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
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:17 am    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?

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.



I don't think there is any plan that can undo the global warming trend. To me it looks like a natural earth process and cycle that happens every so many thousand years , like it or not. It's the when that bugs me as core samples and ice samples seem to point to an 18 year process rather than a thousand year process when it starts.

Another thing I've noticed is throught the last 20 years as computers got more and more memory and speed the models used for projection of global warming also seemed to cut the time drastically.

Useing a bit of common sense we all know the differance between frozen and thawed is 1 degree and if the antarctica melted the sea levels would rise 600 feet. Computer models show a major problem when greenland melts also.

Bottom line kyoto and clean air acts won't affect the inevitable but they do effect your health..in an already overpopulated earth that will probably produce another thing that comes in cycles...pandemics, so look after your heath and don't buy ocean front property. :wink: and don't invest in insuarnce companies ..they will be the first to fall.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What bothers me about Kyoto is the fact that it is going the businesses that meet a consumer demand. Yet Kyoto only goes after the businesses that meet the demand.
Aswell I see it only as a money transfer.
George Bush was right, in his State of the Union Address, when he said we have to stop the addiction of carbon fuels.
If we are serious in Canada about reducing pollution and GHG's the onus should be on the consumer, as well as the penalties. Since we export the majority of the energy into other markets as a raw product the importers should pay for it.
Preston Manning did a great interview with David Suzuki on this subject.
The Americans are spending billion dollars protecting their oil and gas interests in the middle east. Now that we are their largest supplier and we are peaceful nation they should be helping us financially with our burden on our enviroment. If this is done correctly, the US, I am sure would comply.
On the other hand for companies that are finding cleaner way to produce energy should be given substanial tax releif. I know that the O&G companies are spending billions on finding cleaner more effecient ways to produce raw material. Encana is building a CO2 pipeline that will reinject CO2 back into the ground. They can use this CO2 to stimulate wells. There is another 2 projects in the Oil sands that is using compressed air vs steam to extract the bitumen. This would reduce water usage and the GHG's created to generate the steam.
There are alot of things Canadians can do reduce their consumption of energy. We need to stop pointing our fingers at government and look at what can do collectively as a society.
I find it funny that the NDP (the greenest party in parliment) gets alot of it seats in Southern Ontario. The NDP blame the Oil and Gas companies for this pollution although everytime I see Southern Ontario on TV it is gridlock traffic and smog. If these people weren't driving cars, using power and natural gas their would nothing to produce. Therefore the production would not cause any GHG's. I know this is a simplistic argument although we have to look at this issue broader than we are. In order to do so we have to have a reasonable starting point.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TealTories wrote:

I find it funny that the NDP (the greenest party in parliment) gets alot of it seats in Southern Ontario. The NDP blame the Oil and Gas companies for this pollution although everytime I see Southern Ontario on TV it is gridlock traffic and smog. If these people weren't driving cars, using power and natural gas their would nothing to produce. Therefore the production would not cause any GHG's. I know this is a simplistic argument although we have to look at this issue broader than we are. In order to do so we have to have a reasonable starting point.


People alway find it easier to point the finger at someone else. Why would they blame their own energy wasting behaviors when they could just as easily blame those who produce the oil for them to waste? Kinda the same logic as people blaming the alcohol and tobacco industries for health problems instead of people blaming themselves for use of these products that everyone has known to be harmful.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TealTories wrote:
I find it funny that the NDP (the greenest party in parliment)

I'm sorry but the NDP is not the "greenest" party in the parliament by a long stretch. They've got the most vocal environmentalists but the NDP has yet to produce a single viable "green" plan. They scream and stomp their feet but behind the bluster, there's a severe lack of substance.

Remember, during the Chretien years, the NDP didn't complain about the environment. The NDP looked at Kyoto as a lever for socialism, a means of redistributing wealth which is a goal that greatly outweighs their faux concern about the environment. When Martin lead a minority, did the NDP insist on a focus on the environment? Hell, no! They wanted a multi-billion dollar concession to fund their pet programs (and they got it) but they didn't say a word about the environment.

During this year's Earth Week gala, who was praised as the "greenest" Prime Minister and given a special award?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....mp;no_ads=

-Mac
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


Kyoto isn't working, prepare for climate change

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB