Canada pulls out of Kyoto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any greenhouse gas agreement not including China, India and the US is inherently unfair to every complying nation.
Canada is acting sensibly in its own best interests.
Should there be a global agreement on greenhouse gasses?
Yes, but only if the major producers of these gasses sign on.
It might be a little hard to get the US on board, but China would then be a piece of cake given its dependence upon the US market and the US dollar.
India would then have no choice but to follow.
China and India can be easily coerced into doing the right thing given their dependence upon developed world markets.
This is an issue to be revisted after the US elections of 2012 and after the EU has resolved its current difficulties.
 
Slightly off topic:

I got an email from a missionary friend of mine who has been in China for 10 years with his family of 5 (3 children).

He said that the air quality is so bad over there that a typical day would have air quality index that is 1.5-2x over the limit of what US would be considered a bad air day, and about 5x-10x what a typical US small town has on an average day.

The problem is not that China didn't want to be clean and efficient, the problem is they cannot do it fast enough. My friend said there are occasional black out and the railroad and highway has traffic jams regularly from coal transport, and a lot of power plants have problem getting coal fast enough to avoid black outs. They are building nuclear plants as fast as they can (most of the new nuke constructions in the world are in China), but when you suddenly go from a rural off grid economy to industrialization, you just can do it that fast.

And I'd imagine most civilians would prefer global warming over power outages.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I thought this topic verboten.

"Climate change" is a joke.


Only the cause is under debate. Not whether it is/will be happening.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I thought this topic verboten.

"Climate change" is a joke.


Only the cause is under debate. Not whether it is/will be happening.

...among people who either don't know the science or don't care.

As with biological evolution, while some minute details are under debate and revision, the idea of a "controversy" over the basics of anthropogenic climate change is a complete surprise to those who actually devote their lives and careers to studying it.

Unfortunately, that fact is completely unintelligible to most people, because most people (to varying extents) see science as just another dogmatic ideology rather than the systematic collection and intellectually honest analysis of evidence. We can thank our schools and certain other social institutions for that, and current school "reform" policies aren't exactly helping. But that's another story.

The world keeps turning....
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I thought this topic verboten.

"Climate change" is a joke.


Only the cause is under debate. Not whether it is/will be happening.


Changed to "will be". Interesting.

Climate change based decision making is nothing more than quackery. You really take the movie seriously? Really? So darn convenient! You guys seem all smug and so self convinced.

The climate is always changing and cycling. So? Perhaps we are starting a warming cycle. Hockey stick? My crooked crack. Look at the sources and look who gets paid if the research money keeps coming in. Open your eyes and minds - don't just claim to be open minded.

http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/
 
As for breaching forum rules: The OP flagrantly violates the no-GW policy AND the no-politics policy. Despite this, and several subsequent posts to similar effect, a moderator has participated in this thread. Intentionally or not, a command decision has been made.

I think the best thing to do from here is to keep it civil. This could be a very productive dialog if we want it to be.
 
Quote:

Climate change based decision making is nothing more than quackery.


Like not building in areas prone to sea level rise? That's quackery? Photos show the caps are melting and going into the sea. Decisions have to be made to cope with this reality regardless of what caused it.
 
I don't see how the original post is in violation of the no politics rule/guideline, and how this turn into a debate of whether climate change is man made or not.

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Hockey stick? My crooked crack. Look at the sources and look who gets paid if the research money keeps coming in.


You can also look at who is getting the benefit by ignoring environmental regulation, like acid rain, NOX, and particulate emission which has proven and real science to prove its damage to health, and who is paying for a bunch of researches and only selectively publish the result of those who benefit them.

Yup, they have no bias either.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear


You can also look at who is getting the benefit by ignoring environmental regulation, like acid rain, NOX, and particulate emission which has proven and real science to prove its damage to health, and who is paying for a bunch of researches and only selectively publish the result of those who benefit them.

Yup, they have no bias either.


Don't you get it? Industry AND the profiteers from CO2 trading benefit from it. And they get to enact a giant control grid in the process. If you think wall street shenanigans were corrupt, just wait until you let big business in the business of controlling and trading CO2 output.
 
Last edited:
Benefit at what cost? With what guarantee of a favorable outcome?

Control of what kind? To what end? With what insurance against being caught and dismantled?

Coordinating scientists is like herding cats. How to control the huge numbers of them that are working on climate research and get them all to agree AND play along with this elaborate game?

Conspiracy theories like this always leave me utterly baffled. The warming effects of atmospheric CO2 have been quite elaborately understood and easily duplicated for decades, and everyone (hopefully) knows that industrialized nations crank out frankly staggering quantities of it. Yet, somehow, the idea that that mechanism might be a factor in global temperatures is somehow considered LESS plausible than the idea of vast networks of people in lock-step with each other to facilitate a completely fabricated conflict for monetary gain and to ensure a power that is never completely spelled out. It leaves me speechless every time.
 
I have no doubt that the current round of global warming is anthropogenic. There have been others in The Earth's past, but this one is caused by humans.

Years ago I also pointed out to friends that certain groups blame all the problem on Western countries. That rather selfish attitude is one of the reasons why I oppose CO2 limits in the United States. It is not a level playing field.

I see that Canada agrees with this. Either all countries and regions are in on this together, or none should be because some will take advantage of the generosity of others. Any solution must be administered fairly.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Benefit at what cost? With what guarantee of a favorable outcome?

Control of what kind? To what end? With what insurance against being caught and dismantled?

Coordinating scientists is like herding cats. How to control the huge numbers of them that are working on climate research and get them all to agree AND play along with this elaborate game?

Conspiracy theories like this always leave me utterly baffled (durp). The warming effects of atmospheric CO2 have been quite elaborately understood and easily duplicated for decades, and everyone (hopefully) knows that industrialized nations crank out frankly staggering quantities of it (than why do "scientists get caught manipulating rhetoric and data?). Yet, somehow, the idea that that mechanism might be a factor in global temperatures is somehow considered LESS plausible than the idea of vast networks of people in lock-step with each other to facilitate a completely fabricated conflict for monetary gain and to ensure a power that is never completely spelled out. It leaves me speechless every time.


How old are you???

Call it a "conspiracy" all you want, and then look at the the frontrunner of the Republican party's primary (gee, exactly like the Democrat's policy.................at one time or another). Sorry; you want to beat around the Busch of this forums rules, but that completely negates reality.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cristobal
Any solution must be administered fairly.


Problem is that the only "fair" solution that I've seen is to allocate every person on the planet an allocation of (IIRC) 1 tonne per person per year...you want more, then you have to buy it off someone who promises to use less, either through technology, or maintaining a third world lifestyle.

Bloke I used to work with who boasted that his retirement home had over 300 tonnes of concrete used up nearly his lifetime allocation.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo

Climate change based decision making is nothing more than quackery. You really take the movie seriously? Really? So darn convenient! You guys seem all smug and so self convinced.


Someone at the end of the idjit box, and yelling at me what my opinion is to be isn't convincing science either.

Some people like to be yelled at and told what to think.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Benefit at what cost? With what guarantee of a favorable outcome?

Control of what kind? To what end? With what insurance against being caught and dismantled?

Coordinating scientists is like herding cats. How to control the huge numbers of them that are working on climate research and get them all to agree AND play along with this elaborate game?

Conspiracy theories like this always leave me utterly baffled (durp). The warming effects of atmospheric CO2 have been quite elaborately understood and easily duplicated for decades, and everyone (hopefully) knows that industrialized nations crank out frankly staggering quantities of it (than why do "scientists get caught manipulating rhetoric and data?). Yet, somehow, the idea that that mechanism might be a factor in global temperatures is somehow considered LESS plausible than the idea of vast networks of people in lock-step with each other to facilitate a completely fabricated conflict for monetary gain and to ensure a power that is never completely spelled out. It leaves me speechless every time.


How old are you???

Call it a "conspiracy" all you want, and then look at the the frontrunner of the Republican party's primary (gee, exactly like the Democrat's policy.................at one time or another). Sorry; you want to beat around the Busch of this forums rules, but that completely negates reality.

Posts like this really don't help your case, Drew. I've seen you make direct, coherent, incisive points on this forum before, without resorting to personal attacks. What gives?

And before you start assuming that I'm hurt by your comments, I'm not. It takes a lot more than this to make me cry. But I'm sure you know that attacking the person rather than the argument is tantamount to conceding that you can't back up your point -- which, in this case, I'm sure you can. So, again, what gives?
 
China doesn't want to be counted as an industrialized country, ever wonder why?

Not at all denying changing gases in the layers of our atmosphere will change our climate. I am denying all the panic junk science. It's reasonable to be very frugal with carbon based energy sources for several reasons. It's not reasonable to scare school children with false prophetic fiction movies in some sort of brainwash attempt. It's smart to not build in a flood plain, it's ridiculous to control one country's economic output and make statements every time we have a nasty storm "oh it's global warming climate change."

And you cannot deny certain scientist continue to feed their families if the outcome of tests and experiments go a certain way. It's part of the danger of public funding of science. It happens - not saying we shouldn't fund all such activities, but controlling such things is even more difficult.
 
Sorry, guys, but some of the posts are getting too personal. The post started out okay, but degenerated into the all-too-often heated debate on global warming (or whatever you want to call it). Time for a lock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top