kept mine on

turned off. so did half my block. probably just gave powerex more surplus power to sell on the grid. why not?

hopefully those who don't want to conserve don't bitch when fuel and energy prices go up!

I turned off electrical things for two hours last night, one hour wasnt long enough. It was great, had a bath and relaxed with candles and my better half. Considered it to be my daily workout session. I might have started a new saturday night event. :-)

Diplomat, the solution to pollution is dilution. But what do we do? We try to pack MORE people into areas, like Vancouver and its suburbs that already have MORE people in them than they should have.

Why does somebody who goes to an office every day to stare into a computer screen have to to it in downtown Vancouver? They could just as easily do that in some of the entirely habitable smaller places we seem to be so hell-bent on de-populating.
The only reason we seem to follow this mindless policy of endless concentration seems to be that we can't currently PAY FOR what we do FROM what we do.

We can only pay for it from what we're DOING, or are going to HAVE TO DO. "Financially", we're living by constantly mortgaging our future, but "economically" we're really living off the products of the past.

A simple change in the accounting processes could easily rectify that. Without that change we're going to continue to 'waste' more of our resources than we 'use', to the point where population growth really will become a problem, (though we'll undoubtedly phase billions out by war long before that happens.)

Well, you are making some good points, but the solution to pollution in my opinion is not dilution (dispersing it over a wider area) but reduction.

robichal settle down man, you got issues, wow what a mature response. Oh by the way if you would do some little research you find that there are also hundreds of scientists that disagree and more everyday. Climate change is natural, what effect man might play is not resolved.

But that dilution IS 'reducing' it in ratio to the whole, Diplomat. Not that there are not other ways, through "discovery" and "invention" that we are also going to be able to utilize to reduce pollution, too. And we've made great strides in those areas over the last hundred years, and will make more still in the future.

And we could certainly enhance our 'progress' in those areas if we took steps to make those "discoveries" MORE affordable, instead of continually penalizing us by more taxes. Driving us further and further into debt to try to get us to do what we would do anyways, if only we HAD the 'money' with which to do it.

Robichal, "scientific studies" are often funded by those who have an interest, (often a 'controlling' interest, or desire to have one), in propagandizing the results the "scientists" are hired to find evidence to support.

It's called the 'deductive' method. You set down your desired premise first, in this case that man causes global warming, and then select all the evidence you can to try to support it.

True science is based on the 'inductive' method, which arrives at a final result by looking at ALL the evidence, not just 'selected' parts of it designed to support a pre-determined conclusion.

Here are some interesting websites to check out. My favourite is icecap.us. Chack the links in these sites. www.friendsofscience.org http://icecap.us

http://nzclimatescience.net www.junkscience.com www.co2science.org

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

I don't agree that dispersing or diluting pollution does anything to reduce it in a closed system like the finite atmospheric layer of air that envelopes the surface of the planet.

Its volume and mass have been calculated, as have the % concentration of gases that it consists of. From that it can be calculated scientifically how much of a greenhouse effect will result from higher concentrations of a greenhouse gas such as CO2.

To dismiss the educated combined verdict of 1800 distinguished scientists as worthless is something that makes no sense when it is not even true that these scientists were hired by special interest groups or paid to come up with a *more convenient truth* which would of course ignore the facts.

To simply disregard the scientific value of the statement they made to the UN and the warning that it contained is a somewhat arrogant if not ignorant disregard for the personal integrity of these scientific minds.

Arrrrgh!

I wouldn't put too much faith in ANYTHING the UN has anything much to do with. You can believe me, or not, but the UN, like its failed predecessor, the League of Nations, (and the EU), has a very definite agenda it intends to pursue, and disseminating propaganda on human caused 'global warming' is a very important part of it.

You will never see the UN, nor the EU, advocate that the local needs of each member country should be supplied locally first, wherever possible.

Instead, they promote much of the very 'internationalist' philosophy that makes, and keeps, human beings slaves to those who control the world's finances.

