Nations walk out on Canada

[wyly]

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)?

it doesn't explain why it was warmer in the past, temp normally drives CO2 but CO2 can also drive temp...so past warm spells could have been caused by the Milankovitch cycles which are unrelated to increases caused by GHG's, but are related to temp increases...

and were GHG's in higher amounts then than now?...there is a whiplash effect in play, temps have yet to catch up with our levels of GHG's, how may centuries will it take before we see the full effect of current levels...

[Moonbox]

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)

The paper was written by an obscure assistant prof and a couple of Phd students. Pretty questionable but nice try.

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

The melting isn't being argued. Cause and effect is what's in question. There's also RECORDS confirming that the warmest years on record in the Arctic were in 1937-1938. Similar records also suggest that between 1917-1937 the pace of warming was faster than it is today. Then in the 1940's -> 1970's it cooled.

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.

Straw man argument. Dinosaurs have been dug up out of the ground and carbon dated. We have bones as proof. Denying that is a little different than questioning the scientific method of 'proving' a hypothesis that doesn't and cannot account for countless natural variables.

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

I was talking about things like tailing ponds and water pollution. We shouldn't be crapping our own beds but at the same time we shouldn't be hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It's a prisoner's dilemna.

It is also a fact (posted earlier) that this country is among highest (if not highest) per capita GHG emitters on the planet.

We're also the coldest and biggest of the rich industrialized nations of the world and this should be taken for granted. We have ~30 million people living in an area the size of Europe. Our weather is extreme, our transportation requirements are greater and there is enormous demand for our raw materials, particularly our oil. You can't hold us to the same standard.

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).

China and India have the resources to work on the problem is well. They don't because they like the idea of industry moving there because of huge cost advantages. We should make it easier for them right? Let's screw our own industry over so that the polluting is done in China instead okay? There's no point in talking about global warming unless the initiative to prevent it is also global. Don't talk about leading by example either, because we all see how well China and India follow our examples on human rights.

Finally, global warming is still at best now a theory. It's a theory that ignorants have adopted as conventional wisdom.

[myata]

The paper was written by an obscure assistant prof and a couple of Phd students. Pretty questionable but nice try.

----

The melting isn't being argued. Cause and effect is what's in question. There's also RECORDS confirming that the warmest years on record in the Arctic were in 1937-1938. Similar records also suggest that between 1917-1937 the pace of warming was faster than it is today. Then in the 1940's -> 1970's it cooled.

---

Straw man argument. Dinosaurs have been dug up out of the ground and carbon dated. We have bones as proof. Denying that is a little different than questioning the scientific method of 'proving' a hypothesis that doesn't and cannot account for countless natural variables.

Obscure, but based on scientific research, isn't as convincing as unconfirmed blabber of somebody who has no clue about the subject?

And of course, the records of melting ice and retracting glaciers are recorded over at least several hundred years.

And the levels of CO in atmoshere and their correlation with temperature and water levels have been researched.

Anyways. Human caused global warming is the dominant conclusion of scientific community at this time (links have been posted in another thread earlier), and of course, anybody, yourself or even Harper, are free to enter the debate at any time, with scientific argument and data to confirm their position. Short of such scientific breakthrough though, the statements like "no credible evidence" have to be disregarded as pretty much meaningless blabber, very common here on the Web, in case you haven't noticed.

I was talking about things like tailing ponds and water pollution. We shouldn't be crapping our own beds but at the same time we shouldn't be hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It's a prisoner's dilemna.

Nobody's said "higher". We are still talking "lower", or maybe, (one of the) "lowest" (as related to ability to have such standards).

But, a very good comment on that dilemma. Indeed one can lead, or follow in the back of the pack, claiming that, but it's hardly possible to accomplish both, at the same time.

We're also the coldest and biggest of the rich industrialized nations of the world and this should be taken for granted. We have ~30 million people living in an area the size of Europe. Our weather is extreme, our transportation requirements are greater and there is enormous demand for our raw materials, particularly our oil. You can't hold us to the same standard.

