Al Gore: Nobel Winner

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

Again, it's not about whether it makes sense to you or me. Do you really think that climate scientists don't have an explanation for such a simple argument?

I haven't heard or read the answer .... and until I do I will question it.

If you apply that line of thinking to every simple argument you can make about every area of science, you won't be left with anything to believe....

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

If it keeps heat in, then logically it has to keep the sun rays out .... and in my mind, that would cause cooling.

Unless, it gets explained to me that CO2 is somehow natures heat filter (heat can travel in, but not escape out) ....

That's where you run into trouble, trying to subsitute simple logic for a scientific understanding of something complex. In a nutshell, as I undestand it, most of the radiation we get from the sun is not absorbed by the atmosphere but rather it reaches the surface of the Earth, causing warming. But, the Earth also gives off radiation ("heat") - otherwise it would just keep getting hotter - and this radiation is of a different wavelength than that from the sun and it IS absorbed by the atmosphere. So more greenhouse gasses reduce the ability of the Earth to "shed excess heat" without making much impact on the ammount of heat reaching Earth from the sun.

Of course, this is only a simple summary by a non-climate-scientist; the full explanation is probably much more complex. But the point is that we shouldn't rely on our intution when it comes to science.

[Cranky]

Scientist agree, the sky is falling. Oops, someone forgot to tell the worlds foremost meteorologist.

~~~~~~~~~~

www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/...rid=theage:top5

~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Lyttle
October 14, 2007


Climate crusader: Al Gore.
Photo: AP

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." (No it's not. Brainwashing them when they are young is the only way you are going to make the sheep go over a cliff. )

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said. (This is why the left has licked themselves silly over this. If they can scare the hell out of people and accomplish their wet dreams of social engineering then who cares if they are wrong. They will invent a new scare by then..maybe.. Global Erectile Dysfunction which is caused by bad internet porn. Yes, there is such a thing as bad porn and good porn.)

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. (I heard Exxon bought the entire meteorological community.)

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed. (But..butt...but the Goracle said we did it!)

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said. (Oh yeah? Obviously he hasn't studied the effect of too many burritos on methane emissions. )

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science. (Science is boring. Doomsday science is fun!)

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants." (Don't worry Dr. Gray, Skilly, BC, Franko, CentreHice and I are on a jihad until death. After all, we have 72 carbon dioxide exhaling, methane burping virgins waiting for us in hell.)

MCT

[Cranky]

machabby said:

That's where you run into trouble, trying to subsitute simple logic for a scientific understanding of something complex.

Or more correctly....the lack of understanding of scientist for all the factors that go into climate changes.

machabby said:

Of course, this is only a simple summary by a non-climate-scientist; the full explanation is probably much more complex. But the point is that we shouldn't rely on our intution when it comes to science.

With all due respect, you should confine the "we" to the singular. You may or may not understand the complexity but it has no bearing to what others can or cannot understand.

[Cranky]

This is why I find the "human caused carbon causing climate change" so hilarious.

Here is a graph by a PRO human caused site. Notice their pictogram.



Notice the carbon output by humans and notice how it's completely dwarfed by photosynthesis, plant respiration, decay of residues and sea surface gas exchange. The margin of error of ANY of these factors is FAR larger then the entire human carbon output. On the photosynthesis alone, their "guesses" is four times larger then all human output. In 300 Gt C of carbon exchanges, give or take 50, they can tell "conclusivly" that 5.3 Gt C. of human caused carbon is THE reason for global warming. Sure...

What I find puzzling is how these people can present something like this and with a straight face go on and on about human carbon emissions causing the Apocalypse.

Here is another example from this site.....

In 1994, the atmosphere contained about 750 gigatons2 of carbon (Gt C) in the form of CO2. This total amount of carbon corresponds to an average atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 358 parts per million (ppm) by volume, although the actual CO2 concentration varies slightly from place to place and from season to season. During the past decade, the average concentration of CO2 has been increasing by about 1.5 ppm per year; as of 2002 the concentration was approximately 365, corresponding to about 765 Gt C.

In the past DECADE they claim the humans have increased CO2 by 1.5 ppm. By their own numbers, humans have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by 15 Gt C. in a decade. Which is 15/765 which amounts to 2% increase in one decade. They are SURE this is caused by humans yet they show 20 Gt C margin in photosynthesis, 10Gt C in plant respiration, 10 Gt C in decay of residue, 15 Gt C is sea surface exchange.

Do they ever read their own stats before they come up with conclusions? If one starts looking at research papers (what little is available to the "dumb public") and one starts asking critical questions, far too often, one finds that the conclusions are either inconclusive or tend to be derived, or somteimes even forced from a point of view. The above example is prime candidate for "forced conclusions" even if the numbers tell a different story..

This is not an isolated site or incident. In fact, the origins of the pictogram states that, quote...Research on the global carbon cycle has met more complexity than expected. Of course it is and we are at the infancy of understanding it, yet Gore and zealots want everybody to do as they say based on "scientific proof" and the even more moronic statement of "the debate is over".



Sources:
www.esd.ornl.gov/iab/iab2-2.htm
www.safeclimate.net/business/understanding/carboncycle.php

[Cranky]

An inconvenient peace prize
By Bjorn Lomborg

THIS year’s Nobel Peace Prize justly rewards the thousands of scientists of the United Nations Climate Change Panel (the IPCC). These scientists are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change.

The other award winner, former US Vice President Al Gore, has spent much more time telling us what to fear. While the IPCC’s estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn’t seem to be similarly restrained.

Gore told the world in his Academy Award-winning movie (recently labelled “one-sided” and containing “scientific errors” by a British judge) to expect 20-foot sea-level rises over this century. He ignores the findings of his Nobel co-winners, the IPCC, who conclude that sea levels will rise between only a half-foot and two feet over this century, with their best expectation being about one foot. That’s similar to what the world experienced over the past 150 years.

Likewise, Gore agonises over the accelerated melting of ice in Greenland and what it means for the planet, but overlooks the IPCC’s conclusion that, if sustained, the current rate of melting would add just three inches to the sea level rise by the end of the century. Gore also takes no notice of research showing that Greenland’s temperatures were higher in 1941 than they are today.

Gore also frets about the future of polar bears. He claims they are drowning as their icy habitat disappears. However, the only scientific study showing any such thing indicates that four polar bears drowned because of a storm.

The politician-turned-movie maker loses sleep over a predicted rise in heat-related deaths. There’s another side of the story that’s inconvenient to mention: rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells, which are a much bigger killer than heat. The best study shows that by 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Indeed, according to the first complete survey of the economic effects of climate change for the world, global warming will actually save lives.

The IPCC has magnanimously declared that it would have been happy if Gore had received the Nobel Peace prize alone. I am glad that he did not, and that the IPCC’s work has rightfully been acknowledged.

Gore has helped the world to worry. Unfortunately, our attention is diverted from where it matters. Climate change is not the only problem facing the globe. Our blinkered focus on it – to the detriment of other planetary challenges – will only be heightened by the attention generated by Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Gore concentrates above all else on his call for world leaders to cut CO2 emissions, yet there are other policies that would do much more for the planet. Over the coming century, developing nations will be increasingly dependent on food imports from developed countries. This is not primarily a result of global warming, but a consequence of more people and less arable land in the developing world.

The number of hungry people depends much less on climate than on demographics and income. Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people. If our goal is to fight malnutrition, policies like getting nutrients to those who need them are 5,000 times more effective at saving lives than spending billions of dollars cutting carbon emissions.

Likewise, global warming will probably slightly increase malaria, but CO2 reductions will be far less effective at fighting this disease than mosquito nets and medication, which can cheaply save 850,000 lives every year. By contrast, the expensive Kyoto Protocol will prevent just 1,400 deaths from malaria each year.

While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today. This year, malnutrition will kill almost four million people. Three million lives will be lost to HIV/AIDS. Two and a half million people will die because of indoor and outdoor air pollution. A lack of micronutrients and clean drinking water will claim two million lives each.

With attention and money in scarce supply, what matters is that we first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today’s problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems – including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.
Gore has an unshakable faith that climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world. To be fair, he deserves some form of recognition for his resolute passion.

However, the contrast between this year’s Nobel winners could not be sharper. The IPCC engages in meticulous research where facts rule over everything else. Gore has a very different approach.

n Bj?rn Lomborg is the organiser of Copenhagen Consensus, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and author of Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist.

© Project Syndicate, 2007



~~~~~~~~~
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/13/an_inconvenient_peace_prize/
~~~~~~~~~

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n113026A

Canadians should brace for coldest winter in almost 15 years: forecast

November 30, 2007 - 11:06

THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - Environment Canada says it appears the country will have to endure its coldest winter in almost 15 years as everyone is reminded what a real Canadian winter feels like.

Senior climatologist David Phillips says Canada has had a number of warmer than normal winters in recent years, but this December through February is forecast to be one of the harshest in recent memory.

With the exception of a small pocket in southern Ontario, the entire country is coloured blue for colder than normal on Environment Canada's weather map.
Precipitation forecasts are less reliable, but Phillips says the colder winter will likely result in a lot of white Christmas' across the country.

Last year, a number of traditionally cold and snow-covered cities like Quebec City, Ottawa and Timmins, Ont., had their first green Christmas in decades.

Phillips says a cold winter with lots of snow is good for the economy, and will likely push people into doing their Christmas shopping and booking holidays to escape the cold.

"I always think it's good for the economy when weather is behaving like it should, when winters are cold and summers are hot," he said.

"With the Canadian dollar the way it is and with this colder than normal weather, it very well may be that the busiest people in the country are travel agents."

Phillips says the forecast for cold weather is being triggered by La Nina, a period of lower than normal temperatures in the Pacific Ocean.

[franko]

So let me get this straight: because of global warming it is going to be colder?

[clear observer]

badcompany said:

With the exception of a small pocket in southern Ontario

Please, please, please, please, please, let it be south-EASTERN Ontario. I don't do the c-c-c-c-c-old too well.

[jkr]

admin said:

badcompany said:

With the exception of a small pocket in southern Ontario

Please, please, please, please, please, let it be south-EASTERN Ontario. I don't do the c-c-c-c-c-old too well.

Like Eklund, meteorologists always leave themselevs an out; you know just in case what they predicted never happens.

[Skilly]

We are used to cold and lots of snow .... 2001 was the worst winter ever in Newfoundland. We saw more snow than any other place in Canada - EVER.

From April 1st - 4th, 2001, a series of winter storms dumped between 20 and 60 cm of snow on much of eastern Newfoundland and along the south coast of the island. The extreme weather coincided with the start of a massive provincial public service strike which included highway personnel and snow-clearing operators. Highways and side-roads quickly became blocked with snow-banks -- some drifts were reportedly nearly five and a half metres high. As communities became more isolated, concern increased with respect to supplies of food and pharmaceutical supplies, heating oil delivery and emergency response capability. The weather subsided by week's end. Then, on April 7, more snow arrived, breaking St. John's all-time snowfall record for a single season. The final tally was 648.4 cm, which is more than the record totals for any other major city in Canada.



This is the Trans Canada Highway (about 1 hour outside St. John's) ... I remember that year I lived on a cul-de-sac. I had to shovel out into the cul-de-sac (about 15 feet from the end of my driveway) and the snow mounds were so high I could toss the snow up, so I had to walk with it and dump it where the plows made a push lane. I hated shovelling that winter, and today I heard on the local news they expect a similar winter this year..... maybe time for that snow blower.

[Cranky]

franko said:

So let me get this straight: because of global warming it is going to be colder?

Yup. And if tomorrow we have snow. It's global warming. If we have rain, it's global warming. If there is sun, it's global warming. If it is cloudy, it's global wamring. If there are more cats, it's global warming.....

www.livescience.com/animals/070606_gw_pets.html

I would laugh but I can't. It's global warming.

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

So let me get this straight: because of global warming it is going to be colder?

Yup. And if tomorrow we have snow. It's global warming. If we have rain, it's global warming. If there is sun, it's global warming. If it is cloudy, it's global wamring. If there are more cats, it's global warming.....

www.livescience.com/animals/070606_gw_pets.html

I would laugh but I can't. It's global warming.

Psst ... now they just call it "climate change" to cover their arses.

1970's they blamed Global Cooling on CO2. 1990's they blame Global Warming on CO2. And I am willing to bet that in the next 5 yrs we will see colder winters and lots of snow, with lots of rain in the spring, summer and fall ... they will call it global cooling or climate change I am sure ... I call it cyclical cycles of nature. Go Figure.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

Yup. And if tomorrow we have snow. It's global warming. If we have rain, it's global warming. If there is sun, it's global warming. If it is cloudy, it's global wamring. If there are more cats, it's global warming.....

www.livescience.com/animals/070606_gw_pets.html

I would laugh but I can't. It's global warming.

Psst ... now they just call it "climate change" to cover their arses.

1970's they blamed Global Cooling on CO2. 1990's they blame Global Warming on CO2. And I am willing to bet that in the next 5 yrs we will see colder winters and lots of snow, with lots of rain in the spring, summer and fall ... they will call it global cooling or climate change I am sure ... I call it cyclical cycles of nature. Go Figure.

If for nothing else, do it for the pussies.


(Next weeks "scientific" study.....Man Made Global Cooling Are Killing the Pussies)

[Cranky]

Now I know what my problem is! LOL!

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

-- Margaret Knight,

—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Skilly, what is your excuse?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blowing hot air at Carbo's press conferences?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

habsaddict said:

Now I know what my problem is! LOL!

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

-- Margaret Knight,

—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Skilly, what is your excuse?

n A person to be pitied in that he believes that Gainey is doing a good job for which there is no evidence.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

skilly said:

We are used to cold and lots of snow .... 2001 was the worst winter ever in Newfoundland. We saw more snow than any other place in Canada - EVER.

From April 1st - 4th, 2001, a series of winter storms dumped between 20 and 60 cm of snow on much of eastern Newfoundland and along the south coast of the island. The extreme weather coincided with the start of a massive provincial public service strike which included highway personnel and snow-clearing operators. Highways and side-roads quickly became blocked with snow-banks -- some drifts were reportedly nearly five and a half metres high. As communities became more isolated, concern increased with respect to supplies of food and pharmaceutical supplies, heating oil delivery and emergency response capability. The weather subsided by week's end. Then, on April 7, more snow arrived, breaking St. John's all-time snowfall record for a single season. The final tally was 648.4 cm, which is more than the record totals for any other major city in Canada.



This is the Trans Canada Highway (about 1 hour outside St. John's) ... I remember that year I lived on a cul-de-sac. I had to shovel out into the cul-de-sac (about 15 feet from the end of my driveway) and the snow mounds were so high I could toss the snow up, so I had to walk with it and dump it where the plows made a push lane. I hated shovelling that winter, and today I heard on the local news they expect a similar winter this year..... maybe time for that snow blower.

Now I remember why I moved to California.

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

Now I know what my problem is! LOL!

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

-- Margaret Knight,

—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Skilly, what is your excuse?

I'm agnostic ... Show me the proof!

[franko]

And I remember why I didn't.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

franko said:

And I remember why I didn't.

The Nobel Prize for combating global cooling should go to George W Bush! He can avoid a 20 foot rise in the ocean levels at any time by dropping 1000 nuclear bombs on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and North Korea. The clouds of debris would create 4 years of nuclear winter and the additional snow cover would reflect sunlight away from the polar regions ensuring that the temperature would remain well below normal for years to come. The reduction in oil consumption by reducing the world population 100 million would have positive long term effects. Any additional deaths from radioactive fallout would be a bonus.

Give me a break!

I used to have great respect for Nobel Prize winners but after political awards to Gore and Carter, science and achievement take a back seat to politics.

People love to complain. "It's too cold" is usually cited in winter, while "it's too hot" is often used in summer. Almost every year is the wetest, driest, or windiest on some quarter of some continent. Like Skilly I remember walking to school over gigantic snowbanks, the year we didn't have to shovel snow, the ice storm year, the year of the New Brunswick forest fires, freak hurricanes and tornados reaching Montreal. Geologic records show multiple ice ages, hot wet centuries and sea level changes that predate the internal combustion engine by a couple of million years; give or take a few hours. Dinosaurs flourished and dies out.
THINGS CHANGE.
Years ago the Canadiens had great teams.

[BadCompany]

Well, duh.

www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5a0e128d-c60a-4f31-a5b4-4dabd49c5bf2&k=68845

Carbon tax bill in the mail

Gaz Metro passes it on $15 per year for residential customers

MAX HARROLD, The Gazette

Quebec energy consumers - not just energy producers - are the ones who will end up paying for the province's new green fund. The bills are in the mail. I am shocked. SHOCKED!

It wasn't supposed to be this way: When the provincial government imposed the country's first carbon tax last fall, it wanted producers to pay. <giggle>

But just as oil refiners have already done, Gaz Métro started passing on the cost of the carbon tax this month.

It began charging 0.67 cents per cubic metre of natural gas that it sells to its 170,000 customers.

It will then remit $38 million to Quebec this year for its new $200-million annual green fund, aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The hike means about $15 more per year for the typical Gaz Métro residential customer.

"I don't care how much it is, even if it's just half a penny," said Leonard, a Laval resident who called to complain about his gas bill. He spoke on condition that his last name not be used. I certainly hope he isn't a supporter of the Kyoto Accord

"They said consumers would not pay for this - and now here we are, paying for it." Did he really think it would be otherwise?

When the Liberal government introduced the carbon tax, it said it was targeting oil companies with deep pockets.

"We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time.

He added that the plan is based on the principle that the polluter should pay. In principle, the polluter is paying. No gas furnaces, no gas company, no pollution. No demand for product, no sale, no pollution.

