|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2008 2:08:38 GMT -5
But one thing I'd like to comment on is that I have a hard time believing that carbon dioxide (or carbon in any form) is the problem. There are what, 6 billion (?) humans on earth ... and you know what? .... each and every one of them exhales carbon dioxide about once every 2 seconds. We emit about 1 kg per person per day into the atmopshere. So that is 6 billion kilograms which is 6 million t a day. The argument by scientists is that human exhaling is a closed loop, whereby ALL of it is taken up and used in the carbon cycle (photosynthesis) .... yet exhaling contributes more carbon to the atmopshere (remember, I only counted humans. All the other lifeforms also exhale) than anything else.... but it is carbon emissions that is causing this phenonmenon? I have my doubts. The theory has too many holes in it. Our bodies do not produce carbon, so saying that we "emit" it is misleading. All the carbon that comes out of us into the environment is carbon that came into us from the environment, so yes, it is a closed system. Plants get carbon from the atmosphere, we eat the plants and put the carbon back into the atmosphere. Taking carbon that's buried deep in the ground and releasing it is different. If that is an example of the "holes" you were referring to, well, I would suggest that they are only holes in your understanding. Now that's fine, you're not an expert in the area afterall, but you shouldn't be attacking the science based on an incomplete understanding of it. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2008 2:13:18 GMT -5
The problem with "scientists" is that they are paid and used to support an agenda. Al Gore is not going to quote a scientist that disagrees with him (such as the Russian scientist who recently stated the world is starting to cool) ..... no one knows who to trust. Why is one scientist more believable than another? Thousands of scientists thought the world was flat, thousands of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth ... but it only took one to prove them wrong. This sounds like an argument against all science. Should we build bridges however we feel like, and ignore what the experts say because they might have been paid off? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 24, 2008 7:35:05 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate wanton recklessness with resources. I'm not suggesting the city of Toronto should build ten more coal powered plants to boost its electrical capacity... Hmmm... seems those "eco-friendly Europeans" don't necessarily share your opinion: Europe Turns Back to CoalI am not one who likes to abdicate responsibility, or fall back on a "oh well, there is nothing we can do, might as well pollute" mentality, but the truth is the things suggested in this thread will have little to no impact on the "problem" per se. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do them, of course, and I won't list my environmental creditials to prove how green I am, but I think we have to have a realistic expectation of what we can or cannot achieve. Here is a nice little article that I think summarizes the monumental task that some are saying we have to tackle: What It Will Really Take To Stop Global Warming One interesting quote: China has announced it will invest $128 billion in coal-based fuels between 2007 and 2020. If everyone in Canada turned all the lights out for an entire year, and stopped emitting any greenhouse gases at all, the effect would be wiped out by little more than a month's worth of emissions from China.China is expected to have over 100 million cars on the road in less than a decade. Car ownership in India is up 130% from 10 years ago, and increasing exponentially. Those two countries are expected to be the number one and number two polluters in the world within the next five years (China is already number one). And yet little is being done to reign in their pollution. White man's guilt for our prosperity, I suppose. "Well, we had our run, let's let them pollute now. In the meantime we'll keep buying indulgences carbon credits to atone for our past sins." As HA said, NOBODY is advocating that we continue polluting. Nobody. But we have to have realistic expectations of what we can or cannot achieve, and everyone has to decide just how many futile sacrifices they are willing to make. If humans are the problem, the "AIDS of the Earth" as we have been called, then should you kill yourself? Perhaps taking out a busload of kids too, so they can't pollute either? Of course not. That's stupid and pointless. I am not saying we should do nothing. Quite the contrary. We should do something. But let's be realistic about it, and lets be honest about it. We can't on one hand demand that our government meet it's Kyoto committments, and on the other hand demand that they do something to save manufacturing jobs being outsourced to China, or do something about the high price of gas. Let's understand what the problem is, and what it will REALLY take to fix it, before we go off on our fellow humans. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 8:15:26 GMT -5
