# Kyoto Has 'Failed.' Scientists Call For New Climate Change Policy



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Finally the truth?

Bold face mine:

“It is time for a radical rethink on climate change, says a report in the journal Nature this week.

Echoing sentiments long associated with politicians such as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President George Bush, the report says it is time to ditch the Kyoto Protocol because the United Nations treaty has "failed."

*Not only has the decade-old treaty not delivered cuts in global emissions of greenhouse gases which continue to soar, but it is the wrong tool for the job, say Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner at Oxford. Their commentary has top billing in the influential British science journal this week.*

Under the headline Time to Ditch Kyoto, they call on delegates heading for the United Nations climate meeting in Bali in December to "radically rethink climate policy" and warn against creating a "bigger" version of Kyoto with more stringent targets and timetables.”

Kyoto has 'failed.' Scientists call for new climate change policy


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Finally the truth?
> 
> Bold face mine:
> 
> ...


It's too bad Stephen Harper doesn't see it that way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> It's too bad Stephen Harper doesn't see it that way.


Um, well, if you read the first paragraph, that's exactly the way Harper sees it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

When Stephen Harper commits to *more stringent targets and timetables* then perhaps I might take notice.

Until then, enjoy your kool aid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - more excuse for the flat earthers to do nothing - especially in Alberta which rapidly turning into a planetary cesspool....and not just for the atmosphere. 

Turns out IPCC is "wrong" too.



> *Rocketing CO2 prompts criticisms of IPCC*
> 
> Oct 27
> 
> ...


California has mandated zero net energy homes by 2020

When I see Harper and Co stepping up to the plate with the kind of legislation that actually addresses the wartime level seriousness of the issue I'll be the first to applaud.

He could have easily passed zero carbon legislation for the oil sands.....give em an equivalent tax rebate for the $1.50 a barrel it would cost if they whine...not like the Cons aren't flush anyway.

Instead they want to reduce GST again - something every single economist says is stupid.
Just like their purported "energy plan".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Should be rewritten: Politicians have failed Kyoto.....

Harper wants to do nothing while the article says


> They say the *focus should be emission reduction by the biggest emitters *-- fewer than 20 of the 194 countries in the world are responsible for about 80 per cent of the world's emissions. China and the U.S. lead the top-20 list, which also includes Japan, India, Russia, *Canada*, the U.K. and several Europeans countries.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> When Stephen Harper commits to *more stringent targets and timetables* then perhaps I might take notice.
> 
> Until then, enjoy your kool aid.


Try _reading_ it this time:

"warn against creating a "bigger" version of Kyoto with more stringent targets and timetables."

Talk about me on kool aid.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I couldn't give to craps what you quote.

The proof is in the pudding. Until then, believe what you want, and be part of the sheep.

When I see real action, I will the first to say 'great!'.

Enough of this passing the blame and yapping about what didn't work or what we could do in 2050. Time to do something that has teeth. Now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's exactly what these scientists are saying.

With one caveat. Kyoto was impossible. Let's get something realistic started, and soon.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well the conservatives have been content on doing absolutely NOTHING but blame and whine.

Is that better?

After 2 years we have seen nothing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beats 13 years of nothing under the Liberals though, doesn't it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Interesting that the conservative party's policy of 'nothing is better than nothing' is so widely accepted amongst it's supporters.

Easy to please I guess.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Preference for being a Con pariah rather than a real small conservative.
Conserve the planet not your stinking oil patch. 

The Liberals fumbled their opportunity tho the crisis was not so clear in science or in Canadian minds. Few other govs around the world took it seriously either much to the dismay of the science community.

Right now.....THERE IS NO EXCUSE.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Beats 13 years of nothing under the Liberals though, doesn't it?


I love hearing that lie from you time and time again.... do you finally believe it?
Too lazy to even look at the pretty graph posted that showed flatlining under the libs...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kyoto has succeeded in many countries, but it has failed here, in the US and in other important industrial countries because there was no political will to implement it's [extremely conservative and inadequate] requirements. 

The people of earth will now pay a larger price for delaying these necessary and inevitable changes to the way we generate wealth. It's unfortunate that the past decade has failed to generate the necessary consensus, despite overwhelming scientific support and ample warning of the astronomical costs of inaction. But that's been the pattern of history throughout the 20th century: the scientific community identifies a problem, recommends solutions, predicts the consequences of inaction, and is resoundingly ignored until the predictions come to fruition and the costs are suffered by the people who's politicians ignored the warnings and recommendations. It rather makes me wonder why governments employ scientists and fund international panels of researchers to make recommendations when they never listen.

Perhaps we should start electing scientifically literate politicians, so that more of them would understand that when scientists tell the politicians they have a theory about what is happening, they don't mean they're guessing.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The UN climate change report to be released next month will show that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have already reached dangerous levels, Australia's pre-eminent conservationist said on Tuesday.
> 
> *Scientist and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery *said the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed that the previous research had underestimated the danger and that the tipping point on climate change had passed in 2005.
> 
> ...



nothing but excuses from the Cons - continually, criminally and Alberta's government attitude - even building new coal planets is sickening.

MOST of the increase is from the oil sands and Alberta even pissed the income away that could have made the entire nation far far greener.
Look to your own outhouse Sinc....it reeks.

..and no Liberal was in power in Alberta.....
They've had the money, the majority and in the information from your own universities and institutes like Pembina to be world leaders.........


....accomplished????...........less than nothing beyond making Canada a prime polluter in the eyes of the world....all to feed your pockets, stress your water, fund inflation and crime and turn your north lands to a polluted wasteland.
Just brilliant astute management..........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Perhaps we should start electing scientifically literate politicians, so that more of them would understand that when scientists tell the politicians they have a theory about what is happening, they don't mean they're guessing.


I wondered how long it would be before atheists and scientists would want to take power. A cold, unfeeling and calculating, "we're never wrong" mentality to force their vision of life upon the planet.

Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I wondered how long it would be before atheists and scientists would want to take power. A cold, unfeeling and calculating, "we're never wrong" mentality to force their vision of life upon the planet.


You are assuming that scientists are not spiritual.... and projecting your connie cliches again...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> A cold, unfeeling and calculating, "we're never wrong" mentality


 

I take it you've never met a scientist?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> You are assuming that scientists are not spiritual....


Actually, he's pretty much right there. Most of us have managed to shake off the superstitious nonsense that popular culture describes as 'spirituality'.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Scientists care enough to issue a warning and put their careers at risk from your fellow traveller deniers like Bush and Co in the US.

They care enough to NOT jump to conclusions but put their life work into understanding this threat.

Scientists in this field and others who clearly understand the scope of the danger are very very afraid for their children's future.
Your attitude towards them is as assinine as your view of global climate change.

But watch out for dem turrursts...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> I wondered how long it would be before atheists and scientists would want to take power. A cold, unfeeling and calculating, "we're never wrong" mentality to force their vision of life upon the planet.
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.


Get with it Sinc! 

We must succumb to the superiority of our self titled overlords, "the brights". One only needs to look at the wonderful job they did in the former Soviet Union. 
The Brights' Net - Home Page

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Your attitude towards them is as assinine as your view of global climate change.


I have long maintained that Kyoto was flawed and scientists proved that to be right in the article. I have never denied global warming, just that it was inflated by scientifically created panic by corporations to spur sales.

If that's assinine, I'm in good company now that scientists have spoken out regarding the obviously flawed Kyoto accord.

When will you admit it was flawed from the beginning and did not work? And don't blame Canada for the tiny percentage of world emissions we contribute.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I have long maintained that Kyoto was flawed and scientists proved that to be right in the article. I have never denied global warming, just that it was inflated by scientifically created panic by corporations to spur sales..


What did they *prove*? 
Again wishfull thinking on your part with a gross misunderstand of what "science" is.





SINC said:


> If that's assinine, I'm in good company now that scientists have spoken out regarding the obviously flawed Kyoto accord..


See above - 




SINC said:


> When will you admit it was flawed from the beginning and did not work? And don't blame Canada for the tiny percentage of world emissions we contribute.


From your article::
They say the focus should be emission reduction by the* biggest emitters *-- fewer than 20 of the 194 countries in the world are responsible for about 80 per cent of the world's emissions. China and the U.S. lead the *top-20 list*, which also includes Japan, India, Russia, *Canada,* the U.K. and several Europeans countries.

SINC, when will you stop repeating lies?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Pet peeve alert!*



SINC said:


> I have long maintained that Kyoto was flawed and scientists proved that to be right in the article.


Sorry to pick on you SINC, but you've hit one of my pet peeves. Emperical Science doesn't "prove X is right", it can only falsify (i.e. prove that something is wrong). You are free to infer from the scientific falsification of hypothesis X that some other hypothesis is correct, but that is not proof. It's an important epistemological distinction, and many people get it wrong, so I like to try to clear it up at every opportunity.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> Kyoto Has 'Failed.' Scientists Call For New Climate Change Policy
> Finally the truth?...
> 
> ...“It is time for a radical rethink on climate change, says a report in the journal Nature this week.


 What does an economist and a Social Scientist know from Climate Change? How could a couple of hos tptptptp serving Big Oil and King Coal contribute to the debate on the *SCIENCE* of Climate Change?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Sorry to pick on you SINC, but you've hit one of my pet peeves. Emperical Science doesn't "prove X is right", it can only falsify (i.e. prove that something is wrong). You are free to infer from the scientific falsification of hypothesis X that some other hypothesis is correct, but that is not proof. It's an important epistemological distinction, and many people get it wrong, so I like to try to clear it up at every opportunity.
> 
> Cheers


Fine by me. Then let's say they proved that Kyoto was the wrong approach.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fine by me. Then let's say they proved that Kyoto was the wrong approach.


And you would be wrong again....
SINC, if you can't even get your basic facts, what's the point?

You remind of Rush Limbaugh who basically gives off a blast of BS, splattering all over the place and by the time you have disproved his arguments as already moved onto another subject... beejacon


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fine by me. Then let's say they proved that Kyoto was the wrong approach.


no, they proved nothing. They merely reiterated a fact we all know already, and that is we _failed_ to implement Kyoto.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's right.

Many nations will not meet the first round of Kyoto targets but they at least will have tried .......
Many treaty obligations are not lived up to by the signatories....does ot eliminate the obligation.

Norway is aiming at cutting their emissions to zero by 2050 and they are not an embarrassment to the world the way Canada is.



> NORWAY: April 20, 2007
> 
> 
> OSLO - Norway wants to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 in the world's toughest national plan for fighting global warming, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
> ...


Planet Ark : Norway Aims to be Carbon Neutral by 2050

They got on it early, have made money from it, have retained their fossil fuel income at home to pay for changes.
Alberta could have done exactly the same or better AND in doing so negated the huge amount of increase Canada has experienced.

In fact several provinces HAVE been cited as having decent progress.....



> The environmental mayhem so far described is the tip of the iceberg. The tar sands represent the biggest increase in Canadian carbon emissions, with every barrel of synthetic oil produced releasing 188 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere. Comparing the greenhouse emissions of a conventional barrel of crude to a barrel of tar sands oil, a New York Times article noted that,* “A gallon of gas from oil sands, because of the energy-intensive production methods, releases three times as much carbon overall as conventionally produced gasoline.” The oil sands are located in and around Fort McMurray (aka Fort McMoney), a region with a population of 61,000. By 2015, Fort McMurray is expected to emit more greenhouse gases than all of Denmark.*


Tar Sands and the American Automobile | The Dominion



> Although the current government proposes to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions in the tar sands by 40 percent by 2020, this approach will allow new mines to increase total carbon pollution by 248 percent above 2000 emission levels. By 2020 tar-sands emissions will exceed 140 megatons and account for *15 percent of all Canada's emissions. This helps explain why Canada is failing to meet its commitment to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. Recent government estimates suggest that in 2010, Canada will miss its Kyoto target by at least 270 megatons, or almost 30 percent. The breakneck development of the tar sands also explains why Canada's auditor general found "inadequate leadership, planning, and performance" in the country's climate change programs*. At the moment only three of 49 major companies in Alberta's oil patch have any plans to deal with carbon emissions or global warming.


The money was there, the opportunity was there....Alberta failed Canada and the planet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Norway is aiming at cutting their emissions to zero by 2050 and they are not an embarrassment to the world the way Canada is.


Norway, Norway, Norway. :yawn: 

Perhaps you should move there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Double Post


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fine by me. Then let's say they proved that Kyoto was the wrong approach.


Very good. Now read the article, and you will see that the report is an opinion piece written by an economist. So there's no proof of anything one way or another.

Fundamentally, they are stating the obvious. We're in a worse position now than we were before we signed Kyoto because we didn't actually *do* anything we had agreed to.

One argument is that we should try again, but set more easily obtained goals. An alternate position is that the decade we lost failing to implement Kyoto forces us to set more ambitious goals. 

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I read the article and it specifically, "warns against creating a "bigger" version of Kyoto with more stringent targets and timetables."

In other words, set reasonable goals that unlike Kyoto, are achievable this time around. Had they done so in the first place, many more countries would have bought in to the plan and we'd be miles ahead by now.

Instead they chose impossible goals and we're worse off because of it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Getting good grades is just too hard, so lets make passing at school easier... wah wah wah I'm a whiny conservative wah wah wah...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I read the article and it specifically, "warns against creating a "bigger" version of Kyoto with more stringent targets and timetables."


Which is one opinion. Nothing here is proven. 



> In other words, set reasonable goals that unlike Kyoto, are achievable this time around. Had they done so in the first place, many more countries would have bought in to the plan and we'd be miles ahead by now.


Arguable. Many countries bought into Kyoto, and they *are* miles ahead now. Why didn't Canada? Because we pandered to the polluters who wanted bigger short term profits.



> Instead they chose impossible goals and we're worse off because of it.


There was nothing impossible about the goals, but there certainly was no effort to reach them.

The question now is should we lower the bar so that even the unmotivated can pass and risk doing too little, or do we maintain the higher standard and try to improve the motivation, or a little of both?

Anyway you slice it, Alberta's going to have to shape up.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I read the article and it specifically, "warns against creating a "bigger" version of Kyoto with more stringent targets and timetables."
> 
> In other words, set reasonable goals that unlike Kyoto, are achievable this time around. Had they done so in the first place, many more countries would have bought in to the plan and we'd be miles ahead by now.
> 
> Instead they chose impossible goals and we're worse off because of it.


if we had a government that did what it said it would do and actually did something for real instead of focusing all of it's energy on snow jobs for people like you and appeasing energy companies, perhaps it wouldn't be so impossible.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> if we had a government that did what it said it would do and actually did something for real instead of focusing all of it's energy on snow jobs for people like you and appeasing energy companies, perhaps it wouldn't be so impossible.


The Liberals before them did much less. That is why we're in trouble today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah sure - "miles" ahead.....Alberta could be miles ahead - it had the money and the information just as Norway did.

Instead it pissed the money away to the oil barons and wallowed in self congratulations about what smart managers they were.
Your argument falls apart as other nations HAVE met or come close to their targets.

Even California is miles ahead of Alberta with far fewer resources.

There IS no excuse ..period - get over it. It's a stain on Alberta and on Canada.

The funds are there, the urgency is there, let's SEE a real program from both Alberta and the Cons in Ottawa.

Not some namby pamby feel good intensity crap.

The risk to the oceans and biosphere is very real, increasing very quickly and nations and regions with money and a serious pollution problem HAVE NO EXCUSE.

Do you think for ONE SECOND NL would be allowed to do to the offshore environment what obscenity is occurring in Alberta????

They call those that support addicts "enablers" - Alberta is the patsy boy for US addiction.
I see Stelmach has no backbone either.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The Liberals before them did much less. That is why we're in trouble today.


what the hell is it with conservative supporters that all they can do is yap on about some proof they found somewhere, and the endless broken record about the liberals?

Get over it! It isn't an excuse!

The truth is, no one has done anything of significance to reduce anything *including* our 'new' government for the last 2 years. It won't be long before we can say for 4 years, and on and on.

The sooner the sheep stop parroting this do nothing governments 'the liberals blah blah' the better! I thought this was a government of change, not whiners!

So Sinc, when can we expect the whining about so and so did this and so and so did that to end, and get to it???

This intensity based targets is nothing but a complete sham.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Kyoto Has 'Failed.' " I don't think that Kyoto has failed as much as we have failed to rationally consider the Kyoto Accords. On this, I would agree with AS.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

First off pumping carbon that took half a million years to sequester back into the atmosphere in a single year can't be good. 

That said sending money elsewhere will not solve the problem. Even with global warming Canadians in most parts of the country require supplemental heating at least 7 months of the year. The money that would have been spent on energy credits needs to be spent on more energy efficient housing. This is a major project that could employ a lot of people and would take at least 20 years to start showing any real impact.

Also this is a very big country with a sparse population. The Echo I drive today gets gas mileage that is identical to the Civic I drove in the mid 70s. The auto makers gotta start doing a lot better.

Finally I will repeat my light bulb rant. This is Canada for 4 months of the year we don't need no stinkin' light bulbs. The other 8 that "wasted energy" helps to heat our homes. Why buy a product that contains Mercury and Phosphors when the net energy savings are close to nil? Remember there is no national program to recover toxic waste from CFBs or from regular flourescent tubes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> First off pumping carbon that took half a million years to sequester back into the atmosphere in a single year can't be good.
> 
> That said sending money elsewhere will not solve the problem. Even with global warming Canadians in most parts of the country require supplemental heating at least 7 months of the year. The money that would have been spent on energy credits needs to be spent on more energy efficient housing. This is a major project that could employ a lot of people and would take at least 20 years to start showing any real impact.
> 
> ...



all good points with one caveat; outdoor lighting should be low-e variety - no need for heat


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> all good points with one caveat; outdoor lighting should be low-e variety - no need for heat


Very true. 

We could also cut the banks of flourescent lights in commercial buildings in half and still have more light than is really needed. At the very least double or quadruple the number of switches so the end user has more control.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Very true.
> 
> We could also cut the banks of flourescent lights in commercial buildings in half and still have more light than is really needed. At the very least double or quadruple the number of switches so the end user has more control.


sometimes during hot summer days the local SuperStore cuts back their lighting to 1/2 and I actually find the store more enjoyable


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sometimes during hot summer days the local SuperStore cuts back their lighting to 1/2 and I actually find the store more enjoyable


I think upgrading to fridges/freezers with doors would help a lot more that turning off some flourescent lights.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> I think upgrading to fridges/freezers with doors would help a lot more that turning off some flourescent lights.


turning OFF existing lights has ZERO capital costs


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I think upgrading to fridges/freezers with doors would help a lot more that turning off some flourescent lights.


A few years ago, my mother qualified for a free fridge from the utility company that was intended to cut her fuel consumption. The unit she got was the old-fashioned kind, with a large bottom and a top freezer that's smaller. The old refrigerator was the side-by-side door kind. I don't know for sure that the new model saves energy, and she always complained it was hard to find things in the new fridge. 

Now that my power bill has been cut in half, I'm trying to figure out new ways to save. Bold, new ideas will be taken seriously here.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A single class room in one school often has 20+ 160 watt (4 tube) fixtures. That's 3.2KW/hour

In many cases everyone in that room would be much more comfortable if only 1 tube in each of those fixtures was lit. Savings 2.4KW/Hour x 10 Hours/day. Anywhere from 20 to 30KW per day for each room of that size, assuming that the lights get turned off at nights. Add automatic cut off during low use hours and the savings would be incredible. 

BTW: A typical household can easily average less than 15 KW per day, if there is no electric heat or air conditioning.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> turning OFF existing lights has ZERO capital costs


True but even new supermarkets still install these things, can't be very energy efficient. I know I wouldn't want to leave my fridge open 24/7. But I guess if they turn off some of their lights it will sooth their conscience make them appear like they give a damn about the environment. 

"Hey look, we care, our lights are off and we now sell reusable bags and bins" XX)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> True but even new supermarkets still install these things, can't be very energy efficient. I know I wouldn't want to leave my fridge open 24/7. But I guess if they turn off some of their lights it will sooth their conscience make them appear like they give a damn about the environment.
> 
> "Hey look, we care, our lights are off and we now sell reusable bags and bins" XX)


Here's a little secret for you - many if not most supermarkets often reduce the "coldness' of their fridge at night. You know that semi-soggy pizza box, chances are that it's been partially defrosted...
I for one wish Supermarkets were not so cheap with their electricity because one day public health will pay...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Here's a little secret for you - many if not most supermarkets often reduce the "coldness' of their fridge at night. You know that semi-soggy pizza box, chances are that it's been partially defrosted...
> I for one wish Supermarkets were not so cheap with their electricity because one day public health will pay...


Your fault for buying frozen pizza. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Your fault for buying frozen pizza. :lmao:


It's more evident on frozen pizza boxes.
Happens to all the frozen sections from frozen vegetable, to milk to eggs, to butter....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

nah can't be done.......


Big time :clap: :clap: :clap: 



> 18 November 2007
> *Les Chevaliers de l’Ordre de la Terre Plate, Part I: Allègre and Courtillot*
> Filed under:
> 
> ...


RealClimate

THAT is leadership.......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> RealClimate


Outstanding!

I'm seriously beginning to worry that Canada is positioning itself to be the fuel and natural resource provider for the rogue nation of the 21st century.

As much as I hope the Republicans get their butts handed to them in the next election, I don't see much hope for environmental responsibility in the Democrats either, and our own government is completely spineless on the issue (as was the previous one).

I think I'll be voting Green in the next election unless there's a chance to foil the conservatives by voting Liberal.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

France is already bankrupt--they can go down a little faster.

I love this kind of leadership, when others blunder into it. Sort of like being at the front of the lemming pack.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is good news



> *Midwest agrees climate action plan*
> 
> * 24 November 2007
> * From New Scientist Print Edition.
> ...


funny Australia finds it a good idea - Bush and Harper remain as pariahs............ such "interesting" bed fellows.



> Australia's Rudd leads Labor to election win
> By Rob Taylor
> 
> BRISBANE (Reuters) - Australia's Labor leader Kevin Rudd, a Mandarin speaking former diplomat, swept into power at national elections on Saturday on a wave of support for generational change, ending 11 years of conservative rule.
> ...


and he's not dithering either



> *Rudd pushes IR, Kyoto mandates*
> By staff writers and wires
> 
> November 26, 2007 08:20am
> ...


They have higher per capita emissions than we do....NOW what lame excuse will Harper come up with........


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well Harper was the one who watered down the what is now an agreement to agree...

He says he wants binding targets but refuses to agree to them.

I think he is a liar, and will continue to try and fool Canadians.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

macdoc always blames Alberta and the Cons as does AS. Why do people have to wait for the government to start making a change? Most people including myself can't give up our creature comforts and our greedy needs so what do we do? we whine and complain about the gov't not doing thier job. 

I wonder though how much AS and Macdoc would be complaining if liberals were in power and were still stuffing thier Arses with fraudulent money and not doing anything about the environment either? OH blessed liberals who can't do no wrong in the eyes of the east....blind people following the blind.

Always easy to pass the buck on Alberta eh? and the cons.....this whole country needs an enema including the average population. DUH!...it's not just the gov't is it? it's plain people like YOU and ME that are the problem...everyone needs to get thier SH!T together. Everyone is so pathetic...bunch of grade 3 mentalities coming out:baby:

Makes me laugh so hard that this provincce loves Dalton.....love to see him as PM....go liberals go...talk about lies eh?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

putting the blame on people and the liberals and taking our eyes off of who is actually in power does nothing.

The liberals were lame arsed liars who merely paid lip service to the problem, and now we have a conservative leader who will do nothing about it either.

I don't think it's Alberta's fault really, it's the fact that who is in power will not commit to real targets and holds this carrot out of 'well we doooo want targets, buuuuuut'...

Not good enough.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Alberta's Pembina Institute has indicated the extraction can be carbon neutral for $2 a barrel or less.
Carbon Neutral 2020 Carbon Neutral 2020

The gov knows this.
The gov has the power to enforce this.
The did not, they have not.

They ARE culpable.

NL is not allowed to pollute the sea in any way in extracting its oil.

*Why is Alberta exempt???*

We have the money to be leaders in this as Norway has been - the collective leadership in Ottawa and Alberta has been grossly negligent.....and still are being.

Some put oil heading to $300 a barrel - tell me again Canada cannot afford to do it cleanly and use that income to develop other clean technologies.

Instead - what does Alberta do??...it opens a bloody coal plant. 
Keephills 3
Tell me again where fault lies.....

Shameful is too mild, criminal far closer.

There are CRIMINAL penalties for willful pollution. Where is the leadership!!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

THIS is why Kyoto needs support......Phase 2 is critical and the last line says it all....



> Kyoto Not Enough To Curb Climate Change
> 
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2007) — Kyoto was a valiant first attempt to tackle global carbon emissions, and support for the Kyoto Protocol is still needed in the international community, but it will not be enough to make a breakthrough with climate change.
> 
> ...


what's required is the Cons and Alberta get off their collective reactionary asses and do what they have the money to do and what IS required.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

message to Harper....



> Good on Gordon
> British Prime Minister Gordon Brown makes ambitious climate speech
> Posted at 1:18 PM on 21 Nov 2007
> In his first major speech on the environment, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested that Britain could aim to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. To accomplish said goal, Brown promised that all new dwellings in Britain will be zero-carbon by 2016, and that free insulation, low-energy light bulbs, and efficient appliances will be distributed widely to homes over the next few years. He wants to eliminate plastic bags and source 40 percent of British energy from renewables by 2020. He also said that the climate crisis will spur a "technological revolution" and announced a summit to explore how to maximize economic opportunities in a low-carbon future. Brown also encouraged nations meeting in Bali in December to agree on binding emissions caps for all developed countries. *"I know this means facing up to hard choices and taking tough decisions," he said. "That means governing, not gimmickry."*


Why Britain has a leader.:clap:..a worthy continuation of Blair's effort on zero carbon.

Governing????.....wonder what's like..........


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> macdoc always blames Alberta and the Cons as does AS. Why do people have to wait for the government to start making a change? Most people including myself can't give up our creature comforts and our greedy needs so what do we do? we whine and complain about the gov't not doing thier job.
> 
> I wonder though how much AS and Macdoc would be complaining if liberals were in power and were still stuffing thier Arses with fraudulent money and not doing anything about the environment either? OH blessed liberals who can't do no wrong in the eyes of the east....blind people following the blind.
> 
> ...


MacDoc has pointed out the cost to get the extraction carbon neutral. 

On the provincial level, I've criticized the Charest Liberals.
Apart from you attack with little merit, do you really want to know what I've done to help the environment?

Have a look at some of my previous post.... 
Since them, I'm also in a legal battle to stop development on a large parcel of land that I co-own overseas. My legal fees have reached 100 000$, when I could/should cash in for many times that amount....
Closer to home, I'm getting used to people promising bodily harm for trying to get sustainable development implemented. 

As I'm typing this, it's 14Celsius in my office - rather cold. I've also downgraded from a 6000 sq. foot house to a 2000 sq. foot house. 

And while it's nice to see some people change their habits, the bigger problem are the provinces such as Alberta you let the production of oil 'eff up the environment and have all of us pay. 

Now, please back it up that Liberals politicians have been stuffing their pockets or is that another uninformed statement from you............


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love it when a plan comes together.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I love it when a plan comes together.


Mission "Do nothing"?
Or 
U.S. Republican imitation?

Hey MF, can you spew some garbage about the earth being really old and able to take care of itself and this warming? Can ya? And please add how Harper is a real leader because he does nothing...

"Kyoto will not take effect unless and until it is implemented by legislation. We will go to the wall to stop that legislation"
The great Harper


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Seriously, I'm not that interested in the "New Puritanism." It's just another societal blip that people will look back at with a "what were we thinking" retrospective. I generally believe that people are better off tilting at dragons than having the dragon revealed to be a newt. Gives them a sense of purpose.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Seriously, I'm not that interested in the "New Puritanism." *It's just another societal blip that people will look back at with a "what were we thinking" retrospective.* I generally believe that people are better off tilting at dragons than having the dragon revealed to be a newt. Gives them a sense of purpose.


That sums up what history will think of Harper


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper??.....yeah "climate criminal" lumped in with The 7 Dwarves Tobacco lobby, George Bush et al.

Getting lonely on Denier Island is it MF?? 

Ever bothered to answer why NL is not allowed to pollute but Alberta is???

You would just **** up river in the drinking water and say "too bad"........the correct term is predator.
Climate predators are ALSO in danger of extinction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not lonely at all MacDoc, And what the Dutch do is up to them--it's as simple as that. That's pretty funny: "climate predator." 

