Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I agree with it....although I would argue it was designed to get popular support through Socialist 'group think', I think it was intended to profit European and Russian upper classes who intentionally overstated their original emissions in order to sell fictitious savings to emitters that had know future development such as oilsands producers.

I should add that the shear stupidity of thinking that by signing Kyoto in regards to the oil sands, the only thing we'll accomplish is guaranteeing that the value-added process of refining (including the constructions jobs associated with building the upgraders and refineries) will go just south of the border.  Net effect on North American overall emissions = ZERO.  Loss of economic weath = BILLIONS.

Kyoto is beyond stupid and is a blatant rip-off that only stupid people fall for....(Sorry Zell, that's not intended directly at you, but this issue really makes me mad because the do-gooders haven't done their homework which doesn't in any way appear to slow their proselytizing)


Matthew.   

 

[rmacqueen]

If you look at the actual science, North America is a negative emitter.  This is due to the reforestation that has taken place in the last 50+ years.  When that is calculated in, North America actually absorbs more carbon than it produces.

 

[a_majoor]

Of course, Kyoto is not stupid due to the lack of underlying science, but also the very real economic impacts it will have on all of us:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/02/bodies-falling-from-tall-buildings.html&title=Bodies%20falling%20from%20tall%20buildings...

Watch for a trading panic... if Dion and the Liberal Doom-meisters ever get their hands back on the levers of power...

    Companies representing 40 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange's total market capitalization would be directly affected by a legislated system of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caps and trading, and that impact will be negative for most of them, a new report from CIBC World Markets says.

Maybe Mark "Hugo" Holland will be "Minister of - Save the Planet - ."

Of, course, there's a good chance we don't really have to worry... when's the last time the Liberals kept their word anyway?

 

[Nemo888]

  The science is in. Climate change is real, but Kyoto is a total waste of time to make people feel like they are doing something useful. There are no easy solutions. Switching over to nuclear energy and roughly doubling our generating capacity to supply electric automobiles is the only workable solution to make a dent in emissions. The current “solutions” are just cosmetic and political. No one will have the cahones to do what needs to be done to stop climate change.

   If it were global cooling Canadians would get behind it. I hate winter and every time it hits –20 I stop caring. I think we should just consider that it will happen and simply plan ahead. Its not like we live on an island nation that is going to lose the majority of its land if the icecaps melt. Canada may actually be better off, no one knows. OF course this is just my opinion.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Zell_Dietrich.....I am guessing you don't agree with the statement?

Thing is,  Kyoto was an attempt to force companies to pay for their "external" costs.  Imagine this,  a Widget maker packs his product in Paper-A.  Paper-B comes along and costs the Widget maker $0.75 a widget less to pack.  This sounds great until we realise that Paper-B will cost $5 more to be disposed of afterwards.  Since the Widget maker does not have to pay the $5 dollars to deal with the waste,  he treats it like an externality.  Until the full costs associated with his choice in paper are brought into the decision, the Widget maker will choose Paper-B.

    What if the municipal government charged the Widget maker for the $5 per item clean up?  To the Widget maker it would appear to be a blood sucking socialist scheme.  To everyone else it would appear that they are trying to force people to pay the real economic cost with their choices.

This whole thing about "trading credits" was all about giving entrepreneurs an incentive to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.  The theory being if it can make money or save money people will do it or find a way.

So to answer the question,  no.  On that particular statement I don't disagree with Stephen Harper.  It is a money sucking socialist scheme. I just think that it is a good thing.

 

[rmacqueen]

  The science is in. Climate change is real, but Kyoto is a total waste of time to make people feel like they are doing something useful. There are no easy solutions.

Obviously you haven't heard, according to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the global temperature hasn't increased since 1998.

 

[Flip]

But of course we are missing the obvious......

We keep hearing europeans and environmentalists talking about the greatest threat
to humanity and saying it's global warming............piffle.

I would say Iran and North Korea represent a far greater threat.
Pan Arab nationalism ( Islamic extremism) is a bigger danger than that.

Add to that, China will never accept any impediment to industrial growth
and Kyoto is irrelavant.

Just a little thought to warm us all up.

 

[George Wallace]

It seems to be a problem throughout the whole solar system.  As there is Global Warming happening on Mars, I would say that mankind has had nothing to do with causing it, there or here.

 

[rmacqueen]

This whole thing about "trading credits" was all about giving entrepreneurs an incentive to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.  The theory being if it can make money or save money people will do it or find a way.

More likely they will just pass the cost on to the consumer causing inflation.  Or, they will import the same product from the "developing" countries, like China, who are increasing their emissions 500% without having to pay a cent for the crap they are putting in the air.  Now both widget companies are out of business and their employees on UI.

So to answer the question,  no.  On that particular statement I don't disagree with Stephen Harper.  It is a money sucking socialist scheme. I just think that it is a good thing.

I would rather they spent the time and money cleaning up pollution, like smog, that is actually killing people, than wasting it on something that has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of time in the history of the earth.  Remember, it was only 10,000 years ago that Woolly Mammoths were wandering around the Artic chewing on flowers.

 

[rmacqueen]

It seems to be a problem throughout the whole solar system.  As there is Global Warming happening on Mars, I would say that mankind has had nothing to do with causing it, there or here.

That's because the Martians didn't sign Kyoto ;D

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Thing is,  Kyoto was an attempt to force companies to pay for their "external" costs.  Imagine this,  a Widget maker packs his product in Paper-A.  Paper-B comes along and costs the Widget maker $0.75 a widget less to pack.  This sounds great until we realise that Paper-B will cost $5 more to be disposed of afterwards.  Since the Widget maker does not have to pay the $5 dollars to deal with the waste,  he treats it like an externality.  Until the full costs associated with his choice in paper are brought into the decision, the Widget maker will choose Paper-B.

     What if the municipal government charged the Widget maker for the $5 per item clean up?  To the Widget maker it would appear to be a blood sucking socialist scheme.  To everyone else it would appear that they are trying to force people to pay the real economic cost with their choices.

This whole thing about "trading credits" was all about giving entrepreneurs an incentive to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.  The theory being if it can make money or save money people will do it or find a way.

So to answer the question,  no.  On that particular statement I don't disagree with Stephen Harper.  It is a money sucking socialist scheme. I just think that it is a good thing.

As long as you realize that Kyoto is none of the above positive things....
1)  Because as I mentioned, the starting point was some very major European companies starting by inflating their actual output and selling the difference between their falsified pre-Kyoto emissions and current day actuals.
2)  That you actually contribute more GHG when you recycle (because it takes a lot of energy to recycle) than if you just dump things in landfills and so all the recycling measures Canada has added since 1990 are being counted against our GHG emission counts.
3)  That Kyoto even by its original architects was designed within an objective that based on an unstoppable increase of I think it was 2.4 degrees Celsius, that by everyone meeting their commitments, they'd reduce that increase by 0.1 degree.
4)  That Kyoto provides no credit for the creation of carbon sinks such as reforested areas.  Now if THAT doesn't tell you this is money grab instead of an altruistic program, I don't know what will.

Bottom Line:  I'm all for doing environmentally positive things (I choose to live downtown and walk to work on most days even though I'd rather live in the country which would force me to commute) and believe in reducing harmful particulate and heavy metal  emissions and that Canada should cooperate with the United States within NAFTA on creating a system that works on both sides of our border that imposes the same restrictions and penalties to both nations so that no economic advantage is gained or lost, but shipping money overseas in the Kyoto scheme is absolute lunacy.  I should add, that with 250 new coal-fired plants I predict that beautiful BC will soon be getting smog days thanks to China, and if I'm right we're talking about hundreds of tonnes of new heavy metals going into the air globally that the closing or our two coal-fired plants in Ontario will make appear trivial.

Kyoto = pissing into a stiff wind.

Serious people need to find better answers....l


Matthew. 

 

[a_majoor]

No further comment needed on this story:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheStrongConservative/~3/90661300/hearing-on-global-warming-cancelled.html&title=Hearing%20on%20Global%20Warming%20Cancelled%20Because%20of%20Winter%20Storm

Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled Because of Winter Storm

You can't make this stuff up. Via Drudge:

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

UPDATE

Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Dr Bell is definitely a heretic to the global warming crowd. However to me he is a breath of fresh air in this crazy debate. His credentials make it hard for the global warming supporters to refute so they probably will try to ignore him. I hope more scientists will coalesce around Dr Bell to debunk the myth of global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Dr. Ball is one of the presenters in this video, in which actual climatologists present their views on global warming: "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4 (video is in 5 parts, all about 5 mins/each)

 

[eerickso]

We have twice the amount of CO2 than normal in the atmosphere. If we stopped CO2 emmision today, I believe the earth would return to its natural state. Since the earth has been around for awhile it must be somewhat resilient, right?

As a concerned citizen, I worry about global warming.  However, to fix the problem, I hope we don't attack our weak and fragile manufactures. I know for a fact that they are not resilient!

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

We have twice the amount of CO2 than normal in the atmosphere. If we stopped CO2 emmision today, I believe the earth would return to its natural state. Since the earth has been around for awhile it must be somewhat resilient, right?

As a concerned citizen, I worry about global warming.  However, to fix the problem, I hope we don't attack our weak and fragile manufactures. I know for a fact that they are not resilient!

Please provide your source re: "Twice the amount of CO2 than normal".

In return, I'll post some of my source information this evening.


Many thanks,  Matthew.   

 

[Sub_Guy]

The earth is billions of years old. I am a concern citizen too, but I know better.  The earth is not a constant, the climate is always changing, plates are always in motion.  The earth has been warming since the last ice age, it has been posted before but Canada only contributes approx 5% of the so called greenhouse gases. 

I can't wait to see what's next, attaching high powered engines to the plates to keep them from shifting?  How about water vapor?

 

[rmacqueen]

I believe the earth would return to its natural state.

Please tell us what the earths natural state actually is?

 

[eerickso]

I have no idea. However, one of the state variables is carbon dioxide concentration. By extracting air from arctic ice, it would appear that a concentration of around 280 ppm would be considered "normal" or "natural".

I apologize for my last post. When I looked at this graph, I though the vertical axis started at zero. It appears that CO2 is 1.4 times the normal concentration.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Please tell us what the earths natural state actually is?

Ice age.

 

[Flip]

There is another point.

If we were to jump in full bore to the extent that we damage the economy,
the results could be catastrophic.

Poverty is huge contributor to ecological damage. New "clean" technologies
simply don't evolve in severely depressed economies.

We could be forced into bad decisions out of necessity.

Brazil, for example was "encouraged" into a massive deforestation
program so they could raise cattle for export.
They traded a debt problem for ecological destruction.

China has wildly increased it's output of pollution.
The increase is likely to continue for a very long time.

The net effect of Kyoto is to simply hand the Chinese our bag of cookies.