Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty - Page 2
Old 10-23-2009, 11:33 AM   #21 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windex View Post
and nuclear energy
No nuclear energy is awesome and we should have alot more....its cleaner than you think.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:41 AM   #22 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,025
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
Sorry to post again CG, but can you address my first post as to where it says we are waiting on the USA?, or was it just an effective lure to get me hooked...if the later is true...well done.
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
If you asked do we have an effect on rain forests and water supply, the answer would be yes. There is not proof the erosion of either affect the "global climate". There is no proof that islands would be flooded with or without human interference.

I am all for looking at new technologies, I am all for worrying about an island in the south pacific, but give me a plan that works, not Kyoto, that actually does nothing to reduce emissions, but actually allows the biggest polluters to profit off of environmentally conscious countries.
If you kill tree's and stagnate oceans, where do you get Oxygen?
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:51 AM   #24 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
No nuclear energy is awesome and we should have alot more....its cleaner than you think.
Smartest thing out of your mouth ever.

I like Nuclear energy.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:54 AM   #25 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
If you kill tree's and stagnate oceans, where do you get Oxygen?
Trees are a renewable resource. We do not stagnate oceans, they are very large.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:25 PM   #26 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,776
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
20 years ago we were worried about the second comming of the ice age.
BS - there were a few, maybe a few dozen scientists at most that made the suggestion, and it was never more than a suggestion. Now there are thousands and thousands of scientists in agreement over what is much more than just a suggestion.

We waited for a decade for there to be a scientific consensus before any political action, in spite of the risks of waiting, and now that the consensus is clear, and that it's possibly too late in many ways, we must wait some more because of some made-up BS. I don't think that works for me personally. I suppose I'm a nut job.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:27 PM   #27 (permalink)
the next dictator of MLSE

fresh and clean
 
Windex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uʍop ɹǝpun
Posts: 22,524
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
No nuclear energy is awesome and we should have alot more....its cleaner than you think.
I ment I want nuke energy
Canada is second or third in Uranium reserves but has a lot of unexplored places for Uranium. We should be #1

Canada is the world’s largest producer of uranium with about one third of world production coming from Saskatchewan mines
The world's top uranium producers are Canada (28% of world production) and Australia (23%).

Last edited by Windex; 10-23-2009 at 12:30 PM.
Windex is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:37 PM   #28 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
Trees are a renewable resource. We do not stagnate oceans, they are very large.
heh.

so the numbers are level?

better check um.........
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:44 PM   #29 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,025
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Sorry, but what do we do with the waste?
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:47 PM   #30 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
BS - there were a few, maybe a few dozen scientists at most that made the suggestion, and it was never more than a suggestion. Now there are thousands and thousands of scientists in agreement over what is much more than just a suggestion.

We waited for a decade for there to be a scientific consensus before any political action, in spite of the risks of waiting, and now that the consensus is clear, and that it's possibly too late in many ways, we must wait some more because of some made-up BS. I don't think that works for me personally. I suppose I'm a nut job.
The only difference between now and then is that being a "climate change" expert is now a lucrative business.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:52 PM   #31 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,569
Representing:
Default

while it is indeed a lucrative business now, it's absolute horseshit to insinuate that this is all that has changed.

the science is deeper, the understanding much more widespread, the pollution is worse, industry is bigger and spread across a larger portion of the globe, and the evidence of problems is much more apparent. for starters.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 03:26 PM   #32 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,776
Representing:
Default

So there's no difference between something the media just happened to latch onto, thirty - not twenty - years ago, and scientific study that has reached widespread conclusions withing thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles? That's laughable and willful ignorance, but whatever. Mostly it's an incredibly weakweakweak way to open an argument.

I have no particular love for Al Gore, for a variety of reasons. But I do understand how he thinks that taking the knowledge that he has been presented with over decades of political inaction, and making it more accessible to the media, might in fact allow for some political action to gain a foothold. It's really a sad truth in and of itself, and it would seem not entirely effective, since it simply allows for lame arguments about other non-scientific, and overblown media stories like the ice age and Y2K to be brought into the picture as some sort of equivalents when they obviously are not at all.

Here's a cool bit of fun. There are three places on the planet where biodiversity is increasing rather than suffering drastic declines. That would be the area in and around Chernobyl, the Korean DMZ, and the interior of Borneo. What do they all have in common? A lack of the human impact. But somehow it's so hard to see how we wreak havoc.

When I was in Mexico a couple years back, I went to see where the Monarch butterflies come and go from when they are not here. It's an amazing site that requires a good climb up a steep mountain path, and there are guides to make sure that there is no crossing into areas where they would be damaged. Now what really grabbed my attention was how cops would stop traffic on the two-lane highway a few minutes outside of a small town, once the butterflies became active enough to start flying off the mountainside and into the area of the traffic. These people were smart enough to realize that the town would get a lot nastier if the Monarchs began to dwindle. Why does it take a basic, and generally weak economy dependent on tourism to provide such an example where a real effort is made to limit the negative impact of humans on the biosphere? Why is there such an insistence to gloss over the many larger and more negative examples that are out there?

Now I don't think we'll be able to go back to a point where we actually have a positive impact on the life of our planet, and I'm sure it will be happy to carry on without us. But to accelerate the destructive forces that we represent rather than make difficult political decisions just leaves me speechless. This is not something that I'm going to be able to fix as an individual, but I do expect political leadership to at least attempt to bring about a collective solution of some kind.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 03:32 PM   #33 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,776
Representing:
Default

And am I missing something - or is the next round of Kyoto not aimed at including all contributors to the problem, including China and India? And why the insistence that there is no effect on emissions? Yes that was the result of the original Kyoto once it was made effectless in order to try to bring the US into the agreement. With this round there is nothing on the agenda but the absolute need to curtail emissions drastically and quickly by everyone. It is seen as a last chance. It is not going to be the weak document that the original Kyoto represented.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 09:12 PM   #34 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Apparently being a climate change scientist is profitable, so we can discard their opinions of climate.

What shall we say, then, about oil and coal companies that are against climate change? What shall we say about almost all of industry that would be affected by a cap-and-trade system? What shall we say about the climate change deniers who are making their own living by using red herrings to make their point?

Everyone has a financial stake in this argument. So if you want to argue the legitimacy of climate change, please use scientific arguments, not an appeal to a hidden (and unproven) conspiracy.

To be more to the point, I endorse economic action that points the market in a more renewable and greener direction. Personally, I am all for nuclear power until we`ve mastered tidal, solar, or wind power. I don`t think that we`ll be preventing the end of the world (indeed, if the IPCC`s predictions are correct, there will be a net gain in human lives saved, though this says nothing of anything non-hominid), but there is undoubtedly a net positive effect on our future (and its potential longevity) by transitioning to more renewable energy sources.

edit: Thank you LX for correcting the "ice age in the 70's" nonsense. That was not a majority opinion amongst scientists.

Last edited by Ligeia; 10-23-2009 at 09:16 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 09:14 PM   #35 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
Sorry, but what do we do with the waste?
Recycle most of it.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:36 PM   #36 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,157
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Apparently being a climate change scientist is profitable, so we can discard their opinions of climate.

What shall we say, then, about oil and coal companies that are against climate change? What shall we say about almost all of industry that would be affected by a cap-and-trade system? What shall we say about the climate change deniers who are making their own living by using red herrings to make their point?
From what I understand, nobody is denying climate change. Climate change is happening. What's argued is whether the cause is natural, or instigated by emissions and everything else..

It's a shame that the original research that led to the Kyoto Protocol was severely flawed and not properly audited.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:04 PM   #37 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,776
Representing:
Default

Actually there's a general consensus around the human cause.

And it's not about financial stakes for the most part. Much taxpayer money was wasted by the Bush administration, when they censored the reports of government funded studies, and added all kinds of maybes and possiblys when absolutely none were intended as far as the science was concerned.

The idea behind the initial Kyoto was just to get the ball rolling, and to show recognition of the consensus that was at hand. What happened instead was a war against science that continues to this day, while scientists continue to find that changes are occurring far ahead of what their models predicted.

We've gone through a few Centuries of thinking that everything is limitless and there to exploit economic growth. Open markets are all about encouraging the use of as many resources as possible, with absolutely no thought about the consequences, because of course they are limitless and there for our use. Go right back to the first capitalists in the 17th Century. Go back to Adam Smith himself. Now we give a sideways glance and assert that maybe it's just the way nature works, and we have nothing to do with the consequences?
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:07 PM   #38 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjjs View Post
From what I understand, nobody is denying climate change. Climate change is happening. What's argued is whether the cause is natural, or instigated by emissions and everything else..

It's a shame that the original research that led to the Kyoto Protocol was severely flawed and not properly audited.
Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific and said anthropogenic climate change.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 04:50 AM   #39 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
Actually there's a general consensus around the human cause.

And it's not about financial stakes for the most part. Much taxpayer money was wasted by the Bush administration, when they censored the reports of government funded studies, and added all kinds of maybes and possiblys when absolutely none were intended as far as the science was concerned.

The idea behind the initial Kyoto was just to get the ball rolling, and to show recognition of the consensus that was at hand. What happened instead was a war against science that continues to this day, while scientists continue to find that changes are occurring far ahead of what their models predicted.

We've gone through a few Centuries of thinking that everything is limitless and there to exploit economic growth. Open markets are all about encouraging the use of as many resources as possible, with absolutely no thought about the consequences, because of course they are limitless and there for our use. Go right back to the first capitalists in the 17th Century. Go back to Adam Smith himself. Now we give a sideways glance and assert that maybe it's just the way nature works, and we have nothing to do with the consequences?
False
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 09:08 AM   #40 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,157
Representing:
Default

But is there proof that the world hasn't forgone natural climate change like we're going through right now???


The hockey stick model which instigated Kyoto had severe flaws. Such as the researchers actually making up raw data to fill holes in their model.

I agree with the ideas behind it. I'm all about reducing emissions.
Even the possibility that we are the ones behind the cause is reason enough to cut down on emissions and all these human aspects regardless, because waiting for hard evidence that the change is natural could be catastrophic.

But I'm not upto date on my climate change research. Maybe their is hard evidence??? I'm going from what I knew in 2005.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nice read. hope it happens for him...someday Ammo Toronto Raptors 1 11-08-2009 10:30 PM
Change and Hope Ugo Ferst The Podium 50 03-06-2009 11:19 PM
Jayhawks in Ottawa MangoKidHoops Entertainment Lounge 18 09-08-2008 08:30 AM
The Nuggets Hope To Avoid NBA History Dr. J. Naismith NBA Talk 4 03-23-2008 09:41 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24