28 degrees C on October 8th.

[Rockie]

"The international scientific community agrees that there has been a significant change in global climate in recent years, particularly in the polar areas, due largely to the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and industrial processes. These activities emit greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere."

This is a quote from Environment Canada, a group of scientists who get paid whether climate change exists or not. They have an excellent web page that I've included a link to below. On it there is a small sampling of the truly massive amount of work being done on this subject by bonafide scientists, not water-cooler experts like Fogghorn and "The Professor". They can believe what they want, but only a fool would dismiss this as junk science.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6EE576BE-1

[...]

Very sad, however there is no stopping what is going on. Enjoy it while you can. This is the last chapter of "modern" civilization as we have known it. An estimated 50 years of fuel left on the planet...I don't think we'll see 30 years of it before Mother Nature's shit hits the proverbial fan.

That's why I live life with wide open throttles.

Wanna see me giv'er?...I'll F'n giv'er.

MAX POWER!!!

[TopperHarley]

It's 2C here, but I wish it was 28C!

[FlyYukon]

-3 here, and a bunch of fresh snow on the ground - Can you send us that +28 please??? .. Well, it is +27 here actually, if you count Fahrenheit!

[canpilot]

Ya,

It seems like the West Coast has been the exact opposite this fall..abnormally cool and wet.. the same goes for the summer! I was over Whistler at 7,500 the other day and the temp was -8 with a load of snow on the mountains.

[Rem]

I went swimming today... in the lake... it was warm! Never done THAT before on Thanksgiving!

[C-GGGQ]

14 here, a bit above average but not signifigantly and only 14 at like 3, it was cold this morning and is getting cold tonight, heats up nice and good for a couple of hours mid day then back down.

[fogghorn]

Ya,

It seems like the West Coast has been the exact opposite this fall..abnormally cool and wet.. the same goes for the summer! I was over Whistler at 7,500 the other day and the temp was -8 with a load of snow on the mountains.

Yeah, exactly, there seems to be a north south dividing line for the country, everything on the rh side is cooking, the lh side is very cool and wet, same as happened all last winter. I would love to hear the esteemed scientists explain that. Then again, why bother.

[~Hollywood~]

holy shit....hit 32C here in windsor today and the weather network said it felt like 40C with the humidity....
try sitting in a 152 all day doing f*#&ing circuits

[invertedattitude]

The thing people don't realize too is that it will make for the harshest winters on record...

It doesn't snow at -30C, but when it's constantly -5 to -15 all winter, we'll be walloped with blizzards and heavy snowfalls

[the_professor]

This is a quote from Environment Canada, a group of scientists who get paid whether climate change exists or not. They have an excellent web page that I've included a link to below. On it there is a small sampling of the truly massive amount of work being done on this subject by bonafide scientists, not water-cooler experts like Fogghorn and "The Professor". They can believe what they want, but only a fool would dismiss this as junk science.

I've never claimed to be an expert. I am a skeptic who, unlike some on this board, does not automatically dismiss the significant number of scientific studies and viewpoints that are contrary to the majority (and most politically correct/popular) opinions.

[Rockie]

You are not a skeptic Professor...scientists are skeptics. When they report a finding they will have done their due diligence in eliminating everything else because nothing less than their credibility is on the line. Individual errors will always be made, but the vast majority of the world's scientific community now accepts man-made greenhouse gasses as a major contributor to global warming. They did not form this opinion standing around the water cooler.

A true skeptic is eventually convinced by a critical mass of evidence. You have made up your mind that green house gas global warming does not exist except in the collective imagination of the entire global scientific community's minds, and is nothing more than junk science used to secure funding and perpetuate a paycheck.

If you are not convinced yet, you never will be.

[the_professor]

You are not a skeptic Professor...scientists are skeptics. When they report a finding they will have done their due diligence in eliminating everything else because nothing less than their credibility is on the line. Individual errors will always be made, but the vast majority of the world's scientific community now accepts man-made greenhouse gasses as a major contributor to global warming. They did not form this opinion standing around the water cooler.

