Tuesday, February 06, 2007



        Long ago a decision was made to provide reasons rather than excuses.  Part of the discombobulation that has led to me falling behind is that
        Aase had a cochlear implant.  To-day we travelled to Sunnybrook Hospital to have the processor attached for the first time - not knowing what
        the outcome would be, hearing, just noise, nothing.  Well, Aase can now hear more clearly than in twenty years! But not to go into crowds as
        yet so I was informed she could not be taken to the Casa D'Oro for to dine, there's a lot of adjustments yet to be made.
        The posts below are in largest measure in reverse order.  The reason is to focus on the PROPOSAL which because of me using Aase's computer
        last night and the late hour in that we had to get up at 06:30 to get on our way I couldn't check to see if a post had been sent out to everyone.
        For some this may be the 3rd time they receive what follows.  For others I expect its the first.
        There have been several responses which have been placed first.
        Is it a worthwhile venture or not?
        There are those who will be receiving if it goes forward who are among the Silent Watchers, reading not posting.

        If ye be one of these who wishes to express or perhaps rather will be good enough to express a private opinion to me in this regard write
        NOT FOR DIGEST in the subject line.

        Now, I've gots ta start on
Subject: Daily Digest February 6, 2007.
Here are two points of view regarding climate change:

The United Nations document "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf .
Climatologist Tim Ball's in
a Q & A session : http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1669
in a video of a speech made January 26th http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.php?StreamID=536 .
Each of us must arrive at our own best guess as to which is correct - or perhaps better to say the more correct. 

I say guess because pretty well all of us haven't the capability of understanding all the data being tossed about.

Rather than continuing debate consider this proposal. 

Let us assume that we are a committee of Link Byfield "people's parliament" of a "national online citizens assembly" tasked with exploring:


It's developing a two dimensional framework - the X axis, the options of action open to reduce emissions, the Y axis, the probable effects on our way of life.

Is such an undertaking worth a go?

Let me know - and if you have thoughts as to what can be done.  Let's have them.


(This is written on Aase's computer in order to get it to you for your consideration.  My mouse is hibernating for some reason - it won't move, so there may be no Digest for a couple of days.)


Jilian Saweczko

Hi Joe it will be interesting to follow this discussion.
Have to make time to study all this information.
Thanks for what you are doing.

Garry HollandSubject: Re: PROPOSAL

A good suggestion; you accurately state that few of us are capable of actually understanding the science due to its incredible complexity.

However I hesitate to think the issue is longer debatable, so much as it needs to be understood; the science appreciated; the scope of the issue accurately placed in a context which us non-scientists can come to grips with.
The UN document represents the peer reviewed work of many scientists; Dr Ball's work is not peer reviewed.
Therefore I considered it might be most helpful if we proactively sought out many sources, brought those to the online table, and measured them against a common value: segments from the UN IPCC document 'Climate Change 2007'.

This could be done by applying personally understood comparatives and in that process might lift the knowledge level of us all.

Participants would have to agree to, universally, adopt non-critical attitudes and commentary as this should be a valid learning process for all.
Best personal regards

BiLL Brienza

Subject: Re: PROPOSAL (pardon please if a duplicate)

Dear Joe

No actions will be free of charge to save this planet from climate
change disasters.  Being responsible is going to cost money and some
pain for each individual.

Each of us needs an action plan.  Here are some of the elements of mine


Sell my one hundred year old 5,000 sq. ft urban town house and build a
new, smaller, highly energy efficient, well insulated, dwelling in the
country.  Use on site solar and wind generated electricity primarily and
augment with wood.

Spend the winter in Texas.

I am taking these actions without regard to whether or not others reduce
their energy use.  All sources of energy are going to be more
expensive.  So it is spend now or spend later.  None of us need to be
victims if we have the financial resources to plan and avoid obvious


Keep driving more and more energy efficient high mileage vehicles:  My
next vehicle will probably be a hybrid.   Drive less and less.  Use
public transportation whenever practical.  Avoid flying anywhere.  (Jet
planes are very inefficient.)

This is where I am now.   Others have to chose their own action plans.

People have to consider having fewer children.  There are too many
people on this planet all using energy.  The population of the planet
has to be reduced.

Personally I hope I do not live into advanced old age.  Governments have
to allow people to elect euthanasia as an alternative to lengthy life
ending illnesses which result in pain and suffering while depleting
family resources.

BiLL Brienza
Saint John

Tom Thompson

Subject: Re: PROPOSAL (pardon please if a duplicate)

The fact that the federal Conservative and Liberal parties are presumably embracing investments in clean coal technology is really nothing new, as political parties of many stripes have over the years pledged to invest monies on new technologies to enhance the environment.  The fact of the matter is that a number of these technologies already exist.  However, Government does nothing to support their commercialization or market entry.

Our company, Eco Power Solutions, is fortunate to have had the financial resources and managerial expertise to move from the development to commercial phase.  However, many other technology companies that invest heavily in research and development run out of financial resources prior to bringing their technology to market.

If Federal Environment Minister John Baird and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn are serious about using their announced a $230-million investment in cleaner technologies wisely, including clean-coal research, they should identify existing Canadian based technologies such as ours and focus a significant sum of money to help bring these technologies to all markets, both foreign and domestic.  We don’t need to look beyond our own backyard for these solutions and we must begin to recognize that Canada is already an industry leader in this area. 

Let’s not try to re-invent the wheel!

Tom Thompson
Chief Operating Officer
Eco Power Solutions Corporation
Eco Power Solutions (USA) Corp.

John Morand

Subject: Re: PROPOSAL

Joe, Good Morning:
Obviously your mouse is very smart. It is damn cold out there - -30 with wind chill here last evening. You have an interesting idea. It would require a huge budget for research support and would be like a huge EA on Climate change.
it would be interesting to explore all of the alternatives. For instance in California the rt wing governor has just passed legislation that is going to limit always on devices. This will increase available power by some 10%. Just by putting power bars on all of my TV, dvd, sat systems etc and turning off all the computers I have dropped my monthly electrical bill by 23% on average - oh did i mention turn lights off when we leave a room.
Simple but effective.
Hope your mouse wakes up. It must be an import because Canadian Mice are genetically engineered for the weather LOL.

(Apparently it had almost but not quite died cause it was still alive last night - today fresh batteries revived it)

Subject: Private cars are the worst emiter of carbon and must be curtailed

The Editor
The Ottawa Citizen
Copy to: Mr. Keith Spicer, Former Editor of The Ottawa Citizen and Commissioner of the Official Languages.
Private cars are the worst emiter of carbon and must be curtailed
Re "An environmentallst with a two-by-four," by Keith Spicer (February 5).
Keith Spicer has touched the heart of the problem when pointing out the inconsistencies of French environmentalist Nicolas Hulot when he writes: "It doesn't confront the powerful French automobile lobby (whose sales are flagging). And it doesn't encourage public transport, hybrid or hydrogen-fueled cars, or Dutch-style city cycling." In fact, millions of private cars, spewing carbon, are among the worst polluters in the world and no solution to climate change can be found without curbing their use.
As cars have become an essential element of mass transportation system, the solution can be found by drastically regulating their use and improving public transport system. People should be obliged to limit the use of cars to the basic minimum. Personally, I don't take my car to work and limit the use of car to weekly shoppings and occasional social visits. I use bus and bike whenever weather permits. I do a lot of walking. For inter city travel, I use the bus and would like to use train if it is regular and cheaper.
The cars can be made environmentally friendly by insisting on lower emission standards by using hybrids and electric cars. However, the public should be obliged to change their addiction to cars and those who don't want to change must pay a price. Downtown parking should be discouraged and price of parking must be raised. A carbon tax must be imposed to pay for the damage to the environment and massive investment must be made to improve the public transportation. Trains should be an important element of mass transit system. Ottawa must revive its OC train and expand it to the East-West corridor. Without limiting the use of traditional dependence on private cars, all talks about improving the carbon emission will be only talks. Also, we need a massive reforestation campaign worldwide to expand what is aptly called the carbon sink.
2240 Iris Street, Ottawa.

Tommy Thomas

Subject: Climate Change or Global Warming or Saving the Environment or Saving the Earth for Future Generations or Whatever


Keep up the good work. There were all those alarmists talking about global warming when they suddenly realized that this planet was not getting warmer but colder so the word out was climate change. Wow what a discovery! And they are right; the climate is changing and does so every day year after year. Long term trends follow irregular paths proving that Nature is not that easy to bamboozle as are people. Carbon dioxide is not a disease; it is an important part of Nature. We in British Columbia have been listening to the top alarmist for many years. David Suzuki may speak softly but he sure has a following of like thinking believers who could not forecast next week’s weather let alone temperatures 50 years from now. The Chinese are planning massive expansions in coal fired generating plants. Do they know something of which we are not aware? But here in Canada the message is clear, the facts are proven, the unbelievers are wrong so shut-up and bow to your superiors. Not bloody likely!
Tommy Thomas, West Vancouver, BC  


