# Those Who Control the Present Now, Control the Past...



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...955&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

"The Conservative government is trying to push global climate change off the federal map, shutting down the main federal website on the topic and *removing mention of it from speeches and postings*, opposition MPs and environmentalists say."

very 1984, eh?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Rather an old story, but nothing new from the Cons, the have been revamping the web sites and using a strange strategy of decentralizing all Canadian government website (the only think they seem to be decentralizing). Hey, if you ignore it goes away.... The word "Kyoto" shall no longer exist....


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Rather an old story, but nothing new from the Cons, the have been revamping the web sites and using a strange strategy of decentralizing all Canadian government website (the only think they seem to be decentralizing). Hey, if you ignore it goes away.... The word "Kyoto" shall no longer exist....


old? it's from today's paper


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

trump said:


> old? it's from today's paper


It's been in the blogphere for over 2 months.... with a few other details.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm waiting for MF's, BJ's and Vanutt's theories on this "new history"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm waiting for MF's, BJ's and Vanutt's theories on this "new history"


I'm interested in you providing more than just your usual bile. Now, if you don't mind, please leave the discussion up to those who aren't wedded to mad rejoinders like yourself. I'm sorry you can't intelligently participate in such matters, but you've only yourself to blame. 

Too harsh (and rude) for the weekend? Yes. And I openly apologise for my public rudeness that I, nonetheless, feel is necessary.

Really, Macspectrum, at least, once in a while, try to communicate thought instead of just how mad you are.

The Cons are developing a plan and I think they will shift focus to air quality over climate change. This is not news, their campaign focussed more upon it. We'll see how the politics work out. The Libs have to overcome 10 years of empty gestures and obvious manipulation while the Cons focus on things people actually see on a daily basis while downplaying long-term problems. 

I think the enviro issue is there for the taking. Note that the last time Canadians backed a tough issue, I don't think it was during an election. I believe the 'hell or high water' thing was a more aggressive approach after being elected. This fall's session will be interesting.


----------



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

Those who control the present also get to write the history books about the present, which shall someday be the past.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do recall that Harper is an oilpatch kid and doing Kyoto while servicing the demand of the world for oil sands products is a non starter.
Not a chance in hell they can continue using natural gas for extraction and even consider the Kyoto targets.

Unless he mandated nuclear extraction techiques there is no way Canada can supply the world with enormous amounts of hard to extract fossil fuels and be an econ-citizen.

Canada Kyoto - = oxymoron

•••
BTW do we have a before and after record of speeches under consideration - that's a pretty serious Orwellian charge to make without clear evidence.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

this:
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp
was this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041011155735/www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/affect/

It seems like the Cons have a ways to go yet though:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=site:gc.ca+"kyoto"&btnG=Search


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

....... or control the pest... or some disparaging reference to 'pest control'.......

Anyone who expects Conservatives (neo, progressive, reformed, allianced... what-the-f**k-ever) to be environmentally sensitive must have been in a coma for the last 10 (20, 30......) years!!!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I'm interested in you providing more than just your usual bile.


The story in itself is the rewriting of history. The sweeping under the rug issue of climate change. Ignoring it, does not make it go away. Unless you prefer that "feel good" empty philosophy. There are so many angles here - from the ignorance one to marching in step with Bush... Your pick.... Although, the Beej likes to swing from the wide to the narrow all the while berating others who do that - it's his style....


Beej said:


> The Cons are developing a plan and I think they will shift focus to air quality over climate change. This is not news, their campaign focussed more upon it. We'll see how the politics work out.


That sounds like Beej the optimistic speaking... I bet you four black and tan beers that the "made-in-Canada" plan will not hurt Albertans but hurt Canada...
There will be empty slogans and feel good iniatives that do sweet F.A.. It will be akin to pseudo-science and mumbo jumbo. Some will feel at home with it, and some more than others....





Beej said:


> The Libs have to overcome 10 years of empty gestures and obvious manipulation while the Cons focus on things people actually see on a daily basis while downplaying long-term problems.


Getting the acceptance of Kyoto was no small task. 
I don't think the Libs or the Cons have served the environment well. I think that the Con plan will be lip-service and nothing more.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow- you are indeed correct. What whitewash.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/envhome.html

then click on Climate Change - here's what you get



> The Government of Canada is committed to the development and implementation of a Made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gases and ensuring clean air, water, land and energy for Canadians. The Made-in-Canada approach will be effective, realistic and focus on achieving sustained reductions in emissions in Canada while ensuring a strong economy. The Government will develop solutions that have clear environmental benefits to Canada and improve our ability to market new technologies around the world.


from the Cons.

