Why would Canadians think otherwise when the MSM and the Gov't's lie and decieve them

[AdamSmith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.


---------------------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/climate-change-seen-as-planets-defining-crisis/article1382640/

Climate change seen as planet's defining crisis

New Harris-Decima poll finds that belief is held most strongly in Quebec, less so in the Prairies

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
Published on Monday, Nov. 30, 2009 11:25AM EST

Last updated on Monday, Nov. 30, 2009 12:20PM EST


Most Canadians think climate change is the planet's defining crisis, a new poll suggests.

That belief is held most strongly in Quebec and less so in the Prairies, a survey conducted by Harris-Decima on behalf of the Munk Debates has found.

The poll asked Canadians if they agreed or disagreed with a resolution to be debated Tuesday during the fourth Munk Debate in Toronto, that: “Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.”

Nearly two thirds of Canadians agreed while 31 per cent disagreed. A tiny fraction had no opinion.

“I think it shows the extent to which not just the environment, but the actual issue of climate change, has ascended up the public agenda to point where it is reminiscent of those other big causes that have shaped a lot of Canadian history,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-organizer of the Munk Debates.

Women were slightly more inclined to agree with the statement than men. Sixty-seven per cent of women agreed, compared with 63 per cent of men.

Across the provinces, more Quebecers and Atlantic Canadians agreed that climate change is the defining crisis, while people in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were less likely to agree.

The pollsters then asked people for their thoughts on a range of arguments for and against climate change. “We came up with a battery of the most conventional arguments for and against ambitious action on climate change,” Griffiths said.

People were given five statements often made by those who support the fight against climate change and five statements made by those who argue against it.

The survey found a strong belief on both sides of the climate-change debate that there is a moral responsibility to deal with global warming now to save the planet future generations.

There was also general agreement on both sides that a warming planet threatens species and ecologies around the world with extinction, and that scientists are on the same page that something needs to be done about climate change.

The poll suggests nearly two thirds of people think humans will be able to adapt to climate change. Half of those surveyed also agreed the money Canada spends on climate change would be better spent on health care and national debt.

After the pollsters finished going through the arguments for and against climate change, they again asked people if they agreed with the statement about it being the world's defining issue.

The responses were nearly identical to the answers given at the beginning of the survey.

The online poll of 1,009 Canadians was conducted Nov. 12 to 15. No margin of error was provided.

[AdamSmith]

This news has been out there for over a week now and the national newspapers and the national tv networks, go on making themselves more irrelevant and more un-trustwothy by the day by not covering this story.

Man-made global warming is being shown to be a scam and a hoax and the crickets have never been louder.

Thanks to Smalldeadanimals.com for doing the job the MSM should be doing.

Not only are we seeing the death of man made global warming, were witnessing the death of the MSM.

[ianben]

My problem with global warming/climate change is not that it is happening it always has.

I believe history tells us it always has been changing, perhaps the most unusual thing is how little change there has been in the last couple of millenium.

I just dont understand how they can put any meaningful value to the measures they say we need to take.

The variables are just too great making any results little better than the number they first thought of, or less politely "absolute bullshit".

The signs of the zodiac could be used just as effectively to predict the future.

.

[silverback]

Sure makes you wonder what our own little "Wheat Board Gate" would turn up if anyone would ever do a comprehensive audit.

I'm guessing a little bit of "Premium Price" data has been lost between floors at 423.

[burnt]

C'mon now give'm a break - they're too busy covering important issues like whether Tiger Woods' poor driving is resulting from him putting on the wrong green or vice versa.

Never forget that the poll can be designed to given the pollster favorable results. What were the exact questions asked? If I want to, I could set up a poll that would make the most vehement CWB hater look like a firm supporter.

That's how much many polls are worth.

[AdamSmith]

Here's another great example of "Alarmist" reporting by the msm.
It's reuters story picked up by the G&M.
---------------------------------------
Greenland ice loss accelerating: study
Loss due equally to icebergs breaking away and meltwater, nudging up sea levels

Alister Doyle

Reuters
Published on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 2:50PM EST

Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 5:17PM EST


Greenland's ice losses are accelerating and nudging up sea levels, according to a study showing that icebergs breaking away and melt water runoff are equally to blame for the shrinking ice sheet.

The report, using computer models to confirm satellite readings, indicated that ice losses quickened in 2006-08 to the equivalent of 0.75 millimetres of world sea level rise per year from an average 0.46 mm a year for 2000-08.

“Mass loss has accelerated,” said Michiel van den Broeke, of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who led the study, in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

“The years 2006-08, with their warm summers, have seen a huge melting,” he told Reuters of the study with colleagues in the United States, the Netherlands and Britain.

“The underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future,” Jonathan Bamber, a co-author at the University of Bristol, said in a statement.

The computer models matched satellite data for ice losses - raising confidence in the findings - and showed that losses were due equally to melt water, caused by rising temperatures, and icebergs breaking off from glaciers.

“This helps us to understand the processes that affect Greenland. This will also help us predict what will happen,” Mr. van den Broeke said. Until now, the relative roles of snowfall, icebergs and thawing ice have been poorly understood.

Greenland locks up enough ice to raise world sea levels by seven metres if it ever all thawed. At the other end of the globe, far-colder Antarctica contains ice equivalent to 58 metres of sea level rise, according to UN estimates.

COPENHAGEN

About 190 governments will meet in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18 to try to agree a UN pact to slow global warming, fearing that rising temperatures will bring more powerful storms, heat waves, mudslides and species extinctions as well as rising sea levels.

The study said losses of ice from Greenland would have been roughly double recent rates but were masked by more snowfall and a re-freezing of some meltwater before it reached the sea.

In total, Greenland lost about 1,500 billion tonnes of ice from 2000-08, split between icebergs cracking into the sea from glaciers and water runoff. “The mass loss would have been twice as great,” without offsetting effects, Mr. van den Broeke said.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that world sea levels could rise by 18-59 centimetres by 2100. A natural expansion of water as it warms would account for most of the rise, rather than melting ice.

Greenland's current rate, of 0.75 millimetres a year, would be 7.5 centimetres if continued for 100 years. “This is ... much more that previous estimates of the Greenland contribution,” Mr. van den Broeke said.

---------------------------------------
Alarmist headline "Greenland is Melting"

buried in the bottom of the article is the reports computer modeled facts, which state intead of the previous avg. of .46 mimimeters of loss per year in 2006 and 2007 the rate went to .76 mimimeters per year.

That's an extra 3 centimeters of ice loss over the next 100 years.

Three centimeters

One and an eigth inches.

in Greenland

Where in the center of the island the ice is over a mile thick.

THIS IS F-ing NEWS????

Why lets spend trillions of dollars and maybe just maybe mind you, and if your all good boys and girls there will be something in your stocking on Chrismas morning, er, um, I mean the ice won't melt and we can avoid a global catastrophy.

It seems that the more information and knowledge becomes available the stupider people become.

[parsley]

SOME of the scientific elite are out of control, and they will generate any findings their paying sponsor requests.

Since these bought and paid for scientists often collectively request funding, usually via MSM propoganda pressure and overnight created scientific political associations, to crank out studies on global warming...on behalf of the United Nations and governments, they should be publically disbarred and collectively listed as Accredited Agents of Dillusion and Collusiontheir professional scientific accredtiing associations.

I can think of a few to shortlist.

Maybe I'm not hard nosed enough about this issue. Pars

[AdamSmith]

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE MACHINE:
$79 BILLION AND COUNTING

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Glover%20%20Economides%20-%20The%20GW%20Science%20Machine%20-%20by%20Jenn%2008%2010%2009.pdf

[Hopperbin]

In a nutshell the sun creates warm and cool cycles and we can view it through sunspots. The sun with its cycles warms and cools our planet. The CO2 follows some 300 years behind the warming and cooling affect because it is that time period that the oceans need to equalize the atomosphere. I know I did not explain it properly at coffee today because I got a lot of blank stares and changing subjects LOL.

[burnt]

Hopperbin, some of those blank stares are because most people just don't care and don't want to stress that single synapse that connects their two neurons.

[cchurch]

Man I never knew there were so many highly decorated climate scientists on agriville.

[AdamSmith]

cchurch, your comments are a perfect example the exact same sniveling arrogance displayed by the global warming zealots. You seem to think that only a climate scientist be allowed to discuss the issues and hold opinions. You believe that us regular citizens have nothing to contribute, except of course our tax dollars.

Just shut up and pay your taxes and keep your opinions to yourselves. We’ll tell you what is best for you, we’ll tell you what’s going on and who you should listen to and not listen to.

The thing you and your ilk hate the most though cchurch, is enlightened and knowledgeable citizens. People who can see things for what they truly are scare the hell out of people like you. Things like the man-made global warming scam and the orderly marketing scam and any number of other socialist whack job beliefs. Because you need a critical mass of sufficiently scared and uneducated people in order to enact these nutcase policies. Always have and always will.

I don’t profess to know everything there is to know about climate science but I sure as hell am interested in finding out all I can and you can be sure after this a whole lot more regular people in this country and around the world will want to as well.

[liberty]

Here's a particularly bizarre statement in the article:

"The study said losses of ice from Greenland would have been roughly double recent rates but were masked by more snowfall and a re-freezing of some meltwater before it reached the sea."

If Greenland is warming up at an "alarming" rate, how could there be more snowfall and a re-freezing of meltwater? You don't need a PhD to see that something doesn't add up here.

[liberty]

You also have to wonder how a satellite could measure a change in ice thickness of less than one millimeter over a two year period. Surely the natural heaving of the ice itself would produce changes in thickness greater than that.

And notice that the case is supposedly buttressed by "computer models". I wonder if those models bear any similarity to the garbage code pumped out by the University of East Anglia to support their global warming case.

[burnt]

I think it's a snow job. Heh heh.