me and enviro nut? that's hilarious!! i hate enviro nuts, i live across from one, i almost punched her out when she said because i have a car i basically am an ass. what have i done recently? i bought a bike, i use that in the neighbourhood, yesterday i got a basket for the front of it. you know what the best part of riding this bike is? i get exercise!! i'm also seriously thinking of getting a scooter as i don't use my car that much. i've been all over europe and thailand and never saw these SUV's that we have here. i dont' get how these europeans can get around in their cars, but we need these big ass trucks. oh well, the oil prices hopefully will continue to rise, i'd like to see them hit $200/barrel, that will be interesting to watch. my best friend owns an SUV. i've never once seen him show any concern for the environment at all, he just wants to be a billionairre, i don't judge him, he can do what he wants. what i don't like is when people will argue about "facts" in which none of us have any idea as we're not scientists. the only things i can say is what i read and what i see, there are 1000x more articles and stories about bad things we're doing than good. i never really cared about or thought about the environment until the last couple of years. what i do on a daily basis, that is all i can control. whether we like it or not this isn't going to go away, it's only going to get worse, a whole heckuva a lot worse, and the environuts will eventually outnumber the rest. that is going to be a scary world to live in, hmmm maybe we'll go back to one parent working, growing a lot of our own food, and spending more time with our families walking and enjoying nature and getting some exercise. just think of the energy saved by all those tv's being switched off alone!! Just for the record I didn't use the term enviro-nut. Crusading tree-hugger and extremist (probably a bad choice of words - I mean more in terms of extreme and in my opinion often unreasonable lifestyle choices) sure - but never eco-nut. I reserve that term for a special brand of crazy. And in my opinion yes, you are extreme. You advocate changes to lifestyle that are often unattainable, and when people disagree you either don't want to hear about them (as noted in your introduction or you lament widely how the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and the sky is falling and dear god, why won't someone think of the children. Regarding facts about which we have no idea because we're not scientists - I disagree. I'm university educated, and although my major was Computer Science, I have a strong background in Chemistry and Physics (I dumped bio after two courses because looking through microscopes gave me headaches). And math. Lots and lots of math (okay - it helps that my wife is a PhD candidate in the field). I'm not a scientist, but I have an understanding of the basics. And one of the things I do, reflexively, is question what's placed in front of me as the gospel truth. If the world is warming up, why don't the number bear it out (see my comment about the thirties being the warmest decade of the last century - by the by, I noted how it was once thought that the 90's were, but this was due to mathematical errors revealed by an amateur meteorologist from Toronto some time last year. Mathematical errors committed by these so-called infallible scientists). Just because there's a glut of articles out there supporting it does not make it true. Most media present fluff pieces with little or no hard facts, and academia is open to corruption through the need for academic funding (if you're not doing sexy work, you don't get funding). And if the scientists are all always right (and if a glut of article makes facts true) why in the hell aren't we worried about global cooling. Because that was all the rage in the late sixties and early seventies. You say its going to get worse, and you're entitled to your opinion, but I ask why. And I don't get satisfactory answers. From you. From scientific articles. Really - we've been accurately tracking weather for about 100 years now (if that). The time before that is filled with more question marks than answers. Was the little ice age a little ice age (previously thought to be yes, now we're not so sure)? What caused "global warming" before the 1950's? I get shouted down as being insensitive towards the environment or some eco-terrorist or what have you. I'm not really. I'm skeptical. A militant skeptic (I figure I wouldn't take so much flak if I kept my mouth shut, but where's the fun in that), I'll allow. But a skeptic none the less. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2008 8:33:25 GMT -5
TNG, on H&C's behalf (here I go again, ever searching for middle ground), he is trying to keep this from a global warming climate change discussion (we've had enough of them already!) and merely asking "what can we do personally?".
I'd prefer to think that he is not pointing fingers, nor is he patting himself on the back -- just raising an issue -- and possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2008 8:48:31 GMT -5
Hey, BC:
China and India are going to far out-do the western world when it comes to pollution/carbonizing the world . . . but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.
Interesting, though, that even though mankind is a "blight on this world" (among other things) and needs a bit of a cull (leaving, of course, the poor seals alone -- they don't want to hurt anyone), not many of the extremists (the right word, TNG) are so committed to the cause that they will take . . . well . . .extreme measures.
Paul Watson said "No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas [...] We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion [...] Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach [...] Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans"
Obviously he is one of the responsible ones. I think he want to be king emperor god (small g -- or not).
And no, I am not advocating a cull or lemminglike mass suicide, nor mass sterilization (though I did read that at least one of the sheep people who follow Watson's logic did indeed have herself sterilized (ah, impressionable youth).
As ever, the question is -- no, the questions are -- what will you do, and how much are you willing to pay. If the problem is petroleum based carbon, is anyone willing to pay $10 a litre for gasoline? $25? I think not. It usually comes down to "let someone else pay the price" (the nebulous government or the nefarious big business, for example) . . . and leave me alone.
Hmmm . . . I think I'm starting to blather.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 8:56:41 GMT -5
The problem with "scientists" is that they are paid and used to support an agenda. Al Gore is not going to quote a scientist that disagrees with him (such as the Russian scientist who recently stated the world is starting to cool) ..... no one knows who to trust. Why is one scientist more believable than another? Thousands of scientists thought the world was flat, thousands of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth ... but it only took one to prove them wrong. This sounds like an argument against all science. Should we build bridges however we feel like, and ignore what the experts say because they might have been paid off? Bridge design is a well established since that has been practiced since the dawn of time. The "science of climate change" is somewhat significantly newer. And we still screw up bridge design, even thousands of years of. Just ask the people of Tacoma. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 9:01:49 GMT -5
TNG, on H&C's behalf (here I go again, ever searching for middle ground), he is trying to keep this from a global warming climate change discussion (we've had enough of them already!) and merely asking "what can we do personally?". I'd prefer to think that he is not pointing fingers, nor is he patting himself on the back -- just raising an issue -- and possibilities. I think, perhaps, that it's already far too late for that. Lots of comments in other directions so far, which is what I'm responding to. However, if H&C he wishes to end the debate, I'll be happy to (he can just ignore me and, surprisingly, I won't have anything to say) - but I'm not about to leave him the last word just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2008 9:33:26 GMT -5
1. 10km bike ride takes about hmmm 30 minutes via bike. how long does it take you to drive? i actually starting riding my bike to work gm place, it takes 15 mins via car, 20-25 via bike, best part is no parking fees/stress/traffic/burns calories/gas and it's free! i also discovered when i meet a friend downtown for lunch last summer that if i ride my bike, especially to the yuppy yaletown i can get there in 10 mins, about 2 mins slower than driving (no lights to stop at) and i can get 2-3 glasses of wine and ride my bike home. i know technically it's not legal to ride my bike over .08, but i ain't never seen a road block for it, and if i run into a family of 4 it's only my own face that is going to get crunched. i highly recommend getting bikes for your whole family, amazing how much fun they are! Everyone can't follow the same model. My wife and I have discussed getting bikes. She has one, I dont ... but hers is old and really, IMO, she should buy a nicer one. But for us, it isn't a matter of just getting bikes. The van HAS to be used EVERY day. There is nowhere to put two children (oldest is 4, youngest is almost 2) on bikes. It would be cute I suppose to ride them to daycare everyday ... I'd be beat to a snot and would have to leave about 6am to get to work at 8am ... another problem is where exactly to put the bike at work. I suppose I could get a fancy bike where the front wheel is easily removed and jam it somewhere in my office. In all liklihood the Skilly's will all have 4 brand new bikes soon - but riding them to work wont be a regular occurence. Did I mention we are also the rainiest city in Canada. Have you seen what they pump into those chickens?? They are produced so quickly that there has to be something (chemicals, or something) being done to them. My friends and I have a theory. When we were young there was many *ahem* ahhh curvy women .... now they are developing at 10 or younger.... we blame the chickens Everything gets to Newfoundland by truck and ferry. If it is 20% more in BC, you can bet the farm it is 40-50% more here. So my fruit and vegetable bill would go from 80-100 dollars every 2 weeks to 130-150 dollars. Everything in this world seems to go up except my salary. 7. i think they're assuming skilly that if you set it above 22 then your AC won't kick in until it reaches that point, in our case we have heat only so you're right just turn it off, i already have here in vancouver 
Ahhhhh AC .... in Newfoundland we call that "opening a window" |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2008 9:36:48 GMT -5
Let's understand what the problem is, and what it will REALLY take to fix it, before we go off on our fellow humans. Exactly ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2008 9:37:43 GMT -5
The problem with "scientists" is that they are paid and used to support an agenda. Al Gore is not going to quote a scientist that disagrees with him (such as the Russian scientist who recently stated the world is starting to cool) ..... no one knows who to trust. Why is one scientist more believable than another? Thousands of scientists thought the world was flat, thousands of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth ... but it only took one to prove them wrong. This sounds like an argument against all science. Should we build bridges however we feel like, and ignore what the experts say because they might have been paid off? oo oo oo ... I'm a bridge engineer, know anyone willing to pay me off ?? I need the money to pay for H&Cs organically produced food .. most bridge failures are not due to design, but construction. Those two bridges in Quebec the last few years.... construction. The theories of design are there to over-estimate what is actually needed. Load calculations in bridge design are definite terms ...you can calculate the loads almost precisely. Snow load, earthquake load (if you live on the west coast), wind load, truck load (which is different across Canada) ... all determinable. In climate analysis we have assumptions. Now while it is certainly true that bridge engineers have to make many assumptions during the design process, past practice indicate that these assumptions are good. We have nothing to fall back on in the analysis of climate .... when a climatologist says "The earth is warming here is my proof" and a Russian scientist says "the earth is cooling here is my proof" ... well depended on their agenda a case can be made for both. Other branches of science do not have such a luxury ... a snow load here in Canada is calcualted the same way as in the US. But I digress.... I am not saying all science is bad. I am saying that all science should be subject to questioning. Just because Al Gore says it is happening doesn't mean it is ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2008 10:11:32 GMT -5
Ahhhhh AC .... in Newfoundland we call that "opening a window" And in cheap Ontario. Our house does not have A/C (but we have lots of fans going). We thought about putting it in, but in the back of our minds . . . for those half-dozen "too hot nights" why bother. Always figured that when our furnace broke down we'd "do it all at the same time". December: our furnace is declared heater non grata according to the provincial government. It had been just fine the past 18 years or so. In 2006 it was fine. In April or so of 2007 the government changed the clearance regulations and our exhaust hose (pipe?) became an inch or two outside of guidelines. Technically the tech was supposed to shut of the gas immediately but we managed to put him off until we could get a new furnace installed (Merry Christmas to us; thanks, Dalton). A/C then, right? Wrong. When the furnace regs changed so did the A/C regs, and high end is the only way to go. Hmmmm . . . $3,500 or a few sleepless nights. Easy decision . . . I'll be dusting the fans off soon. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2008 10:18:32 GMT -5
My average grocery bill is about 250 dollars every two weeks. Almost half of that 80-100 dollars is spent on fruits, vegetables and milk. $250 biweekly? How in the world do you do that? That's weekly for me! And we avoid processed food, and don't eat a lot of red meat. It's that Atlantic fish, that's what it is! [and as a former butcher, I'm telling you it ain't just chickens that are being pumped full of steroids chemicals "growth hormones". |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 24, 2008 11:29:49 GMT -5
The last major climate change was 10,000 years ago.
The retreating ice sheet had a red line, two blue lines and a blue maple leaf upon which the last leafs Stanley Cup was won.
|
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Apr 24, 2008 11:52:43 GMT -5
TNG, on H&C's behalf (here I go again, ever searching for middle ground), he is trying to keep this from a global warming climate change discussion (we've had enough of them already!) and merely asking "what can we do personally?". I'd prefer to think that he is not pointing fingers, nor is he patting himself on the back -- just raising an issue -- and possibilities. exactly, thanks franko. some of the things i do now is because of what someone told me or what i read on the internet. all i'm doing is passing on ideas, if you don't want to read them then avoid the thread, it's quite easy. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 24, 2008 13:09:38 GMT -5
Hey, guys....I just got back from taking a Hummer-load of old, broken thermometers down to the river.
What's up?