Versus this previously.



> Did you know ...
> Every litre of gas used by your vehicle produces 2.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2), a major GHG.
> 
> What is Climate Change?
> ...


amongst a series of resources and links



> What is
> Climate Change?
> The Earth is a Greenhouse
> The Greenhouse Gases
> ...


and here's the core of it ( BTW the entire info structure of CISE
Canadian Information System for the Environment 
is just AWFUL.

This from the Cons



> Environmental Reporting & Indicators
> The Canadian Information System for the Environment will …
> 
> “… serve as the primary source of data for the compilation of an expanded set of national environmental indicators.”
> ...


What a bunch of hogwash.
At least the previous site laid out the threats in a clear manner with good links.

 

Glad you brought this to my attention. That entire CISE site is modelled on Kafka's Castle - endless rooms and corridors of nothing. 

••
C'mon Beej - that whitewash is indefensible.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

be careful macdoc let you be accused of spewing "bile"
the neo con response when forced to see reality
move along, nothing to see here


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the link
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"

gets me this;


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I think that the Con plan will be lip-service and nothing more.


Yes, and that will be more of the same that we've had since 1997. Of course, the whining will be louder.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> be careful macdoc let you be accused of spewing "bile"
> the neo con response when forced to see reality
> move along, nothing to see here


Your anti-partisan bias is quite clear. It's not about the environment to you, it's about neocons in your soup.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Although, the Beej likes to swing from the wide to the narrow all the while berating others who do that - it's his style....
> ...........
> That sounds like Beej the optimistic speaking... I bet you four black and tan beers that the "made-in-Canada" plan will not hurt Albertans but hurt Canada...
> There will be empty slogans and feel good iniatives that do sweet F.A.. It will be akin to pseudo-science and mumbo jumbo. Some will feel at home with it, and some more than others....


Let's see, this:
likes to swing from the wide to the narrow all the while berating others who do that - it's his style

Seems to suggest hypocrisy. I guess your own harpocrisy is ok though. Hmmm, you wouldn't have some sort of double standard would you? Never you, AS. Maybe you're still a little miffed that I've pointed it out to you a couple times recently...
...........
My only optimism is that I think the issue is reaching critical mass (politically) so that the voters may finally enable something useful. I'm not optimistic regarding climate change in the fall plan. Air quality, mildly. In the end, it's hard to do less than the previous two governments. It is funny to see certain folks a little more forthcoming in their criticism, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Abandoning Kyoto is doing less for the most critical problem facing humanity.
That site and approach is absolute junk and I'm very surprised to see you defending it Beej.

The Libs at least talked the talk with much shuffling.

The Cons can't be bothered even to pretend.

That's the message loud and clear......economy and numbers and well maybe a bit of lip service beyond that if the environmental problems actually
a) cost votes
b) cost money ie greater cost to the health system or they need to pay farmers more.

mandating ANYTHING that might get in the way of the Alberta cash cow is off the table.
If the gov does nothing - the opposition can't vote that down.
Nero fiddled at least, Harper just sits on his hands.

After all Canada stands to benefit from global warming so say some studies. Let the others eat cake.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Abandoning Kyoto is doing less for the most critical problem facing humanity.
> That site and approach is absolute junk and I'm very surprised to see you defending it Beej.
> ...................
> The Libs at least talked the talk with much shuffling.
> ...


I'm not defending it. Like I've been saying for some time, the Cons will most likely (almost definitely) try to shift the focus to air quality. My pointing out other's disingenuous nature is not defending the site changes. I'm sure you're well aware of that difference.
...................
That was part of the problem. They created the notion that some sort of plan, involving Mercer ads and next to no changes in taxes and daily life, was a solution. They helped enforce the false notion that prepetuates a major barrier: people expecting this to just be another minor government program that solves things without being very noticeable.
...................
They were more honest in the past (simply didn't believe in the science) but learned to lie like the Libs. That was part of the process (less ideology, more politics) that got them elected. That is the sound of inevitability. 
...................
NRTEE predates the Cons, and is not without controversy. However, standard measures that the public gets accustomed to seeing are actually a good thing. It helps keep the environment more regularly newsworthy, like unemployment, inflation, GDP and auditor's reports. Indicators are, obviously, worthless by themselves but can help build voter support or, at least, interest.
...................
That is a familiar approach. I think Canadians are slowly waking up to the BS they've been fed for almost 10 years on this subject.
...................
:lmao: :lmao: I think we'll be seeing more of that line in the upcoming months. It's a good one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the problem, rgray, lies with Canda, not Conservatives per se. As has been pointed out, no party in power has ever done a phenomenal amount for the environment, though Mulroney wasn't bad.

The best "friends" of Canada's environment are parties when they are not in power--like the butcher who drops the pice of meat to 50 cents a pound the moment he runs out of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Still, working air quality isn't a bad step.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think the problem, rgray, lies with Canda, not Conservatives per se. As has been pointed out, no party in power has ever done a phenomenal amount for the environment, though Mulroney wasn't bad.
> 
> The best "friends" of Canada's environment are parties when they are not in power--like the butcher who drops the pice of meat to 50 cents a pound the moment he runs out of it.


The environment and agricultural free trade are two of Canada's most hypocritical topics, internationally. Our leaders have consistently embarrassed us by lecturing the world while knowing their own backyard is a mess. I like the butcher line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Still, working air quality isn't a bad step.


After seeing TO in the summer (Ottawa isn't so great either) you have to wonder if that's the more voter friendly approach.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Let's see, this:
> likes to swing from the wide to the narrow all the while berating others who do that - it's his style
> 
> Seems to suggest hypocrisy. I guess your own harpocrisy is ok though. Hmmm, you wouldn't have some sort of double standard would you? Never you, AS. Maybe you're still a little miffed that I've pointed it out to you a couple times recently...
> ...........


No Beej, my positions are clear - not this grey zone you live in. As an extra keen bonus, your grey zone is directly influenced by the poster. Double standard? :lmao: :lmao: Suggesting that you are a hypocrite? No Beej, you play a different game.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes, and that will be more of the same that we've had since 1997. Of course, the whining will be louder.


Maybe the whining will be louder for a reason - or does that possibility not exist in the mind of the Beej? 
At least the Libs spoke about the problem and did not try to hide it, ignore it, and play switch and bait with it... :yawn:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No Beej, my positions are clear


Yes. You are intellectually biased against Harper and the Conservaties and will endlessly complain. While there are rumours that you're also a Liberal sycophant, I don't believe them. The sources are questionable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes. You are intellectually biased against Harper and the Conservaties and will endlessly complain. While there are rumours that you're also a Liberal sycophant, I don't believe them. The sources are questionable.


Up yours...

Or do you prefer: At least I'm not intellectually challenged like you can be.

The cons are in power at the moment and their policies suck (and all levels). Rather hard to criticize the party that is not in power at the moment. And of course, from the blinkered Beej fortress, you fail to see when either myself (and even MacSpec) do criticize the Libs. 
Continue on Neo-Con soldier!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> At least the Libs spoke about the problem and did not try to hide it, ignore it, and play switch and bait with it... :yawn:


Yes, they got votes on the cheap. Make some empty gestures, get some votes. Harper is learning from the pros. But the whining from some areas is now louder. Whether you want to admit the reasons or not, is your business.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Up yours...


Only if you lube up first, AS.  

So, about the harpocrisy regarding the accusations you've been known to toss around...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Still, working air quality isn't a bad step.


Sure, but it does not address a root problem.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Harper is learning from the pros. But the whining from some areas is now louder. Whether you want to admit the reasons or not, is your business.


That would be Bush  

Ignoring the problem is not a solution. 
Pretending it does not exist is dishonest.
Removing references of it, is Orwellian.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ignoring the problem is not a solution.
> Pretending it does not exist is dishonest.
> Removing references of it, is Orwellian.


I heard of funny story related to this and the AB government from back in the day. 

That level of information control just causes problems (already has, arguably). The Cons are doing themselves in. The issue doesn't need to be blown out of proportion (and thus Godwinning the topic), it's just them being stupid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The internet allows almost anyone with the remotest interest to find out what was once said and what is being said now. In the Orwellian examples, the government really did control all of the information. It now controls only the information that the world's laziest person might see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I heard of funny story related to this and the AB government from back in the day.


Please share.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The internet allows almost anyone with the remotest interest to find out what was once said and what is being said now. In the Orwellian examples, the government really did control all of the information. It now controls only the information that the world's laziest person might see.