The Quebec Energy Board, which monitors the price of gasoline, natural gas and electricity, and, in some cases, regulates prices, made a temporary ruling Dec. 19 that Gaz Métro and Gazifère, an Outaouais company, could charge their customers for the carbon tax levied on the companies.

Pierre Méthé, a board spokesperson, said there had not been enough time to render a final decision on the matter because the law establishing the green fund was modified in November and its application was set for Jan. 1.

However, it was the companies' choice to pass the levy on to their customers. All the board did was determine how much they could charge, based on an estimate of how many greenhouse gas emissions various types of energy produce.

About 40 other oil and gas importers, refineries and distributors will have to pay into the green fund, Méthé said.

Pascal D'Astous, a spokesperson for Béchard, said yesterday the government never intended to compel companies alone to pay for the green fund.And yet above they say that they expected the companies to pay for it? "We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time. Which is it?

"How could we ever have such a mechanism?" he asked.

"We're in a market economy. We could never prove whether or not the carbon tax was or was not part of their prices." Duh.

Gas prices at the pump did rise, and the hikes in many cases compensated for the .08-cent-a-litre carbon tax that started being levied on distributors on Oct. 1.

Companies that sell natural gas and heating oil were assessed as of Jan. 1.

Frédéric Krikorian, a spokesperson for Gaz Métro, acknowledged the company could have absorbed the cost.

"We had a choice, but it wasn't much of a choice," he said.

"Our annual profit is $140 million. They told us to pay (nearly) $40 million of it back."

Notices were mailed to customers explaining changes to their bills. Gaz Métro's invoices now come with a one-line addition called "Contribution - Green Fund."

Environmentalists said their support of the green fund never included a push for individual consumers to pay for it.

"Gaz Métro is abdicating its responsibility," said Claude Martel, Quebec director of the Sierra Club.

Gaz Métro creates greenhouse gas emissions in its production , and those should not be passed on to customers, he said. RANT: This is stupid. Again, no customers, no production, no emission. It's not the gas company's fault that we buy gas, they simply supply the supply that the demanders demand. This is so typical. People want the government to reduce emissions, abide by Kyoto, stop global warming, they just don't want to pay for it. If we the people don't pay for it, then who will? You want to stop emissions from gas and oil, combustion engines? Impose an immediate, starting right now, $5 tax per litre on gas. Gas is what? $1.10 now in Montreal? Starting right now it's $6.10 a litre. Usually costs you $40 to fill up your tank of gas? Now it's going to cost you $250. Spend $1500 a year heating your house with an oil furnace? Now it's going to cost you $7000. THAT'S what it's going to take to get people to change their behaviors. But of course, everybody knows that will never fly. So blame the big, bad, corporations, who are just giving us what we want. /RANT

"All polluters should pay, but big energy companies are better able to do so." Isn't the idea to stop polluting? Regardless of who is doing it? What's money got to do with it?

Arthur Sandborn, head of the climate change campaign with Greenpeace, said the government should look closely at Gaz Métro's decision.

"The environment minister should get on the phone and find out what is happening over there at Gaz Métro." He should be happy. If you raise the price of ANYTHING, whether it's cars, widgets, bras or gas, less people will be able to afford it. Which means less people will be able to buy it. Which, in the case of oil and gas, means less emissions/pollution, right? But then he would have to look like a bad guy. Much easier to blame the big, bad gas company.

Philippe Cannon, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Line Beauchamp, said the fund will pay for a variety of measures the government intends to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, such institutions as hospitals and schools that replace bunker oil as an energy source will be able to draw on a $25-million fund.

[e-mail]

[clear observer]

badcompany said:

Well, duh.

www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5a0e128d-c60a-4f31-a5b4-4dabd49c5bf2&k=68845

Carbon tax bill in the mail

Gaz Metro passes it on $15 per year for residential customers

MAX HARROLD, The Gazette

Quebec energy consumers - not just energy producers - are the ones who will end up paying for the province's new green fund. The bills are in the mail. I am shocked. SHOCKED!

It wasn't supposed to be this way: When the provincial government imposed the country's first carbon tax last fall, it wanted producers to pay. <giggle>

But just as oil refiners have already done, Gaz Métro started passing on the cost of the carbon tax this month.

It began charging 0.67 cents per cubic metre of natural gas that it sells to its 170,000 customers.

It will then remit $38 million to Quebec this year for its new $200-million annual green fund, aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The hike means about $15 more per year for the typical Gaz Métro residential customer.

"I don't care how much it is, even if it's just half a penny," said Leonard, a Laval resident who called to complain about his gas bill. He spoke on condition that his last name not be used. I certainly hope he isn't a supporter of the Kyoto Accord

"They said consumers would not pay for this - and now here we are, paying for it." Did he really think it would be otherwise?

When the Liberal government introduced the carbon tax, it said it was targeting oil companies with deep pockets.

"We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time.

He added that the plan is based on the principle that the polluter should pay. In principle, the polluter is paying. No gas furnaces, no gas company, no pollution. No demand for product, no sale, no pollution.

The Quebec Energy Board, which monitors the price of gasoline, natural gas and electricity, and, in some cases, regulates prices, made a temporary ruling Dec. 19 that Gaz Métro and Gazifère, an Outaouais company, could charge their customers for the carbon tax levied on the companies.

Pierre Méthé, a board spokesperson, said there had not been enough time to render a final decision on the matter because the law establishing the green fund was modified in November and its application was set for Jan. 1.

However, it was the companies' choice to pass the levy on to their customers. All the board did was determine how much they could charge, based on an estimate of how many greenhouse gas emissions various types of energy produce.

About 40 other oil and gas importers, refineries and distributors will have to pay into the green fund, Méthé said.

Pascal D'Astous, a spokesperson for Béchard, said yesterday the government never intended to compel companies alone to pay for the green fund.And yet above they say that they expected the companies to pay for it? "We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time. Which is it?

"How could we ever have such a mechanism?" he asked.

"We're in a market economy. We could never prove whether or not the carbon tax was or was not part of their prices." Duh.

Gas prices at the pump did rise, and the hikes in many cases compensated for the .08-cent-a-litre carbon tax that started being levied on distributors on Oct. 1.

Companies that sell natural gas and heating oil were assessed as of Jan. 1.

Frédéric Krikorian, a spokesperson for Gaz Métro, acknowledged the company could have absorbed the cost.

"We had a choice, but it wasn't much of a choice," he said.

"Our annual profit is $140 million. They told us to pay (nearly) $40 million of it back."

Notices were mailed to customers explaining changes to their bills. Gaz Métro's invoices now come with a one-line addition called "Contribution - Green Fund."

Environmentalists said their support of the green fund never included a push for individual consumers to pay for it.

"Gaz Métro is abdicating its responsibility," said Claude Martel, Quebec director of the Sierra Club.

Gaz Métro creates greenhouse gas emissions in its production , and those should not be passed on to customers, he said. RANT: This is stupid. Again, no customers, no production, no emission. It's not the gas company's fault that we buy gas, they simply supply the supply that the demanders demand. This is so typical. People want the government to reduce emissions, abide by Kyoto, stop global warming, they just don't want to pay for it. If we the people don't pay for it, then who will? You want to stop emissions from gas and oil, combustion engines? Impose an immediate, starting right now, $5 tax per litre on gas. Gas is what? $1.10 now in Montreal? Starting right now it's $6.10 a litre. Usually costs you $40 to fill up your tank of gas? Now it's going to cost you $250. Spend $1500 a year heating your house with an oil furnace? Now it's going to cost you $7000. THAT'S what it's going to take to get people to change their behaviors. But of course, everybody knows that will never fly. So blame the big, bad, corporations, who are just giving us what we want. /RANT

"All polluters should pay, but big energy companies are better able to do so." Isn't the idea to stop polluting? Regardless of who is doing it? What's money got to do with it?

Arthur Sandborn, head of the climate change campaign with Greenpeace, said the government should look closely at Gaz Métro's decision.

"The environment minister should get on the phone and find out what is happening over there at Gaz Métro." He should be happy. If you raise the price of ANYTHING, whether it's cars, widgets, bras or gas, less people will be able to afford it. Which means less people will be able to buy it. Which, in the case of oil and gas, means less emissions/pollution, right? But then he would have to look like a bad guy. Much easier to blame the big, bad gas company.

Philippe Cannon, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Line Beauchamp, said the fund will pay for a variety of measures the government intends to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, such institutions as hospitals and schools that replace bunker oil as an energy source will be able to draw on a $25-million fund.

[e-mail]

Can't blame the politicians for speaking to us like we're nothing more than a flock of sheep.

Hey, wai-ai-ai-ai-ai-ai-t a minute!!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

Gaz Métro creates greenhouse gas emissions in its production , and those should not be passed on to customers, he said. RANT: This is stupid. Again, no customers, no production, no emission. It's not the gas company's fault that we buy gas, they simply supply the supply that the demanders demand. This is so typical. People want the government to reduce emissions, abide by Kyoto, stop global warming, they just don't want to pay for it. If we the people don't pay for it, then who will? You want to stop emissions from gas and oil, combustion engines? Impose an immediate, starting right now, $5 tax per litre on gas. Gas is what? $1.10 now in Montreal? Starting right now it's $6.10 a litre. Usually costs you $40 to fill up your tank of gas? Now it's going to cost you $250. Spend $1500 a year heating your house with an oil furnace? Now it's going to cost you $7000. THAT'S what it's going to take to get people to change their behaviors. But of course, everybody knows that will never fly. So blame the big, bad, corporations, who are just giving us what we want. /RANT

"The environment minister should get on the phone and find out what is happening over there at Gaz Métro." He should be happy. If you raise the price of ANYTHING, whether it's cars, widgets, bras or gas, less people will be able to afford it. Which means less people will be able to buy it. Which, in the case of oil and gas, means less emissions/pollution, right? But then he would have to look like a bad guy. Much easier to blame the big, bad gas company.

Philippe Cannon, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Line Beauchamp, said the fund will pay for a variety of measures the government intends to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, such institutions as hospitals and schools that replace bunker oil as an energy source will be able to draw on a $25-million fund.

[e-mail]

Excellent!!

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

badcompany said:

Well, duh.

www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5a0e128d-c60a-4f31-a5b4-4dabd49c5bf2&k=68845

Carbon tax bill in the mail

Gaz Metro passes it on $15 per year for residential customers

MAX HARROLD, The Gazette

Quebec energy consumers - not just energy producers - are the ones who will end up paying for the province's new green fund. The bills are in the mail. I am shocked. SHOCKED!

It wasn't supposed to be this way: When the provincial government imposed the country's first carbon tax last fall, it wanted producers to pay. <giggle>

But just as oil refiners have already done, Gaz Métro started passing on the cost of the carbon tax this month.

It began charging 0.67 cents per cubic metre of natural gas that it sells to its 170,000 customers.

It will then remit $38 million to Quebec this year for its new $200-million annual green fund, aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The hike means about $15 more per year for the typical Gaz Métro residential customer.

"I don't care how much it is, even if it's just half a penny," said Leonard, a Laval resident who called to complain about his gas bill. He spoke on condition that his last name not be used. I certainly hope he isn't a supporter of the Kyoto Accord

"They said consumers would not pay for this - and now here we are, paying for it." Did he really think it would be otherwise?

When the Liberal government introduced the carbon tax, it said it was targeting oil companies with deep pockets.

"We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time.

He added that the plan is based on the principle that the polluter should pay. In principle, the polluter is paying. No gas furnaces, no gas company, no pollution. No demand for product, no sale, no pollution.

The Quebec Energy Board, which monitors the price of gasoline, natural gas and electricity, and, in some cases, regulates prices, made a temporary ruling Dec. 19 that Gaz Métro and Gazifère, an Outaouais company, could charge their customers for the carbon tax levied on the companies.

Pierre Méthé, a board spokesperson, said there had not been enough time to render a final decision on the matter because the law establishing the green fund was modified in November and its application was set for Jan. 1.

However, it was the companies' choice to pass the levy on to their customers. All the board did was determine how much they could charge, based on an estimate of how many greenhouse gas emissions various types of energy produce.

About 40 other oil and gas importers, refineries and distributors will have to pay into the green fund, Méthé said.

Pascal D'Astous, a spokesperson for Béchard, said yesterday the government never intended to compel companies alone to pay for the green fund.And yet above they say that they expected the companies to pay for it? "We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time. Which is it?

"How could we ever have such a mechanism?" he asked.

"We're in a market economy. We could never prove whether or not the carbon tax was or was not part of their prices." Duh.

Gas prices at the pump did rise, and the hikes in many cases compensated for the .08-cent-a-litre carbon tax that started being levied on distributors on Oct. 1.

Companies that sell natural gas and heating oil were assessed as of Jan. 1.

Frédéric Krikorian, a spokesperson for Gaz Métro, acknowledged the company could have absorbed the cost.

"We had a choice, but it wasn't much of a choice," he said.

"Our annual profit is $140 million. They told us to pay (nearly) $40 million of it back."

Notices were mailed to customers explaining changes to their bills. Gaz Métro's invoices now come with a one-line addition called "Contribution - Green Fund."

Environmentalists said their support of the green fund never included a push for individual consumers to pay for it.

"Gaz Métro is abdicating its responsibility," said Claude Martel, Quebec director of the Sierra Club.

