Environment Canada Report Pans Harper Government's Climate Plan
A new Environment Canada report "discreetly" posted on the Department website shows that the Canadian government's climate change plan will reduce greenhouse gas by a fraction of what was originally promised.
According to an article by Mike de Souza at Canwest News Service:
The plan shows that many existing climate change measures such as the transit tax credit, regulations to increase biofuels production and the banning of incandescent light bulbs will result in a fraction of the greenhouse gas emission reductions that they were previously estimated to achieve."
The link to the report is down right now, but we will post more details when its back up. Here's the url: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?langEn&nC07483BF-1
This story should be a headline across the country, given that polls consistently show climate change and the environment to be the number one priority for Canadians.
Where's the outrage at the false promises made by the government? Or it this just going to be filed away in the "we can't trust politicians" file?
In response to the report, Environment Minister John Baird slipped the question and told the reporter that he could "get an official to go over the details with you."
Pretty scary when the Minister in charge of the policy most important to Canadians doesn't know the details.
Scary times, just made scarier by a government that has spent more time producing hot air than any action on the most important issue in the country.
Question ..Do you believe in Climate change? answer: Of course Climate changes all the time! ..poll result.
"polls consistently show climate change and the environment to be the number one priority for Canadians."
Let's change the Question.. CO2 as risen 23% and is suppose to cause an increase in temperature, as a Canadian how warmer would you say was last winter? Answer...I wish I could get my hand on those..bleep! bleep! bleep! poll result.
"polls consistently show climate change and the environment to be the number one priority for Canadians living in some parts of Vancouver."
One too many at the corner pub mayhaps?
We haven't had any decent weather in these parts since Halloween. For God's sake, everybody get out there and rev up those SUVs. That probably won't help but, exercise the precautionary principle and give it a try. Pleeeaaaasse.
That's why it's not called "Calgary Warming", or "Victoria Warming". It's called Global Warming.
But Dan, not long ago, a series of unusually warm winters in the western Arctic was being cited by warmists far and wide as proof positive of AGW. The polar bears were going to drown in droves. Meanwhile, concurrently, a series of truly hellish winters in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces was dismissed as "just weather" or even cited as further proof of "dangerous climate change".
I see that Environment Canada is predicting that July and August will be very hot this year. If the prediction is correct, what are the odds that the Suzukian loons won't be calling, "It's heeeeeer. AGW is reeeeeeeel. We're all going to diieeeeeeee"? Snort.
Yeah, ZOG, you may be right that some people will point out during a warm summer that it is consistent with AGW theory. But I don't see how you can blame them. First, pointing out that we're back to warmer than usual conditions is one way of repeating what lots of folks have been saying for a long time ("this last cool spell is La Nina"). Second, many internet opponents of the legitimacy of AGW have been saying, "Look! the warming cycle is over, PDO has shifted, sunspot cycle 24 is a no show, it's now going to cool and we're all going to diieee" -- so it's only natural that some people will want to remind those prognosticators that they were premature regarding the coming ice age or Maunder minimum 2.
Hey, who gets the point regarding acid rain?
www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-bull-in-climate-shop
Despite this past cold winter, note that the melt of the Arctic sea ice sheet has already almost caught up with the 2007 record:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
And your point is? It would be helpful if, before jumping onto a thread, you noted the gist of the discussion.
Ah shucks, I can't resist responding to your irrelevant post:
1. Water freezes in the winter and ice melts in the summer.
2. Fields of thin new ice melt more rapidly than thick multi-year ice. In a given summer, most of the previous winter's new ice will melt.
3. Any new ice that survives the summer becomes second-year ice with a good chance of surviving again to become multi-year ice but, the process of annual growth is naturally slow.
4. NSIDC reports this year's melt to be tracking parallel and slightly above last year's melt but, as of early June, this releates only to sea areas that are wide open every summer. Nobody at NSIDC is claiming clairvoiance and predicting what will happen with inter-island ice in the high Arctic.
5. A few hundred thousand square kilometers of second-year ice maight or might not be added to the mix this summer. We'll know in September.
When I said "tracking slightly above" I was referring to NSIDC's standard graphic, not to the rate of melting, which has been slightly slower than last year. Obvious to anyone who follows this stuff, but possibly confusing to anyone who doesn't.
ZOG said: "Fields of thin new ice melt more rapidly than thick multi-year ice. In a given summer, most of the previous winter's new ice will melt".
Paul S/G said: "You too repeat the mistake VJ made, saying:
. . .thin ice will melt and disappear much faster than thicker ice.
Sorry Ian, thin ice does not melt faster. For someone who pretends to spout physics, you should not be making such a simple error". (http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pphyq)
ZOG, you clearly did not attend Paul S/G's course "Ice Melting 101 for AGW Deniers".
How are we ever to accept what you guys say when you cannot agree on something as simple as ice melting?
You guys are pathetic.
Ian Forrester
It really Jim Hansen's Warming:
See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html
Giss fudging the data more and more each year in a feeble attempt to prop up the failing AGW movement.
Once again Wilbert you present with a myopic and narrow minded view - predictably (and probably purposefully) confusing the local weather with global climate change.
Although I suspect you're well aware of this common indiscretion (as you are a frequent "skeptic" supporter)so typical of denialist propaganda.
Nope! I use "Climate" because if I would Have use "Weather" I would have been told you are confusing the local weather with global climate change....rings a bell?
"CO2 as risen 23%"
All lies all the time.
38% ?? and it is getting warmer and warmer at an unprecedented rate. Brrr had to put gloves on yesterday while fishing on a still water lake.
Hope Harper notice the Cap & Trade debate next door. they should call the debate "Facts & fiction" and Fiction lost. Boxer and Harry R must be in the fetal position this morning.
280 ppmv to 387 ppmv. Do the math. If you can.
A 38% increase in CO2 and still next to no corrolation to temperatures.
The climate just keeps on going through its usual natural warming and cooling cycles in spite of CO2.
You know that another 100 ppm will inhance our crop yields enough to feed many of the people now starving because of the dumb Greenie Biofuel blunder.
miss it by that much! Good! Now explain why it is getting colder? or is it something like ...11C today June 6 2008 but it is a warmer 11C then we use to get.
w-e-a-t-h-e-r ?
n-a-t-u-r-a-l v-a-r-i-a-b-i-l-i-t-y ?
L-a N-e-n-a ?
"La Nina" try again
What do you expect from the inhabitants of Lotus Land?
We all know what they have been smoking!
Wilburt, are you an oil industry shill or just ignorant of climate science? This past winter was a product of La Nina. No one claims climate change means every day of every year will be warmer in every place on the globe. Get a clue.
ignorant of climate science of course can't you tell?
"No one claims climate change means every day of every year will be warmer in every place on the globe."
No one claimed what? you gotta be kidding.
" This past winter was a product of La Nina."
The past 20 to 30 years has been a product of EL NINO.
Now that La Nina does not fit the computer models it is a Natural occurrence?
Who knew?
It so cold here my basil plants are starting to die!
Emily, why don't you go down to Tiffany's and tell all the ladys that thye can't have diamonds anymore and that you are shutting down all the diamond mines because they emit too much CO2. Ditto for gold and sliver mines!
How long do you think you last before they pound you into a minute steak with their Italian stilettoes?
Doesn't look that bad...
http://weather.canoe.ca/Weather/CityBurnabyBC.html
Whadda you mean "Doesn't look that bad"? It is 12 deg C and raining at my house N Burnaby. Where is summer.
It is so cold that are no insects. So I filled the bird feeder so the chickadees won't starve to death!
I will give you extra points for this, Harold.
It's now so cold that the ants have ceased feeding on the peona blossom buds and are staying in their nest!
Well, I guess that proves your point.