And through making us continually try to fit physical 'facts' to pre-determined 'figures' over which WE presently have little or no control, force us to do far more that is genuinely detrimental to our natural environment than would otherwise be the case.

Which they then argue is all OUR fault, and being so, we should be penalized for our "debt to Nature". 'Financially' penalized, that is, to keep us in bondage and under THEIR control. It's nothing new. The same idea was visited on the peasantry of ancient Egypt when Pharaoh bought into Joseph's corn racket.

Do we ever hear Dr. Suzuki, or Al Gore get up on their high horse and rail against the absolute insanity of shipping raw materials half way around the world to be processed, and the finished products half way back again to be sold? Does the good Dr., who is supposed to be a 'scientist', or any of those other 'scientists' of the same ilk, ever calculate how much pollutants THAT puts into the atmosphere?


Especially when the processing is done in countries that have no regard whatsoever for the pollution their completely unscrubbed, un-precipitated, coal burning smokestacks are belching forth? Places where the 'value' of human life is in how much the corpse might fetch as 'body parts', after its been worked to death, or succumbed to some workplace accident caused by an abscence of even elemental safety precautions.

No, nary a word from Suzuki. But what could we expect from a guy who lists Tommy Douglas as one of his heroes? Without even checking back to find out that the CBC's "greatest Canadian" was openly advocating the castration of any Canadian males of Japanese descent that wouldn't be repatriated to Japan at the end of WW II!

There's far more pollution generated from all that unnecessary global traffic, which goes on now 24/7, than you're going to cause mowing your lawn, or going for a Sunday drive, (if you can still afford to), or keeping the house at a decent temperature in wintertime. Or even being stuck in traffic in downtown Vancouver at rush hour with a car that hasn't been subjected to an Aircare inspection.

Nature is quite capable of accomodating a certain amount of pollution, and neutralising it. Even in many cases benefitting from it. Cattle, for instance, that range openly, fertilize the grassland with their manure. But put ten thousand cattle in a feedlot, where their manure is concentrated all in one place? Nature can't accomodate that without deleterious effects in other areas, (polluted groundwater, as at Walkerton a few years ago, and many other places in the USA).

You are down on the UN, but that is not the debate here! The scientists presented their white paper to the UN. That's all. What the UN did with it is not the responsibility of the scientists and if the UN did nothing it is not the fault of the renowned scientists either!

If Al Gore or Davis Suzuki had any cojones at all they would raise some of the issues you mentioned, like how much pollution is indeed caused by shipping our raw resources halfways around the world and then back again for us to buy as finished products!

We could do the manufacturing right here and eliminate the pollution caused by the container ships that burn fossil fuels.

This issue in fact will move to the front burner very soon, because some countries are going to get pegged with the carbon taxes.

How much pollution can be eliminated when the military industrial complex is stopped from goading politicians into endlessly seeking new places where to conduct yet another unnecessary war?

I didn't know Tommy Douglas wasn't the greatest Canadian ever! Hope you are wrong, my disappointment is severe.

Well, according to the CBC he was. And compared to that august institution of Canadian nationhood, what do WE know?

The military-industrial complex is one perverted outgrowth of a flawed cost-accountancy system which can not properly represent physical realities the way it's presently constituted. Even when we use its destructive 'products', and actually go to war. For 'physically' we pay for a war as that war is being fought. Or it couldn't be fought. But 'financially' we never do, for at its conclusion there's always a "debt", in 'money', that we're said to owe. But to WHO? And for WHAT?

The international drive of each industrialised country to have a 'favourable' balance of trade, by 'capturing' some other country's markets is another evidence of the same thing.

"Trade war" is generally the pre-cursor to "military war", somewhere, in our modern world, and has been for at least the last century. Since it is impossible for every country to export more than it imports without a.) becoming progressively poorer and poorer as more of its real wealth is sent abroad than is received in alternate real wealth back for it, and b.)the 'capture' of some other country's market removes the largest source of distributed incomes from the citizens of that country by unemploying them in producing the same products for their own home market, (or in then having any 'money' to buy the imported goods without recourse to even more unrepayable debt, and generally worse living conditions trying to repay it). Such a policy cannot be long sustainable.