Gaz Métro creates greenhouse gas emissions in its production , and those should not be passed on to customers, he said. RANT: This is stupid. Again, no customers, no production, no emission. It's not the gas company's fault that we buy gas, they simply supply the supply that the demanders demand. This is so typical. People want the government to reduce emissions, abide by Kyoto, stop global warming, they just don't want to pay for it. If we the people don't pay for it, then who will? You want to stop emissions from gas and oil, combustion engines? Impose an immediate, starting right now, $5 tax per litre on gas. Gas is what? $1.10 now in Montreal? Starting right now it's $6.10 a litre. Usually costs you $40 to fill up your tank of gas? Now it's going to cost you $250. Spend $1500 a year heating your house with an oil furnace? Now it's going to cost you $7000. THAT'S what it's going to take to get people to change their behaviors. But of course, everybody knows that will never fly. So blame the big, bad, corporations, who are just giving us what we want. /RANT

"All polluters should pay, but big energy companies are better able to do so." Isn't the idea to stop polluting? Regardless of who is doing it? What's money got to do with it?

Arthur Sandborn, head of the climate change campaign with Greenpeace, said the government should look closely at Gaz Métro's decision.

"The environment minister should get on the phone and find out what is happening over there at Gaz Métro." He should be happy. If you raise the price of ANYTHING, whether it's cars, widgets, bras or gas, less people will be able to afford it. Which means less people will be able to buy it. Which, in the case of oil and gas, means less emissions/pollution, right? But then he would have to look like a bad guy. Much easier to blame the big, bad gas company.

Philippe Cannon, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Line Beauchamp, said the fund will pay for a variety of measures the government intends to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, such institutions as hospitals and schools that replace bunker oil as an energy source will be able to draw on a $25-million fund.

[e-mail]

What an innovative tax.
Everyone has the right to breathe freely.
$15 tax when you exhale.
If you can't get them coming, get them going.

[franko]

habsfaninla said:

What an innovative tax.
Everyone has the right to breathe freely.
$15 tax when you exhale.
If you can't get them coming, get them going.

You're right . . . a toilet tax is next.

[Cranky]

BC,

Please don't tell me you are suprised about all this? How long have we talked about this? EVERYTHING about this swindle is so predictable that to say "I told you so" has no value.

Here is what is going to happen next...

The politicians will walk the fine line between the "end of humanity/global warming" crowd and the silent majority. They will introduce more taxes but the backlash will make them shift the tax burden to the upper class and industry. Since the industry will simply charge more, they won't pay ANY price but the average upper income Quebecer will pay through the nose. Of course, the zealots will say "that's fair" because they are the largert consumers and "producers" of that deadly, toxic, vile CO2...which we ALL exhale.

This is a poerfect tax swindle for the politicians. For a while, they wont pay any political price because they will fall back on the "moral imperative" of saving humanity (JOKE AND A HALF!) by taxing us. The zealots will smile since their little agenda is working. Then there will be the backlash and the REAL question will start to be asked! No more "the time for questions are over" by the zealots and no more "easy tax fleecing" of the sheep by the politicians.

[Cranky]

franko said:

habsfaninla said:

What an innovative tax.
Everyone has the right to breathe freely.
$15 tax when you exhale.
If you can't get them coming, get them going.

You're right . . . a toilet tax is next.

Already there.....

The water department investigates my plants ONCE A YEAR because they are not happpy with our low water bill. Thay asked me if I have a well. Why? Because it's illigal to have a well within city limits. Imagine that, drilling a hole in the ground is ILLIGAL because they wont be able to charge me for the water!

As if I was going to tell them I had a well.... *middle finger salute*

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

You're right . . . a toilet tax is next.

As if I was going to tell them I had a well.... *middle finger salute*

I have a well .... and septic tank ..... ahhh country living, I am so glad I live on the outskirts or the city

[Cranky]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

As if I was going to tell them I had a well.... *middle finger salute*

I have a well .... and septic tank ..... ahhh country living, I am so glad I live on the outskirts or the city

Well? What's that? Were you get free water? So you don't pay the city a ridicilous some of money for using it to cool down machines? Let's see, I should pay the city a thousand bucks a month for processed, chlorinated water that NOBODY will drink bacause THEY said so? Pffft....I'm going to have to exercise my middle finger again.....

BTW, because of my location, I have so much water available that if I wanted too, I could run it through massive radiators and cool the entire plant. But then, creating a cooler and more productive atmosphere would be against the law because I am not paying the city their exoberant rates. Sounds like the Mafia to me....