babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Anybody else frusturated and disheartened

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Anybody else frusturated and disheartened
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 05 December 2007 10:47 AM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This isn't the most substantive post but I was just wondering if other babblers are getting frusturated and disheartened as Stephen Harper ignores global warming, makes Canada the odd country out at international summits on the matter, drops Canada's opposition to Canadians being executed in foreign lands, enacts harsh tough on crime policies that are American like, and runs a minority government like a massive majority and threatens an election if anybody dare oppose him.

It's just so disheartening and scary that we have the government we have now. What's even scarier is that Canadians are eating it up. Harper has a 8 point 36-28 lead in a decima poll released today. Canadians don't seem to care about this government's ties to corrupt foreign businessmen.

What is Harper doing so right? Also, this flies against what I always assumed growing up, that Canada is a center-left country. Are we actually as right wing as America?

With the Con surge in Quebec, I am increasingly worried about a Conservative majority run by this group of neo-cons.

As bad as he was, Mulroney was not an ideological neo-con the way Harper was at least from my limited review of the 2 eras.

Well just feeling kind of depressed and dispirited about things so thought I'd try to cheer myself up by seeing what you all think.


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 December 2007 10:49 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mulroney was not an ideological neo-con

Yes he was. And he still is.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 05 December 2007 10:52 AM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK I retract my comment on Mulroney. I wasn't sure.

Also, the other thing I had always assumed was that Quebec had a socialist left wing tradition, is this not true either? For them to embrace the cons, maybe it isn't.

Or is the con surge in Quebec more of a federalist versus separatist issue as voters uncomfortable with the BQ and disgusted by the Liberals find a third party based on that. If so, why not embrace the NDP though?


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 December 2007 10:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mulroney was a neo-con but not a social conservative, I don't think. At least, no more so than anyone else. He wasn't the bible-thumping type who pushed religious family values.

In answer to the thread's opening question: yes. Now I know how Americans felt when they wound up with Bush.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 December 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't really answer about Quebec. But as much as I don't want to further dishearten you, the following is out today:

quote:
The United States, Japan and Canada are putting the brakes on progress in the fight against global warming, observers at a UN climate change conference charged Wednesday. They have tried to curtail ambitious goals and concrete promises in all rounds of negotiations, said Meena Raman, chairwoman of the Friends of the Earth, a coalition of environmental groups.

Even establishing a working group to address questions of technology transfer has encountered resistance from the three countries, Raman said.



US, Japan, Canada accused of obstruction at climate

Isn't that nice, our country is now an enemy of the Earth.

And more ...

quote:
A new federal report is warning of an international scramble for oil and minerals under melting Arctic ice and water scarcity in the Great Lakes, but the Harper government is keeping the study on the shelf, CanWest News Service has learned.

Authors of the Natural Resources Canada report, called From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a changing climate 2007, say many of the findings are consistent with recent international reports. They are baffled that the government has delayed its release, which was expected last month.

Jim Bruce, a founding member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, said one of the chapters he wrote concluded that changes in Canada's North could generate more conflict over the oil and minerals under the ice, as well as additional environmental damage.



Government hiding damaging climate report, critics charge

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 December 2007 11:28 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rob,

The collapse of the Union Nationale was caused by several factors. Maurice Duplessis is possibly the most talented Quebec politician of the last century, knew he needed to plan for a successor. He did... and the two men he groomed both had heart attacks soon after. The movement was leaderless and it allowed a new party, the Parti Quebecois, to take its place. It was predicted by some in 1985 that a new fiscally conservative party would rise in Quebec, and that's what took place with the ADQ. Dumont is smooth and appealed to an unsatisfied niche.

A lot of effort is made in understanding a people's position in terms of sociology, but often it just comes down to which side has the more talented politicians. For example, Chretien was the best in Canada in the 1990s. Now it's Harper. Educating the public only goes so far... the most important step for a movement and an ideology is to groom good leaders.

***

You're focusing on details of Harper the public does not care about or hear about. The big picture is a strong economy, no widely known disgraces or disasters, and he's cutting taxes. The other aspect is that Dion is simply not a good leader. The lacklustre liberals and a declining bloc leave a vacuum which is being filled by the conservatives and the greens. I'm not sure why the NDP is having trouble growing.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 05 December 2007 11:42 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rob8305:
Also, the other thing I had always assumed was that Quebec had a socialist left wing tradition, is this not true either? For them to embrace the cons, maybe it isn't.

Or is the con surge in Quebec more of a federalist versus separatist issue as voters uncomfortable with the BQ and disgusted by the Liberals find a third party based on that. If so, why not embrace the NDP though?


I think a lot of fracophone quebecois are anti-imperialist and pro environment, and do support a left of centre economic agenda, ie. government ownership of key parts of the economy (power, telephone service, ect.), stronger social programs, ect. At the same time, a lot of these same quebecois want a minimum of federal government involvement in Quebec's affairs, and are socially consrvative, ie. against gay marriages and abortions, against any immigration that might change the character of their "pure-laine" quebecois communities, ect. And the decentralization and social conservatism trump the left of centre views on imperialism, the environment, and the economy.

The Bloc gets support from francophone Quebecois because they combine decentralization with left of centre policies on imperialism, the environment, and the economy. The Conservatives are increasing their support in Quebec because they have played up their support for both decentralization and social conservatism. They've also managed to shed the image that the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties had of being virulently anti-Quebecois.

The Liberals get little traction with these voters because they've been in power so much for the last century that they are seen as the source of much of francophone Quebec's discontent with the federal government. The NDP gets little traction with these voters because they are perceived as wanting more federal government involvement in Quebec's affairs, whether this is true or not.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jabberwock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14147

posted 05 December 2007 12:07 PM      Profile for Jabberwock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know- I see neocons today as being inseparable from Social Conservatives- in that it uses or attempts to use Gov't to enforce a moral agenda...thus I would see Harper as Neocon, but Mulroney not necessarily.

I would agree that there is a strong streak of social conservatism in Quebec, which along with other factors may have contributed to the conservative gains in that province.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 December 2007 12:11 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Bloc gets support from francophone Quebecois because they combine decentralization with left of centre policies on imperialism, the environment, and the economy.

But the BQ - opposes raising the minimum wage, wants Canadian troops to keep fighting in Afghanistan for two more years and they have voted for two straight Conservative budgets that were each larded with extreme rightwing policies. You call that left-of-centre???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 December 2007 12:17 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

But the BQ - opposes raising the minimum wage, wants Canadian troops to keep fighting in Afghanistan for two more years and they have voted for two straight Conservative budgets that were each larded with extreme rightwing policies. You call that left-of-centre???


This is a thread about politics, not policy.

The Bloc is perceived as being left of center.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 05 December 2007 01:35 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Frustration can be had on both sides of the change issue. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that climate change would be a good thing for us. But we still want to be a team player in the issue. The science that global warming is based on is flawed and even the environmentalists will agree that there is no cold hard facts. Just one volcano eruption and everything can be totally changed in an instant, so what we are really arguing about is what man can do to slow the global warmiing and put that against what nature can do, and we will find that we have very little effect either way.

I personally think that what we should be more concentrating on is the global health issue of the environment, and not the warming at all. The healthaffects of the pollution are a very certain cause and affect issue, and yes it needs to be brought forward. When this is done, then many of the issues with warming will also come forward and be handled. But it must be a thing where all countries agree to it and if not then it will never work at all. That is why I think Harper is on the right track on this. His plan does have goals set but they are over a longer time and at least will have a chance of being met. There is no need for the "do it till it hurts approach" by many countries and when it comes down to it, the people of Canada are not ready to do this if it means hurting them with their lifestyle changes and much higher costs for everything. We all want to see us help and do our share, but since we only contribute 2% of the problem, then why are we trying to be a higher percentage of the cure? We need to look to fixing our own house before we tell others where and how to fix theirs. We all know that we do not want sewage in our lakes and streams, but we do not even try to stop a flea from peeing in a river, because it is just so small, that we can not see it worth while. Canada is like the Flea and the world is the river. We also are a country where the emmissions we release mostly go over our own territory and affect our own people mostly, so yes we have a made in Canada problem and we should have a made in Canada solution to that problem. Screw the rest of the world, and let them decide what they are going to do, as we really have no control over it anyway.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 05 December 2007 01:47 PM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 December 2007 02:53 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
Frustration can be had on both sides of the change issue. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that climate change would be a good thing for us. ....

Like instantly? Oh joy, another yokel who just strutted onto the board to smugly inform us of the latest bit of woeful ignorance still floating around among the right. News flash Mr.Expert, that one was originally told as a joke before it became kinda old.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 December 2007 02:55 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And to answer the original question, all the time now. It's the utter inability to recognise the difference between hard facts and self serving fantasy among our "elites" that gets to me the most.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frisko
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14181

posted 05 December 2007 03:10 PM      Profile for Frisko     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is Harper doing so right? Also, this flies against what I always assumed growing up, that Canada is a center-left country. Are we actually as right wing as America?

It's not what Harper is doing right, it's what the Left are doing wrong.
WERE TO DAM NEGATIVE!!!!!!

All we ever here now is constant complaining on every issue,we look like we can't agree on any policy.Most Canadians want a positive out look from there Prime Minister,and Harper has managed to do that as well as appease the undecided voter.
If things were not bad enough,we have this NDP member Irene Mathyssen disgracing parliament with this kind of shit.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071205/phot o_allegations_071205/20071205?hub=TopStories


This is not how we on the Left act,this is Liberal bullshit.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Frisko ]


From: B.C | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 05 December 2007 03:29 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In answer to the thread's opening question: yes. Now I know how Americans felt when they wound up with Bush.

Harper may not demonstrate the compassion that needs to be infused in public policy ... still, he's a lot smarter than Bush.

i don't understand how the Canadian government works. i thought the Greens, NDP, Liberals, & Quebecois constitute a bigger bloc than the Harpercons, with the capacity to steer the ship of state on important issues.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 December 2007 03:50 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
i don't understand how the Canadian government works. i thought the Greens, NDP, Liberals, & Quebecois constitute a bigger bloc than the Harpercons, with the capacity to steer the ship of state on important issues.

Mo too. Doesn't look that way though. Sure as hell doesn't feel that way. Right now we suck as a country.

Oh and as for the left being too negative, are you kidding? The Neo-cons have everyone thinking that we're going to be shot in our own houses and hit by terrorists. Could it get any more negative than that?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
JQuestio
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14781

posted 05 December 2007 04:00 PM      Profile for JQuestio     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know I'm really discouraged. It looks like our country is being run by and for people with money, who want to make more money. Harper scares me so bad, I will vote for any party which has the best chance of getting him out heck they could run a dog for all I care but I am really discouraged because even if the majority of Canadians feel like me, our votes will get split between the Greens, the Liberals,the NDP and the Quebecois.

What really makes me mad is I want to vote Green, but if I do, in effect I am voting for Harper. So what is the point, really? It seems as a society we no longer have the ability to make a choice in what we really believe in and see this reflected in the leadership we end up with. It doesn't seem like a real democracy, as much as a distraction from the fact that we don't really have a democracy. And i don't agree with any party platform, on all the issues.

I know I am dreaming, but what I wish is that people could vote on the specific issues, AND if they wanted their vote to be counted as weighing something, they would have to pass tests written by all sides of the debate, showing they understood all the issues, and were competent to make a decision.

The world is so complicated most people today only understand tiny parts of things. When they are feeling overwhelmed it is so easy for a slick manipulator to present complex problems as dumbed down deceptively simple emotional images.

If our democracy is run by uninformed , emotional people who's perceptions are constantly being manipulated by whoever has money and wants to make more, the future looks like a truly scary place.


From: private | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 December 2007 04:03 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The neo-cons are negativity personified. All they ever do is trash others. Gordon Campbell, Mike Harris and Stephen Harper were elected solely on their left/minority/poor bashing repeated as gospel by the establishment media.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 December 2007 05:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They even have a name for it: wedge issues.

quote:
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that climate change would be a good thing for us.

Are you for real? Which part will be good? The depleted Great Lakes? The melted glaciers and disappeared rivers? The new diseases? The famine as a result of changed rain patterns? The wars and violence over Arctic resources? The extinctions of species and cultures? The ... oh, shit, wait ... am I being too negative?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 December 2007 06:33 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I find frustrating and disheartening is the number of so-called progressives who are stupid enough to believe that the Liberal Party is actually an alternative to the present government.

Given a choice between Liberatives and Conserverals, I'd prefer to have a right wing government that admits to being a right wing government, as opposed to a right wing government that lies.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 05 December 2007 06:52 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Like instantly? Oh joy, another yokel who just strutted onto the board to smugly inform us of the latest bit of woeful ignorance still floating around among the right. News flash Mr.Expert, that one was originally told as a joke before it became kinda old.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]



I really can tell that you are ignorant of many things and by the way I am a retired biochemist and have lots of knowledge of what I have said, so yes I am some what of an expert, what are you qualifications for your poisonous words.

I also would again point out that if Canada were to stop all emmissions tomorrow we would only reduce the global emmissions by less then 2%, but we all know that we can never stop all emmissions.

Harper has done more then the past governments when it comes to the environment, but to those who are activists in the global warming issue, will not be satisfied unless the economy suffers doing all it can. News flash back at you and all the other alarmists. Many times in the past the artic has been without snow or ice, and it will happen again and again, no matter what man does. We may speed up the process by a decade or so, but we definitely are not in control to the point where we have an actual say in what happens.

The Global warming is not the way to look at this, as warming is not going to stop or even reverse itself. The health aspects of the pollution are what we need to be concerned with, and that is where I would say we spend the money.

Harpers plan addresses things in 20 years and will also meet all the limits for 2050, which is when the environmentalists say the worst will happen. So why is there a need to do this faster and at much larger costs. Also as I said Canada is not a very large part of the problem and without the major emmitors, agreeing to sign on there is not much that will change. India, China, and USA, all must be in agreement or as I said earlier the rest of the world even if they all were together to stopp all emmissions, it would not change things very much. These are known facts, and even the environmentalist postings will say just how small Canada's contribution to the problem really is. So why are you so on about Harpers plan? Is it because you do not like the CPC and would never agree with any plan they put forward?

As for all the things that have also been said that will happen to Canada if global warming happens, we will not lose our rivers and our great lakes. Water levels will rise and yes we may see salt water coming further up the St Lawrence, be ground water tables will also be very high. Canada's Climate would benefit agriculturally with a warmer climate and the resources in our artic will be easier to find and process. Wars about them? That would happen even without global warming if we do not make our artic sovereign to Canada. With the Glaciers all melted and that much more water around there will be much more rain then before and here in Canada we tend to have tile drained fields that can handle a higher mosisture content. So yes Canada would benefit from global warming, and you do not need me to tell you this as it has already been said by the environmentalist groups many times.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 December 2007 07:13 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I really can tell that you are ignorant of many things and by the way I am a retired biochemist and have lots of knowledge of what I have said, so yes I am some what of an expert, what are you qualifications for your poisonous words."

My qualifications comes from seeing the same BS being repeated on a regular basis for the last decade or two. As a supposed biochemist can you then tell me why I might be so skeptical of these kind of claims Re global warming? You are the "expert" after all.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 December 2007 07:38 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am a retired biochemist

Just a biochemist?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
anchovy breather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14223

posted 05 December 2007 07:43 PM      Profile for anchovy breather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for all the things that have also been said that will happen to Canada if global warming happens, we will not lose our rivers and our great lakes. Water levels will rise and yes we may see salt water coming further up the St Lawrence, be ground water tables will also be very high. Canada's Climate would benefit agriculturally with a warmer climate and the resources in our artic will be easier to find and process. Wars about them? That would happen even without global warming if we do not make our artic sovereign to Canada. With the Glaciers all melted and that much more water around there will be much more rain then before and here in Canada we tend to have tile drained fields that can handle a higher mosisture content. So yes Canada would benefit from global warming, and you do not need me to tell you this as it has already been said by the environmentalist groups many times.

You'd think reading the above would make me sleep easier. Things are going to be fine, anchovy. They really are.

But, alas...


From: rotating, random | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 06 December 2007 02:57 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
I must point out that much of the peoples frustration, has no basis in the science of global warming at all. For example: the posts saying how Canada will have dry rivers and famine and disease and war. That is what many actually think, but they are only responding to the alarmist views that many have shouted out, over the top of people who would rather explain the things, instaed of causing mass hysteria.

If the climate here in Canad grows warmer by say 5 degrees( and that is more then twice predicted rises), we will be able to have two crops of grain per year from our prairies, and even in the rest of Canadian agricuture. We will also have more diversivfied crops as well. The melting of glaciers does not mean we lose water in the world but rather we have much more water. The seas will be less salty because most of the new water will dilute the salt content, but we will still have the water. It will make more moisture in the air and hance we will have more rain, throughout Canada. Here in Canada we have no other rain shelf other then the rocky mountains and so for the most part we will be better able to handle this larger rainfall. There will not be famine here in Canada, and for the most part the food we will have here will be abundant. As for disease coming out from the perma frost, it is a possible thing but more Stephen King then actual fact, and we are now pretty far advanced to be able to dela with much of any problems from that, but as I said it would be a very long shot to believe that this will happen. It makes for good movies but not good science. As for wars for the artic resources go, even the most troubled minds should be able to see that this is not really an issue that is due to global warming, but rather one of Canada's claim on artic lands and sovereignty.

Canada does not have a water shortage and would not have even if the glaciers melt. It is not that this water is then lost upon melting, but rather the air will have a much higher moisture content and hence we would have much more rain. The Clouds would be much thicker and while they would trap some heat they would also reflect a lot more solar heat, in the process as well. What will become very evident once the glaciers melt is that we will see that the artic was once a very warm climate and had tropical ferns in much of its area. This was from long ago and it was not due to greenhouse gas emmissions. We already know this has happened on a regular basis over a very long time. We have been steadily getting a warmer climate for the last 5-6 centuries and it all had nothing to do with emmissions. It is just part of a regular cycle of events.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not saying that man has not contributed to the warming with some emissions, but rather I am saying that we do not have the ability to affect the rise in temperatures by any great degree. If you look at what the alarmists are talking about it is a 2-3 degree rise in 50 years. That is not really going to kill off very much. As for the predictions of more severe storms and weather go, yes if the storms carry with them more moisture, then they will have more weight and damaging effects, but not the perfect storm scenarios that science fiction talks about, but rather larger forces exerted on infastructure that was designed for lesser forces. We will need to build better buildings, but here in Canada our buildings are designed much stronger due to snow loads and such so we are already ahead in that regard.

Global warming is a very large issue and it has many differing levels of problems that it can generate, but to go off screaming that the end is coming, is not what the science says. There will be gradual changes and they will take place over 50 years and will have advantages and disadvantages, but we do know that even if we stopped all of mans contributions it would not stop the warming and it would not slow it down by any real data. Canada being 2% of the problem can reuce that by having the northern treeline move north by 50 to 100 miles and then there would be more trees to filter the gases. We live in a ecosystem that is evry much self correcting in many ways, that is why it has survived for so long. We will adapt to much of what needs to be done, but the methods to that adapting should come from level heads, and science, not gueeses by the alarmists.

Water is much like energy, Science shows us Energy can not be created or destroyed, that is a fact of physics, and water is much the same. No matter what you do with it, it will always come back to eventually being water, no matter what you do to it. The rise in the ocean levels is proably the biggest factor in the melting glaciers, and that will mostly only affect the coasts of the countries and not the majority of the land mass. I hope this has helped clear some heads in this whole issue. This is not something that needs panic or alarm, but rather cool and level minds dooing some basic thinking.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 December 2007 04:08 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Youre full of it.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
anchovy breather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14223

posted 06 December 2007 04:15 PM      Profile for anchovy breather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scary too.
From: rotating, random | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 December 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem with people like fixer1, is he really believes that nonsense. It is interesting that he accuses others of not being familiar with the science when he obviously has not even the remotest clue. And what is scary, really scary, is that all sorts of self-interested and deluded morons will believe him. What is worse than that is that his opinion is shared by the brain trust among the Harper regime.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 December 2007 04:25 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You said it better than I so I'll let you have the last word. Here.

FM: "The problem with people like fixer1, is he really believes that nonsense. It is interesting that he accuses others of not being familiar with the science when he obviously has not even the remotest clue. And what is scary, really scary, is that all sorts of self-interested and deluded morons will believe him. What is worse than that is that his opinion is shared by the brain trust among the Harper regime."

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 06 December 2007 09:30 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fixer is right about one thing. The Harper government has done more than the previus government on this issue.

The Harper government has done next to nothing.

The Liberals did nothing at all.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 07:37 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
How stupid and narrow minded many here are. Maybe I should ask you to show me where in any scientific writing that global warming will harm Canada. You can not because it simply is not true. I have given you an easy to understand version of just what will happen, and I still
defy anyone here to show me how melting glaciers will reduce the water we have here on earth. Remember it is really not a high education thing with the water cycle tables you learned these back in grade six. Just show me where we will have less water, and I will bow to you view.

You see the nayer sayers here think they have a good idea of what things are, when they are really and truly totally wrong. Also just remember that we have temeprature swings many times what the global warming will be, every day and night and we do not have any real catasrophic events happening around these. So if the average global temperature is raised 5 degrees, what do you think will happen.

I already did explain that we will see more forceful storms and explained that will be due to the higher water vapour content and therefore more destructive on our infastructure. Does any one want to argue this? I should think not, as it is just a fact of science and engineering. It is not something that is open to wild or even weird science.

The artic has in the past been almost tropical, and the proof of that are tropical ferns found in the depths of glaciers. How do you think this came about? These again are scientific facts, and these also were from times past where greenhouse gas emmission did not play any events. It probably was a volcano eruption or many that made that world cold. Just as one or two volcano eruptions today could easily do the same thing. Man's contribution to all of this is small, very small. Canada's contribution to this is even minescule to say the least. So why is Canada being pushed so hard to be a leader when we really do not have any real clout other then our own tiny emmissions. Anyone want to argue that one?

Like I said narrow minds that are just way to cluttered with hyperbola and misinformation, is what I see a lot of in what many say here. They are wrong and they do not like being told so. I am saying that if you disagree, then fine tell me why, and we will debate it. But to just make insulting statemnets means you have already lost the arguement.

I have already stated that man does have some contribution to global warming, but I say that we are talking very small numbers of percent effect. Show me where there is a major problem that the planets own self correcting ecosystem does not in some way correct things and then we will have a good debate. But for people to say water will be gone, when we know water is never gone and it has its own recycling system, and also to predict famine in Canada when we can double our crops per year if the temperature rises, do not make sense now does it? The fact that the northern tree line will move many miles further northward, means greater filtering of the pollution there, is also somethign we can debate. The fact that once the earths Glaciers have melted and there is all this extra water vapor in the air, it will cause thick clouds that will trap some heat in, but also reflect even more heat away from earth, is another issue that we can debate. But to just say I am full of it, well I think that in and of itself shows you who is full of what. Are you afraid to debate the issues? Please if you can not debate these things then you are nothing more then place holders, who really do nothing more then allow propaganda to use your mind as a repository.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 07 December 2007 07:47 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe I should ask you to show me where in any scientific writing that g;lobal warming will harm Canada.
The polar bear is a part of my Canada.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 07 December 2007 07:48 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fixer,

I've only read a dozen or so scientific papers on global warming, and I don't believe it will directly harm Canada in the short-term.
I do believe it will indirectly devastate Canada.
If it's bad for the world, it's probably bad for Canada. There would be serious refugee crises as places like the Maldives become unhabitable. Many diseases would move up north and spread faster through bacteria. There woould be global pressures on our water reserves and eventually these would just be taken.

Most wars in history are related to natural resources. Do we want to see these increase? In general, we'll be better off moving to a world of conservation and sustainability.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2007 08:00 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
... just remember that we have temeprature swings many times what the global warming will be, every day and night and we do not have any real catasrophic events happening around these.

That alone is enough to tell me that you either have no clue about climatology or you're being wilfully ignorant.

You berate others for reacting emotionally and not providing a scientific basis for their views and yet the IPCC findings are based on the work of a boatload of scientists. You, on the other hand, have given us paragraph after paragraph of soothing noise without a single cite. If what you're giving us is actually based on science, you should be able to provide some links to scientific publications that back you up. (And I mean serious, peer-reviewed science, not the ravings of Tim Ball and company.) It's not like the subject of climate change hasn't been the subject of serious study in recent years.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 08:17 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Youre full of it.

Ahh nice comeback. Maybe you can show me where what I have posted is wrong, instead of your wittless and derogatory remark, or are you capable of such things?

quote:
The problem with people like fixer1, is he really believes that nonsense. It is interesting that he accuses others of not being familiar with the science when he obviously has not even the remotest clue. And what is scary, really scary, is that all sorts of self-interested and deluded morons will believe him. What is worse than that is that his opinion is shared by the brain trust among the Harper regime.

You state the obvious that I believe in the things I write about. But you offer no proof that I am wrong? Why is that. Do you not have any real issue with what I said that you would like to debate? Or are you just programmed to follow the one line of all global warming is bad and terrifying.

You say I do not have the remotest clue but you do not seem capable of saying why or where that happens to be. So are you out of clues and you then accuse me of being so as well?

Only deluded moron will believe anything I have written? Oh come on now, are you that frightened by a sound arguement against what you say you believe. I take it you are not a big thinker, and you like I said are nothing more then a repository for the Chicken Little group. Today here in Ottawa we will see the temperature go from -18 to near 0, and there will be no catastropies in it doing so. So just how is it that if the world average temeprature rises 5 degrees, that there will be drought and famine and deimated coastlines all over the world? It sounds silly because it is silly.

Yes if we have all the polar ice caps melt, the seas will raise and much of the lands that are build on near or even below sea level will have problems, but this will not happen in one big wave and it will be over a century or more. So even a building built today will be 100 years old before it gets flooded. So the obvious answer to this is....? Build new buildings on higher ground and away from the coasts, where severe weather and storm surge is and always been a problem. Not a real pressing issue if you think about it.

As I said earlier, if you disagree then say so, but maybe you can then say why you disagree and give me the reasons so we can discuss them. If you can not do that then you are not really the kind of minds that any scientific fact would change. You are one of the midless zombiess that the Environmentalist alarmists have recruited and count on for their future money and support. Me I will willingly spend money to do what can be proven os the right thing to do. All this pressuring of the Harper government to make huge commitments is nothing more then politics. The CPC government has in place a plan that does adress the emmission problem within the time frame that even the environmentalists have said is correct. So why is it so important to make this happen now and at large costs? Who ultimately will get the benefit of that money spent? It make no sense to me that since we already have a plan that is in place that addresses the issue over the time frame set out, and we now want to see that pushed up so fast that it will costs us dearly.

I like Harpers idea that the health issues of pollution are in greater need to be addressed, and that in the end will save us billions of dollars. But it will not be as enriching to the environmentalist lobby, and that is why we see it being swept away with little or no coverage.

Again I welcome debate on any of this, and I am very open minded to any input. But as I have shown I hope that yes I can be just as insulting as the next person, and that is a fault I know I have and try to address. So it would help to keep it reasonable debate,and it will then not be a insult tit for tat thing.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 07 December 2007 08:20 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't get frustrated just accept the fact they are lying bags of fecal matter and vote accordingly.


What gets me is they say we can't do this global warming fight unless the US china and india etc. get involved..and the media agrees and rams that bullshit down everyones throat.

What Harper and the 27% of people that support him are doing is sabotaging the planet. Instead of strengthening the worlds position and empowering the rest of the planet so they can speak with a strong voice and perhaps hold some power against these renegade nations ...he and his CANADIAN supporters chooses to weaken the planet against these renegade nations.

This is what 27% of Canadians and there neocon media want..and you can count on one thing for sure Canadians really don't give a shit..all they are concerned about is their wallet. So, given that..when you hear of a global warming problem occuring in your neigbourhood and a hand full of neocons are floating down the river or sliding down a mountainside or dying from heat exhaustion.You can pretty well say they deserve what they get, and earned every iota of the hell they experience.

Same with the US (wildfires), China(pollution)..and India(?)...if the people there are also manipulated and moronic to not understand a problem they wake up to everyday...what can you say?


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
Oh come on now, are you that frightened by a sound arguement against what you say you believe.

You're not providing sound arguments, only assertions. I notice you skipped the part of my response that requested cites. You can claim to be a retired scientist but that means nothing. You're an anonymous voice on the internet and you need to back up your own assertions just like everyone else. Since I've seen no evidence that you intend to do so I have no intention of getting drawn into a "debate" with you.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pearson's Fan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14764

posted 07 December 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for Pearson's Fan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's happening in our politics is due to the failures of the liberal party. There's no way Harper and his happy henchmen would have been voting in if the liberals would have pulled even half their weight.

The other problem is that we, as Canadians, spend our time on the keyboard and not in the streets. We are our own worse enemy.


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
TrinityBellwoodsGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14438

posted 07 December 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for TrinityBellwoodsGuy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pearson's Fan:
What's happening in our politics is due to the failures of the liberal party. There's no way Harper and his happy henchmen would have been voting in if the liberals would have pulled even half their weight.

The other problem is that we, as Canadians, spend our time on the keyboard and not in the streets. We are our own worse enemy.


Well... if Layton had not brought down the Liberals, they would still be in power and Harper would not. Martin instead of Harper is not much better, but it is better.


From: Trinity-Bellwoods | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 07 December 2007 09:37 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TrinityBellwoodsGuy:

Well... if Layton had not brought down the Liberals, they would still be in power and Harper would not. Martin instead of Harper is not much better, but it is better.


Actually, one way or another, there would have been an election by now. And one way or another, the Liberals were going to get spanked.

Paul Martin is far more responsible for Stephen Harper's election than anyone. And anyone who claims differently isn't being honest with themselves.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Radioactive Westerner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4432

posted 07 December 2007 10:19 AM      Profile for Radioactive Westerner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My concern about Kyoto is the way it was setup.

By excluding developing nations it just gave permission to all the western countries to move their production to China and India where they don't have to account for it.

Can you say big giant loophole?

While I don't buy into the big doom and gloom thing about the earth flooding over I do believe we should be responsible and clean up our own shit.

Part of my disbelief lies in the fact that when I was growing up and in school all of these same scientists were telling me that we were going to freeze in an ice age.

When they can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do tomorrow, how the heck can they tell us with any certainty what is going to happen 50+ years from now?

And for every environmentalist I hear complaining about sceptics and their ties to "Big Oil" I see a scientist who is in it for their own interests (ie getting money).

So I myself don't belief either side particularly and feel that both groups are in it for their own reasons.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're not providing sound arguments, only assertions. I notice you skipped the part of my response that requested cites. You can claim to be a retired scientist but that means nothing. You're an anonymous voice on the internet and you need to back up your own assertions just like everyone else. Since I've seen no evidence that you intend to do so I have no intention of getting drawn into a "debate" with you.


What I have said here so far is not somethingthat should require cites to prove. The fact that water can not be just deatroyed the way the environmentalists say, and the world will be in huge shortages, is just plain silly. As I said you all learned this long ago in grade school. There is not much you can do to water and not have it come back as water again. You can eveaporate it and it will come back as rain. You can drink it and it will come back thru baody excretions as water after some time being filtered by the natural events. If you want a cite for that, just look up the water cycle in any grade school ciriculum. This will be the very easy and first place people should have looked long before believing that catastropy is waiting around the corner. This should have easily shown most people that lies were being used to get them onside.

The 2% that Canada's contribution is posted on many places on the net and even on the environmentalists web sites, so if you need to be shown this I will take some time and find ypou a link, but if as you say you will debate what I say I wonder at the level that will be, if I have to first show you these very basic things for you to know.

The biggest thing I have that I find is my best tool is the fact that what I have said, makes perfect common sense and is shown each and every day as being things that we normally see.

The fact that with a warmer climate and shorter winters Canada would agriculturally grow two or more crops per year like much of the USA south does. This means that we will produce twice the crops. That will mean more food and not famine. It does not take a wizard to see that. I can prove this in any form you choose.

What I do want from those who think I am not saying things truthfully, is show me why you believe that this thing is so important to be done so fast today, when we all have said it would not be a thing to have consequences for another 40-50 years.

The reason none of you want to debate your positions is you have no idea of what you are talking about and just do not want to admit this. Show me I am wrong.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2007 11:39 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
Show me I am wrong.

But I don't care that you're wrong. You're the one who seems to want to convince the majority here that you're right. That puts the burden of proof on you.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 December 2007 11:50 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, one would think that a scientist would know that for every conversion of energy, in this case water, there will, according to the Laws of Energy be a 10% loss.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 07 December 2007 11:57 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing people never seem to look at is the fact that they base all their predictions etc. on computer modeling programs.

You will remember years ago they said global warming won't effect us for 500 years...and as computer power got enhanced and programs got better it was changed too 400 years ..then again 300 years and on and on it went.

This is the problem of the know it all atmosphere scientists exhibit when they are only as good as the latest technology.


Now they say 50 years...well it has been established that they DON'T know it all, therefore if they are going to rely on computer models you can pretty well count on 25 years or less for starters and you will notice they always keep saying ...this is happening faster than our models predicted...that is happening way faster than our models predicted.


It's a broken record already but the facts were made clear as far back as the sixties. As they failed to act back then they created the present problem.

If it's a normal cycle their really isn't much any one can do anyways except use it to your advantage and that's what is currently going on. Everything is being blamed on global warming.

It's a pretty good smokescreen for all the problems associated with the environment , like dangerous gas emitters that aren't greenhouse..creation of toxins in the atmosphere that aren't green house..chemicals in the environment that aren't greenhouse...nuclear radiation plants that aren't green house.

The end result is it's ok to kill 25,000 Canadians a year as long as greenhouse gas's aren't doing it and that's exactly whats happening. So they use the hysteria of bad weather to their advantage.

It's the weathers fault not our neocon rat bastard governments or their supporters...ehh ehh


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Buddycat you have the right idea. But as for Reminds post I laugh at that because there are millions of reactions chemically and energy wise that got to complete accounting for results. 10% loss would be something a high school teacher would use, because they were not ready for the truth yet in the laws of physics. That is again "energy can not be created or destroyed" It can be channelled and used but in the end it all must add up to being equal on all sides of the equation. If it does not, then you have a missing piece of data.

I am going to look up some links for all to read thru, and maybe then we can show the many people here that this issue is more hocus pocus then black and white. I am just amazed that this stuff has been so deep rooted in many, when there never was any scientific fact of all the stuff they say they believe. But I guess it does have a good side to it, in that they are not incapable of loyalty to a cause, just that they need to find a better cause.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 December 2007 03:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well fixer 1, ya have just shot yourself in the foot yet again, scientist my ass.

quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 04:40 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
You are thye one shooting yourself in the foot. We were not talking thermal dynamics and even if we were 10% is way too high a loss for most things. But in just so you know that in the process of thermal dynamics you still can account for 100% of all energy.

You still want to question my ability? Bring it on. You are definotely not in any way a scientific person. You can not even understand what laws of physics apply to what the processes you are talking about. Plus you have said nothing as yet about the subject of global warming, and why you think you know even a smallest thing about it. So sad.

here is a link just for you and it is at a level that you should be able to understand
http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

If that one is too basic for you then try this one
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Chemistry/Generalchemistry/Energy/LawofConservation/LawofConservation.htm

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 07 December 2007 04:52 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
It has been a long time since I tutored students in Physics, but that was one of my better subjects. You have to remember I am now 35 years out of school and retired, but I still remember most of the things from those days, even though we did not use them as much in the labs over my career.

I will apologise for maybe sounding a little condensending in some of my responces, but when people keep trying to say they think I am a quack, when all the science and physics is on my side, well that does get me a little upset. At least you tried to use a scientific appraoch to come back at me, just not one that applies.

In the environment there are very many chemical reactiosn that go to 100% completion, and the same water cycle table again is one that does as well. That is why I was so wanting some one to try and argue that water can actually go away and never return back to its former state.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 December 2007 05:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
YA, we are talking thermodynamics if you are speaking about energy that cannot be created nor destroyed. It is the first Law!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 07 December 2007 07:25 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This looks like fun.

quote:
What I do want from those who think I am not saying things truthfully, is show me why you believe that this thing is so important to be done so fast today, when we all have said it would not be a thing to have consequences for another 40-50 years.

Who is the we? You may have noticed that the polar icecap is well on its way to being gone during the summer, the Greenland Ice Cap is losing mass at an increasing rate and the vast majority of alpine glaciers are retreating, amongst other effects that are apparent now. It is not just environmentalists that are calling for action, but climate scientists, many who do not accept the IPCC consensus because they believe it is too conservative. Abrupt climate change has occurred in the past and could be triggered by anthropogenic global warming.

quote:
The fact that with a warmer climate and shorter winters Canada would agriculturally grow two or more crops per year like much of the USA south does. This means that we will produce twice the crops. That will mean more food and not famine.

That depends on water availability and soil quality as well as temperature, to say nothing of extreme weather events.

quote:
That is why I was so wanting some one to try and argue that water can actually go away and never return back to its former state.

Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen
(requiring energy). If you have no oxygen to oxidize the hydrogen (releasing energy) you will never get water back. I don't think this is you mean by water going away though. Water can evaporate in one place and precipitation can fall in another. Water can be used in one location faster than it can be replenished, and the rate of replenishment can change. Fossil aquifers are being depleted, glaciers are melting, and precipitation patterns change. There is a limited amount of fresh water, let alone potable fresh water, and growing requirements for various purposes, including simple drinking water.

quote:

When they can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do tomorrow, how the heck can they tell us with any certainty what is going to happen 50+ years from now?

Come back when you can distinguish between weather and climate.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 08 December 2007 07:37 AM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
[QB]How stupid and narrow minded many here are. Maybe I should ask you to show me where in any scientific writing that global warming will harm Canada.

mankind tends to think he's smarter than mother nature.

who needs "scientific writing" showing that global warming will harm Canada ?

we human beings are burning oil at the rate of 1 cubic mile a year. drastically altering our climate.

Cheney said, "the American way of life is not negotiable", referring to American-style hyper-consumption. American-style technology equates to mis-management of industrial effluents, that is, poisoning the planet on which we live, by offshoring manufacturing to countries that have less strict pollution controls. is hyper-consumption "good for America" ? or just good for Cheney's
business buddies ?

depends on the definition of "good for Canada", i suppose. if "good for Canada" is a temporary uptick in the Canadian GNP, yes, global warming might be "good for Canada".

before concluding that Global Warming is "good" for Canada, talk with some climate change
scientists, off the record. most of their public statements are conservative.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 December 2007 08:03 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
mankind tends to think he's smarter than mother nature.

Not all of mankind. The environmentalists that fixer1 sneers at have proven to be right on any number of occasions and if some of the dire consequences they've predicted haven't happened it's because governments have acted in various ways. It's those who have done the sneering and preached complacency who have turned out to be wrong.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 08 December 2007 10:16 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who is the we? You may have noticed that the polar icecap is well on its way to being gone during the summer, the Greenland Ice Cap is losing mass at an increasing rate and the vast majority of alpine glaciers are retreating, amongst other effects that are apparent now. It is not just environmentalists that are calling for action, but climate scientists, many who do not accept the IPCC consensus because they believe it is too conservative. Abrupt climate change has occurred in the past and could be triggered by anthropogenic global warming.

quote:


Firts off the polat ice cap is only reduced by small amounts right now in summer, but yes the sea ice cap is almost melted now in summer because the sea water is very high in salt content and it does melt at much lower temperatures etc. This is not a large scale problem. The Columbian Glaciers in the Rockies Mountains receed by 2.5 miles in our warmest summers but exceed to the same 500yards from the visitors viewing station in the winters. This receeding distance has doubled over the last 75 years from what it was before. This is about 10% of the actual glacier itself. So it is going to be very long before we see it go away completely, but in maybe 100 or so years we will see it about half of what it is today. There can be any number of naturally occurring events that could change all this either way, such as some massive volcanic eruptions or such. That is why we never can predict so far into the future, because we can not predict all the factors that can and most likely will happen.


quote:
That depends on water availability and soil quality as well as temperature, to say nothing of extreme weather events.


quote:


The fact that if the glaciers melt the sea level will wise about 4 meters and so will all the worlds water tables do some degree or another. That is why the environmentalits are saying it will be alarming, but what they forget also is with that much more water and a warmer heatcycle we will have a much more moisture in the air. This will cause a lot more rain, and since the only area in Canada that has a rain shadow is really the rockies, I do not see that water and soil being a problem for that area. But if it were then we would easily be able to use irrigation to make things work. Canada has tramendous ability and resources to survive any warming that could come our way.

quote:
Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen
(requiring energy). If you have no oxygen to oxidize the hydrogen (releasing energy) you will never get water back. I don't think this is you mean by water going away though. Water can evaporate in one place and precipitation can fall in another. Water can be used in one location faster than it can be replenished, and the rate of replenishment can change. Fossil aquifers are being depleted, glaciers are melting, and precipitation patterns change. There is a limited amount of fresh water, let alone potable fresh water, and growing requirements for various purposes, including simple drinking water.


If you burn hydrogen and oxygen what do you get as the byproduct? Water of course. Since we will always have oxygen( we better as without is man is doomed)and hydrogen, we will alway still have water. The replenishment of the water used in one area is usually going to dend on the uses that it is put to. If you take water and ship it to half way around the world it will yes reduce the water tables in the areas it was taken from but in the end it will all even out as even in our water table it does have highs and lows but the natural state is one of equal balance and water will always seek its natural state.

quote:
Come back when you can distinguish between weather and climate

I really think you should think about this one some more Weather/ Climate or Climate / Weather
Both are part of the other. But weather is more immediate and climate is more long term. In this type of discussion they are both valid and necessary to the discussion.

quote:
mankind tends to think he's smarter than mother nature.

who needs "scientific writing" showing that global warming will harm Canada ?

we human beings are burning oil at the rate of 1 cubic mile a year. drastically altering our climate.

Cheney said, "the American way of life is not negotiable", referring to American-style hyper-consumption. American-style technology equates to mis-management of industrial effluents, that is, poisoning the planet on which we live, by offshoring manufacturing to countries that have less strict pollution controls. is hyper-consumption "good for America" ? or just good for Cheney's
business buddies ?

depends on the definition of "good for Canada", i suppose. if "good for Canada" is a temporary uptick in the Canadian GNP, yes, global warming might be "good for Canada".

before concluding that Global Warming is "good" for Canada, talk with some climate change
scientists, off the record. most of their public statements are conservative.


I actually agree and disagree what what this poster has said, but I still say that if you talk to people who are not on the business of being paid for their views on global warming you will find that the majority of those who look at the science will say it is all based on wrong headed modeling that does not give you real answers. The USA is and probably always will be a drain on the natural resources of the world, and the only answer to that is make them pay more for their own gluttony. But we have treaties that say Canada can not charge the USA more for oil then we have in our own domestic market, and that just stinks. But it is our government who decided to agree to that, and politic in this case are always interfering.

quote:
Not all of mankind. The environmentalists that fixer1 sneers at have proven to be right on any number of occasions and if some of the dire consequences they've predicted haven't happened it's because governments have acted in various ways. It's those who have done the sneering and preached complacency who have turned out to be wrong.


I do not sneer at environmentalists, but rather I choose to ask them to prove their science and they can not. They will say it can notn be proven mathematically or with any sound scientific system. So what it comes down to is faith. I am not big on faith and I do not believe in God, or any higher pwoer for that matter. Also where is it that these environmentalists have ever been correct about anything they have said?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 08 December 2007 10:17 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who is the we? You may have noticed that the polar icecap is well on its way to being gone during the summer, the Greenland Ice Cap is losing mass at an increasing rate and the vast majority of alpine glaciers are retreating, amongst other effects that are apparent now. It is not just environmentalists that are calling for action, but climate scientists, many who do not accept the IPCC consensus because they believe it is too conservative. Abrupt climate change has occurred in the past and could be triggered by anthropogenic global warming.

Firts off the polat ice cap is only reduced by small amounts right now in summer, but yes the sea ice cap is almost melted now in summer because the sea water is very high in salt content and it does melt at much lower temperatures etc. This is not a large scale problem. The Columbian Glaciers in the Rockies Mountains receed by 2.5 miles in our warmest summers but exceed to the same 500yards from the visitors viewing station in the winters. This receeding distance has doubled over the last 75 years from what it was before. This is about 10% of the actual glacier itself. So it is going to be very long before we see it go away completely, but in maybe 100 or so years we will see it about half of what it is today. There can be any number of naturally occurring events that could change all this either way, such as some massive volcanic eruptions or such. That is why we never can predict so far into the future, because we can not predict all the factors that can and most likely will happen.


quote:
That depends on water availability and soil quality as well as temperature, to say nothing of extreme weather events.

The fact that if the glaciers melt the sea level will wise about 4 meters and so will all the worlds water tables do some degree or another. That is why the environmentalits are saying it will be alarming, but what they forget also is with that much more water and a warmer heatcycle we will have a much more moisture in the air. This will cause a lot more rain, and since the only area in Canada that has a rain shadow is really the rockies, I do not see that water and soil being a problem for that area. But if it were then we would easily be able to use irrigation to make things work. Canada has tramendous ability and resources to survive any warming that could come our way.

quote:
Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen
(requiring energy). If you have no oxygen to oxidize the hydrogen (releasing energy) you will never get water back. I don't think this is you mean by water going away though. Water can evaporate in one place and precipitation can fall in another. Water can be used in one location faster than it can be replenished, and the rate of replenishment can change. Fossil aquifers are being depleted, glaciers are melting, and precipitation patterns change. There is a limited amount of fresh water, let alone potable fresh water, and growing requirements for various purposes, including simple drinking water.


If you burn hydrogen and oxygen what do you get as the byproduct? Water of course. Since we will always have oxygen( we better as without is man is doomed)and hydrogen, we will alway still have water. The replenishment of the water used in one area is usually going to dend on the uses that it is put to. If you take water and ship it to half way around the world it will yes reduce the water tables in the areas it was taken from but in the end it will all even out as even in our water table it does have highs and lows but the natural state is one of equal balance and water will always seek its natural state.

quote:
Come back when you can distinguish between weather and climate

I really think you should think about this one some more Weather/ Climate or Climate / Weather
Both are part of the other. But weather is more immediate and climate is more long term. In this type of discussion they are both valid and necessary to the discussion.

quote:
mankind tends to think he's smarter than mother nature.

who needs "scientific writing" showing that global warming will harm Canada ?

we human beings are burning oil at the rate of 1 cubic mile a year. drastically altering our climate.

Cheney said, "the American way of life is not negotiable", referring to American-style hyper-consumption. American-style technology equates to mis-management of industrial effluents, that is, poisoning the planet on which we live, by offshoring manufacturing to countries that have less strict pollution controls. is hyper-consumption "good for America" ? or just good for Cheney's
business buddies ?

depends on the definition of "good for Canada", i suppose. if "good for Canada" is a temporary uptick in the Canadian GNP, yes, global warming might be "good for Canada".

before concluding that Global Warming is "good" for Canada, talk with some climate change
scientists, off the record. most of their public statements are conservative.


I actually agree and disagree what what this poster has said, but I still say that if you talk to people who are not on the business of being paid for their views on global warming you will find that the majority of those who look at the science will say it is all based on wrong headed modeling that does not give you real answers. The USA is and probably always will be a drain on the natural resources of the world, and the only answer to that is make them pay more for their own gluttony. But we have treaties that say Canada can not charge the USA more for oil then we have in our own domestic market, and that just stinks. But it is our government who decided to agree to that, and politic in this case are always interfering.

quote:
Not all of mankind. The environmentalists that fixer1 sneers at have proven to be right on any number of occasions and if some of the dire consequences they've predicted haven't happened it's because governments have acted in various ways. It's those who have done the sneering and preached complacency who have turned out to be wrong.


I do not sneer at environmentalists, but rather I choose to ask them to prove their science and they can not. They will say it can notn be proven mathematically or with any sound scientific system. So what it comes down to is faith. I am not big on faith and I do not believe in God, or any higher pwoer for that matter. Also where is it that these environmentalists have ever been correct about anything they have said?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 December 2007 11:13 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
...if you talk to people who are not on the business of being paid for their views on global warming you will find that the majority of those who look at the science will say it is all based on wrong headed modeling that does not give you real answers.

Links, please.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 08 December 2007 12:57 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Firts off the polat ice cap is only reduced by small amounts right now in summer, but yes the sea ice cap is almost melted now in summer because the sea water is very high in salt content and it does melt at much lower temperatures etc. This is not a large scale problem. The Columbian Glaciers in the Rockies Mountains receed by 2.5 miles in our warmest summers but exceed to the same 500yards from the visitors viewing station in the winters. This receeding distance has doubled over the last 75 years from what it was before. This is about 10% of the actual glacier itself. So it is going to be very long before we see it go away completely, but in maybe 100 or so years we will see it about half of what it is today. There can be any number of naturally occurring events that could change all this either way, such as some massive volcanic eruptions or such. That is why we never can predict so far into the future, because we can not predict all the factors that can and most likely will happen.

Obviously I meant the Arctic Ice Cap, which is sea ice. Your explanation as to why it is melting makes absolutely no sense. Sea water does not melt, it is already liquid. In contrast to fresh water, the salt in ocean water causes the density of the water to increase as it nears the freezing point, and very cold ocean water tends to sink. As a result, sea ice forms slowly, compared to freshwater ice, because salt water sinks away from the cold surface before it cools enough to freeze. Furthermore the freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Because oceans are so deep, it takes longer to reach the freezing point, and generally, the top 100 to 150 meters (300 to 450 feet) of water must be cooled to the freezing temperature for ice to form. Multi-year ice contains very little salt because the brine (salty water) has drained out of it. Once the multi-year ice is gone, it will take a much colder climate for it to grow back significantly. I wouldn't call a greater than 20% reduction in the summer minimum in one year a small amount. Even if this year was anomalous the trend is clear The impact of an open Arctic Ocean is that it makes the Greenland Ice Cap more vulnerable.

The Athabasca Glacier has retreated 1,500 m (4,921 ft) since the late 19th century. The rate of retreat has increased since 1980, following a period of slow retreat from 1950 to 1980, and is currently 2-3 metres a year. It has also lost over half of its volume (in 125 years). Volume is more important than areal extent, especially when considering it as a fresh water source (thus it is already less than half of what it was 125 years ago). Your seasonal advance and retreat scenario shows a complete and utter ignorance of glacial motion, accumulation, and ablation (which you can google if you care). If you want the scientific story on water on the prairies the impact of disappearing mountain glaciers a good place to start is by googling Dr. David Shindler, who has written a number of papers.

As for weather and climate, of course they are related. Weather is the set of atmospheric phenomena present at any one time, including interactions with the hydrosphere. Climate is the average and variations of weather conditions in a region over a long period of time. Weather is what is happening now and climate is what you can usually expect at different times of the year.
Thus it is far easier to predict climate than weather, particularly over a large area.

quote:
since the only area in Canada that has a rain shadow is really the rockies

Let me see: Victoria and Richmond/Delta are in a rain shadow, the southern Okanagan around Osoyoos is a desert, much of southwestern Yukon is at least semi-arid, including the Carcross desert. Nope, not too many rain shadows in Canada.

quote:
but I still say that if you talk to people who are not on the business of being paid for their views on global warming you will find that the majority of those who look at the science will say it is all based on wrong headed modeling that does not give you real answers.

Your bias and/or ignorance are apparent in this statement. Models are only a small part of the story and the science is not based on them. These are among the favourite lies of the denialists. Virtually no peer-reviewed literature supports your position.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 09 December 2007 07:03 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obviously I meant the Arctic Ice Cap, which is sea ice. Your explanation as to why it is melting makes absolutely no sense. Sea water does not melt, it is already liquid. In contrast to fresh water, the salt in ocean water causes the density of the water to increase as it nears the freezing point, and very cold ocean water tends to sink. As a result, sea ice forms slowly, compared to freshwater ice, because salt water sinks away from the cold surface before it cools enough to freeze. Furthermore the freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Because oceans are so deep, it takes longer to reach the freezing point, and generally, the top 100 to 150 meters (300 to 450 feet) of water must be cooled to the freezing temperature for ice to form. Multi-year ice contains very little salt because the brine (salty water) has drained out of it. Once the multi-year ice is gone, it will take a much colder climate for it to grow back significantly. I wouldn't call a greater than 20% reduction in the summer minimum in one year a small amount. Even if this year was anomalous the trend is clear The impact of an open Arctic Ocean is that it makes the Greenland Ice Cap more vulnerable.

The Athabasca Glacier has retreated 1,500 m (4,921 ft) since the late 19th century. The rate of retreat has increased since 1980, following a period of slow retreat from 1950 to 1980, and is currently 2-3 metres a year. It has also lost over half of its volume (in 125 years). Volume is more important than areal extent, especially when considering it as a fresh water source (thus it is already less than half of what it was 125 years ago). Your seasonal advance and retreat scenario shows a complete and utter ignorance of glacial motion, accumulation, and ablation (which you can google if you care). If you want the scientific story on water on the prairies the impact of disappearing mountain glaciers a good place to start is by googling Dr. David Shindler, who has written a number of papers.

As for weather and climate, of course they are related. Weather is the set of atmospheric phenomena present at any one time, including interactions with the hydrosphere. Climate is the average and variations of weather conditions in a region over a long period of time. Weather is what is happening now and climate is what you can usually expect at different times of the year.
Thus it is far easier to predict climate than weather, particularly over a large area


I am fully aware of the ability od sea water to form ice and yes it does so at a lower temperature and of course, melts at a a lower temperature as well. That is still basic grade school science and while yes it does apply, it in no way supports what the environmentalists are saying, in fact what they say does fly in the face of this. They want us to belive that this is happening because man has some how changed the temeperatures of the artic waters, and that just is not so. Only a huge event the likes of what nature can only do, is the only known causes of temperature rise in the Artic Ocean.

As for rain shadow I said the rockies are the only real shadow and you then say many places that are found along the rockies, what is that going to prove other then I am right.

I have been to the Columbian glacier icefiels and have take helicopters to see the whole fields and not just the initial tourist stuff, annd I can tell you that the fields are in no danger of any eminent disappearance. The exceeding and receeding each season of the glacier is the best indication of just how long a process it will take to deplete the whole galcier and if you look at that it will tell you not in aour or your choldren or even their childrens lifetime. Records on the glacier have not been kept for very long so we do not have much past activity to base things on. This is why even the tourist info for this glacier will always say that they can only base things on recent data, as there is only guess at early data. Bur yes you can google and get the environmentalists view on this. Still no hard science figures as to any measurements of true water released to renewed each years snow fall etc. All the rain fall and snow fall is fresh water, evenn with storms over the oceans. Rain water is is never salt water. Even in the artic where precipitation is thru sublimation and not eveaporation the water is fresh water. The earth will always refresh itself with fresh water at any and all times. It is all part of natures self correcting mechanisms, that the envoronmentalists forget to mention in their data, because it does make for their need for alarm much less at any given point.

As for disappearing water in the prairries go, I repeat again that you can not make water disappear. It is that simple, it will not disappear in any way and will alwys end up reproducing water with its molecles seeking the Dihrydrogen monoxide double covalent bonding. This would be and should be considered the basic at reast and stable state of these atoms. That is the science of it. Something that environment just does not want people to think about, because it does not fit their cause or make them any money. No one has yet showed me where there can make water disappear, and never to be water again.

Now I know that what I have stated here, is infalmatory to many of the people's own belief's here. I will appologise for that, but it must be said that if your belief's are based on wrong headed thinking, then your belief's themselves must be wrong headed.

Man does contribute to the greenhouse gases that we produce. This is a very large number, but so is the natural ecosystem's ability to self correct these gases. We live in a world that really does not swing very far to and fro from the sun, and the temperature differences seen by our positioning to the distance and angle to the sun being what they are, we actually survive in a very narrow field of allowance. The planet has the ability to seek out this narrow existsence and correct for the many things that can affect it. For that we can all be thankful. This can all be proven with the use of the science we all know today. The whole environmental issue is about things that are non compliant with science and is more faith based just like regions, and we all know that religions are never imperical, in nature.

If this is so demanding of our attention and such, then why is the request by the CPC government so bad, whenit asks that all nations must be included in the reduction of green house gases. Is it because you think that we should be the only ones to suffer and pay for this? If what the environmentalists are saying is true, then we should not have free chances to abuse the system, if it is going to have any real affect. Does anyone else not see the galoping stupidity in all of this?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
anchovy breather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14223

posted 09 December 2007 08:53 AM      Profile for anchovy breather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fixer1, dude, I'm not the grammar police or nothing, but you can't even spel.
From: rotating, random | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:
Does anyone else not see the galoping stupidity in all of this?
Yep, I do see the galloping stupidity in your posts, especially since you speak of the inability of energy to be created, nor destroyed, as proof that rain will never go away, but then state that you are not speaking of the Laws of Thermodynamics because it seems you do not apparently want to consider the Law of Entropy in your thought processes.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
anchovy breather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14223

posted 09 December 2007 10:54 AM      Profile for anchovy breather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And just generally, "yawn."
From: rotating, random | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 09 December 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for rain shadow I said the rockies are the only real shadow and you then say many places that are found along the rockies, what is that going to prove other then I am right.

Your geography is as bad as your science and spelling. Victoria is to the lee of the Olympic mountains, the southern Okanagan to the lee of the Cascade Mountains, and southwestern Yukon to the lee of the Coast Mountains and the St. Elias Mountains, all of which are separated from the Rockies by a number of valleys and other mountain ranges that are not connected physically or geologically to the Rockies. Just look at a map of western Canada.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 09 December 2007 12:39 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Records on the glacier have not been kept for very long so we do not have much past activity to base things on.

Ever hear of moraines?


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2007 01:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Policywonk:
Your geography is as bad as your science and spelling. Victoria is to the lee of the Olympic mountains, the southern Okanagan to the lee of the Cascade Mountains, and southwestern Yukon to the lee of the Coast Mountains and the St. Elias Mountains, all of which are separated from the Rockies by a number of valleys and other mountain ranges that are not connected physically or geologically to the Rockies. Just look at a map of western Canada.

Those would be the Selkirk, Cariboo and Monashee mountain ranges.

Here is an interesting link to how they observe Glaciers in BC, and how they have been closely observing them for 3 decades.

http://www.gis.unbc.ca/projects/illpage/illpageone.html

Also this little observation:

quote:
the start of observation in Canada in the 1880s

Says much, unfortunately much of the information has been "misplaced".

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-031/cdnglacinv.htm


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 09 December 2007 02:45 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Those would be the Selkirk, Cariboo and Monashee mountain ranges.

Actually east of the Okanagan valley the sequence is Monashee, Selkirk and Purcell Mountains. The Cariboo mountains are further north, but all four are usually considered sub-ranges of the Columbia Mountains. There are other mountain ranges and plateaux over central and northern BC and the Yukon between the Rockies, Mackenzie Mountains or Richardsons and the Coast and St. Elias Mountains.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 09 December 2007 04:03 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Firts off my spelling comes from really my inability to type fast, and yes I could use a spell checker but that is not something I ever needed in my lab journals before as they all get transcribed later and all that is taken care of. But is my communication getting thru to its point? If so then I have done what is needed.

Remind thermal dynamics uses the law of conservation of energy in it but it is not a law that only applies in that field. I did not want to insult you on that point as you were at least the first person to actually come back with a scientific reason, and I at least wanted to give you that. But it does not matter as I could then take from that same law and show that when environmentalists claim losses in the many things they claim it just is not scientifically possible. But I will get back to you more on that.

Now as for rain shadow and the rockies goes as you pointed out that there are some valleys between what I said and what you tried to admonish me with, but they really are for the mosty part one and the same. If we are going to go at this in terms of every hundred miles it would be real tedious now would it not. So if that is the best you can do to discredit me then you have lost big time already. All I want to do is show peope where things are not possible and I have yet to find anyone to show me how the water will disappear, or famine will strike and of course disease will spread and kill us all? Those were the predictions and they are 100% wrong.

As for Moraines go yes they are the rocky mass that you will find from underneath the glaciers and yes that is also why I have said the Columbian Glaciers exceed to the roadside abservatory every winter, as you can see the place where each year tjhe glacier came to it. As I said I have personally been there and done that. I love the Rockies and about them, to me it is one of the most breath takingly beautiful areas in Canada. But as I said that still does not change anything I have said.

Just to cap things here:
1/ people who said that global warming will melt the ice caps and raise the sea levels by 3-4 meters. This could be true but that is a worst case senario and we would actually see about half that because not only would the oceans have high levels but so would the water table and that then would reduce the rise in the oceans quite considerably. The enviromentalists use only the areas of the ocean to calculate there finding, and also use the highest volume of water conversion possible. When if they were really trying to do this scientically they would have used the median volume data and also account for all other factors such as water tabel rise as well. So since the area that land fills the globe is approx 1/3 of the area covered by oceans, we would see the true rise of the oceans to be 1/3 less then they predict. Making it about 2-2/2 meters or about 7-8 feet rise. That is a lot of water either way, but it is not going to flood our any high rises along the coast, even at the worst of it. That to me is lie number one.

2/ There will be famine and drought in mosts of the world and the people will satrve tring to feed themselves.

Canada has no problem feeding its people and if we had a warmer climate we would have even more food. Our land has rich fertile soil and can easily support two crops per year. The rains that the higher moisture in the air will inevitably cause will supply large amounts of water and therefore not be a problem for the vast majority of the country. So this is lie number two, and it aslo is based on the fact that water can not just disappear, which I am still waiting for proof of by the way.

3/ Disease and infections will come out of the permafrost and cause us untold harm etc etc.

This is the stuff right out of Steve King novel, it only has a place in science fiction and not real life. The same land that is now thawed and unfrozen by our climate had exactly the same diseases that the land under the perma frost had, and if there were any that would kill off man, they would have surfaced long ago. But lets say I am wrong and some form of ebola is there waiting for us. Just what could we do about it other then quarantine the area and develope some cure. That is what man has always had to do before and I see no reason why that would change us now. So to me this is a third lie that the environmentalist have told us.

I am still waiting for some one to show me one thing that these guys have been right about, other then pollution is bad for our health, of which I agree with, but then even they run off in another direction and say global warming is the battle, when I say the health issue is the battle and that is really the only battle that they have been right on so far.

Now back to Remind and the conservation of energy law where "energy can not be created or destroyed" This is used in termal dynamics but also in all energy theories of physics. The law you quote actually goes aginst this law if you look at it because what you are saying is there is no such thin g as perpetual motion, and for the most part you are right, but so very wrong in the 10% figure you quoted. There are several people in the world now that have machines that they call perpetual motion and they do return a value that is tue to the 10to the -9th power. You can google them and see them. The loss due to entrophy can only happen in a dynamic situation where motion does have an entropic value of eneritia to over come. But 10% is very high and as I said it would have been like when I took physics we all just agreed that the force due to gravity would be 9.8 meter /sec, even though we knew it would vary some depending on if it were at sea level or above or even below. It was just a given at the time to take that argument out of the equations.

But I digress. If the energy of a closed system is finite and energy can not be created or destroyed then you can never do anything in that sytem that would change that fact. The ecosystem of our planet is for this purpose a closed system, but yes we can argue that it is actually open due to suns energy etc. but for this I am saying we use it as a given that it is closed for the most part. Everting in life on our planet has its cycles trees grow they filter air and when they die they rot to make food for the soil to feed the next trees etc. The same can be said for just about all things on the earth. Water being one as well, that I say will never just be used and go away. It will always recycle itself back to being water. For the earth to heat up it means that we must trap the heat here with a cushion of clouds and yes green house gases also aid in this. But if we have clouds then much of the energy sent by the sun is reflected back into space and there fore we have now a more close system. In that system there is a finite amount of energy, and that can only raise the heat so far before it gets cooled down. The more moisture in the air from warmer air will also cause greater destruction by storms, as they now have larger weight behind them moving fast, and so they empart stronger forces to what ever causes them resistence. But all this is finite and the earth will always try to correct these things with its own systems. Eventually the air will cool and then the clouds will disburse they moisture and it will fall as rain. The sune will again send solar energy to keep our system balanced. the palnet will only store enough of the suns energy to balance out what we lose to space in any given time. Yes there are spikes in things and that is where we have large storms and temerature swings, but as quick as they come they are again balance out shortly there after.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 09 December 2007 09:45 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now as for rain shadow and the rockies goes as you pointed out that there are some valleys between what I said and what you tried to admonish me with, but they really are for the mosty part one and the same. If we are going to go at this in terms of every hundred miles it would be real tedious now would it not. So if that is the best you can do to discredit me then you have lost big time already.

Hardly, you're doing a good job of it yourself. The Coast Mountains, Cascades, Olympics, and St. Elias Mountains are not even close to the Rockies and separated from them not just by valleys but other mountain ranges.

quote:
All I want to do is show peope where things are not possible and I have yet to find anyone to show me how the water will disappear, or famine will strike and of course disease will spread and kill us all? Those were the predictions and they are 100% wrong.

So you are saying that flow rates and water tables don't change over long periods of time? AIDS, TB and malaria aside (a rather big aside), we are likely due for another pandemic, regardless of cause, but warming may allow some diseases to spread northwards and upwards.

quote:
1/ people who said that global warming will melt the ice caps and raise the sea levels by 3-4 meters. This could be true but that is a worst case senario and we would actually see about half that because not only would the oceans have high levels but so would the water table and that then would reduce the rise in the oceans quite considerably.

A significant portion of the sea level rise this century will not be due to glacial melt but to thermal expansion. The worst case scenario is in fact over 70 metres (including Greenland, West Antarctic and East Antarctic), but you may be right that the worst case scenario for the next 100 years is 3-4 metres, Hansen aside. Sea levels have risen 120 metres since the depths of the last ice age.

quote:
2/ There will be famine and drought in mosts of the world and the people will satrve tring to feed themselves.

There has been, is, and will be famine and drought over much of the planet, although we can try to reduce famine. Climate change has and will change precipitation patterns regardless of how it is caused. There are no guarantees that severe drought will not revisit the Prairies. There is also the little problem of Peak Oil and industrialized agriculture.

3/ Disease and infections will come out of the permafrost and cause us untold harm etc etc.

Anything's possible, but I'm far more worried about the release of carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, and the clathrate gun hypothesis.

quote:
I am still waiting for some one to show me one thing that these guys have been right about, other then pollution is bad for our health, of which I agree with, but then even they run off in another direction and say global warming is the battle, when I say the health issue is the battle and that is really the only battle that they have been right on so far.

By and large the IPCC predictions have been right so far, or too conservative. Indirect and unproven relationships aside, health and climate change are directly related because ground level ozone increases as temperature increases, at least past a certain threshold.

quote:
If the energy of a closed system is finite and energy can not be created or destroyed then you can never do anything in that sytem that would change that fact. The ecosystem of our planet is for this purpose a closed system, but yes we can argue that it is actually open due to suns energy etc. but for this I am saying we use it as a given that it is closed for the most part.

I pity any students you tutored. For the record, there are isolated, closed, and open thermodynamic systems. An isolated system exchanges no matter or energy with its environment (leaving aside that matter is a form of energy). A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its environment. An open system (like the oceans) exchanges both, which explains why atmospheric warming or cooling affects sea ice formation and melting in the short and long term. The earth is more or less a closed system (there is some matter coming in in the form of meteorites), because it is exchanging energy with it's environment. You can in fact test whether or not the Earth as a whole is in radiation balance, and if it is not, then it would be heating or cooling.

quote:
The more moisture in the air from warmer air will also cause greater destruction by storms, as they now have larger weight behind them moving fast, and so they empart stronger forces to what ever causes them resistence.

The kinetic energy in wind is a function of wind speed and density, and moist air is less dense than dry air (because a molecule of water vapour weighs less than a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen) at a specified temperature and pressure. The intensity of thunderstorms is partly a function of moisture in the lower atmosphere, but wind speed is only one aspect of thunderstorm intensity (of course tornadoes are another).

quote:
Yes there are spikes in things and that is where we have large storms and temerature swings, but as quick as they come they are again balance out shortly there after.

So what about extended cold and heat waves? For that matter ice ages?


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 10 December 2007 06:01 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Ice ages of the past were in all probability caused by natural occurring things, such as volcanic activity and possibly meteor strikes, but yes we can and will have these occur over time. The global warming that man is making is not a big part of the warming that we see and Canada's contribution is even more minor in nature then anythings else. That is why I can see no need for Canada to be a leader in all of this, as we really do nto have much of the cause happening here, and we do not control what happenes else where. The policy that Harper is putting forward that all countries not just the rich ones need to agree to reducing green house gases, is sound basic thinking and to me and many others, it is what common sense demands.

If the USA, China, India, and the others top polluter's do not sign on to reducing the emmissions, then then whole model will never work, and we will only be spending money for nothing.

People like David Suzuki and others who have given their own support to the environment side of things, also admit that the modeling they are using does not support the science of the issue. This should say to all involved or interested that there is way too much posturing and hyperbola, in this. It is a money making exercise and yes it is a multi-billion dollar business each year.

I am all for trying to save the planet, but not when we do not know anything about what we are doing. I said all along that pollution is a health concern and it should be promoted in that way only. That is where it affects us and is the way that we can prove scientifically. It also means that we then can do our domestic part and have proven results and in the end it will save us money, instead of costing us money. Does this not make much more sense?

The Clean air plan that the CPC put forward does address the global issue withing the time frame of the argument, and is more then anyone else has ever done in Canada on this issue. But still there are those who say that is too little too late, but they cna not show why that is. If I had the power to adjust the things that I think were necessary, I would not speed things up from the time frame we already have, unless of course we had all countries agreeing to do so. I also would still push the health side more then the global warming side, for the reasns I stated earlier. Also because for Canada the global warming will benefit us much more then it harms us.

Bye the way, not that I want to argue this but air with moisture weighs much more then air without moisture, both have the same nitrogen and oxygen compoents and water does not displace these but is additive to them. It does not change my view of things, and I am only pointing that out as a side note. Also the open and close systems were used just to make the idea easier to picture in the minds of people. The system we have here on this planet is very much an open one where we give off heat quite readily to the cold of space. That is why we need the sun to keep us warm. Take that out of the equation and yes you will have ice ages. It has happened in the past and will again in the future, but probably not in my lifetime or the liftimes of our children.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 10 December 2007 08:09 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A voice from those effected! I live down in windsor, we get less lake effect than those in the rest of southern ontario. We have already noticed the problems of just 1 degree of temp change down here. Like for instance, we almost don't get snow now. We had snow all the time when I was a kid. The freeze that use to kill a lot of disease and insects in the winter doesn't anymore. This has nothing scientific it is direct observations by essex county residents. We have such high heat in the summer and a lack of rain our crops die, we don't get better yields our yields are actually less. How about weather? Wind storms that take away our little remaining topsoil(we have a clay bed only 6 inches below groundlevel) freezing rain that destorys trees homes, powerlines, hail in the summer a lot more frequently(watched our insurance go up again this summer!)low lake levels as no rain to replenish them. Really pisses off the boaters as they are stuck in the mud!
So I guess if you had stocks in insurance companies, dredging companies and utility clean up yeah gloal warming is a boon! But if you are a working stiff, a farmer, a boater, or just a child that likes to walk and not get pelted by sand, or worry about the norwalk/west nile carrying mosquitos then global warming is pretty bad.
Course this is from people experiencing just a 1 degree of change in the last 30 years, what harm could 5 degrees do, probably not much!

From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 10 December 2007 08:16 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bye the way, not that I want to argue this but air with moisture weighs much more then air without moisture, both have the same nitrogen and oxygen compoents and water does not displace these but is additive to them. It does not change my view of things, and I am only pointing that out as a side note.

Sorry, but you're completely full of shit on this one.

Density of dry air, water vapour and moist air


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 10 December 2007 08:53 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The global warming that man is making is not a big part of the warming that we see and Canada's contribution is even more minor in nature then anythings else.

Considering that the greenhouse effect makes the Earth's surface some 33 degrees Celsius warmer than otherwise, we should expect that adding significant amounts of long-lived greenhouse gases to the atmosphere artificially is a bad idea, and the warming we have seen is consistent with this.
Canada may contribute only 2 percent of emissions but our per capita contribution ranks amongst the highest, so our example is important. What we can do to reduce emissions significantly the Americans can duplicate to a large extent, and our carbon reduction strategies and technologies can be exported to the rest of the world.

quote:
That is why we need the sun to keep us warm. Take that out of the equation and yes you will have ice ages.

Without the sun there would be no life on Earth. Ice ages are triggered by relatively minor changes in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt. To keep us warm we also need greenhouse gases. Just not in a rapidly increasing concentration. Climate can be relatively stable for long periods of time, but can also change abruptly, and that is what we are risking even more so than gradual climate change which we may be able to adapt to.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 10 December 2007 09:46 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sorry, but you're completely full of shit on this one.

You are pretty dumb if you think that air without ,moisture weighs more then air with moisture in it. It is not science just brain function.

quote:
Considering that the greenhouse effect makes the Earth's surface some 33 degrees Celsius warmer than otherwise, we should expect that adding significant amounts of long-lived greenhouse gases to the atmosphere artificially is a bad idea, and the warming we have seen is consistent with this.
Canada may contribute only 2 percent of emissions but our per capita contribution ranks amongst the highest, so our example is important. What we can do to reduce emissions significantly the Americans can duplicate to a large extent, and our carbon reduction strategies and technologies can be exported to the rest of the world.


Where are you getting your numbers from? 33 degrees warmer? Come on now are you sure you meant to say this and not 3.3 degrees warmer? Also it does not matter on a percapita basis at all. Since we talk of total global emmissions it then only requires that it is that part of the total be addressed, otherwise you have apples and oranges.

quote:
Without the sun there would be no life on Earth. Ice ages are triggered by relatively minor changes in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt. To keep us warm we also need greenhouse gases. Just not in a rapidly increasing concentration. Climate can be relatively stable for long periods of time, but can also change abruptly, and that is what we are risking even more so than gradual climate change which we may be able to adapt to.

This is the only think you have posted that makes sense, and yet it goes more to my way of thinking then man made global warming.

I was raised in Galt Ontario and we had snow in winter and yes the Windsor area was even warmer, but green christmases were more likely then not. As for crop yield being lower I can say the crops grown before for Heinze in Leamington were always bumper crops and the Niagra fruit belt has not had problems at all and last summer they were again having bumper crops. For the biggest vegetable belt around the Holland Marsh they had no water problems at all. In Windsor there were no water shortages but yes they did have a dry spell but the water table and lake levels were high enough to supply without problems. Also Windsor has a problem of geopgraphy due to its position they are in a blind spot for lake affect moisture yet they have these water ways on 3 sides but the prevailling winds come from the side that does not have a high moisture gradient. But it still has the same water table to draw on as say London and other southern Ontario regions.

[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 10 December 2007 09:50 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only need to look at our sister planet Venus. That is what ahppens when too much greenhouse happens!

We have had water shortages, look troll you are obviously full of crap.....we don't even grow tomatos in essex other than in the GREENHOUSES in leamington. Our crops are corn, beans, and winterwheat. Also we don't share our watertable with london for places like cedar creek or the small rivers that dot essex. Lake levels are also down across the province, but hey spin your wheels. You also didn't notice the outbreaks of norwalk, flu, west nile we have had. Seriously don't pretend to know about something you don't I doubt you have ever been down or know anyone from essex. Hey looky I also know how to use wiki for generalized info on a geographical locatino I have never been to.

quote:
The climate of Kamloops is a semi-arid steppe climate (Koppen climate classification BSk) due to its rainshadow location. While situated in a semi-arid valley, Kamloops has winters that are generally mild and very short with an occasional cold snap where temperatures can drop to around -30 C (-22 F) when arctic air floods over the Rocky Mountains into the interior. Snow can occur from November to March, but most of it falls over a few weeks in December and January. Winter mean minimum temperature is -7.6 C (20 F) in January.

Perhaps surprisingly, considering that Kamloops is located at 50 latitude north, summers are quite hot with prevailing dry, and sunny weather. The average July maximum temperature is 28.3 C (83 F) and would be higher if not for occasional incursions of cool northerly airmasses. In most years, one might confuse this city with any in southern California, as summer temperatures come close to or even exceed 40 C (104 F). Humidity is generally very low and nighttime temperatures are moderate. These hot, dry conditions make the forest fire threat favourable in the region.

Spring arrives very early, sometimes in February, due to mild air spilling over the coastal mountains from the Pacific Ocean. Fall is generally a pleasant and a mostly dry season.

Kamloops lies in the "rain shadow" leeward of the Coast Mountains and is biogeographically connected to similar semi-desert and desert areas in the Okanagan region, the Osoyoos area, and the central parts of Washington and Oregon state as well as intermontane areas of Nevada in the U.S. These areas of relatively similar climate have many distinctive native plants and animals in common, such as Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis in this case), rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), Black widow spiders and Lewis's Woodpecker.



Now all I have to do is write that in my own words. I was already aware that kamloops was warm(as the compete with windsor for hotest place in canada) but with a look up I know they are in shadow valley yada yada yada...hey look I am an instant expert on kamloops and I have never even been there.

[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 10 December 2007 09:55 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fixer1, your stance is appropriate pre-2000... Most of what you're saying here has been expanded on greatly since then.

quote:
The global warming that man is making is not a big part of the warming that we see

? I can see this stance taken in the 1990's as it's about in line with what we used to know.

quote:
I said all along that pollution is a health concern and it should be promoted in that way only. That is where it affects us and is the way that we can prove scientifically.

Once again, you are correct if you haven't read anything post-2000, we've come along way in the 7 years since this was all we 'can prove scientifically'. You are correct in raising health concerns as a part of the issue, but it's narrow in scope now. (sadly, it's been expanded to economic concerns, which make people jump much faster).

quote:
The Clean air plan that the CPC put forward does address the global issue withing the time frame of the argument, and is more then anyone else has ever done in Canada on this issue. But still there are those who say that is too little too late, but they cna not show why that is.

Heh, ya we can. Your information on the subject is quite dated.


Earlier quote from yourself that should point this out:

quote:
Harpers plan addresses things in 20 years and will also meet all the limits for 2050, which is when the environmentalists say the worst will happen.

Thats been revised several times over as new data becomes available and more clear (as it has come up in this thread, the polar cap was to be melted in 2070 at one point, 2100 by some estimates. It's now accepted info that this will likely occur in 2020-2030, 2 years ago a couple scientists were attacked for hyperbole after implying it might be melted off in 2040). Our 'worst case' estimates have been exceeded by a large factor as it would appear we've underestimated the snowball effect. I guess it should be pointed out that the targets set for 2050 is to return to a previously unsustainable state.

You do seem to know what you're talking about, but I think the information you're talking from is badly dated. I'm not sure if I agree with the 'we are only 2%, so why bother?' stance either.

[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 10 December 2007 10:15 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point for us to be in is to make the americans do their part. they are competitive esp. with us. If they see us doing better they will surely follow. Huge chunks of Ice shelf dissappeared into the ocean in 2002, this despite the fact they thought it would take a much longer period. As seen in documentary by Gore, but that is about getting people to recognise the problem at hand, not to discount it as frivolous and it would hurt the economy. How near sighted. Why would you not take advantage of the growing trend to make R&D into green the best for tax purposes. We have huge surpluses and they are spent on Military instead of trying to take a lead on being green, regardless of ones opinion on the state of the world(with regards to climate change) it only makes sense to make canada more green. Green implies less polution not just co2, co2 just happens to be the easy one to push as most people see it every day.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 10 December 2007 10:52 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where are you getting your numbers from? 33 degrees warmer?

Very funny. You should learn some basic science.

The greenhouse effect

It is indeed 33 degrees warmer than if there were no atmosphere, and it is all caused by trace gases (diatomic molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen do not contribute at all to this effect). Virtually all denialists accept this, except they would probably be claiming that water vapour is a direct rather than a feedback mechanism and that carbon dioxide and methane have negligible effect. And don't even think of trying to argue that human carbon dioxide emissions are only 3 percent of natural emissions without researching the carbon cycle.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 10 December 2007 11:23 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The point for us to be in is to make the americans do their part. they are competitive esp. with us. If they see us doing better they will surely follow.

The Americans aren't the biggest concern for us directly (although indirectly through activity in Asia)... Although influencing the Americans should be on the list. It'd be nice if we had an isolated atmosphere, but thats not the reality.

John Duck and his Lidar work has shown the travel of aerosol particles (The work has impact on the global dimming discussion)... And the flow from Alaska and out the Canadian tailpipe (better known as Nova Scotia).

Atmosphere currents travel West to East for the most case... Makes pollution the ultimate in 'shit in your neighboors backyard'. We've been relatively spared until recent time... North American aerosols travel to Europe, Europe out to Asia, and (ever increasing) Asia to North America. There are articles out, this dated in 2002 show this potential

quote:
In one severe dust storm in spring 1998, particle pollution levels in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia soared. In Seattle, air quality officials could not identify a local source of the pollution, but measurements showed that 75% of it came from China, researchers at the University of Washington found.

Here is a study on Asian based aerosols affecting Pacific (and ultimately our) rain patterns.

I'm still looking for the one study, it may have been posted here, that suggests 25% of the smog cloud over Los Angeles originated in Asia.

Efforts must be taken to influence other world powers, not just ourselves.


ETA: Lidar research on the travel of aerosols through the atmosphere.

[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 10 December 2007 12:02 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
fixer1,

Your posts a genuine delight, like stumbling into some hidden valley of dinosaurs grazing in teeming swamps among ferns the size of trees! Carefully avoided by small bands of fur-clad anthropoids intent on spearing their day's supper.

It is difficult to know where to begin. How about this first, jewel-like sentence from your post of 6:41 am?

'Ice ages of the past were in all probability caused by natural occurring things, such as volcanic activity and possibly meteor strikes, but yes we can and will have these occur over time. '

Ah, yes, 'natural ocurring things'. They explain....so MUCH of the world we live in, don't you think? Particularly when they occur 'over time'. Its all so much clearer now; I feel a veil has been lifted.

And then:

'The global warming that man is making is not a big part of the warming that we see and Canada's contribution is even more minor in nature then anythings else.'

Pay no attention to the world's leading climatologists! Some of the brightest minds of our generation, entire careers at the world's leading scientific institutions, BUT WHAT DO THEY REALLY KNOW? They're just in it for the money!

We simply wave it away. Wasn't that easy? A simple unsupported assertion will do, let us move on:

'I am all for trying to save the planet, but not when we do not know anything about what we are doing. I said all along that pollution is a health concern and it should be promoted in that way only.'

I admire your humility as a selfconfessed 'scientist' in admitting that 'we do not know anything about what we are doing.' Ok, I admit to a minor nagging irritation that this seems inconsistent with the previous point, where you seem to know enough to dismiss the sum total of several decades of global climatology. Without apparently having read anything on the subject. But let's not quibble. Onwards!

'The Clean air plan that the CPC put forward does address the global issue withing the time frame of the argument, and is more then anyone else has ever done in Canada on this issue. But still there are those who say that is too little too late, but they cna not show why that is.'

Yes, isn't it remarkable that in none of the extensive government supported research around the subject, research that is shaping the policy of the most advanced cultures on the planet, NOONE has bothered to address that simple question.

I stand in awe.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 10 December 2007 06:00 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Wonk the 33 degrees if we did not have an atmosphere I can see but as we all would not even be here there would be no arguement. All you are doing is trying to throw things that do nothing to make any of this real.

The tememperature warming we are talking about is 10 degree rise over the next 100 years. That is not very much, and it sure does not even begin to be the scarey thing most want to make issues about.

As for me being backward I do take exception, there has been no new data that even comes close to changing anything said in the last decade. None. Even those who made the modelling for all what is proposed have said their models are not accurate and all the numbers have been used at their extreme most possibilities. The Environmental groups have turned all this into a multi billion dollar issue where they make money. That includes the like of David Suzuki, and his companies.

I will tell you all striaight out that the next decade we see coming will proabably prove all the modelling wrong as that is where they have made predictions and they will fail. Just like this year we will have an average year, which when we consider the warmer years before it will seem much colder. The ocean temeperature dropped this year and so does that mean the warming is all over? Of course not.

Like I said right from the begining the laugable prediction of water shortages if the polar ice caps melt is just plain wrong. You can not make water disappear, and again not one of you can show me just how this will happen. Also the same diseases that are in the perma frost were also in the rest of the lands soil before the iceage and so any disease that would have come from that would be already had by us in our past. The fact that perma frost thawing will make for a warmer artic and yes tropical diseases can then move northward, is a valid thought, but not in any way reasonable. As today we travel all thru the world and any disease that can be anywhere can easily travel to any where without much problem. Insect infestations would be the only thing that warmer weather would allow.

There has been no proof of anything in the environment issues for the last 10 years, and they have admitted they can not scientically prove even what they have put forth so far. If you are naiuve enough to believe these guys on faith then so be it. But I will not succumb to voodoo science of this at all.

The 2% that Canada controls is like saying we should spend a million dollars to save 2 cent on one dollar. Would you do that? That is approx the costs that the environmentalists are asking you to do. I support the CPC stance on this issue and they do address it in a time frame that was set out in the beginning. But now since the alarmists have seen they are making money, they do not want to loose all that, so they say it is not enough and needs to be done in 5-10 years, and not the 50 years they said before. When they are asked what changed they say things were worse then they thpought, but when asked to show where that is they say they can not show you. That is exactly what is happening.

No one here has been able to show me any scientific report where it shows thru scientific methods that global warming is mostly caused by man, and we have any control over that. Not one. I have asked for just one person to show me where water can be wasted and gone and never return as water and no one has done that either, because it is not true that water can disappear. If the icecaps melt it will raise the sea levels by about 8-10 feet, not hundreds of feet and the water tables across the country will rise the same amount.

Where I live now we have a well and it is 100 feet deep and I am about 50 ft higher then the St Lawrence River which is 8 kms from my home. I fill a swimming pool that is 20ft x 40ft deep and a shallow end 20ft x 10 ft in an L shape. I filled this from my well with no problems I also have a water table pond on my property that in the driest of summers drops about 8 ft, but mostly drops 3-4 feet on average. I never worry about my water and I do test it regularly as we do have Nitro-chem and Dupont in Maitland Ontario within 40 kms of my home, and if there ever is contamination of the water table we would want to know asap. I own a tree farm on 20 acres and yes to me that give way more oxygen then I ever emit in green house gases. So do not think I do not do my part in things. But I still say that what most people have been conditioned to think, is way over the top, and is scare tactics at its worst.

If Canada cut all emmissions in half we would only reduce the global rate by 1%. If we instead used green practices to filter things as in planting trees and simple emmissions to factories smoke stacks we could then remove possibly more then 1%, as we could filter a lot of the USA emmissions that come our way.

To my friend in Windsor Ont, here is a link about the Leamington and Windsor tomatoe festival.
http://www.citywindsor.ca/news/fullevent.asp?listing=4558

Kind of funny that they would have this and not grow any tomatoes right? I once considerred working for Heinze at Leaminton in their quality control labs, but that was long ago and they do not produce much there any more. But the area still grows a very large supply of tomatoes. Tobacco was being grown before tomatoes, but that has changed radically do to the no smoking issues.

[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 10 December 2007 06:16 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
I am going to ask those who really want to debate any of this to please keep the issue on the points and the personal stuff to a minimum. I do not want to insult anyone with my replies and I would like the same back to my views. I am very thick skinned and while I try not to let these retorts get in the way, they sometimes do and I apologise if that is taken harshly by anyone. I get really long winded and my typing skills while not totally atrocious, are not the greatest. I enjoy the back and forth of this, even though I am attacked on all sides, but I do not mind I give as good as I get I suppose, but if we keep it level and simple then no one should feel put out by anything.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 10 December 2007 06:31 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Here are some links for sites that might get you thinking

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/04/global_warming_2.php

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 10 December 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You do not "give as good as you get". You give nothing but distraction and aggravation.

Your very participation here is an insult, as you are very well aware. The pseudo-polite troll routine got very tired very long ago, and those who show up to see how long they can jerk the lefties around deserve every bit of abuse that can be meted out here.

If you were really interested in debate, you'd be taking your pseudo-science to a scientific forum, where it would be dispatched effortlessly - more effortlessly than it has been. Pretend as you might, you've been bested regularly here.

But that is not the purpose of these forums. Some here have a science background, others do a remarkably good job of research, but they are wasting their time on your nonsense - time that could be much better spent with more reasonable people.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frisko
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14181

posted 10 December 2007 07:12 PM      Profile for Frisko     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
They even have a name for it: wedge issues.


Are you for real? Which part will be good? The depleted Great Lakes? The melted glaciers and disappeared rivers? The new diseases? The famine as a result of changed rain patterns? The wars and violence over Arctic resources? The extinctions of species and cultures? The ... oh, shit, wait ... am I being too negative?



Sometimes it appears certain individuals would like the world to go down the shithole so there pathetic outlook would be justified and they could finally sing praise.
The world is not coming to an end,one great thing about democracy is it's ability to make changes for the better and we survive by being optimistic.

Pass out the effin "Happy Pills" please!!!!!!!!

How much money has it cost us to de-program these pessimistic troglodytes.


From: B.C | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 10 December 2007 08:34 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wonk the 33 degrees if we did not have an atmosphere I can see but as we all would not even be here there would be no arguement. All you are doing is trying to throw things that do nothing to make any of this real.

If you don't understand the relevance then you do not understand enough atmospheric science to make any criticism of climate change theory.

quote:
The tememperature warming we are talking about is 10 degree rise over the next 100 years. That is not very much, and it sure does not even begin to be the scarey thing most want to make issues about.

I'm talking about mean global temperature; what are you talking about? The IPCC is predicting a maximum mean global temperature increase of 6.4 degrees C (or 11.5 degrees F) by 2100. The current mean global temperature is only 5 degrees C warmer than the depths of the last ice age so even 10 degrees F warmer would be a really big deal.

quote:
Here are some links for sites that might get you thinking

Real Climate is a good site. You might want to check out this page and the links on the right:
The Carbon Dioxide problem in six easy steps so I don't have to waste my time correcting your bad science.

The others are denialist sites.

You might also want to check out

Real Climate Wiki


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 December 2007 06:41 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fixer1:

To my friend in Windsor Ont, here is a link about the Leamington and Windsor tomatoe festival.
http://www.citywindsor.ca/news/fullevent.asp?listing=4558


[ 10 December 2007: Message edited by: fixer1 ]


Wow stunning. HOw about this festival which imports ALL it's produce. Suburb of windsor.
But go ahead and tell me my business again.

I guess I should move on to step 3...just stop feeding the troll. As LTJ pointed out, the polite"I just want to debate" Troll routine is well known in these parts.

A dinosaur...lol good one


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 11 December 2007 06:57 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the icecaps melt it will raise the sea levels by about 8-10 feet, not hundreds of feet and the water tables across the country will rise the same amount.


Heh, the icecaps melting aren't the concern... Most icecap ice is sea ice, which doesn't increase the water levels.

The icesheet on greenland (land based ice) however has the ability to raise sea levels closer to 20 feet. All this info can be found at the realclimate link you've given us.

Even an 8-10 foot increase is enough to put Delta, Vancouver underwater during a heavy storm.

I won't dispute the environmental cash cow possiblity with you... It will be important to hold companies attempting to cash in on environmental concerns accountable.

This doesn't change how outdated your info remains.

edit to add:

quote:
I have asked for just one person to show me where water can be wasted and gone and never return as water and no one has done that either, because it is not true that water can disappear.

? Unable to distinguish between salt and fresh water ?

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 11 December 2007 10:00 AM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wow stunning. HOw about this festival which imports ALL it's produce. Suburb of windsor.
But go ahead and tell me my business again.

I guess I should move on to step 3...just stop feeding the troll. As LTJ pointed out, the polite"I just want to debate" Troll routine is well known in these parts.

A dinosaur...lol good one



Yeah I guess heinze had their fatcory there and imported all thouse tomatoes now just for the hell of it. That must make you soo much smarter then me. Hell even though Heinze has moved their main factory away from Leaminton a few years back the area still grows vast tomatoes for processing. But that is not about the global warming, and this dinasour is getting ready to rule once again I guess.

quote:
If the icecaps melt it will raise the sea levels by about 8-10 feet, not hundreds of feet and the water tables across the country will rise the same amount.


Heh, the icecaps melting aren't the concern... Most icecap ice is sea ice, which doesn't increase the water levels.

The icesheet on greenland (land based ice) however has the ability to raise sea levels closer to 20 feet. All this info can be found at the realclimate link you've given us.

Even an 8-10 foot increase is enough to put Delta, Vancouver underwater during a heavy storm.

I won't dispute the environmental cash cow possiblity with you... It will be important to hold companies attempting to cash in on environmental concerns accountable.

This doesn't change how outdated your info remains.


First of the Icecaps of the sea are not msotly salt water. Even in the artic the sunblimation of the sae water causes it to be mostly freas water in nature. That is why iceberg were a looked at as a via source of fresh water, and also ffresh water or salt water raise and lower the sea levelks equally. If the Greenland ice sheet melted the seas would be more dilute of salt but they would still rise some. But the model they used only uses the area of the oceans to speculate the sea level rise. The worlds water tables must also rise in this, so there is an approx 1/3 error in their calculations and they have admitted this already but they just never seem to rework the numbers because it then seems much less frightning. All the numbers used in the modelling are the absolute extremes and they never used the median values. That is also why the models can never be proven in a scientific manner. It is not that the equations are totally wrong but rather that the data all has been cooked.

Lets look at just what would happen with a 20 ft rise in sea levels. The maps of the world would change to any low lying areas that are within those first 20 feet of land that is near anything. For the most part that would mean flooding of many homes built right on the seas, but since the majority of the land masses here on earth are much higher then this there will be a mass movement to inland areas. It will not happen quickly but over 100 years or more. So as things degrade in these possible areas, people should then make there moves inland. Is this some thing to worry about? Not in the least. It will not come raging in and will not be without decades of notice. So why the rush. Man can not reverse this and even cutting all emmission today would not stop this from happening, by very much. Global warming is a natural occurring thing, and yes man has assisted it to some small degree. We will never be in control of it and we can only control what we ourselves put into this. Once the work that man has done happens it can not just reverse itself. We do not get to cool the climate in any way. most people think that if we stop all emmissions that global warming will stop, but that is not so, and not even the environmentalists will claim that this is so.

As for Richmond Delta in British Columbia goes, are they now in big trouble with storms at teh present sea level? Yes and no, they have been aware of the low lying affects of their geography and have taken measure with dyke like structures etc. 8-10 feet are not likely to flood all but yes t will flood some, but this is all known and the builders are aware of the problems and they are not scared about it. Hell Holland is prepared so why can we not be as well.

As for outdated my info is you will notice the links on them were updated a month or two ago, so if that is out dated then yes I am.

quote:
? Unable to distinguish between salt and fresh water ?



All water is the same when you do the climate analysis. Natures whole method of making rain makes fresh water from sea water and things recycle etc. All precipitation comes down as fresh water. Hell even acid rain I guess, but that is another story. It seems that many here think that sea water is some seperate entity, when it is not.

Again show me where you can remove water permanently from the earth's own systems, short of it being shipped by space shuttle. That then should show you the easiest lie to prove that what the environmentalists are saying about massive drought are just not true, at least for Canada. Once you get your minds around that, you will start to look at the rest as mostly a business making issues to make money off of it.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 11 December 2007 10:19 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're not reading my posts Fixer you're doing a great job of skimming over and assuming, which I think you've done with all posts and links involved in this discussion.

quote:
First of the Icecaps of the sea are not msotly salt water.

I used the term sea ice, not salt water. Please re-read and consider my point?


quote:
But the model they used only uses the area of the oceans to speculate the sea level rise. The worlds water tables must also rise in this, so there is an approx 1/3 error in their calculations and they have admitted this already but they just never seem to rework the numbers because it then seems much less frightning. All the numbers used in the modelling are the absolute extremes and they never used the median values.

You keep using the term 'They'. Could you clarify who they is? We appear to be referring to much different studies (most of my information comes from climatologists @ wunderground or realclimate).

quote:
It will not happen quickly but over 100 years or more.

Didn't I just finish pointing out that 100 years is a prediction we've proved false in recent years?

quote:
but since the majority of the land masses here on earth are much higher then this there will be a mass movement to inland areas.

Perhaps canadian... Are you aware of the nation of Bangladesh? Canadians are relatively insultaed from the first warming effects, infact we may profit from them... For the most case, it's the nations that are not doing the polluting that are in the most trouble.


quote:
Global warming is a natural occurring thing, and yes man has assisted it to some small degree.

Heh, which is funny if you consider the trends say we should be entering an ice age, no?

quote:
Again show me where you can remove water permanently from the earth's own systems,

Not sure why you're insisting on me saying 'removing water permanently'... Fresh vs Salt water is the concern in the terms of human use.

wait... did a double take at this comment

quote:
That then should show you the easiest lie to prove that what the environmentalists are saying about massive drought are just not true, at least for Canada.

Are you seriously suggesting that environmentalists are using 'water will dissappear from Earth and therefore drought!' as the reasoning why drought would occur? Fencing with the strawman Further the claim that you're not really reading anything for me?

You're not reading the information at the sites you are linking us to

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 11 December 2007 04:43 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even in the artic the sunblimation of the sae water causes it to be mostly freas water in nature. That is why iceberg were a looked at as a via source of fresh water, and also ffresh water or salt water raise and lower the sea levelks equally.

Sea water in the Arctic and Antarctic is less salty than sea water elsewhere, because of less evaporation, but a long way from fresh.

Icebergs are not from sea ice, but glaciers, and a source of fresh water because glaciers are compacted snow.

Masses of floating sea ice are called ice floes. They can also be sources of virtually fresh water because the brine eventually drains out of multi-year ice.

Sea water is denser than fresh water because of the dissolved salts, and less saltier water is less dense. I think the difference to sea level would be marginal though.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fixer1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14790

posted 11 December 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for fixer1        Edit/Delete Post
Just as another bit of info here is the data from Antartica and how this data does not conform to any real harmful warming affects.
http://wpherald.com/articles/781/1/Antarctic-snowfall-measure-contradicts-global-warming-model/No-real-increase-in-50-years.html

But it really does not matter in much of what has been said. I get the feeling that people do not want to hear anything that global warming is not going to be the end of the world. I do not think they will even see they are wrong even if they live to 2050 and see that things did not end.

There is also aricles I have around where the measurements from space are much ,ower then the measurements here on eart and fit the model better, but they are not used. I will find that and post it as well when I do.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 11 December 2007 06:27 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fixer, go look what you've linked us to. It's a 5 paragraph 'article' that gives absolutely no reference to any of the research done. And this sums it up entirely:

quote:
"The year-to-year and decadal variability of the snowfall is so large that it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish trends that might be related to climate change from even a 50-year record," said Andrew Monaghan, a center research associate and lead author of the study.


My bold to emphasize. I'll paraphraise since you don't seem to like reading: "The variance of snow fall from decade to decade is too much to determine a pattern therefore global warming isn't real"

If you would prefer, a comment on the article that sums it up nicely:

quote:
This article is a self-contradictory mess. It reports what we call a negative result, i.e. it says that it's nearly impossible to find a statistically significant change in precipitation levels, and none could be found. Big surprise! Nowhere does the study conclude that there has been no change, yet the tenor of the article and it's title imply that this is a solid conclusion. The conclusion I read here is twofold: First, the measurement is so difficult that finding a significant change is nearly impossible and unsurprisingly, none was found. Secondly, since it is so difficult to distinguish a change in snowfall from background variations, this is really a very poor test of global warming models to begin with. If you want to test the models, you would do better if you looked somewhere else.

I must admit, I was surprised to see you post an article dated in 2006

Got any other half-assed legs to stand on? I'm getting bored with kicking them out from under you.

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Geurnica
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14813

posted 11 December 2007 07:58 PM      Profile for Geurnica     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Yep, I do see the galloping stupidity in your posts, especially since you speak of the inability of energy to be created, nor destroyed, as proof that rain will never go away, but then state that you are not speaking of the Laws of Thermodynamics because it seems you do not apparently want to consider the Law of Entropy in your thought processes.

I think you're seriously confused about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy doesn't destroy energy; it just means that things can never be 100% efficient. In a car engine for example, the "wasted" energy gets transformed to things like heat and sound. The earth and the water cycle gets its energy from the sun, so they're not really a closed and isolated system; entropy is a non-factor in this debate.


From: Victoria, B.C | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 11 December 2007 10:30 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The earth and the water cycle gets its energy from the sun, so they're not really a closed and isolated system; entropy is a non-factor in this debate.

The total entropy of an isolated system tends to increase. The Earth is not an isolated system, but it is a more or less closed system. The hydrosphere is an open system, as water is subducted into the mantle to be emitted by volcanism eons later, and comets occasionally impact the earth (that may have been what the Tunguska event was).


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 11 December 2007 10:42 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But it really does not matter in much of what has been said. I get the feeling that people do not want to hear anything that global warming is not going to be the end of the world.

It won't be the end of the world; the biosphere survived Snowball Earth and the end-Permian extinction, so I expect it will survive us. Whether we or civilization survive is an open question.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 December 2007 07:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is probably long enough.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca