|
|
Post by franko on Mar 16, 2007 8:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 17, 2007 10:34:57 GMT -5
"Global warming is accepted by main stream science"....that's the biggest crock of sh*t I ever heard. It's more like.....repeat the LIE often enough and loudly enough and the sheep will believe it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. 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. What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. (Because it's politicaly cheaper to appease the eco-Nazis then to fight them.)No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? (Repeat a lie often enough and sheep will believe it.)Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. (Where are those bullsh*ters now? They disappeared into the background to escape their lies.) I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. (The Sun? How could the sun be as powerful as politicians bending to whims and sheep bleeping?) Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. (Shut your mouth or NO government funding.)I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. (But you can't be right, didn't IPCC trot out two thousand scientist? Or was it two thousand articles from scientist who's words have been selectivly chosen and twisted to a particular point of view? )Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. (No different from repeating a lie often enough and it becomes truth.) As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. (Because it has nothing to do with science, It's now an leftist AGENDA.)Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. (Sheep led by sheep milkers)Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. ( You don't surrender just because it is easier. You fight them back at where they get their power. The milkers of sheep and turning sheep into wolves for the real truth. )
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 17, 2007 11:49:14 GMT -5
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? [ Because it is becoming human nature to accept information as it has been presented, and to debunk any new information as "radical" without going through the proper scientific procedure. Pure laziness really. Thinking and challenging ideas is what has always made humans.... well, human. Blatantly shrugging off, or not giving credence to information, because it isn't "accepted present practice" or "it would change everything we ever accepted" was the way humans operated in the dark ages...... theories, postulates, laws, and yes even religion, are ever evolving entities that require constant scrutiny ..... when new information presents itself, we should at least give it the time of day to be scrutinized and test the validity of the information before accepting or labelling it as propaganda. All to many time humans are quick to judge and not to stop to think. Thinking is good, just because you go through the exercise to objectively think something out, doesn't mean you are a radcial ..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 22, 2007 13:58:29 GMT -5
Wot, HA -- no "Happy Earth Day" greetings? ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 23, 2007 15:18:55 GMT -5
This one's for HA. I heard this on the radio today...a Home Depot commercial. "Did you know that running most gas-powered lawn mowers for an hour contributes more air pollution than driving your car for 550 kms?
That's why Home Depot is offering rebates on your old mowers and trimmers. You'll get an instant rebate coupon of up to $100 off the purchase of an earth-friendly mower or trimmer. Home Depot....you can do it. We can help."Yeah, you can help yourself to my wallet. Here's a hard link: Home Depot RebateOprah had a show last week devoted to the Green Movement (which sounds like a medical condition to me)....she was wearing green, the backdrop was green, and 4 or 5 "green" companies were featured selling their household cleaners. The real question is: Should one continue to warn the sheep....or get in on some of the fleecing? Come on, HA....let's think of a scam product that's green and earth-friendly, preferably something to replace a product everyone is so recklessly using to destroy our planet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 23, 2007 19:39:49 GMT -5
Wot, HA -- no "Happy Earth Day" greetings? ;D As usual, we had a terrific earth day. The day started by cutting down three of the neighbors trees while they are away. Then we went around the bus stations and parks and kicked over all the trash bins. By noon we were exhausted from so much kicking so we resorted to setting them on fire with the our handy dandy PCB fire starter. The columns of billowing gray smoke makes for a wonderful cleanser of domesticated fauna. But alas, man can not live by fun alone so late afternoon, we caught ourselves an eco yapper, set some tires on fire and had ourselves a barbeque. It took a while to get the roasting done, much due the the uncooperativness of the yapper. He had it in his mind to blow out the flames every time he came around but we finally convinced him that his roasting would save 5 tons of carbon dioxide that he would emit over his lifetime. That was all that needed to be said and from then on, he actually spread the BBQ on himself. Amazing how a smile and a little persuasion can go a long ways. While a bit fatty, he tasted like my beloved farm fresh Love Canal chicken. All in all, I have to say it was a great Happy Earth Day! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 23, 2007 19:42:41 GMT -5
This one's for HA. I heard this on the radio today...a Home Depot commercial. "Did you know that running most gas-powered lawn mowers for an hour contributes more air pollution than driving your car for 550 kms?
That's why Home Depot is offering rebates on your old mowers and trimmers. You'll get an instant rebate coupon of up to $100 off the purchase of an earth-friendly mower or trimmer. Home Depot....you can do it. We can help."Yeah, you can help yourself to my wallet. Here's a hard link: Home Depot RebateOprah had a show last week devoted to the Green Movement (which sounds like a medical condition to me)....she was wearing green, the backdrop was green, and 4 or 5 "green" companies were featured selling their household cleaners. The real question is: Should one continue to warn the sheep....or get in on some of the fleecing? Come on, HA....let's think of a scam product that's green and earth-friendly, preferably something to replace a product everyone is so recklessly using to destroy our planet. I am on it CH. What kind of businessman would I be if I did not enrich myself from the fears and concerns of others? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 24, 2007 10:21:26 GMT -5
So the Bloc wants to pass a motion today, calling on the government to accept Kyoto. I wonder if this fact will be taken into consideration? Nah... www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/24/china-emissions.htmlChina to pass U.S. as top greenhouse gas emitter this year: reportChina will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases this year, says the International Energy Agency, according to a news report.China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol was quoted as saying in an interview in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper. "In the past couple of months, economic growth and related coal consumption has grown at such an unexpected rate," Birol was quoted as saying. China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out other countries' attempts to reduce their own, he said.Birol's comments mark the most dire prediction yet about China's contribution to global warming. They follow the release over the weekend of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change, but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Higher-than-average temperatures mean spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. Wheat, rice and corn yields could fall by up to 37 per cent in the second half of the century, it said. China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but it is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country.The Paris-based International Energy Agency advises developed countries on energy policy. Agency officials could not immediately be reached to corroborate Birol's comments. China maintains that richer countries are responsible for the accumulated greenhouse emissions and should take the lead in cleaning up the problem. However, Birol's remarks reflect rising concern both internationally and domestically over the environmental costs of China's soaring growth. Beijing last week said the economy grew by 11.1 per cent in the first three months from the same period last year, defying attempts to slow down growth and ensure money is invested wisely. China's heavy reliance on highly polluting coal for electricity generation has made it a major contributor to greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, which are blamed for damaging the ozone layer and causing global warming. Industries and urban buildings are far less energy-efficient than those in developed countries and the massive growth of private car ownership has helped turn air in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing into a toxic soup. In an article in the U.S. magazine The Nation this week, Elizabeth Economy of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations wrote that Chinese officials are either unwilling or powerless to enforce environmental standards as a consequence of the regime's emphasis on development. If current trends hold, China's greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, wrote Economy."In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture," she said. Beijing has made some efforts to boost efficiency, mandating that solar, wind, hydroelectric and other forms of renewable energy provide 10 per cent of all power by 2010 and telling key industries to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent. However, Birol said Beijing's refusal to place restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions undermines attempts to draft a new international treaty against greenhouse gases to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, he said. "Without having China on board, without having them play a significant role, all these efforts, none of it, will make any sense," Birol was quoted as saying.China has also joined the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate that promotes renewable energy sources and cleaner ways to use coal but does not impose binding targets on member countries for reducing emissions. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2007 14:09:26 GMT -5
Birol's comments mark the most dire prediction yet about China's contribution to global warming. They follow the release over the weekend of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change, but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Higher-than-average temperatures mean spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. Wheat, rice and corn yields could fall by up to 37 per cent in the second half of the century, it said. Gee, imagine that. We must develop/protect our economy at all costs, even though it will have catastrophic effects on the environment and ultimately our population. I've never heard that attitude from people in Canada.  I guess we should all just (continue to) bury our heads in the sand. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 24, 2007 15:37:58 GMT -5
...actually I think in Canada we're very near the brilliant idea of sending huge subsidies to China (who after all is in development) to help them put together better energy supplies so that they can become an even better economic system and finish their killing of our own Canadian industries and economy. Once this is done, they can come over, mercilessly plunder our natural resources and make us work for food. But hey, our Great Canadian Green Conscience will be intact.... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2007 18:17:00 GMT -5
...actually I think in Canada we're very near the brilliant idea of sending huge subsidies to China (who after all is in development) to help them put together better energy supplies so that they can become an even better economic system and finish their killing of our own Canadian industries and economy. Once this is done, they can come over, mercilessly plunder our natural resources and make us work for food. But hey, our Great Canadian Green Conscience will be intact.... HA? That you? Interesting . . . we subsidize China, then we buy low-priced products from China from huge America chains, then we increase taxes . . . and then we wonder why we can never get ahead and why our manufacturing plants close. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2007 19:59:52 GMT -5
