The Russian Meteorological Center is saying that the current heat wave is the warmest in Russia in the last 1000 years:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/09/russia-heat-wave-one-thousand-year...
Climate Change general thread Pt.2
Tue, 2010-08-10 22:01
#1
Climate Change general thread Pt.2
Wed, 2010-08-11 21:39
#2
Oh, look, yet another right-leaning newspaper finally recognises physical reality and abandons it's flat-earth stance & changes its editorial policy to concede that the Greenland ice sheet is in fact melting and global warming/climate change is real. UK's Global Mail: Global warming is real and deeply worrying http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/11/daily-mail-%E2%80%9Cglobal-warming...
Meanwhile, NASA GISTEMP's preliminary global land-ocean temperature anomaly for July 2010 is 0.71C, which if it holds when the final numbers are publicly released would make it the warmest July on the instrument record, just eclipsing 1998 at 0.70C. But just wait until the August numbers come in and Russia's once-in-a-thousand-year* heat wave gets factored in.
ETA: Turns out it was the global land met-station only data, and the final publicly released value is 0.72C, which is the fourth highest July in this record. The global land-ocean value was 0.55C, which is the fifth highest July.
Fri, 2010-10-01 22:14
#3
News from NASA's GISS - "How Warm Was Summer 2010?"
Link to article, charts:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100930/
=== "Local" Folly:
People tend to use local conditions to back up their views on the reality of global warming. This report addresses that folly - here is a quote:
"... unusually warm summer temperatures in the United States and eastern Europe created the impression of global warming run amuck in those regions this summer, while last winter's unusually cool temperatures created the opposite impression. A more global view, as shown below for 2009 and 2010, makes clear that extrapolating global trends based on the experience of one or two regions can be misleading.
"Unfortunately, it is common for the public to take the most recent local seasonal temperature anomaly as indicative of long-term climate trends," Hansen notes. "[We hope] these global temperature anomaly maps may help people understand that the temperature anomaly in one place in one season has limited relevance to global trends."
==========study results:
quote: "Globally, June through August, according to the GISS analysis, was the fourth-warmest summer period in GISS's 131-year-temperature record. The same months during 2009, in contrast, were the second warmest on record."
---
One more quote:
Meanwhile, the global seasonal temperatures for the spring of 2010 - March, April, and May - was the warmest on GISS's record. Does that mean that 2010 will shape up to be the warmest on record? Since the warmest year on GISS's record - 2005 - experienced especially high temperatures during the last four calendar months of the year, it's not yet clear how 2010 will stack up.
"It is likely that the 2005 or 2010 calendar year means will turn out to be sufficiently close that it will be difficult to say which year was warmer, and results of our analysis may differ from those of other groups," Hansen notes. "What is clear, though, is that the warmest 12-month period in the GISS analysis was reached in mid-2010."
Tue, 2010-10-05 12:59
#4
Anyone know who is behind this? They are running adds on the Radio, which means they have loads of dough.
Wed, 2010-10-06 14:00
#5
Article link> http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=831
"Arctic ice in death spiral"
Note - this data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the US city of Boulder, Colorado
Quotes:
The volume - extent and thickness - of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month.
If the world does not phase out fossil fuels by 2015, then by 2025, the Arctic will be eight to 10 degrees warmer and the world will lose most of its permafrost.
The permafrost region spans 13 million square kilometres of the land in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and parts of Europe and contains at least twice as much carbon as is currently present in the atmosphere - 1,672 gigatonnes of carbon
If the Arctic becomes six degrees warmer, then half of the world's permafrost will likely thaw
Emissions of CO2 and methane from thawing permafrost are not yet factored into the global climate models
Present pledges by governments to reduce emissions will still result in a global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to the latest analysis. That would result in an Arctic that's 10 to 16 degrees C warmer.
Noah Comments:
This is the most alarming report yet. So far, only the lowest estimates of dangers from AGW have been produced in reports from the IPCC and others, and every prediction they have made has been surpassed such as global temperature rise, ocean temperature rise and ocean level rise.
I wonder if our political leaders are getting good information. I doubt it. In P.M. Harper's case, I am sure he gets the same information as our corporate leaders get, such as "the CEO I know" who has just finished Ian Pilmer's denier book "Heaven and Earth" which is full of inaccuracies. These Alberta oil patch cohorts are in full denial of the dangers of using fossil fuels as our primary source of energy in the future.
Wed, 2010-10-06 18:51
#6
It is the sea ice that is in a death spiral, according to Mark Serreze of NSIDC. If this is so, the same is probably true for permafrost, and the Greenland Ice Cap, even if that will take hundred of years to disappear. The only serious inaccuracy in the article is the global warming potential of methane, which is about 25 averaged over 100 years, but much greater averaged over a shorter period, which could be significant if methane from permafrost and undersea clathrates is emitted quickly.
One reason Harper and company aren't getting good information is that they aren't asking for it. At least Bush and his crew got a scientific briefing on the subject of climate change I think. What they did with it is another matter.
I don't know about this being the most alarming report so far. I seem to recall a researcher throwing up after she looked at her data on ocean acidification (which is quite related to climate change), and that was a few years ago. I think it was related on Quirks and Quarks as well as Allanna Mitchell's book "Sea Sick".
Wed, 2010-10-06 20:33
#7
If they have lots of money, hopefully Philip Jones can sue them. They have a bunch of climategate lies at the bottom.
Anyone know who is behind this? They are running adds on the Radio, which means they have loads of dough.
Fri, 2010-10-08 13:45
#8
Policywonk - I loved that "Sea Sick" book too. It was damn alarming!! I just meant by "most alarming" that as for official agencies issuing reports, they have mostly missed the mark by estimating on the low side of the threat of AGW, and their predictions were all surpassed by reality. Many individual experts have said alarming things, quite true.
Brian - Apparently, that site is dedicated to denying global warming. I didn't read much after "observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures."
That is clearly a bald faced lie.
I sent them an email question asking where they get their funding from.
What were the radio ads saying?
Tue, 2010-10-12 13:56
#9
And here is their reply!! - From "The Friends of Science" -
"We are a small Canadian based group, composed of professional people including engineers, geologists, geophysicists, earth scientists, climatologists, etc. Most of us are retired so we have had time to study and do a lot of research. Our past professions required us to learn a lot about the history of the earth. We are strictly volunteers and have simply come together in an attempt to educate people and dampen the false hysteria generated by the media, ill-informed 3rd party groups and some politicians.
All funding for our website has come from ourselves and other private individuals. We are not supported by any industry."
K - They hint at, but do not come right out and say, that climate change and AGW is based on "false hysteria".
Do we believe them that they get no funding from the oil industry? Ha! - they only say that THEIR WEBSITE comes from themselves and private individuals.
So, should I write back and say that their reply was an obvious dodge? That they failed to answer the question directly? And that that indicates that they DO get funding from the oil industry?
PS - I sent that enquiry as being from "people on our forum", so you are all in on this, which is why I ask about how I should reply.
Wed, 2010-10-13 02:34
#10
And here is their reply!! - From "The Friends of Science" -
"We are a small Canadian based group, composed of professional people including engineers, geologists, geophysicists, earth scientists, climatologists, etc. Most of us are retired so we have had time to study and do a lot of research. Our past professions required us to learn a lot about the history of the earth. We are strictly volunteers and have simply come together in an attempt to educate people and dampen the false hysteria generated by the media, ill-informed 3rd party groups and some politicians.
All funding for our website has come from ourselves and other private individuals. We are not supported by any industry."
K - They hint at, but do not come right out and say, that climate change and AGW is based on "false hysteria".
Do we believe them that they get no funding from the oil industry? Ha! - they only say that THEIR WEBSITE comes from themselves and private individuals.
So, should I write back and say that their reply was an obvious dodge? That they failed to answer the question directly? And that that indicates that they DO get funding from the oil industry?
PS - I sent that enquiry as being from "people on our forum", so you are all in on this, which is why I ask about how I should reply.
Ask them which legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals they have published in.
Wed, 2010-10-13 09:59
#11
Without names they are bugger all.
Wed, 2010-10-13 14:56
#12
And so it shall be!! I sent the question...
Meanwhile, does anyone have some juicy stuff on Ian Plimer, author of "Heaven and Earth" where he says the glaciers are NOT melting, and the temperatures are NOT rising. Who pays Ian Plimer?
Where do our leaders and industry types get their info? Do they know both sides of the debate? NO -
An oil executive gave my brother [now retired as CEO of TransCanada Pipelines] a copy of that Plimer book and now my brother is quoting it as truth. This is how the oilmen get their information - they give it to each other. Neither of them have heard of Kevin Grandia or Alana Mitchell.
Wed, 2010-10-13 15:55
#13
Meanwhile, does anyone have some juicy stuff on Ian Plimer, author of "Heaven and Earth" where he says the glaciers are NOT melting, and the temperatures are NOT rising. Who pays Ian Plimer?
Plimer is an Australian geologist and mining executive:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer
I'd imagine his directorships and stock holdings pay rather handsomely.
Wed, 2010-10-13 15:57
#14
And here's SourceWatch's page on the front group Friends of Science:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
Wed, 2010-10-13 16:07
#15
ExxonSecrets.org doesn't have an page on Friends of Science, but it does have one on FOS chairman Canadian geographer prof Tim Ball:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
Sun, 2010-10-17 12:52
#16
Yup, Plimer gets $100,000 a year from the mining industry in Australia.
Mining would be hit hard by carbon restrictions, so he has a vested interest in keeping CO2 mitigation from happening.
The FoS {Friends of Science} group has been a sleazy gig, so much so that the U of C [Calgary] had to cut their ties with it.
It is just so weird that deniers say the alarmists have vested interests in saying AGW is a threat when the deniers have so much more to lose. Most climate scientists would continue to have jobs even if AGW was proven to be false, and besides that the deniers get paid so much more than climate scientists who say AGW is a threat.
The immorality of denying what they know is real is astounding when the harm of AGW is going to make life difficult for their children. I guess they are counting on the idea of wiping out poor people and developing nations with global warming, leaving the world for the elites to play in. How else could they justify their lies?
Mon, 2010-11-08 19:27
#17
Remember the Tar Patch/ Conservative Party plan to bury CO2 emissions (carbon capture) in the old oil wells of the West?
Through the Access to Information Act, Canadian Press got a copy of a report from a Calgary consulting firm, AECOM, given to Environment Canada last May. As CP reports, the study "says carbon capture and storage needs a boost in the form of taxation or government policies if it's going to gain widespread use."
Now, of course, it will be a frosty Friday in hell before Steve mentions taxation to aid big oil. Alberta has "committed $2 billion to various carbon-capture projects."
Stephane Dion was correct in advocating a carbon tax, of course. We'll see if Steve can find a silver lining for the crack in this borehole.
Tue, 2010-11-09 04:00
#18
I just saw another video that indicates that most of the past mass extinctions are associated with a rise in the CO2 concentration changing the chemestry of the sea and then Hydrogen sulphide produced by bacteria destroying most of the rest of life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lYN_lXU9PA
This guy has very big concerns about the danger of runaway H2S production from the sea and lakes in the next 100 to 300 years. H2S is more deadly than HCN
He also has a brief introduction to new ways to find out what caused the mass extinctions at the end of the video.
Tue, 2010-11-09 17:56
#19
For the first time in history politicians are saying, with a straight face, that only they can save the world from complete destruction. Uh huh.
Tue, 2010-11-09 19:08
#20
For the first time in history politicians are saying, with a straight face, that only they can save the world from complete destruction. Uh huh.
Uh I do not see any politicians saying that. I see politicians, with corporae hands up their backside and corporate strings pulling the strings for their limbs, stalling repeatedly so that they can push the hydrogeon agenda for monopolitic purposes.
Solar/geo-thermal/wind are 'bad' because they cannot be monopolized (or at least easily) the way one can with oil and coal.
If the recent attempts at 'stimulus' were serious, they would have emphasized green energy/green retro-fitting for their multiplier possibilites to create real jobs. But 'stimulus' was just more disquised welfare for corporations. I do not blame Ronald McDonald the clown for what McDonalds does so why would I look at politicians instead of their corporate puppetmasters?
Tue, 2010-11-09 20:08
#21
...I see politicians, with corporae hands up their backside and corporate strings pulling the strings for their limbs, stalling repeatedly so that they can push the hydrogeon agenda for monopolitic purposes.
Solar/geo-thermal/wind are 'bad' because they cannot be monopolized (or at least easily) the way one can with oil and coal.
If the recent attempts at 'stimulus' were serious, they would have emphasized green energy/green retro-fitting for their multiplier possibilites to create real jobs. But 'stimulus' was just more disquised welfare for corporations. I do not blame Ronald McDonald the clown for what McDonalds does so why would I look at politicians instead of their corporate puppetmasters?
Haha, I completely agree that politicians have corporate hands, and the hands of their financial backers, up their backsides... of course they do. That's all they know. If the hands were removed they would deflate and have no power. The hands will always be there!
And alternative energy is a great thing, I certainly agree with the notion. Unfortunately existing energy is so heavily subsidized that nobody knows what energy really costs anymore. Nobody can tell whether wind or solar is even economically viable. We can't tell because the costs are so obscured.
Imagine Ontario providing 58.8 cents per kWh to businesses that invest in solar panels to provide power to the grid (hydro costs about 6-7 cents/kWh). Ok, so the government is stealing from the poor and middle class and giving it to businesses to pay for their solar panels. 58.8 cents sounds completely insane, like the dudes who call themselves our ruling class didn't even take an economics 101 class, but who is to know since energy is already so heavily subsidized by taxpayers. (Personally I would call it economic suicide nonetheless.)
I think I'm straying off topic.
Tue, 2010-11-09 20:45
#22
quote: "(Personally I would call it economic suicide nonetheless.)" Yes it is. But if you are paranoid about things nuclear, that's what we end up with.
Go figure.
But IWL, on your earlier comment about politicians...if you lump all politicians together, you make to sense at all. Strange, how discerning you can be regarding the kwh math, but so Teapartyish when it comes to politics. Do you not trust others at all? Is that the reason for your Libertarian retreat?
Wed, 2010-11-10 21:07
#23
But IWL, on your earlier comment about politicians...if you lump all politicians together, you make to sense at all. Strange, how discerning you can be regarding the kwh math, but so Teapartyish when it comes to politics. Do you not trust others at all? Is that the reason for your Libertarian retreat?
Math I trust. Politicians, not so much. By the way, Teapartyers are not much different than others on the "right" since they still generally believe in a big military, big secret state. Generally I don't trust anyone who says that they know better than me on how to run my life. :)
Thu, 2010-11-11 09:15
#24
And if the captain of the boat says "Row for your lives," you would say ...?
Thu, 2010-11-11 23:22
#25
I would hate to be in the same boat with you, IWL. Your type takes to the lifeboats of the Titanics of this world, leaving others to drown.
Sat, 2010-11-13 22:48
#26
And if the captain of the boat says "Row for your lives," you would say ...?
Haha, Ok, not exactly apples & oranges, though. The captain I would respect because he is likely an expert in his limited field of navigation. He guides a boat, and that's it. Now, politicians on the other hand want to not only build the boat, but they also want to control and direct the entire marine industry including the education and training of the engineers and workers who build the boats! They just take on too much, and promise too much, and consequently they can never deliver. That's my view, anyway.
Some politicians do good in limited ways, don't get me wrong. Just that in the larger picture they're generally stupendous failures (but they would never admit to being so). If a captain hit a rock, he'd say "damn, that was stupid". A politician would blame the rock for attacking the boat, then would declare WAR on the rock and related rocks in the vicinity.
Sun, 2010-11-14 20:31
#27
I would hate to be in the same boat with you, IWL. Your type takes to the lifeboats of the Titanics of this world, leaving others to drown.
Quite the opposite, but whatever.
Sat, 2010-11-20 14:12
#28
Not sure where else to put this but a good piece on mainstream media distortion:
http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.com/2010/11/108-ecosocialism-marked-d...
Sun, 2010-11-21 16:16
#29
Here in Manitoba we had a recent, new weather development called a 'weather bomb.' An NDP cabinet minister called it part of the 'new normal.' The mainstream media did not say much else after that but I am seeing some sort of internet bubbling about this 'new normal' but we really ought to have more. No noticeable response from any actual environmental groups (maybe because they are all controlled by NDP robots perhaps).
http://canadawater.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/weather-%e2%80%9cbomb%e2%80%...
Mon, 2010-11-22 02:05
#30
Here in Manitoba we had a recent, new weather development called a 'weather bomb.' An NDP cabinet minister called it part of the 'new normal.' The mainstream media did not say much else after that but I am seeing some sort of internet bubbling about this 'new normal' but we really ought to have more. No noticeable response from any actual environmental groups (maybe because they are all controlled by NDP robots perhaps).
http://canadawater.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/weather-%e2%80%9cbomb%e2%80%...
A weather bomb is just a storm whose central pressure drops by more than one millibar (or 0.1 kilopascals (kPa)) per hour. Any one storm is not necessarily abnormal, but weather events are categorized by return periods which are established over many years of records, along with statistical models. Two hundred year wind or rainfall events might occur reasonably close together (say within ten years of each other), but the chances of three of them occurring in ten years drops off significantly, and likely indicates that the climate is changing (climate describes extremes as well as averages).
Mon, 2010-11-22 19:09
#31
Well they have not been reported in this region before. That would make it abnormal.
Mon, 2010-11-22 19:46
#32
Well they have not been reported in this region before. That would make it abnormal.
They may have been called severe blizzards, great blizzards, etc. While "bomb" was first used in connection with northwestern Atlantic storms in the '40s, it's use in public forecasting and mainstream media is far more recent, and still mainly applies to rapidly developing storms off the east coast of North America.
Tue, 2010-11-23 20:12
#33
Uh this was a huge, dramatic nearly explosive rainstorm, hugely fierce. It produced huge winds and rain that ripped up a cement and pavement walkway. And again, the local media is reporting that this particular type of storm has not happened here (or there in Gimli, right by the lake) previously.
Wed, 2010-11-24 00:41
#34
Uh this was a huge, dramatic nearly explosive rainstorm, hugely fierce. It produced huge winds and rain that ripped up a cement and pavement walkway. And again, the local media is reporting that this particular type of storm has not happened here (or there in Gimli, right by the lake) previously.
Yes, it does seem unprecedented in historical times for a synoptic scale storm at Gimli, however there was a blizzard at the end of January in 1947 that buried whole towns and trains from Calgary to Winnipeg, with some roads and rail lines impassable until spring. Manitoba has seen the odd tornado, but they are on a much smaller scale.
Wed, 2010-11-24 19:11
#35
And for more depressing news,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3485
I am sorry but we really, really need to get other groups, organizations to switch focus to climate justice. We need a serious ramp up
and we are nowhere near where we need to be.
Thu, 2010-11-25 20:17
#36
And more repressing news:
http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/11/climate-spokespersons-senten...
Wed, 2011-06-29 12:23
#37
M. Spector
The world's climate is not only continuing to warm, it's adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases faster, researchers said yesterday. The global temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average every month for more than 25 years, they said at a teleconference. "The indicators show unequivocally that the world continues to warm,'' Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said.
-Associated Press news report, June 29, 2011.
[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4832]Read & weep[/url]
Wed, 2011-06-29 21:42
#38
Read, organize, fight back. Steal a drone and aim it at a coal plant.
Wed, 2011-06-29 22:46
#39
I'm looking forward to the 2014 IPCC report. The data will be better, the modeling will be better and hopefully the science will allow for more rigorous predictions.
Thu, 2011-06-30 02:06
#40
M. Spector
What is it exactly that you still need to be convinced of?
Thu, 2011-06-30 03:53
#41
I'm looking forward to the 2014 IPCC report. The data will be better, the modeling will be better and hopefully the science will allow for more rigorous predictions.
The WGI (Physical Science Basis) report will be released in late 2013. Given that feedback mechanisms and ice sheet dynamics are better understood and will be included to a greater degree, all the next report will show is that the situation is even more dire now. The scientific literature already shows that.. I'm not sure you understand what the IPCC does.
Thu, 2011-06-30 11:08
#42
I'm waiting for action on it. Apparently it hasn't been either dire enough or convincing enough to get world leaders to take it seriously. Eventually? I'm not sure you understand what the IPCC hasn't done yet (in response to your last sentence about my understanding). They haven't convinced the only people that can impact it with regard to emissions. Hopefully in 2014 they will do a better job. Convincing individuals to run their toasters less may not be enough.
Thu, 2011-06-30 12:55
#43
M. Spector
No one is going to "convince" world leaders of the need for a radical reversal of current practices if they haven't been "convinced" already.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - attributed to Upton Sinclair.
Thu, 2011-06-30 13:10
#44
I don't feel qualified to evaluate the science. I must rely on the scientist, and they in turn must rely on the science. I do believe that people who run countries and energy companies are quite intelligent. I also believe they have children and grandchildren they love. I further believe that they do not want to condemn their descendants to surviving on a burned out shell of a planet. It may just be the old engineer in me, but I am optimistic that it will be worked out, albeit with some damages to mitigate. It's a relatively new field of study, it predicts major impacts and the remedies required are very significant. I trust the experts are working as diligently as they can and will be convincing in the end.
Thu, 2011-06-30 13:21
#45
I'm waiting for action on it. Apparently it hasn't been either dire enough or convincing enough to get world leaders to take it seriously. Eventually? I'm not sure you understand what the IPCC hasn't done yet (in response to your last sentence about my understanding). They haven't convinced the only people that can impact it with regard to emissions. Hopefully in 2014 they will do a better job. Convincing individuals to run their toasters less may not be enough.
Obviously not. But my point was that the IPCC doesn't do the science; the science that will go into the 2013-2014 reports is mostly done already and is in peer-reviewed litereature, and like the last report the science done after the deadline for inclusion will likely be even more dire. To say nothing about governments having influence over what the report says.
http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/ar5
Thu, 2011-06-30 13:31
#46
I am aware of that, the IPCC not doing the science. They do the presentation of it. This becomes as important as the science itself in convincing those that need convincing. I apologize for my " not understand" comment in parenthesis, I can type faster than I can edit sometimes.
Thu, 2011-06-30 13:53
#47
M. Spector
Climate change is not a technical problem. It is a social, political, and economic problem.
The scientists and engineers aren't going to solve it. Revolutionary social change is the only answer.
Thu, 2011-06-30 14:04
#48
I very much hope that you are wrong in that regard. Revolutions often go astray.
Thu, 2011-06-30 16:17
#49
The scientists and engineers aren't going to solve it.
They've already provided the solutions, it's just a matter of implementation.
Thu, 2011-06-30 16:19
#50
I don't feel qualified to evaluate the science. I must rely on the scientist, and they in turn must rely on the science. I do believe that people who run countries and energy companies are quite intelligent. I also believe they have children and grandchildren they love. I further believe that they do not want to condemn their descendants to surviving on a burned out shell of a planet. It may just be the old engineer in me, but I am optimistic that it will be worked out, albeit with some damages to mitigate. It's a relatively new field of study, it predicts major impacts and the remedies required are very significant. I trust the experts are working as diligently as they can and will be convincing in the end.
The impacts of climate change have been well documented and we are experiencing them already. Despite this, the fossil fuel industry has dedicated large amounts of resources to block any meaningful action that would meet the challenge. That's the nature of the economy, make all the money you can now. Or to use an episode of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PBDL4DF4AI]Dinosaurs,[/url] the industrialist responds to the thought of the world ending by saying, "that's a fourth quarter problem, we'll drop a bomb on that bridge when we come to it. Right now my biggest problem is trying to figure out what to do with all this money." These lobbyists and energy people do have children and grandchildren, but it hasn't stopped them from jeapordizing that future for profit.
Thu, 2011-06-30 16:43
#51
The crisis in the auto and financial sectors hadn't resulted in any significant changes, or revolutions. It's pretty much steady-as-she-goes there. And those events proved to be little more than systems maintenance. They didn't change the nature of what we did, but simply put the train back on the track. I'm worried that the extent of our mitigations in the area of environmental damage may similarly only result in more systems maitenance. I don't trust the word mitigation anymore. The economic system owns that word now; and it's become a catch phrase for new mythology. Telling young people that Santa drives a submersible sleigh won't stop the causes of the polar melt. Mitigation won't solve the fundamental problem that M.Spector alluded to. Engineers can certainly model technical solutions, but really it's we citizens who need a kick in the pants instead of deflecting our accountability onto politicians and governments. I mean, we just finished giving the political parties in Canada the message that economy was the most important thing to Canadians. And that's not going to stop the extinction of coral reefs or ice feilds now is it? I think M.Spector was referring more to the human problem of environmental degradation.