Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[Glacier]

It is interesting to note that our right wing friends who have dismissed climate change and concluded that it is a hoax, have not come to this conclusion by careful analysis of the data or an exhaustive review of historical trends.

It seems that the end justifies the means even if it involves the leftist forum of taqiyyah. I have provided over and over again the analysis of historical trends. You don't want to believe the science, so you just jump straight to the emotional feel-good preconceived conclusion that the world is going down the tubes without doing an ounce of analysis yourself.

[The Green Barbarian]

It is interesting to note that our right wing friends who have dismissed climate change and concluded that it is a hoax,

if you actually read the article by Bjorn Lomborg, and took off your partisan blinders, you'd see that this isn't what Lomborg is saying, at all. For someone who claims to be so enlightened, you sure are a close-minded zealot.

[Partmanpartfish]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There is a consensus in the scientific community re climate change and human activity, unfortunately, the mimicries on the right prefer to get their scientific smarts from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ezra Levant.

How sad these folks are. But what's even sadder is the damage they are doing to our reputation and thus our ability to build pipelines and sell our resources.

My guess is that Trudeau's adult approach to climate change, now that the children have been booted, will be the best thing that's happened in the oil patch and pipeline industry in a decade.

[Glacier]

There is a consensus

What a cop out. If you want to make some sort of intellectual argument, try using some facts and science. provide your own analysis. I'm still waiting for you to tell us in your own words why climate change is so dangerous.

[The Green Barbarian]

There is a consensus .

no, there isn't.

[The Green Barbarian]

What a cop out. If you want to make some sort of intellectual argument, try using some facts and science. provide your own analysis. I'm still waiting for you to tell us in your own words why climate change is so dangerous.

You are dealing with a close-minded zealot who is just parroting the garbage in they've been fed. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Partmanpartfish]

When are you guys going to provide some facts to prove 99% of scientists are wrong and climate change is a hoax?

I'm not going to hold my breath, as all you guys seem to be able to do is parrot the bleatings of Ezra and his ilk.

[The Green Barbarian]

When are you guys going to provide some facts to prove 99% of scientists are wrong .

When are you going to provide some facts to prove that 99% of "scientists" (whoever that is) support your flawed and distorted view of this topic?

And by your posts, I am assuming you are all in favor of going to expensive five-star climate parties and giving dying children solar panels instead of medicine and food?

[maryjane48]

lol at righties claim8ng to be intelectual

[The Green Barbarian]

lol at righties claim8ng to be intelectual

Glad to see you never make that claim. Because at the bare minimum it requires you to be able to spell intellectual.

[Omnitheo]

That's a good question. In some aspects you can do both -- but poorly -- because we have limited resources. Lomborg's thesis is basically that if we spend the trillions of dollars to slow climate change down by a decade as the UN proposes the money has to come from somewhere, or more specifically, at the expense of something else. We could solve world hunger and poverty for less money than what mitigating climate change will cost. In addition, the benefits of spending billions to slow down climate change is not very much. It does not stop climate, it only delays the inevitable by a decade or so.

as mentioned earlier, money could come from anywhere. The military budget for instance. To say "we can't afford to both provide clean water and ensure that their children will also have access to water" while spending exponentially more on warfare is like saying "I can't afford buy groceries or go to the gym" while spending money eating fast food every day.
It's incredibly narrow minded to think that solving one problem has to come at the expense of solving another. It's not like we can only focus on one task at a time. Perhaps we should halt all scientific progress until we've exterminated malaria. Or freeze the economies of all nations while we focus on fixing Greece..

Lomborg takes the scientific approach instead of the feel good emotional approach. That's why people don't like what he has to say. It's science and cost-benefit analysis, not feel good emotional stuff.

i really can't put any faith in the "scientific approach" of someone who can't even correctly define the science his "field" is about. Come on, still calling it Global Warming? Makes me put about as much faith in that as I would a psychologist who keeps a phrenology chart

[The Green Barbarian]

as mentioned earlier, money could come from anywhere.

Well of course. Why didn't I think of that?

[Omnitheo]

Politicians don't care if hundreds of thousands of children die every year of malaria, TB, and other strife. All they care about is flinging buzzwords that appeal to the unwashed masses of morons on the left that will vote for them again. It's really disgusting how the left prefers to see all these children die while throwing money at a trendy hoax. People truly are idiots.

That's a pretty big generalization. "Politicians don't care about their citizens dying". Wow, kind of makes you wonder why we have healthcare. Or a military. Or health inspectors, or safety inspectors. Or traffic controls. Clearly it was never a "politician" who suggested any of this.

Right they only care for buzzwords that will get them re-elected. Ever considered that what you believe to be a "buzzword" may actually be a real issue? If they're following through with that, and they're getting elected, it's a pretty clear indicator that they are following the will of their electorate. For example in this election we had the buzzwords of climate change or marijuana, or drinking water for native communities, vs the buzzwords of burqas or Muslims. Guess which subjects the electorate was more concerned with.

Tell me though fishin, how much do you care about thousands of children dying every year of malaria? How much have you done to try and help?.

As for how disgusting it is to see the left preferring to see children die? It would be disgusting if that were the case, but the real disgust here is you suggesting that this is even remotely true. The left/right political spectrum is defined social ideologies. The left favours equality and social responsibilities. It is those on the left that are who to thank for healthcare, or employment standards, social freedoms. To suggest that the very people who stand up for those less fortunate would prefer to see children die is not just completely wrong, it is indicative of a complete absence of sociological understanding.

[Omnitheo]

Well of course. Why didn't I think of that?

Don't be so dense as to pretend to misunderstand something and then remove it from context. The point is the money does not have to come at the expense of one particular thing. It's not like you can't spend your calories breathing at the same time as you spend them walking.

[Omnitheo]

And you have that luxury because you aren't currently suffering from poverty (not the way these people are, anyway), malnourishment or bad drinking water. It is the height of arrogance to decide for people who have no voice what their biggest problems are, without even talking to them or asking their opinion, and instead of making sure they actually have clean drinking water and food to eat, decide instead that they should have a solar panel, all because it makes you, the guy with the no poverty and clean water, feel good. It's not about feeling good about yourself, it's about helping those in need with real actual problems, not trying to protect them from fairy tales.

its the height of arrogance for you to decide that a major threat - which is accepted by a large majority of the most educated people in the world, especially among those whose educations are entirely devoted to the field, a majority of political leaders around the world, the most influential religious institution in the world, eXxon, and the US military - is a non issue.

Since when is nobody talking to impoverished people? You believe nobody has studied the issues facing them? Do you think we are honestly forcing solar panels on people without drinking water? Do you believe that these are the same people, and that the electrical engineer who develops an efficient, inexpensive solar panel should instead be digging ditches?

What makes me feel good about any of this? You should not make assumptions or presume to know anything about my motivation. It's. Or about feeling good, it's about being responsible. It's the same reason I will defend the rights of those less fortunate than me, it's the same reason I will clean up garbage off the street, or try to convince Americans on the internet why they should support gun control. Because it's the right thing to do.


--

"Climate change stands to make drinking water less available, to displace billions into poverty, remove arable land and other sources of nourishment"

This is what you've chosen to believe, without any actual proof. Meanwhile, children dying from horrible yet totally treatable diseases every day, thanks to bad sanitation, lack of mosquito nets, and malnourishment, is an actual real thing, that exists right now.

Sorry, what lack of proof are you referring to? And once again, why do you keep bringing up treatable diseases, malnourishment and malaria? These are all issues we are actively working on. Do you think we're stopping?

As Glacier said, Lomborg looks at cost benefit, rather than just emotions. If you were starving and dying, would you want food and medicine, or some elitist bozo telling you that he is "saving you from climate change"? Sorry, but you don't care about climate change when you are starving, or your kid is dying. You just want food. Man-made climate change, if it in fact does exist, is a problem that can wait, until actual, real issues have been dealt with. Doing anything else is exactly like Lomborg described, highly immoral.

see my response to glacier in another post. Climate change isn't just affecting impoverished people, it will affect us all. How long can climate change wait? How long can we wait to discuss gun control after each mass shooting? How long can you wait to take a shower? How long can I wait to pay my bills? How long can you procrastinate and say it's still not time yet to do anything? And CC is an actual real issue...so...

Also Lomborg remains an idiot, no matter how many times people quote his "immorality of focusing on more than 1 task at a time"