I would disagree with you on that. The internet is not the oracle. In an era of soundbytes, often that is all that the public remembers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

By downplaying Climate change - the Government is making a clear priority statement.
By removing the information - it does the Canadian citizen a disservice.

The information previously available on the gov site was not wrong - it was politically inconvenient for Harper.
His actions in this are odious.

The Libs may not have done enough - that's certain- at least they were upfront about the issue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> In an era of soundbytes, often that is all that the public remembers.


But this has always been true of the public. "Remember the Maine." In the Orwell scenario. the public had only a single source of information. But if soundbytes rule, all the opposition needs to do is create a better soundbyte.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please share.....


probably some "colourful" story when Klein was getting his political advice from Jack Daniels.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> probably some "colourful" story when Klein was getting his political advice from Jack Daniels.


Oddly, he became directionless around when he stopped drinking. Before then he actually did quite a bit.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Oddly, he became directionless around when he stopped drinking. Before then he actually did quite a bit.


oh puhlease
"the only thing klein knew how to do well when he was boozing was to take advice from his 'entourage' " - this from one of Klein's advisors

now that he's sober, he thinks himself a philosopher king and is making stupid decisions and he's alienated the bright young people he used to have around him


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh puhlease
> "the only thing klein knew how to do well when he was boozing was to take advice from his 'entourage' " - this from one of Klein's advisors
> 
> now that he's sober, he thinks himself a philosopher king and is making stupid decisions and he's alienated the bright young people he used to have around him


Ok, name the bright young people and why you think of them as such.

Second, how is listening to bright young people a bad thing? Political leaders don't actually think up their own stuff, they make decisions based upon advice.

As I said, he did quite a bit for a number of years. I don't know why he stopped -- tired, sober, didn't care, corrupt etc.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Ok, name the bright young people and why you think of them as such.


i know some of those bright young people who were in his entourage

best to get my news from the horse's mouth rather than other orifice farther down

as for naming them, you'd better point an M-16 at my head Herr BJ, and even then I may not tell


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Understood, little Spec. 

By the way, the plausibly deniable nazi insinuation...pure 'Spec.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Understood, little Spec.
> 
> By the way, the plausibly deniable nazi insinuation...pure 'Spec.


well with your "vee vant you to name your zources" request/command...

are you really that silly asking me to name the people who were in klein's entourage who have stated what a boozer he was and that he could barely sign his name?

either you're very naive or you think i am


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> well with your "vee vant you to name your zources" request/command...
> 
> are you really that silly asking me to name the people who were in klein's entourage who have stated what a boozer he was and that he could barely sign his name?
> 
> either you're very naive or you think i am


No, you seemed to have some people in mind and, "he's alienated the bright young people he used to have around him" did not imply personal relationships with such people. You could have said that is was opinion based on personal/private knowledge and not for public posting, but instead you leapt to your standard smearing using nazi insinuations. 

You clearly jumped to conclusions simply to reuse your material instead of mentioning that it was opinion based on personal knowledge, not opinion based on just news, web-reading, etc. 

Not only do you shoot messengers, now you just shoot people who ask you questions (how dare they!). :clap: Way to go 'Spec.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

oh poor poor BJ
why don't you head down to Sussex Dr. and see if they need someone to help trim the hedges
maybe that'll make you feel better

as for shooting of messenger, perhaps you should have a long look in a mirror before casting that stone


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh poor poor BJ
> why don't you head down to Sussex Dr. and see if they need someone to help trim the hedges
> maybe that'll make you feel better
> ............
> as for shooting of messenger, perhaps you should have a long look in a mirror before casting that stone


Nice way to avoid admitting to your mistake. A very 'neocon' diversion.
............
:lmao: More diversion. Yes, I've done it before. I admit it, but can you?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Nice way to avoid admitting to your mistake. A very 'neocon' diversion.
> ............
> :lmao: More diversion. Yes, I've done it before. I admit it, but can you?


mistake?
BJ now considers himself judge, jury and sometime executioner?
the world according to BJ

oh wait, i think i saw a movie at a stag party with that title
beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> mistake?
> BJ now considers himself judge, jury and sometime executioner?
> the world according to BJ
> 
> ...


