Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject: Goldstein: Trudeau's Climate Hyprocrisy Reply with quote

Quote:
GOLDSTEIN: Trudeau's Titanic lie heading for an iceberg
Lorrie Goldstein
November 4, 2017

Updated:
November 4, 2017 8:44 PM EST

When the next in the series of the United Nations’ never-ending, carbon-spewing, climate change road shows gets underway in Bonn, Germany, Monday, Canadians will be told two big political lies.

The first is that the Paris climate accord, signed two years ago, still has a chance to lower global greenhouse gas emissions to what it describes as the “safe” level needed to avert global warming catastrophe by 2100.

The second is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau still has a chance to meet the emission cuts he agreed to when he endorsed the Paris accord in 2015.

In reality, Canada is so far behind meeting Trudeau’s 2020 and 2030 emission pledges, the only way to do it will be if Trudeau uses billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy carbon offsets on international carbon markets, which are riddled by fraud.

Indeed, irony of ironies, the United States has done a better job of lowering emissions than Canada, despite never having signed the UN’s Kyoto accord, the precursor to the Paris agreement, which expired in 2012. (Stephen Harper wisely withdrew from Kyoto in 2011.)


US emissions dropped 11.5% below 2005 levels (the base year for calculations) over the past decade and 2.3% between 2014 and 2015, the last year for which statistics are available.

By comparison, Canada’s emissions dropped 2.2% below 2005 levels over the past decade and 0.69% between 2014 and 2015.

The major reason for the relatively dramatic drop in U.S. emissions has nothing to do with the UN.

Rather, it was simple economics. The U.S. has been using cheaper natural gas — which burns at half the carbon intensity of coal — to replace coal-fired electricity.

It achieved this by accessing new gas reserves through the use of fracking technology, which Canadian provinces have been merrily banning, displaying our country’s alarming propensity for cutting its own economic throat.

While the UN warns the 196 countries which signed the Paris accord have so far agreed to only one-third of the emission cuts required to avert catastrophic global warming, it was in fact a fraud from the moment it was unveiled.

First, there’s no guarantee countries will deliver even the cuts they’ve agreed to. Canada won’t.

Second, the accord contains no binding mechanism requiring countries to live up to their pledges.

Given that the accord is a fraud, what becomes important in the high-flying world of UN diplomacy is not achieving emission reductions, but genuflecting before the UN.

That’s why Trudeau won’t be criticized in Bonn.

He’s the darling of the UN. Why?

Because he committed Canada to the Paris accord after Harper pulled out of Kyoto, because the Canadian delegation Trudeau sent to Paris in 2015 was twice the size of the American one and three times the size of the UK’s, and because Trudeau contributed billions of taxpayers’ dollars to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (above Harper’s commitment) which by 2020 is supposed to transfer $100 billion a year from developed nations to developing ones.

That’s what matters to the UN’s fatcat, high-flying diplomats, not actual emission reductions, which is also why U.S. President Donald Trump will be vilified in Bonn for wisely announcing America’s withdrawal from the Paris accord.

The accord, however, has been a roaring success in one sense.

That is, it has given political leaders like Trudeau, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta’s Rachel Notley, the perfect excuse to extract billions of dollars more annually from the pockets of ordinary Canadians in the name of “fighting global warming” regardless of whether significant or any emission cuts are actually achieved.

The only way to do that — as everyone from the Green Party of Canada to moderate Republicans in the U.S. agrees — would be through a revenue neutral carbon pricing system called carbon-fee-and-dividend, which would return every dollar raised through carbon pricing back into the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

But carbon-fee-and-dividend is designed to lower emissions, not fatten government coffers, so of course Trudeau and Co. aren’t interested.

lgoldstein@postmedia.com

**********

CANADA MORE TALK THAN ACTION

This week, the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development called out Canada for being more talk than action on climate change.

Angel Gurria suggested in an interview with the Canadian Press that despite what he characterized as good intentions, there’s little chance Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government will meet the ambitious climate targets they’ve set.

“In Canada, you have a situation where you have a very strong political will to reduce, but effectively it has not gone on the planned road,” Gurria said.

Canada’s international promises suggest that by this time, emissions should have fallen by 17 per cent from 2005 levels, he said. Instead, the drop has been more like two per cent.

“You basically are on a path where, by 2030, you may not be able to get to the target,” Gurria said.

“You have here a very proactive and decisive leadership moving in the direction of reduction of emissions, and a very active participant in the Paris agreement and a very active participant in the whole of the world’s move,” said Gurria, who was in Toronto to speak at the Munk School at the University of Toronto.

“While at the same time, the local situation is showing that speed of reduction is not as fast as one would have wanted,” he said.

“We’re talking here about an intergenerational responsibility,” Gurria said. “The fact is that you’re putting aside the long term and you’re putting aside the responsibility you have to the rest of the world.”

– Postmedia staff with files by Canadian Press

**********

UNREALISTIC EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged under the Paris climate accord to cut Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

According to the United Nations, to achieve its 2020 target, Canada will have to cut its emissions from a projected 731 megatonnes annually to 620 megatonnes, or by 111 megatonnes.

To achieve that, Canada will have to shut down the equivalent of its entire electricity sector (79 megatonnes per year), plus 44% of its agriculture sector (73 megatonnes per year) in just over three years.

To achieve its 2030 target, Canada will have to cut its emissions from a projected 742 megatonnes a year to 523 megatonnes, or by 219 megatonnes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/.....an-iceberg


We are going to be taken for a ride again.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Governments can only do what the electorate will allow them to do. Solutions are there. We need to transition to nuclear power, limit beef consumption, electrify and expand public transportation, and reduce our population.
Try getting elected on that.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you kidding? Governments, in my experience, do whatever they like and use a combination of secrecy, lies, and misinformation to hide what they're doing.

Canadians are not well informed, and our so-called media aren't going to change. Our educational system is teaching fiction.

When did Canadians authoritize Human Rights Commissions, for instance? Never! Their way of operating is to stay out of sights, behind a wall of secretcy. They go around what we all think of as the protections of jurisprudence to treat us like a bunch of guilty perps, regardless of the evidence. When did we think these thngs are a good idea?

If you believe all this government propaganda, why don't YOU minimize your power consumption, cut down on meat, and hitchhike? Then you can tell us about it.

White people are already in population decline, so I think you can scratch that one from the list, although I am sure our politicians are eager to start appointing another version of our ironically names Human Rights tribunals -- stuffed as those are with social activists -- to prepare the list of who's to be culled.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you are a voter that ranks the Environment high on your ballot decisions;
The most successful spin in Canadian politics is somehow that the Liberals are the party of the Environment.

Kyoto and now seemingly Paris have been very effective marketing tools to facilitate that spin, however the record of accomplishment is quite tragic to virtually non-existent.

While they have generally taken advantage of many of the revenue generating aspects associated with "battling" climate change their record of environmental improvment is fairly unimpressive.

Mulroney and Harper by far accomplished the most while being attacked for not doing enough while Chrétien and Trudeau have been very effective at talking about accomplishing a lot while doing very little little
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what Human Rights Commissions have to do with climate change. They were created by an act of Parliament forty years ago and have never been seriously challenged by the electorate.
It doesn't matter who is in power, nuclear power is a tough sell. Yet, it is one of the courses of action that will help us reduce carbon emissions while providing employment to western Canada. The Candu reactor is thorium capable which should overcome most of the fears in the public mind, but it is more plentiful than uranium.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Human Rights commissions are an illustration of our government installing extra-Constitutional institutions which counter our own Charter. You were saying the government can only go so far as we let it, and I was trying to refute that point.\

They go about penalizing people for things that are not offences, such as a comedian who is rude to some lesbian hecklers having to pay them $20,000 and swear never to make a lesbian joke again.

Or prosecuting New York Times best-seller author, Mark Steyn, because he wrote a book on Moslems and the effects of our low birth rate.

I could go on. This is the point -- we can't do anything about it, and no politicians dares peep. They all go on pretending that Human Rights has something to do with human rights. It is closer to the truth to say that the courts are using human rights to gut our civil rights. And no lawyer in the land will take that issue up.

I am sorry, it's just naive to say that governments can only go so far as we let them. It shouldn't be necessary to have a civil war to stick to our basic constitutional principles.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are getting into thread drift. The issue is what to do about carbon emissions.
Solar power is all well and good, but nuclear power can replace a large portion of our energy needs. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. We can build Candu reactors all over the world. Countries that would rather not use uranium fuel will soon be able to use use thorium which is wide spread and plentiful.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is wrong with carbon emissions? You start your analysis assuming one of the problematic assumptions of the zealots. First, those people are rarely scientists in the field of climate science, and secondly, what makes you think -- other than the fog of propaganda -- that carbon dioxide is a problem that has to be gotten rid of? Carbon dioxide is plant food on a massive scale. It's the basis of life on earth.

But of course carbon emissions are more than CO2, but environmentalists don't care about anything but CO2. In fact, they gobble up the budgets that would otherwise go to cleaning up the air, rivers, and protecting wildlife. And that is the nub of the issue.

And if they spend big money to buy carbon credits on an annual basis -- the present plan -- they will tax the economy to send the money elsewhere. That's what Paul Martin and Chretien intended to do. They signed Kyoto and did nothing for a decade on the promised cleanup. You know it and I know it, and why are these guys much different? Why is the tax the solution? Why isn't it a means of funding the solution?

I agree with you about nuclear, including the CANDU part, but I fear that it isn't feasible. Why? Because selling a nuclear reactor to any third world country involves dealing with the bribes, and corruption normal in those countries. Also with bomb-makers. We tried it, and it turned out that way.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:

Solar power is all well and good, but nuclear power can replace a large portion of our energy needs. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. We can build Candu reactors all over the world. Countries that would rather not use uranium fuel will soon be able to use use thorium which is wide spread and plentiful.


Agreed.
Solar Energy is one of the most government subsidized technologies on the planet, its within everyone's best interest to get their eventually.

The issue is we simply aren't there yet.
Nuclear has always been a good idea for that middle step between burning coal and that eventual point of fully renewable.

The Challenge is the capacity and cost isn't there for wind or solar yet we have those demanding we move in that direction.

The grim reality is that if you are against Nuclear you are ultimately for Coal.
The amount of Coal Power Plants built in the US during the Nuclear Moratorium is staggering.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's difficult to imagine solar working anywhere north of the 45th parallel. The amount of energy in the sunlight is diminished as one moves from the equator, and seasons become a bigger factor as you approach the poles. It is in the neighbourhood of ten times the cost of hydro, and four or five times the cost of nuclear.

As for wind ... do you know how many wind turbines you would need to supply Toronto? Every neighbourhood would need one or two just for residential purposes. And it is 4 times the cost of hydro. Wind turbines would destroy the landscape.

In our world, these things have limited applications. They do best for off-the-grid locations, because of the cost of running wires over miles of barren country. None of these sources have the potential of satisfying our energy requirements. Not really.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote: "What is wrong with carbon emissions? You start your analysis assuming one of the problematic assumptions of the zealots. First, those people are rarely scientists in the field of climate science, and secondly, what makes you think -- other than the fog of propaganda -- that carbon dioxide is a problem that has to be gotten rid of? "

Because I am not stupid. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer so I listen to people who know more than I do. Methane and carbon dioxide inhibit re-radiation of energy. It is measurable and predictable. You can test it out in most undergraduate labs.

Bugs wrote: "I agree with you about nuclear, including the CANDU part, but I fear that it isn't feasible. Why? Because selling a nuclear reactor to any third world country involves dealing with the bribes, and corruption normal in those countries. Also with bomb-makers."

That is the advantage of thorium. It has no bomb- making capacity, it doesn't melt down and the waste is easier to deal with.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What you say about thorium reactors may be true, but there aren't any, so it's only a choice for research, not an option in the present. But they might give us a long-range solution.

The story with carbon dioxide is that it is barely a greenhouse gas, and only under certain conditions of temperature, etc If you scroll down the referred page, you will come to a chart that gives us the impact of various greenhouse gases. On that chart, carbon dioxide is given a weight of 1. Methane has a weight of 84, and nitrous oxide has a weight of 264 -- meaning the effect is 264 times the effect of carbon dioxide over 20 years. There are other gases which are far more 'green-housey' than these, being thousands of times more heat retaining that carbon dioxide, but they are exotic and rare. Even carbon dioxide occurs at less than 400 parts in a million. That would be about 4 parts in 10,000. Or, if you prefer, one millilitre out of 10 litres. (A teaspoon is five millilitres.)

Quote:
Is it [methane] as important to address as carbon dioxide?
While methane doesn’t linger as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat. In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


Quote:
An important source of methane emissions is from enteric fermentation in farm animals. This creates 27% of human methane emissions.1 Animals like cows, sheep and goats are examples of ruminant animals. During their normal digestion process they create large amounts of methane. Enteric fermentation occurs because of microorganisms in the stomach of these animals. This creates methane as a by-product that is either exhaled by the animal or released via flatus.
https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas


That would mean that animal farts and burps have a bigger environmental impact that automobiles and trucks!

Quote:
Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-ve.....gOI-mhSzIU


There is a scientific argument that carbon dioxide follows warming, and therefore can't be the cause.

http://joannenova.com.au/globa.....ore-graph/

On top of that, all of the long-range assessments of temperature change in the past are based on things like ice cores drilled in glaciers and tree rings. There was no global instrument collection of temperatures until 1885. The idea that they can graph temperatures to a fraction of a degree is not something that a serious scientist would claim. Al Gore or David Suzuki, maybe, but not anyone with a genuine background in climate science.

It doesn't mean that there is no warming, it's just it might be mostly due to natural causes.

For the record, I was not intending to insult your intelligence. I have delved into this as a layman, and have followed the politics of it since 1985, when I was something of a naive believer. In fact, what got me going then was that the Liberal government has signed on to Kyoto, and were doing nothing, obviously prepared to send lots of money to third world dictators designated by the UN, although it is not apparent how this would help anything.

I am also affected by a book that has made me skeptical. Check Limits to Growth Check the 1972 edition, which predicted that the world would run out of oil by 2000 and by 2010 there would be methane fires in the atmosphere. Of course rivers would be killed by pollution, etc. etc. None of it has come true. Check it out yourself. The Wikipedia entry is an apology for the book because it was so entirely wrong, but trust me, the original book was making hard predictions with dates at which certain problems would become critical. It never happened. But that is still the analysis of the disaster marketers. It isn't scientific at all. It's about the money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

If you check out the history of the carbon tax, you will find it is an idea that was hatched as a way to get a stream of income for the UN, and was first suggested as a tax on currency exchanges. When that failed, it moved to oil in interenational commerce, but that failed too. So it became the carbon tax and tried to get rich nations to accept it, based on science. That's when it got connected to environmentalism.

And most of all -- what's the point of taking on all these changes so long as China and India aren't involved?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I am right (meaning those I place my confidence in), life will be very harsh for future generations if we continue to produce greenhouse gases.
If you are right and yet we curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, we have lost nothing. Canada will have oil and coal reserves to last far into the future for lubricants, coke, and the thousands of products derived from fossil chemicals. We will also have a thriving nuclear industry.
I am starting to think I will not change your view in the near future. :)
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4273
Reputation: 242.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you understand the scale of what you are talking about?

This will involves $trillions, and the opportunity cost of that won't be negligible. It isn't as if we embark on these expenditures without loss.

Do you understand that the temperature of the world is a constructed figure? That is, it is calculated using data, but also a bunch of assumptions. The warning signal is that their predictions never pan out. It's because the assumptions they are using are not based in science, or on sketchy science.

They managed to make the world's temperatures look like a hockey stick, going up dramatically only recently. It's all bollocks. When they were asked for the raw data so other scientists could reproduce their results, they destroyed the data! One of the canons of Science is the reproducibility of results. It means other scientists would come to the same conclusions.

You can't trust any of this.

Quote:
Comment
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com.....ation.html


These are probably the people on whose "science" you are relying. They were ultimately responsible for the Al Gore book. Gore, the world's first disaster marketing billionaire, put the IPCC predictions in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. It got him a Nobel, and an Academy Award.

Sadly for this crowd of frauds, the IPCC has walked back those predictions with every succeeding publication of their annual report. Gone is the idea that coastal cities would be awash in ten feet of melt-water from the glaciers. Now it's declined to inches over a century. Gone all the baloney about the endangered polar bears. (There are more polar bears how, by a big factor, than there were when they started counting.)

So, I don't really think it's a wait-and-see thing.

But the most fictional part of these presentations is the time-frame they put the changes into. Realistically, there is some anthropological warming, but it is much smaller and slower than predicted, which gives us much more time to work to find a real scientific solution, if one exists. One does not exist now. Kyoto is not a solution.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Goldstein: Trudeau's Climate Hyprocrisy

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB