It's Official: Canada can do nothing to stop climate change.
Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Knoss @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:21 am
$1:
"The chemical industry conducts an extensive international lobby, and expends vast resources, promoting its products. For example, on December 1, 1992 the London Financial Times reported that Du Pont had invested $450 million in HCFC and HFC production, and expects to hit the $1 billion mark in 1995, with an expected recovery period for the investment of no less than ten years. The company claims to require another ten to twenty years of HCFC and HFC production to profit above and beyond recouping their investment.
Thats why i think we should be focusing on HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs, along with some uses of nitrous oxide now. I think we could ban HCFCs, and HFCs as there are commercial avaliable solutions such as carbon dioxide. It seems that PFCs could be banned for non medical uses while alternatives for medical use are found.
TheFoundersIntent @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:12 am
Scape Scape:
The Montreal Protocol is a fine example of what CAN be done with international agreements. As for Greenpeace and Exxon seed money, for one that's a tax write off and for two Exxon is breaking records posting profits they have to invest in tax havens but Greenpeace is nothing compared to how much they have invested into junk science in a lobby groups. Exxon is the king of special interest groups so it does not surprise me at all that they invest in bending the rules to suit their bottom line.
So back to the Montreal Protocol, what is stopping a made in Canada approach to carbon emissions? Seriously, our environment minister compared Kyoto to a weight loss clinic where we pay Russia for carbon lost and not currently but sometime during the last 20 years. Of course carbon credits go towards other countries planting trees that do combat carbon but let's be clear here, just planting trees is as effective as building a bomb shelter to avert nuclear disaster in the 1960's. He has every reason to be critical of Kyoto but the caveat is that we have to be a part of the process 1st then we get to say what's wrong. It's like complaining about the government but not getting off your ass to vote.
Our government has made Canada look like a bunch of do nothing hypocrites that pander to the domestic audience and can't keep our word when we sign on the dotted line. As for Kyoto being unattainable if we don't do it as the most advantaged country on earth why should anyone else bother? Great example we are setting there.
So back to the Montreal Protocol, what is stopping a made in Canada approach to carbon emissions? Seriously, our environment minister compared Kyoto to a weight loss clinic where we pay Russia for carbon lost and not currently but sometime during the last 20 years. Of course carbon credits go towards other countries planting trees that do combat carbon but let's be clear here, just planting trees is as effective as building a bomb shelter to avert nuclear disaster in the 1960's. He has every reason to be critical of Kyoto but the caveat is that we have to be a part of the process 1st then we get to say what's wrong. It's like complaining about the government but not getting off your ass to vote.
Our government has made Canada look like a bunch of do nothing hypocrites that pander to the domestic audience and can't keep our word when we sign on the dotted line. As for Kyoto being unattainable if we don't do it as the most advantaged country on earth why should anyone else bother? Great example we are setting there.
You point your fingers at Exxon and other corporations, but what about environmental groups? Where do they get their money, George Soros? And don't they have as much interest in maintaining their existence as Exxon? Greenpeace is still around, isn't it? Even one of their founders has said that they no longer serve their original purpose. No, you make this sound like it's always one-sided when it isn't. Environmental groups want to maintain power just like everyone else; which means they can become corrupted.
sandorski @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:43 am
Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other Environmental Orgs could disappear tomorrow, but GW/GC wouldn't. Reason is that those groups don't drive the issue, Science does. Those groups just publicize it as it fits within their general causes which is to "save" the Environment.
The equating GW/GC with Environmentalists is a ridiculously faulty arguement.
Scape @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:32 pm
Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Recycling
BeaverBill @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:56 pm
Been there Scape. Rather shit report of authority on the issue. Half assed try at the issue.....and then they go and criticise the rest of the half assed wankers....Worth a watch but equally as misleading as what they oppose.
BeaverBill @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:01 pm
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/art ... 558&Page=1
BeaverBill @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:16 pm
Quick Fix by The Ministry featuring William S. Burroughs
Put it country simple,
Earth has a lot of things other folks might want,
like the whole planet.
And maybe these folks would like a few changes made,
Like more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
and room for their way of life.
We've seen this happen before,
right in these United States.
Your way of life destroyed the Indian's way of life,
The Indian Reservation is extinction.
But I offer this distinction
I'm with the invaders,
no use trying to hide that.
And at the same time I disagree
with some of the things they are doing.
Oh, we're not united any more than you are.
Oh, we're not united any more than you are.
Conservative faction is set on nuclear war
as a solution to the Indian personality.
Others disagree [x2]
I don't claim my motives are 100% humane,
but I do say if we can't think up anything quieter,
and tidier, than that, we aren't all that much
better than you new earth aches.
There is no place else to go,
The theater is closed.
There is no place else to go,
The theater is closed.
Cut word lines, cut music lines,
smash the control images,
smash the control machine.
Scape @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:19 pm
Rep. Rohrabacher: Global Warming May Have Been Caused By ‘Dinosaur Flatulence’
BeaverBill @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:31 pm
The title definity got me reading ...hahahaha...chuckle chuckle chuckle...
Zipperfish @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:24 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Scape Scape:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You seem to be confusing Al Gore with the science.
He may be confused over what is environmental science and what is political science. I can't tell at this point until he elaborates upon the links he posted and makes some cognitive argument from them. I have high hopes it will be based upon something more tangible then a think tank sponsored by Exxon.
Are you aware that Greenpeace was seed funded by Exxon? The CT folk believe it was to suppress the Atomic industry that in its day, looked as though it may supplant the oil industry.
Anyway, since CO2 as cause is nothing more then political science as there is not one solid piece of evidence (that's why they call it a "theory") to suggest it contributes to global warming (and reams of ice core samples and tree rings to prove CO2 is EFFECT rather then CAUSE), does this mean you will shift to the scientific position of methane and HCFCs
Evolution is also a theroy. So is Einstein's relativity. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a theory too. A theory, contrary to your claim, does mena that "there is not a shred of evidence to support it." There is, in fact a lot of evidence to support evolution and Einstein's theory of evolution.
The problem is not so much that you don't understand the science of climate chnage, it's that you don't understand the concept of science in general. In science, you have to reject prejudice to accomodate new facts (or "observations," which is the more scientifica term to use). Being an idealogue, you instead choose to reject facts in favour of keeping your ideology. Therefore your "theory" does not accord with fact.
It's your theory that if science disagrees with your worldview, then the science is wrong. Unfortunately for you, reality has a way of imposing itself. Soon the idealogies find their numbers dwindling as the silliness of their position becomes more apparent.
kitty @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:49 pm
Zipperfish @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:49 pm
Scape Scape:
Or cow farts! Anyway, for all my railing on the issue, I'm glad there are skeptics out there, adn I don't like the implications of calling people that don't buy the claimte chnage science as "deniers"--a bit reminescent of "holocaust-denier" for my tastes.
Cheers
BluesBud @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:51 pm
kitty kitty:
I think this might get the guys hot and contribute to Global warming!
Istanbul @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:06 pm
If she really wanted to stop warming those globes she would take off that hot woolen sweater.
I am willing to help. Do my bit. Fan them or rub them down with ice and alcohol to cool them.
grainfedprairieboy @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:18 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
EThe problem is not so much that you don't understand the science of climate chnage, it's that you don't understand the concept of science in general. In science, you have to reject prejudice to accomodate new facts (or "observations," which is the more scientifica term to use). Being an idealogue, you instead choose to reject facts in favour of keeping your ideology. Therefore your "theory" does not accord with fact.
It's your theory that if science disagrees with your worldview, then the science is wrong. Unfortunately for you, reality has a way of imposing itself. Soon the idealogies find their numbers dwindling as the silliness of their position becomes more apparent.
It's your theory that if science disagrees with your worldview, then the science is wrong. Unfortunately for you, reality has a way of imposing itself. Soon the idealogies find their numbers dwindling as the silliness of their position becomes more apparent.
Your statment is pretty much my opinion of you and others who adhere to a CO2 induced climate apocalypse as there is nothing but evidence to the contrary and nothing but conjecture to support your decision.
I base my opinion strictly on science:
Sea levels are falling all over the world rather then rising.
Global temperatures are shifting but the mean remains virtually unchanged.
CO2 in 250,000 year old ice core samples and tree rings shows CO2 is an effect rather then a cause.
More glaciers around the world are growing then receding.
If the Arctic ice caps melt the buoyancy of the ocean will change and with it the gulf stream which will plunge much of North America and Europe into a mini ice age.
Despite published reports, the Antarctic ice mass is growing.
The difference here is my points which formulate my opinion are all FACTS while you amazingly dispute them with theories. And since when did science every come to conclusion though consensus? No, I’m afraid it is you grasshopper who fails to understand the nuances of science.
Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next