Never admit, just divert. :lmao: 

As with many things, you act like those you dislike most. This has been quite a fun morning. Thanks 'Spec, sometimes you make it so easy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

C'mon Beej, the quip about Sussex was funny...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> C'mon Beej, the quip about Sussex was funny...


A funny diversion? beejacon

Like I said, sometimes it's just too easy. You, however, can occasionally pose a challenge.  En garde!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

now back to the "new history" being created in the harpo bunker


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> now back to the "new history" being created in the harpo bunker


Truthfully spec, you haven't even come close to showing that this is a "new history" or any Orwellian/Machivellian machination. Just some party hacks cleaning house on the web site, and sweeping out the unfinished debris from the previous admin.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

If we can get back on track here, fundamentally, the question for voters is which environmental policy do you want:

1) The old liberal policy of making bold statements and commitments, but not doing much to live up to them (one might argue that "they we're gunna, but we didn't give them enough time!")
2) The new conservative policy of pretending there is no problem, killing the research programs directed at better understanding the problem, hiding all discussions of the problem, and saying that we can solve other problems by cutting taxes.
3) A responsible NDP policy of paying the price for our egregious abuse of the environment by shifting our economic and industrial processes to meet our Kyoto commitments (and more!), and eventually start profiting from becoming a global leader in green technologies.

Obviously, you can tell which one I favour. But, for those of you who favour other policies, tell us why. And if you favour the current crop of fingers-in-ears-blah-blah-blah-I-can't-hear-you-when-you-talk-about-global-warming conservatives, please do us all a favour and crawl back under your rock.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

solving a problem you don't admit exists is very difficult, if not impossible


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Bryanc, two problems with your set of options.

1) The Conservatives are developing a policy. It will most likely be inadequate, but your writeup is just silly. Speaking of silly...

2) 'Responsible' NDP policy?  (nice segue, huh?) I've read their multi-point plan. There are a few useful ideas and the whole thing really lacks credibility and is filled with joyous empty phrases (ala Libs) for their core-supporters. Sort of like how "Made-in-Canada" is a phrase to appeal to Con-cores. Who could disagree with something made here?  

I don't like any of the three options, although I'm just guessing that I won't like the Con option. Maybe a new Lib option will be better than their old ones. The Greens have the core idea right (tax-shifting) but a lot of the rest of their platform is not encouraging.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Actually, bryanc, the topic you want to discuss is elsewhere--the topic here is whether the Conservatives are attempting to change history by removing reference to previous environmental "almost-policy" from the site.

If you'd like to start a new thread about your belief that the NDP could be the saviour of Canada's environment...who is the current federal leader of that party again?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> solving a problem you don't admit exists is very difficult, if not impossible


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

A keeper.

I thought I already thanked you today. 

And yes, that is one of the issues. The party has a lot of deniers leftover, who will influence their policy away from real action towards 'when you wish upon a star' policy -- fund some research, see what happens.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I want someone to fund my research. I noticed Saturday was much cooler than Sunday. This was Toronto-wide and scary. I think we are heading for an Ice Age.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I want someone to fund my research. I noticed Saturday was much cooler than Sunday. This was Toronto-wide and scary. I think we are heading for an Ice Age.


Don't you think that is a little glib? All of the best science in the world indicates a warming trend over the next 100 years... Do you have some sort of latent luddite issue that you can't come to grips with?

You would have been better off pointing out that global temperatures have always varied widely... the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age from 10 000 years ago means that of course global temperatures are rising. There is far more we don't know about the environment then we do... removing all reference to these issues and the science that studies them is height of ignorance and spin. 

What's next? Do we get rid of the internet because there is porn on it? Do we remove those little signs at the gas pump because it tells us how much of our bill is tax?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> removing all reference to these issues and the science that studies them is height of ignorance and spin.


???

Surely you didn't mean all, and that it's just a casual overstatement and not your spin. 

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+glib&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Greens have the core idea right (tax-shifting) but a lot of the rest of their platform is not encouraging.


That's just pie in the sky buzzword bingo Beej. Econo-babble... 

Strong alternatives that take into account human nature, geography and economics need to be considered.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Don't you think that is a little glib? All of the best science in the world indicates a warming trend over the next 100 years... Do you have some sort of latent luddite issue that you can't come to grips with?


That's just MF being MF - you can safely ignore.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's just pie in the sky buzzword bingo Beej. Econo-babble...
> 
> Strong alternatives that take into account human nature, geography and economics need to be considered.


That's what tax-shifting does, unlike the many pie in the sky ideas that are out there. It's weakness is politics, especially in a federation, but it is realistic when given time. They're already doing it in QC (typically lefty manner -- shift taxes out of your pocket). Cap-and-trade is a second-best approach that simulates some aspects of a tax-shift, but more clumsily. I'm sorry you think of it as a buzzword, maybe I should find some links for you to read.

Before you list things like, "Strong alternatives that take into account human nature, geography and economics need to be considered." you may want to think about the policies that work best versus those that are most politically expedient and figure out a balance you think is reasonable, because your above post seems to mix the two notions erroneously.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Quebec idea maybe right but what's happening is that the shift (as you point out) comes from the consumer. Corporations were very vocal about that.

Tax-shifting is a word of the month. Another example is web 2.0 - it means next to nothing (but sounds good).

Yes, you have to balance (good) policies with politics - but also the will to see then succeed. People are all for these solutions until it affects them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My "joke" was a reference to earlier posts referrng to a three-day hotspell as proof of Global Warming, the type of "proof" decried by scientists.

For the record--once again--I'm certain that the world is getting warmer. Humans might have contributed to some of it. Nobody has any clue how to project future global temperatures. Beej's ideas are the only ones I've heard offered here that would make the remotest differences in the emissions of what have been dubbed greenouse gases--though I really distrust government's ability to do most anything well.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Quebec idea maybe right but what's happening is that the shift (as you point out) comes from the consumer. Corporations were very vocal about that.
> 
> Tax-shifting is a word of the month. Another example is web 2.0 - it means next to nothing (but sounds good).
> 
> Yes, you have to balance (good) policies with politics - but also the will to see then succeed. *People are all for these solutions until it affects them.*


Ok, you seem to have more problem with the term than the policy. Ecological tax-shifting (Green) is another much more buzzy term. You could also just call it the "bleedin' obvious solution".  

It is the more precise way to get at the realities of the problem and is also relatively easily adjusted for some of the larger problems with any solution. In short, when some Lib candidates came out and attacked the idea, it was quite clear that they hadn't thought about the issue, only the politics. 

The politics are real and can never be ignored, but dreaming up policy in a framework dominated by politics and not real mechanisms of change gets you...well, where we are right now. Voter-friendly inadequate policies.

As for the part I've emphasised. Yes, yes and double-yes. And the longer that politicians keep selling their dreamworks plans the longer people can avoid realising that if they want something done about it, it will affect them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

'bout right. 

Just fill the squirt gun with gasoline aka tar sands.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MFer's confession;


> For the record--once again--I'm certain that the world is getting warmer. Humans might have contributed to some of it.


oh man, that's rich....

what's next? smoking may contribute to cancer?

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> For the record--once again--I'm certain that the world is getting warmer. Humans might have contributed to some of it.


Well... that's a relief... so where do we go from there?



> Nobody has any clue how to project future global temperatures.


I guess the decades of meteorological modelling and progress in climatological science has passed you by? Not having the precision we'd like is quite a different thing than 'not having a clue.' What is most troubling is that, we've been doing modelling of 'worst-case' 'best-case' and 'most-probable-case' climatic scenarios for decades, and the real world data has tracked very consistently with the worst-case models.

So, the sad truth is that we do have a clue, and it looks very bad.

Having head-in-the-sand political leaders undoing what little progress the world has made towards trying to deal with this reality is not helping.

Assholes like Harper and his puppet-masters in the US are a clear and present danger to our species (no to mention every other species on the planet). Two-faced sycophants like Rona Ambrose aren't fit to hold office, let alone what should be an important cabinet position like Minster of the Environment. But an oil-company apologist is exactly what the Harper-branch of the US government wants right now.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Assholes like Harper and his puppet-masters in the US are a clear and present danger to our species (no to mention every other species on the planet). Two-faced sycophants like Rona Ambrose aren't fit to hold office, let alone what should be an important cabinet position like Minster of the Environment. But an oil-company apologist is exactly what the Harper-branch of the US government wants right now.


But how do you really feel? :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> But how do you really feel? :lmao:


He really needs to read this:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/07/23/1698244.html

"Two-faced sycophants like Rona Ambrose aren't fit to hold office, let alone what should be an important cabinet position like Minster of the Environment."

Quote:

"Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has left no doubt she is not going to let ignorant advocates of the fraudulent Kyoto Protocol close down Canadian industry, transfer millions of our jobs to Third World nations, and waste billions of our tax dollars 'buying' credits from other nations."

I guess two-faced sycophants can stand up to the test!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I guess two-faced sycophants can stand up to the test!


You can't point out things like that. Don't you know the socialist conservatives have ill-logically proven their language to be 'right' while social conservatives are just too right? It's all quite laughably pseudo-objective.  

Clear as mud?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well... that's a relief... so where do we go from there?
> So, the sad truth is that we do have a clue, and it looks very bad.


I respect your right to believe the sources you trust. I don't happen to trust them. I disagree entirely that real-world data is matching any but a few of the dozens of divergent computer models out there. It's easy to pick one and say: "See--told ya so!"

Cheers!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do note once agin, that the Human Initiated Global Warming Theorists generally tend to get quite angry and lose their "cool" while those with differing theories tend to be more even-keeled. I can't remember how often someone has told me "You'll fry for what you believe." 

Just an observation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I respect your right to believe the sources you trust. I don't happen to trust them. I disagree entirely that real-world data is matching any but a few of the dozens of divergent computer models out there. It's easy to pick one and say: "See--told ya so!"
> 
> Cheers!


macnutt lives on
tag line and all


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would agree that smoking may contribute to cancer, Spec. A very astute observation on your part, though I believe there was a study on that subject already.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I respect your right to believe the sources you trust. I don't happen to trust them. I disagree entirely that real-world data is matching any but a few of the dozens of divergent computer models out there. It's easy to pick one and say: "See--told ya so!"
> 
> Cheers!


More importantly once we build those gargantuan glass domes to protect ourselves from global climate warming, what will the penalty be for throwing rocks at them?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> More importantly once we build those gargantuan glass domes to protect ourselves from global climate warming, what will the penalty be for throwing rocks at them?


I'd be more worried about the cumulative effects of human methane emissions within the domes. Perhaps a special levy on feta cheese and beans would be needed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is starting to sound like that awful Paulie Shore movie...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> This is starting to sound like that awful Paulie Shore movie...


i didn't realize he made any other kinds


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I always thought that calling it the Kyoto Accord was a bit presumptuous--like it was a done deal already.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I always thought that calling it the Kyoto Accord was a bit presumptuous--like it was a done deal already.


Don't question the Accord or you will be burned at the stake.

More seriously, it was always just a first step with a very short timeframe (relative to the problem). Within the context of global agreements, it was impressive even if within the context of the problem at hand it wasn't. It was a notional understanding. And Canada signed it with, apparently, no intention of coming close to success. It was used as a vote getter, and used very well, just like 'axe the tax'. Love him or hate him, Chretien understood Canadian politics. Throw in favourable circumstances and you've got majority-majority-majority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But Beej, be fair. It was easy for many countries to sign if they had no responsibilities under it. I'll gladly sign an agreement limiting my digestive behaviour if people are willing to buy "fart credits" from me and there are no other strings attached.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> But Beej, be fair. It was easy for many countries to sign if they had no responsibilities under it. I'll gladly sign an agreement limiting my digestive behaviour if people are willing to buy "fart credits" from me and there are no other strings attached.


Let's not discuss the real politics behind it. That's like crapping on the bible/koran/etc. to some.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macfury - "differing theories" ???!!!!!.....- we've asked time and again where the heat in YOUR theory is arising. You have yet to answer.

More CO2 = more solar heat retained.
The heat rise matches the CO2 rise.

This is not rocket science - it's reality. The question remains only the scope of the heating and what tipping points in climatic change will be reached.
ie the Gulf Stream stopping entirely instead of the 30% slowdown in the last 30 years.

It's human caused - the only question is how bad it's going to get and whether it will be augmented or ameliorated by longer term natural cycles such as orbit perturbations.

Now for the alternative theory from MF that matches the observed heat rise.....we're listening.
'Oh an while you're at it explain WHY the CO2 increase isn't causing the heat increase.
Since that is something I can demonstrate on a kitchen table.
Are we hearing "alternate physical laws" being touted???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--These are the same statements you make each time. The type of interactions you're talking about in terms of physics are far more complex than you make them out to be. Kitchen table science doesn not translate well to the macroscope. 

I honestly don't mind you coddling your own theories and I have no real desire to change your opinion on this. Kyoto is dead and I'm happy about it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)




----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc--These are the same statements you make each time. The type of interactions you're talking about in terms of physics are far more complex than you make them out to be. Kitchen table science doesn not translate well to the macroscope.
> 
> I honestly don't mind you coddling your own theories and I have no real desire to change your opinion on this. Kyoto is dead and I'm happy about it.


yeah, macdoc put away your "science" and put your faith into "petro dollars"
please note that ecuador has high elevations and is sure to be safe from sea level rises

now where did i put that phrase book?

"donde est casa de pepe?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc--These are the same statements you make each time.


Maybe because they are based on science and not some creative interpretation of head in the sand ostriches....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> He really needs to read this:
> 
> http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/07/23/1698244.html
> 
> ...


Wow SINC, quoting an op-ed piece by a Con cheerleader.... did you even read the babble he wrote?
I guess it must be true then....
I hear that soon the Sun will be printed on tin foil.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow SINC, quoting an op-ed piece by a Con cheerleader.... did you even read the babble he wrote?
> I guess it must be true then....
> I hear that soon the Sun will be printed on tin foil.....


Yeah, Sinc should know better. Only lefty cheerleaders, especially TorStar ones, are allowed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Yeah, Sinc should know better. Only lefty cheerleaders, especially TorStar ones, are allowed.


I'll try to keep that in mind in the future!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey, RevMatt, welcome back to the world of politics. Too tempting, huh?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yeah, Sinc should know better. Only lefty cheerleaders, especially TorStar ones, are allowed.


Something based on fact with a *little truth* would of been nice - notice a little - not the little Stevie is god cheerleading....

Maybe you should compare lefty and righty cheerleading (for your own elucidation) and see which one is pure Harlequin fantasy and the which is just nose stretchers...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Hey, RevMatt, welcome back to the world of politics. Too tempting, huh?


MF, it's my self-imposed rule to listen to or not as I deem fit. And you are the primary reason I don't post. For the record, I thought the comic was amusing, not truly commentary.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> MF, it's my self-imposed rule to listen to or not as I deem fit. And you are the primary reason I don't post. For the record, I thought the comic was amusing, not truly commentary.


Spoken like a hair-splitting Pharisee! I am flattered though.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I am flattered though.


I knew you would - it's all about MF all the time.... 
We should make a sticky...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I knew you would - it's all about MF all the time....
> We should make a sticky...


i would hazard MFer makes a "sticky" about twice per week, 3x if he pops the little purple pill


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I knew you would - it's all about MF all the time....
> We should make a sticky...


OK, I'll bite. Why would you say it's all about MF all the time? I'm a moderately regular poster and I express my opinions, wait my turn, etc. I don't mind at all that some people disagree with me. I'm rarely, if ever, angry. 

So, go for it...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> 3x if he pops the little purple pill


Nexium? 
http://www.purplepill.com/


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Something based on fact with a *little truth* would of been nice - notice a little - not the little Stevie is god cheerleading....
> .................
> Maybe you should compare lefty and righty cheerleading (for your own elucidation) and see which one is pure Harlequin fantasy and the which is just nose stretchers...


It was an op-ed to counter a purely opinionated rant. Quite fun, I thought. I didn't see you leaping in to comment on the rant and asking for a 'little truth'. Remember partisan and anti-partisan bias can be funny! Even yours. 
.................
Yes, the Truth is that the cheerleaders to whom one's opinion is closer seem to be less off. For your elucidation, read your own posts.  Sinc seems to get this, and be comfortable with it without frequently going after others (he must do it on occasion  ). I get it, but still go after others for poops and giggles. You just seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge your bias. Still, you have some fine comments.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes, the Truth is that the cheerleaders to whom one's opinion is closer seem to be less off.


There is something called "objectivity" and basing arguments on fact. The interpretation can be "open" but if the premise is sound you can often get interesting debates.
When you start with a false premise, there is no point of even arguing your point. 
You can state that 445nm is a nice indigo light but then (as if on automatic brain short circuit) some will say no it's red.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> There is something called "objectivity" and basing arguments on fact. The interpretation can be "open" but if the premise is sound you can often get interesting debates.
> When you start with a false premise, there is no point of even arguing your point.
> You can state that 445nm is a nice indigo light but then (as if on automatic brain short circuit) some will say no it's red.....


We've discussed this before and do agree in principle. We just seem to apply the principle differently. Although, being different people, this is hardly surprising.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

Very unnerving.


----------

