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



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Santa could always relocate to Anartica. :lol:
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama and global warming —Bjørn Lomborg

Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right

In one of his first public policy statements as America’s president-elect, Barack Obama focused on climate change, and clearly stated both his priorities and the facts on which these priorities rest. Unfortunately, both are weak, or even wrong.

Obama’s policy outline was presented via video to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Governors’ Global Warming Summit, and has again been shown in Poznan, Poland, to leaders assembled to flesh out a global warming roadmap. According to Obama, “few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.”

Such a statement is now commonplace for most political leaders around the world, even though it neglects to address the question of how much we can do to help America and the world through climate policies versus other policies.

Consider, for example, hurricanes in America. Clearly, a policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina’s devastating impact on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected. Over the next half-century, even large reductions in CO2 emissions would have only a negligible impact.

Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans’ vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss. These should have included stricter building codes, smarter evacuation policies, and better preservation of wetlands (which could have reduced the ferociousness of the hurricane). Most importantly, a greater focus on upkeep and restoration of the levees could have spared the city entirely. Perhaps these types of preventive actions should be Obama’s priority.

Likewise, consider world hunger. Pleas for action on climate change reflect fears that global warming might undermine agricultural production, especially in the developing world. But global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4 percent by the end of the century. Because agricultural output will more than double over this period, climate change would at worst cause global food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.

Moreover, by implementing the Kyoto Protocol at a cost of $180 billion annually would keep two million people from going hungry only by the end of the century. Yet by spending just $10 billion annually, the United Nations estimates that we could help 229 million hungry people today. Every time spending on climate policies saves one person from hunger in a hundred years, the same amount could have saved 5,000 people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama’s top priorities.

Obama went on to say why he wants to prioritise global warming policies: “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

Yes, global warming is happening, and mankind is partly responsible, but these statements are — however eloquent — seriously wrong or misleading.

Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we’ve seen a sea-level fall over the past two years). The UN expects about a 30-centimeter sea-level rise over this century — about what we saw over the past 150 years.

In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously in Holland, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20 square kilometres each year, because river sedimentation win out over rising sea levels.

Obama’s claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level — the United States has in all academic estimates been getting wetter over the century (with the 1930s “dust bowl” setting the drought high point). This is even true globally over the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: “there is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture.”

Furthermore, famine has rapidly declined over the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable, to say the least.

Finally, it is simply wrong to say that storms are growing stronger every hurricane season. Even for the Atlantic hurricane basin, which we tend to hear about the most, the total hurricane energy (ACE) as measured by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declined by two-thirds since the record was set in 2005. For the world, this trend has been more decisive: maximum ACE was reached in 1994, and has plummeted for the past three years, while hurricanes around the world have for the past year been about as inactive as at any time since records began being kept.

Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right. [/quote]
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
A commercial by Greenpeace.

That's actually pretty funny although I'm fairly sure that wasn't their intent.

-Mac
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, it is funny and yes I am sure that was not their intent. I keep watching it, I guess I like the music. I am not really sure why Santa is throwing up, seasick?? The reindeer don't seem to be troubled.

I am not crazy about the idea of scaring little kids into thinking that santa will be homeless. They are already doing that to kids about polar bears. It is a pity greenpeace wasn't around in 1900 when the arctic circle was open water.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh and I did go to school, I just finished my degree at McGill thanks
!

Guess your degree is not in science. If so, get a refund.
nathaliejcaron





Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 305
Reputation: 20.4Reputation: 20.4
votes: 2
Location: Ottawa West -- Nepean

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
eveable wrote:
A commercial by Greenpeace.

That's actually pretty funny although I'm fairly sure that wasn't their intent.

-Mac


Wow, and Santa seems to have been done in CGI, I wonder how much money they wasted on that piece of uninspired garbage.
nathaliejcaron





Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 305
Reputation: 20.4Reputation: 20.4
votes: 2
Location: Ottawa West -- Nepean

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
I am not crazy about the idea of scaring little kids into thinking that santa will be homeless. They are already doing that to kids about polar bears. It is a pity greenpeace wasn't around in 1900 when the arctic circle was open water.


Totally, I used to work at Environment and would see some of the letter the kids would write in about the polar bears... It was like "Dear Minister Baird, why are you killing polar bears...? Don't you care about them?"

And it would go on. Sometimes they were class projects, and you could tell from what the kids were writing that they had been influenced by their teachers' views... Not cool.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathaliejcaron wrote:
Sometimes they were class projects, and you could tell from what the kids were writing that they had been influenced by their teachers' views... Not cool.

This is why the public school system has become a sacred cow of socialism. Under no circumstances would the unionized teachers release the influence they have on our children, to mold their minds while they're still too young to have developed critical thinking and logical analysis skills. How young would the socialists start indoctrinating our children? Witness the drive for publicly funded daycare.

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
nathaliejcaron wrote:
Sometimes they were class projects, and you could tell from what the kids were writing that they had been influenced by their teachers' views... Not cool.

This is why the public school system has become a sacred cow of socialism. Under no circumstances would the unionized teachers release the influence they have on our children, to mold their minds while they're still too young to have developed critical thinking and logical analysis skills. How young would the socialists start indoctrinating our children? Witness the drive for publicly funded daycare.

-Mac


This is OT, but I was reminded of this article:

Rethinking Schools wrote:
"I'm making an airport and landing strip for my guy's house. He has his own airplane," said Oliver.

"That's not fair!" said Carl. "That takes too many cool pieces and leaves not enough for me."

"Well, I can let other people use the landing strip, if they have airplanes," said Oliver. "Then it's fair for me to use more cool pieces, because it's for public use."

Discussions like the one above led to children collaborating on a massive series of Lego structures we named Legotown. Children dug through hefty-sized bins of Legos, sought "cool pieces," and bartered and exchanged until they established a collection of homes, shops, public facilities, and community meeting places. We carefully protected Legotown from errant balls and jump ropes, and watched it grow day by day.

After nearly two months of observing the children's Legotown construction, we decided to ban the Legos...

...As they closed doors to other children, the Legotown builders turned their attention to complex negotiations among themselves about what sorts of structures to build, whether these ought to be primarily privately owned or collectively used, and how "cool pieces" would be distributed and protected. These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned...


The article, Why We Banned Legos, was a featured article in a Rethinking Schools newsletter. It makes for a disturbing read.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
It makes for a disturbing read.

No kidding... I don't know if private schools are any better (I suspect they are) but the anti-capitalist, pro-socialist bias of the public system isn't even subtle.

-Mac
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just got home from my brothers house. I was interested to ask his daughter, aged 8, what she knew about Global Warming. She did not know what it meant but she did know that it concerned the whole planet and that it was bad.

That is scary.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
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


The Global Warming Debate Should be Over

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB