Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[Omnitheo]

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

Not a very nice thing to say when those exact words could so easily be used against you.

[Glacier]

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..

I never said any of the things you think I said. I didn't say we couldn't do both, but if we can't seem to find the money to solve an easier problem like poverty, tacking on an even tougher problem that's even more costly is destined to fail. Of course, if the problem is not as big as it's made out to be, then perhaps it's not worth the investment.

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

Global Warming/ AGW/ Climate Change are all words for the same thing. No one says "ah ha, you said Global Warming with the the anthropogenic part, so you don't know what you're talking about" with a straight face. Discuss the science, not the stupid red herrings. If the the science I present is wrong, or if my interpretation is wrong, show me. I'm not being harsh because you're an idiot (you're not), I'm asking so that you will provide some intellectually stimulating thoughts to the discussion.

My assertion remains that AGW is not catastrophic, and may in fact be a net benefit for the reasons I've highlighted probably a dozen times before. If you disagree, that's great, but instead of going for the logical fallacies, please I beg you, pick apart my arguments, or better yet, tell me why I need to be afraid.

[The Green Barbarian]

Not a very nice thing to say when those exact words could so easily be used against you.

How so?

[The Green Barbarian]

My assertion remains that AGW is not catastrophic, and may in fact be a net benefit for the scientific reasons I've highlighted probably a dozen times before. If you disagree, that's great, but instead of going for the logical fallacies, please I beg you, pick apart my arguments, or better yet, tell me why I need to be afraid.

all you are going to get is cut and pastes and links back to NASA and other groups whose funding depends on the man-made climate change myth being perpetuated. You can't discuss the science because it has to already be settled. Any debate on this subject and you call into question billions upon billions of dollars that have been diverted by governments from solving real problems like poverty, malnourishment and clean water to solar panels and climate parties. And we can't have that!

That's why I laughed so hard anytime anyone went on a rant about how Harper was "muzzling" scientists. No greater muzzling goes on then when any scientist dares to go against the manufactured and completely fabricated "consensus" on the catastrophic climate change myth. Look at the poop dumped on Bjorn Lomborg in this thread. Complete and utter poop, but because he dares question this fake "consensus" with logic and reasoning, he's "in bed with Big Oil" or a "denier" whatever the new term is today for anyone who dares not fall into lock-step with the lunatic and maniacal doomsayers.

[The Green Barbarian]

Don't be so dense as to pretend to misunderstand something and then remove it from context.

you first! Your whole argument is ridiculous. Why can't governments just stop spending money on defense, and spend it on a mythical hypothesis instead?? Or, how about we solve poverty and malnourishment, and THEN go on to spend money on myths? How about that?

[The Green Barbarian]

"Politicians don't care about their citizens dying"..

what other message are they sending, when they spend millions holding "climate parties" while children die of preventable diseases?

[Partmanpartfish]

GB/LV seems to think society is only capable of tackling one problem at a time. And who knows? Perhaps conservatives don't have the smarts to multitask. Therefore, how can we possibly be tackling climate change while KIDS ARE DYING?!

But it is astonishing that in the 21st century, these folks believe that virtually all of the scientists on earth are a bunch of damn liberals banding together and conspiring to convince every living soul of the hoax that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is changing the climate. I'm not really sure what their motive is.

It's almost as absurd as their belief that Ezra and their obese, drug-addled US radio hosts know what they're talking about.

How does one debate this dark, mental abyss?

[maple leaf]

what other message are they sending, when they spend millions holding "climate parties" while children die of preventable diseases?

Why did your hero Harper spend 750 million on advertising to pat himself on the back ,while children die of preventable diseases.

[highway001]

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

Close minded zealots such as the fools from:

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Vs.....? The collective brilliance of 50% castanet forums

Can anyone find me an alternate list for the reverse argument...that is not bought and paid for by interest groups?


Good for our PM and my only hope is the talks have enough teeth to make a positve change.

[JLives]

You can stomp your feet and say it isn't happening all you want and this is exactly the response I was expecting. The best part is it doesn't matter! We have an incoming government that makes fact based decisions and understands that climate scientists know more about climate change than forum posters. I'm so happy we are approaching the single biggest issue we face head on. The discussion now moves to what we do about it and the deniers are left in the dust.

[Glacier]

Close minded zealots such as the fools from:

Yup, and within each of those organizations you'll find many dissenting voices, just as you do when the National Post endorses the Conservatives and when unions endorse the NDP.

Personally I prefer facts and science as opposed to feelings and logical fallacies like appeals to authority. Using science and your own words, why should I be afraid of AGW?

[maryjane48]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

GB/LV seems to think society is only capable of tackling one problem at a time.

I don't know if this post is referencing me as I don't know who "GB/LV" is, but considering the source, I assume this is another one of your disgusting homophobic slurs? If so, please leave me out of your hate. That's your issue, not mine.

And who knows? Perhaps conservatives don't have the smarts to multitask. Therefore, how can we possibly be tackling climate change while KIDS ARE DYING?!

I think a part of the issue here is what constitutes "tackling climate change". While I disagree with Jenny on this issue, I do agree that if it does indeed exist (and someone, somewhere, replaces emotion in this argument with actual proof, which has yet to happen) that we as a human race need to decide what to do about it, if anything. To date, absolutely nothing anyone has done has mitigated any CO2 production, and in most cases, like in Germany and Denmark with their massive public expenditures on solar and wind power, only made CO2 production increase, while managing to kill millions upon millions of birds and other wild life.

So how does mankind "tackle climate change"? Just spending hundreds of billions of dollars doesn't accomplish this goal. It just makes those who like to feel guilty all of the time, somehow feel better about themselves. And that's what this whole man-made climate change thing is about anyway right? Feeling good about yourself because you want to "do something about it". You receive some sort of social acceptance and told you are a "good person" if you follow this mantra.

But it is astonishing that in the 21st century, these folks believe that virtually all of the scientists on earth are a bunch of damn liberals banding together

No, what we've seen isn't based in politics. Try and get that through your tiny homophobic head. What it's about is funding. Billions of dollars of it. All based on something that may, but probably doesn't, exist. And as Glacier says, if it does exist, why is it assumed to be bad? Because fear breeds power which breeds cash. There's no fear in saying that man-made climate change could be good. People don't hand over cheques and fill chat rooms with angry posts calling people "deniers" if they have the audacity to question unproven hypotheses, if they don't have fear as a motivator. So it must be bad. It has to be bad. Otherwise the gravy train stops rolling. And that is catastrophic, as an entire industry has been built on this fear.

How does one debate this dark, mental abyss?

I agree, how does one debate the dark mental abyss of man-made climate change alarmism? It's steeped in fear, and more terrifying, religious fervor. You demonstrate all the traits of the brain-washed alarmist to a "T". And you no doubt fall into the perfect demographic, young, idealistic, wanting to change the world, and you've found the perfect platform. You haven't been disenchanted or disillusioned by the world yet, so everything you are being told on this topic, you swallow without question. Why wouldn't you? These people behind the AGW fear-mongering movement wouldn't lie, would they? Their motives are totally pure! So you follow, completely unquestioning anything. No matter how many times those that are feeding you this blarney have been dead wrong. They have "science" on their side. That's why the world hasn't warmed in 19 years, and the oceans haven't risen. So what? So they were off by a few decades/centuries. Armageddon is coming!! You just wait!!! Sigh. To be so young, naïve, and idealistic again.

[The Green Barbarian]

Why did your hero Harper spend 750 million on advertising to pat himself on the back ,while children die of preventable diseases.

Not sure why you call Harper my "hero", or why 3 people were dumb enough to like this post, but I'll take a stab. As the source is completely untrustworthy, I doubt "$750 million on advertising to pat himself on the back" is an accurate statement, but let's take the NDP math out of it and say it was half of that. And then I'd wager to say you make a great point. It comes down to societal priorities.

Your hero, Angry Tom, and his crappy party full of boneheads (the NDP) wanted to blow $10 billion a year on unionized useless daycares. Imagine if the NDP had found enough really really stupid people to vote for them, such that they could have enacted this plan. That's $10 billion a year going into union pockets, that could have been going to end poverty and malnourishment. Instead, because unions control the NDP and cause a skewing of real societal priorities, those funds are flowing into fat-cat union pockets. It's all about priorities. As Lomborg has said, and as many here are deliberately misinterpreting as it doesn't resonate with their fear-mongering internal belief system, it is immoral to spend money on something as nebulous as "tackling man-made climate change", when that money could be curing actual issues like disease and bad water. And I agree with him, 100%.

[The Green Barbarian]

. The discussion now moves to what we do about it and the deniers are left in the dust.

The sad reality is that you are probably right as to the discussion on what can be done about something that may or may not exist. I am curious though who you label as "deniers" in this context. Does this label apply to people like Glacier and Lomborg too, just because they don't fall into lock-step with alarmism and your apocalyptic view of the mythical man-generated CO2 scenario? Does it include those who agree with the basic premise but want to see actual proof that it is happening? Or do you have to just swallow the current computer-generated scenarios that we are being told "prove" that man-made climate change exists, even though none of the effects that we were supposed to be feeling several years ago have still not come to fruition?

Is no one allowed to question any of the hypotheses and predictions, even though none have come true, without being tagged with the "denier" label? I am just curious, where are the lines? Are there any? Or do you just have to switch off your brain, ignore the fact that nothing is actually happening as was predicted, and just blindly accept that somewhere, somehow, something bad is going to happen unless trillions of dollars are spent?