Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[rehsifylf]

A Rebuttal to alot of the deniers claims and some info on who funds them --think Exxon and coal--seems they have credibility problem too. Looks like someone tried to hack into Canadian files too, but were caught- interesting as this appears to be a concerted effort. Climategate indeed.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/

 

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/Pa...yGlobalWarming/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/g...s_n_378629.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies/...n_b_208269.html

 

I found lots more links, but these will do.

 

Regards Mike

 

If I say that global climate fluctuation is natural and has been going on since the beginning, and you say it isn't, who is the denier?

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I think this might sum up the hidden agenda of the AGW and environmental crowd. If there was fraud and coercion (and I don't doubt that anymore), one has to ask themselves what was the motive besides a few people making a whole lot of money. The probable motive is to make carbon based fuels so expensive society is forced to find other ways. The ends will justify the means. I've said it before. I agree with the ends but I question the means.

 

However, there are those who are a little more analytical and skeptical then others and noticed things just didn't add up. Their questions weren't answered. Instead, they were ostracized. Those of us who aren't scientests wondered why? How can one side say there was warming and the other cooling but the science was settled? It never was settled for me and still isn't. We wonder which side wasn't playing fair. Maybe both?

 

Now that one side was caught with their pants down, all those other scientists who based their support on their data are probably just as pissed as the rest of us. At least, I hope they are. Maybe we can return to honest studies now. Studies we can all trust.

 

Yup.

 

The IPCC feels that anyone that has a contradictory opinion is an "enemy" and that they are in a fight. True scientists are not about who is right and who is wrong but rather what the evidence says. Even a study that is proved wrong forwards the goal of understanding.

 

Take the newest press release from the IPCC

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397265.stm

 

They have blinders on to what has happened. They definitely have an agenda...the hope is that they allow free and unfettered right to prove or disprove their ideological ramblings.

 

There is a very, very small segment of the world's population making some HUGE assumptions that will have negative consequences either way.

 

If global warming IS man made then yes we need to control it. Can we? Some say with the population increase we all have to live like the pilgrims to bring our foot print down low enough to make a difference. Does the data show that? Based upon recent information that answer has to be no. Can further research prove it yes. Is time on our side...maybe/maybe not. Since temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years...I am thinking probably. Some nut jobs want to spend money...use chemical to evaporate ocean water and make massive clouds. Problem is science is also undecided as to clouds increasing or decreasing global warming. What happens if the clouds make the Earth to cool?

 

If global warming IS not primarily man made...the recent posting of the rising sea level accounts for only a fraction of the natural increase in water levels. Who knows...maybe for some reason the plates are settling more into the magma. Popular theory is that the SUN make the Earth warm? Strange concept. It is proven that the Sun changes in intensity... Or just maybe other forces or a combination thereof are at work. If we are in a natural cycle...then money needs to be spent on water, crop development, disease, human migrations, infrastructure issues. We can plant more trees to capture carbon and increase humidity.

 

IF global warming IS no longer happening...let's go fishing!

[Ricinus]

Sun

 

You're wrong.

 

Regards Mike

 

PS discussion is going in circles, so I have nothing more to say.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun

 

You're wrong.

 

Regards Mike

 

PS discussion is going in circles, so I have nothing more to say.

 

Please don't give up ricinus...

 

It is still cold outside.

 

How about if I let you win one side argument?

 

Okay I agree you win...you have nothing more to say and the dicussion is going in circles.

 

 

Now get on with it...

 

[Ricinus]

The world ends in 2012, so there is no sense getting our knickers in a knot over anything.

 

Regards Mike

[Weedy1]

The world ends in 2012, so there is no sense getting our knickers in a knot over anything.

 

Regards Mike

 

Cripe, I sure hope Sun doesn't have an opposing viewpoint on this one!!!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Cripe, I sure hope Sun doesn't have an opposing viewpoint on this one!!!

 

Obama is staying the course...

 

Which means...he can always back out later but look environmental in the short term.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05...te-controversy/

 

Updated December 05, 2009

Obama Ignores 'Climate-Gate' in Revising Copenhagen Plans

 

FOXNews.com

 

The scandal has prompted calls for Obama from global warming skeptics to skip this month's climate summit in Copenhagen -- instead, the White House is doubling down on its commitment

 

The controversy swirling around the leaked e-mails of climate scientists apparently trying to downplay data and exclude dissenting opinions has led to calls for President Obama to skip this month's climate summit in Denmark until the e-mails can be investigated.

 

Instead, the White House announced Friday that Obama was doubling down on his commitment to the summit's goals and moving his visit later in the month, hoping it will secure a "meaningful" agreement.

 

The scandal being referred to as "Climate-gate" has rallied global warming skeptics, who say the threat is exaggerated -- let alone caused by humans. In some of the e-mails stolen by hackers and posted online, scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit appear to discuss hiding or deleting data that may contradicts global warming claims. Others discuss ways of keeping competing research out of peer-reviewed journals.

 

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is the most prominent figure to call on Obama to boycott the conference in Copenhagen in the wake of the e-mails' release.

 

"The president's decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal," she said in a posting on her Facebook page. "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."

 

But on Friday, Obama abruptly delayed his arrival at the summit until Dec. 18, the last scheduled day and considered a crucial period when more leaders will be in attendance. Obama is hoping to capitalize on steps by India and China and build a more meaningful political accord, the White House said.

 

The U.S., India, and China all have specific proposals on the table for the first time, and world leaders are aiming for a deal that includes commitments on reducing emissions and financing for developing countries. They no longer expect to reach a legally binding agreement, as had long been the goal.

 

The White House is shrugging off the Climate-gate e-mails.