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2008 13:18:03 GMT -5
This sounds like an argument against all science. Should we build bridges however we feel like, and ignore what the experts say because they might have been paid off? oo oo oo ... I'm a bridge engineer, know anyone willing to pay me off ?? I need the money to pay for H&Cs organically produced food .. most bridge failures are not due to design, but construction. Those two bridges in Quebec the last few years.... construction. The theories of design are there to over-estimate what is actually needed. Load calculations in bridge design are definite terms ...you can calculate the loads almost precisely. Snow load, earthquake load (if you live on the west coast), wind load, truck load (which is different across Canada) ... all determinable. Well, I don't know anything about bridges, but I disagree with you, just because some guy in Russia says you're wrong.  That's an odd thing to say. The "luxury" of multiple viewpoints is common to science in general. The idea of universal agreement among scientists is pretty much a myth. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 24, 2008 13:21:24 GMT -5
This sounds like an argument against all science. Should we build bridges however we feel like, and ignore what the experts say because they might have been paid off? Bridge design is a well established since that has been practiced since the dawn of time. The "science of climate change" is somewhat significantly newer. And we still screw up bridge design, even thousands of years of. Just ask the people of Tacoma. Fine, cancer treatment then. I only picked bridges because it's Skilly's area of expertise. Some people say chemotherapy is a scam and doesn't work. Poisoning your body to kill the cancer? Sounds pretty crazy. Maybe those herbal remedies are a better choice. After all, the science is too young to be believed, so why listen to your doctor? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 24, 2008 13:30:27 GMT -5
Hey, guys....I just got back from taking a Hummer-load of old, broken thermometers down to the river. What's up? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2008 14:49:57 GMT -5
Bridge design is a well established since that has been practiced since the dawn of time. The "science of climate change" is somewhat significantly newer. And we still screw up bridge design, even thousands of years of. Just ask the people of Tacoma. Fine, cancer treatment then. I only picked bridges because it's Skilly's area of expertise. Some people say chemotherapy is a scam and doesn't work. Poisoning your body to kill the cancer? Sounds pretty crazy. Maybe those herbal remedies are a better choice. After all, the science is too young to be believed, so why listen to your doctor? And some people are entitled to their beliefs. But there's one key difference between 'the science of cancer' and 'the science of global warming' (for that matter - they exist between 'the science of bridge building' and 'the science of global warming'). The effects of untreated cancer (and poor bridge building) are clear and readily apparent to the observer. Medical science tends to agree that cancer, left unchecked, leads to death. Even thirty years ago, these medical scientists knew cancer led to death (meanwhile, your much vaunted climatologists were spouting nonsense about global cooling). With that in mind, the poisoning of your own body doesn't sound so bad. Death, or half-killed. Global warming, as I have mentioned several times, is nowhere near as clear cut, at least in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Apr 24, 2008 15:49:34 GMT -5
i wonder what will happen if the majority of enviro scientists are correct in that we are heading towards a tipping point. maybe we should slow down our progress towards the edge of that possibility until then. all of the things that we can do to slow down that "possibility" are positive things for us as humans. walk more drive less, eat less meat aka healthier, conserve power, stop putting chemicals into our bodies or the water. i really don't see how everyone can't do a little bit to make things better, i know since i've become more conscious about things i've also become a lot healthier, even if my effect means nothing to what happens around me i'm healthier for it.
world governments are pretty much unanimously agreeing it is a problem, well the ones that don't put economy before health anyway. why would they all be meeting and signing kyoto and other agreements to cut down on the polluting? i don't get it, i hope they're all wrong i really do.
in the past week i've read stories on:
food shortages worldwide
droughts in many places worldwide
rice increasing in price massively
haitians fleeing their country because of lack of food
overfishing
salmon lice
coral reefs in australia being eaten because of warmer waters (really hope this isn't a natural cycle, i love snorkeling and want to be able to do it with my grandchildren)
oil prices all time high which will contribute to inflation
greenland really is green now and not an ice sheet
if it's us or natural, either way it's going to cost us a lot over the next few decades.
save your pennies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 24, 2008 18:13:51 GMT -5
Just for the record I didn't use the term enviro-nut. Crusading tree-hugger and extremist (probably a bad choice of words - I mean more in terms of extreme and in my opinion often unreasonable lifestyle choices) sure - but never eco-nut. I reserve that term for a special brand of crazy. And in my opinion yes, you are extreme. You advocate changes to lifestyle that are often unattainable, and when people disagree you either don't want to hear about them (as noted in your introduction or you lament widely how the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and the sky is falling and dear god, why won't someone think of the children. Regarding facts about which we have no idea because we're not scientists - I disagree. I'm university educated, and although my major was Computer Science, I have a strong background in Chemistry and Physics (I dumped bio after two courses because looking through microscopes gave me headaches). And math. Lots and lots of math (okay - it helps that my wife is a PhD candidate in the field). I'm not a scientist, but I have an understanding of the basics. And one of the things I do, reflexively, is question what's placed in front of me as the gospel truth. If the world is warming up, why don't the number bear it out (see my comment about the thirties being the warmest decade of the last century - by the by, I noted how it was once thought that the 90's were, but this was due to mathematical errors revealed by an amateur meteorologist from Toronto some time last year. Mathematical errors committed by these so-called infallible scientists). Just because there's a glut of articles out there supporting it does not make it true. Most media present fluff pieces with little or no hard facts, and academia is open to corruption through the need for academic funding (if you're not doing sexy work, you don't get funding). And if the scientists are all always right (and if a glut of article makes facts true) why in the hell aren't we worried about global cooling. Because that was all the rage in the late sixties and early seventies. Ahh TNG, you are just too dumb to understand encrypted Kryptonian science!  We are not scientist....basically, it's the oldest bullsh!t argument in the book. Let's see....I have a Master in Engineering, a couple of patents, several co-patents, people have paid me well into six figures to run their nine figure manufacturing facilities, I build my multi-million dollar operation from scratch based on technology......but I can't possibly understand the "science". Particularly when most of the "science" is based on statistical analysis. Or perhaps I'm not reading the same media baby food articles to be so "understanding". |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2008 20:58:01 GMT -5
My average grocery bill is about 250 dollars every two weeks. Almost half of that 80-100 dollars is spent on fruits, vegetables and milk. $250 biweekly? How in the world do you do that? That's weekly for me! And we avoid processed food, and don't eat a lot of red meat. It's that Atlantic fish, that's what it is! [and as a former butcher, I'm telling you it ain't just chickens that are being pumped full of steroids chemicals "growth hormones". While it is true I could have as much caribou, moose, or fish (cod, mackarel, herring, salmon, trout, etc) that I want (good ol mom!!), I hate that diet. When I calculate my grocery bill franko, I am not including all the little trips my wife makes every two or three days to pick up "extras" ... if I did, I'd be bald and grey (which is right around the corner and I want to hang on to the little hair I have a while longer). My bill is probably more likely around $200 a week .... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2008 21:16:31 GMT -5
i wonder what will happen if the majority of enviro scientists are correct in that we are heading towards a tipping point. maybe we should slow down our progress towards the edge of that possibility until then. all of the things that we can do to slow down that "possibility" are positive things for us as humans. walk more drive less, eat less meat aka healthier, conserve power, stop putting chemicals into our bodies or the water. i really don't see how everyone can't do a little bit to make things better, i know since i've become more conscious about things i've also become a lot healthier, even if my effect means nothing to what happens around me i'm healthier for it. And if they are wrong? Poor get poorer. More homeless people. This is something that needs more analysis, and in my opinion, when we actually determine the cause, then it should be up to governments to shoulder most of the burden ... but that isnt going to happen. But in the meantime, yes ...no one here is suggesting for one second that we shouldn't recycle, or compost, or eat better, or exercise more ... those are all things people can do. But when it comes to forcing people to change their lifes against their will without "proof" it is necessary ... IMO, it is too far. Especially when the leading polluters of the world dont have to do anything. Kyoto is a joke HC. A pure joke ... countries are signing onto it because they dont have to do anything. But the countries that are expected to cut emissions are complaining. China is exempt from it , so of course they are going to sign on ... India, also exempt, so they are going to sign on to it ... So we have to reduce, so they can pollute more!! And send more hazardous toys to our children to be recalled on a daily basis ... how many more Thomas the Train parts am I going to have to send back? What? No stories on the poor baby seals?? Don't get me started on Paul Watson and his propaganda....oh and Greenland was always green. They even have a golf course. (in Nuuk I believe) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 25, 2008 2:03:46 GMT -5
Kyoto is a joke HC. A pure joke ... countries are signing onto it because they dont have to do anything. But the countries that are expected to cut emissions are complaining. China is exempt from it , so of course they are going to sign on ... India, also exempt, so they are going to sign on to it ... So we have to reduce, so they can pollute more!! And send more hazardous toys to our children to be recalled on a daily basis ... how many more Thomas the Train parts am I going to have to send back? I wonder, how many people who support Kyoto have read the text? Never mind understand the implications. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SEVEN COUNTRIES HAVE NO OBLIGATION BEYOND MONITORING AND REPORTING THIER EMMISIONS. In fact, MOST of them are expecting to BENEFIT hugely from HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in carbon trading and technology cost offsets. For those who havn't read the entire text, READ IT, then you will understand that Kyoto is a socialist wet dream masquarading as a "climate" saviour. Here it is.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.htmlUNDESRSTAND THIS..... 10(c) Cooperate in the promotion of effective modalities for the development, application and diffusion of, and take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies, know-how, practices and processes pertinent to climate change, in particular to developing countries, including the formulation of policies and programmes for the effective transfer of environmentally sound technologies that are publicly owned or in the public domain and the creation of an enabling environment for the private sector, to promote and enhance the transfer of, and access to, environmentally sound technologies;
11(b) Also provide such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by the developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs of advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention that are covered by Article 10 and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entity or entities referred to in Article 11 of the Convention, in accordance with that Article.
