Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[eerickso]

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

Ice age.

Didn't I just answer this question? If your are saying that the earth doesn't achieve a steady state, I am aware of this.

 

[Bomber]

A bit off topic.....

Ban drive throughs, thorugh out all of Canada.  This would solve a bunch of problems problems

1.  Shutting down the cars would eliminate all the pollution created by all the iddling cars wating at the Timmies driver through on the weekend

2.  People would be forced to show themselves in order to purchase items at these vendors.  It would add a human touch to ahve a 300 pound coronary candidate walk into a McD's and ask for a number 10, double meat, and a # 6 with cheese, and a diet coke for the figure.

3.  People would not be sitting behind a catless Dodge Neon for 20 minutes wating for a double tosted bagel, not breathing that crap would save lives.

4.  Actually leaving your car and walking into the establishment would be physical exercise, not much, but hey, more than diggin in your cup holder for a coupon, a loony, and a lighter for your smoke.

These are all big time generalizations, but hey, with these in place, all of our economy would benefit.  Companies would have to hire workers to seal up the old drive through windows and expand the entrances (more jobs) hire people to man these more complex "people positions".  Medical and Healthcare providers would have thier burden eased, cause most people that have wieght problems would be to ashamed to go in and actually order an item with their body on display.  Banks would have to hire more tellers.  And the biggest one, pollution would go down.  Everyone talks about Pre 1990 levels, well, when was the first time you ever saw a drive through bank machine?  And who doesn't remember the McDonalds play area?  Or the swivel stools that used to be in Timmies?

 

[Northernguardian]

Canada could revert to a stone age culture and it would do next to nothing to reduce global CO2. We produce 1-2% of it, so even if you believe the junk science, we are a bit player.

The leftist MSM in Canada is spinning this story, saying it is the #1 concern of Canadians. What BS. What happened to health care? We can't find a family doctor. Not important, as a piece of ice fell off a glacier. If health care isn't a big deal anymore, perhaps Harper has improved it? If so, why isn't this in the media?

The reason the media is spinning this story is to discredit Harper, who has reduced taxes, begun rebuilding our neglected Forces, cleaned up gov't corruption, and given the country a backbone in foreign affairs. The prospect of Harper winning the next election scares the crap out of most journalists who are liberals or socialists, and there is little out there to slam the Tories on as they have run a clean government. Journalists have to do their part to defeat Harper, and global warming is their cause. Never mind that the liberals signed an impossible treaty, then did nothing to obey it except pay Rick Mercer lots of money to do stupid commercials. The liberals never had a plan.....except transfer billions of taxpayers dollars to third world countries to buy "credits." Unfortunately, this is all over the heads of most Canadians, who watch the CBC/CTV, etc, and believe everything they hear.

Meanwhile China is polluting the world in an unprecedented way. This is conveniently missed in the Canadian media . See http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html

Here is a quote from the Der Speigel article:

The country is home to 16 of the world's 20 dirtiest cities. The inhabitants of every third metropolis are forced to breathe polluted air, causing the deaths of an estimated 400,000 Chinese each year. Half of China's 696 cities and counties suffer from acid rain. Two-thirds of its major rivers and lakes are cesspools and more than 340 million people do not have access to clean drinking water.

We are worrying about CO2 when our Chinese friends are poisoning the entire planet. They are building something like 600 coal fired power plants per year.  Kyoto does not apply to them. Sounds like a great treaty to me.....

Kyoto is a good name for fool's dog.  >

 

[eerickso]

I don't agree with Kyoto either. I think it would be a big mistake to go after Canadian manufacturers. Yesterday, again, we found out how sick our auto industry is.

Personally, I think we need to go after the oil and gas sector. Those people can whine and complain all they want, but the fact is they are not going anywhere.

Ean

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I don't agree with Kyoto either. I think it would be a big mistake to go after Canadian manufacturers. Yesterday, again, we found out how sick our auto industry is.

Personally, I think we need to go after the oil and gas sector. Those people can whine and complain all they want, but the fact is they are not going anywhere.

Ean

"Go after"?

Are you in High School or University? ....because there's no way someone with a job should think about the world in that way.
1)  The oil & gas industry is the main driver of trade surplus resulting in net wealth transfer into Canada of roughly $70 billion per year.
2)  The oil & gas industry is the main driver of new employment in Canada.  I agree with you that auto industry is collapsing (in my opinion because of non-reciprocal trade access with South Korea and China), but shooting your one positive driver is beyond stupid.
3)  The oil & gas industry provides a huge portion of the nations tax income, both in terms of the investments they are making (which they pay taxes on), the incomes they pay to both direct and indirect workers in supporting industries (which the workers pay income tax on), and in terms of income taxes on capital gains and dividend income as provided by the shareholders of these companies, the vast majority of which are Canadian. 

And just to examine that little portion alone, companies like Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands, Encana, and CNQ by themselves have a Market Cap well in excess of $125 BILLION.  You slap punitive measures on those companies and you immediately have a net wealth loss within Canada measured on what is total group Market Cap of $250 billion. 

I'm just going to throw this out there and let you chew on it for a while.

If I were made King (and hopefully some day that will happen  ;D ), I would base my environmental policy on clean air and not GHG's.

I frankly don't believe that based on research in the Roman Era when Greenland was in fact "green" and they grew grapes in England and Newfoundland, that Global Warming is that bad a thing.  Specifically, from a North American perspective, warmer winters mean less fossil fuels burnt to heat homes and more importantly a significant temperature change could result in more cities being like Vancouver and Victoria where it's temperate enough to walk all year round (thus reducing our automobile emissions).

I would immediately institute a national urban planning council to create royalty-free plans for smart development based on ALWAYS creating housing near commercial space so that more people have the option of walking/biking to work every day further reducing the need for cars.  The constant griping by environmentalists that "We need more public transportation" to me is a very expensive attempt to solve the wrong problem.  The problem shouldn't be "How do we transport so many people great distances from their homes to their work?"  It should be "How do we get more people to move close to work so that they don't need to use any fossil fuels at all to make that journey?"

I would immediatley institute a "smart home" planning council to once again create royalty free plans for energy-efficient home construction. 

I would provide income tax deductions for upgrading homes to include replacing windows, or adding their own solar or wind power arrays.

I would provide income tax deductions for ULEV vehicles.  "Hybrid's" don't necessarily mean "good".  They just mean they're better than their conventionally powered relatives during city driving (on highways, their fuel consumption and emissions are identical).  I should add, that in your emissions calculation you should always ensure you add the emissions used to produce said peice of gear.  If it takes an extra 6 barrels of oil worth of energy to build a hybrid as opposed to a conventional car, you have to be honest and recognize that sunk GHG emission that you then need to counteract by using that field over a future period of time before you even breakeven on GHG emissions.

In terms of emissions, I would target any emitter of heavy metals or particulates and I would institute a transitionary punitive tax system so that over 10 years those sources would be transitioned to cleaner technologies.  If you look at heavy metals in the body - they do nothing good - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Cancers, you name it.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tie-in with autism as well.  Preferably I would do this in concert with the United States as our wind currents take pollution over them, and their pollution over us.

I should add, that although the United States was not a Kyoto signatory, their incentive-based system of upgrading technologies has resulting in a significantly larger drop in emissions and particulates that our Liberal-fake-Kyoto "well, we were gonna do something sometime in the future" plan.  :

I would mandate that all high use vehicles (as opposed to personal vehicles) such as buses, taxis, limos would be based on a clean technology within 10 years. 

[of note, if you're curious about the 10 year window, you need to give time for industry to recognize the new market, and engineer mass-produced solutions otherwise the niche production costs are extremely high - as an example some of the fuel cell buses just bought by Vancouver were worth something like $3.5 million versus a standard bus which is worth $400,000]

I would further put in place a new trade regulation that would tax nations based on the health impact their emissions make on our citizens.  China and India because of their ever-increasing VERY dirty emissions would be the primary two who would be targeted.  The hope is that if Canada leads with such a policy, the United States would follow because unless there is a significant financial reason for China to change its emissions policies, they'll continue to flip us off.

I should add, I think water has been totally ignored as a pollution issue and whatever amount I spent on air quality, I think we should be spending at least 50% on ensuring we don't "E-coli days" in our lakes.  Seriously, that's just gross.  Whomever grandfathered the ideal of spilling our shiiit into our lakes and rivers ought be dug up and hit with a shovel.

As an economic incentive to the Auto Industry I would do three things:
1)  Not emissions related:  I would immediately embargo cars and car parts from countries not providing reciprocal trade access.
2)  I would create the world's greatest incentive to build electric and hybrid cars (and buses) in Canada.  I would provide a ZERO corporate tax rate for all R&D and manufacturing facilites producing hybrid or electric (plug-in) cars within Canada and then let market forces shift the investment very quickly.
3)  I would mandate the universities provide programs to feed into this new industry.
4)  I would provide a 60% investment for 49% ownership in (3) new off-the-shelf nuclear plants in Ontario that would be built in modules in sequence (of note, private interests would own 49% and the remaining 2% would be held by a neutral party that would prioritize safety over profit).  The overinvestment considering the ownership would start to even out the Fiscal Imbalance with Ontario (which is very real by the way), would provide adequate electricity to start a plug-in auto industry, as well as allowing OPG (which probably should be disbanded) to close the two coal-fired plants we have.

Just as a final aside, and probably a minor insult, the difference you'll find when you get older is a Liberal is someone who is driven by idealistic objectives but does not know how to implement a mechanism to acheive their objectives, and so in most cases all things they try to do either idle, experience huge cost overruns because of horrid planning, and otherwise fail horribly.

Conservatives (and I'm talking fiscal versus social here), tend to think of everything in terms of implementation.  What are the real factors that impact change and then try to create practical solutions that although not meeting the higher objectives a Liberal may wish to see, does result in a real difference in a much shorter time frame....all the while not bankrupting us all. 

As a side note, one thing is very telling - If you look at Canadians who can read financial statements and who understand how Income Statements, Balance Sheets and Cash Flow Statements work, 90%+ vote Conservative.  I should add that is something you should teach yourself.  It will help you a great deal in both your work life and as importantly during your own financial planning.

My recommendation to you is not to be a Conservative, maintain your idealism, but start researching enough you so that you understand the causes & effects so you can put forward your own implementation plan where you understand to the last detail the impact on the economy, personal finances, and in the case of the environment what the ROI is for the greater planet in the context that China is building 2500 coal power plants within the next 20 years (which they claim they don't have the funds to build with clean-coal technology which is a load of bunk when you recognized they're sitting on a TRILLION of $USD reserves)....because if we are looking at all this from a global standpoint, the greatest thing that Canada can do is to provide the incentives for China and India to change what they're about to do which could literally make the Pacific Ocean look like the old pictures of Los Angeles with a deep thick brown smog.  Don't laugh.  I predict smog days across the West Coast of Canada and the United States within 5 years because of their current policies and it's going to get much worse before it gets better unless we get them to change their path VERY soon.


Cheers,  Matthew. 

 

[Flip]

Matthew.........

Excellent work! I couldn't disagree with one letter of it!

BTW - Nuclear power plants in Fort Mac. would be a good idea
if only to get environmentalists to "pick their poison".

Pollution - much bigger issue. No vague science here.

I like your comparison of Liberal versus Conservative.
It conspicuously ignores New Democrats which should be , well.......
ignored. ;D

 

[eerickso]

I totally agree with you about hybrid cars. Unfortunately, the Japanese will be selling these cars to us.

Your right, getting more money out of tars sands is wrong. Besides, where else in Canada can someone fresh out of high school make 80,000 dollars a year for driving a dump truck?  Am I jealous, angry, bitter? You bet! I guess I am not considering the other benefits to our economy (alcohol, hookers, guns and big trucks)?

quote author=Cdn Blackshirt link=topic=32987/post-529144#msg529144 date=1171733556]
I frankly don't believe that based on research in the Roman Era when Greenland was in fact "green" and they grew grapes in England and Newfoundland, that Global Warming is that bad of a thing
[/quote]

So was this before or after the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

If it takes an extra 6 barrels of oil worth of energy to build a hybrid as opposed to a conventional car, you have to be honest and recognize that sunk GHG emission that you then need to counteract by using that field over a future period of time before you even breakeven on GHG emissions

I am getting nailed to for facts. How about assumptions?

 

[Sub_Guy]

Its not an assumption the Hybrid car does require much more energy to produce than your conventional car.  Plus the mileage they get on the highway is sometimes lower than a comparable conventional car.  If you strictly drive your Hybrid in a city you will save in the long run, but if you are a highway commuter, you will be better off with something else. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Poll in today's Vancouver Sun (page A16):

Are you willing to make changes to "cure" Global Warming - 78% Yes
Are you willing to pay $100 more taxes to "cure" Global Warming - 49% No
Do you think you can make money out of "curing" Global Warming - 77% Yes.

Summary:  Willing to save the planet if I can make a profit out of it. ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I would immediately institute a national urban planning council to create royalty-free plans for smart development based on ALWAYS creating housing near commercial space so that more people have the option of walking/biking to work every day further reducing the need for cars.  The constant griping by environmentalists that "We need more public transportation" to me is a very expensive attempt to solve the wrong problem.  The problem shouldn't be "How do we transport so many people great distances from their homes to their work?"  It should be "How do we get more people to move close to work so that they don't need to use any fossil fuels at all to make that journey?"

At that point Matt you would be recreating New Lanark, Harmonie-Indiana, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield...... not to mention Toronto and Montreal ca 1900.

Not a bad plan and it can be done - Just get rid of the coal fires and go Nuclear, add a few more parks.

Where do I vote for you?

 

[eerickso]

This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859

I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"

 

[tomahawk6]

Your hybrid will cost what $8000 - 10,000 more than a regular car ? You can buy alot of gas for that money. The cost of a new battery is around $4000 which would need to be replaced in 4 years or so. I wonder who will be laughing at whom ?

 

[Flip]

Oh, another thing.........

Batteries involve huge environmental cost.
Energy used in recycling and cleaning up.

The heavy metal pollution is gram for gram some thing like
100000 X worse than the gases from your existing car!

And I like the hybrid idea!

And where do you get the energy to charge that battery anyway?
Hybrid cars are no panacea.

 

[a_majoor]

Althouth the US Senate is not always known for thier common sense:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/02/us-senate-committee-bashes-climate.html&title=US%20Senate%20Committee%20Bashes%20Climate%20Alarmists

US Senate Committee Bashes Climate Alarmists

Get a Load of This from US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
You know, THAT US Senate that is controlled by Al Gore's Democratic Party. Of course, the Suzuki Kookies and Gore Core will spend weeks trying to discredit the speaker. Even though he is accountable and they are not.

    "President Klaus is to be commended for his courage in speaking not only the truth about the science behind global warming fears, but the reality of the politicization of the UN."

 

[muskrat89]

I love it:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

 

[a_majoor]

More inconveinient truth's

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Fire and Ice

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming

By R. Warren Anderson
Research Analyst

Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow

    It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.  

    The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

    Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

    Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

    Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

    After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

    The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

    That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

    In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

    Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”

    The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.

    Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.

    One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”

    Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

    “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

    He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

    Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

    Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.

    Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”

    This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.

Follow the link and read the rest

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I like it.......................one could skip right now to the top ten list below.

Lorrie GoldsteinThu, March 1, 2007

    Dion's 'Top 10' Kyoto excuses
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

   
Suppose a federal election is held this spring and Stephane Dion and the Liberals win. As I said, just suppose.
The Liberals will immediately be confronted by a horrendous problem -- how to keep their promise to implement the Kyoto accord.

After all, Dion and his party are still committed to enacting the international treaty on global warming they signed in 1998 and then forgot about until voters tossed them from power last year.
Despite their record of inaction while in government, last month they led the three Opposition parties in passing a private member's bill by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, calling on the Conservatives to implement Kyoto. Indeed, the Liberals claim the legislation forces the Conservative government to act.

So that must mean the Liberals think the Kyoto accord is still doable, right?
After all, asking someone to do something you never did yourself and which you know can't be done, would be the height of hypocrisy, right? And the Liberals would never stoop so low, right?

Once you sort out all his verbal gymnastics on the subject, Dion's stated position is that if the Liberals are returned to power this year, they can still meet Kyoto's target of reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to an average of six per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Since, in the real world, as opposed to Liberal la-la land, many believe Dion's position is, how should I put this delicately-- oh, yeah -- INSANE, considering what it would do to our economy, Dion is clearly going to need some excuses at the ready, should the Liberals successfully claw their way back to power this year and then fail to implement Kyoto ... again.

Just like all the other post-election excuses the Liberals needed for not fulfilling all the other election promises they made, starting in 1993.

Here then, with the obligatory nod to David Letterman, are Prime Minister Stephane Dion's Top 10 excuses for why the Liberals will not be able to implement the Kyoto accord ... again.

Number 10: "Kyoto ate my protocols."

Number 9: "This is unfair. This is unfair. You don't know what you speak about. Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"

Number 8: "I firmly believe that as a good citizen, I have a moral obligation to implement the Kyoto accord on global warming. Meaning, of course, as a good citizen of France."

Number 7: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."

Number 6: One year later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan."

Number 5: Two years later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."

Number 4: Three years later: "Yes, implementing the ... aw, to hell with it."

Number 3: "Define 'implement'."

Number 2: "I lost the Liberal plan to implement the Kyoto accord while I was looking for the Liberal plan to scrap the GST."

And Prime Minister Stephane Dion's number one excuse for not being able to implement the Kyoto accord?

"Ladies and gentlemen, Environment Minister Belinda Stronach."

 

[DBA]

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

 

[2 Cdo]

This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859

I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"

This is your dumbest post in a long list of dumb posts.  : You obviously have no idea of how the economy works, so stay in school and study hard and maybe some day you might graduate high school. It's attitudes like yours that creates the wests inherent (and deserved) mistrust of the east!

The bold is my addition.

 

[Osotogari]

This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859

I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"

Yeah, right.

Too bad the battery will eventually fail and have to be replaced at a great cost to your pocket and the environment.  I wouldn't doubt that it would be more the fuel I burn in both my Harley and my Tracker during the same amount of time. 

If Alberta can kiss your ass, then we'll gladly hold onto our portion of equalization and maybe you and Mark Holland can buy your little indulgences carbon credits you really can't afford.