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 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Climate change Real Reply with quote

Some of the attitudes taken on this website about climate change are outrageous. As Conservatives we need to recgonise the issue and work to fix it in a way that helps the economy. Without action by our goverment, other parties, most notably the Liberals, could be reelected based on their environmental platform. Not only this, but humanity in general could be in danger after several hundred years of global warming. Flooding of major cities and even island countires would happen that would displace potentially billions of people. There wouldnt be enough land to farm... or enough meat sources. This is a doomsday scenario i know, but while we can shouldnt we try to fix the problem.

To try and fix this I propose the following:

-mandatory solar panels on roofs of all new housing(would create jobs in a legitamate solar panel industry)
-scrubbers on every smokestack(stops most emmisions from industry, oil profit can take a hit to pay for them)
-set standard for emmisions for car (ex. miminmum 50mpg)(would create jobs in Canada because we would need cars with better mileage than those made anywhere else, therefore car plants would be created)
-max 2 cars per household or 1 car per capita
-set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environm ent, but it gives farmers an extra source of income)

Any More ideas?... fell free to share...[/quote]
Mac





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Climate change is "real" but it's been "real" since long before the Industrial Revolution and it will be "real" long after humans have colonized other planets. Read my lips: natural process ongoing since planet started circling the Sun... and likely related to the Sun...

I'm all for cleaning up pollution and our environment. Energy conservation and making better use of our resources makes sense... but Kyoto doesn't achieve these goals and it doesn't make sense whatsoever so I reject it.

Let's clean up our backyard (and front yard for that matter) but buying "carbon credits" is just wealth redistribution- nothing more.

-Mac
jw





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 90
Reputation: 14.5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There does seem to be a bad habit among some wherein the human effect part of climate change is wiped out, eradicated for no known reason. Now we may say that we do not know how much of climate change is human effect and how much natural effect, I can buy into saying that. I cannot buy into just stating that there is no human effect or worse that there is no climate change at all.

Becoming more efficient in our use of energy will not hurt us and is necessary in any case. Throwing a ever smaller amount of garbage into the water and atmosphere is a good idea.

I like geothermal as well as wind and solar. People who already heat with hot water can likely chill with geothermal, which cuts air conditioning costs and power by a massive factor.
Hasdrubal





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

-mandatory solar panels on roofs of all new housing(would create jobs in a legitamate solar panel industry)
-scrubbers on every smokestack(stops most emmisions from industry, oil profit can take a hit to pay for them)
-set standard for emmisions for car (ex. miminmum 50mpg)(would create jobs in Canada because we would need cars with better mileage than those made anywhere else, therefore car plants would be created)
-max 2 cars per household or 1 car per capita
-set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environm ent, but it gives farmers an extra source of income)

I agree with everything on your list except:

-max 2 cars per household or 1 car per capita

If government regulates the amount of vehicles allowed then it goes against my freedom to make my own decision, & is not profitable besides what if three drivers in the house? A mother who needs the family car, a father who needs the truck, & a son who's 16 with a license? Are you saying because of the limit of two vvehicles the son who wants to own their own car can not because of the government bans more then two cars?
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:09 am    Post subject: Re: Climate change Real Reply with quote

winchry wrote:
Some of the attitudes taken on this website about climate change are outrageous.


You've been talking to David Suzuki. Quick someone, get the antidote!!!

Quote:
As Conservatives we need to recgonise the issue


As Conservatives we recognize that a treaty that excludes China is absolutely worthless. Canada could emit ZERO emissions every single year going forward and it would make almost ZERO difference in terms of global warming. The only outrageous thing here is the fact that Liberals are completely ignoring the FACT that without China on board we are destroying our economy for NOTHING.

Quote:
and work to fix it in a way that helps the economy


Sounds pretty easy. Let's look at your solutions below...

Quote:
-mandatory solar panels on roofs of all new housing(would create jobs in a legitamate solar panel industry)


Who will pay the $2000 per house to do this? What about condos and apartments?

Quote:
scrubbers on every smokestack(stops most emmisions from industry, oil profit can take a hit to pay for them)


There are scrubbers on most stacks. I work at a company that monitors this.

Quote:
set standard for emmisions for car (ex. miminmum 50mpg)(would create jobs in Canada because we would need cars with better mileage than those made anywhere else, therefore car plants would be created)


Yes. This is a good idea. Conservatives have actually proposed moving in this direction while Liberals want voluntary limits. So it is Liberals who are weak here (as they are everywhere).

Quote:
-max 2 cars per household or 1 car per capita


How will this help? I wouldn't drive anymore if I had ten cars.

Quote:
set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environm ent, but it gives farmers an extra source of income)


Hugely expensive. Which social programs would you cut to pay for it?

Quote:
Any More ideas?... fell free to share...


Okay. If global warming is real and poses us a threat we could pump CO2 miles below the ocean floor. The cost of doing so is a fraction of your proposals and we don't actually need to start doing it until we start to see real evidence of unnatural warming.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17274/

Here are some other ideas...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/.....48,00.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/.....1107105030
Hasdrubal





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:37 am    Post subject: Re: Climate change Real Reply with quote

[quote="Craig"]
Quote:
set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environm ent, but it gives farmers an extra source of income)


Quote:
Hugely expensive. Which social programs would you cut to pay for it?


All the reason why this program should exist, to gain one program you must cut atleast three other useless programs; the less socialism the better the economy. :wink:
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Climate change Real Reply with quote

Quote:
set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environment, but it gives farmers an extra source of income

Hugely expensive. Which social programs would you cut to pay for it?


Windmills today would cost millions but if the world in general started to use them on a regular basis the price would plummet as there would be more production. Also there is a cost benefit to windmills. Instead of paying yealy cost to hire employees at power plants windmills dont need a staff, or at least not a staff as large as a power plant. Also with windmills there is no fuel to buy. Millions would be saved from not having to buy coal, natural gas and othe fossil fuels.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote: winchry wrote
set up an aggressive windmill program for farmers(not only does this help the environm ent, but it gives farmers an extra source of income)

Craig Replied:
Hugely expensive. Which social programs would you cut to pay for it?


I lived on a farm until a few years ago and always wondered why the goverment(s) would never help farmers to set up windmills to offset their electricity use.

Winchry is from Sarnia and he probably knows of the farmer on London Line who has a small windmill that he uses to generate electricity. This farmer says that if he had been allowed to pump his electricity back into the grid it would have saved him thousands in battery cost(he did this about 10 years ago).

Even if farmers just broke even in electrical production(supplied enough electricity for their own use) this would take a couple of million properties worth of electricity off the grid.

Craig is right that it would be costly(in taxbreaks) but farmers are some of the most enterprising people in Canada and i'm sure they would pay for most of the cost of putting up small windmills.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We cannot "fix" climate change, anymore than we can "fix" the problem of water flowing only downhill. It is simply beyond human ability. For millions of years, the climate of the earth has been changing. There have been ice ages and thaws, species extinctions; the continents themselves have moved. There have been times when there were no polar ice caps, and the entire earth existed in a tropical state. Now you come along and say that my attitude is not realistic? I think you are the one who needs to think about just what exactly it is you are saying here.

The climate on this planet has never been static. It is the absolute height of hubris to believe that humans can stop a process that has been ongoing since the dawn of time. Just enjoy the current inter-glacial period while it lasts; eventually it will get colder and there will be nothing we can do about it.

A few questions for you. What was the peak temperature during the Eemian interglacial period? Is it higher or lower than the current temperatures during this current interglacial? Would you still characterize the current temperatures as "unprecedented"? Did you even know that the earth was currently in a long running ice age?
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that man is not the dominant factor in climate change. There are several factors that combine to decide what our climate is going to be like:

    Composition of the atmosphere
    Orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles)
    Solar forcing (sunspot cycles, and other cycles). Basically all heat on the surface of the planet comes from the sun.

Now I think it is reasonable to assume that humans can only affect one factor in the above list; atmospheric composition. I know of no process by which we humans can affect the orbital variations of the earth, or solar activity.

The hypothesis being tested here is that humans are the dominant factor in atmospheric composition, and that atmospheric composition is the dominant factor in climate change. This is the position that is held by Suzuki and the other High Priests of the Church of Climate Change. Let us test this hypothesis.

The following is a list of factors that contribute to the composition of the atmosphere.

    Humidity. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Period. The global average is about 2% of the atmosphere is water vapor.
    Cosmic rays. Recent research has found a link with cloud formation. Solar activity affects the amount of rays reaching the earth. Clouds reflect solar energy away from earth.
    Volcanism. Volcanoes spew out a bunch of gases, particles, and junk, and stuff.
    Man. We all know his part. CO2 makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
    Forest fires., and other natural processes. (Man actually tries to stop some of these)
    Other factors that no one really knows about.


Now, does anyone still think it is reasonable to say that man is the dominant factor in atmospheric composition, and that atmospheric composition is the dominate factor in global temperatures? It is such a complex system, that we know so little about.
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject: Websites Reply with quote

If anyone doubts climate change they should check out the following websties:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
http://www.ec.gc.ca/envhome.html
www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/
biggie





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Websites Reply with quote

winchry wrote:
If anyone doubts climate change they should check out the following websties:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
http://www.ec.gc.ca/envhome.html
www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/


Those are simply extensions of the climate alarmism front, and I've seen them all before.

It should be clarified that few if any of us outright deny the processes of global warming(although it may come off that way).
Many of us have a serious problem with the climate alarmists out there.

With big bad threats like the world flooding, it's all just a little too much. I have no doubt in my mind that the human population is poluting the planet. That being said, I also believe that the planet is more than capable of sustaining itself at this stage. The world has in fact been warming and cooling for all of time. The climate models completely ignore other factors; such as solar fluctuations and a weakening magnetosphere(among others)

I'm not against trying to reduce our emissions - I think that the reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels is a fantastic side-effect. I am against obliterating our economy in favour of shakey science.

It is just as outrageous to blindly follow the idea that the world will flood, storms will get worse, drought will spread etc.. when a lot of the science actually suggests otherwise. A lot of the effects even contradict one another.

Are humans making a difference? possibly. Is that a difference we can change? highly doubtful.

First, we have countries which are doing nothing, and are not obligated to do anything to rectify the situation. Second, our population is exploding; will the sheer number of people on the planet cause this change regardless. Moreover, is land-use a big factor; are our cities creating additional heat, or skewing results we might obtain.

You're lost if you think the climate change theory science is 100% accurate.. just as anyone who dismisses it as impossible would be lost.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you refer to my above post, we can play with some numbers. Lets peg the effect of atmospheric composition at 50% of all climate change. Lets peg human activity at 50% of atmospheric composition. That would mean that human can reasonably claim responsibility for one quarter of all climate change.

Now if atmospheric composition is responsible for less than 50%, or humans less than 50%, you can see where my skepticism on man being the problem comes from. Going conservatively, lets weight each factor at 1/3. If you keep man at 1/2, you are down to 1/6 already.

It is my personal belief that solar forcing is the dominant factor in climate change. I base this observation on the fact that the summer sun warms Saskatoon into the 30s, the winter sun warms it far less. After that would be orbital forcing. In last place I would put atmospheric composition. The atmosphere could at most add or subtract a few degrees after the main players in the equation set the range.


Last edited by kwlafayette on Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
cerl7011





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 334
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sould check out my blog and my rip on Kyoto...the most worthless waste of time in the plantes history. It'll go the way of the League of Nations in a decade...

Alternitave Energy is something we need to look into. Wind power, solar power and hydro-electric power are the three biggies...the government should encourage the building of said plants and offer tax reductions to those who offer to have them built on their property (pertaining to the wind generators atleast)...The government should continue to support reaserch into clean fuels like Bio-Diesel and things. People should be told how to conserve energy and how they can do their part.
In order for us to have a cleaner future, we might have to abandon the whole "smaller goverment/less government interfearence" for a bit while we're picking ourselves up. The government should interfear when nothing else is getting done, but when it is done, go back to the way it was.

erl

http://mrerl.blogspot.com
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tax breaks amount to a subsidy. In my experience, subsidies serve only to slowly weaken the beneficiary over time. If you want a strong alternative energy market, I do not think subsidies are the way to create that. Also, are really sure that biodiesel is clean? Malaysia and Thailand burn huge swaths of jungle and peat bogs to make way for oil palm plantations, used to make biodiesel for export. I believe that because of this, either tiny Malaysia or Thailand are the third largest GHG emitters on the planet. It is that pesky law of unintended consequences. In Mexico, they had to regulate the price of tortilla, because corn prices have sky rocketed. Corn is used in the production of ethanol in the US.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 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


Climate change Real

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB