August 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

The Shotgun Blog

« Time To Bomb Iran | Main | And Then They Came for Mark Steyn… »

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Climate Change: The Truth

Once the left gets confident, they tend to let the mask slip. Nowhere is this clearer than in this little piece in the Guardian by Nicholas Stern.

His prescription for the West - pay, pay, and then pay again. Pay by taking an economic hit and bearing the lion's share of reductions. Pay for poor nations to reduce their emissions. Then pay again, to aid the Third World.

That's the real scheme here. That's the fundamental assumption of Kyoto and everything else.

Interestingly, Stern also admits - albiet without thinking through the implications - something which I've touched on in the past.

"Our starting point," he writes, "is deeply inequitable with poor countries certain to be hit earliest and hardest by climate change."

Indeed, that's the fundamental truth here. Even if the predictions of the climate fear-mongers turn out to be the truth, the other truth is that the facts of life in this planet mean that not only will Global Warming barely effect most of us in the upper reaches of the Northern Hemisphere but, in a lot of cases, it would be actually be a positive thing.

I point you to this facinating article from the Atlantic Monthly earlier this year. "Global Warming - Who Loses and Who Wins?" This is a vital point. There are few games where everyone loses. If the Earth gets a few degrees warmer over the next century, who wins?

The likely answer - The West wins. Indeed, a climate shift might well prove to be the West's salvation, for all of its folly. For God's sake, people, I live in British Columbia - an area roughtly the size of the whole West Coast of the United States - which has fewer than five million people living in it because the climate of large regions of the province is fairly immoderate.

Come on people - we're living in Canada here. Is there any Earthly reason why the idea of the world getting slightly warmer ought to concern us? At least three-fourths of the country is frozen right now.

A moderate warming could make all sorts of land open to development and exploitation. It would send crop yields in various areas through the roof.

This is an important point to remember in this climate debate because, in essence, we are being asked to actively harm ourselves to stop something which might not even exist and which, if it actually does come to pass, will probably be to our benefit.

Posted by Yoshi on December 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/23845416

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Climate Change: The Truth:

Comments

Posted by Yoshi on December 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics

Sure it's on the CBC and those pesky Scientist came up with this, but Quirks & Quarks last week asked exactly that queston:

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov24.html

And the answers aren't all as shiny as you make it out to be.

I am sure Ezra can get you someone Scientist who will call of their assements a lie and tell you that you'll be sipping Magarithas on Wreck Beach in 30 years.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 1:33:54 AM

A cbc production is your reference?
That says it all.

Posted by: orvict | 1-Dec-07 2:19:58 AM

A cbc production is your reference?
That says it all.

Posted by: orvict | 1-Dec-07 2:19:58 AM

Yes I know, Scientists, CBC, non "conserviate" politicans, are all evil doers that want to enslave the world, putting their pinky to their face and laugh.

Hence why I said I am sure Yoshi, obc or Ezra can find a "scientist" who will say it's all just panic and Yoshi will sit on Wreck Beach, drinking alcoholic beverages in the shade of palm trees.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 3:37:46 AM

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/national/11114421.html

"Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming A 'Scam'"

When John Coleman founded The Weather Channel in the early 1980's, he probably never could have guessed that TWC would be promoting the theory of global warming in the 2000's.

That's because Coleman doesn't believe in global warming, or so-called climate change. In a November 7 blog entry on icecap.us, Coleman makes it clear that he does not oppose environmentalism, but he says that global warming is a "non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam."

"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct," Coleman wrote.

"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

BUT YELLOW SNOW only accepts CBC vetted sources. Typical Leftoid.

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 7:22:42 AM

Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long.

~ Ogden Nash

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 7:27:22 AM

http://tinyurl.com/3yrkao

Coldest winter in years, Environment Canada warns

So much for this global warming hoax.

The CBC is simply not to be believed. It is the propaganda arm of the Liebral/Dipper/Green Party and has a vested interest in spreading the "climate change" hoax. That party is openly controlled by the auto industry of Ontario, which has been exempted from Kyoto. This blatant hypocrisy and self-interest has rendered the CBC a sad joke of a network. The only logical fate for it is destruction. The CBC has also been involved in Holocaust denial, and defends the attempts to segregate Ontario into white and non-white sections. It must never be taken seriously ever again. I encourage Albertans to refuse the CBC at every turn.

