|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 13:10:10 GMT -5
There are some who seek power. Stand up Stephane Dion. Ok, so he's not doing a very good job of it. But he's using the climate to attack the Conservatives, hoping to make some (any, really) headway against big blue. And here is the Conservative answer:  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 9, 2008 13:23:32 GMT -5
EDIT: I'll try to be clearer. I'm open to distrust the UN and the IPCC, but my rationality dictates that I should at least based it on a plausible scenario about their (dishonest) intents. HA seemed to have a clearer picture than me about these intents/agenda, so I was just asking, what did he perceive they were. I would guess that HA’s agenda claims are based on the IPCC’s own stated agenda to “promote the United Nations development goals.” If you accept the above as being their goal, then everything they do or say should be seen through the filter of that goal. For example, if I make a post on this web site that says “I want Ropoflu to give me money, because I want to buy beer” and then I send you an email message that says “Ropoflu, can you give me money, my aunt is sick” wouldn’t you be a little skeptical? My aunt may indeed be sick, but it seems suspiciously “convenient”, doesn’t it? The following statement, if delivered by an IPCC spokesperson, would be completely in line with IPCC’s UN development goal/agenda: "We want rich nations to give poor nations money, so that the poor nations can develop.” Simple, and to the point. Rich give to poor so poor can be rich too. Is that not the goal of the United Nations development programs? It isn’t to combat global warming; it’s to develop poor nations. But of course rich nations won’t just give money to poor nations for no reason. So if you want to get rich nations to give money to poor nations you have to come up with some reason why, some reason that will allow you to succeed in your agenda of “promoting the United Nations development goals.” Seen in that light, it could be just about anything. Global warming, climate change, white man’s guilt, invasion from outer space. What can we say and do to convince the rich nations to give money to the poor? How do we get from Point A (no money to promote UN development goals) to Point B (rich nations giving us money so we can promote UN development goals) ? There is a wonderful book that I continuously flog on this site, by Josephine Tey, called “The Daughter of Time.” The moral of this story is a simple one, obvious to all, but rarely followed: Know thy author. Who is the writer, why are they writing, who are they writing for, what do they hope to accomplish by their writings. Assume that the IPCC’s main, perhaps only goal, is to “promote UN development goals” and suddenly things like the Kyoto Accord look a lot different. Doesn’t the Kyoto Accord say that rich nations should give money to poor nations? Mission accomplished, right? I’m guessing that is HA’s point about the IPCC and their agenda. Not sure I buy it, but that would be my guess he is trying to say… |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 13:30:56 GMT -5
NOW you asked for it! And i9t'll come, believe me! It's okay. I just need some clarifications before I join the dark side.  |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 13:43:21 GMT -5
EDIT: I'll try to be clearer. I'm open to distrust the UN and the IPCC, but my rationality dictates that I should at least based it on a plausible scenario about their (dishonest) intents. HA seemed to have a clearer picture than me about these intents/agenda, so I was just asking, what did he perceive they were. I would guess that HA’s agenda claims are based on the IPCC’s own stated agenda to “promote the United Nations development goals.” If you accept the above as being their goal, then everything they do or say should be seen through the filter of that goal. For example, if I make a post on this web site that says “I want Ropoflu to give me money, because I want to buy beer” and then I send you an email message that says “Ropoflu, can you give me money, my aunt is sick” wouldn’t you be a little skeptical? My aunt may indeed be sick, but it seems suspiciously “convenient”, doesn’t it? The following statement, if delivered by an IPCC spokesperson, would be completely in line with IPCC’s UN development goal/agenda: "We want rich nations to give poor nations money, so that the poor nations can develop.” Simple, and to the point. Rich give to poor so poor can be rich too. Is that not the goal of the United Nations development programs? It isn’t to combat global warming; it’s to develop poor nations. But of course rich nations won’t just give money to poor nations for no reason. So if you want to get rich nations to give money to poor nations you have to come up with some reason why, some reason that will allow you to succeed in your agenda of “promoting the United Nations development goals.” Seen in that light, it could be just about anything. Global warming, climate change, white man’s guilt, invasion from outer space. What can we say and do to convince the rich nations to give money to the poor? How do we get from Point A (no money to promote UN development goals) to Point B (rich nations giving us money so we can promote UN development goals) ? There is a wonderful book that I continuously flog on this site, by Josephine Tey, called “The Daughter of Time.” The moral of this story is a simple one, obvious to all, but rarely followed: Know thy author. Who is the writer, why are they writing, who are they writing for, what do they hope to accomplish by their writings. Assume that the IPCC’s main, perhaps only goal, is to “promote UN development goals” and suddenly things like the Kyoto Accord look a lot different. Doesn’t the Kyoto Accord say that rich nations should give money to poor nations? Mission accomplished, right? I’m guessing that is HA’s point about the IPCC and their agenda. Not sure I buy it, but that would be my guess he is trying to say… Thanks BadCompany. That kind of clear things up. Looking at the UN website I found out these development goals:  To me, these goals are legitimate and inline with my world view. To use climate change to attain them is not. It'is like shooting yourself in the foot. Not a brilliant strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 9, 2008 13:55:24 GMT -5
Thanks BadCompany. That kind of clear things up. To me, these goals are legitimate and inline with my world view. To use climate change to attain them is not. It'is like shooting yourself in the foot. Not a brilliant strategy. I don't think you will find anybody who doesn't find those goal legitimate, or inline with their world views... but you do have to be careful that you don' t treat people like idiots too, or that you don't cry wolf too many times. You end up hurting yourself (and your worthy goals) a lot more... How AIDS in Africa was overstated"From a research point of view, they've done a pathetic job," said Paul Bennell, a British economist whose studies of the impact of AIDS on African school systems have shown mortality far below what UNAIDS had predicted. "They were not predisposed, let's put it that way, to weigh the counterevidence. They were looking to generate big bucks."... |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 14:30:28 GMT -5
Thanks BadCompany. That kind of clear things up. To me, these goals are legitimate and inline with my world view. To use climate change to attain them is not. It'is like shooting yourself in the foot. Not a brilliant strategy. I don't think you will find anybody who doesn't find those goal legitimate, or inline with their world views... but you do have to be careful that you don' t treat people like idiots too, or that you don't cry wolf too many times. You end up hurting yourself (and your worthy goals) a lot more... How AIDS in Africa was overstated"From a research point of view, they've done a pathetic job," said Paul Bennell, a British economist whose studies of the impact of AIDS on African school systems have shown mortality far below what UNAIDS had predicted. "They were not predisposed, let's put it that way, to weigh the counterevidence. They were looking to generate big bucks."...Well, thanks again. I've read / heard before demonstrating case of failure/incompetence of some UN intervention (it seems to be the case with a lot of large/worldwide organisation - I'm thinking about the World Bank or the IMF). If these exemples of ineffectiveness amount to a level where we shouldn't trust them or where they should be deemed not-legit, that I don't know. I don't follow world politics as much as I should. This is really personal, but I have a feeling that a complete distrust of the UN, will lead me to the same place a distrust of my government sometimes leads me : in a sort of cynical, pessimistic mindset, where few things matters. A mindset, that has me say screw it, I don't care! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 14:57:46 GMT -5
Laudable and legitimate goals indeed. However . . . [and you had to know that was coming] it is one thing to have a stated goal, another thing to have a plan to carry though (how is your sick aunt, anyway?), and another to have a plan that can be agreed upon.
For example, goal 1: reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
Define “hunger”. Does it include me when I miss a meal? I don’t think so (though I’ve claimed to be “starving to death” on more than one occasion).
Define an acceptable plan. An inexpensive way (forgive my crassness) is to let them starve to death. Don’t send any aid to them (according to some of the media it doesn’t make it to them anyway) and their wretched lives will be over sooner (and we won’t have to watch commercials about them any more). I have a feeling that that wouldn’t go over very well . . . but it’s more of a plan than they’ve offered. Of course, they can have meetings in fancy hotels 9ruining the air flying in and having caviar [yes I’m cynical] while the population suffers, but at least they’re talking (with Mugabee? What’s with that?).
But now I’m veering off topic [must be Ryder’s fault] and talking about the UN in general . . . the one who appoints sadistic dictators to head human rights tribunals, and who constantly reprimand and censure Israel as the most terroristic country in the world (followed closely by western nations) while saying nothing against other terror cells.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 9, 2008 15:07:48 GMT -5
GM will stop manufacturing the Hummer.
It will make no difference whatsoever.
More pollution is produced by poor people driving gas guzzling oil exhaust spewing old cars. There are a lot more junkers than Hummers on the road and a lot more poor people than wealthy.
If we don't drill for oil in the arctic and off shore, if we depend on Arab states and Venezuela for our oil, we are doomed for higher prices. Even if all the OPEC nations were our friends (which they certainly arer not) the amount of oil is falling behind world demand. More oil is being pumped than being found. No matter what, the price will go up.
Instead of complaining about the price of gasoline going up, buy shares of Suncor and the great canadian oil sands. Enjoy the rising prices. Windmills, solar panels, ethanol, hybrids, public transit are all small parts of the equation but as they say on "The View", it's like the Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke.
Drilling into the Saudi desert for CHEAP oil is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 17:25:55 GMT -5
If we don't drill for oil in the arctic and off shore, if we depend on Arab states and Venezuela for our oil, we are doomed for higher prices. Even if all the OPEC nations were our friends (which they certainly arer not) the amount of oil is falling behind world demand. More oil is being pumped than being found. No matter what, the price will go up. Comment in one of the papers today: the [US] government blew it. They shoulda put a hefty tax on gas a number of years ago -- they'd have reaped a windfall and it would have encouraged the "drive" to new auto technology. Instead, the Arabs are reaping a windfall and there is now an increased push for new auto technology. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 9, 2008 17:44:45 GMT -5
Laudable and legitimate goals indeed. However . . . [and you had to know that was coming] it is one thing to have a stated goal, another thing to have a plan to carry though (how is your sick aunt, anyway?), and another to have a plan that can be agreed upon. For example, goal 1: reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Define “hunger”. Does it include me when I miss a meal? I don’t think so (though I’ve claimed to be “starving to death” on more than one occasion). Define an acceptable plan. An inexpensive way (forgive my crassness) is to let them starve to death. Don’t send any aid to them (according to some of the media it doesn’t make it to them anyway) and their wretched lives will be over sooner (and we won’t have to watch commercials about them any more). I have a feeling that that wouldn’t go over very well . . . but it’s more of a plan than they’ve offered. Of course, they can have meetings in fancy hotels 9ruining the air flying in and having caviar [yes I’m cynical] while the population suffers, but at least they’re talking (with Mugabee? What’s with that?). But now I’m veering off topic [must be Ryder’s fault] and talking about the UN in general . . . the one who appoints sadistic dictators to head human rights tribunals, and who constantly reprimand and censure Israel as the most terroristic country in the world (followed closely by western nations) while saying nothing against other terror cells. Franko, have you read The White Man's Burden? What you said is a big component of the book, which deals with how money is spent on foreign aid, how it is wasted, and what could be done to cut down on waste. It's clear that the Liberals had no plan to reach the environmental goals (and now, the Conservatives don't have any explicit goal to reach from what I've read). My personal opinion is that we should be trying to find innovative ways to reduce emmisions if we are going to do anything at all. In the big scheme of things, Canada reducing our emissions to the "acceptable levels" doesn't do much of anything when the United States, China, India, and others don't do the same. Come up with new technology and new mtehods and we can not only reduce our emissions, but -sell- the new technologies and methods. That would be far less damaging to the economy and our standard of living, and would have a broader impact than simply reducing our own emissions at any cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 9, 2008 17:53:22 GMT -5
If we don't drill for oil in the arctic and off shore, if we depend on Arab states and Venezuela for our oil, we are doomed for higher prices. Even if all the OPEC nations were our friends (which they certainly arer not) the amount of oil is falling behind world demand. More oil is being pumped than being found. No matter what, the price will go up. Comment in one of the papers today: the [US] government blew it. They shoulda put a hefty tax on gas a number of years ago -- they'd have reaped a windfall and it would have encouraged the "drive" to new auto technology. Instead, the Arabs are reaping a windfall and there is now an increased push for new auto technology. You are absolutely correct, in theory and possibly in practice too. In Europe gasoline is almost twice as expensive as in the US and their cars are half the size. The problem appears to be that Europe is a hell of a lot smaller than the US and Canada. People living 30 miles outside Calgary or St. Louis can not take their bicycle to work the way people in Amsterdam do on their 3km commutes. London and Paris have subways take people to the city center and wherever in the city they live and work. Los Angeles is sprawling with a matrix of commutes developed over the years. I almost annually drive a minivan cross country from LA to New Brunswick. The cost now far exceeds the cost of flying. We are going to have to adapt and make changes to the new reality. Pointing the finger to allocate fault is less productive than working towards new ways to mitigate the oil crisis. Nuclear electric generation and coal gassification are two big opportunities to lower energy costs. Wind generating plants are very capital intensive and have maintenance costs that are too high. Wind must be above a minimum threshold and below the level where damage occurs. Solar farms work from 10am to 2 pm. Each technology contributes a portion to the overall solution but unquestionably, the days of cheap oil are over, even if we drastically reduce consumption with alternatives. Nuclear energy is the cleanest (no CO2 emissions), most reliable (no wind, no rain, no sun) and cost effective (actually some coal burning plants are cheaper over the life of the project but they release tons of CO2). The Canadian Candu reactors reuse spent fuel and produce the least waste of any design. The waste they produce (plutonium) is the most toxic and longest lasting, but could be stored, marked and inventoried with little or no risk of contamination. Building a huge nuclear generating plant in the middle of Nevada, right next to a long term toxic waste storage facility would remove the necessity of transporting spent fuel. Enrichment could take place on site. The electricity generated could be transported via high voltage lines. Canada has a huge supply of oil in the Alberta sands and uranium in Saskatchewan. Why sell it to the US on the cheap? I certainly don't blame the OPEC states for wanting to get full value for their only resource. The problem with the oil sands is it's capital intensive to extract it, harms the environment when mined and uses water resources to extract it in quantity. On the plus side, you don't have to dig exploratory wells to find it, it's right there. If Canada's natural resources are handled properly, within 15 years there will be more successful NHL franchises north of the border than south. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 9, 2008 18:20:56 GMT -5
I would guess that HA’s agenda claims are based on the IPCC’s own stated agenda to “promote the United Nations development goals.” If you accept the above as being their goal, then everything they do or say should be seen through the filter of that goal. For example, if I make a post on this web site that says “I want Ropoflu to give me money, because I want to buy beer” and then I send you an email message that says “Ropoflu, can you give me money, my aunt is sick” wouldn’t you be a little skeptical? My aunt may indeed be sick, but it seems suspiciously “convenient”, doesn’t it? The following statement, if delivered by an IPCC spokesperson, would be completely in line with IPCC’s UN development goal/agenda: "We want rich nations to give poor nations money, so that the poor nations can develop.” Simple, and to the point. Rich give to poor so poor can be rich too. Is that not the goal of the United Nations development programs? It isn’t to combat global warming; it’s to develop poor nations. But of course rich nations won’t just give money to poor nations for no reason. So if you want to get rich nations to give money to poor nations you have to come up with some reason why, some reason that will allow you to succeed in your agenda of “promoting the United Nations development goals.” Seen in that light, it could be just about anything. Global warming, climate change, white man’s guilt, invasion from outer space. What can we say and do to convince the rich nations to give money to the poor? How do we get from Point A (no money to promote UN development goals) to Point B (rich nations giving us money so we can promote UN development goals) ? There is a wonderful book that I continuously flog on this site, by Josephine Tey, called “The Daughter of Time.” The moral of this story is a simple one, obvious to all, but rarely followed: Know thy author. Who is the writer, why are they writing, who are they writing for, what do they hope to accomplish by their writings. Assume that the IPCC’s main, perhaps only goal, is to “promote UN development goals” and suddenly things like the Kyoto Accord look a lot different. Doesn’t the Kyoto Accord say that rich nations should give money to poor nations? Mission accomplished, right? I’m guessing that is HA’s point about the IPCC and their agenda. Not sure I buy it, but that would be my guess he is trying to say… Thanks BadCompany. That kind of clear things up. Looking at the UN website I found out these development goals: To me, these goals are legitimate and inline with my world view. To use climate change to attain them is not. It'is like shooting yourself in the foot. Not a brilliant strategy. Goal 1. Reduce by half the population of the world. Then reduce it by half again. Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education in your own country. When that is achieved you can consider helping others. Goal 3. Promote gender equity. I'm not sure to what extent we can force others to adopt our religeous world view on this matter. In principal there should be no descrimination for sex or race, but if Hindu's believe in a caste system or the Taliban has it's own view of gender equity , I'm not sure we can interfere with consenting adults. I personally object to Title Nine. Goal 4. Reduce Child mortality?? If Etheopians are starving in a drought stricken desert and they choose to continue having families of 5+, I'm not sure it's my responsibility to feed them. If I take responsibility for their welfare, them I also must have a say in the way they run their family. It's a big step to become the protector of the world and assume we know what's better for everyone in the world. Goal 5. Improve maternal health. I have seen intellectually challenged mothers with multiple children on welfare using and abusing drugs. We doctor them, fix them up, clean them up and put them back on the street to have another crack baby. Does that get us further ahead? Goal 6. Combatting disease has the effect of increasing the population of the world. Developed countries are swamped with refugees from underdeveloped countries seeking a better life. I feel sorry for them but we need to properly care for our own before we try to fix the world. In many ways we and the world would be far better off with fewer humans in the heard competing for the limited resources of the world. Goal 7. Improve the envoronment. Can't argue here with the goal, but reducing the earths human population is the biggest single step in this direction. I know that when I read this I start to sound like part of Hitler's Aryan henchmen. I don't take this position lightly. A farmer has to limit the size of his herd to the land, water and food available. The planet is no different. Right now parts of the world look more like a feedlot than a pastoral free range ranch. Goal 8. Develop a global partnership. This is a problem when we have tried to manage our population growtha and successfully educated our citizens. We are like the ants. The grasshoppers are multiplying like a swarm of locusts and will eventually devour the crops we grow. Then we all starve. I don't like to be the bad guy and coerse the rest of the world to follow my plan, but I don't like bailing the rest of the world out when they are screwing themselves up. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 19:31:35 GMT -5
I keep reading that the US actually hs decreased emissions in the past 5 years. One day I'll have to pay attention and note who and where.
If it's tru, why aren't we hearing it bigger time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 9, 2008 20:00:35 GMT -5
Thanks BC, I repeated myself several times and I thought I was clear about my distrust about the IPCC and their agenda. You said something about Gainey a couple of times. You said that it was very easy for you to read him because all you had to do was just listen to what he said and leave all the noise behind. I did EXACTLY the same thing with the IPCC/Global Warming/UN/Kyoto. I just read what they wrote. It couldn't be much clearer. Here is some more PROOF of the Kyoto accord agenda.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)...they couch it in bullsh!t language but it basically means that you "buy" carbon credit and the money goes to financing energy projects in third world countries......or more likely, guns and corruption. unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php Here is a simpler Wiki explanation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Emissions Trading .....here is what they say on their site.... Emissions trading, as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have emission units to spare (third world countries)- emissions permitted them but not "used" - to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets. (those rich Western b*st*rds)Does anyone really need an explanation for this? If this is not "give me your money" agenda then I am from Mars. unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joint Implementation.......from their site.... Joint implementation offers Parties a flexible and cost-efficient means of fulfilling a part of their Kyoto commitments, while the host Party benefits from foreign investment and technology transfer. Does the above need any explanation? unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/joint_implementation/items/1674.php~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE IS ABOUT MASSIVE WEALTH TRANSFER. Sorry for the capitals but it's getting fustrating how blunt and open this manipulation is and how the media deliberatly overlooks it........and the masses are so oblivious to it. Does anyone still thinks that it's about "global warming" or "climate change"? By deliberatly picking CO2 as a cuplrit, it allows total control of oil and coal usage. Since the Western Economies economic foundation is based on those products, it was an absolutely BRILLIANT choice in order to control and manipulate the West and their masses. It gets better..... The politicians are smart enough to see through it but it offers them a fantastic taxing opportunity. I am not talking about a simple tax here and there, I am talking about economy wide tax that they can use and abuse as they wish. By srrrounding it in morality (end of the earth, climate criminal), they can tax at will and with impunity. More of the same.... The left doesn't have to lift a finger to enjoy their socialist agenda. The UN has already done the heavy lifting with their carbon trading schemes for the third world and the politicians are taking as much tax money as they want for whatever pet project suits their fixations. More garbage.....every single social ill has a global warming solution. Are you losing your job? The "green" technology will get you a better paying job. Franko already put this bullsh!t in perspective. Are you poor? No problem, global warming taxation will redistribute wealth from those carbon sucking rich people to your pocket. Sure it will, the rich will insulate their homes, buy smaller cars, charge more for their services and what will the poor do? Get POORER .... Has your job gone overseas? No problem, we will tax those foreign b*st*rds for their evil carbon using ways and you will get your job back. Did anybody mention trade wars and how destructive they will be to our economy? ALL economies? Are you idealistic? Is there a better cause then saving the planet? No idealist can possibly miss this gross empowering of their idealism. Just as long as they don't tax cell phones, ipods, bicycles...and THIER future. Global warming/climate change? Or the biggest manipulation in the history of man? Show me the TRUE science because right now, it's nothing more then an agenda driven manipulation wrapped up in hysteria. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 10, 2008 5:52:30 GMT -5
Thanks for that extensive response HA.