And what of the significant group of scientists who dispute the claims being made by the group you cited? Because their opinion/theory is shared by a minority it is therefore invalid?

Sorry, but there are countless historical examples where scientific opinions held by the majority were ultimately proven incorrect, and the theory behind man-made global warming is not immune from this potential.

[Hedley]

You guys are nuts.

Someone in Canada complaining about the heat in the fall/winter is like someone in a monastery complaining that they're getting laid too much

[expat2]

Shes 31C here and its only 7 am in the Maldives! Not jealous things are getting cold home lol.

[corporate joe]

If you think global warming is only about making it warmer for your daily enjoyment, you are out of your mind. Animal speicies, weather patterns, ocean currents, eco-systems and entire economies depend on the weather staying the way it is now. Global warming won't really affect your comfort temperature, but it will affect your wallet (in the best of scenarios, and your survival in the worst). Remember, according to the world bank VP it will cost on average 20% of GDP if not taken care of.

PS: there are no credible scientists left who dismiss global warming, no matter what some believe.

[Rockie]

You are not a skeptic Professor...scientists are skeptics. When they report a finding they will have done their due diligence in eliminating everything else because nothing less than their credibility is on the line. Individual errors will always be made, but the vast majority of the world's scientific community now accepts man-made greenhouse gasses as a major contributor to global warming. They did not form this opinion standing around the water cooler.

And what of the significant group of scientists who dispute the claims being made by the group you cited? Because their opinion/theory is shared by a minority it is therefore invalid?

Sorry, but there are countless historical examples where scientific opinions held by the majority were ultimately proven incorrect, and the theory behind man-made global warming is not immune from this potential.

You can debate the degree that green house gasses cause global warming, but you can't question that it contributes. The critical mass of evidence that convinced the mass majority of the world's scientific community was passed long ago. It would be too simple to argue that the few left that disagree are the ones who are the PHD's for hire by the oil companies or Bushies.

Let's frame it in another argument for the sake arguments sake. If a few, then a few more, then 90% of the world's astronomers reported a city sized asteroid on a collision course for earth. You would believe the 10% who say they're wrong and claim the other 90% are on a politically correct band wagon trying to foster fear to support the asteroid defence industry.

This isn't flat earth science being pushed by a church. This is the year 2007 and these are the majority of environmental scientists who know a lot more than you or I. I'm a sceptic as well, but I know when it reaches a point where it's carrying it too high.

[corporate joe]

Yes using the "logic" (for lack of a better word) of some of the members we'd never act upon anything, because science can never be 100% sure about anything (that is the part of the scientific process after all), and if it is 100%, it COULD change in 100 years, so let's not believe anything.

So we'd sit there in denial waiting for that asteroid (to use your analogy I like) and HOPE it misses the earth. 90% says we should act, 10% says we shouldn't. Hmm, let's believe the 10% and dismiss the 90%.

It makes no sense. It's irrational denial coupled with ignorance and personal lazyness/weakness.

[Hedley]

All change is bad - got it!

[the_professor]

PS: there are no credible scientists left who dismiss global warming, no matter what some believe.

Says who? You? Oh right I forgot, it is entirely up to you, the all-knowing corporate joe, to decide which scientists are credible and which are not. My mistake.

[the_professor]

Let's frame it in another argument for the sake arguments sake. If a few, then a few more, then 90% of the world's astronomers reported a city sized asteroid on a collision course for earth. You would believe the 10% who say they're wrong and claim the other 90% are on a politically correct band wagon trying to foster fear to support the asteroid defence industry.

There is no doubt that we can predict planetary orbits and the travels of items through space. The concrete knowledge we have regarding such behaviour is what allows NASA to launch the Space Shuttle and have it dock with the ISS at the precise point in space and time as predicted by formulas that have been verified time and again for decades (or centuries). Therefore I would believe the 90%.

There is no comparison to be made between that and global warming predictions and theories. Just last week it was reported that there is potentially a 70year difference in actual ice melt vs. the useless models that are being used to support such predictions. Sorry, but if your scientific methods lead to a 70year difference in actual vs. predicted behaviour, then you might as well just throw darts at a board while blindfolded and your results would be just as accurate. Therefore all the doomsday predictions are called into question, as they should be by anyone who has their eyes open.

Atmospheric science is in its infancy, and like infants we should expect that the bed will be shit many times before people get it right.

[corporate joe]

All change is bad - got it!

uhm, no, actually you didn't get it. Not even close.

[Rockie]

Let's frame it in another argument for the sake arguments sake. If a few, then a few more, then 90% of the world's astronomers reported a city sized asteroid on a collision course for earth. You would believe the 10% who say they're wrong and claim the other 90% are on a politically correct band wagon trying to foster fear to support the asteroid defence industry.

There is no doubt that we can predict planetary orbits and the travels of items through space. The concrete knowledge we have regarding such behaviour is what allows NASA to launch the Space Shuttle and have it dock with the ISS at the precise point in space and time as predicted by formulas that have been verified time and again for decades (or centuries). Therefore I would believe the 90%.

There is no comparison to be made between that and global warming predictions and theories. Just last week it was reported that there is potentially a 70year difference in actual ice melt vs. the useless models that are being used to support such predictions. Sorry, but if your scientific methods lead to a 70year difference in actual vs. predicted behaviour, then you might as well just throw darts at a board while blindfolded and your results would be just as accurate. Therefore all the doomsday predictions are called into question, as they should be by anyone who has their eyes open.

Atmospheric science is in its infancy, and like infants we should expect that the bed will be shit many times before people get it right.

What makes you think green house gasses and global warming are any less measurable or calculable than spatial physics? It wasn't that long ago that NASA thundered a space craft onto the surface of Mars because they did some poor math.

You keep bringing up this 70 year error in predicting the arctic sea ice melting as if that invalidates all the science. Meanwhile you seem completely oblivious to the significance of the fact that the actual measurements are much worse and have moved that date forward 70 years. Does that not ring some alarm bells?

To use another analogy, the house is burning down while you dispute the rated output pressure of the firehose.

[fogghorn]

PS: there are no credible scientists left who dismiss global warming, no matter what some believe.

PROVE IT, or put your money where your mouth is.

[corporate joe]

PS: there are no credible scientists left who dismiss global warming, no matter what some believe.

PROVE IT, or put your money where your mouth is.

From science magazine itself:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

You asked for proof, I took the time to get it for you, take the time to read it.

(...) Signed by 2500 scientists around the world from all different fields. Also, EVERY single argument brought to contradict global warming observations has been analysed, studied and refuted. However, that does not mean that everything has been explained, one must not confuse the two. You have to understand that in the scientific community research, proof, methodology and scepticism are taken very seriously. Every study, argument and theory claiming that global warming is not man made has been looked into. There is no credible argument that remains to refute the studies and observations (not models as some still idiotically claim) made. Global warming is caused by humans, it can have disastrous consequences, and pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it worst. There is only an illusion of dissent in the scientific community, created by dishonest, and often bribed scientists (see EXXON's IRS report, and the groups it finances). The same tactics used by tobacco companies fifty years ago. All the tobacco companies had to do was find some doctor, somewhere who'd say cigarettes weren't bad for you (most of the time for a hefty check), and all the people who were looking for an excuse not to smoke jumped on that opportunity to say: "there is no proof! it's a band wagon of fear!". Yet they conveniently ignored the other thousand doctors who did claim smoking was bad for their health. That way people who don't want to believe, and who don't actually take the time to read the studies and examine the evidence, can read a headline here, or a quick cherry picked study there, and hang on irrationally to an opinion. It's just enough for a closed mind to convince itself and give itself justification. However, anyone looking at all the facts, anyone in their right mind, can not say that there is not enough evidence to justify action.

There is no other way around it. It's that simple.