In any case, all the science in the world can't save Kyoto.

What will Canada look like in 2050? Much like the way it was in 1950 - rich Ontario, poor everyone else.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 8:00:15 AM

The objective with Kyoto has always been redistribution, this is not news.
Kyoto does nothing to change the climate.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 1-Dec-07 8:02:15 AM

It would be nice if the west could get away scot free but the best guess is nope, - we aren't. Biggest hit might be the crop failures due to the melting of the mountain glaciers - currently the glaciers are built up in the winter and during summer melting provide water during the dry summer months. It's expected that this effect will stop, so we get wet winters and arid summers - drought is never too good for crops. Other hit might be the failure of California as a food producer due to very dry conditions, anyway, big bucks for food coming up! All could be fixed of course by maybe redirecting the McKenzie or some large river down south - but pretty expensive - and the whole thing is how to keep going in a good style as cheaply as possible - climate change is going to be very expensive, from increased insurance for us all, to some bleeding hearts insisting we send big aid to those folks displaced and starving from its effects, to increased military costs to try and keep "our" now accessible north. Best and cheapest way to go is prevention.

Posted by: Dave | 1-Dec-07 8:32:23 AM

"climate change is going to be very expensive"

. . . but only to those developed countries that believe this crapola. China & India, for example, are exempt from Kyoto - although China is the world's leading polluter.

This is a wealth distribution scheme dreamed up by socialist/commies to weaken the West - pure & simple.

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 8:42:53 AM

Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with humans Dave.

Get off the Gore propaganda.

New paper out the other day suggests it is actually cooling.

Either way, what do you propose we do?

Posted by: deepblue | 1-Dec-07 8:42:59 AM

Again, we are dealing with politics here not science.

Even if AGW were a reality do you really believe the climate can be taxed into change???...get a grip...when the politics of alarm send politicians out with pleas to open pocket books to solve some imminent danger, you can be assured the only "danger" they are soliciting for is the "danger" they will run short of public funds to pay for their retirement in some tropical spa.

Kyoto-AGW alarm politics should get the middle finger from the middle class.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 1-Dec-07 8:47:07 AM

If the environmentalists were serious about battling climate change they would

1) stop using it as an anti-capitalist critique of modern civilization. In other words, stop pointing out problems and come up with solutions.

2) demand a retraction of the exemptions given to Ontario's auto industry. Not only do these exemptions weaken any climate change effort, their seeming acceptance of it makes the environmentalists look corrupt at best and stupid at worst.

3) Stop scaremongering. it doesn't work.

4) Admit that the marketplace will help climate change more than excessive taxation could. It will attract more people than it would repel. Raising taxes also weakens political support. It would be easy in a Fascist or Communist state (not that either ever cared for the planet) but we live in a democracy with human rights. Get used to it. At the least, live up to your own propaganda.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 8:50:45 AM

Hey Dave;

A couple of your comments caught my eye. How do we redirect the MacKenzie River? Comments like this are a good example of the misunderstanding of human capabilities. I don't think Mohammed himself could move that mountain. Maybe while we're at it we could take some D9's and level those damn Rockies and plant soybeans.

The old guys always told me "you can't control the weather", and they were right. If you remember the 70's after the Apollo Missions, we all believed that robots would be doing our housework by now. Atomic powered flying cars would carry us over the traffic jams. Now the bulk of the human race doesn't believe in evolution. Climate change can't be stopped, and probably shouldn't be anyway.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 9:46:42 AM

Mankind cannot change the climate Dave.

Whichever way the climate is going, warmer or cooler, humans didn't cause it to go that way and humans can't change it to go another direction.

I live in Calgary and only had to water my lawn once this summer.

I know that I had to shovel my sidewalk and driveway more often last winter than the year before.(the banks of snow were higher too)

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 9:48:20 AM

dp,

Flying cars wouldn't have worked anyway.

People run their regular cars out of gas every day, imagine if the car was thirty feet in the air or if the Kadhrs and like minded folks had flying cars.
Border control would also get very complicated.
8>D

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 9:55:35 AM

In truth, I was really convinced that flying cars would work. I figured the costs would keep the numbers low, and prevent congestion. I also used to believe in Santa Claus.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 10:03:04 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbuulDiM_U

Oh come on - who wouldn't want to have a house on stilts several hundred feet off the ground! Or a wife who takes your wallet.

Hey, even the car might fold up into a briefcase. Think of it - no more parking problems!

All of this could happen if we just sign blindly on to Kyoto. OR MAYBE NOT!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 10:13:27 AM

obc's comment that this is a plot to weaken the west is true. The Kyoto crowd doesn't even attempt to hide this. So how did they manage to convince so many hard working Canadians that we should give up everything we've worked for to help prop up a bunch of corrupt regimes in aids infested Africa?

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 10:18:42 AM

There appears to be two classes of people that endorse this global rip off scheme. Poor leftists who are not going to pay for it because they are poor lazy and stupid, ... and Leftist elitists like Gore, Suzuki and many others who will get access to much of that money before they pass some of it on in the pretense that it is going to control our climate .... somehow.

The poor are motivated by their envy of the rich who are mostly the more hard working, productive middle class struggling to not reel backward under a system designed to tax and rob you blind at every opportunity.

The Elites are motivated by their desire to destroy the middle classes since they are all that stand in the way of the Feudal system that those Elitists dearly want to develop on a global scale.

Climate change is the current bait since previous fishing expeditions with the Population Bomb, of the late 60s, the Global Cooling scare of 70s, the Club of Rome attempt to tell us we will be completely out of resources by the 1990s ... etc etc. all failed to materialize just this current one won't.

Now we have the secret Bilderberger group being exposed as the big movers and planners of this One World Slave Camp in the making.

Lot's of cloak and dagger to go around. All about envy, greed, and lust for power. Humanity is sick sick sick.

Posted by: John | 1-Dec-07 10:19:03 AM

Here are 4 x 9+/- minute videos of a lecture by an Australian Climatologist.

The science is nicely encapsulated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Global Warming isn't the real threat.
It's the coming Ice Age that really threatens mankind.

No doubt the Environmental Hysteric Movement will latch onto a similar scheme to Kyoto when they reverse gears and shriek about Global Cooling, but by then they will be totally and deservedly discredited.

The climate is gonna be what it's gonna be.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 10:20:48 AM

I've heard that Al Gore has invested heavily in alternative energy sources, with the bulk of investments going to China. Suzuki is also invested in new energy technology. Most of these investments will only show a profit if oil becomes much more expensive.

In the mining industry, what Gore and Suzuki are doing is called "salting". They put their investments in place, then manipulate the market with rumors and dubious evidence. These guys have taken this practise one step further by trying to destroy the competition (petroleum).

The Moose River cave-in of 80 years past was the fitting end to some mine salters.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 10:40:01 AM

It is almost fascinating to see how little people on here understand about complex systems. You like to dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your "me me me" believe system. The idea that 6.5 billion humans do not have an in impact on the climate on this planet is remarkebly stupid, cram 200+ people in a large room and don't circulate the air and let me know how well you're all doing after a few hours.

The thing with complex systems is, especially one that we do not fully understand, that they have an elasticity build into, they can buffer certain extremes. Things like the Global Cooling period observed in the 1970s falls in that direction, if you stress a system like this it ends up overcompensating when it "stretches" to accomendate the changes.

The problem in this whole debate is a rather simple one: We are just too short lived to really understand the implications on what is going on right now. We live at best 100 years, in the tersm of the earth and the climate that is just a blip.

obc can froth at his mouth over this and whine and cry about an evil conspiracy to bring down the West, but if you would actually listen to the Quirks & Quarks program you would realize that the Scientists are basically saying that "It's over", it's no longer about PREVENTING climate change, it is about preparing FOR it.

But like the good sheep that you are, you rather go out, insult people than entertain the idea that something out there is happening that may have been kicked off by our wasteful way of living and that we don't have any control over.

*shakes head*

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 12:27:50 PM

Another scam a little closer to home.

A few years ago an Agrologist I was aquainted with attended a presentation by Ag Canada which spelled out the demise of agriculture in Western Canada. She was completely brainwashed by this, as were a lot of her colleagues. The answer, of course was to pour money into research projects, And studies on irrigation, dams, etc.

I argued with her that not even Ag Canada can predict the weather, but was dismissed as a dim witted prole. Now it seems that these people have a political stronghold to launch their programs from.

Oh oh, it's raining! Quick, cover the soil samples!

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 12:38:12 PM

>"The idea that 6.5 billion humans do not have an in impact on the climate on this planet is remarkebly stupid, cram 200+ people in a large room and don't circulate the air and let me know how well you're all doing after a few hours."
*shakes head*
posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 12:27:50 PM

Give your head another shake.

The idea that 6.5 billion humans DO have an in impact on the climate on this planet is remarkably stupid and arrogant.

The idea that 20 billion humans would have an impact is even stupider.

Watch the videos I posted at 1-Dec-07 10:20:48 AM.

The Earth is homeostatic, self regulating.

The so-called science behind the Global Warming hysteria is cooked(not science) and the perpetrators of it are gulling you, Snowrunner, not us.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 12:41:23 PM

From the tone of your post snowrunner, you seem to presume that you DO understand all these complex systems. Well I don't.

I do understand human nature and the need to survive, to a certain extent. This I can promise you. Economy trumps Kyoto.

I believe that mankind contributes to global warming, as do most people, even on this blog. So what? Short of mass suicide, what do we do about it? Surrendering our well earned luxury lifestyle to help Sudan is not going to happen. If I believed in God I'd have something profound to add, but lets just say I believe nature is taking its course.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 12:49:41 PM

The hammer of the Gods will drive our ships to new lands. To fight the hordes, singing and crying, Valhalla I am coming.

We ask no quarter, they hold no quarter.

I come from a millenium long line of those who took the path not traveled. Are we about to surrender to the will of those who stayed behind and lived off the low hanging fruit? Never.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 1:24:04 PM

From the tone of your post snowrunner, you seem to presume that you DO understand all these complex systems. Well I don't.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 12:49:41 PM

I have seen such behaviour in complex systems designed by humans, yes, so I have no doubt an even more complex system like the climate of a planet behaves similarly.

------------------

I do understand human nature and the need to survive, to a certain extent. This I can promise you. Economy trumps Kyoto.

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 12:49:41 PM

That's a very interesting train of though, the German expression for this would be: "Nach uns die Sinflut", which losely translates into: "After us the flood", or simpler put: As long as *I* get what I want I don't care what happens to the ones that come after me.

And btw, I think that Kyoto was an interesting concept but we have probably passed the point of no return already. NOW it is more about living with the consequences, be they man made or natural, and that means re-locationg a large part of the worlds population, figuring out how to adapt our way of life to the changed system.

The CBC thing was interesting because it looked at what Scientists claim will HAPPEN by 2050, regardless of what we do right now, thyey made it pretty clear that the train has already left the station, we would only affect things after 2050.

------------

Posted by: dp | 1-Dec-07 12:49:41 PM

Sure it is. My qualm comes with people who argue that humans couldn't have an impact on the climate (Speller, obc et. al.) and who aren't even entertaining the idea that maybe now is a good time to prepare for the change. The idea that something like this could be stopped by us is as stupid as sticking your head in the sand and singing "nah nah nah".

Reality is, the bigger and more complex a system is the longer it takes to knock it out of it's equilibrium, the problem is once that once it HAS left equilibrium it will take quite a while to end it's swing one way or the other.

The statements on this blog, including Yoshi, is "Don't worry, be happy, it's all just a scam of the evil leftoids and intellectuals who want to rob us off our Walmarts and SUVs!!!!!11111".

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 1:27:19 PM

The idea that 6.5 billion humans DO have an in impact on the climate on this planet is remarkably stupid and arrogant.

The idea that 20 billion humans would have an impact is even stupider.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 12:41:23 PM

Ah, I guess you're an economist who looks at an always increasing GDP, where there is no limit to the system, eh? Well, in the REAL world there are limits to what a system (even as big as the planet Earth) can sustain.
---------------------
Watch the videos I posted at 1-Dec-07 10:20:48 AM.

The Earth is homeostatic, self regulating.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 12:41:23 PM

So? That doesn't mean there isn't a limit to how much it can support. Or why would you think that?
------------------------------

The so-called science behind the Global Warming hysteria is cooked(not science) and the perpetrators of it are gulling you, Snowrunner, not us.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 12:41:23 PM

And their motivation would be what? A hate of the West? A hate of our Freedoms? Jealousy of your material posssessions?

It's funny, you are not the first one on here to claim that it's a scam, but if it is a scam what are we being scammed for? What's the motivation behind the scammers to do this to us? Well?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 1:35:35 PM

"It's funny, you are not the first one on here to claim that it's a scam, but if it is a scam what are we being scammed for? What's the motivation behind the scammers to do this to us? Well?"

What all scammers seek - MONEY!!!!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 1:43:02 PM

...at least this discussion is still on target.

3, 2, 1...

Posted by: tomax7 | 1-Dec-07 1:54:12 PM

I love that Snowrunner and his ilk are scared half to death, frustrated, angry, almost hopeless in their quest to get everyone on-side. It is an impossible task. Even the people who agree with Snowjob, won't pay up, won't stop living their lives as they want to.

It is human nature to want comfort, luxury and not to suffer. It also human nature to not want to part with your hard earned money for anything you cannot take home in a bag or a box.

A few years from now after people like Snow have ulcers and heart disease from the constant fear and stress that they cannot control humanity, we will all have a laugh at how much waste and worry was for nothing since this latest 'state of fear' will have failed to do anything but entertain whose who were smart enough to not stupidly buy into the scam.

I might ad that here is some entertainment value in poking fun at the those with climatism disease and watch them squirm as they fail to convince anyone but the most gullible.

Hey Snowy ... enjoy your day. And you may note that now that la Nina is happening ... global cooling will be the trend for the next few years. But don't worry, there will be big climate change in only a few months ... We call it Summertime.

Posted by: John | 1-Dec-07 1:59:14 PM

What all scammers seek - MONEY!!!!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 1:43:02 PM

Fine, and how do all these hundreds if not thousands of Scientists who make these claims make money off of this?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:00:58 PM

There are three things absolutely necessary for all life to exist. Oxygen, Water and Carbon Dioxide. Plant life utilizes Co2 and produces oxygen for the rest of us. Animals survive by eating plants that grow because of Co2. except for carnivores which survive on other animals that eat plants that require Co2. People , of course eat both plants and animals, necessitating the need for Co2.

The atmosphere contains about 780 gigitons of Co2.

The earth naturally exchanges about 100 gigitons of Co2 (Gt C)with the atmosphere annually, The oceans about 90 Gt c for a total of 190 Gt per year annual exchange of Co2 with the atmosphere.

Human industrial energy consumption exchanges about 8 Gt c and we breath about .6 Gt C

In other word we represent a just over 4 percent of the total exchange of Co2 between earth and atmosphere. About 1 percent of the total (780).

Is this enough to cause climate change?
If humans reduce Co2 output by say 10 percent that would be 10 percent of the above 1 percent or .1 percent of the total in the atmosphere.

Do we really have the gaul to think we cause climate change given those numbers?

For more information check out the following web page

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Posted by: Walter | 1-Dec-07 2:04:35 PM

The scientists may or may not benefit financially from this debate at all.

Those who stood to benefit are politicians like Dion, Taliban Jack and Liz May, who wanted to raise taxes in order to pay for Kyoto. They'd look like heroes to the world community.

Meanwhile, to their own countrymen, they'd be villains for raising taxes for useless purposes. Hospitals, schools, and universities would have to close because of lack of funding caused by Kyoto's excessive demands for cash. No more infrastructure money, no welfare, no military, no nothing.

By then, resistance to Kyoto would have taken root. Alberta would have seceded by then, and the other parts bitter that Ontario received a sweetheart exemption deal regarding Kyoto. It quite simply is the worst idea ever created.

If climate change is a problem then find a solution. Kyoto ain't it.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 2:07:01 PM

Does anybody know what the major greenhouse gas is?

Water vapor.

Should we try to reduce evaporation?

Posted by: Walter | 1-Dec-07 2:10:46 PM

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Posted by: Walter | 1-Dec-07 2:04:35 PM

That's an interesting source Walter, about the study you linked:

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

More on the originators of your "research paper" can be found here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:28:09 PM

If climate change is a problem then find a solution. Kyoto ain't it.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 2:07:01 PM

What would be a solution in your eyes? Clearly giving up anything isn't an option for you, so what do YOU propose?

Let's forget for a moment that I don't think we will be able to prevent Climate Change anymore, we've missed the boat on this one a long time ago and need to start managing the impacts it will have in the not to distant future for us and those who come after us.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:31:14 PM

Snow job,

Scientists who tow the line get grants and projects and at the very least don't get fired for offending their political and elitist masters.

That's how they benefit financially from the climate change swindle.

Apparently you are a slow thinker.

Posted by: John | 1-Dec-07 2:32:14 PM

The Scientific community is absolutely not in agreement on global warming, or anything else for that matter, they're scientists and nothing in their world is ever defacto settled.

When one thinks of the KYOTO SCAM one name that comes to mind is Mo Strong, a Leftoid who seems to have a great interest in China, one of the biggest beneficiaries of KYOTO.
It's a SCAM beyond belief and beyond reason so it's fitting that it is worshiped by the Dippers and Liberals. Chretien signed on, he too appears to have a great deal of interest in China.
Go Figure!

Anyone who thinks giving money to countries like China, to buy hot air while they keep building coal fired plants to further pollute the planet
is as brainless and BEYOND REASON as it gets.

It's all about money and our shrewd Prime Minister will not buy stupidity, certainly not air from one of the most polluted places on earth, China, to keep on polluting and turning out dangerous and inferior products to boot.

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 2:34:41 PM

Climate change can be fought using market-driven changes in lifestyle. New fuel-efficient vehicles from cars to aircraft, improvements to household fixtures to use energy more efficiently, and demanding the same from industries. These things might actually save money instead of cost trillions under Kyoto.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 2:35:15 PM

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 2:35:15 PM

And what would be the incentives for companies be to do this? It costs them money to develope these technologies, they would need to sell it at a higher price than their competition who isn't doing it.

Kyoto does not TELL a country how to achieve the goals, it just set them. HOW these goals are being reached is up to the individual countries, for example BY setting standards that the whole industry has to follow.

Or how do you think Kyoto would work? Some UN goons are going to into the oil sands and shut down everything?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:50:15 PM

Fine, and how do all these hundreds if not thousands of Scientists who make these claims make money off of this?
-Zebulon Pike

Are you serious?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 1-Dec-07 2:51:44 PM

Scientists who tow the line get grants and projects and at the very least don't get fired for offending their political and elitist masters.

That's how they benefit financially from the climate change swindle.

Apparently you are a slow thinker.

Posted by: John | 1-Dec-07 2:32:14 PM

Yes, and by the same token industires who are heavy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions have a vested interest in paying Scientists to say it ain't so.

Now, which Scientist isn't "corrupt"?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:51:56 PM

Are you serious?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 1-Dec-07 2:51:44 PM

That was me posting, not ZP. And yes I am serious. How much money could they potentially make by claiming something that in your mind doesn't exist? Moreso: How come you question the science behind Global Warming, but not the science behind the "debunkers"?

If I would have to guess it is because you just don't like the message, so you latch on to anything that confirms your suspicion.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:54:15 PM

The Scientific community is absolutely not in agreement on global warming, or anything else for that matter, they're scientists and nothing in their world is ever defacto settled.

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 2:34:41 PM

True, but there seems to be enough evidence for a majority of Climatologists to believe that the evidence points solidly to Climate Change.

---------------------------

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 2:34:41 PM

If we ignore Kyoto for a moment and could talk about the underlying Science, what exactly is your gripe with the Science?

-------------------

Anyone who thinks giving money to countries like China, to buy hot air while they keep building coal fired plants to further pollute the planet
is as brainless and BEYOND REASON as it gets.

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 2:34:41 PM

The other option is to NOT exceed our comittment and lower our own emissions, at that stage we don't have to buy anything.

-------------------------------

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 2:34:41 PM

Hey Liz, I assume you always check the label of origin before you buy something wherever you shop, and when it says "Made in China" you don't buy it, right?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:58:12 PM

Anything I do in my life to cut back on using anything that may contribute to pollution of any kinds is done to save me money, not to save anyone's country or planet.

That is the long and short of human nature. We all in the end act in our own best interest, not the best interest of others.

Remember that fact when you are trying to understand what the motivations of others are.