To get back to 'global warming', and the "scientists", they're all dealing with supposed "effects". But they won't look at underlying "causes". Which will be with us in the same degree, or even more so, when we try to modify those "effects" by foolishly thinking we can continue to ignore their "causes" and solve the problem.

I think we would be better served to leave the lights on and turn the TV off for an hour, then take that hour to think about where we are going and how we are making plans (or not) to do things differently in the future. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, we should be using the remaining supply of it to set ourselves up to not be dependent on it.

Take the hour to think about us talking about "sustainability" and "conservation" and then burning up every last drop of oil in the ground, then throwing up our hands and saying "Now what do we do ?"

We should be moving really fast on this and we're barely moving at all. There is a lot of work to do.

I dont think that turning off the lights for an hour in a house powered by hydroelectric makes a lot of sense saving the world wise. If it makes people feel better then it does more harm than good. One hour of power is about what? 1/5000th of the yearly consumption? Also, there really isnt any benefit since the dam is still there, they might just turn off a generator. Why dont people reduce their use by 5 percent (an easy goal for most of us) rather than turn off all the lights an take advantage of yet another occasion for introspection (navel gazing)and narcissism?
As for running out of fossil fuels, well when is that going to happen anyway? I was told in high school that we would be out by now (more manipulation of the facts by special interest groups), but they are saying now we have decades left. I find that with age comes experience and my experience has been that there are a lot of folks out there with agendas. These people dont mind telling lies, or not telling us truths as long as this forwrds their position. My head (and the heads of some of those other doubters in this discussion) are not in the sand. We just know the difference between truth and 'facts'.

Oh yes, and as a scientist i would just like to say that true scientifc method involves proving something tru by disproving all other possibilities (possible? perhaps not ). Actual science as practiced in universities at least often involves something else. One has only to read the columns and editorials written by scientists to see that politics and science are often mixed. The bastardized science that results is worthless. Global warming is a juggernaut, politically and scientifically. Disagree and you are labelled a crank, or an ostrich. Scientists have to look for funding, it isnt doled out to them by the university or the UN. You apply for funds for your researce project. Given the current political climate (no pun intended) i thin kif i were a starving scientist i would be putting out proposals that studied the magnitude of manmade global warming, rather than ones than suggested other causes. Of course if i were in Alberta i might think differeently.
My point is that it is tricky to look at scientists and science as being above politics. They arent. Now that man made global warming is our big truth, scientific evidence supporting it will pick up. Articles such as the one in a recent macleans will get almost no play at all.
And be careful with analogies you guys. Believing the world was flat was based on what they called science back then. The people who believed it to be round were the ones bucking the system, much like the people questioning the 'common knowledge' of global warming today.

I like your post, thereasonableman! I have been trying to get my point across that the combustion of fossil fuels at the rate it has been allowed to go on appears to be a) unsustainable b) causing too much pollution c) causing nations to go to war to get their hands on the last known large reserves d) causing according to scientific evaluations by credible authorities global climate change...etc.

There are no fossil fuels that can be burned cleanly, without causing pollution.

Apparently none of the above concerns have any factual foundation and are just the figments of the imagination of misguided or uninformed duped individuals.

caranmacil: "We just know the difference between truth and 'facts'."

Cheers! Cough! Wheeze!

Diplomat, climate has always been changing. More recent information is showing taht the oceans have been cooling for the last five years and a decline in world temperature since 98. Control pollution yes but chasing C02, wasting money, bad science. Al Gore and others are making fortunes off this. Caranmacil I like what you wrote below, I don't know for sure if you ment it that way but so true.

"And be careful with analogies you guys. Believing the world was flat was based on what they called science back then. The people who believed it to be round were the ones bucking the system, much like the people questioning the 'common knowledge' of global warming today."