Canada's position on climate change

[French Castanut]

Interesting reading on page 5 of the magazine:
http://issuu.com/commongroundmagazineca ... cg245dec11

[French Castanut]

Today is the end of Canada as we know it. Harper is going to vote yes on Bill C38 Omnibus.

[albertabound]

:sunshine: Good next he should change equalization fund and make quebec stand on their own feet for a change.

[The Green Barbarian]

Meanwhile, the head of the IPCC at the UN is busy preparing the next release on the climate change hoax:



anyone who is still enamoured with the man-made climate change hoax can go ahead and support all of the economy-killing "cures" for it, but how about we actually wait to see some real proof first - how about that?

[erinmore3775]

GB there is general agreement that the earth's atmospheric gas composition has been fluctuating for millions of years. However, since the advent of the industrial revolution there has been a marked increase in carbon based gases. These gases increase heat absorption and their concentration has increased exponentially since the 50's. Since the 50's there have not been a significant increase in world wide volcanic activity, nor have there been long lasting and expansive forest fires that have engulfed continents, nor has there been a catastrophic meteorite collision ( all of these theorized as past causes of drastic changes in the composition of the earth's atmosphere). What has occurred is a world wide increase in the use of carbon based fuels, by humans, that produce as byproducts heat and energy trapping carbon based gases.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles that outline the theory of the relationship between global warming and an increase in carbon based atmospheric gases. Since we do not have another "world" to conclusively experiment with, these theories are based on peer reviewed laboratory experiments, evidence from glacial ice cores, and satellite photographic measurements and atmospheric analysis, and historical data gained from historical data dating back to the early 1800's.

The following is just one article, but it does demonstrate the graphic change in atmospheric gas composition.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

While no one can concretely prove that human use of carbon fuels has/is changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere it is a better theory than some mystical and supernatural power aiming a giant hairdryer at the earth and there by affecting the atmosphere. I would argue that those with their heads in the sand or some place else are those who choose not to take responsibility for their actions. We live in/on a closed environmental system. Our actions change the environment and using fossil fuels is one way we change the chemical composition of our environment.

I am well aware that I will not change your opinion, nor will I change the opinion of our present government, about the relationship between climatic change and human utilization of our planet's resources. However, it is my opinion that those who chose to ignore this data are similar to those "scientists and politicians" of the 1400's who were sure and determined that the world was flat. :digging:

[The Green Barbarian]

I am well aware that I will not change your opinion, nor will I change the opinion of our present government, about the relationship between climatic change and human utilization of our planet's resources. However, it is my opinion that those who chose to ignore this data are similar to those "scientists and politicians" of the 1400's who were sure and determined that the world was flat. :digging:

Erin - while there has been no proof ever offered that AGW exists, despite billions upon billions of dollars being spent on this massive hoax, I think it important to recognize a distinction here. You can argue until you are blue in the face that AGW is real, yet without proof, you really are just wasting your time. But that's not even the real issue. Whether AGW is real, or not real, isn't what's at stake here. What's at stake here, and I believe this is similar to the government's current position, is that we (being Canada) can spend trillions of dollars, we can handicap our economy via an idiotic and insane economy-destroying "cap and trade" plan that the NDP want us to adopt, we can all go back to driving horse and buggies or living in caves, and even if this unproven scientific hypothesis is somewhat correct, it won't make any difference. The mass polluters, China and India, as they continue to grow their economies, would surpass any cuts in our emissions totals within days, and so the entire exercise would be for naught anyway. This is because, even with the lies and spin about the oil sands from corrupt fund-raising groups and the bone-head Mulcair, we are a tiny tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to carbon emissions. So is pretty much the rest of the world compared to China and India, outside of the USA. Yet we have mush-heads bent on destroying our economies, for no gain. None. Zero. They are so focused on this "problem", that they can't see that as Matt Ridley put it "they want to put a tourniquet around our necks to stop a nose-bleed". It's lunacy.

In fact - here's the exact quote from the article in question:

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

So Erin - do you get it? Let's actually prove this theory, and not just in labs. Let's see demonstrable proof, and not hysterics from nutbars, every time a tornado touches down in Missouri. By now, according to the "experts", the world was supposed to be seeing catacylismic events like massive hurricanes, droughts, floods etc that were directly traceable to "CO2" in the atmosphere, yet none of that has happened. Not one prediction by the looney-tune Dr. James Hansen, the father of this bogus theory, has ever come true. Has this lying slimeball been kicked out of his job, laughed at, and excluded from future scientific events? Nope. The goal posts just get moved, excuses dreamed up to explain away why he was wrong, and the apocalypse machine keeps cranking away. Meanwhile, the mush-heads who still "believe" in this bogus theory keep hoping and praying in their "Church of Global Warming" (as the AGW movement is more a religious and political movement then a scientific one) for a sign, any sign, that this theory is true. That sign will never come, and this giant scam will fade away into the mists of time, like all other scams.