That furher explains your position.
I might reply with something on my one about the UN and IPCC, but it won't be before next week (too busy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 10, 2008 6:52:19 GMT -5
Goal 1. Reduce by half the population of the world. Then reduce it by half again. Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education in your own country. When that is achieved you can consider helping others. Goal 3. Promote gender equity. I'm not sure to what extent we can force others to adopt our religeous world view on this matter. In principal there should be no descrimination for sex or race, but if Hindu's believe in a caste system or the Taliban has it's own view of gender equity , I'm not sure we can interfere with consenting adults. I personally object to Title Nine. Goal 4. Reduce Child mortality?? If Etheopians are starving in a drought stricken desert and they choose to continue having families of 5+, I'm not sure it's my responsibility to feed them. If I take responsibility for their welfare, them I also must have a say in the way they run their family. It's a big step to become the protector of the world and assume we know what's better for everyone in the world. Goal 5. Improve maternal health. I have seen intellectually challenged mothers with multiple children on welfare using and abusing drugs. We doctor them, fix them up, clean them up and put them back on the street to have another crack baby. Does that get us further ahead? Goal 6. Combatting disease has the effect of increasing the population of the world. Developed countries are swamped with refugees from underdeveloped countries seeking a better life. I feel sorry for them but we need to properly care for our own before we try to fix the world. In many ways we and the world would be far better off with fewer humans in the heard competing for the limited resources of the world. Goal 7. Improve the envoronment. Can't argue here with the goal, but reducing the earths human population is the biggest single step in this direction. I know that when I read this I start to sound like part of Hitler's Aryan henchmen. I don't take this position lightly. A farmer has to limit the size of his herd to the land, water and food available. The planet is no different. Right now parts of the world look more like a feedlot than a pastoral free range ranch. Goal 8. Develop a global partnership. This is a problem when we have tried to manage our population growtha and successfully educated our citizens. We are like the ants. The grasshoppers are multiplying like a swarm of locusts and will eventually devour the crops we grow. Then we all starve. I don't like to be the bad guy and coerse the rest of the world to follow my plan, but I don't like bailing the rest of the world out when they are screwing themselves up. Most of this post is about reducing population. But how? China has taken a huge step in this by limiting families to one child .... but how many other countries have the "big brass ones" to implement this? Looking at the Western World. Well the United States of America is 9.8 million square kilometers in area (that's 3.8 million square miles for our American friends). They have a population of 301 million as of July 2007 (which is low in my mind .... I've always thought that the US population was over 350 million ... ). Canada is 10 million square kilometers in area. The population of Canada is 33 million as of July 2007. So should Canada start trading "pop"-ulation (  - you like that, came up with it all on my own) credits" to the United States? Sure it is one thing to compare to Mexico - 108 million living in 2 million square kilometers - or China - 1.3 billion living in 9.6 million square kilometers ..... but what is the benchmark for an acceptable population? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 10, 2008 8:04:28 GMT -5
Thanks for that extensive response HA. That furher explains your position. I might reply with something on my one about the UN and IPCC, but it won't be before next week (too busy). No problem. Anytime you want me to corrupt your mind, I'm here.  Just to prove that I am not just another pretty face and sexy legs, I am trying to find research in earth core temperture transfer. Something in my gut tells me that there is a very direct correlation between heat transfer from the core through the oceans. Change in ocean tempertures and currents would also massivly affect the CO2 atmospheric contend, particularly since there is a big difference in the ratio between the two (50-60 to 1). The problem is....filtering through the BS that is posted on the net. Some of those scientist who are on realclimate can really help, but I also have to take into account human nature. If my pet theory has any legs, it would crush the "human cause" part of it and helping me further this would be against their interests. It may be very hard for some of them to abandon what empowers them. Here is a site that goes into that direction on the subject but is pure anti global warming with NO scientific backing. nov55.com/gbwm.html |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 10, 2008 8:38:14 GMT -5
Thanks TNG. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, none of your examples are dominant figure/ or even part of the UN and/or IPCC. I know, there are profiteers and opportunists exploiting environemental issues everywhere, and their goals are quite clear/obvious to me. The higher profile ones I mentioned - yes, they are not directly involved with the UN/IPCC (except maybe Dr. Suzuki, who may have some standing with those organizations - I don't know for certain). However they were examples. Big glaring obvious examples. As you said, you know there are profiteers exploiting environmental issues everywhere. Rationality and logic dictates that they exist in (roughly the same proportions) within the organization. Anyways - I went away for a little while and this thread seems to have moved on pretty well, so I won't comment further. Just wanted to clarify that. (Oh, and to Franko - no one said the conservatives were doing any better, but at least their scare tactics are based on facts - the Liberal party does want to increase taxes on just about everything, including gasoline) |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 10, 2008 11:24:55 GMT -5
Goal 1. Reduce by half the population of the world. Then reduce it by half again. Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education in your own country. When that is achieved you can consider helping others. Goal 3. Promote gender equity. I'm not sure to what extent we can force others to adopt our religeous world view on this matter. In principal there should be no descrimination for sex or race, but if Hindu's believe in a caste system or the Taliban has it's own view of gender equity , I'm not sure we can interfere with consenting adults. I personally object to Title Nine. Goal 4. Reduce Child mortality?? If Etheopians are starving in a drought stricken desert and they choose to continue having families of 5+, I'm not sure it's my responsibility to feed them. If I take responsibility for their welfare, them I also must have a say in the way they run their family. It's a big step to become the protector of the world and assume we know what's better for everyone in the world. Goal 5. Improve maternal health. I have seen intellectually challenged mothers with multiple children on welfare using and abusing drugs. We doctor them, fix them up, clean them up and put them back on the street to have another crack baby. Does that get us further ahead? Goal 6. Combatting disease has the effect of increasing the population of the world. Developed countries are swamped with refugees from underdeveloped countries seeking a better life. I feel sorry for them but we need to properly care for our own before we try to fix the world. In many ways we and the world would be far better off with fewer humans in the heard competing for the limited resources of the world. Goal 7. Improve the envoronment. Can't argue here with the goal, but reducing the earths human population is the biggest single step in this direction. I know that when I read this I start to sound like part of Hitler's Aryan henchmen. I don't take this position lightly. A farmer has to limit the size of his herd to the land, water and food available. The planet is no different. Right now parts of the world look more like a feedlot than a pastoral free range ranch. Goal 8. Develop a global partnership. This is a problem when we have tried to manage our population growtha and successfully educated our citizens. We are like the ants. The grasshoppers are multiplying like a swarm of locusts and will eventually devour the crops we grow. Then we all starve. I don't like to be the bad guy and coerse the rest of the world to follow my plan, but I don't like bailing the rest of the world out when they are screwing themselves up. Most of this post is about reducing population. But how? China has taken a huge step in this by limiting families to one child .... but how many other countries have the "big brass ones" to implement this? Looking at the Western World. Well the United States of America is 9.8 million square kilometers in area (that's 3.8 million square miles for our American friends). They have a population of 301 million as of July 2007 (which is low in my mind .... I've always thought that the US population was over 350 million ... ). Canada is 10 million square kilometers in area. The population of Canada is 33 million as of July 2007. So should Canada start trading "pop"-ulation ( - you like that, came up with it all on my own) credits" to the United States? Sure it is one thing to compare to Mexico - 108 million living in 2 million square kilometers - or China - 1.3 billion living in 9.6 million square kilometers ..... but what is the benchmark for an acceptable population? Calculating people per square kilometer or square foot in often meaningless. Newfoundland has lots of empty square miles (if you don't count bears, trees and moose). You could cut some of those trees and buils settlements inland or along the coast and fill the houses with Philipinos and Eritrians, but it won't put more cod in the ocean for them to catch or more trees for them to cut. The population of Newfoundland would go up by ten million, but the quality of life would drop. (on the positive side, St. John's might get an NHL franchise, but it's a big price to pay) Much of the western US is arid desert. There is enough land to put up tents, but not enough water to irrigate the land. California is already rationing water without adding more people. Much of Canada is frigid tundra that would make the immigrants long for the warm refugee camps in Gaza. It's not so much about the number of homosapiens we can crowd onto the fragile blue planet, it's about the quality of life for them. When we feel good about sending grain to feed starving people throughout the world we are just postponing their hunger another day week or year. Sending them medicine keeps them alive and ensures that they will have more children. Time to close our borders to the throngs of immigrants and worry about feeding and clothing ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 10, 2008 13:25:30 GMT -5
Most of this post is about reducing population. But how? China has taken a huge step in this by limiting families to one child .... but how many other countries have the "big brass ones" to implement this? Looking at the Western World. Well the United States of America is 9.8 million square kilometers in area (that's 3.8 million square miles for our American friends). They have a population of 301 million as of July 2007 (which is low in my mind .... I've always thought that the US population was over 350 million ... ). Canada is 10 million square kilometers in area. The population of Canada is 33 million as of July 2007. So should Canada start trading "pop"-ulation ( - you like that, came up with it all on my own) credits" to the United States? Sure it is one thing to compare to Mexico - 108 million living in 2 million square kilometers - or China - 1.3 billion living in 9.6 million square kilometers ..... but what is the benchmark for an acceptable population? Calculating people per square kilometer or square foot in often meaningless. Newfoundland has lots of empty square miles (if you don't count bears, trees and moose). You could cut some of those trees and buils settlements inland or along the coast and fill the houses with Philipinos and Eritrians, but it won't put more cod in the ocean for them to catch or more trees for them to cut. The population of Newfoundland would go up by ten million, but the quality of life would drop. (on the positive side, St. John's might get an NHL franchise, but it's a big price to pay) Much of the western US is arid desert. There is enough land to put up tents, but not enough water to irrigate the land. California is already rationing water without adding more people. Much of Canada is frigid tundra that would make the immigrants long for the warm refugee camps in Gaza. It's not so much about the number of homosapiens we can crowd onto the fragile blue planet, it's about the quality of life for them. When we feel good about sending grain to feed starving people throughout the world we are just postponing their hunger another day week or year. Sending them medicine keeps them alive and ensures that they will have more children. Time to close our borders to the throngs of immigrants and worry about feeding and clothing ourselves.Except that Canada's population doesn't actually sustain itself. The mean family size as of a few years ago (source required) was like 3.7 or 3.8 (i.e. a shortfall in child reproduction). So the GDP will stagnate (and eventually diminish) without immigrant workers, which means the currency tanks, which means we can't afford to purchase imported goods, so we go back to having to produce and consume our own goods at higher costs, so we can buy significantly less consumables, which means the quality of life has diminished. You think decreasing the population/closing the borders will improve quality of life in Canada, when economic theory actually predicts otherwise. But I guess we'll have lots of land to build our shanties on. Human population is a worldwide problem, and closing the borders doesn't solve anything. Even if we were somehow able to be sustainable at a reasonable quality of life as a closed-off nation, eventually it comes to a head when the populated nations of the world combine to come take our land so they have room for their expanding populations. I'm obviously looking several hundred years into the future, but that's required when dealing with a problem like overpopulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 10, 2008 19:49:58 GMT -5
Here is something and tell me if it sounds vaguely familiar....
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 as a permanent intergovernmental body, UNCTAD is the principal organ of the United Nations General Assembly dealing with trade, investment and development issues.
The organization's goals are to "maximize" the trade, investment and development opportunities of developing countries and assist them in their efforts to integrate into the world economy on an equitable basis." (from official website). The creation of the conference was based on concerns of developing countries over the international market, multi-national corporations, and great disparity between developed nations and developing nations.It went nowhere for 40 year.....nobody cared.....then came the increadably convinient carbon Apocalypse. I can almost get religious how this increadable carbon problem overcame us and how it can be solvedby buying carbon credits from third world countries. Better yet, we must all be good suckers socialist and share carbon use EQUALLY with our fellow tribesman. If you can't, SEND MONEY. If I sat in a box for a thousand years, I couldn't make these things up.....not even a world renown conspiracy meister like BC could make this up ..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_Trade_and_Development |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 22, 2008 10:41:31 GMT -5
Reading this is like re-reading everything I have said a hundred times in a hundred different way in two languages.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/06/22/5953001-sun.php~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Over the past 18 months I've written scores of columns on global warming.
I've read nine books on the subject so far (six by authors supporting the theory of man-made global warming and the Kyoto accord, three by skeptics).
I've watched three documentaries, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and two by skeptics.
I've read hundreds of articles and now spend at least two to four hours each week researching this issue alone.
The best journalism, pro and con, is coming out of the United Kingdom and Europe, where carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are already adversely affecting millions of people because of skyrocketing energy prices.
When Stephane Dion or the David Suzuki Foundation or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy put out a paper advocating carbon pricing, I don't read their press releases. I read their papers. I would recommend this technique to more journalists. (Bingo...this is where the bullsh!t gets exposed...but the sheep are too lazy to read the fine print. )
I'm not an expert. But I am an engaged lay person who now knows enough that I can tell when someone is bullsh****** us.
Here's what I've figured out so far.
First, Canadians care about this issue, passionately. I've never had as strong a response from readers as I've had to these columns in more than 20 years of column-writing.
Second, most politicians, regardless of party, don't know what they're talking about.
They don't understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or what is known with confidence and what isn't.
They don't know the difference between the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
They don't realize the economic dislocation involved in moving from a carbon-based to a carbon-free economy.
Most care about the issue only in so far as it can help them get elected, which, given the implications and what's at stake for ordinary citizens, is recklessly irresponsible.
Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says.
Economic treaty
They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty.
Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise.
Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon.
That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.
The main drivers of Kyoto were, ironically, the U.K. and Europe, along with the developing world, led by China, now the world's largest GHG emitter.
Last year, China alone, exempt from reducing its own GHG emissions, was responsible for two-thirds of the total global increase in these emissions, although its per capita emissions remain well below that of the United States, the second-largest emitter.
In any event, the developing world, the U.K. and Europe each saw in Kyoto (although it's now backfiring on the U.K. and Europe) not a way to save the planet, but to hobble the U.S. economy to their advantage. (AND Canada economy. Oops, what am I talking about, Suzuki said their will be a quarter of million jobs if we go "green". A number he pulled out of his a$$ with absolutely no economic foundation. Then again, when does BS need any foundation? )
For the developing world, Kyoto, if ratified by the U.S., would place severe restrictions on American industrial activity from which developing nations are exempt. (And Canadian activity)
Europe and the U.K. crafted Kyoto to give them an undeserved economic advantage over the U.S.
The key was the retroactive selection of 1990 as the base year to reduce carbon emissions for 37 developed countries, including us, as opposed to 143 nations required to do nothing.
Base year
By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its carbon emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by it. It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.
The selection of 1990 also gave an undeserved bonus to the U.K., which was moving, for reasons unrelated to Kyoto, from coal to natural gas as an energy source, which emits less GHG than coal.
The Americans, wisely, refused to ratify Kyoto, even when Gore was their VP and lobbying for it.
Unfortunately, we did, either because the previous Liberal government didn't understand that the economic penalties Kyoto aimed at the U.S. would also apply to us, or because Jean Chretien, in his rush to craft himself an environmental legacy, didn't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 15, 2008 12:15:21 GMT -5
I think I liked UberCranky more than MildlyCranky. I want Uber back! Global warming could cause rise in kidney stones: studyCanadian Press Some say passing a kidney stone is the closest men will ever come to experiencing the pain of childbirth, and a study released Monday suggests the excruciating experience may become more common with climate change.
Researchers at the University of Texas believe cases of kidney stones could increase by as much as 30 per cent in some regions of the United States by 2050 if temperature increases predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change play out.Feeling hot, hot, hotOn the other hand, we may not have to worry so much about hurricanes, as the lead scienctist on "global warming will increase hurricane intensity" bandwagon is suddenly a little bit sceptical about his own theory... Hurricane, warming link challenged'Real conundrum'. Scientist refutes his own theory in new study
CURTIS KRUEGER, St. Petersburg Times
In Al Gore's Nobel-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth, hurricanes became symbols of the danger of global warming.
The reality is more complicated.
Scientists are locked in debate about whether global warming is spiking the intensity of hurricanes. Even those who agree that humans are causing global warming disagree about whether it is making hurricanes worse.
Leading experts are changing their findings. Climatologists desperate for clues are boring holes along Florida's coastline, trying to discern from grains of sand how many tropical storms pounded our shores in past centuries.
Amid the whirlwind of debate, most scientists agree on the most urgent hurricane threat. And it's not global warming.Arr, she blows! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 15, 2008 13:53:39 GMT -5
Kidney-stone belt? I'd be checking the belt sizes (i.e. diets) of the population of the Southeast U.S. To prevent uric acid stones (the kind I had twice...man...like somebody shoving a knife in my back and twisting it down into my groin).....the doctor told me to drink plenty of water and to avoid deep-fried foods, too much meat, and beer (alcohol)....and I'm in good shape. No problem with staying away from deep-fried crap and too much meat....but beer and wine...well, there's water in there, isn't there?  Now...deep-fried foods, meat, and beer....does that sound like the diet of the majority of North Americans...especially in the deep South....or what? Sounds like a grocery list. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 15, 2008 14:06:12 GMT -5
Now...deep-fried foods, meat, and beer....does that sound like the diet of the majority of North Americans...especially in the deep South....or what? Sounds like a grocery list. Hello ... did someone mention beer ... ... more meat please. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 15, 2008 14:18:54 GMT -5
Now...deep-fried foods, meat, and beer.... Uh oh....i feel a "baby" comin'. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 16, 2008 8:49:31 GMT -5
Now...deep-fried foods, meat, and beer.... Uh oh....i feel a "baby" comin'. ;D When I went to emerg with my first kidney stone, the nurse said, "I've had three babies and one kidney stone, and I'd rather have three more babies than another one of those." Even though I find that hard to believe....I'm glad my wife was there when the nurse said it. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 16, 2008 12:54:03 GMT -5
Calculating people per square kilometer or square foot in often meaningless. Newfoundland has lots of empty square miles (if you don't count bears, trees and moose). You could cut some of those trees and buils settlements inland or along the coast and fill the houses with Philipinos and Eritrians, but it won't put more cod in the ocean for them to catch or more trees for them to cut. The population of Newfoundland would go up by ten million, but the quality of life would drop. (on the positive side, St. John's might get an NHL franchise, but it's a big price to pay) Much of the western US is arid desert. There is enough land to put up tents, but not enough water to irrigate the land. California is already rationing water without adding more people. Much of Canada is frigid tundra that would make the immigrants long for the warm refugee camps in Gaza. It's not so much about the number of homosapiens we can crowd onto the fragile blue planet, it's about the quality of life for them. When we feel good about sending grain to feed starving people throughout the world we are just postponing their hunger another day week or year. Sending them medicine keeps them alive and ensures that they will have more children. Time to close our borders to the throngs of immigrants and worry about feeding and clothing ourselves.Except that Canada's population doesn't actually sustain itself. The mean family size as of a few years ago (source required) was like 3.7 or 3.8 (i.e. a shortfall in child reproduction). So the GDP will stagnate (and eventually diminish) without immigrant workers, which means the currency tanks, which means we can't afford to purchase imported goods, so we go back to having to produce and consume our own goods at higher costs, so we can buy significantly less consumables, which means the quality of life has diminished. You think decreasing the population/closing the borders will improve quality of life in Canada, when economic theory actually predicts otherwise. But I guess we'll have lots of land to build our shanties on. Human population is a worldwide problem, and closing the borders doesn't solve anything. Even if we were somehow able to be sustainable at a reasonable quality of life as a closed-off nation, eventually it comes to a head when the populated nations of the world combine to come take our land so they have room for their expanding populations. I'm obviously looking several hundred years into the future, but that's required when dealing with a problem like overpopulation. Population not sustaining itself is a good thing. It means that if we stop accepting immigrants from irresponsible countries with rampaging population growth, there will be more oil, grass, trees left for the rest of us. We need to learn to embrace quality life and not growth for growth sake. We should emulate toe North Atlantic cod population. Family size of 3.8 means little in Orange County California. When I attend PTA meetings most kids have 3.8 parents from 7.6 previous marriages. For the first time, considering the out of control population explosion, I see the good side of homosexuality. While closing borders doesn't change the over supply of humans on the planet, I have no sympathy for the starving in Ethiopia, unemployed in Mexico or uneducated in Pakistan. We are so anxious to blame the US for the problems of the world when in reality everyone is responsible for the problems in their own country. Within our own borders I object to feeding the children of welfare mothers when I know I was not the one who got them pregnant. People must take responsibility for their own condition. All too often, charity solves the problem of hunger today and exascerbates toe problem of hunger tomorrow. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and there won't be enough cod tomorrow."Mildly Cranky Hab's fan in LA  |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 16, 2008 14:28:23 GMT -5
in reality everyone is responsible for the problems in their own country Hey! What the hell did I do? Or perhaps I should be asking, "what the hell didn't I do?" |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 16, 2008 15:51:00 GMT -5
in reality everyone is responsible for the problems in their own country Hey! What the hell did I do? Or perhaps I should be asking, "what the hell didn't I do?" The penalty for not being involved in your government is being ruled by those inferior to yourself. Like I told my son who was involved in a traffic accident that was not his fault, "if you were driving defensively, it might not have happened." When the teacher gives the class a particularly difficult exam, "if you had studied all the chapters you would have done better." When the team plays hard and still loses by a flukey bounces (Mtl. vs Phila.), "games are won and lost in the training room and on the practice rink." Complaining is like King Canute telling the tide not to come in. (not sure what you did or didn't do?) |
|
- you like that, came up with it all on my own) credits" to the United States? 
