News

Al Gore coming to Calgary

Publication YearIssue Date 

A former American vice-president and rumored presidential candidate is coming to Calgary.

Al Gore will be speaking at the Jack Singer Concert Hall about issues affecting climate change, focusing on information presented in his award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the University of Calgary are sponsoring the event, which will be held Mon., April 23.

"Bringing Al Gore to Calgary has been very controversial," said U of C director of community relations Allison MacKenzie. "Many companies won't even touch this one. But the university is a place to discuss different ideas, and climate change is a hugely important issue."

Tickets sold out in three days, but the university is holding a contest to give away 20 tickets to students who come up with ideas on how to make the U of C campus more sustainable.

"Campus infrastructure and campus planning are looking at different initiatives at greening campus," said Allison Mackenzie. "We want to be a leader in terms of being a green campus."

Winners will be picked at random and all ideas will go to campus planning and infrastructure to be evaluated and possibly implemented.

As well as making tickets accessible through the contest, the U of C put funding towards 100 tickets, making them available to students at a discounted rate of $29.95 from the regular rate of $159.

Section: 

Issue: 

Comments

Unless Mr Gore can explain the proven (through ice and sedimentary layer analysis)the 5-600 previous "Global Warmings" Please ask him to stay the hell home in his 30,000 usd a year for utilities "house". We have enough hypocrites in Canada,we dont need to import them to lie to us.

Oh, grow up. Global warming is a reality and it's caused by people. Period. How many studies need to be undertaken before you realize your Hummer is fucking up the environment and having your head implanted in your colon is the least effective way of solving the problem?

Also, see: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong.

J.B
Have another drink of Kool aid.
Gores is a theory based on speculation, nothing more. Nobody can dispute the fact (yes fact) that climate change is occuring, but humans are absolutely NOT the cause.Science has proven "global warming" is cyclic and has already happened on hundreds of occasions.
Also see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Being a hypocrite AND being wrong must really suck! wouldn't you agree?

Wow, congratulations, you just cited Wikipedia and an opinions article on an internet news source.

Did you even read the Wikipedia source you cited? Quote:

"Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 ∞C (1.3 ± 0.32 ∞F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, 'most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,'"

Anthropogenic means "created by people".
Which means you.

From the same article:
"The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence."

Need I go on?

Fellas, there isn't enough bandwidth on our server to adequately convey either side of the global warming debate.

Suffice it to say, Al Gore is a human being with a viewpoint and the means to broadcast his views to others. Any other analysis brings the writer's own biases into play.

Thanks Ryan

J.B needed to join the rest of the herd anyway. theres a cliff just ahead that i'm sure he wouldn't want to miss.
love Ron

Bullshit, there's enough room on the server for J.B. to own Ron everyday until eternity.

@Ron:
How the devil are you making lemming metaphors? The legend is that lemmings blindly jump off cliffs to their deaths (Though this isn't true in reality); wouldn't blindly believing far-right political blogs and dumbly following the pathetic lead of the Bush administration off the nearest cliff into the (rapid-rising) ocean make the lemming metaphor more relevant to your situation?

Hell, the very worst that'll happen if we all seek to lessen our impact on the atmosphere is the economy might suffer a little bit. And that's being pessimistic; in all reality, climate change should be a huge boon for businesses concerned with providing alternative energies. Frankly, the only people that might be adversely effected are those who are unwilling to innovate, and the oil companies.

On the other hand, if we don't and the scientists are right...

Also: I follow scientific consensus, not political consensus. Noticing a correlation > subscribing to the mentality of the electorate.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Of course, for all I know, you might also believe the earth was created in 7 days, 12,000 years ago.

@∆ndrew and Beauchamp:
Good to hear!

I don't care about global warming. I'm going to keep enjoying my Escalade that uses a lot of gas, and keep enjoying the red hot economy that we have from exploiting natural resources.

In all honesty though, the most recent scientific reports state that global warming will strike two days before the day after tomorrow.....

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.
NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.
Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.
With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.
"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from now," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

I don't even know where to start Leon. Maybe with the fact that the Financial Post caters to those with an entrenched vested interest in denying human-induced global warming. Maybe by pointing out that this "news" story couldn't be bothered with finding a single scientist from the other side of the debate. It's possible they couldn't find one, but since the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is convinced of humanity's negative impact, that's not much of an excuse for piss-poor journalism, now is it?

You're not weighing the evidence Leon, you're actively seeking out the few dissenting (and often well-paid) voices that deny global warming is human-induced. Meanwhile, you're ignoring a massive body of evidence almost unanimously supported by world's climate experts. That's lame, man.

The scientific consensus is thus: "Sweet Jebus, the world is getting gradually warmer! Oh noes!"

From there, the scientific community is split into two camps, generally dependent on which group is funding their research.

Group A's consensus is that humans, human industry and human development are entirely to blame for any/all changes to the Earth and we should stop what we're doing yesterday.

Group B's contrarian stance is that since we've only been recording data for a small amount of time compared to the planet's age, there's no way of knowing if humans are to blame or if the fluctuations are part of a larger cycle.

Reality is probably somewhere in the middle: There probably IS a natural cooling/warming cycle at work, but there's no way of knowing how much humanity has distorted it because all the data we have is from the distorted pool (e.g., THERE'S NO CONTROL GROUP TO COMPARE IT TO).

It is very sad that this story is getting more comments and attention compared to other stories on that website. How many people commented on the story about delayed Residence renovations or the story about death of a student in a road accident compared to this Al Gore story?

Still, it is too amusing to see a few people still arguing on despite their positions being hopeless.

Beauchamp,
I don't see Al Gore or any of the other "sky-is-falling-and-we're-to-blame" crowd consulting with anyone with an opposing view. This is NOT as simple as some would have you believe. Even if we, as humans make a contribution to greenhouse gases, there is still a lot of debate that is not settled.....outside of the massive majority of "scientists" who are weighing in on this debate who are NOT climatologists - David Suzuki, for one. Getting a consensus from the scientific community, as a whole, on this is like asking your lawyer for advice on your dental plan.

OK, enough of this already! The Global Warming scientists base there predictions on complicated computer models... These are the same models that predict the weather in Calgary....Wake up! If they can't give me an accurate 5 day forecast in my area with a 50% certainty, HOW IN HELL CAN THEY STAND THERE AND PREDICT THE WEATHER 10 OR 20 YEARS FROM NOW?
Rene LaPrade

First, appeal to scientific, social or political consensus is not a very good form of argument. Not too long ago, consensus was that earth was flat and women were not full humans, by consensus. A proposition with such broadly-reaching and grave consequences requires equally extraordinary evidence.

Second, even if the model and data which produced the hockey stick were flawless, one peak within 500 years of data is not statistically significant in a dataset with millions of years of data, especially, as Gore et al. highlight as the basis for their argument, if that datapoint is an extreme outlier. Let's also not ignore that in that graph, the change in temperature leads the change in atmospheric CO2 (blindly assuming that no other environmental factors affect temperture).

Finally, the number of papers and news items published supporting the position that man is singularly responsible for climate change may more closely reflect the biases of the publishers than the current state of research and knowledge (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc...).

Why do we not give any other research community the same free pass as we do for the climate-change-bad conservation-good scientists with respect to data collection, globally-applicable conclusions and inferences based on weak evidence of local systems, and the degree to which the researchers have allowed themselves to be motivated by social and political factors? Why are climate change skeptics given the same credibility in the media as UFOlogists, even though the climate change skeptics have data which may be construed as evidence?

(#9: In the case of climate research which is funded by either side of the debate, the scientists _are_ the electorate.)

Wow. Just wow.
I'm surprised so many people are sucked in by the minority of non-consenting scientists.
Facts:
In all of the history of the earth's climate, using samples from Antarctica's ice core and tree rings, every time there's been an increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, there's been an increase in temperature.
Carbon dioxide is at it's highest level now than it's ever been.
The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily rising for the last 150 years, or since about 1850.
By the mid 1800s, many of the world's countries had begun industrializing.

Now put those facts together and ignore the garbage about solar radiation, bad computer models, and the 5-600 "previous Global Warmings" (which were never on this scale).

It's less about being "sucked in" than about not being taken in this time.

Global warming is but the latest in a long line of man-made environmental catestrophies that didn't pan out. Recall that in the 80s, depletion of the ozone layer was the big issue, which somehow stopped shrinking despite no significant decrease in the amount of supposedly ozone-burning chemicals humanity puts into the air. The most significant effect of mandating the reduction of CFC production and use in the western hemisphere was to move the pollution source to industrializing nations.

Prior to that, there was the massive global COOLING scare of the 1970s. Greenpeace would really like to forget that they warned the world that by 1984, the world would be in the most disasterous ice age in the history of the earth. They also had scientific consensus on that point at the time.

Going back further, there were fears about allowing jet aircraft into the atmosphere because the effects of con trails on weather patterns were unknown at the time, which naturally implied that the world would come to an end due to our desire for high-speed intercontinental travel.

At around the same time, nuclear weapons were thought to be fatal for earth as anything larger than those deployed over Japan would hit some kind of magic critical reaction mass which would burn off the atmosphere.

So, given the spectacular track record of warnings about mankind ending the world thus far, you'll pardon me if I remain a little bit skeptical of the most recent round of claims.