Subject: Pressure Point Special


Thanks for this special. I may be a nonbeliever. I just do not think that climate change can be so easily explained away because someone has a computer that is more powerful then someone else. There is more to climate change then first appears. I remember being in the slot canyons in Utah where an 800 foot long “canyon” about 60 feet high was carved out of solid rock over thousands of years by water rushing to lower ground from melting ice that once filled the bowl that is now the western USA. Why did the ice start to melt? Where did it come from in the first place? There were no people to affect the climate although some academics claim that great discharges of gas by herbivores [oh the hell, farts] may have affected the climate. Good theory but I aint buying it at this time.

Ross Lawrence

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Hi Joe:
Pleased to hear that you took a geology course.  I am a graduate from U of T in Geological Engineering.
You will understand I know that the earth has experienced climate fluctuations since Day 1.  Guess what, we are experiencing a warning trend.
Did man have anything to do with this?  Who knows.  Certainly not the bureaucrats who have put together the summary report. 
Now the so-called experts have to fix their "scientific" reports so that they match the bureaucrats summary report.  Talk about being politically correct!
Keep up the good work.
Ross D. Lawrence, P.Eng

Chris Schnurr

Food for thought.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human
history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. . . .

Rosalie Piccioni

Subject: Joe,  thought you might like...

..... to scan this page  http://s8int.com/anthropic.html    After reading all the facts pointing to such a complex universe, how much control do you think man has over global warming and environmental changes?  We can point to the need for care in pollution where fuels, chemicals, manufacturing, and up to and including dirty disposal diapers, but beyond that there seems to be forces at work that we do not have control over.
    Someone pointed out that they don't think we have more than 50 years.  This earth will go on for at least a thousand years.  Take the Bible's word for it Revelation 20:1-7.

John Halonen

The Kyoto Protocol with Pre 2001 Emissions:

What can Canada do to solve Global Warming,  if in fact it is as the latest report indicates.  Absolutely Nothing!

If the largest single polluters  ( United States & China ) do not lower levels and instead continue to add to carbon emissions then it is a lost cause for Canada to change and we are actual wasting monies today that may be spent on realities in the future. China is for-casted to exceed US emissions within the next five years. Whatever changes we in Canada would make, will not determine what happens. Unfortunately even if the United States were to decrease their emissions, the emissions in China would still overpower our World`s Natural Environment of today.

If would be far better for us as a Nation, to plan for the future whenever possible,  and to adjust to Climate changes when they occur. Who is to say, we may even be one of the countries that benefits.

One can assume that we now have two major Superpowers in a war, albeit there are no guns and bullets,  just one betting against the other that whatever climate change does come about, they will be the one that is less affected.

There also are other possibilities:
    1. That is, that
all countries on our planet, show concern for the Earth and the people that live there.  ( not likely )
    2. A technological solution will be found.  ( not likely in time )
    3. It could be a hoax or even just part of a natural cycle.  ( sure is a good reason to wait )

John Halonen

Chris Schnurr

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Is climate change real?  Yes.
Is the earth getting warmer?  Yes.
Has the earth been warmer in the past?  Yes.

In H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History", great pines
once stood as little as 1,000 years ago, where now, it
is too cold for them to grow.  Wells also predicted
back in 1920 that earth may be in a warming cycle

Do I believe that humans are contributing?
The more important question, can we stop it? Unlikely.

But this said, it would be prudent, to preserve the
earth for future generations that the burning of
fossil fuels is, in a word barbaric.  We have the
technology and the means for alternative power sources
- it's not only CO2 we should be worried about - but
also NOx, PM, Benzene, Mercury and the plethora of
other toxic chemical we emit into the environment.
And we can't forget both man-made and natural sources
of methane gas.

Sceptic?  No.  Realist - yes.

To honestly believe that burning hydrocarbons bears no
harm is irresponsible.  To honestly believe we can
reverse this without economic stress is irresponsible.

To do nothing and debate who's right and wrong is
equally irresponsible.

John Halonen

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Global Warming

    Man made or just the Earth`s normal cycle of ups and downs.

   To me it really does not make that much of a difference, other than I prefer that we ( as individuals that live on this planet ) use the best tools available to maintain life styles that will satisfy our children or grandchildren.  Too much seems to be made on who is causing it, and the focus really should be on how we can change it to our benefit.  This is not a problem where specific countries change what they are doing, rather it is a scenario where people ( or citizens of the Planet Earth ) review what is occurring and then change individual requirements ( sometimes but rarely, that will also change Political direction ).