No, you can't hold me to the same standard, no. Them, standards only good when applied to others.

China and India have the resources to work on the problem is well. They don't because they like the idea of industry moving there because of huge cost advantages. We should make it easier for them right? Let's screw our own industry over so that the polluting is done in China instead okay? There's no point in talking about global warming unless the initiative to prevent it is also global. Don't talk about leading by example either, because we all see how well China and India follow our examples on human rights.

They

1) still have much lower standard of living, and it's understandable that much of their resources will be dedicatd to improving it; and,

2) had much less contribution to creating the problem (again, references to stats on GHG emissions has been posted, and if I recall them correctly, even now as we speak emission per capita are multiple times higher in countries like US or Canada).

Finally, global warming is still at best now a theory. It's a theory that ignorants have adopted as conventional wisdom.

Unlike real "savants", like us. It only takes saying it, and it becomes true. Who cares about going to school, taking exams, doing research, defending degree, publishing peer reviewed research, and things such? Anybody can say anything, it's free and doesn't cost (and mean) anything. Like that UFO that just flew over your head.

Remember, the dinosaurs.

[wyly]

The paper was written by an obscure assistant prof and a couple of Phd students. Pretty questionable but nice try.

and Einstien worked alone as a patent clerk no uni would hire him and while a clerk came up with his greatest work...

The melting isn't being argued. Cause and effect is what's in question. There's also RECORDS confirming that the warmest years on record in the Arctic were in 1937-1938. Similar records also suggest that between 1917-1937 the pace of warming was faster than it is today. Then in the 1940's -> 1970's it cooled.

actually very very few scientists are questioning the causes...what's being discussed is how fast it will occur, what will be the effects and can it be slowed/stopped...

Straw man argument. Dinosaurs have been dug up out of the ground and carbon dated. We have bones as proof. Denying that is a little different than questioning the scientific method of 'proving' a hypothesis that doesn't and cannot account for countless natural variables.

absolutely positively FALSE! dinosaurs fossils can not be carbon dated as they are rock!...only carbonaceous materials can be carbon dated and then only to 60,000 BP....back to school for you...

China and India have the resources to work on the problem is well. They don't because they like the idea of industry moving there because of huge cost advantages. We should make it easier for them right? Let's screw our own industry over so that the polluting is done in China instead okay? There's no point in talking about global warming unless the initiative to prevent it is also global. Don't talk about leading by example either, because we all see how well China and India follow our examples on human rights.

China is tackling the problem more so than us, but a country of 1.3 billion industry is outdated and not a quick fix...India is still very poor, I can understand them wanting to raise they're standard of living first...

Finally, global warming is still at best now a theory. It's a theory that ignorants have adopted as conventional wisdom.

Ignorants like carbon dating dinosaur fossils??? and not knowing the scientific definition of theory?

Scientific definition of Theory-"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology."

[Riverwind]

absolutely positively FALSE! dinosaurs fossils can not be carbon dated as they are rock!...only carbonaceous materials can be carbon dated and then only to 60,000 BP....back to school for you...

Dinosaur fossils can be dated by the rock they are found in.

China is tackling the problem more so than us, but a country of 1.3 billion industry is outdated and not a quick fix...India is still very poor, I can understand them wanting to raise they're standard of living first...

China is building coal plants as fast as it can build them and makes no apologies.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Climate change is happening the real question is what effect it will have on us and the answer to that question is we have no idea. I'm not worried about CO2 I'm worried about the things that have been proven to be harmful. Yes CO2 raises temperature but we can't be sure what effect it will have. We can't even be sure if the effect will be negative. Some of the hottest times in earths history were also the most diverse and healthy.

If you deny climate change you're an idiot, but if you blow the effect out of proportion you are a fear monger.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Dinosaur fossils can be dated by the rock they are found in.

You cannot carbon date rock. They use one of the dozens of other methods for rock.

[Riverwind]

You cannot carbon date rock. They use one of the dozens of other methods for rock.

Correct but I did not think my statement implied I was refering to carbon dating.

[Moonbox]

Obscure, but based on scientific research, isn't as convincing as unconfirmed blabber of somebody who has no clue about the subject?

It's not just obscure. It's totally hypothetical and interpretive research. Drawing and confirming 'conclusions' in this field of research without understanding the natural effects of things like air and ocean currents is idiotic. You can't ignore probably the biggest variable of them all and just say, "It's man made". That's like saying kids with abusive mothers end up gay. There probably is a correlation, but can you ignore the genetic factor? No. Just like you can't ignore Mother Nature herself when trying to come up with environmental theories.

And of course, the records of melting ice and retracting glaciers are recorded over at least several hundred years.

and proven to be cyclical over many thousands of years.

And the levels of CO in atmoshere and their correlation with temperature and water levels have been researched.

Anyways. Human caused global warming is the dominant conclusion of scientific community at this time (links have been posted in another thread earlier), and of course, anybody, yourself or even Harper, are free to enter the debate at any time, with scientific argument and data to confirm their position..

The problem is that Co2 in the atmosphere and temperature cause each other. Temperature can increase Co2 levels, and vice versa. The cause has still not been determined. The dominant conclusion of the time is irrelevant by the way. A lot of dominant conclusions in the past have been totally bogus. The earth being flat, the next Ice Age in the 1970's, God and intelligent design, they were all conventional wisdom at the time and they were all wrong. I know enough about the scientific method to know that climatology is AT BEST an incredibly inexact and unproven science. Any scientist worth his salt, therefore, should be caveating their research papers with that fact. They don't know enough to understand and neither do you or I.

Short of such scientific breakthrough though, the statements like "no credible evidence" have to be disregarded as pretty much meaningless blabber, very common here on the Web, in case you haven't noticed.

That's a pretty tall claim haha. It's meaningless blabber to question 'scientists' who have no control over their research environment? This is really highlighting your critical thinking skills Myata.

They

1) still have much lower standard of living, and it's understandable that much of their resources will be dedicatd to improving it; and,

by over-polluting? Their population and birth rates alone are threats to the environment. Their rate of pollution is lower than ours because half the country is still medieval. The part that isn't pollutes far worse than us. Know anybody who's ever been to Shanghai? Maybe you should look into it.

2) had much less contribution to creating the problem (again, references to stats on GHG emissions has been posted, and if I recall them correctly, even now as we speak emission per capita are multiple times higher in countries like US or Canada).

Emissions per capita is a pretty useless measurement when comparing Canada to China, for reasons stated above. If we had 30 million Inuits living up north in Igloos, would that mean that our environmental record was better?

Unlike real "savants", like us. It only takes saying it, and it becomes true. Who cares about going to school, taking exams, doing research, defending degree, publishing peer reviewed research, and things such? Anybody can say anything, it's free and doesn't cost (and mean) anything. Like that UFO that just flew over your head.

Remember, the dinosaurs.

The irony of your statement I think is escaping you.

[Moonbox]

Climate change is happening the real question is what effect it will have on us and the answer to that question is we have no idea. I'm not worried about CO2 I'm worried about the things that have been proven to be harmful. Yes CO2 raises temperature but we can't be sure what effect it will have. We can't even be sure if the effect will be negative. Some of the hottest times in earths history were also the most diverse and healthy.

If you deny climate change you're an idiot, but if you blow the effect out of proportion you are a fear monger.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. The climate is always in a state of flux and will always be changing.

[wyly]

Dinosaur fossils can be dated by the rock they are found in.

correct...carbon dating doesn't work...

China is building coal plants as fast as it can build them and makes no apologies.

correct again ...but it's not because they want to, they know full well of the consquences but as I posted earlier you can't bring an economy of 1.3 billion people to a stand still and change everything all at once...if China's economy comes to a halt so does the entire planet...

[Riverwind]

correct again ...but it's not because they want to, they know full well of the consquences but as I posted earlier you can't bring an economy of 1.3 billion people to a stand still and change everything all at once...if China's economy comes to a halt so does the entire planet...

And you can't do anything about CO2 emissions unless China faces the same restrictions as everyone else. I realize it is a catch-22 situation but that is the reality.

Here is an interesting artical on that point:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/...o-stop-its.html

The EU is not serious in its fight against climate change. If it were, it wouldn't merely shift emissions from one place to another but would instead focus its efforts to stop the emissions from growing globally. It would concentrate its efforts on the most challenging problem of the climate change, coal, and reducing its use especially in the developing countries.

....

Within a couple of years, China and India will build 850 coal plants in total. At least 50 coal plants are being built in Europe, mainly in Great Britain and Germany. The import of coal powered energy in Europe has increased by 40 per cent in the last ten years.

....

The EU is practising the kind of climate policy, which is expensive and flashy, yet bureaucratic and lacking results. The main focus is in the reduction of the Union's own local emissions, not the overall emissions to the atmosphere.

When the criteria for the policy are the emissions resulting from production, instead of consumption, the cause for the problems can be shifted elsewhere. With the carbon leakage resulting from this, it is even possible that as the local emissions decrease, the global will increase.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

And you can't do anything about CO2 emissions unless China faces the same restrictions as everyone else. I realize it is a catch-22 situation but that is the reality.

Here is an interesting artical on that point:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/...o-stop-its.html

look at it from third world point of view...for a century we've lived a good life much of it at their expense, they want to enjoy some of the lifestyle we have...the industrialized countries have produced most of the environmental problems and now we're asking them to share the same burden as us to clean it up...these are very poor countries who per person produce much less CO2 than we do...they don't see that as a fair solution and i can't fault them for that...

what is the solution? I don't know, someone has to pay the bill who can most afford it? is there a middle ground?

[Riverwind]

look at it from third world point of view...for a century we've lived a good life much of it at their expense

BS. The developing world's poverty is largely its own making. For example, no outsider forced Mao to starve millions of his countrymen pursuing a bankrupt economic idiology.

these are very poor countries who per person produce much less CO2 than we do...they don't see that as a fair solution and i can't fault them for that...

Have you looked at how unevenly wealth is distributed within China? The gap is huge. Why should rich Chinese be give a license to pollute with impunity while poor and middle class Canadians are punished because they happen to live in a cold sparsely populated country with a huge energy industry?

these are very poor countries who per person produce much less CO2 than we do...they don't see that as a fair solution and i can't fault them for that...

The solution is: develop the emission free technology that delivers the energy that people need at an affordable price. Once we have technology that we know works we can talk about timetables and targets. Until then it is a waste of time to talk about reducing CO2 because the conflicting economic interests will make a effective international deal impossible. Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Moonbox]

Riverwind you said it right. Bravo

[wyly]

BS. The developing world's poverty is largely its own making. For example, no outsider forced Mao to starve millions of his countrymen pursuing a bankrupt economic idiology.

do south american coffee farmers make the income of our farmers? no, so you don't pay a fair market value for their produce while they pay a premium for ours...african cotton growers can produce their product cheaper than american cotton growers but american farm subsidies keep american farmers in production, and shut out african cotton...european farm subsdies support a agricultural sector that should not be in business because they cannot compete with third world labour costs, but again they are hurt by unfair practises....

Have you looked at how unevenly wealth is distributed within China? The gap is huge. Why should rich Chinese be give a license to pollute with impunity while poor and middle class Canadians are punished because they happen to live in a cold sparsely populated country with a huge energy industry?

poor middle class canadians we live like royalty compared the average chinese....reality check we're spoiled beyond belief...travel a bit and see how the rest of the world lives...

[wyly]

Riverwind you said it right. Bravo

you believe that dinosaur bones can be carbon dated so your opinion doesn't mean much....

[Riverwind]

african cotton growers can produce their product cheaper than american cotton growers but american farm subsidies keep american farmers in production, and shut out african cotton

I am all for ending farming subsidies and giving those africa farmers access to our markets. I am against setting up a system where african producers are subsidized via some carbon control mechanism.

poor middle class canadians we live like royalty compared the average chinese....reality check we're spoiled beyond belief...travel a bit and see how the rest of the world lives...

So loud mouth. Tell us what you would sacrifice for this global warming thing - and explain why it is a significant sacrifice for you. Also tell what your limit is - i.e. the point at which you would say you don't give a damn about CO2. You must have one cause I doubt you would be willing start living life as subsistance farmer.

[Riverwind]

you believe that dinosaur bones can be carbon dated so your opinion doesn't mean much....

I did not say that. I simply pointed out that dinosaur bones can be dated by the rocks they are found in. I made no claim about the methods used to date those rocks - I just implied that reliable methods exist.

[Argus]

look at it from third world point of view...for a century we've lived a good life much of it at their expense, they want to enjoy some of the lifestyle we have...

That's one way of looking at it. It's not the way I look at it. Let us suppose for a moment that the eco nazis are right and CO2 emissions are a great and terrible danger to the future well-being of the entire planet. If that is your assumption then you should be striving to limit CO2 emissions everywhere. The idea that, well, we benefited from them for a while, so now the third world should have their turn - regardless of what that does to the world - is patently insane.

The idea we should pay them trillions of dollars while they do it, and beggar our economies by massively increasing the price of energy we use is even more stupendously idiotic.

[Sir Bandelot]

Let us suppose for a moment that the eco nazis are right and CO2 emissions are a great and terrible danger to the future well-being of the entire planet. If that is your assumption then you should be striving to limit CO2 emissions everywhere. The idea that, well, we benefited from them for a while, so now the third world should have their turn - regardless of what that does to the world - is patently insane.

The idea we should pay them trillions of dollars while they do it, and beggar our economies by massively increasing the price of energy we use is even more stupendously idiotic.

But is that not part of the problem that was being addressed in Kyoto, the idea behind carbon credits? Yes it was- in Kyoto, so called developed countries have the opportunity to gain carbon credits (to offset the penalty of not meeting their carbon reduction target) if they develop carbon reducing technologies and provide them to developing nations such as India and China.

[wyly]

I did not say that. I simply pointed out that dinosaur bones can be dated by the rocks they are found in. I made no claim about the methods used to date those rocks - I just implied that reliable methods exist.

I never said you did it was addressed to moonbox...unless you're posting under two names???

[Moonbox]

But is that not part of the problem that was being addressed in Kyoto, the idea behind carbon credits? Yes it was- in Kyoto, so called developed countries have the opportunity to gain carbon credits (to offset the penalty of not meeting their carbon reduction target) if they develop carbon reducing technologies and provide them to developing nations such as India and China.

Kyoto was a non-binding treaty signed by indifferent politicians and drafted by worthless bureaucrats. Kyoto meant nothing then, it still means nothing and so will Copenhagen. Until pretty much the whole world agrees to play by the SAME RULES all similar treaties will be worth less than dust. All they'll be is tools for suckers to have their industries relocate to the third world.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Correct but I did not think my statement implied I was refering to carbon dating.

Well you didn't specify another dating technique so I assumed you were refering to carbon dating. My apologizes. Also I didn't relize it was Moonbox who made the original post so again sorry. Although you were partly incorrect they date the rock of the fossil itself if they dated the rock around it they could come up with a wrong answer.

Edited October 16, 2009 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

Well you didn't specify another dating technique so I assumed you were refering to carbon dating. My apologizes. Also I didn't relize it was Moonbox who made the original post so again sorry. Although you were partly incorrect they date the rock of the fossil itself if they dated the rock around it they could come up with a wrong answer.

there are a number of ways to date dinosaur fossils, stratigraphy which is dating the rock from which they are extracted is a very reliable method...