Example: all the young people are very concerned because

A. they have been scared by their school teacher and

B. they have a long time left and want to make sure that their 'jelly donut awaits them. They don't want there to be no cars or toys etc left when they finally have the money to buy in.

They won't admit that, but that is human nature. It is self interest. if they reallllllly cared, they would commit suicide to rid the planet right now of their many decades of polluting the Gaia.

The women who nowadays are opting to not have babies say the it's to save the planet, but I beg to differ. It's so that they won't need to A. raise the kid at the expense of their freedom and money B. So they won't have to worry of what might become of the kid because the world situation whatever that might be ... climate change or the much more important Islamic Jihad.

You cannot mess with human nature .. it is what it is and humans spend a lot of the life trying to deny it. Religion is first in that line and Socialism is a close second. Go figure.

Posted by: John | 1-Dec-07 3:03:52 PM

But, but, but, Snowrunner, what are we going to do about belching and farting cows and horses? Have you fractioned that into the equation?

Canada is one of the lowest polluters on the planet, a vast land with lush forests and miles of unpopulated areas from sea to sea.
Why any brain capable of reason could think we should pay a cesspool of pollution like China or India to continue to pollute and trust them to lower GHG's is mind boggling.
It asks us to seriously slow down our economy so we can buy crap from polluters.

What grade are you currently studying?

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 3:32:16 PM

"And what would be the incentives for companies be to do this?"

Since Ontario's auto industry was exempted from Kyoto, no incentives are necessary. There will be no change. In effect, then, Kyoto has been undermined by the very same people who support it. Gee, I wonder why: because their electoral base won't be at risk. Pathetic.

"Or how do you think Kyoto would work? Some UN goons are going to into the oil sands and shut down everything?"

No, it will be Liebral/NDP/Green goons from Ontario doing that. That's an additional incentive for Alberta to secede.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 3:40:08 PM

Snowrunner - True, but there seems to be enough evidence for a majority of Climatologists to believe that the evidence points solidly to Climate Change.

You've changed the discussion from man-made warming to climate change. The Earth over its life has cooled down and warmed up many times before man appeared. 200,000 years ago much if not all of Canada was under 50 feet of ice. Several million years ago Alberta was semi-tropical and dinosaurs roamed the land. Some dinosaurs like obc still inhabit Alberta but that's another issue.

A lot of scientists who believe in global warming conveniently forget the warming and cooling the planet has seen over the last several million years.

Posted by: O'REILLY | 1-Dec-07 3:41:33 PM

Zebulon Pike - That's an additional incentive for Alberta to secede.

And that decision will be made by people who live in Alberta. Where do you live?

Posted by: O'REILLY | 1-Dec-07 3:44:36 PM

I'm learning in a place that seceded once in 1861. Georgia next door seceded twice - in 1775 and 1861.

I'd come back to Alberta, where I still vote, and ensure Alberta's security, liberty and freedom from the corporate rulers of Toronto.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 3:49:56 PM

Zebulon Pike - I'd come back to Alberta, where I still vote, and ensure Alberta's security, liberty and freedom from the corporate rulers of Toronto.

The only thing of any value in Alberta are the tarpits, and none of the companies exploiting that resource are from Toronto.

Posted by: O'REILLY | 1-Dec-07 4:02:15 PM

>"And their motivation would be what? A hate of the West? A hate of our Freedoms? Jealousy of your material posssessions?

It's funny, you are not the first one on here to claim that it's a scam, but if it is a scam what are we being scammed for? What's the motivation behind the scammers to do this to us? Well?"
Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 1:35:35 PM

Speller>
The motivation behind the Global Warming Hysteria is to cripple the Western economies and thereby cripple our ability to defend ourselves against the Communists.

The same Communists and their alarmist protesters that were behind the Unilateral Disarmament Movement are behind the Environmental Hysteria Movement.

What were once a group of proud Western REDs are now proud Western GREENs.

>"Yes, and by the same token industires who are heavy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions have a vested interest in paying Scientists to say it ain't so."

Now, which Scientist isn't "corrupt"?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 2:51:56 PM

Speller>
The industries heavy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions represent the status quo.

It is incumbent on the scientists that represent the Global Warming Hysteria crowd to present an argument that stands up to scrutiny before we go about radically changing the status quo.

The data and so-called studies that represent the Global Warming Alarmists don't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact the Global Warming scientists are shown to be corrupt because their studies themselves are corrupt.

It's that really that simple.

Our scientists are proving that your "scientists" have cooked the data and that your "scientists" cannot demonstrate there is any reason for changing the status quo.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Dec-07 4:04:37 PM

Al Gore and his like seem to think a disaster is in the making because of the "melting of the polar ice cap" in the north. Has he ever thought about the origin of the name "Greenland"
Greenland was settled originally because of the favorable growing climate combined with long summer days. Something we are just starting to experience there again. The polar bears did not disappear then and won't this time either.
And that was named many years before the West had industry.

1000 years ago the whole world was in a warm period and 300 years ago the world was in a cold period, known as a mini ice age.
It is even referred to in literature of the time written in England.
The earth's temperatures have been generally warming since, however in a fluctuating way.

Posted by: Walter | 1-Dec-07 4:48:33 PM

But, but, but, Snowrunner, what are we going to do about belching and farting cows and horses? Have you fractioned that into the equation?

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 3:32:16 PM

What does that have to do with other Industries? But if you want an answer to that: How about a change in diet, less mass farming and more responsiblity by the individual?

----------------------------

Canada is one of the lowest polluters on the planet, a vast land with lush forests and miles of unpopulated areas from sea to sea.

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 3:32:16 PM

Per Capita we are one of the worst though. Just because we are "blessed" with lots of uninhabitabal Land doesn't mean we're "green".
----------------------

Why any brain capable of reason could think we should pay a cesspool of pollution like China or India to continue to pollute and trust them to lower GHG's is mind boggling.
It asks us to seriously slow down our economy so we can buy crap from polluters.
Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 3:32:16 PM

I am still not sure where you are getting this from. Canada by and large is a resource based economy, if China would slow down so would their demand for our raw materials and Canada would lose big.

------------------

What grade are you currently studying?

Posted by: Liz J | 1-Dec-07 3:32:16 PM

Apparently a few ones above your level.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 5:00:56 PM

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 3:40:08 PM

So the politicans fucked this one up because out of the same reason why you don't want to do anything that has to do with Kyoto: Industry and personal profits.

Where exactly do you differ from the guys in Ottawa again?

-----------------------

"Or how do you think Kyoto would work? Some UN goons are going to into the oil sands and shut down everything?"

No, it will be Liebral/NDP/Green goons from Ontario doing that. That's an additional incentive for Alberta to secede.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 1-Dec-07 3:40:08 PM

How about you move back to Alberta and work on the secession? You know, put your body where your mouth is?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 5:03:10 PM

Yellow Snow pees again!

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 5:04:59 PM

Posted by: O'REILLY | 1-Dec-07 3:41:33 PM

Yes, because I think it is futile to argue what / who caused it, the bigger problem is mitigating the fallout. But exactly this back and forth over whose responsible, and the "conclusion" that if it wasn't us then we shouldn't worry, will cost us all dearly in the end.

------------------------

A lot of scientists who believe in global warming conveniently forget the warming and cooling the planet has seen over the last several million years.

Posted by: O'REILLY | 1-Dec-07 3:41:33 PM

Sure, things are moving in a cycle, but if I understand the current research correctly never before have we seen (in fossile, geological or ice records) a warming in such a short time.

There is also the little problem of the worlds population which has never been higher before, most of them in areas that will be severely affected by climate change, man made or not.

Kyoto was a failure, in part because it was politically, in part because it came to late. But the obsession by both sides of the political spectrum to play the "blame game" instead of dealing with the consequences is what is really going to cost us. China or not.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 5:06:49 PM

Yellow Snow pees again!

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 5:04:59 PM

blah blah blah says the resident Village Idiot.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 5:07:32 PM

Yellow Snow's silly assertions deserve no real debate.

His Leftist theology will not allow him to see any other point view.

Therefore, his rants are equivalent to dogs peeing on the snow.

Just another Leftoid troll.

Posted by: obc | 1-Dec-07 5:11:23 PM

The motivation behind the Global Warming Hysteria is to cripple the Western economies and thereby cripple our ability to defend ourselves against the Communists.