Bah, show me scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... if it was then you'd think India would be the worse greenhouse producer. All those people exhaling and such a small country so not many trees taking it in and creating oxygen.  Until science conclusively proves that the greenhouse effect is true, then we are all being duped by political agendas. I thought you took data and made a theory, not make a theory and make your data fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 24, 2007 20:05:09 GMT -5
Until science conclusively proves that the greenhouse effect is true, then we are all being duped by political agendas. I thought you took data and made a theory, not make a theory and make your data fit. That is EXACTLY what is happening. I was watching 60 Minutes and this so called scientist was going on and on and on about how that the glaciers receded and lamenting the change in the scenery. Then the interviewer goes to his lab to show him core samples. How much you want to bet that the chosen core samples will reflect his point of view? With all due respect, it's like asking Christians if there is a God. There are so many holes in this "conclusion looking for facts" that many serious scientist don't want to go anywhere NEAR this debate. BTW, some recent studies by Russian scientist are saying that this is only a blip and we are heading for an ice age. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 24, 2007 20:22:37 GMT -5
...actually I think in Canada we're very near the brilliant idea of sending huge subsidies to China (who after all is in development) to help them put together better energy supplies so that they can become an even better economic system and finish their killing of our own Canadian industries and economy. Once this is done, they can come over, mercilessly plunder our natural resources and make us work for food. But hey, our Great Canadian Green Conscience will be intact.... Ahh c'mon Doc, why aren't you swallowing the KoolAid? You must be a careless, thoughtless, immoral yahoo who is in the oil companies pockets. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 25, 2007 1:12:28 GMT -5
Bah, show me scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... if it was then you'd think India would be the worse greenhouse producer. All those people exhaling and such a small country so not many trees taking it in and creating oxygen. Until science conclusively proves that the greenhouse effect is true, then we are all being duped by political agendas. I thought you took data and made a theory, not make a theory and make your data fit. Do you have any basis for believing that there is no evidence, or do you just "feel" that it's a big political conspiracy? Is there actually anything that would convince you, or have you made up your mind for good? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 25, 2007 7:33:44 GMT -5
Bah, show me scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... if it was then you'd think India would be the worse greenhouse producer. All those people exhaling and such a small country so not many trees taking it in and creating oxygen. Until science conclusively proves that the greenhouse effect is true, then we are all being duped by political agendas. I thought you took data and made a theory, not make a theory and make your data fit. Do you have any basis for believing that there is no evidence, or do you just "feel" that it's a big political conspiracy? Is there actually anything that would convince you, or have you made up your mind for good? I don't think many scientists are dispelling the notion of Global warming. What most and most are doing though is despelling the notion that human activity has anything to do with it hapenning or ceasing. I've read an article that ocean evaporation can nullify about 10 times the CO2 we're actually producing. That article also suggested that not long ago ALL of the energy consumed was coming from coal and/or wood consumption and so we could actually defend the theory that with the cleaner energy sources vastly used today, our CO2 emmition could actually be lower than it was 150 yrs ago. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 25, 2007 8:01:17 GMT -5
Gee, imagine that. We must develop/protect our economy at all costs, even though it will have catastrophic effects on the environment and ultimately our population. I've never heard that attitude from people in Canada. I guess we should all just (continue to) bury our heads in the sand. Regardless of where you stand on global warming, it’s reality or not, as Canadians we have to ask ourselves what we can do, and what will work. Stephen Harper could pass a law today banning all cars, all air travel and all oil heating, but what would be the effect? Will worldwide greenhouse gasses decrease, or will they continue to increase because China and India are exempt from the wonderous Kyoto accord opportunistic left-winger politicians and the naïve/ignorant masses insist Canada abide by? We could decrease our quality of life (by how much is an open debate) but will it be worth it? Or, as the article suggested, will China simply surpass all industrialized nations combined thus negating whatever “good” we have done? It’s sort of like your neighbor coming up to you and saying “to save the neighborhood I’ll burn down my house, and you burn down your house, and by doing that maybe we can convince Joe to burn down HIS house, even though he doesn’t want to, and that will save the neighborhood… you go first.” If Joe doesn’t buy into your “burning down the house” theory, or if your neighbor changes his mind just before the matches fall… well, you’re left with a burned down house, and the neighborhood is still threatened… Realistic, attainable, affordable goals are what Canada should be going for. Not symbolic, useless, perhaps even dangerous Kyoto platitudes. Kyoto is a bad deal, plain and simple. Why the media doesn’t see that, or doesn’t report that, is an interesting discussion in and of itself… |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Apr 25, 2007 8:23:57 GMT -5
Gee, imagine that. We must develop/protect our economy at all costs, even though it will have catastrophic effects on the environment and ultimately our population. I've never heard that attitude from people in Canada. I guess we should all just (continue to) bury our heads in the sand. Regardless of where you stand on global warming, it’s reality or not, as Canadians we have to ask ourselves what we can do, and what will work. Stephen Harper could pass a law today banning all cars, all air travel and all oil heating, but what would be the effect? Will worldwide greenhouse gasses decrease, or will they continue to increase because China and India are exempt from the wonderous Kyoto accord opportunistic left-winger politicians and the naïve/ignorant masses insist Canada abide by? We could decrease our quality of life (by how much is an open debate) but will it be worth it? Or, as the article suggested, will China simply surpass all industrialized nations combined thus negating whatever “good” we have done? It’s sort of like your neighbor coming up to you and saying “to save the neighborhood I’ll burn down my house, and you burn down your house, and by doing that maybe we can convince Joe to burn down HIS house, even though he doesn’t want to, and that will save the neighborhood… you go first.” If Joe doesn’t buy into your “burning down the house” theory, or if your neighbor changes his mind just before the matches fall… well, you’re left with a burned down house, and the neighborhood is still threatened… Realistic, attainable, affordable goals are what Canada should be going for. Not symbolic, useless, perhaps even dangerous Kyoto platitudes. Kyoto is a bad deal, plain and simple. Why the media doesn’t see that, or doesn’t report that, is an interesting discussion in and of itself… As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now. But its still a much needed call for global cooperation. And it's a negotiation process because cooperation can't be forced on entire populations and their governements. The Kyoto protocol has a clause thats specify that it should be adjusted and adapted to new scientific evidence and political evolutions. It's just a mean to determine the means toward the end we want. One can be against what has been negociated, but not necessarily against the fact that negotiation is needed if want to do anything about climate changes. These are different position not to be confused. China and India have been temporarily been giving some exemptions (as other developing countries but not full exemption like third world states) and less strict objectives. Next negociation round, they'll probably would have to follow much stricter objectives since their growth (in China's case) has exceeded early expectations and that the global climate changes situtations scientific data tends to indicates a worse situation than what was predicted 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2007 10:40:17 GMT -5
As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now. Interesting observation -- though you wouldn't guess it by the media/federal opposition (of course, it is their job lot to distort things their way, just as it is the government's job lot to distort things their way!)/environmentalists talk. The Liberals signed the Accord on behalf of Canada and it should be followed/we should abide by it (no matter how bad it may be). Here I agree. However, the idea that rings just as true. There-in lies the problem. Most countries (except for Canada because we are the nice ones) will only cooperate if they can get something out of it. China and India agree with the accord because they are exempt. Subsidies plus exemption! Why wouldn't they sign on? As I've said, that's my biggest problem with the whole thing. If it is such a problem then we all have to take responsibility and we all have to take action. So . . . you're a developing country? Need some help? OK -- we'll assist you in your quest to reduce emissions. No reductions (or attempt); no subsidies. Whose science do we use? Whose data? The "fear-mongerers" or the “repudiators”? Further, political evolutions? What’s that? Umm . . . it isn’t negotiation but action that is needed. Which again goes to my point that the world’s worst offenders must be taken to task for their lack of involvement, not exempted from “climate change crimes” (I think I should copyright that phrase – it’ll be used pretty soon, I’m sure ;D) If they sign on. And why would they? Their economies are booming, they have received billions of dollars in subsidies . . .they’ve had 10 years free and clear. Now someone is going to say “we’ve decided that it is time for you to take responsibility. Cut emissions by __%. Spend billions on buying CO credits. Watch while less developed countries are exempt. Sign on the dotted line. Pardon my cynicism, but I don’t think it will happen. What happens to/in China (or wherever) is more important than what happens in/to the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 25, 2007 15:53:15 GMT -5
Gee, imagine that. We must develop/protect our economy at all costs, even though it will have catastrophic effects on the environment and ultimately our population. I've never heard that attitude from people in Canada. I guess we should all just (continue to) bury our heads in the sand. Regardless of where you stand on global warming, it’s reality or not, as Canadians we have to ask ourselves what we can do, and what will work. Stephen Harper could pass a law today banning all cars, all air travel and all oil heating, but what would be the effect? Will worldwide greenhouse gasses decrease, or will they continue to increase because China and India are exempt from the wonderous Kyoto accord opportunistic left-winger politicians and the naïve/ignorant masses insist Canada abide by? We could decrease our quality of life (by how much is an open debate) but will it be worth it? Or, as the article suggested, will China simply surpass all industrialized nations combined thus negating whatever “good” we have done? It’s sort of like your neighbor coming up to you and saying “to save the neighborhood I’ll burn down my house, and you burn down your house, and by doing that maybe we can convince Joe to burn down HIS house, even though he doesn’t want to, and that will save the neighborhood… you go first.” If Joe doesn’t buy into your “burning down the house” theory, or if your neighbor changes his mind just before the matches fall… well, you’re left with a burned down house, and the neighborhood is still threatened… Ok, but that's basically the same logic that justified the Cold War. At some point, somebody has to make the first move. If we're not willing to even meet the limited targets set by Kyoto, why would anybody believe we'd be willing to take more serious action? Also, there's a degree of locality to it (although I don't know how much) - if Canada cuts emissions, then Canada benefits more than anyone else, at least in the short to medium term. And meaningful too. I think I've made my disdain for the media pretty clear recently. There's an awful lot they don't report, and I'd like to know why. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 25, 2007 17:10:36 GMT -5
Cleaning up your own country is one thing....makes for sexy, trendy headlines.
What we do to other countries/populations doesn't see any page of the newspaper.
I was speaking recently with a a producer who just got back from Honduras. They were shooting a documentary. He didn't mention names....but a Canadian mining company is in operation down there and the rate of cancer and other illnesses among the Hondurans in the area has skyrocketed.
Apparently...the ground water has been affected. Hmmm......
They were followed around during their shoot by people they called "mining thugs".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 25, 2007 18:49:27 GMT -5
Cleaning up your own country is one thing....makes for sexy, trendy headlines. What we do to other countries/populations doesn't see any page of the newspaper. I was speaking recently with a a producer who just got back from Honduras. They were shooting a documentary. He didn't mention names....but a Canadian mining company is in operation down there and the rate of cancer and other illnesses among the Hondurans in the area has skyrocketed. Apparently...the ground water has been affected. Hmmm...... They were followed around during their shoot by people they called "mining thugs". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *said like Seinfeld* Goldcorp! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 25, 2007 18:57:21 GMT -5
Bah, show me scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... if it was then you'd think India would be the worse greenhouse producer. All those people exhaling and such a small country so not many trees taking it in and creating oxygen. Until science conclusively proves that the greenhouse effect is true, then we are all being duped by political agendas. I thought you took data and made a theory, not make a theory and make your data fit. Do you have any basis for believing that there is no evidence, or do you just "feel" that it's a big political conspiracy? Is there actually anything that would convince you, or have you made up your mind for good? Nobody really knows what is causing temperatures to rise ... there hasn't been enough data collected to determine it conclusively. But everyone has latched on to CO2 emissions. Until someone explains scientifically how CO2 emmissions cause warming when they are at their highest peak AFTER periods of warming ... well call me a fence sitter. But it seems you have your mind made up for good ... I am just not ready to fall prey to the political agendas of people spewing this. Al Gore? He makes $200,000 for every appearance, he owns the company he buys greenhouse credits from ..... geee, I am really going to believe him or any other politician? And for every scientific paper that claims that global warming and our causation is true there is another that says it is bad science ... if the brightest minds on earth can not even come to consensus. I guess it is safer to err on the side of caution, but it isnt us we should worry about, it is the other guy (and yes they are saying the same thing) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 25, 2007 20:20:51 GMT -5
It’s sort of like your neighbor coming up to you and saying “to save the neighborhood I’ll burn down my house, and you burn down your house, and by doing that maybe we can convince Joe to burn down HIS house, even though he doesn’t want to, and that will save the neighborhood… you go first.” If Joe doesn’t buy into your “burning down the house” theory, or if your neighbor changes his mind just before the matches fall… well, you’re left with a burned down house, and the neighborhood is still threatened… No THAT is an original and creative way to think about it. To add to it... We don't know for sure who is perpetrating the climate change crimes but we have a certain group of people (CO2) living in the neighborhood who have this reputation. The fact is that we see broken windows. So let's burn down our economy house and this CO2 group are not likely to be part of any more climate change crimes. Only to find out years later that the broken windows where from inherit stress in the glass. But by then it's too late because we are already homeless and hungry...... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2007 13:05:50 GMT -5
BTW, some recent studies by Russian scientist are saying that this is only a blip and we are heading for an ice age. *sigh* Why did you make me go looking for it? Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age' ST. PETERSBURG, Russia Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.
The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.
Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.
The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said. upi |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2007 13:07:05 GMT -5
Is global warming a good thing? Warmer Days and Longer Lives Thomas Gale Moore
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford UniversityHistory demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.
That Ice Age ended about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago when the glaciers covering much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia began to retreat to approximately their current positions. In North America the glacial covering lasted longer than in Eurasia because of topographical features that delayed the warming. Throughout history warming and cooling in different regions of the world have not correlated exactly because of the influence of such factors as oceans, mountains, and prevailing winds.
As the earth warmed with the waning of the Ice Age, the sea level rose as much as 300 feet; hunters in Europe roamed through modern Norway; agriculture developed in the Middle East, the Far East and the Americas. By 7,000 years ago and lasting for about four millenniums, the earth was more clement than today, perhaps by 4deg. Fahrenheit, about the average of the various predictions for global warming from a doubling of CO2. Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During the four thousand warmest years, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Rainfall may have been 10 to 15 percent greater than now. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days, sunnier. the rest: just baiting HA |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 26, 2007 15:14:04 GMT -5
Ok, but that's basically the same logic that justified the Cold War. I like the analogy. Just like in the Cold war, somebody, sowhere is benefiting financially from the mass hysteria. The Cold War had little to do with the actual logical possibility that the US and USSR would eventually send each other nuclear missiles that would destroy the earth 20 times, but the simple fear of it was enough to insure gazillions of profits and maintain 2 country's economic system. In comes the new threat du jour, Global Warming, there has to be a money trail to be followed for that too... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 26, 2007 21:00:50 GMT -5
Ok, but that's basically the same logic that justified the Cold War. I like the analogy. Just like in the Cold war, somebody, sowhere is benefiting financially from the mass hysteria. The Cold War had little to do with the actual logical possibility that the US and USSR would eventually send each other nuclear missiles that would destroy the earth 20 times, but the simple fear of it was enough to insure gazillions of profits and maintain 2 country's economic system. In comes the new threat du jour, Global Warming, there has to be a money trail to be followed for that too... You got that right. The long and winding road ..... leads to a politicians pocket. Ok the Beatles had it slightly wrong. But if the worlds top scientists can't agree on when CO2 emissions are at their highest, or if we are heading towards global warming or global cooling, or even if we are causing it or it is a cyclical natural occurrence ...... well let's get the facts straight before we jump to conclusions. I agree we should be proactive, you know in case, but not at all costs and especially not if we are the only ones .... we need a global summit to scientifically go through all data until we determine it. And that only happens with co-operation and not mass media hysteria with political agendas being pushed from both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2007 17:29:48 GMT -5
Ok, but that's basically the same logic that justified the Cold War. I like the analogy. Just like in the Cold war, somebody, sowhere is benefiting financially from the mass hysteria. The Cold War had little to do with the actual logical possibility that the US and USSR would eventually send each other nuclear missiles that would destroy the earth 20 times, but the simple fear of it was enough to insure gazillions of profits and maintain 2 country's economic system. In comes the new threat du jour, Global Warming, there has to be a money trail to be followed for that too... That's a good point, but I was thinking of it from a different angle. Neither side wanted to be the one to stop participating in the arms race, so it escalated more and more. While each side used fear to justify it, claiming it would increase security, the end result of nuclear and other weapons proliferation was that security was enourmously reduced for both sides and for the whole world. Now with respect to pollution, everyone is pointing the finger at someone else and saying they should be the one to make the first move, and so nothing happens. The one good thing about Kyoto is it actually encourages action (as Ropoflu said, "a much needed call for global cooperation"). It's not enough, but it's a start. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2007 18:27:20 GMT -5
"Hysteria"
It's interesting how many times that word gets used by people questioning the science of climate change. With respect, as far as I can see, the hysteria surrounding this issue is all about how it is a huge conspiracy to make Al Gore money or to destroy "our" way of life by sending "our" jobs and "our" resources to third world countries. With the dire consequences that have been predicted for decades to result (and seemingly are resulting) from not only pollution and "environment related" issues but also from a host of other issues, it's a bit of a wonder that there isn't mass hysteria.
Despite surveys showing that the majority of Canadians expect "the end of the world" to come within their or their children's lifetimes, despite (perhaps exagerrated but not baseless) fears of widespread terrorism, or of massive economic collapse within a decade, 99% of people are living their lives exactly as they always have, saving money and planning their futures as though the world will remain largely the same for decades to come. This is not hysteria. If anything, we're living in a waking coma.
|
|
I guess we should all just (continue to) bury our heads in the sand.