You sound like a very angry person. Just be happy changing the world's climate--helps keep the public's mind off real issues.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still Bushies lap puppy I see...denier island melting pretty quickly....



> *Kid-glove treatment for Harper*
> 
> Nov 27, 2007 04:30 AM
> LINDA MCQUAIG
> ...


Polluter pays...

no kid gloves here......Harper's actions are execrable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> * Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'*
> 
> ...quantum theory says that whenever we observe or measure something, we can select out a specific quantum state from what otherwise would have been a multitude of states, each of which could have been selected out with varying probabilities.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml

The study posits that studying the universe actually forces it to conform to one of the many possible states we might find it in. 

By constantly looking for proof of global warming and stressing studies and models that search for global warming proof, we may actually be heating up the planet itself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well you gotta admit. Blaming global warming on those who study it is a new one.

Creativity never ceases.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Mankind 'shortening the universe's life' - Telegraph
> 
> The study posits that studying the universe actually forces it to conform to one of the many possible states we might find it in.
> 
> By constantly looking for proof of global warming and stressing studies and models that search for global warming proof, we may actually be heating up the planet itself.


If you can't do the math then Quantum Mechanics is a matter of faith. If you believe in Quantum Mechanics then what of the Big Bang?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Australia ratifies Kyoto Protocol
> 3rd December 2007, 14:15 WST
> 
> *Australia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol.*
> ...


Somebody has their priorities correct.

••

I see Harper has "out sourced" his climate policy. Lack of expertise in house is no great surprise.



> Tories turn to ex-PQ premier for Bali talks
> Move could be critical in Quebec, where Conservatives face heat for Kyoto criticisms
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> ...


globeandmail.com: Tories turn to ex-PQ premier for Bali talks

I'll be curious if Harper manages to avoid making Canada into an international pariah AGAIN.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope he makes us into an international pariah on this one, but putting a Quebecer in charge is pretty slick politicking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*A recent study from the Journal of Geophysical Research (November 2007) reports that the sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900. *



> A phenomenological thermodynamic model is adopted to estimate the relative contribution of the solar-induced versus anthropogenic-added climate forcing during the industrial era. We compare different preindustrial temperature and solar data reconstruction scenarios since 1610. We argue that a realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (as the one shown by the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005)) with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al. (2005)). Under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003) is implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900.


http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ... the sun may have contributed 50 percent...


You will note, I hope, that no one (with any scientific credibility) is claiming that anthropogenic effects are not a factor any more.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that human activity is not the only factor in global climate, but many resisted the idea that human activity does have an effect. That is no longer a defensible position, and the interesting data reported here regarding the solar factor does nothing to dispute it.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Prime Minister stands out as small man of humanity*
> 
> Dec 03, 2007 04:30 AM
> MICHAEL BYERS
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | Prime Minister stands out as small man of humanity

something you don't comprehend about* "abrupt and irreversible"*......or you just basing your intransigence on the lala of neo-con "gut feel"

for a wannabe libertarian what is it you can't stomach about "polluter pays"......that would US....big time.



> *the atmosphere being treated as a free trash bin for the resulting emissions*


exactly the problem in Alberta as well, even the smallest town has fines for littering....but litter on a global scale??.......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You will note, I hope, that no one (with any scientific credibility) is claiming that anthropogenic effects are not a factor any more.
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever disputed that human activity is not the only factor in global climate, but many resisted the idea that human activity does have an effect. That is no longer a defensible position, and the interesting data reported here regarding the solar factor does nothing to dispute it.
> 
> Cheers


I just post it as interesting information. Clearly the science of anthropogenic warming is now unassailable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> something you don't comprehend about* "abrupt and irreversible"*......or you just basing your intransigence on the lala of neo-con "gut feel"


I understand that this is the rhetoric usually sounded by people desperate for power. Sort of like Senator McCarthy calling on extraordinary measures to counteract the otherwise irreversible hegemony of the Soviets. This is the historical moment! Sacrifice NOW!

Remember the Maine!!!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I hope he makes us into an international pariah on this one, but putting a Quebecer in charge is pretty slick politicking.


How that work out for the country last time a Connie invited Separatists to help out? Mulroney and Bouchard quite the team, gave birth to the BQ if I remember correctly. 
Very slick...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

At least they created a party you could vote for AS.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> At least they created a party you could vote for AS.


Is that really the best you could come up with?
Do you also think it's a compliment when a dog humps your leg?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Is that really the best you could come up with?
> Do you also think it's a compliment when a dog humps your leg?


Are you humping The Bloc?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Boys, boys.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't even understand all of these dog and humping references any more Max. I don't even know if it's supposed to be offensive. Maybe it's sort of a rural/pastoral thing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't even understand all of these dog and humping references any more Max. I don't even know if it's supposed to be offensive. Maybe it's sort of a rural/pastoral thing.


Yet you feel confident enough to post one yourself... Am I to assume that you _really_ have no clue what you type?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max....!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

You guys crack me up. Bracing discussion or cruel sport for idle minds? You decide.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> something you don't comprehend about* "abrupt and irreversible"*......or you just basing your intransigence on the lala of neo-con "gut feel"


There is a new word for this... it is called "truthiness"

Truthiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahhh... a nod to global cooling!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


>


So is the guy in the shorts supposed to be a global warming believer or denier? Or is it unnatural now to have snow and cold weather in December? I don't understand MacDoc posting a cartoon that ridicules his own strongly held beliefs? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: that one's a curiosity all right. Even the global warming camp indicates that using the "truthiness" of one's own experience is irrelevant in discussing such issues. 

I remember EhMacers last year declaring that the gloriously mild December weather was an indication that "the Earth is sick." This miserable Arctic blast isn't used as evidence that "the Earth has recovered."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver: that one's a curiosity all right. Even the global warming camp indicates that using the "truthiness" of one's own experience is irrelevant in discussing such issues.



Ummm don't be too quick to drop me into a camp on this one.  I believe that was my first comment on the subject and that I have not staked a claim to either side.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DJ: I didn't think you made up the word truthiness or were the first to apply it to "warming"--you are hereby absolved of all connection to any camp!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver: that one's a curiosity all right. Even the global warming camp indicates that using the "truthiness" of one's own experience is irrelevant in discussing such issues.
> 
> I remember EhMacers last year declaring that the gloriously mild December weather was an indication that "the Earth is sick." This miserable Arctic blast isn't used as evidence that "the Earth has recovered."


No one did such a thing. If you want to be an assmonkey at least try to keep some "truthiness". 
The only ones mixing up most scientific terms are certain deniers...

Are you and SINC trying to be the official Ehmac trolls? I'm not sure who wins the wanker of the day award - the day is young, maybe a clueless cretin will step up to the plate....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I respectfully warn you that your emotions are getting the better of you. You are using insulting language in clear contravention of the standards set out by EhMac.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: I respectfully warn you that your emotions are getting the better of you. You are using insulting language in clear contravention of the standards set out by EhMac.


How would you prefer that I massage those blanket assertions of yours.
Is there are way that would like it pointed out that you never deal with the substance of an argument?
It's obvious that you don't care about the strenght of an argument but I find it ironic that you are asking civility.
Your lack of any intellectual thinking coupled with spectacular dishonest postings are much more offensive than anything I've written.

