Fletch 27 Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) What? Really... No more cut and paste outa you... WTF was THAT???? Englaises pour favor tout suit... Let's piece these retorts together for the ones that don't drink as heavily as you... What did you mean in That one? what!... no comment, hey? no! - re: Environment Canada: from your own provided link: "This substance is not classified as toxic but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999." - re: EPA: your media link reference quote is incorrect. The related EPA findings under the Clean Air Act do not classify CO2 as a toxic substance. Specifically: => On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: - Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. - Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. well... since you incorrectly did say that CO2 has been classified/labeled a toxic substance, I expect the same question asking if you equate the two... remains for you to answer - here, or in denier bizarro world. Your choice. Edited June 8, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 I think people have a hard time understanding that while global warming is not a scam (I'm not going to argue this) world conferences designed to "save the world" like Kyoto and Copenhagen most definitely are political scams; a circus of political jousting and maneuvering, and the Alberta oil sands are the favorite scape-goat/bandwagon for any European MP or US congressman to jump on to avoid dealing with their own messy businesses (i.e. their own voters) or attacking anyone else with too much political clout, a commodity Alberta has very little of compared to powerhouses like the US, China, Venezuela, etc. the COP conferences are... what they are. Within a treaty base, they reflect the politicized nuance of self-centered countries... supposedly... working towards an objective to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations. Clearly the process could be improved - if prevailing nations were so inclined. Your assessment of Europe and U.S. targeting of the tarsands is less accurate in terms of comparative European progress... certainly Europe has targeted the tarsands from the standpoint of amendments to its fuel standards. You need to give specifics or your claim is nothing more than a most generalized unsubstantiated rant/rail. What's most disheartening is watching the effect it has on Canadians as so many fall prey to this myth that somehow Canada, a tiny nation barely 150 years old is somehow responsible for mankinds reconciliation with the entire Industrial Age. Europeans were polluting with coal before Canada even had a road. They were polluting with pure horse manure before we even had a city. your position could equally be applied to China... I've put up the analysis/graphs previously that show it would take another ~50 years for China, at their current emission levels, to reach the same effective cumulative emissions total of the U.S. (with the U.S. also continuing at its current emissions pace). Do we just grant China an exemption based on the U.S.'s earlier emissions pollution levels? Do we accept China's extended industrialization continues unfettered to allow it's emissions to 'catch-up' to overall U.S. cumulative emissions? Of course not - obviously. In this same regard, Canada must step-up and... at least... show it's working towards it's abysmal commitments. Within the COP you disparage, overall progress is occurring... incrementally, meeting to meeting. Given China's latest/last position it appears a possible breakthrough is imminent towards binding agreement levels... presuming on the U.S. breaking out of it's TeaParty driven GOP obstructionism. Fat chance, you say! Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 What? Really... No more cut and paste outa you... WTF was THAT???? Englaises pour favor tout suit... Let's piece these retorts together for the ones that don't drink as heavily as you... What did you mean in That one? why embarrass yourself... why bother responding - you clearly have nothing to contribute. Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) You need to give specifics or your claim is nothing more than a most generalized unsubstantiated rant/rail. Nope actually all you need to do is be a critical thinker. Besides, based on previous discussions with you I doubt you even understand what my claim is, but I'll play along anyways....You're a European MP or a US congressperson. Who is easier, or less politically dangerous to attack in order to look like you're doing something at Kyoto or Copenhagen? 1. The largest economy in the world, the US, whom you do business with and owe many political favours to? 2. Your own industry and thus the very people who vote for you? THe US is not going to attack Californian heavy, in fact they made an exception for this crude in Californias anti-dirty oil import/usage laws. 3. China, the worlds second largest economy, who does business with everyone? 4. Some politically inert, tiny out of the way place that few have heard of and that doesn't have any political clout? Frankly Waldo all anyone needs to do to get the specifics of what I'm talking about is pay attention to US and European media. Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Spiderfish Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 what!... no comment, hey? no! - re: Environment Canada: from your own provided link: "This substance is not classified as toxic but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999." - re: EPA: your media link reference quote is incorrect. The related EPA findings under the Clean Air Act do not classify CO2 as a toxic substance. Specifically: => On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: - Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. - Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. [/indent] well... since you incorrectly did say that CO2 has been classified/labeled a toxic substance, I expect the same question asking if you equate the two... remains for you to answer - here, or in denier bizarro world. Your choice. You are selective in your cut and paste, I grant you that. - re: Environment Canada: from your own provided link: "This substance is not classified as toxic but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999." Read on.... Carbon Dioxide was added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 in November 2005 in order to enable the Government the use of a variety of preventive or control actions. Keep reading.... CEPA 1999 Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances. I also provided the link to Toxic Substances List - Schedule 1 as defined by Environment Canada which includes carbon dioxide (number 74 in case you are having a difficult time finding it). I'm not sure why you are always so snarky every time you respond to my posts. I don't know what in particular I've said in the past, but I must have struck a nerve at some point. You may think you are coming off like an intellectual, but all I see is bitter. Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) Given China's latest/last position it appears a possible breakthrough is imminent towards binding agreement levels... lol!! Yeah they've only been promising this for 10 years now. Meanwhile China builds a new coal mine each and every week and only last November invested $6 billion in Venezuelan oil sands. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/china-coal-industry-mongolia-shaanxi http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/03/378752/china-digs-deeper-into-canadian-tar-sands-during-durban-talks/?mobile=nc Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Frankly Waldo all anyone needs to do to get the specifics of what I'm talking about is pay attention to US and European media. clearly you're not a critical thinker... you continually make baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated... most generalized... statements/claims. Based on previous discussions with you I doubt you even understand, let alone recognize, your gross inadequacies. I thought I would give you another chance and play along anyways... it was clearly a misguided show of good faith to expect you to actually engage sans insults. It's clearly not in your nature; not a part of your confidence lacking, ultra-sensitive being. You need to give specifics or your claim is nothing more than a most generalized unsubstantiated rant/rail. Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) clearly you're not a critical thinker... you continually make baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated... most generalized... statements/claims. Yet again Waldo is faced with a reality he can't argue and doesn't like one little bit so he goes off on an emotional personal attack rant! Two posts to me so far in supposed response that don't actually say anything at all. I love it! I especially love the copying of my own statement. Imitation is sincerest form of flattery Waldo. Clearly his fragile ego won't allow him to even attempt to answer my question with a straight face, something easy to do on the internet. He knows the obvious answer and that it supports everything I said. Once again: You're a European MP or a US congressperson. Who is easier, or less politically dangerous to attack in order to look like you're doing something at Kyoto or Copenhagen? 1. The largest economy in the world, the US, whom you do business with and owe many political favours to? 2. Your own industry and thus the very people who vote for you? THe US is not going to attack Californian heavy, in fact they made an exception for this crude in Californias anti-dirty oil import/usage laws. 3. China, the worlds second largest economy, who does business with everyone? 4. Some politically inert, tiny out of the way place that few have heard of and that doesn't have any political clout? All you had to do is answer, "Why yes Claudius, I actually do think it would be safer or as safe for a congressman from Minnesota to attack their own coal burning plants (and the voters who work there) which emit more GHG's than the entire oil sands", but even you apparently can't bring yourself to be that dishonest. Thanks for proving my point. We all know you won't deal with what is said because you can't. Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 I'm not sure why you are always so snarky every time you respond to my posts. I don't know what in particular I've said in the past, but I must have struck a nerve at some point. You may think you are coming off like an intellectual, but all I see is bitter. I responded to your many inaccuracies... I don't coddle deniers fake skeptics... at all. I have noted your extreme expressed sensitivities. there was no selective cut&paste. Speaking of your (continued) inaccuracies - what part of "not classified as toxic" do you not get? You are selective in your cut and paste, I grant you that. - re: Environment Canada: from your own provided link: "This substance is not classified as toxic but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999." does this also mean you recognize your error in regards your media reference's EPA related claim? Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 lol!! Yeah they've only been promising this for 10 years now. so you say - your talk is cheap! Meanwhile China builds a new coal mine each and every week and only last November invested $6 billion in Venezuelan oil sands. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/china-coal-industry-mongolia-shaanxi http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/03/378752/china-digs-deeper-into-canadian-tar-sands-during-durban-talks/?mobile=nc we've talked at length in other MLW threads about what China is doing... we could embarrass you to no end if you'd really like to engage. Those new coal plants reflect upon the like closing of older less efficient plants in favour of newer more efficient plants. China is engaged in world-leading initiatives in CCS research, development & deployment... is a world leader in working towards sustainable development. As for it's Venezuelan and Canadian tarsands pursuits, do you expect China to outright stop it's rapid industrialization? Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 clearly you're not a critical thinker... you continually make baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated... most generalized... statements/claims. Yes much like your claim/insinuation that Canada never had the oil sands before Harper and that before Harper there weren't any foreign companies involved in resource extraction in Canada. :lol: Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) so you say - your talk is cheap! Gotta love how you can't deny it yet feel strangely compelled to respond with nonsense anyways. we've talked at length in other MLW threads about what China is doing... we could embarrass you to no end if you'd really like to engage. Those new coal plants reflect upon the like closing of older less efficient plants in favour of newer more efficient plants. No they aren't and you'd know this if you bothered to read the links I provided that you're always demanding. China's emissions are increasing at a fast rate as opposed to sinking as your claim here would suggest.[Yashentech’s (0214009D) emissions-busting effort is one way in which China is racing to solve its clean-energy riddle: How can a country that’s hooked on coal mitigate environmental damage from the dirtiest of fossil fuels?China passed the U.S. as the top carbon polluter in 2007; it now emits more than the U.S. and India combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Yet with 1.3 billion people, power-hungry industries and scant oil or natural gas, it has no immediate alternatives to coal for fueling its economy. China gets 70 percent of its energy from coal, three times the U.S. figure. It even converts coal into diesel fuel and ammonia that’s used for making fertilizer. After consuming as much coal as did the rest of the planet combined in 2010, China still can’t muster enough electricity to avoid blackouts or accelerate the rise of its western provinces out of poverty, says Zhao Gang, director of a research institute at Beijing’s Ministry of Science and Technology. By 2025, with 250 million more Chinese projected to be living in cities, China’s share of global carbon pollution will jump to 30.3 percent from 26.8 percent this year, the EIA says. By all means keep on embarrassing yourself with your juvenile need to argue under any circumstances. It doesn't remotely matter if they are opening newer plants, they're still increasing their GHG emissions with them and it's still coal, not oil that is the biggest GHG polluter. Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Thanks for proving my point. We all know you won't deal with what is said because you can't. thanks for proving my point. Apparently you only deal in the "Claudius hypothetical"! You need to give specifics or your claim is nothing more than a most generalized unsubstantiated rant/rail. why is it so difficult for you to give specific examples for consideration? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you need to squeak out your self-serving hypothetical nothingness? Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) why is it so difficult for you to give specific examples for consideration? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you need to squeak out your self-serving hypothetical nothingness? I see. You simply cannot digest the contention that it's politically easier to attack Alberta than the US or China unless an MP or congressperson stands up and admits it. Why is it so difficult for you to use your brain? Or even to answer my simple question?You're a European MP or a US congressperson. Who is easier, or less politically dangerous to attack in order to look like you're doing something at Kyoto or Copenhagen?1. The largest economy in the world, the US, whom you do business with and owe many political favours to? 2. Your own industry and thus the very people who vote for you? THe US is not going to attack Californian heavy, in fact they made an exception for this crude in Californias anti-dirty oil import/usage laws. 3. China, the worlds second largest economy, who does business with everyone? 4. Some politically inert, tiny out of the way place that few have heard of and that doesn't have any political clout? Fact is you'd still refuse to admit the obvious even if they did because you are mentally incapable of admitting someone else might have a point. Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Yes much like your claim/insinuation that Canada never had the oil sands before Harper and that before Harper there weren't any foreign companies involved in resource extraction in Canada. :lol: are we close to another of your meltdowns? In any case, I am sincerely concerned for your well being... this is the earliest I recall you so blatantly fabricating outright shyte like this quote. Are you ok? Do you have someone close by? Don't be afraid to ask for help! Be well. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 I responded to your many inaccuracies... I don't coddle deniers fake skeptics... at all. I have noted your extreme expressed sensitivities. Yeah okay, whatever. there was no selective cut&paste. Speaking of your (continued) inaccuracies - what part of "not classified as toxic" do you not get? What part of "- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances" do you not get? Actually, never mind. I have a feeling this is going nowhere. It's such an insignificant point to the overall argument anyhow. The original point I was making way back when is that all our efforts into environmental initiatives seem to be going toward the elimination of co2 at the cost of other initiatives that could have a much greater impact on the well being of our environment (such as reducing actual pollution). Quote
Claudius Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) are we close to another of your meltdowns? In any case, I am sincerely concerned for your well being... this is the earliest I recall you so blatantly fabricating outright shyte like this quote. Are you ok? Do you have someone close by? Don't be afraid to ask for help! Be well. Yet another post that can't address anything. you so blatantly fabricating outright shyte like this quote Ahhh, like when you decide I'm telling you the Alberta government holds no responsibility in their infrastructure when all I do is simply point out that a population increase affects it? Or when you decide I'm defending Harper simply because I point out that lands are leased for resource extraction instead of sold? Whatever Waldo. The world is crying for you. If you spent half as much energy being honest as you do arguing for the sake of arguing you might actually get some respect. Edited June 8, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 China's emissions are increasing at a fast rate as opposed to sinking as your claim here would suggest.By all means keep on embarrassing yourself with your juvenile need to argue under any circumstances. It doesn't remotely matter if they are opening newer plants, they're still increasing their GHG emissions with them and it's still coal, not oil that is the biggest GHG polluter. you should read what I write... not what you think I wrote or what you would prefer I write/wrote. I never said China's emissions were reducing... feel free to find and trumpet that statement. I've been critical of China for needing to do more - that's on record within many/numerous MLW threads. Equally, as I've just done here, I've talked up the efforts/results China is engaged in and bringing forward. It is a difficult balance for any country, somewhat doubly so for China given its rapid industrialization. Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 The original point I was making way back when is that all our efforts into environmental initiatives seem to be going toward the elimination of co2 at the cost of other initiatives that could have a much greater impact on the well being of our environment (such as reducing actual pollution). it's a somewhat moot point in that, in balance, from our North American vantage point, today, little to nothing significant is being done to reduce CO2 emissions. If there was a true commitment, one diligently followed through on, most definitely, the need is to target CO2 over traditional toxic pollutants. If one understands and accepts the theory of AGW, that point can't be argued... at all. Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Whatever Waldo. The world is crying for you. If you spent half as much energy being honest as you do arguing for the sake of arguing you might actually get some respect. take your whine to the other thread where it belongs... oh, right... I already accepted your unconditional surrender there. Carry on! Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Where does Mulcair get the nerve to make such blanket statements? :angry:I dunno, maybe saying crap like he wants to build a wall around Alberta might give people that impression.Uh yeah except that was Klein not Harper. no - the infamous Harper firewall letter: From Harper To Klein Quote
jacee Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 This statement makes no sense. The federal government has no money. All of the transfer payments come from people and organizations the federal government taxed. Yes, Ontario has a large population. That's beside the point. The reckoning of who pays what for equalization is made in terms of how much the federal government collects from the people and individuals in a province vs how much the federal government returns to that province in the form of services and goods for the people in that province. As far as I know, and I live in Ontario, the disparity is by far the greatest in Alberta. I've never seen the data on that so please share if you have. I'd like to see it include federal - ie, taxpayer $ - subsidies of oil sands projects and federal tax cuts/subsidies too. I don't think the 'disparity' in what Alberta sends to/receives from Ottawa is as large as we are led to believe by some Albertans. And I'm totally in agreement that governments do not 'have' money. It's our money in their trust. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 If one understands and accepts the theory of AGW, that point can't be argued... at all. Yes, but since you have already labeled me a "denier", oh wait, (even you realized that was a little offside)..."fake skeptic", then surely you know that I'm one of those unenlightened extremists who doesn't buy the whole David Suzuki "the science is settled, the debate is over" line with regards to human induced global warming. Quote
waldo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Yes, but since you have already labeled me a "denier", oh wait, (even you realized that was a little offside)..."fake skeptic", then surely you know that I'm one of those unenlightened extremists who doesn't buy the whole David Suzuki "the science is settled, the debate is over" line with regards to human induced global warming. thanks for truly coming out. Within several GW/CC related MLW threads, we've long ago dispatched the, "science is settled", meme. Only a "fake skeptic" trots it out and showcases his naivety. Only a "fake skeptic" needs to resort to disparaging the likes of a Suzuki... a "fake skeptic" finds it much easier to play out that kind of silly nonsense than attempting to interpret/convey/argue actual science. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 8, 2012 Report Posted June 8, 2012 Only a "fake skeptic" trots it out and showcases his naivety. Yes because we all know that the process of scientific deduction is absolute. Who is showcasing their naivety? Only a "fake skeptic" needs to resort to disparaging the likes of a Suzuki... My apologies for disparaging your deity. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.