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  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.deh.gov.au/minister.....may05.html

And the USA may not be the best but they certainly are doing better than Canada as Paul Martin was made acutely aware of after trying to accuse the US of not having a global conscience during the last election...

Quote:
The rise in Canadian emissions has been twice that of the U.S. between 1990 and 2003


From the CBC no less...
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/us.html
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I asked for proof for this statement:
Quote:
The two countries that have made the most progress with regards to CO2 in the west are two countries that didn't sign the agreement.


Also, again, you can't fault the framework of the Kyoto Protocol for failures of the Liberal government, you can only really fault Liberals for that. I would add to that mix the fact that the Conservatives have acted consistently against implementation of the Protocol.
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When you look at it rationally, adaptation is the only option open to us. The climate has been constantly changing since the beginning of time. To think that we mere humans could stop this process, or control it in any significant way seems the height of hubris.


How do you adapt to ten meters of water over your head?

Global warming is happening. Yes, some scientists claim that more research is needed. Meanwhile, the vast majority are already convinced. As for me, I'm convinced by the unprecedented photographic evidence of melting glaciers, the rapid desertification of countries around the globe and freak hurricane seasons like we've had over the last couple of years.

The effects of global warming are happening right now. Kyoto was a bad plan. Higher gas taxes, with revenue dedicated to alternative energy sources would be a good plan. Outlawing SUVs would be another one. Humanity got along just fine before the first of those gas guzzlers shipped to a dealership. Honda Civics will do just fine for most people.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
I asked for proof for this statement:
Quote:
The two countries that have made the most progress with regards to CO2 in the west are two countries that didn't sign the agreement.


Also, again, you can't fault the framework of the Kyoto Protocol for failures of the Liberal government, you can only really fault Liberals for that. I would add to that mix the fact that the Conservatives have acted consistently against implementation of the Protocol.


I have provided empirical evidence that two countries that did not sign the agreement are doing better than Canada which did. Okay, okay, I was unable to prove that they are the "best in the west" (which doesn't mean they aren't). How about you provide a ranking? How about you show me that signatures of the agreement are doing better than Australia and the USA.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Also, again, you can't fault the framework of the Kyoto Protocol for failures of the Liberal government, you can only really fault Liberals for that.


No. You clearly aren't reading my posts. I said that the Liberal government is hiding behind Kyoto which is sheltering them from taking real action. They are saying "look we signed this agreement and the Conservative (or Reform) would not have, therefore we are better for the environment". Therefore, I can blame Kyoto for providing an excuse for western leaders not to take real action.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
Quote:
When you look at it rationally, adaptation is the only option open to us. The climate has been constantly changing since the beginning of time. To think that we mere humans could stop this process, or control it in any significant way seems the height of hubris.


How do you adapt to ten meters of water over your head?


Well, it doesn't all just rush in in one day, for one...

two, with the fact that the antarctic is a continent, lakes and rivers will form there, in addition, the coast there must also be taken into account... The world won't flood just from the floating slab of ice that is the arctic.. Do some research into ice and displacement and total land mass of the planet and this will make itself obvious.

third - we have many lakes and rivers that have lost water, and there is a nice little thing called the water cycle.. I'm always amazed at how the assumption is made that this additional water will somehow remain stationary..

Expo 67 had displays saying NYC would be under water by the year 2000...

notice a trend?

Interestingly enough - according to NASA climate change is also causing short-term cooling of the oceans - this has them completely baffled - as it doesn't fit in too well with the global warming theories (and they have no idea why its happening)
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
How do you adapt to ten meters of water over your head?


By either swimming or moving at some point in the 50 years that the tide is rising.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the vast majority are already convinced. As for me, I'm convinced by the unprecedented photographic evidence of melting glaciers, the rapid desertification of countries around the globe and freak hurricane seasons like we've had over the last couple of years.


It is called the CNN effect. We've had major weather events in the past but we didn't have the internet and news on the hour. It would be far easier to get rid of CNN than stop driving.

Quote:
The effects of global warming are happening right now. Kyoto was a bad plan. Higher gas taxes, with revenue dedicated to alternative energy sources would be a good plan.


Now you are making sense.

Quote:
Outlawing SUVs would be another one


Now you are not. You don't ban things. You factor in their environmental cost into the price through taxation.

Quote:
Humanity got along just fine before the first of those gas guzzlers shipped to a dealership. Honda Civics will do just fine for most people.


You can talk about rollovers and what not but for driving around the city my two kids are a lot safer in a hummer than a civic - your kids, not so much - but I care about mine kids more than yours (call me selfish).


Last edited by Craig on Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mac





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
(call me selfish)

SELFISH!! :lol:

-Mac
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why doesn't the left with all their wacko conspiracy theories ever think about the amount of money climate change is generating for their favourite figures (*cough* al gore *cough*)
???

oh right - blind in one eye..
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey, 10 meters of water? Check your facts. By 2100, even the most wacko environmentalists are predicting only a 3 foot rise in the ocean level. Your fear mongering and alarmism will only get you ignored and ridiculed.

Think about it. If there actually is a problem, and you puff it up, then people will throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do. Then when you are wrong, you are the guy who cried wolf, and your credibility if forever gone.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
jnarvey, 10 meters of water? Check your facts. By 2100, even the most wacko environmentalists are predicting only a 3 foot rise in the ocean level. Your fear mongering and alarmism will only get you ignored and ridiculed.

Think about it. If there actually is a problem, and you puff it up, then people will throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do. Then when you are wrong, you are the guy who cried wolf, and your credibility if forever gone.


wow, fantastic point.

bravo.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of few things that remember from my geography days at university, was a rather cool sounding term: "isostatic rebound". Basically, isostatic rebound is effect of the rising of the land that was once depressed during the last ice age. Picture putting a bunch of bowling balls (the ice) on some memory foam mattress (the land). Then take of the bowling balls. The mattress will rise back to its original level. This is what has been happening for thousands of years and is still happening today. I think the ocean front properties are safe.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
By the end of the last ice age about 11,000 years ago, much of northern Europe and North America was covered by ice sheets up to 3 km thick. The enormous weight of this ice caused the crust to sink into the fluid mantle. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to a rapid uplift due to the buoyancy of crustal material relative to the mantle. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift was rapid, proceeding at about 7.5 cm/year. This phase lasted for about 2000 years, and took place as the ice was being unloaded. Once de-glaciation was complete, uplift slowed to about 2.5 cm/year, and decreased exponentially after that. Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less, and studies suggest that rebound will continue for about another 10,000 years. The total uplift from the end of deglaciation will be about 400 m.


Maybe, we should all rush out and deplete earth of oil reserves as quick as we can. It is human nature not to change unless absolutely necessary. Once we are forced to adopt new technologies, someone will figure out that there is money to be made in order to facilitate this transition. It will the economy that will bring about this change, not government mandated changes like Kyoto.

The added benefit is that once there is no more oil left, the Middle East conflict could possibly solve itself. No more oil for these terrorist producing countries to sell in order to fund their war. You might end up with a bunch disenfranchised Arabs with nothing to lose with an out war though.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most of the rivers that flow east into Hudson's Bay will flow into Lake Superior in about 1,000 years because of isostatic rebound.

I was reading about a recently devised plan to pump CO2 miles below the ocean surface. We aren't there technologically yet but I'm willing to bet we will be in a decade or two. Never underestimate human ingenuity.
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
jnarvey, 10 meters of water? Check your facts. By 2100, even the most wacko environmentalists are predicting only a 3 foot rise in the ocean level. Your fear mongering and alarmism will only get you ignored and ridiculed.

I didn't mean that the waters would rise everywhere by ten meters of water - only that in coastal places where flooding manages to make it past natural obstacles and dikes, people's houses will be under water - as was amply demonstrated last year by Hurricane Katrina. That's not alarmism. That's a fact.

My main point was that there are things that our governments can do now to realistically lower the threat of climate change - which is hardly still in the realm of theory. The Arctic is melting at such a rapid pace that the CBC is doing a feature story this week on how we will protect the sovereignty of the coming sea route through the Northwest Passage.

As for my idea of banning SUVs and your response
Quote:
You don't ban things. You factor in their environmental cost into the price through taxation.

Well, that's precisely my other point about a gas tax. When people are paying even higher prices than now for larger vehicles, they will stop buying them altogether - and manufacturers will stop making them.
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe, we should all rush out and deplete earth of oil reserves as quick as we can. It is human nature not to change unless absolutely necessary. Once we are forced to adopt new technologies, someone will figure out that there is money to be made in order to facilitate this transition.


Nice theory. While we're draining the last of our oil reserves, we might as well use up all of our potable water, food and other natural resources. Someone is bound to come along and help us out of the mess and also get us all rich in the process.

Oh, dear...

And then there's this little bit of advice...
Quote:
The added benefit is that once there is no more oil left, the Middle East conflict could possibly solve itself. No more oil for these terrorist producing countries to sell in order to fund their war. You might end up with a bunch disenfranchised Arabs with nothing to lose with an out war though.


So... the solution to terrorism is to use up all of our oil resources so that everyone on Earth goes back to a pre-industrial age? Nice.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
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


Kyoto isn't working, prepare for climate change

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB