If you want the big picture on Canada's response to climate change, this
Mondaq brief does a better job than any MSM article I've read. There are a couple of interesting things in
the report. For example, Alberta's establishment of a domestic carbon offset market, which has driven a sudden interest in
no till farming, is commendable, but needs IMHO to be expanded beyond provincial borders. Offsets only work if there are enough viable projects around to pour money into, and the further afield you can go to find such projects, the better. For the same reason, the Federal Tories should allow regulated companies to invest more heavily in international
CDM projects. Fortunately, the brief concludes that:
With numerous new initiatives springing up south of the border as well, and with the tendency of Canadian jurisdictions to favor regional integration, the only thing that is certain is that the regulatory climate will continue to change rapidly.That's probably it for today. Real life is expected to intrude big time. But maybe, if you're all good, I'll post some nudie pics later.
12 comments:
More evidence that the natural cyclical cycle of warming and cooling is at the point where the recent warming trend has not only plateaued but reversed resulting in cooler weather: snow in the Middle east, and cold weather there actually resulting in deaths.
More and more scientists are now making note of the actual, verifiable plateau/drop in tempurature and are working to find out how extreme this drop will be.
BCL, get with the times.
Anonymous:
You claim that warming has gone beyond a plateau but has actually reversed. Would you be willing to make a bet on it. With a claim such as yours it could be resolved fairly quickly (i.e. 10 years).
I would see it being structured this way. You pick your cooling rate and the data set you use and then we predict where it will be in 10 years.
We will use straight temperature without corrections for such things as el-ninos or volcanoes.
So how about it?
Regards,
John Cross
You know, BCL...you could simplify your life and improve discussion if you simply shut off anonymous commenting, rather than enable/disable comment moderation all the time. Anyone who has a burning desire to say something substantive would probably set up an account of some kind.
At least, we'd soon figure out who the consistent and dedicated sock-puppets are.
'...which has driven a sudden interest in no till farming...'
No till farming has been implimented for decades by farmers.
Firstly it reduces fuel costs and secondly preserves much needed soil moisture.
Many farmers no longer summerfallow leaving a tilled soil exposed, instead they underseed, where the following years crop is already in the ground.
It is the enviro groups that are suddenly interested.
Snow in the Middle East. Gosh, isn't that some kind of sign of climate change? You know, like, it's getting less stable? Like the heat that killed people in Europe this summer?
Jerusalem and Tehran get snow every winter. These people just "discovered" the Middle East last week.
Holly, I acutally get a bit nervous with the snow=caused by global warming line. Not that it can't be justified (higher temps=more precip which means snow in colder climes) but I think in this case the judgement is that La Nina is behind alot of this stuff.
Well, I don't know if snow in the Middle East is usual or is caused by whatever; but I don't think a snowfall there is proof that global warming has stopped all over the world, which the first anon seems to think.
Then again, would La Nina in the Pacific Ocean have an effect on the Middle East?
By the way, this blog notes an article about the drought in the western US being partly caused by humans and likely to continue.
http://greenassassinbrigade.blogspot.com/2008/02/us-droughts-proven-man-made.html
If you would step back and examine the AGW 'debate' as it is, you would see that one side is not engaging in scientific debate. Their tactics include bullying, peer pressure, name-dropping, celebrity endorsement, ad hominem attacks on their opponents, name-calling, slurs, and generally every type of juvenile response you can think of, EXCEPT to directly address the doubts, questions, and uncertainties raised by the other side.
If you could only drop your ideological blinders, you would see the GIGANTIC holes in your argument, and how ridiculous it would be to commit TRILLIONS of dollars on an unfounded by passionately-believed hunch.
One day you believers will wake up. And we'll know that day has come when you start blaming the 'deniers' for promoting the whole AGW issue.
And which planet are you posting from?
That was me.
Post a Comment