One must be aware that for some this could be of a benefit, so why would they change? Just for an example, if China determined that Global warming would benefit their country, do you really think that they would change their direction to satisfy those in North America.

John Halonen

John Morand

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Thanks Joe:

 For me the point has become that climate Change is happening and if we can do anything to help slow it down and reduce CO, NOX and sulfur emissions that produce smog and kill hundreds of people a year than we should try in a sustainable manner.
The other point is that from a political standpoint it does not matter what the scientists argue over Canadians want to fix the problem and government needs to take positive steps.\
As a trout fisher  and a reader of Sci-Fi for over 55 years, currently reading the new PIP and Flynx book, just out i can identify with the  quote.
 Thanks for your fgreat news letter.
Oh look at this web page a new company I just joined and now acting COO www.gesi.us


Caspar Davis

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Hi Joe,

It's interesting that Larry Storm's 10 "Smart Green" ideas (most of which seem to have to do with further "privatization" which usually amounts to the gifting of public assets to private corporations at fire sale prices) makes no mention at all of the most important of all smart green ideas, ending the massive subsidies to fossil fuel corporations and the development of truly sustainable energy, such as solar and wind power EITHER of which could, if fully developed, meet all of north America's energy needs on its own.

As for the IPCC and the skeptics, there has never been a scientific report so thoroughly vetted not only by the world's scientists but also by governments. The result is a VERY conservative document that reduces the probable effects to the lowest common denominator of what can be proven without a shadow of a doubt.

Just as with tobacco, the goal of the deniers is not to prove the scientists wrong (which they could not do) but to sow enough doubt that supporters of the status quo can muster enough support to block any action that might reduce corporate profits. As an Electrolux executive once tole Karl Hendrik Robert, "I know we're on the Titanic headed for an iceberg, but I'd rather stay my deckchair on the promenade deck with a martini and a cigar." He eventually came around and Electrolux became a Natural Step company, but his former attitude is alive and well in some of the biggest oil companies, most notably Exxon, of course. Their millions sow enough doubt that even even some thoughtful people like you, Joe, are willing to doubt the facts of mankind's role in accelerating climate change, which are undisputed in the scientific literature.

Stewart Sinclair

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

"The world moves as it will and not as we would have it "

How quickly we forget.  Doesn't anyone think that if the major nations had fallen into a full scale nuclear war a few short years back that there would not have been a massive change in the climate - among other things we take for granted about this earth.  Remember the novel and movie "On the Beach"?  Remember Nuclear Winter?  There can be now doubt that letting of several hundred or even several dozen hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere over major cites would have ended "the world as we know it."

The massive dirty industrialization and pollution that is going on world wide at an accelerated pace is simply a nuclear war in slow motion.  If some of our governments and scientists can talk about terra-forming Mars maybe they could come with ways to stop terra-forming the Earth.  Most people found it a pretty good place as it was (ice ages and all) for a few hundred thousand years.

It needs also to be remembered that a cancer starts from a single cell and often eventually consumes it host to the point of death.  Right now this is what the human species is - a highly metastasized cancer.  Meaning that it is possible for us to make the host very sick (feverish) at least.   In such times all the host's other organs (other species) start to sicken and die.

We really need to wake up boys and girls.  The hammer is coming down fast.

Stew Sinclair


Subject: Environment (kyoto)

    Joe,  It seems to me, there would be less alarm if people would only put their faith in themselves as we are all
    God's Children. It wouldn't surprise me if some people thought they should use more energy so there won't
    be a vacuum while the homeless are out. The secret to a sound human being is to never use too much of
    anything for yourself. When you think little you are likely to see the Greatness of God. When you think of
    other's you inherit some of this greatness. Quality, is at a premium.   Qualityismoreefficient.     
    "GG Schramm..." emperor@telus.net
Rebecca Gingrich

Subject: RE: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Joe--We are all arguing if GW exists or not.  Not too long ago I read a book
by Jane Jacobs titled  Dark Days Ahead.  In it she describes how car
manufacturers, with the blessing of government, bought up the mass transit
companies and then closed them so that people would have to buy cars to get
around.  This is a prime example of government intervention and it's
ramifications years later.

The GW enthusiasts are waiting for government to 'do something'.  Please,
could anyone name one example of government intervention being good for the
country or the people.  ie--Paul Martin 'fixed healthcare for a decade' and
yet nothing has changed.  The Sidney tarponds are still there, and yet they
were to be cleaned up years ago.  Nothing but rhetoric and spin, tax and
spend from our governments.  Why would GW 'government action' be any

Cleaning up the air and the water is something that could be done and would
be beneficial to all.  But that is not good enough for those at the trough. 
There is more money to be had by taxing us to death and controlling our
lives.  The more equal are still jetting off to far flung places for
'meetings', being driven in their limos(at our expense), but we are supposed
to cut back on everything.  Lead by example should be the words of the day. 
Kyoto is a farce.  Worse it is just a feel good rhetoric to make it look as
if something is being done.  It is fearmongering at its worst--but then,
fear is a great way to control the masses.  We have to clean up our act, but
wouldn't it be better to clean the air and the water rather than the CO2
which we all need to survive?


Brian Graff

Subject: RE: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Remember back in the 80s and early 90s, when government deficits were high and considered out of control, and government debt increased considerably each year. Back then, conservatives were concerned about "inter-generational equity", which is to say that they were arguing that it was wrong to run up a huge debt and then to leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay for our own extravagance - like getting a huge inheritance from ones parents and spending all and passing on nothing to your own children.
So it is with global warming - but rather than argue over whether the science is proven or not, think of it in these terms:
Essentially, global warming is because we are digging up all these massive deposits or carbon, in the form of fossil fuels, and most of this carbon ends up in the atmosphere. Inevitably, solving the problem of global warming means leaving that carbon in the ground in the first place, by reducing consumption, or alternatively, recapturing the carbon and returning it to the ground, which is massively expensive and uses even more energy making it uneconomic for the foreseeable future, except where it can be used to get even more fossil fuels out of the ground (for no net loss of carbon in the atmosphere).
In terms of "inter-generational equity" - we have inherited all of this wealth in the form of fossil fuels - every barrel of oil, pound of coal of cubic foot of natural gas we consume is being stolen from future generations, in the same way that consumption and mismanagement of other resources in earlier times have denied us access to resources that were once plentiful - old growth forests, species that have become extinct or near extinct, mineral deposits that have been depleted.
If we do believe in "inter-generational equity" we have two choices - we can consume less of these delectable resources, or as an alternative, we can set aside a huge chunk of the benefits of this wealth to benefit future generations - think of something like the Alberta Heritage fund. In effect - fossil fuels should be taxed (or royalties massively increased) and the funds invested and not spent so that future generations can benefit from the income stream - ironically the tax/royalty component has the same effect as a carbon tax in that it raises the price and discourages consumption.
My guess is that many of the conservatives who once argued against deficits have conveniently forgotten the idea of "inter-generational equity", because the idea was a convenient excuse to advocate cuts to social programs, and not out of any real belief in the concept of "conserving" for the future.
With global warming, not only are we stealing resources from future generations, but we are leaving the world in a terrible mess and leaving them to suffer the consequences.

Garry Holland

Subject: Re: PRESSURE POINT SPECIAL: TO 08:58 AM 2/4/2007

Thank you for these, Joe;
Stay warm & dry

Caspar Davis

Subject: A detractor looks at the green message

For your information

And Now, a Word From Our Detractor
GOP strategist Frank Luntz argues enviros are failing -- and they're mean to boot
By Amanda Griscom Little
31 Jan 2007

Frank Luntz, the famed Republican pollster and messaging consultant who helped to shape Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America, thinks environmentalists are mean.

The author of a new guidebook on politically effective language, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, Luntz is credited with popularizing use of the phrase "death tax" in lieu of "estate tax." He became notorious in environmental circles in 2003 for a leaked memo [PDF] he wrote telling Republicans how to green their image. He advised them to tout their love of national parks, and to say "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist," as Luntz believes the latter word reeks of political extremism. He also told Republicans to "make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate" over climate change, because "[s]hould the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."

Luntz has achieved enough notoriety to be lampooned on The Daily Show, where correspondent Samantha Bee described him as having "made a brilliant career of spraying perfume on dog turds." The National Environmental Trust has doled out Luntzie Awards for the use of politically deceptive language, and created a whole LuntzSpeak website to expose and counter the strategist's tactics. (Does that count as mean?)

To find out why Luntz thinks enviros have an attitude problem, and how he thinks green messaging could be made smarter, I recently interviewed him while he was speeding in a cab toward the Los Angeles airport. . . .