 

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of (global warming)," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this week.

 

And Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren, downplayed the e-mails Friday, telling Congress that the controversy involves a small group of scientists and how they have interpreted and shared global warming data.

 

"It's important to understand that these kinds of controversies and even accusations of bias and improper manipulation are not all that uncommon in science, in all branches of science," he said at a congressional hearing.

 

"The strength of science is that these kinds of controversies get sorted out over time as to who is wrong, who is right, and how much it matters, by the process of peer-review and continued critical scrutiny by the knowledgeable community of scientists," he said.

 

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Commmittee, on Friday joined Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in calling on the Obama administration and Congress to investigate the Climate-gate e-mails.

 

"The very integrity of the report that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy upon has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations," the California Republican said in a written statement.

 

"The administration's Climate-gate denials and refusal to acknowledge the need for a congressional investigation are a sad abdication of their responsibility to ensure that U.S. policies are not driven by corrupted science and data," he said.

 

Some climate change analysts say the e-mails undermine the entire Denmark conference.

 

"This raises questions about some of the very U.N. science that forms the basis of what's going to be discussed in Copenhagen," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation and an expert on energy and environmental issues.

 

"There's a lot to be concerned about here," he told Fox News. "At the very least the president shouldn't agree to anything in Copenhagen until we get to the bottom of Climate-gate and find out just how much there is to global warming that we can still trust."

 

Despite a recent decline in global temperatures, the trend over the past 150 years has shown temperatures rising -- but the timing of the e-mail scandal is perfect for skeptics, said Heather Conley, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

"It doesn't negate the fact that the global community does need to address its rate of emitting carbon and it needs to develop clean and greener technologies, but it does continue to throw this debate out there," she said.

 

The president's climate czar, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol Browner, said she's sticking with scientists who believe in man's impact on global warming.

 

Fox News' Wendell Goler and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[mvdaog]

Sundance...

What's your objective here? I think that anyone who has payed attention to this thread realizes by now:

1) Emails got hacked from a particular research team that contributes data to the IPCC and a small minority of said emails contain some small obscurities which may be understood in a variety of ways. There's a debate as to what they really meant - two sides at least - and of course it's something that can't be ultimately decided. They have provided explanations that, if believed, free themselves from any wrong-doings. If they aren't believable, well, then they aren't. There's no way to prove it.

2) The IPCC report made an error in one of their graphs that a Canadian scientist helped show was in error. They acknowledged this and thereafter changed the graph and the data in err. Kudos to them for this honesty, and it's too bad that one of their graphs was misrepresented with a miscalculation in the first place.

3) The aforementioned research team admitted to destroying some raw data in their move to another office in the 80's. Or was it the early 90's. Either way, they admitted to that. The adjusted data was all stored in their computer systems. Of course that's not scientifically ethical, and they also acknowledged that. Poor judgement of course.

4) Not every scientist believes in man-made global warming, or even global warming, and this is because not every instance and example on earth shows global warming effects, the computer models are flawed, etc etc etc. Theres maybe 5 or 6 arguments made by these people, almost all of them missing any solid published evidence.

5) You personally believe it's a hoax and that money should be spent on other things.

 

Do I sum up basically every story, argument, point, and objective from all of your posts? I keep checking this forum when I see new posts, but every time its just mainly more posts from you, but saying the same thing. So, I'm just curious as to what your objective is now, by rehashing the same points and posting more and more news articles about the same topic? Meanwhile, the fact remains that, as of right now, the scientific majority and the population majority is that global warming is real and man-made, and until the time comes when those majorities switch to the other side the governments will have to pretend like they're fighting it, spending money, and meeting at summits to figure it out. I'd love to see more evidence against global warming theories that are popular today, because like you I'd rather not be worried about it, but I see the same things over and over and over again. And really there's only a few points made, the same ones over and over, with no good studies published of their own, and no more errors being discovered. You'd think with a document of over one thousand pages, with over 20,000 citations, that the challengers would be able to find fault with more than just a couple things here and there.

 

As noble as your effort might be and as sure as you want to be about where you stand on the issue, I for one would like to see a LOT more evidence, as compared to 20,000+ citations and the majority of experts on the other side. As far as I can see, even by going to the challenger's own websites attempting to disprove these theories, there's really not much substance at all. And the constant beating that my head receives over the same few points gets tiring, and when I get tired of that same beating over and over, they lose their strength. I'm numb to these few points by now.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sundance...

What's your objective here? I think that anyone who has payed attention to this thread realizes by now:

1) Emails got hacked from a particular research team that contributes data to the IPCC and a small minority of said emails contain some small obscurities which may be understood in a variety of ways. There's a debate as to what they really meant - two sides at least - and of course it's something that can't be ultimately decided. They have provided explanations that, if believed, free themselves from any wrong-doings. If they aren't believable, well, then they aren't. There's no way to prove it. They are actually an extremely key cog in the IPCC machine and as such a vital piece and a defining policy making group. Their influence has gone far a wide...we are not talking a small office in Timbuktu but rather a multi million dollar...tens of millions of dollars being funneled here. Proof or consequences will hopefully flow from the investigations. Or at least scare them into changing their behavoirs

2) The IPCC report made an error in one of their graphs that a Canadian scientist helped show was in error. They acknowledged this and thereafter changed the graph and the data in err. Kudos to them for this honesty, and it's too bad that one of their graphs was misrepresented with a miscalculation in the first place. Actually they ignored it publically... privately they stop publishing it but never ever retracted it. It still get quoted today. Being as it was the foundation for the movement...no wonder they swept it under the carpet. Now they altered it and used selective data from only a few tree ring samples...walla...new theory...but alas...we destroyed the data...so just trust us

3) The aforementioned research team admitted to destroying some raw data in their move to another office in the 80's. Or was it the early 90's. Either way, they admitted to that. The adjusted data was all stored in their computer systems. Of course that's not scientifically ethical, and they also acknowledged that. Poor judgement of course. If you can't prove your theory...you have no credible theory... Just saying trust me in science...does not work. You need evidence and repeatability.

4) Not every scientist believes in man-made global warming, or even global warming, and this is because not every instance and example on earth shows global warming effects, the computer models are flawed, etc etc etc. Theres maybe 5 or 6 arguments made by these people, almost all of them missing any solid published evidence. You can't publish when a controlling factor prevents it such as refusing data, deleting raw data, intimidating Journals.

5) You personally believe it's a hoax and that money should be spent on other things. Actually believe it or not...no I do not...but I also see bias in the research that causes concern. What I do believe in is proper scientific procedure. Without it you only have biased speculations being fed to a misinformed and ignorant public. This stuff is not simple...and a trust factor here has been broken IMHO.

 

Do I sum up basically every story, argument, point, and objective from all of your posts? I keep checking this forum when I see new posts, but every time its just mainly more posts from you, but saying the same thing. So, I'm just curious as to what your objective is now, by rehashing the same points and posting more and more news articles about the same topic? Meanwhile, the fact remains that, as of right now, the scientific majority and the population majority is that global warming is real and man-made, and until the time comes when those majorities switch to the other side the governments will have to pretend like they're fighting it, spending money, and meeting at summits to figure it out. I'd love to see more evidence against global warming theories that are popular today, because like you I'd rather not be worried about it, but I see the same things over and over and over again. And really there's only a few points made, the same ones over and over, with no good studies published of their own, and no more errors being discovered. You'd think with a document of over one thousand pages, with over 20,000 citations, that the challengers would be able to find fault with more than just a couple things here and there.

 

As noble as your effort might be and as sure as you want to be about where you stand on the issue, I for one would like to see a LOT more evidence, as compared to 20,000+ citations and the majority of experts on the other side. As far as I can see, even by going to the challenger's own websites attempting to disprove these theories, there's really not much substance at all. And the constant beating that my head receives over the same few points gets tiring, and when I get tired of that same beating over and over, they lose their strength. I'm numb to these few points by now.

 

In a nutshell

 

I just want to see proper science being done. It has not been done up till now.

 

You can't have proper science if:

 

1) Other scientists and journals are being intimidated into not publishing

 

2) Raw data MUST be freely available. It doesn't matter if some nimrod believes it will be used to try and disprove a theory...that is what science is all about

 

3) Data must not be destroy. That is very, very wrong.

 

4) The average person must know more and not trust blindly. A multi Trillion Dollar decision is no small matter. It will effect everyone's standard of living and quality of life.

 

Therefore...if the system gets fixed...we all benefit.

 

As for everyone believing...depending upon what was the critical information and how it was obtained...someone can easily change their opinion.

 

That is why there is a series of reviews and investigations.

 

I am guessing scientists in general will not be happy if data is fudged...and therefore while they may not make it public...quietly proper procedures will begin to be followed... Did it not ever make anyone wonder why there is really NO research being done to disprove it or media attention to that regard. I am not paranoid but practical...there are always two sides especially in science. When those controlling journals and papers are peer reviewing amongst the "Believers" you will surely get bias. That is what will receive some balance and hopefully sooner than later.

 

Hopefully.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_te...oom/8390388.stm

 

 

 

 

Study shows variability in ocean's CO2 uptake

By Mark Kinver

Science and environment reporter, BBC News

 

Large wave (Getty Images)

Changes to the oceanic carbon sinks can have a wider impact, say researchers

 

There are substantial variations in the amount of carbon being absorbed by the North Atlantic Ocean, a study shows.

 

Writing in Science, an international team of researchers said the ocean's uptake of carbon varied by as much as 10% over the space of a few years.

 

The data set, described as the largest of its kind, was gathered by devices fitted to a fleet of commercial ships.

 

The world's oceans are believed to absorb about half of the total carbon emissions from human activities.

 

"Out of all the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, about half of it does not stay there," said lead author Andrew Watson, a researcher from the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences.

 

"It is taken up by the natural world; half of it is absorbed on land, and half of it ends up in the oceans."

Carbon stores

In the carbon cycle, natural fluxes are the biggest, accounting for about 330 gigatonnes per year, and are in near equilibrium

The roughly 7.5 gigatonnes coming from all human sources may be sufficient to tip this system out of balance, warming the Earth

 

Professor Watson said that it had been assumed that the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans remained constant.

 

"What we seem to be seeing is that it appears to be changing over a period of several years," he told BBC News.

 

"We are talking about a variability (in the North Atlantic Ocean) that is in the order of about 0.2bn tonnes of carbon each year.

 

"Over a few years, the uptake is changing by at least 3% of the total production of CO2 by all human activities." They make assumptions yet admit they only covered a portion of the world's ocean. The assumptions are therefore unsubstantiated.

 

Ocean mapping

 

Professor Watson explained that climate modellers had attempted to assess how much variability there was in the overall carbon cycle.

Freighter (Image: ACL)

Devices on a network of commercial vessels gathered the data

 

"They had some difficulty because they simply did not have a sufficient amount of basic data," he said.

Writing in the paper, the international team of researchers said that they overcame the historical problem of sparse observations by using a network of commercial vessels.

 

"We began this work in the mid-90s when we fitted one automated device," Professor Watson recalled.

 

"We then realised that if we got a few devices to cover a large region, we could map an ocean with this technique."

