Nations walk out on Canada

[dre]

All ratings driven corporate media design programming to sell ad space to sponsors willing to target a certain demographic.

CNN, FOX, etc etc. Every second you spend watching ANY of them is a second you spend getting dumber and less knowledgeable.

[M.Dancer]

All ratings driven corporate media design programming to sell ad space to sponsors willing to target a certain demographic.

Close...but you put the cart before the horse.

All media design programmimg (or content) to attract a certain deomgraphic and sell time )or space) to sponsors wanting to reach that demographic.

All media that carries advertising works this way, incuding media that isn't percieved as "corporate".

If they don't carry ads, then they are selling subs..the same rule applies, content determines audience.

[Topaz]

Today, Harper is in Alberta giving out money and when asked about the walkout he said until ALL big polluters are onside, the world can't reduced emissions. So what he is saying that India and China have to be involved. Two points, Hasn't China been trying to reduce and the second, how many North America companies are in these two countries probably doing a lot of the polluting? So is Canada going to give up reducing becasue two other countries aren't doing the job? TWO wrongs, don't make a right and we should still do what is right for Canadians.

[Riverwind]

Two points, Hasn't China been trying to reduce and the second, how many North America companies are in these two countries probably doing a lot of the polluting?

China has done abolutely nothing. All it has does recently is post some charts suggesting that China's energy intensity will continue to decrease and total emissions should peak around 2050. There energy intensity decreases are nothing but 'business as usual' projections since almost all economies start to do that once they pass a certain level of development.

So is Canada going to give up reducing becasue two other countries aren't doing the job? TWO wrongs, don't make a right and we should still do what is right for Canadians.

Ignoring the grossly exagerrated CO2 hysteria is what is right for Canadians.

[Sir Bandelot]

Are you saying that we were betrayed first time around? Explain.

I'm saying, we initially agreed to Kyoto, now we make noises like we don't want to, but we want to make a different agreement.

Thats the problem with parliamentarianism... no accountablility and no truly binding contracts. If the next batch of lawmakers have a different idea than the previous one, they rewrite the laws, cancel the agreements and off they go doing something else. When the time comes tha we are no longer taken seriously by other countries, we should know why it is.

[Shady]

When the time comes tha we are no longer taken seriously by other countries,

You mean by countires that also rejected Kyoto? Cause they did. So they can refuse to sign on to Kyoto, but if we do, then we can't be taken seriously by those countries that didn't sign on. That's some interesting logic.

[Argus]

I'm saying, we initially agreed to Kyoto, now we make noises like we don't want to, but we want to make a different agreement.

Thats the problem with parliamentarianism... no accountablility and no truly binding contracts. If the next batch of lawmakers have a different idea than the previous one, they rewrite the laws, cancel the agreements and off they go doing something else. When the time comes tha we are no longer taken seriously by other countries, we should know why it is.

We didn't need a change in parliament not to have Kyoto taken seriously. Chretien signed it and even HE didn't take it seriously. Then again, if Kyoto had worked out perfectly, as it was designed, it still would have had virtually no impact on CO2 emissions. And we still have no hard evidence CO2 emissions is responsible for any large measure of global warming anyway.

Never mind. That was Kyoto. This is Copenhagen. Copenhagen apparently has even more modest goals with regard to the environment. However it has extremely immodest goals in terms of wealth reallocation. It wants to take our wealth and give it to third world dictators. Needless to say, all the third world dictators are fine with that.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Argus

[Sir Bandelot]

Oh oh, bobsie twins are both out to get me.

No doubt I have rubbed their slimy scales the wrong way...

we still have no hard evidence CO2 emissions is responsible for any large measure of global warming anyway.

See, it's people like you who give a good reason, why global warming denial SHOULD be against the law.

So they can refuse to sign on to Kyoto, but if we do, then we can't be taken seriously

If we didn't want to do it, we shouldn'a signed it, laddie.

Try to do that when you go to the bank and take a loan, singing a contract that you agree to pay the interest. Then go back later and say you no longer agree. You know what will happen? Then it's off to jail you go.

But not with these guys, it's their "democratic privilege".

Gentlemen, Justified...

[Riverwind]

See, it's people like you who give a good reason, why global warming denial SHOULD be against the law.

The gross ignorance in your statement is both appalling and frightening. The fact is there is NO conclusive evidence that CO2 will cause harmful amounts of warming. NO, NONE, NADA. That is a fact - get over it. The only evidence provided by the IPCC or others are computer models and only an idiot would claim that a computer model represents conclusive evidence (unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots out there).

[Argus]

Oh oh, bobsie twins are both out to get me.

No doubt I have rubbed their slimy scales the wrong way...

One wonders how the eco-nazis think they can get any kind of reasonable dialogue with that kind of attitude.

Then again, maybe deep down inside, they realize how full of shit they are, and don't WANT dialogue.

Moralizing makes them feel so much better.

See, it's people like you who give a good reason, why global warming denial SHOULD be against the law.

Because little eco-nazi types get their panties in a twist when people point out how ignorant they are?

Sorry, but we don't build re-education camps just because the weak-minded get upset, comrade.

If we didn't want to do it, we shouldn'a signed it, laddie.

I think Chretien saw the thing, snickered in that special way he did, and said to himself "What a bunch of morons. But hey, I'll sign the thing, which will let all the little eco-nazis applaud me and vote for me, then by the time they realize I thought it was all BS I'll be retired."

Which, of course, is exactly what happened.

Harper started out saying truthfully that is was all BS, but it's clear he's learned from Chretien. Now he pays the same lip service to this sort of crap that Chretien did, but I doubt he'll spend much on it. These agreements and treaties move at a snail's pace and by the time anyone can tell who has and hasn't done anything he'll either be out of politics or in a strong majority in an unassailble position to give guys like you the finger.

[Sir Bandelot]

to give guys like you the finger.

Admit it, you would really like to do that, wouldn't you

[Moonbox]

Admit it, you would really like to do that, wouldn't you

He doesn't take you seriously enough to bother. I don't either. Global warming denial should be illegal? Dumbest thing I've heard in awhile here.

[M.Dancer]

Dumbest thing I've heard in awhile here.

Gimme a sec....I'm warming up

[Moonbox]

Gimme a sec....I'm warming up

[Sir Bandelot]

He doesn't take you seriously enough to bother. I don't either. Global warming denial should be illegal? Dumbest thing I've heard in awhile here.

So, are you his spokesman, or just a cheerleader...

Good I hope you didn't take it too seriously!

Oh get over it. You know I love you guys... the only real problem you have is you have no sense of humour

Edited October 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Oleg Bach]

So, are you his spokesman, or just a cheerleader...

Good I hope you didn't take it too seriously!

Oh get over it. You know I love you guys... the only real problem you have is you have no sense of humour

They should keep it simple - instead of global warming they should call it climate distruction and disruption. It's a simple matter of having a closed environ which is our atmosphere etc..which is like a home - you can't keep shitting all over the place and expect to continue with a good quality of life or life in general for that matter. What is the point of wealth if you are sailing your new boat on a gigantic open sewer?

[myata]

Harper has accomplished the annihilation of Canada's credibility on environmental and climate change agendas, started by Chretien's Liberals, and no matter his recent publicity gimmicks, it'll take a long time (and serious, real work) to restore.

Canada has nothing to offer neither to developed countries seriously working on GHG reductions, nor to the developing nations seeking to accommodate their need for growth with more environmentally friendly economies. So it's position has to be reduced to, plain and simply: tons of empty worded hot air.

[Shady]

Harper has accomplished the annihilation of Canada's credibility on environmental and climate change agendas

That's complete nonsense.

[Riverwind]

A more accurate statement is:

Canada has nothing to offer neither to developed countries seriously working mindlessly obsessing on GHG reductions, nor to the developing nations seeking to accommodate their need for growth use the CO2 hysteria to extract trillions in aid with more environmentally friendly which will help their economies as high energy costs drive businesses out of developed countries. So it's position has to be reduced to, plain and simply: tons of empty worded hot air.sanity in a world full of suicidal lunatics.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

"Sanity" (in this definition) meaning paying no heed to science, refusing to act in any meaningful way, obstructing others' efforts to act, and pressing with more of the same, while praying that mighty God would deliver us from all self made and imposed evils (i.e ultimately, from ourselves).

Good stuff!

Edited October 15, 2009 by myata

[Riverwind]

"Sanity" (in this definition) meaning paying no heed to science, refusing to act in any meaningful way, obstructing others' efforts to act, and pressing with more of the same, while praying that mighty God would deliver us from all self made and imposed evils (i.e ultimately, from ourselves).

No. Sanity means actually looking at the science and recognizing that the case supporting claims of a looming thermageddon is rediculously weak. Sanity means quietly pushing the suicidal lunatics towards rational policy choices and away from choices based irrational fears peddled by the latest doomsday cult. Sanity means believing in the human capacity to rise to real challenges as they present themselves.

[myata]

Of course. And it has to be the job of ideology driven partisan politicians (helped by clueless posters on internet discussion boards) to differentiate "lunatics science" from "real challenges". And with God's wind behind them, they'll sure rise to any challenges, just like e.g. that crime wave (slow to manifest itself in real stats, but "sane" people of the world don't usually have worry about such triffles) we need an urgent salvation from under the protective fold of ultra conservative tough justice.

[Moonbox]

Myata you mentioned 'science' but there's no credible science out there to prove global warming is happening at all.

I'm not denying that it might be happening, because it could, but I do know that the temperature here hasn't changed much at all in the last 30 years and that we have millions of years of history to support that gradual climate change is a normal part of our planet's cycle.

I know there are a ton of things industry in Canada does to harm the environment and we should be doing what we can to prevent that. Pinning some stupid back-assward responsibility for global warming on Canada, however, is an absolute joke.

[myata]

... there's no credible science out there to prove global warming is happening at all.

It has been found and reported that the last time in history similar levels of CO concentration in the atmosphere were observed, ocean levels were 30-45 m higher, and there were no ice caps in Arctics and Antarctics: New CO levels research (also reported by BBC)

Melting of glaciers and polar ice is an established fact confirmed by numerous research.

Of course there's always a question as to what "science" one should find "credible", e.g. some (not excluding high level government politician) find it "credible" that dinosaurs walked this Earth alongside modern humans, regardless of what established (debated, fact based and peer reviewed) science would say on the matter.

I know there are a ton of things industry in Canada does to harm the environment and we should be doing what we can to prevent that.

Indeed, we should. And unlike many others, we can actually afford doing it. And yet, we don't.

Pinning some stupid back-assward responsibility for global warming on Canada, however, is an absolute joke.

It is also a fact (posted earlier) that this country is among highest (if not highest) per capita GHG emitters on the planet. Despite already pointed fact that unlike many others, we here actually have the resources to work on the problem, that we though collectively decided to "consume" instead. It certainly makes us responsible for global warming as much as anybody else, especially the industrialized nations of planet, and our pathetic finger pointing and absolute void of any action, only shows how well, really pathetic we are on this agenda, no matter Harpers government noble efforts (mostly invested in hot air polemics).

[noahbody]

It has been found and reported that the last time in history similar levels of CO concentration in the atmosphere were observed, ocean levels were 30-45 m higher, and there were no ice caps in Arctics and Antarctics: New CO levels research (also reported by BBC)

So if there were no ice caps, would that not suggest the earth was warmer and that the level of greenhouse gases was far greater than it is today (this because the level of water vapor which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect would have been greater)?