P.M. Harper Kills Scientist ['s book launch appearance]

[Jay]

No it isn't....but that was very clever of you!

Good job!

(We still need to protect the artic hot or cold.)

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: P.M. Harper Kills Scientist ['s book launch appearan

clever is as clever does.

(We still need to protect the artic hot or cold.)

that's not our Defense Minister's rationale...

"As global warming takes effect and the ice starts to melt in the north we're (also) going to have a sovereignty problem with the Northwest Passage," - Gordon O'Connor

he said it again today, btw. damn near verbatim.

 

[BitWhys]

nice to see the right questions are being answered.

A spokesperson for Ambrose later said that the speech was billed as coming from an Environment Canada scientist and even though Tushingham's book is a work of fiction, he would have appeared to be speaking in an official capacity.

The publisher says Tushingham was described only as an Ottawa scientist.

 

[BitWhys]

and amused to see which side is changing its tune first

Ryan Sparrow, a spokesperson for Environment Canada, said it was just a breach of protocol. "We [Environment Canada] only found out about the talk from a news wire release a few days before, where Mark was billed as a government scientist," Sparrow told The Scientist. "This is against our current protocols so we asked him not to speak at the event."

what happened "an Environment Canada scientist"?

8O :lol:

 

[elevennevele]

Re: RE: P.M. Harper Kills Scientist ['s book launch appearan

There is probably a lot I can say on this subject but I'm registering too much disgust at this time.

I’ve said a little bit on environmental issues on the “Mulroney 'greenest'” forum, but basically there are people who either care enough, or don’t care enough. When it comes to the well being of our planet however, I can’t see the logic in not caring enough. I’ve learned you can capitalize on anything (ie. war and misfortune), but with climate change, there isn’t the same type of recovery afforded afterwards (excluding nuclear disaster). The repercussions of climate change and ecological disaster will be a long painful road where the luxury to simply rebuild won’t be present. How do you simply rebuild the earth’s atmosphere especially when the earth’s ecology is put into a downward spiral?

The loss of forest to climate change might be the final irony given that such trees are needed to help renew the atmosphere we are damaging.

Someone will always justify their gain despite the cost incurred on so many others. Whether it’s monetary, or political, or ideological. The narrow attitudes however in the matters of the planet really make me shake my head. It has the same logic as trashing ones own house. There is not wall to build, or door to close, or wealth to accumulate to prevent the consequence of feeling the repercussions of damaging our planet. There is no country so remote as to be unaffected.

We also all have to eat. Crop production is dependent on climate. Global warming doesn’t just effect temperatures. It also causes shifts in precipitation levels.

I’ve lost a few trees to winds last year and many more had their tops damaged. Mature trees that have grown more than 30 feet in whatever weather was thrown at it in the past. I won’t be surprised to lose a few more this year if such unpredictable winds become more the rule than the exception.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/greatlakes.html
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/booklet2.html

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/pentagon.shtml

 

[BitWhys]

All I know is we're deliberately coughing up in few decades what it took milenia to bury. I doubt very much that doesn't come without consquences.

 

[Jay]

We need to invent large carbon dioxide scrubbers.


I heard on CBC discovery that there was a mammal that could be farm raised that scrubbed huge amounts of CO2 and it could be raised for meat. I can't find anything on it though.

These are the sorts of measures we need to take IMO.