The implementation of these existing commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of appropriate burden sharing among developed country Parties. The guidance to the entity or entities entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention in relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those agreed before the adoption of this Protocol, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of this paragraph. ~~~~~~~~~~~ For those who support Kyoto, read Article 11. Twice if need be. Communist Manifestos aren't as far left as Article 11. But wait, there is MORE. Kyoto is Phase 1. Future accords was suppose to reach a level where ALL HUMANS had an individually fixed amount a carbon allocations and there would be HEAVY TAXATION an ANY carbon use beyond that. Said taxation MONIES are to be REDISTRIBUTED to those who use "less carbon". In other words, absolute, total, complete world wide socialism under the guise of "climate change responsibility". Of course, the later phases the monies generated is to be handled by that bastion of fairness, equality and incorruptibility, the UN. Those who support the UN's Kyoto accord, tell me again why the vast majority of countries would not agree to UN's Kyoto and it's endless free money from the West? Tell me again how "neutral" the UN's IPCC in it's "climate change findings" and who will benefit from it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 25, 2008 3:04:31 GMT -5
Hey, guys....I just got back from taking a Hummer-load of old, broken thermometers down to the river. What's up? Did you get rid of those barrels we were talking about? Geez, I hope you didn't get any of that green slime on your hands. If you did, check to see if your penis fell off.......  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2008 9:44:25 GMT -5
The "luxury" of multiple viewpoints is common to science in general. The idea of universal agreement among scientists is pretty much a myth. Funny thing is, if anyone happens to disagree with mainstream thought they are branded as junk scientists. From Galileo to "climate change deniers". Seems many people have open minds only as far as their views are accepted. Too bad . . . I'd rather have healthy debate than name-calling [glad we can amicably disagree on this board]. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2008 9:58:34 GMT -5
world governments are pretty much unanimously agreeing it is a problem, well the ones that don't put economy before health anyway. No, you're right . . . world governments are pretty much in agreement that there is a problem. World peoples are not in agreement as to how the problem should be resolved. Wait -- actually they are -- they all say someone else should do it. forgive my cynicism: political expediency, |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 25, 2008 10:02:02 GMT -5
$250 biweekly? How in the world do you do that? That's weekly for me! And we avoid processed food, and don't eat a lot of red meat. It's that Atlantic fish, that's what it is! [and as a former butcher, I'm telling you it ain't just chickens that are being pumped full of steroids chemicals "growth hormones". While it is true I could have as much caribou, moose, or fish (cod, mackarel, herring, salmon, trout, etc) that I want (good ol mom!!), I hate that diet. When I calculate my grocery bill franko, I am not including all the little trips my wife makes every two or three days to pick up "extras" ... if I did, I'd be bald and grey (which is right around the corner and I want to hang on to the little hair I have a while longer). My bill is probably more likely around $200 a week .... Pretty much the same here, Skilly. It's the staples that nickel-and-dime us to oblivion. And my teenager eats a mountain every day. However, I'm glad he likes his fish. Trout, cod and pickerel filets are probably the family faves. And, of course, anything battered. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2008 10:05:41 GMT -5
When I calculate my grocery bill franko, I am not including all the little trips my wife makes every two or three days to pick up "extras" ... Nor am I . . . and the grocery bill goes up during the summer because we eat a lot of fruits and vegetables -- local -- which are often more expensive. Doesn't need to be. Here's the stupidity of governments -- or at least our provincial one [want to cut down on greenhouse gases? get rid of central governmental bureaucracy!]: there is now a centralized system for Ontario-grown fruits and vegetables, in . . . wait for it . . . Toronto. All is trucked to Toronto for redistribution. A local [say] Loblaws/IGA/etc cannot buy fresh produce from a local producer -- Ottawa-area-grown broccoli (for example) is sent to Toronto and then brought back to Ottawa. Cost of grocery store produce includes trucking two ways. |
|