 

Researchers from a number of nations, including Spain, Denmark and the UK, established a co-ordinated network in 2005 that placed the instruments on volunteer observing ships (VOS) that made regular journeys across the Atlantic.

 

Climate models suggest that carbon sinks will weaken over time as the climate changes, and Professor Watson hopes his team's research will shed light on the dynamics of ocean sinks.

 

"It is important because the natural system takes up so much carbon, and we do have a suspicion that this uptake will change," he commented.

 

"Some people are quite nervous about that."

 

He added that the monitoring system developed by the team could be rolled out in other regions.

 

"We don't know what is happening elsewhere because we do not have the network in place.

 

"We could not cover all of the world's oceans because there are not many vessels in the Southern Ocean, for example.

 

But he said that there was enough traffic across the North Pacific and South Atlantic to establish feasible networks.

 

"It would be relatively cheap and it would be a huge advance in our understanding of the carbon cycle and where carbon is going."

 

 

******************************************

 

Is it too much to ask for a study that doesn't have suspicion, belief, etc. They don't have fact. So are they making assumptions based upon an ideology, request for funds or they just can't think of another possible reason?

 

Just like with glaciers melting...there are other questions I would pose as a even just a lay person. With glaciers...is the overall yearly temperature on the whole glacier now above zero? Is it only raining and never snowing? I strongly suspect regional weather pattern changes is probably just dropping less snow on the glacier. Glaciers always grow via snow fall exceeding melt. When snow is less, melt wins the battle. It does not necessarily mean the whole glacier is now above zero which is implied via some of these reports.

 

When a scientist does a small subsample of the ocean, they need to release the raw data and have others review it and try and replicate in the other oceans. By jumping to a grandiose conclusion it represents the overall data and skews opinion and fosters confusion amongst lay persons.

 

They also mention that NATURAL CO2 release yearly is 300 gigatonnes per year whereas 7.5 gigatonnes coming from all human sources. I put forth that calculating human CO2 is easier and more accurate than understanding all the CO2 sources the earth is putting out from deep water vents, to volcanos, to natural fires etc. So now the hypothesis is that the Earth is putting out naturally a crap load of CO2 and there is a guess that the Earth's plants can not absorb the additional small amount. Therefore we need to spend trillions to fix it.

 

It is possible...but far from proved. I would say it is more possible that plants can absorb it...but let's see the countervailing studies!

 

IMHO

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/

more technical assessment

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

for lay persons

[rehsifylf]

4) The average person must know more and not trust blindly. A multi Trillion Dollar decision is no small matter. It will effect everyone's standard of living and quality of life.

 

Hopefully.

I was up north at a site this week. Asked several people - senior folks - whether they had heard of this issue. Only 2 of 5 had even heard of it. All 5 had heard about Tiger Woods.

 

Its telling. You would think evil people from the oil companies would be all over this, right.

 

And to the folks that like to blame all global warming on evil oil companies. Oil would not be required if not for cars, so shouldn't you be blaming the car companies from back east? And of course, cars wouldn't be needed if not for all of us (for those that drive hybrids - they still need fuel, so do buses, and LRT uses electricity made from coal). If you really want a society where the per capita use of oil is at a level sustainable for hundreds of years, such a Utopia exists. Its called central Africa - you should go live there. If you live here, you use more power than most in the world, no matter how many things you do to make yourself feel better about it.

 

I'm glad that Sun is more zealous on this issue - it is about time. My children have been inundated with the AGW theories for the past 10 years, and despite my suggestions - they have eaten it up, hook line and sinker without even questioning any of the "science". If they have been this brainwashed, imagine the children in homes where no-one even asks that they make up their own minds on important issues.

 

Keep going Sun - you are presenting facts that most people would never see, and the sheer volume of different sources will hopefully open the eyes of some people to at least do their own due diligence.

 

One final point - one of the key "arguments" of the AGW side is that oil companies have supported the studies that counter the AGW arguments - therefore it is not credible. Consider that Al Gore left office with a net worth of just over $2M, and by 2007 that net worth had grown to over 100M, mainly from investments in Green Energy companies through a Venture Capital firm he is a partner in. I don't see anything wrong with that, but why is it wrong for oil companies to support something they believe in and make money off of, but not for Mr Gore or Mr Suzuki (who is also a multi millionaire).

[mvdaog]

Sun-

If I can say it politely, you didn't quite answer what my questions were. I put your main points down, which you agreed with and expanded upon. Then you rewrote your points again after already expanding on them in my post. As I said already, I understand what your points are and I have no issue with them per se.

 

Although it's really tempting to start an internet argument with all you've been saying, it's not worth it and it would take too much time for what it would actually accomplish in the end. But that's not what I'm doing, I really just wanted to know what your objective was by posting numerous news articles on the same topic, in other words, why the one article wasn't sufficient.

 

PS I find it interesting that the things that you find 'faulty' 'condemning' (insert your own adjective here) I actually see as strengths. An honest person conducting research realizes their limitations to their conclusions. Thus, when being an honest person discussing their theories and research, they include words such as 'suggest' 'suspicion' 'theory' 'model' etc. when they are needed to be honest. Just like in the IPCC report itself, which in every statement and conclusion and prediction they include uncertainty terms and confidence limits. This is all, to me, seen as a strength, and actually makes me believe the person in the discussion more, than such things as:

 

"Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically" OR

 

"satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." OR

 

"Conclusion:

 

Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic." (no mention at all of any uncertainties, suspicions; it's just all presented as fact, because it makes sense to the author OR

 

"CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can't have the amplifying effect claimed." OR

 

"Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not."

 

"The notion that you put more CO2 up there and you get a warmer world is not debatable at all"

 

"Global warming is real."

 

See what I mean... I'm more likely to believe people who state explicitly that their conclusions have an honest degree of uncertainty. Why did you pull out all those words as a sign of something negative? I see it as a positive...

[TerryH]

 

 

[mvdaog]

ahahaaha

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun-

If I can say it politely, you didn't quite answer what my questions were. I put your main points down, which you agreed with and expanded upon. Then you rewrote your points again after already expanding on them in my post. As I said already, I understand what your points are and I have no issue with them per se. I thought I answered them. Sorry if I didn't. Please post with just your questions.

 

Although it's really tempting to start an internet argument with all you've been saying, it's not worth it and it would take too much time for what it would actually accomplish in the end. But that's not what I'm doing, I really just wanted to know what your objective was by posting numerous news articles on the same topic, in other words, why the one article wasn't sufficient. I trust you got my point of view. As for argument...I prefer a debate. Global warming zealots take this a few steps too far and call it a fight or a war. I see dialog and information to be key. One sided arguments...does not help the issue and can lead to a horrible historical mistake. Posting links to old articles that are no longer relevant due to new information is one of the main problems with global warming theory. The hockey stick model...I say it once again cause it seems to be forgotten...is still taught in the Junior High and High School as fact. Things like that breed only misinformation. I trust you believe current information is more important than information that was proved false?

 

PS I find it interesting that the things that you find 'faulty' 'condemning' (insert your own adjective here) I actually see as strengths. An honest person conducting research realizes their limitations to their conclusions. Thus, when being an honest person discussing their theories and research, they include words such as 'suggest' 'suspicion' 'theory' 'model' etc. when they are needed to be honest. Just like in the IPCC report itself, which in every statement and conclusion and prediction they include uncertainty terms and confidence limits. This is all, to me, seen as a strength, and actually makes me believe the person in the discussion more, than such things as:

 

"Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically" OR

 

"satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." OR

 

I guess one of the issues I see is that there is an ideological agenda driven by people such as the disgraced CRU email scandal scientists. These people are controlling data, controlling journals, controlling scientists, controlling money. I want to see proof and fact that this gets fixed to know 100% that alternative theories don't hold water. People talk about may, could, suspect etc. but then those in charge present that information to us dumb public as fact...irrefutable. I bet prior to writing your note about this point you were strongly believe the scientists were 100% correct and that the science is settle. These soft words like we are discussing only prove they are making assumptions, guesses and extrapolation of some science such as computer models that are full of holes. If you only agree to spend you and your families money, decrease your standard of living and have less money for health care, education, other scientific research etc... then at least I can no longer see you as another sheep being led to a slaughter by the wolves. That is really all I ask. Just understand the risks and what you are giving up on a theory that has not been fully vetted. Please note that your "refuted scientifically" statement fails the smell test as raw data was destroy, data sharing was refused, Journals were intimidated, money was given only to the pro side, data was tricked, manipulated and selectively chosen. If you know anything about science...these problems along fail to show credence that it was refuted scientifically.

 

"Conclusion:

 

Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic." (no mention at all of any uncertainties, suspicions; it's just all presented as fact, because it makes sense to the author OR

 

"CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can't have the amplifying effect claimed." OR

 

"Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not."

 

"The notion that you put more CO2 up there and you get a warmer world is not debatable at all" Do you understand the science of what you are saying or just saying what the media reports the IPCC says?

 

"Global warming is real." What gets hidden in the ideology is the fact that we have been warming for 2 million years since the last major ice age... Why? What is man induced...if any? What is natural. Do you think all the sea level rise is man made? You are relying solely on assumptions and I ask you do you clearly understand them?

 

See what I mean... I'm more likely to believe people who state explicitly that their conclusions have an honest degree of uncertainty. Why did you pull out all those words as a sign of something negative? I see it as a positive...

 

If you want to debate if the 1% of the global warming effect of CO2 versus water vapor is a theory...we can do that. If you want to say show me the evidence...I would love it if the IPCC would share data.

 

The fact that some politicians are not believing...they are only going with the public perception which has been shown the IPCC is putting so much forth as fact that is only assumption that the politicians went with the flow to be elected.

 

The fact news stations are starting to air the climate gate issue tells me people are starting to question what they have been blind faith up till now.

 

You statement of growing numbers of scientists believing...is false as many are now seeing some of the latent flaws in this system.

 

Correction to the system are coming and people will demand that.

 

Sun

 

 

P.S. CBS now talking about it... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/...in5908487.shtml

 

mvdaog... I have a question for you. How much do you think personally all of the initiatives proposed by Alberta, Canada, US, International, IPCC and UN will cost you. Just you but it will also be the same for each of your kids...then compounded for ever.

 

Please take a guess to see if you understand the true cost.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

mvdaog...

 

when calculating the cost to you and your kids...

 

what do these red passages mean to you?

 

I still want to hear your number...

 

Thanks.

 

Sun

 

************************************

 

Page last updated at 14:01 GMT, Monday, 7 December 2009

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

 

Copenhagen summit urged to take climate change action

Advertisement

The summit began with a filmed plea from children, and a welcome from Denmark's PM

 

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss".

 

Opening the two-week conference in the Danish capital, he told delegates from 192 countries a "strong and ambitious climate change agreement" was needed.

 

About 100 leaders are to attend the meeting, which aims to reach agreement on supplanting the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

 

The UN says an unprecedented number of countries have promised emissions cuts.

 

 

AT THE SCENE

 

Richard Black, BBC environment correspondent

Even before the talks officially opened, fault lines between the various blocs here appeared to be widening.

 

Although UN climate convention head Yvo de Boer said things were in "excellent shape", with more countries than ever before proposing emission cuts, two big questions hang over these proposals: will they be acceptable to the developing world, and are they enough to prevent "dangerous" climate change?

 

At this stage, the answers appear to be "no" and "maybe". The UN Environment Programme calculates that cuts on the table are nearly enough if every country turns its most ambitious pledges into action.

 

But other analyses suggest there is still a significant gap between what scientists say is necessary and what is on offer politically.

 

That is of great concern to governments that feel themselves on the "front line" of climate impacts.

 

 

More from Richard Black

 

Mr Rasmussen told delegates that the world was looking to the conference to safeguard humanity.

 

"For the next two weeks," he said, "Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen. By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future."

 

Later, Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), criticised the "climategate" affair - the recent publication of e-mails among scientists assessing global warming at Britain's University of East Anglia.

 

He said the breaches showed "that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC". They are scared to discuss what what said...just that the information was leaked...potentially from an internal source...no word on if it was even hacked from externally.

 

Saudi climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban, who has been resisting emissions curbs, told the conference that trust in climate science had been "shaken" by the leaked e-mails.

 

UN climate convention head Yvo de Boer said the time had come to deliver cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

 

"The time for formal statements is over. The time for re-stating well-known positions is past," he told delegates.

 

"Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action."

 

Connie Hedegaard, conference president and Denmark's former climate minister, said: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If we ever do."

 

Tougher targets?

 

Mr de Boer said offers of finance for clean technology for poor countries were also coming through and that talks were progressing on a long-term vision of massive cuts by 2050.

 

 

BBC poll: Climate fears on rise

On Monday, South Africa became the latest country to make an offer - saying it would cut by one-third the growth of its carbon emissions over the next decade, subject to getting more funding and help from wealthier countries.

 

In July, the G8 bloc of industrialised countries and some major developing countries adopted a target of keeping the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times to 2C.

 

However now the G77/China bloc - which speaks on behalf of developing countries - is discussing whether to demand a much tougher target of 1.5C.

 

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman: "These e-mails don't change anything"

A number of African delegations are backing the argument made by small island states that 2C will bring major impacts to their countries.

 

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black says this would raise a huge obstacle, because none of the industrialised countries have put forward emission cuts in the range that would be required to meet a 1.5C target.

 

The African Union has threatened to walk out of the talks if industrialised countries do not agree to help poor ones pay for the transition to cleaner economies.

 

Tougher targets?

 

Meanwhile, a new poll commissioned by the BBC suggests that public concern over climate change is growing across the world.

 

 

In the survey, by Globescan, 64% of people questioned said that they considered global warming a very serious problem - up 20% from a 1998 poll.

 

To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries are publishing the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported. Unprecidented colusion amongst newspapers...

 

The editorial - to be published in 20 languages - was thrashed out by editors ahead of the Copenhagen talks, the newspaper said.

 

"At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world," the editorial says.

 

Environmental activists are planning to hold protests in Copenhagen and around the world on 12 December to encourage delegates to reach the strongest possible deal.

 

Mitigation - Action that will reduce man-made climate change. This includes action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or absorb greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

Any agreement made at Copenhagen is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012.

 

World leaders who have pledged to attend include US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

 

The main areas for discussion include:

 

Targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular by developed countries

Financial support for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change by developing countries

A carbon trading scheme aimed at ending the destruction of the world's forests by 2030. where does the burden of cost fall and how much is the exposure?

 

**************************************

 

while some may find this stuff boring...wait till you see how much this will cost each one of you plus each one of your kids to pay for this. We will be on the hook for not only Alberta, Canada, North America, extra costs for heating, transportation, good and services (the inflation problems along will be huge), but now we will all pony up a share for every country that says global warming is our fault. We are now basically going to pay for the industrialization and development of third world countries to first world countries through transfer of money and wealth. Countries that are often so corrupt you need to invest 10 dollars for every 1 that actually goes to the issue.

 

Thinking about the big picture is frightening. Most people are thinking that only companies will suffer. Unfortunately...they either go broke or pass this on to you. Governments don't get their money from the money tree...but rather your pocket.

 

Canada is forced to follow the US since anything less will cause damaging sanctions...whereas anything more would make us uncompetitive in the North American market.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Wow...made front page in the National Post...

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2312246

 

The more people read...the more they can learn about this topic...the better off they are...

 

********************************

 

UN climate chief defends findings despite leaked emails; evidence 'overwhelming'

Gerard Wynn, Reuters

Published: Monday, December 07, 2009

 

Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Copenhagen is hosting a two-week conference to discuss emissions targets and financial measures to combat climate change.

COPENHAGEN -- The head of the UN's panel of climate scientists on Monday strongly defended findings that humans are warming the planet, after critics said that leaked emails from a British university had undermined evidence.

 

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told a climate conference that its findings were "subjected to extensive and repeated reviews by experts as well as by governments."

 

The IPCC concluded in 2007 that it was at least 90% certain that humans were to blame for global warming. This was before they found out typos in their math to show that the climate had been cooling since 1998. How does that factor into their 90% confidence...based on circumstantial evidence?

 

But climate change sceptics have seized on a series of hacked emails written by climate specialists, accusing them of colluding to suppress others' data and enhance their own.

 

"The evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action," Mr. Pachauri told delegates at the opening session of the Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen summit.

 

"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some [people] would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."

 

The emails, some written as long as 13 years ago, were stolen by unknown hackers and spread rapidly across the Internet. Sceptics say that the emails showed that scientists had manipulated evidence.

 

In one email, confirmed by the University of East Anglia as genuine, the head of its Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, said he wanted to ensure a specific paper which doubted climate science was excluded from the IPCC's 2007 report. We now know that some scientists have been black listed and Journals suppressed.