I wonder why harpies, such as yourself, dismiss science and latch onto any wingnut with a non-tradional sense of logic. 
Is a total lack of credentials somehow a badge of honour to the uncritical?
Why do you find joy in hearing what you want to think even if your expert is a chicken-boner in a trailer park?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's obvious that you don't care about the strenght of an argument but I find it ironic that you are asking civility.


There is no irony in expecting civility, no matter how upset you might be.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

How would you prefer that I massage those blanket assertions of yours.
Is there are way that would like it pointed out that you never deal with the substance of an argument?
It's obvious that you don't care about the strenght of an argument but I find it ironic that you are asking civility.
Your lack of any intellectual thinking coupled with spectacular dishonest postings are much more offensive than anything I've written.

I wonder why harpies, such as yourself, dismiss science and latch onto any wingnut with a non-tradional sense of logic. 
Is a total lack of credentials somehow a badge of honour to the uncritical?
Why do you find joy in hearing what you want to think even if your expert is a chicken-boner in a trailer park?
----------
This should cover about any post you make...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your last post was a word salad, but at least civil. I appreciate that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Your last post was a word salad, but at least civil. I appreciate that.


I'm glad that your denier status approved - now go on and propagate doubt and misreprensentation!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ahhh... a nod to global cooling!


yea and damn the snow is grey!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm glad that your denier status approved - now go on and propagate doubt and misreprensentation....


...but not more children than the Earth can handle--the real problem facing our planet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ...but not more children than the Earth can handle--the real problem facing our planet.


Back on track I see.
Yes, overpopulation is a problem. 
So is soylent green the solution?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Soylent Green is seaweed...I kowtow to the Harry Harrison original.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Soylent Green is seaweed...I kowtow to the Harry Harrison original.


There is no Soylent Green in the original - only soylent steaks.
But they do talk about overpopulation and Global Warming.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll have to re-read it. I remember there was drought but also severe cold in winter. The green coloured stuff was definitely algae and seaweed. 

Though I enjoy the movie, I still find it funny that--given the many indignities heaped upon the population--using human protein in Soylent Green is supposed to be the capper.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I there is a treatment for excess saliva - seasonal Pavlov.....












> 12.5.2007 7:17 AM
> *Germany Commits to Steep CO2 Cuts*
> 
> By Dan Shapley
> ...


Global Warming - Roundup of News Out of Bali Global Warming Summit - thedailygreen.com

For Canada it's not a case of can't - it's a case of won't because of brain dead politicos - mainly Harpo and cronies.

The money is available, the technology is there, the populace wants it.....Harpo ain't listening.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the populace really wanted it, Harper would do it for the votes. My guess is that the polls show Canadians wouldn't put up with the true ramifications of Kyoto--they just like the idea of getting a pretty certificate to hang on the front door of the Parliamanet Buildings.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what ramifications of kyoto?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what ramifications of kyoto?


* Billions of dollars spent on purchasing carbon credits from the likes of Russia.
* Higher taxes.
* Increased energy prices.
* Loss of competitive advantage to signatories who will not have to cut emissions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> * Billions of dollars spent on purchasing carbon credits from the likes of Russia.
> * Higher taxes.
> * Increased energy prices.
> * Loss of competitive advantage to signatories who will not have to cut emissions.


LOL, 
Of course MF has nothing to base his statements on apart from wild speculation and fearmongering.
Congrats, you win the Connie talking points of the day award.

But lets indulge your fantasies a little.
- Higher taxes? Maybe you should worry about present taxes.
- Canadian companies that meet emissions will be able to sell their credits - afraid of the free market aren't we...
- Increased energy prices? Have you purchased gas lately? Rather ironic given the record profits from the oil baron....
- Canada per capita is spewing 20x what India is. Are you saying that we should keep on that rate? I thought that those countries that you fear already have an advandage over Canada in terms of labour cost... silly me...

For someone who stated that we should pay for what we use, why do feel we (as in all Canadians) should subsidize the energy sector for 'effing up the environment?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> - Higher taxes? Maybe you should worry about present taxes.


I worry about both



ArtistSeries said:


> - Canadian companies that meet emissions will be able to sell their credits - afraid of the free market aren't we...


A free market controlled entirely by the government. I suspect you don't really 


ArtistSeries said:


> understand supply and demand. The supply of "cheap" carbon dioxide reduction in countries like Russia far outweighs our available and expensive "supply." The credits will be purchased where they are cheapest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> * Billions of dollars spent on purchasing carbon credits from the likes of Russia.
> * Higher taxes.
> * Increased energy prices.
> * Loss of competitive advantage to signatories who will not have to cut emissions.


you forgot to add that we'll all be homeless and freezing.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not to mention killing one another other for precious scraps of food and access to decent land affording a fighting chance for survival.

Woo hoo! Species annihilation, here we come. _**** Gnatus Extinctus._


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max, why are you forever the optimist?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> When gas prices are adjusted for inflation, they're about on par for previous years--not as high as the worst years (1918, the 1930s, early 1980s) but not as low as the lowest.


Mixing up profit and cost aren't we?
By that analogy your present computer should cost, what... 1 000 000$?

As for the other guys:


> China, a booming economy known for its air pollution and rising greenhouse gas emissions, is winning praise at an international climate conference for its efforts to clean up and support anti-global warming moves.
> 
> Even hard-to-please environmental groups who relish lambasting industrialized countries for pollution are praising Beijing, though it's clear China - which relies heavily on dirty, outdated coal burning techniques - has a lot more to do.
> 
> "Minister Baird is taking some highly obstructive positions coming into these negotiations, particularly the kinds of demands that he's making of developing countries," Bramley said in an interview from Bali. "When we see how poorly Canada is performing on climate change, it really points to a kind of hypocrisy in Canada's approach."



Climate change ranking names Canada 4th-worst, notes improvement in China - Yahoo! Canada News


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

AS, I think it's necessary to balance out all of the pessimists one encounters around here. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Mixing up profit and cost aren't we?


I think that if we remove the one-third share now taken by government in the form of taxes, it all balances out quite nicely.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The international disgrace continues. Even China is making greater strides.

This Harper government is disgusting.



> *Climate change ranking names Canada 4th worst*
> 
> Associated Press
> December 7, 2007 at 6:29 AM EST
> ...


globeandmail.com: Climate change ranking names Canada 4th worst

We have the money and opportunity - we have awful leaders who are a national and international shame.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> ...but not more children than the Earth can handle--the real problem facing our planet.





martman said:


> No, the problem is people who think there is only ONE problem.
> You are correct about population but to say that means we don't produce too much carbon is disingenuous. How is this population causing global warming? Body heat?


Answer that instead of avoiding it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Frankly, I think that the emphasis on so-called greenhouse gases is horribly misplaced. I'm merely pointing out that if people were truly worried the planet was on "slow boil" they would stop having children and driving immediately. A few have--the vast majority have not.

Even imagining extraordinary efforts at CO2 reduction, each additional child makes any such efforts look like a drop in the bucket because of the additional consumption of resources they're certain to require.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The international disgrace continues. Even China is making greater strides.
> 
> This Harper government is disgusting.
> 
> ...


Instead of taking a leadership role, he's saying "only if you do".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah many nations don't have national health care, or many other things like the Charter that show our leadership.

What next from the clowns?? - well Podunkinland doesn't have running water.....we'll just not fix ours until THEY get around to it..... 

It is SUCH a stupid stance and Flaherty shows every sign of just letting the infrastructure crumble just as he did with Ontario and then along came Walkerton.

There are laws against polluting the ocean that NL MUST adhere to whether anyone else does........there is ZERO excuse for Alberta to be polluting the way it is and for Canada not to take a leadership role.

If Germany can reduce it's emissions far far below 1990, if California can - WE can.
*Cons* .... ..... a very appropo term here.

•••

What's the matter MF - saliva becoming a nuisance?? Poor puppy

Here's a loud one for you


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love the way the insecure draw attention their insecurities. How about a bigger graphic next time, Doc?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MFs hero in action.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so wait. If I put our family plans on hold, and drive the little toyota I have even less than I do already, that'll be our magic bullet for lowering GHG?

Sounds like a winning (conservative) strategy to me!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Don't drive cuz you'll make more potholes and don't use the tap or flush the toilet cuz it'll have to be fixed...

What the ditz's don't get is we CAN have all the luxuries AND be carbon neutral or close to and make a great economy doing so.

But not with current dufus in Ottawa and certain provinces.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well the oil compa... er the government want you to believe that any restrictions will result in dead babies, carrying hundreds of pounds of your belongings on your back through blizzards, and no pudding.

Dear god don't take away my pudding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey--pudding is carbon neutral.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But calorie-positive, and guilt-negative.

Oh dear. I really don't want to wring my hands again over this one anxious thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: Relax and have some spaghetti carbon-ara...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oddly enough, I just did partake of some pasta... it's true! I guess you could call it "pastapointofnoreturn."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're way past the commit markers, baby.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_"Baby?"_ 

Were I of a more purely macdocian persuasion, I might see fit to round up a fine corral of lateral links and then swiftly sic them on you in a furiously oblique manner, hoping to shame you into an abject silence... if only for a brief, sweet time.

But soft - exactly what are "commit markers," mein freund? Methinks you are unwittingly deepening into head-scratching obscurity. One need only look at your benevolent yet clueless avatar... I hope you are not becoming that which you mock... t'would be a case of being hoisted by your own petard, would it not?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I've got to admit you've pierced me to the core here, swiftly uncovering my effort at deliberate obscurity, and shaming--nay humbling--me into an hour's silence.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I have learned to savour these small victories, MF... they are all I have left in this cruel world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The international disgrace continues. Even China is making greater strides.
> 
> This Harper government is disgusting.
> 
> ...


Looks to me like that post was nothing but hot air and likely added to global warming. Here is the REAL story:

China says West should deal with warming

BALI, Indonesia - China insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries.

Environmental activists, meanwhile, labeled the United States and Saudi Arabia the worst "climate sinners," accusing them of having inadequate polices for climate problems while letting greenhouse gas emissions rise. But the activists also said no country is doing enough.

Su Wei, a top climate expert for China's government attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference, said the job belongs to the wealthy. He said it was unfair to ask developing nations to accept binding emissions cuts and other restrictions being pushed for already industrialized states.

China says West should deal with warming - Yahoo! News

Good thing the Harper government has taken the position that global warming is different for each nation, and this turn of events shows precisely why one formula won't work. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: A few days ago someone was wetting themselves with glee that Australia had signed Kyoto but failed to mention that Australia’s new PM followed it up with an announcement that his country would not meet its emissions targets.

Likewise Canada is expected to meet the same carbon emission standards as countries where home heating is never required?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: There you go again using logic. It just does not work when applied to global warming. You've been told that before.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Shameful........how low can the Cons go.



> *Canada accused of undermining climate talks*
> Updated Sat. Dec. 8 2007 11:06 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


CTV.ca | Canada accused of undermining climate talks


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

We are all on the same planet, if this is as serious of a threat to our existence as they are making it out to be, it would be in all of our best interests to have everyone on board. Until then the actions of a few will be canceled out by them so they can "catch up". But hey at least they'll have a clear conscience if the world goes to hell in a hand basket.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Looks to me like that post was nothing but hot air and likely added to global warming. Here is the REAL story:
> 
> China says West should deal with warming
> 
> ...


So the Harper government's position is no longer that the theory of human-induced climate change is just a socialist plot? What should we call the new position "drag your feet and obstruct" or just "do nothing while pretending we are in hopes that a few foolish middle-of-the-road voters might give us our majority, so then we won't have to bother pretending anymore?" 

Harper's a snake, plain and simple.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> We are all on the same planet, if this is as serious of a threat to our existence as they are making it out to be, it would be in all of our best interests to have everyone on board. Until then the actions of a few will be canceled out by them so they can "catch up". But hey at least they'll have a clear conscience if the world goes to hell in a hand basket.


Yep, we can't do anything until we can get every single last person to agree - which we know will be never and therefore we can do nothing at all, while the clock ticks forward. 

Do something now - it will cost. Wait until we have no other choice in a decade or two - it will cost a whole pile. People believing the transparently self-serving arguments of the Harper government - priceless.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So the Harper government's position is no longer that the theory of human-induced climate change is just a socialist plot?


The goals of the "GHG movement" are indistinguishable from the goals of disaffected lefties who were left out in the cold after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Whether that makes it a Socialist plot is debatable. It really is, however, about moving money from the richer states to the majority of the signatories of Kyoto who have their hands out and mouths open.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

damn socialists. They already screwed us with forcing universal healthcare.

someone some time ago posted that stats can showed GHG go down under Martin. Has it gone down since Harper?

Just curious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> damn socialists. They already screwed us with forcing universal healthcare.


And a health care "crisis" in every country that's tried it--go figure.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

absolutely. The US is second to none and their residents are among he healthiest in the world.

France is a shining example of socialism gone really wrong in healthcare. 

We have tried and tried to fund healthcare properly here, and still, people are dying in the streets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

France is bankrupt. The U.S. system is 61% government funded and the remaining privately insured are so heavily regulated by government that no bargains are to be found. If the U.S. socializes its health care, my prediction is that Third World countries seeing an opportunity will become the new vanguard of private modern medicine. Anyone with a serious problem will travel overseas to get the care they need. All of the important research will be done there as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

google is my friend too.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> All of the important research will be done [in the US] as well.


I wonder why so many american scientists are trying so hard to get jobs at Canadian universities? 10 years ago, the American's had the best medical research system in the world... they were short of cash, but compared to Europe, Asia, and especially backwaters like Canada, they were pretty well off. However, after two Republican administrations, funding for medical research in the US is at an all-time low and the academic refugees pouring out of America are making faculty recruitment committees at Canadian universities deal with the novel problem of too many excellent candidates (I'm currently serving on one of these committees, and we are literally unable to keep up with all the excellent applications from the US). The only downside to this embarrassment of riches, is that Canadian talent is really up against unprecedented competition.

My colleagues in the US generally fall into two camps... those who've started looking for work outside of the US, or those who are desperately clinging to the hope that the Texas Taliban will be ousted and some sanity will return to the funding of medical research over the next few years.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> google is my friend too.


?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I wonder why so many american scientists are trying so hard to get jobs at Canadian universities?


Because Canada pays higher for government jobs than private industry does in the U.S.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Because Canada pays higher for government jobs than private industry does in the U.S.


Sorry... good guess, but no. The reason is that, despite its pitiful and eroding financial support, Canada's merit-based system of allocating research funds is starting to look pretty damn good to our southern neighbors (who are getting plenty sick of ideological meddling, and obvious overt hostility towards science in the government). And consequently our funding agencies like CIHR and NSERC haven't been as viciously eviscerates as their American counterparts (the NIH and NSF). The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was able to fund 12% of qualified applications in the last round of competition (the fact that 12% is viewed as 'good' should give you a sense of how bad things have gotten in research in Canada... the fact that this is attractive to our American colleagues is nothing short of catastrophic). Of course, the Conservatives have been heading in the direction their Republican leaders have been guiding them, but due to their minority status, they've been unable to make much progress with their short-sighted anti-science agenda.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bryanc: That's odd. When I was researching this very question a little while ago, I found statistics that disagreed with that notion. I'll post some of it, and you tell me how they are wrong:



> The Government of Canada is the second most important funder of R&D in Canada, behind the business sector. Since the end of the 1990s, federal R&D expenditures have increased steadily, mostly through funding of higher education. In the past decade, the shares of federal funding for higher education and the intramural sector have been converging, at around 40 percent in 2004–05. R&D performed by government (federal, provincial and local governments) as a percentage of GDP is below that of the United States and most OECD countries. The same can be said about the financing of R&D in which Canada trails the United States and other major OECD countries.



ERAWATCH: Research Inventory


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The goals of the "GHG movement" are indistinguishable from the goals of disaffected lefties who were left out in the cold after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Whether that makes it a Socialist plot is debatable. It really is, however, about moving money from the richer states to the majority of the signatories of Kyoto who have their hands out and mouths open.


Of course this socialist plot you and the paranoid Mr. Harper speak of is an absolute fantasy. Those who want to do something to prevent the disastrous effects of human-induced climate change are not necessarily on the left of the political spectrum and as a whole represent the majority of people in the developed world. Doing something may even help preserve your Holy Can-Do-No-Wrong Free Market from blowing itself to hell.

I wonder, how long did it take after we discovered the Earth was round did those who still jumped up and down insisting it was flat start to be identified as the raving lunatics that they were? I think we may have reached that point in the climate change debate.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This exchange has me smiling on this grey TO morning.

I've been waiting for someone to pounce on MF's outrageous reduction of a complex situation to: climate change concern = digruntled socialists.

I don't think MF actually believes that himself - rather, he was trawling with some fresh bait and in his haste to snag an argumentative opponent he spouted that ridiculous fantasy vision.

Kinda McCarthyesque in its sweeping condemnation, ain't it?

On the other hand, if MF actually believes this simplistic ideological spittle, I am going to have to revise my opinion of the poor fellow's intellect.

Downwardly, natch.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

stupid questions get stupid answers.

hee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course this socialist plot you and the paranoid Mr. Harper speak of is an absolute fantasy.


I never said it was a socialist plot. Only that the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Gas Movement are identical to the goals of the disgruntled socialists: shipping cartloads of money from one side of the world to the other, and instituting controls on countries that will not have to be met by the majority of signatories. 

I would think that any socialist worth his (free, government-supplied) salt would sign on to Kyoto just by reading it, even with all of the climatological implications removed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I've been waiting for someone to pounce on MF's outrageous reduction of a complex situation to: climate change concern = digruntled socialists.


Typical socialist attitude...Who were you waiting for? Maybe a government program to write morning rebuttals for anxious citizens who are too sleepy to do it themselves?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

There you go again!

I was waiting for someone else because it's sporting to do so.

I was waiting for someone else because your gambit was too crude and therefore obvious. Better to sit back and watch someone else take the bait.

I was waiting because it's Sunday morning and there was no need to rush headlong into battle... least of all with a disgruntled paranoiac whose avatar of choice scratches his head in forever frozen puzzlement.

I was waiting because you were waiting and I thought I'd reciprocate.

There. Must I explain everything to you?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Mission accomplished, Harper Style*



> *Nations bicker in Bali over ‘green' goods trade*
> 
> JIMBARAN, Indonesia — Rich and poor countries failed on Sunday to agree on a plan to open up trade in green goods, with Brazil fearing a major U.S.-EU proposal raised on the fringes of climate talks in Bali was a protectionist ruse.
> 
> At the end of two days of talks involving officials from 32 nations, including 12 trade ministers, a* final news conference descended into farce* as Brazil and the United States swapped recriminations.


globeandmail.com: Nations bicker in Bali over 'green' goods trade

Such a glorious moment it must be for you, MF....



> Tories aim to undermine Bali talks, group alleges
> 
> Canadian environmental group says leaked *federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.*


globeandmail.com: Tories aim to undermine Bali talks, group alleges

Of course Baird shows real leadership by letting the US call the shots for Canada... and it has all your favourite talking point themes...


> Canada's environment minister has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the United States, saying it would handicap the economy without reversing greenhouse gases.
> 
> He used a military analogy to suggest that Canada would be handicapping its economy by adopting environmental restrictions without being followed by its closest neighbour and trading partner.
> 
> “Our major economic competition is with the United States,” Mr. Baird said in an interview before he arrived in Bali this weekend.


globeandmail.com: Baird says no climate deal without U.S

First the Liberals, then the Chinese now it's the US's fault....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Such a glorious moment it must be for you, MF....


It might have been glorious if I hadn't expected it. 

Darryl Sittler's six goals were glorious because they were such a surprise.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It seems that Baird's approach can be summed up by Suzuki's denunciation yesterday. Smoke and mirrors.

Harper and the Cons position on climate change hasn't moved an inch since Harper made his famous statement implicating doing anything about the problem as being a "socialist plot". Their methods have. Now they just flat-out lie to the public, pretending that they have a plan and want to do something, while pulling every trick possible to prevent anything meaningful from happening.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It seems that Baird's approach can be summed up by Suzuki's denunciation yesterday.


Well, we can't offend Canada's favourite geneticist when it comes to climatology, now can we?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Bryanc: That's odd. When I was researching this very question a little while ago, I found statistics that disagreed with that notion. I'll post some of it, and you tell me how they are wrong:
> 
> ERAWATCH: Research Inventory


I don't see anything wrong with your statistics... but they're not addressing the concern of medical researchers in the US, which is that funding is being cut drastically, and worse, there is an unprecedented and unacceptable level of ideological meddling by politicians (i.e. loss of merit-based funding).

My point was that the Republicans have done a great deal of damage to what you were implying was the greatest medical research infrastructure in the world, and that consequently, many of the scientists working in that system are now looking elsewhere for opportunities.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How's that - cold country and they can be on top two years in a row.....and we're 4th.....WORST. 

Harper and the Cons....an international embarrassment for Canada



> Sweden Leadin'
> Sweden best at addressing climate change, U.S. and Saudi Arabia worst, says report
> Posted at 4:56 PM on 07 Dec 2007
> You might want to sit down for this: A new report from a German environmental group says that Sweden does the most to address climate change, while the U.S. and Saudi Arabia do the least. Shocking, we know. The U.S. dropped two places from its fourth-worst position last year, *while Sweden stayed up top for the second year in a row*.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Well, we can't offend Canada's favourite geneticist when it comes to climatology, now can we?


Harper has offended the whole world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Harper has offended the whole world.


Now, now GA, that is not the truth.

I am not offended in any way.


----------

