An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

So the general idea, if i understand it correctly, is that Trenberth believes we have no reliable means for measuring climate change, or the human impact upon it, but since we do produce greenhouse gasses man must have some effect upon that change.

And this is what we're expected to make national policy with?

No matter how much they try to limit our "carbon footprint", unless they first find some way to stop the never ending increase in the global human population their efforts are doomed to failure. Every new person born will just add more to our overall output.

Um, no. The article (source, not Carter's....thing) discusses the weaknesses in climate prediction modelling, nothing about measuring what is already happening. The thrust of the paper is healthy and grounded, we don't know everything, and it's dangerous to assume we do. The final paragraphs make clear the necessity for a comprehensive climate model. A model that we don't currently have. The flaws in current climate modeling are well illustrated in the article
However, when the best information to hand suggests a serious situation, as it does with climate change, you have to act. Not-complete information is often confused for contrary information.

Well, global policy. And yes.
That depends on the future energy consumption model of each future child. Which depends on the energy models of their parents, us.
We've already started to combat this future problem, sixteen thousand children die every day of hunger.
Actually, I've no idea how population growth will affect/be affected by global warming.

No we don't have to do anything Tchocky. The best information at hand not that long ago once suggested an impending ice age but it would have been disasterous to act upon it. Who knows? Maybe they were right and the increased carbon output is what is staving off it's onset.

There is no such thing as "global policy". Last I checked my country was still a sovereign nation. I for one will fight to keep it that way.

Yeah well when they get it together then maybe something will get done, at least on a "sectoral" basis, but you don't screw with economies on someones guesses.

That's your plan? Reducing global population by starving children to death? Maybe that works in China but then again as a "developing nation" they aren't the ones being asked to risk destroying their economy with half baked schemes either, not that they would.

That's my point. We don't know, yet acccording to some we're supposed to put our people at risk anyways. That's not going to happen.

Well, I would say that the current general ideas on global warming demand action. It looks serious enough to warrant action, such as moving to renewable energy, investment in energy efficiency etc. Of course, nation by nation this can make little difference. Global warming requires a global response. Yes, the US is a sovereign nation. But the residuals that are pumped into the air/sea by the US affect more than one country. the same goes for every country, especially large polluters.
Those who were forecasting an ice age in the 70's had not nearly the same backing or support that exists today. Comparing the two is disingenous.
Ok, lets not start fighting quite yet.
Actually, most economic policy is based on theories and models. And when it isnt, guesses.
The same way you make estimates on the effects of a policy. Based on a model. Models aren't always perfect, so we develop new ones. I think the thrust of Trenberth's article was the weakness of current models, and nothing to do with measuring current climate change.
Agh. No. yeah, China needs to be on board. They aren't being pressed nearly hard enough.
No, I said that I don't know. Also, how can getting off of fossil fuels (which are undeniably bad for the planet, and us) put us at risk?

EDIT - here's a little link on the 1970's "Ice Age" stuff

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

And from RealClimate - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Interesting blog.

This guy has been looking at the NOAA/NCDC weather data collection stations in California and Nevada. What he found was that many of them are placed in exhausts of air conditioning systems, poorly maintained etc. skewing the temp records that NOAA/NCDC use to "prove" global warming.

NOAA's reaction? Pull the location information off the net for "privacy and security" reasons. Access to the listing of sites has since been restored after he pointed out that their argument was bunk.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Interesting site, complete with photos. Not Goracle approved.

Once again Algore shows how his crusade is about wealth building......his own.

Live Earth will send proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization chaired by Gore.

http://www.9news.com/life/entertainm...?storyid=73429

ACP isn't the only organisation that will be getting the proceeds from Live Earth, but it is a recipient.

Also, the money won't be going straight into Gore's pockets. Check the sub-headline - http://grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/19/gore/index.html

@ August - That's unsettling stuff.

I see the sub-headline, but nowhere in the body of the story does it mention what that 'big' money figure is. I do see alot of money being given to the Alliance for Climate Protection, however.

From the article, just about halfway down

I'd be interested if you could back up your assertion that this is about wealth creation.

I'm sorry I have to laugh at myself over this one.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I forgot that they were spending money other people earned. Always easier to spend other peoples money. Where is that other 40% going?

Well, it hardly sells anything. So there's no income bar that which is donated. No idea where the other 40% goes. Administration?

I have 100 acres of Maine forest constantly soaking up excess carbon. I wonder how i can cash in on this carbon credit scheme? :hmm:

Seriously, here's an excellent article on the problems and fallacies regarding carbon offsetting schemes...

http://www.faircompanies.com/main.aspx?uc=notampl&sec=1&id=252