Environmental Refugees

The 'Hockey Stick' climate graph is complete bunk peddled by a hack. You cannot reduce a phenomena as complex as climate into simple terms, there's no way around the fact that climate is an extremely complex system, real science is like that. If humans are affecting climate it could just as easily be in a positive manner as negative, scientists don't know and if they say they do they're lying. Articles that talked about the Ice Age that we were just about to enter into were popular in the 1970's, it was trendy, but it wasn't science.

Sure the articles in the 70's may not have been science, but when the effects of pollution were becoming known, industrialists at the time had the same reaction as industrialists today are having:
1.deny deny deny
2.foot dragging

If the hockey stick data was prepared by a hack, please by all means, prove it. Provide a meaningful critique, preferably from a refereed scientific journal, of the data instead of simply saying "oh he's a hack"

Secondly you do not address the second part of the point at the start of the thread, that is the impending oil shortage. Oh wait let me respond for you:

Oh that is also propaganda from us evil commies who are trying to destroy the west.

Please, what is your interest/background?

I happen to be an engineer, working for industry, and see how things work from the inside.

How can corporations possibly be trusted to make the right decisions when it comes to anything that affects the common good if it is at all in conflict with the best interests of the corporation. Officers and directors of corporations are legally bound (this is a FACT look at any basic law book) to work towards the best interests of their corporation, NOT THE PUBLIC.

In the case for reforming our economy away from fossil fuel consumption, the industries that will lose the most also currently hold some of the most sway over our government:
1. oil and gas
2. automotive

Look what happened a couple of years ago when the federal government proposed a sur tax on the purchase of SUV's...the auto industry lobby complained, and bingo, no tax.

It is not that I think the corporate execs are bad people, they are simply in a total conflict of interest when it comes to what they do at work, and the common good.

All the economic indicators are that we had better get our asses in gear and start seriously looking at restructuring our economy away from our current total dependence on fossil fuels. Look at the economic data from china, and the staggering pent up demand there for oil. High demand, low supply...lets use that Econ101 you learned...

We need to also invest in solar and wind power, and in doing so totally decentrallize our means of electricity production:
Imagine this, that people would be able to provide 50-100% of their own electricity needs through solar panels, wind turbines etc. That people can reduce their energy consumption by using geothermal heating and cooling. Cities are actually planned such that it is practical for people to commute to work by foot or bicycle.

These are simple things to do...it costs a bit of money, and takes some effort, but the big question is:
who benefits and who loses from the execution of these things?

The results of the above are numerous:
Less reliance on fossil fuel combustion = better air quality
People using their own bodies' energy to get to work = less obese people
Add those together = much healthier people, the winners

Who loses?
Lower fuel consumption = Oil companies
Less cars on the road = Automotive companies

It really is simple. The problem just needs to be broken down into digestable bits.

Most commentary I've read from scientists concerned about global warming concedes that neither they or anyone else can accurately predict what the outcome will be should circumstances continue as they are.

The commentary I've encountered that confident in the author's knowledge is that which stated there's nothing to worry about.

As I previously indicated it comes down to determining where the greatest risk lies; that those concerned about global warming are wrong or that those who are unconcerned are wrong. The potential risk for the former is economic, for the latter possibly unthinkable.

Do you have a point, person with no name?

I disagree that gobal warming is just a power grab.
The title "global warming" is really just a sound byte summary; the actual effects of dumping massive amounts of chemicals and heat into the environment are unknown. There's not enough data to be sure what will happen, but we can be sure that *something* will. I myself do not enjoy being part of a global experiment to see what that something is.

Does anyone think that spewing toxins into the atmosphere by the ton (tonne) is good for the animals on this planet, including the human animal ??

Let's get the best information and work toward the goal of reducing these emissions.

That would make the most sense.

No guessing allowed !

---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

OK,time out! Good arguments all the around.Politcal aspirations definatly play a role in the "global warming"theory.So to does pollution and greenhouse gas emmisions. I believe the question is,as it effects everyone,not just the poor countries,not just the rich countries.what is to be done about it?We have the Kyoto Accord,seemingly a bunch of paper,we have law suites,we have all manner of forums and debates and scientists etc.What has or will be done about it!?
We may have to start"small".In our "rich" countries,we need to reduce the amount of energy being consumed,ALL energy types.The production of energy certainly contributes to the problem.Nuclear stations spewing huge amounts of pollution into the air.To reduce the amount of energy needed,we all need to be responsable for the little things.Leaving the lights on during the day.Turn them off and sit in the natural light.Now I realise that some homes are dark(basement suites etc)Lets not banty the semantics.
During hot weather,do other things that require less energy to cool down.Get used to the hot weather,we had a hand in creating it.Don't just sit in front of the air conditioner.(Agian,I realize that a/c units are necessary in some places,semantics agian)
In cooler times,extra clothing and movement is key to staying warm,instead of turning up the heat,or throwing another log on the fire. Think of ways to stay comfortable in cooler weather while reducing the use of energy.
The big change is in the type of autos out there.Gas sucking,smog belching SUVs,bigger trucks(Ford F350s etc) that are nothing but symbols of wealth in our country.
I could go on and on about ways to reduce pollution. It all comes down to the individual human being,being responsable in their everyday lives.Part of that responsability is holding the industry sector and the poitical sector(who are hand in hand)accountable,not the other way around.
The last thing I would like to say is,meterology(the study of climate)is not as complex as we are led to believe.In fact,it is the changes to climate that are difficult to understand because of the sheer numbers of variables and modicum of study used.Ever wonder what it takes to study an air mass? To determine what particulate is in it and what it can do??Thats the tough part.

---
A little peice of heaven is found in good deeds.

I want to know why you call yourself reverend. Are you a real reverend? If not, why do you call yourself 'reverend blair?'

I want you to give your complete and honest biography and your real name, but you don't even take the time to make up an internet alias. You wonder about my credentials?

This is not the time or place. There is a forum here, and I'll be more than happy to answer your questions there, if the owners of this site are willing. Other than that, my moniker and its origins aren't exactly secret...I've discussed them many times in many places.

Register and start a thread. I'll answer...I'm not shy.

I'm not sure Australia is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on a per capita basis since Canadians consume more energy per capita than anybody else. <br> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CCenergypercap.gif For the doubters here are some changes in temperatures in BC. This "doesn't prove anything" but shouldn't it cause you to rethink your position? "Average B.C. temperatures are warmer now than they were in 1895 by 0.6 degrees Celsius on the Coast, 1.1 degrees in the Interior, and 1.7 degrees in the North." http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/nrm_news_releases/2002WLAP0128-000541.htm http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/images/mapgrowdeg.gif

This is just an opinion, but it has been my experience that sucking in poison is detrimental to your health. If the people who deny this would spend more time in a closed garage watching their SUVs idle, we'd have a lot fewer deniers.

There's a fine distinction there, L.Ray. They are the biggest emitters per capita, we are the biggest consumers per capita. They depend more on coal, we waste more just for kicks and giggles.

Hey, a contest to see who is worst. Not something I want to win, lose, or participate in. I in way meant to absolve Canada of anything.

Australia was named in the proposed lawsuit because of their refusal to ratify Kyoto. Their refusal to sign an emigration deal was just arrogant and nasty, possibly with racial overtones.

It's possible you're right if they use a lot of coal (although we use coal too. And don't forget the oil sands.)
It wasn't my intention to start a contest just to contribute my two bits worth of it.

I stand corrected according to a page on the ABC site <br><br> http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/2002/08/item20020808071727_1.htm

Like I said, not a contest I care to participate in. Canada is far from innocent. Is Australia worse? They haven't signed Kyoto, we haven't come up with a real plan.