myata

Just off the top of my head (internet search should yield loads of information on this): - France generates something like 60% (probably more) of their energy from nuclear; - Germany is becoming the leader in generatinging power from renewable sources; Both are large developed countries with strong manufacturing economies; if it's possible for them, why not for anybody? (that is, everybody who's genuinly interested in developing the alternatives to carbon fuels, rather than looking for justifications why nothing should (and can) be done). History of this world shows over and again that those quick to adapt, not afraid of change, and willing to try new things, have a better chance to survive and prosper; while those lagging behind looking for any possible reason to do nothing, will also be the last ones to the finish line. The line which may very well translate into prosperity of future generations in the world where energy reality has undergone quick and dramatic change.

It's just too bad we don't have a bunch of planets for them 'repeatable' expertiments; nor a chance to eraze the effects of one gone wrong, on a wish. We'd just wait till 2050, to see how bad it'd actually turn out, when come back in time and fix what's needed (or, save all the dough, if indeed the future proves that today's science is wrong and you had (have) the power of that timeless sight). So many problems would be solved if only we had that wonderful time machine. Let's pipe dream! And make it our plan, our contribution to the solution.

A discourse. I oftentimes tune in to CFRA's political panel on the drive home, and I do have a favourite! The sheer audicity, this unnocent braziness of the Conservative observer on the show (there's also a Liberal and an NDP) never ceases to amaze me. Wonder where's he taking his inspiration from? This time around, the conversation went about miscellaneous environmental programs. After the mandatory (and generous) bucket(s) of mud toward the opponents programs, the spotlight fell on CPC's own proud achievements in the field. Only, this time around, it wasn't about Clean (rather than hot) Air Act, and Mr Powers didn't even stop by to mention the voluntary gradually becoming semi-mandatory by the end of the few quick decades targets on all major emitters (with a few minor exceptions). No, this time around the stakes were raised higher. Much higher. Hardly bearing to contain the excitement, he brought to the attention of till then unsuspecting audience Mr Harper's selfless efforts at bringing the two major polluters/emitters of our times: China and India, back into the environmental fold. The silence broke. Nobody had anything to say. I for one did not know whether to cry, or to laugh (for sheer joy). Then, a picture emerged in my mind: - in a half lighted buddhist (or UN) hall, with China's Mr Jintao on one side, and India's Mr (...), on the other, Mr Harper delivering educational lecture on the benefits of low emissions lifestyle. The atmosphere is the inspired awe, nothing (but occasional tear of gratitude) breaks high officials concentrated effort to not miss a single word from the delivered pool, puddle, and ocean of profound wisdom. Flash, the lecture's over. Messrs Jintao and (...) stand up in ovation, then start talking (in their respective languages, but with one voice). Phrases like "Mr Harper, you opended our eyes!", "No, you showed us the way" are flying around, too abound to record, or even mention. Then China and India deliver their official statement. It goes something like this (apologies for any problems with translation): "Mr Harper, we're deeply grateful, till the end of our days (and those of our children, and their children - and so on, as per tradition's) for opening our eyes to, and showing us the way out from, the errors of our way. Only due to your selfless efforts, and your heavenly, or very close to it, power of pursuasion, have we seen the depths of our fall, and found the new way to our salvation(s). Mr Harper, by no means should you now waste your great talents on the lowly things like nutpicking/accounting gigatonnes and percentages of actual reductions in GHG emissions. No, your call goes much higher. You need to go around this world and teach and inspire us, lowly and unworthy, how to go about changing our unclean ways and save ours (and yours as a side benefit) children's futures. Only after this high duty is done, in a few decades time, by our estimates, should you go back to your own country, tired by sefless travails for the benefit of the humankind. By which time, inspired by your glorious examples, the voluntary emissions are bound to go drop down , like a cannonball (in the atmosphere of Jupiter) anyways. Not that it matters, in any way, because, the value of yourself (and your revereed place of origin, which will be held sacred in the hearts of this humankind hereafter) is not, as already mentioned, in boring figures and symbols, but in showing everybody the glorious path of inspiration, salvation and the future. You have no choice now but to take this inspired path. The future of the entire humankind is bound to you, Mr Harper". With which the vision subsided. Was it the true sign of the days to come, or a dream? Who can tell? At least I made it home, and the traffic didn't appear half as bad as usual. I'll keep tuning in for the next intake of inspiration.

OK, filtering out random pseudo scientific random noise, which I'm going to ignore from now on due to time constraints, this seems to be the statement you're making: At least it's a meaningful position, and I'd only wish that those advocating it on the political level, made it clear to everybody.

OK, I emphasize. Still, your missing it is your problem, and not in any way a valid argument in a debate. I.e. to start making the change, we have to see the result of it first? Haven't we already discussed this pearl of logic? Even in the new and improved form, ie. the only way to prove that we had to act in 2000 would be to observe catastrophic results in 2050? Results which would be obvious even to people with implicit understanding with naked eye (unless of course, they choose to look the other way; which, in people with implicit understanding of science isn't uncommon at all, as this thread clearly demonstrates). .... Of course, you understand that just your saying it, does not yet make it true, in any way. We already addressed that topic here (i.e the appropriate chanels of making, and establishing merits, of expert opionions). Another leap of logic. How exactly would adaptation "deal with the problem"? If by "the problem" we mean accelerating uncontrollable climate change due to raising greenhouse gas emissions? Will adaptation by itself stabilize the climate? Slow down glacier melt? Or, do you mean, let's do nothing and see what happens? Yes, we've already been there too. If we accept the opinion of experts, nothing good will happen. That's why they advised us to act in the first place. If we strike it on our own, it'll not an educated choice, but a belief, like "nothing bad could happen to me because it can't". People can do bizzare irrational things because of their beliefs and nothing, science or otherwise, would convince them otherwise. See here's scientific proof that nothing new will also happen in this "debate".

Western financial system has evolved in different environment (and time), and it's a bit presumptious to expect that it'll be a perfect solution for all places and situations everywhere. New solutions will be tried and some just may work better in the specific environment than a behemoth WalMart of CreditSuisse. It's called niche. However, a prerequisite to sustained progress is social and political stability. Without it, things will just bounce around basic subsistence, and the fruits of work by industrious people (and returns on microinvestmens by well meaning foreigners) will be erazed by the next surge of violence.

I doubt this can be can be even called a debate, because there can be no rational end to it. For every published peer reviewed research, every rational argument, there will be a link somewhere by somebody that'll have their opinion (never substantiated or reviewed by anybody) to the contrary. However the state of affairs on this issue clearly demonstrate two worrying trends: #1 inability of consumer democracies to undertake strong, meaningful and timely action at a time of need. It's always safer to do nothing and hope the thing will go away. #2 inability to undertake meangful and coordinated action on the global scale. #1 may be another symptom of old age deterioration of our civilization. It's not the resources, knowledge and technology that's putting a stop to the action. It's our fear of change, and lack of will to act.

Good admission. We can start from there. BTW nobody here (as far as I can see) is proposing to "outlaw existing energy sources". You can certainly consider possibility that they are wrong. The question is how your interpret your consideration. If it's a private opinion, its fine. It's fine to discuss in an unqualified forum as a matter of private opinion or believe. Like that on aliens. Or Maple Leafs' game. What doesn't make sense is to make an uneducated, unsubstantiated statement in a expert forum (or pretending to make expert statement while it's in fact a private opinion or belief); science and technology work because every result goes through rigorous process of review, discussion and acceptance by qualified peers. An outlandish statement with no meanigful substantiantion will be ignored. People only have so much time, nobody wants to spend time going through internet'intellectual waste anymore than you'd want to seep through your neighbourhood's trash in the search of a rare jewel.

Flash: Stephan Dion will be on CBC Radio 1 (91.5 FM) "The House" this morning (9 am) with presentation of Liberal carbon tax.

Profound thought. Really, why impose the technology to treat sewage? Prohibit toxic waste? Impose car emission standards? Food safety? Etc? It'll all take care of itself, naturally. Congrats on breaking some really new ground here. Oh I see, you somehow confused this site with one of those expert subject blogsites? Check your bookmarks. BTW any success with publishing your learned opinions there (as opposed to here, where it's free of side effects both for your membership and professional reputation)? Wow, looks like at least one of my predictions was a success! Though not full 100% - they aren't after all, clueless ignorants, just following hidden agendas. OK, what have we got here? Clueless scientists and experts, dumb engineers (wasting their time on useless technologies), conspiring enterpreneurs, gullible politicians - the world indeed is going down, man. My condolences.

The release of these cars means that technology is now viable to the extent that major business is investing into it; just what you were trying to prove impossible a few posts back. The network of hydrogen stations already exists e.g in California, and will be expanded as technology develops; as well as process for separation of hydrogen; compare the car of late 1880 vs todays; things change; technology develops; improves; unless you believe that Honda 2008 was created by Almighty 6 days back? ... There's no shortage of any kind of links on the net, as I'm trying to patiently convey on you; throwing around bunch of links isn't a prove of anything and isn't a substitute for an expert argument, at least in the matters of science and technology; if anybody from the streat writes a blog, it doesn't make a scientific agument and repeating it (reposting etc) means even less. Of course, you're free to create random noise like this. It's the net, and typing, and posting is free. and this. and this. and this. I'm mean, keep blogging. This is internet and anyone can write whatever they desire. I'm somewhat short of time to take lessons about what science actually says from about anybody, but I'd agree that we don't know everything. Which isn't the same as saying that we know nothing and because of that shouldn't think about what we're doing because it doesn't matter because we don't know anything anyways. But, the ranks of unbelievers shrink, now business leaders as well are calling for emissions reductions: Global business leaders calling for carbon curbs: BBC. Are you going to dismiss them as clueless ignorants performing meaningless publicity stunts? I won't be surprised.. But would it speak about them, or yourself? That's the $100 science question.

Anything can be dismissed out of hand as publicity stunt, impossible or impractical by a non-believer who only accepts their own position without any rational argumentation. You keep ignoring expert opinion, actual examples of others maintaining emissions at controlled level, practical developments in technology in favours of what - doing nothing. So, sure, nothing will come out of it. I don't think anything can be added to what was already said. ... Or someone stuck in a house that's on fire... Which is a better analogy? We have the opinion of experts on one side, with measurements and analysis of numerous parameters of land, ice water, air, armed with best models developed on the basis of physics and math, same physics and math that powers whole of our everyday life. And non-believers who'll keep droning the same thing like broken record until it strikes them on the head, or maybe even then. As said, without expert knowledge, the choice is everybody's. And I think, majority of Canadians, understand the importance of this issue, and the need to do something. What you insist on denying the science and any possibility of positive development, is your personal belief. And beliefs cannot be argued with, not rationally at least.

Why should I say it all over again? If you know enough of science, and aren't convinced by certain scientific argument, you'd very likely discuss it in a qualified forum in which, following defined rules and standards, where a certain meaningful conclusion can be reached. What you insist on bouncing around unconfirmed pseudo scientific rumours and ideas in a Web forum, may be a symptom that you don't. Even if you think/believe etc otherwise. ... Being that (not a man of faith), you have the choice of accepting the advice of experts in the field; or becoming one yourself and proving your point to other experts; the alternative is still a belief, even if you want to think that you're keeping an open mind; because without adequate knowledge in the subject, you guess or idea is groundless; and your judgment of some argument being true or false, is random chaotic matter of personal preference. Belief. Think of it this way: somebody can't do simple additions. They're asked to do 2+2. They say: 7. They're told, no, not 7, 4, because there's a science, math, and it tells (everybody who understands it), that 2+2 is 4. They say, no, I don't like 4, I like 7, you must be wrong. Now, how on Earth will you ever convince them that 2+2 is 4, and not 7, if they won't learn the math??

Wrong, as usual. Honda just released a 100% hydrogen powered model, if you follow the news. Alternatives like conservation; renewable energy sources; clean technologies; All are impractical, or even impossible? Yet wind farms operate all around the world, even in Quebec. Finland has their emissions at 1990 level. "Practical" is in the eye of the beholder. If for somebody who fears, dislikes and shuns all change, the only thing practical is to sit on their hands and do nothing, nothing will come out, for sure. You've already proven it, remember? Then, who's saying "abandon"? Only you.. Simplification, for the lack of better arguments? As irrational beliefs, fear of action and lack of will can and will make possible not happen.

There're special allowances for those in need as stated in the article. And yes, I know all plans would have some downside. Except the preferred one of course - sit on your hands and do nothing.

Some detail of the plan: CBC story

Right, right. The new and improved logic now goes like this: "show me that them emissions can be actually and practically reduced, on the global scale, all around me, and then I'll (maybe) bother to move my bum". Really, them scientists and experts who devised the emissions targets and goals they could have gotten it terribly wrong. The only proof I can accept is the actual experiment. I.e until I see them emissions go down, I'm not gonna bother doing darn arse about reducing them. Nice and solid argument. The best yet. I'm not gonna do anything until I see the change. Me, him, everybody doing nothing. No change! What's needed to be proved. Excellent! Guess what? You've just proven the great theorem of the Conservative: change is impossible. Present (and better still, glorious past) frozen in time, forever! Granted, there's that small qualification ("darn arse" clause), but still a commendable effort. And you have all the time in the world to keep working on it (e.g "doing" could be too strong a limitation; talking is doing, right? If I keep saying that environment is my priority, and the emissions will come done by 2050 (because I tell them to), it's already doing something; maybe even a lot; worthy of broadcasting around the country and sharing with others in the world). There's a promising new line of further research. Enjoy!

In yesterdays review of the plan on major channels, it was shown that it provides significant income tax breaks for consumers (1+ % in each tax break) and businesses (corporate tax reductions, don't remember details). Therefore the scheme only adds costs for those consumers and businesses that overuse critical resources. I like the large income tax break and have no problem with disproportionate emitters being punished while those who improve efficiency of their homes and businesses, benefit.

The fact remains fact - their emissions were below the level recorded in 1990. So it is actually possible (with favourable weather, meaningful effort etc). Which utterly disproves your previuos statement. And, if you read further around the goad for Finland is to keep the emissions at the 1990 level. Another impossibility, according to Harper and yourself. So, keep moving the gate. That seems to be all you people are capable of. Because, as already pointed out, for you it's a matter of belief. And if people can believe in fairies and little green men, I can't see why AGW would merit any different. There'll be always someone around throwing outrageous, uncofirmed, questionable and plain wrong "hypotheses". And no lack of believers to loud them in them in the forums because that's what they happen to like. You can't provide confirmed peer reviewed and accepted by scientific community arguments against climate change model; you can't deny a fact that reducing emissions to the 1990 level is practically possible. What is then the point you actually want to make? OK, now you aren't gonna move your finger till somebody proves that it's possible "on the global scale". I think that position is now made crystal clear. You aren't going to bother doing anything simply because you don't want to. Don't believe. No matter what. Scientific evidence, examples of others mean nothing to a true believer. If the future turns nasty, they'll write it down to the wrath of God, and die in glory.

The question is, whether Bush administration's real goal was to see justice done on the perpetraitors of 9/11, or start implementation of its global "democracy" project, on the pretext provided by 9/11? Unleashing wars in Afghanistan, and, moreover, in Iraq, which was in no proven way related to 9/11, strongly points to #2. If all they were looking for was justice on Bin Laden and cohorts, they could have taken neutral country as the first step; then maybe have him extradited; while pressing to close training camps, and get to the other cohorts; Which may certainly take more than a few weeks given to them by US administration (compare with how long it's taking them to achieve the same goal). In any case, to my knowledge, nobody has yet proven that Taleban were either directly involved in 9/11, or refused to bring its perpetrators to justice. Which would have been the only lawful causes to forcefully remove them from power (not to say that it would be a good practical option to deal with Al Quaeda threat). But things work differently in that world; law and justice take back seat to the "vision"; a vision that paints rosy pictures, while unleashing death and destruction; how much new is actually in this? So you're claiming that questions of morality are a valid ground for a war? Because our morals are different (superior to theirs, in our view), we are entitled to invade them, and install our understanding of "moral" by force? Indeed I find it paradoxical that this "moral" foundation for wars is taking the front side, while bringing perpetrators to justice is going into background. Speaks volume about our understanding of morality. No major atrocity in history has been done by those who believed to be morally inferior to their victims.

This norhtern country was able to reduce its carbon emissions to below 1990 level: Statistics Finland. Which proves that your pseudo science is wrong. Again. That's exactly the cause of your (and Harper's) problem. You consider a practical technical and scientific matter to be an issue of personal belief.

Well they had their strongest chance to lay their hands on Bin Laden when Taleban agreed to extradite Bin Laden to a third muslim country for trial. And "dealing with terrorist organization" became logically equivalent to unleashing all out wars? Causing death and destruction on the scale incomparable to the original cause; and during which the whole original cause has become forgotten; transgressed into ephemerial war on terrror; with neither goal nor end anywhere in sight. These acts are impossible to reconcile with logic, or morality. They do it because they could, and because they believed that they could. And if G. Bush, or T. Blair can sleep well with what they've accomplished, I simply can't see who couldn't. Anything can be explained and any act can be justified.

Wow, so many things we're learing already, what next? What there wasn't any WMD in Iraq? Or Saddams hasn't befriended Al-Quaeda after all? Even the case for envolvement of Taleban in 9/11 appears to be extremely shaky, if considered from the perspective of hard evidence. So, how did we end up with two wars on our hands? Hope somebody sometime will be able to answer this conundrum...

OK, so your (pseudo) logic goes like this: because I don't want (dont' believe, don't think it's possible, etc) to do what experts recommend me, I should consider the possibility that they are wrong. Very smart; but what does this have to do with the science of the things? E.g I strongly dislike the gravity pulling me down, while I'd like to soar with the birds; I consider, and even make me convinced that the science may be wrong... And? Will my belief make me soar? Or smash into a little red spot? There's only one way to find out..

I (and anybody) could read them and contribute to the debate as long as they are qualified to understand the meaning of argument and make a meaningful argument themselves. Overwise the argument becomes a pile of useless meaningless trash, and these "scientific" discussions are abound on the Net. Because zero (policies to reduce CO emissions) means zero. No change. And qualified experts recommended significant reductions from the 1990 level. What policy? I didn't notice that there's any policy that's been adopted. Only hot air talk. Scientists made expert recommendations as to what needs to be done to minimize, slow down, if not completely revert the effect of human caused climate change. Forecasting the exact sequence of development of that change if nothing is done, is a different, and probably much more complicated matter. I'm not sure if such studies are done, and if there's even a dominant opinion as to which way the nature will go in that case. You're quite correct, at this point, a layman has the choice of listening to the experts and attempting to minimize the cause that's leading the change; or take the leap of faith and pray that the consequences won't be disastrous. The cost of modifying our behaviour now, though high, isn't prohibitive; while the exact effect of leaving things is unknown, the only certaintly, as agreed by the dominant expert opinion in the field is that it'll be huge. The choice is between doing possible now, or praying for best in the years to come.