 

That paper did in fact appear in the final 2007 report, the university says. Mr. Pachauri on Monday defended scientists named in the "climategate" row.

 

"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges," Mr. Pachauri told the 192-nation conference.

 

"Given the wide-ranging nature of [economic] change that is likely be taken in hand, some naturally find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability."

 

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, told conference delegates that the row would impact the Copenhagen talks and belief in climate science.

 

"The level of confidence is certainly shaken. We believe this scandal is definitely going to affect the nature of what can be fostered [in Copenhagen]. The size of [economic] sacrifices must be built on a secure foundation of information which we found now is not true," a Saudi delegate said.

 

Another British climate research centre, the MetOffice Hadley Centre, plans to publish this week data from more than 1,000 locations around the world to boost transparency and underpin evidence that the world is warming.

 

"We are confident [it] will show that global average temperatures have risen over the last 150 years," it said in a statement, adding that the move had the support of the University of East Anglia. Yes...but the first 100 would clearly be non human related...why does the climate naturally fluctuate? That seems a critical thing for scientists to know?

 

"As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records." What took them so long...and what are they manipulating such that they can't release it now? Someone should ask the data be placed in legal trust to prevent more funny business that the emails prove is happening!

 

© Thomson Reuters 2009

[TerryH]

I read a few days ago, that the Brazilian delegation to Hopenhagen will number 700. Wow, sounds like some party. I wonder what their carbon footprint looks like. You can always count on the greenies to outdo themselves in the hypocrisy department. Terry

 

 

[mvdaog]

To be honest with you, the cost to my kids will be nothing at all, at least related to the economic changes proposed to fight global warming. Long before my kids suffer any real difficulty (food, warmth, shelter) Canada will stop putting any money into anything environmental... If I believe anything at all, it is that. The first thing to go in light of the economy is the environment. Everywhere all the time.

On the other hand, I suspect that it wont be many generations down the road that every kid won't have a Xbox and three cell phones and every house three TVs and two big cars and a house full of things to be thrown out in a couple years. But that's a completely different topic, because that will never happen because of environmental budgeting.

I have answers to your questions and comments in blue, but again I really don't want to start arguing points from the internet, because of course it's a never-ending journey...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

To be honest with you, the cost to my kids will be nothing at all, at least related to the economic changes proposed to fight global warming. Long before my kids suffer any real difficulty (food, warmth, shelter) Canada will stop putting any money into anything environmental... If I believe anything at all, it is that. The first thing to go in light of the economy is the environment. Everywhere all the time.

On the other hand, I suspect that it wont be many generations down the road that every kid won't have a Xbox and three cell phones and every house three TVs and two big cars and a house full of things to be thrown out in a couple years. But that's a completely different topic, because that will never happen because of environmental budgeting.

I have answers to your questions and comments in blue, but again I really don't want to start arguing points from the internet, because of course it's a never-ending journey...

 

WOW...lol

 

You sure did out right refuse to answer this question. Are you scared as to how much it will cost you or just don't care? Either that or you are hoping like many others this whole thing falls flat on it's face again. But rather that muddle the question with further talk about computer games...just saying you don't know will suffice. It will not take much of an economic hit to the US economy to cause a way worse recession.

 

Here is a Pro Global Warming Scientist explaining to Al Gore the thought process behind natural section while out for drinks to discuss how to hide the declines.

 

'Well you see, Mr. Gore, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Al, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.'

 

So simple...it just makes sense.

[reevesr1]

"I knew right from the beginning

That you would end up winning..."

 

[mvdaog]

What are you talking about? Which question?

"when calculating the cost to you and your kids...

 

what do these red passages mean to you?

 

I still want to hear your number..."

 

 

Answer:

"To be honest with you, the cost to my kids will be nothing at all, at least related to the economic changes proposed to fight global warming." In other words, zero.

 

Or was there another question you had?

 

PS woops I didn't really read that carefully, you also asked how much it would cost myself. Also to that, zero.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

What are you talking about? Which question?

"when calculating the cost to you and your kids...

 

what do these red passages mean to you?

 

I still want to hear your number..."

 

 

Answer:

"To be honest with you, the cost to my kids will be nothing at all, at least related to the economic changes proposed to fight global warming." In other words, zero.

 

Or was there another question you had?

 

PS woops I didn't really read that carefully, you also asked how much it would cost myself. Also to that, zero.

 

Thanks.

 

Now I know you either are not serious about your answer, don't know, have not thought about it or clearly blind to even caring.

 

Just for starters...you and each of your kids are paying their share of the $5 billion Stelmach has planned for CO2 Sequestration. Of which about $991 million has been spent or allocated already. Just to give you a rough number...there are 3.7 million people in Alberta. You can do the math.

 

Then there will be the national cost...yet to be determined but it will be more per person that a measily little Provincial program. Then there is the costs of goods coming from factories and increase fuel costs for shipping. Then there is the cost of our First World share of supporting among others...Africa etc.

 

This is not a one time budgeted fee...but rather yearly and escalating. As climate continues to fluctuate you will have already bought into this lock stock and barrel and blindly continue to throw money into Africa rather than Health Care, roads, transit etc. This is going to be the worst case of beaurocrasy known to man kind. The kind run by UN scientists with carte blanche for spending.

 

They say that it will probably not be enough to make a difference. Therefore they are hoping to show a lucky decrease in temperature...just like what happened between 1998 and today...and then attribute the decrease to the changes. Then they will say the changes are not enough...more money needs to be thrown at the problem....but sadly not enough...then more and more. This is the perfect money pit...trying to fix the weather... It can only be done on Star Trek...and in the movies!

 

I don't blame you for being lost on this issue cause 99% of the people on Earth apparently are. You really need to get you head into this and understand rather than making assumptions after the UN's assumptions. I don't think two assumptions make a fact.

 

 

 

[mvdaog]

Strange how, again, I have to point out something twice until you read it correctly. Please read my posts more carefully so I don't have to repeat each time... You didn't 'see' my answer the first time, but when I posted it again, in the same words, you saw it.

 

But to explain my answer, I would recommend you think about what cost might mean to other people. I understand that by paying taxes, I should care about what the government goes and spends that money on. You don't even want to know what I believe money should/should not go to. To all the sudden be up in arms about what they spend it on now, on this one topic, in this one realm, just doesn't quite reverberate with me. I have disagreed with a lot of government spending for a long time, this isn't something so new and drastic that I'm scared of an economic collapse all the sudden. When I think of you asking the question 'think about what this is going to cost you and your children', I envision a Glenn Beck expression, with the fake tears and all, and imagine that you were referring to something apocalyptic happening that I should be worried about. To that question, I disagree that anything like that will occur. Like I said, long before a real depression, long before my children or myself feel any real, substantial 'cost', we as a nation would abandon any and all sorts of environmental spending. That is how society works. Environment goes way before the economy. If people are actually hurting for food, shelter, warmth, there's not a chance they'd be willing to spend anymore money on something 'unproven' and 'predicted'. I was paying my 'fair share' to the government no matter what they decide to spend it on anyways, and a lot of it is on things I don't agree with. I've always felt there was a bunch of waste, and in some people's eyes, this might not be any different. Rarely is the spending based on great scientific evidence or sureties, if at all. I don't believe that my life or my children's life will feel the impact of this new spending directly and specifically, there are too many other variables that go into whether or not our economy is going to collapse or not.....

 

PS Please point out where I made any assumptions. Especially any assumptions based on the UN assumptions. 'You really need to get you head into this and understand rather than making assumptions after the UN's assumptions'

 

And this is going to be the worst case of bureaucracy? Bureaucracy ' is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and government.' I'd love to see a well thought out argument supporting that theory... actually no I wouldn't, don't even try because like I've said already a million times, I don't want to start arguing on the internet. But you keep misinterpreting or misreading my posts...

 

PPS I still haven't once (like you) said where I stand on this issue... you keep pretending that I have though. You simply asked me what the cost would be to me and my family and I answered. I also asked you what your goal was by posting articles on the same topics over and over, but you've finally posted a new subject, about economic costs, which really is just another of the very few arguments anyone ever has against all this global warming stuff...

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Strange how, again, I have to point out something twice until you read it correctly. Please read my posts more carefully so I don't have to repeat each time... You didn't 'see' my answer the first time, but when I posted it again, in the same words, you saw it.

 

But to explain my answer, I would recommend you think about what cost might mean to other people. I understand that by paying taxes, I should care about what the government goes and spends that money on. You don't even want to know what I believe money should/should not go to. To all the sudden be up in arms about what they spend it on now, on this one topic, in this one realm, just doesn't quite reverberate with me. I have disagreed with a lot of government spending for a long time, this isn't something so new and drastic that I'm scared of an economic collapse all the sudden. When I think of you asking the question 'think about what this is going to cost you and your children', I envision a Glenn Beck expression, with the fake tears and all, and imagine that you were referring to something apocalyptic happening that I should be worried about. To that question, I disagree that anything like that will occur. Like I said, long before a real depression, long before my children or myself feel any real, substantial 'cost', we as a nation would abandon any and all sorts of environmental spending. That is how society works. Environment goes way before the economy. If people are actually hurting for food, shelter, warmth, there's not a chance they'd be willing to spend anymore money on something 'unproven' and 'predicted'. I was paying my 'fair share' to the government no matter what they decide to spend it on anyways, and a lot of it is on things I don't agree with. I've always felt there was a bunch of waste, and in some people's eyes, this might not be any different. Rarely is the spending based on great scientific evidence or sureties, if at all. I don't believe that my life or my children's life will feel the impact of this new spending directly and specifically, there are too many other variables that go into whether or not our economy is going to collapse or not.....

 

PS Please point out where I made any assumptions. Especially any assumptions based on the UN assumptions. 'You really need to get you head into this and understand rather than making assumptions after the UN's assumptions'

 

And this is going to be the worst case of bureaucracy? Bureaucracy ' is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and government.' I'd love to see a well thought out argument supporting that theory... actually no I wouldn't, don't even try because like I've said already a million times, I don't want to start arguing on the internet. But you keep misinterpreting or misreading my posts...

 

PPS I still haven't once (like you) said where I stand on this issue... you keep pretending that I have though. You simply asked me what the cost would be to me and my family and I answered. I also asked you what your goal was by posting articles on the same topics over and over, but you've finally posted a new subject, about economic costs, which really is just another of the very few arguments anyone ever has against all this global warming stuff...

 

By assumptions I mean assuming there is no cost you based upon the assumptions of the IPCC.

 

As for will dire recessions hit home sooner than later...I hope you are correct and you could be that there would be some mechanism to back out of this thing rather than have harsh sanctions from other countries make things even worse. There are consequences to every action from driving a car to increasing the cost of living for the First World.

 

Clearly there is an individual cost to each person. As for cause and effect...if someone you knew got really sick...myself personally I would prefer 1 billion let along 5 billion dollars to be spent on health care in Alberta rather than CO2 sequestration.

 

As for your opinion...are you for or against or neutral to the supposition that man made CO2 induced global warming is a dangerous problem facing mankind? Sorry...I was guilty of assuming based upon your line of debate you were for human induced global warming.