Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[Keepitsimple]

Perspective and context are lost with environmental extremism. While the Athabasca Oil Sands underlie a 142,200 km2 area in north and eastern Alberta, the surface mining area is limited to a 4,800 km2 region near Fort McMurray -- 715 km2 of which has been disturbed by oil sands mining. The area is but a pin-prick on a map.

[waldo]

Perspective and context are lost with environmental extremism.

reality and balance are lost with fossil-fuel addiction! Simple, it's quite telling to read you declare a position calling for balanced, 'sustainable' development as "environmental extremism"!

While the Athabasca Oil Sands underlie a 142,200 km2 area in north and eastern Alberta, the surface mining area is limited to a 4,800 km2 region near Fort McMurray -- 715 km2 of which has been disturbed by oil sands mining. The area is but a pin-prick on a map.

"715 km2 of which has been disturbed by oil sands mining" ... c'mon, Simple - get in the game! Only ~10% of the tarsands is suitable for surface mining... the tarsands area that must be extracted by in-situ methods is more than 25 times larger than the surface mine-able area (often comparably expressed as, 'equivalent to the size of England'!). By the by, given even today's speculative accounts of 3-6 times expansion over the current size... of at least a half-dozen new/expanded pipelines being talked of, what's your projection on the size of your stated, and ~10% constrained 'map pin-prick'?

but don't stop there; tell us the size of the tailings ponds... and the state of reclamation! Tell us about the amount of water being used... about the amount of natural gas required. Inquiring minds need to recognize these sizes/amounts when considering your call for, 'perspective and context'!

[Moonbox]

no - I'm not making up or misrepresenting your past statements. Like I said, your unbridled zeal to develop the tarsands runs counter to your many past raised concerns over reducing emissions. It's either that Moonbox, or you accept you've been concern-trolling! Which is it? Here Moonbox, a short sampling of your raised concern!!!

Yeah, you really are making up my opinions, and your 'short sampling' of my past statements confirms not only that you're so desperate for the ego-boost associated with scoring points on an internet debate that you're willing to go through the sad effort of digging up out of context quotations from year old threads, but also that my position has been consistent the entire time.

I believe in global warming. I think we should do something about it. I am not, however, going to support costly, idiotic proposals that aren't going to work. I'll support practical, realistic solutions, but not stupid ones. You, on the other hand, wholeheartedly accept any idea no matter how silly or counterproductive it might be, and then denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Climate treaties that don't impose costs and restrictions on China, for example, are inherently broken. I've explained why in the past, but you've never had any interest in looking at the numbers or investigating the economics of this argument. You only need to look at how far ahead China is of any other country in the world in terms of C02 emissions, and how quickly they're increasing their emissions, to see see this. Increasing our manufacturing and energy costs with things left unchanged in China does nothing more than make their dirty industry more competitive and help them increase their emissions even faster. What's happened in the past does not change this simple fact. This is the reality today and moving forward.

Similarly, I've argued that spending billions on unviable and immature solar/wind power infrastructure, like Ontario's Green Energy Act, which has proven to be a debacle, is equally stupid. The amount of electricity created as a result does not and will not even come close to making up for the increases on electricity bills. When you force huge increases to people's electricity bills for literally irrelevant amounts of green energy, all you're doing is throwing people's money down the toilet and making them resistant to further (possibly productive) initiatives. How much electricity is generated in Ontario by wind/solar, waldo, and how much has it increased the average electricity bill? Let's go over those numbers, shall we?

So again, my position hasn't changed and hasn't waffled in the entire time we've argued. Dumb ideas are dumb ideas, and I'll not support them. Much like I wouldn't support bleeding a person to cure an illness (which hurts the patient and doesn't cure anything), I'm completely against finding dozens of different ways to essentially burn cash to make zero noticeable difference in worldwide C02 emissions. You have no such qualms. It doesn't matter if it's a smart idea or a dumb idea. As long as it says, "Green" you're on board!

Take all the money we've blown on bio-fuel, wind and solar infrastructure so far, and throw that towards research on tech that will actually solve our problems. Our best and greatest hope is something like the ITER, which is budgeted to cost $10B and is the world's leading and largest nuclear fusion experiment. Ontario's Green Energy Act is estimated to cost something like $60B, and will make next to zero impact on C02 emissions. That's just Ontario. Imagine what a concerted effort throughout the world could do.

Because emissions are cumulative in the atmosphere, over a centuries time frame, the important timeline is the emissions growth timeline that reflects upon cumulative emissions from continued... and increased...fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use changes.

I'm not arguing with you on that waldo. I know that CO2 emissions are cumulative. I understand that if we didn't burn another ounce of carbon for the next 10 years that overall CO2 levels would still be higher 10 years from now than they were 15 years ago. I get that. That is NOT how Hansen explains the dangers of the tar sands to NY times readers or in interviews with the CBC, however. No matter how quickly the tar sands expand, they'll never release even a fraction of the amount of C02 that Hansen warns before US/European/Chinese coal burning puts us well past whatever theoretical doomsday scenario Hansen is suggesting.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

no - I'm not making up or misrepresenting your past statements. Like I said, your unbridled zeal to develop the tarsands runs counter to your many past raised concerns over reducing emissions. It's either that Moonbox, or you accept you've been concern-trolling! Which is it? Here Moonbox, a short sampling of your raised concern!!!

Yeah, you really are making up my opinions, and your 'short sampling' of my past statements confirms not only that you're so desperate for the ego-boost associated with scoring points on an internet debate that you're willing to go through the sad effort of digging up out of context quotations from year old threads, but also that my position has been consistent the entire time.

the only desperation is yours. Your statements were from a single thread and what's sad is your now pathetic claim you're being taken "out of context"! Taken so out of context you won't touch the same question put to you twice... why avoid answering the following, hey? As I said, your expressed concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions... was a fake concern; i.e., concern-trolling!

as I've shown in the preceding post, you have an expressed concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions. And opening up the tarsands to massive expansion, to significantly new/increased markets... for decades and decades to come... will do what to help reduce emissions?

.

.

And your junkyard dog advocacy for the dirtiest unconventional source, the tarsands, one that reflects upon a continuing and enhanced multi-decades reliance on fossil-fuels, one with an accompanying increase in emissions level/rate... this helps your earlier established concern for reducing emissions... how?

just answer the question! Is there a problem?

.

I believe in global warming. I think we should do something about it.

sure you do! Your doing something about it shines through in your zeal for unencumbered development of the tarsands that significantly enables the world's continued and increased reliance on oil... for decades and decades to come.

.

Climate treaties that don't impose costs and restrictions on China, for example, are inherently broken.

Nice strawman! No one is suggesting China be excluded or treated differently in any new climate treaties... certainly not China!

.

I'm completely against finding dozens of different ways to essentially burn cash to make zero noticeable difference in worldwide C02 emissions.

more of your "concern" for... 'worldwide CO₂ emissions'!!!

.

Because emissions are cumulative in the atmosphere, over a centuries time frame, the important timeline is the emissions growth timeline that reflects upon cumulative emissions from continued... and increased...fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use changes. Depending on how you settle in at where "anticipated" rising temperatures will peak, the degree of climate change severity you attach to that temperature peak, and the amount of temperature rise per carbon tonnage amount released into the atmosphere... there is a cumulative emissions level that correlates to the "anticipated" peak temperature rise. Based on past emission trends... just the past, not increased trend rates... scientists have estimated the real salient timelines: dates to which respective carbon tonne emissions will enter the atmosphere and what accompanying emissions reduction rate would be required to avoid releasing that amount of emissions. Scientists have also played these trend rate and emission release estimates against an assortment of optimistic-to-cautious-to-pessimistic temperature peak, climate change severity and temperature rise per carbon tonnage amount released scenarios..... the scenario timelines all end within this century... assuming actual required emissions reductions occur!!! And your junkyard dog advocacy for the dirtiest unconventional source, the tarsands, one that reflects upon a continuing and enhanced multi-decades reliance on fossil-fuels, one with an accompanying increase in emissions level/rate... this helps your earlier established concern for reducing emissions... how?

I'm not arguing with you on that waldo. I know that CO2 emissions are cumulative.

No matter how quickly the tar sands expand, they'll never release even a fraction of the amount of C02 that Hansen warns before US/European/Chinese coal burning puts us well past whatever theoretical doomsday scenario Hansen is suggesting.

yours is the epitome of hypocrisy! You acknowledge CO₂ emissions are cumulative... of course, this is cumulative with an atmospheric retention period in the centuries time scale. So, your solution (for your fake concern) is to burn more!!!

fyi: until this year, U.S. coal usage had been on the decline over a several years trendline... principally, because of the 'fracking boom'. The only reason coal kicked back in again is because U.S. natural gas prices increased - market driven! Which begs the interesting question on why prices increased when a flood of natural gas exists! Clearly, the Obama admin needs to get behind the (proposed) EPA regulations targeted for existing coal plants - executive order, anyone? China has capped it's coal usage - yes, capped it! And over these last recent years, it has invested significantly in new more efficient coal plants, outright replacing older plants... notwithstanding it's pursuit of CCS technology research/deployment. The EU upward shift in coal use this last year is also market driven and deemed 'short-term'... when the U.S. 'switched' from coal to natural gas, it dumped coal on the EU market; the availability of relatively cheap US coal has been the primary driver for the recent spike in European coal-fired generation.

[Moonbox]

Your statements were from a single thread and what's sad is your now pathetic claim you're being taken "out of context"!

Waldo, the fact that you actually go through the effort of digging through 9 month old thread topics speaks volumes as to how desperately you need the ego boost associated with 'winning the thread'. You snipped a bunch of quotes from a 9 month old thread and did not provide any context to it. For most of them, there's nothing more than the quotation itself. There's no explanation of the thread topic, what I was responding to, or anything of the sorts. The best part about it is that nobody else (including myself) will have the inclination to sort any of it out, because it's a sad and pathetic waste of time. The safety of knowing your opponents have less time on their hands than you is likely the main reason this is one of your favorite tactics!

yours is the epitome of hypocrisy! You acknowledge CO₂ emissions are cumulative... of course, this is cumulative with an atmospheric retention period in the centuries time scale. So, your solution (for your fake concern) is to burn more!!!

Once again, I explained my position, and once again, you skipped over everything else I said and chose to troll instead. Dumb solutions are not solutions. I explained the circumstances in which it would make sense to stop tar sands development., but you're not interested in reasonable arguments.

China has capped it's coal usage - yes, capped it!

At 1/2 of the world's entire consumption. Good for them!!! Let's see how well they do meeting their 2015 goals.

it dumped coal on the EU market; the availability of relatively cheap US coal has been the primary driver for the recent spike in European coal-fired generation.

which the Europeans happily used, further illustrating their hypocrisy.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

the only desperation is yours. Your statements were from a single thread and what's sad is your now pathetic claim you're being taken "out of context"! Taken so out of context you won't touch the same question put to you twice... why avoid answering the following, hey? As I said, your expressed concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions... was a fake concern; i.e., concern-trolling!

Waldo, the fact that you actually go through the effort of digging through 9 month old thread topics speaks volumes as to how desperately you need the ego boost associated with 'winning the thread'. You snipped a bunch of quotes from a 9 month old thread and did not provide any context to it. For most of them, there's nothing more than the quotation itself. There's no explanation of the thread topic, what I was responding to, or anything of the sorts.

your words... verbatim! Stand up for what you wrote! And no - what really, as you say, 'speaks volumes', is your continued whiny, lame-xxxed attempt to dodge what you wrote. You can keep barking about "context" all you want... or keep deflecting, presuming to play up the (little) effort it actually took to find/present your past comments. Like I said, like your own words highlight, you quite forcefully and repeatedly expressed a concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions.

but really, c'mon... if you're so concerned about being taken out of context, simply state, without reservation, completely, emphatically and categorically: "I Moonbox, have no concerns about the current level of CO₂ emissions... and I believe we have no need to reduce CO₂ emissions!" Just say it!

.

The best part about it is that nobody else (including myself) will have the inclination to sort any of it out, because it's a sad and pathetic waste of time. The safety of knowing your opponents have less time on their hands than you is likely the main reason this is one of your favorite tactics!

other than becoming a grammar-nazi, or claiming others lack comprehension, one of your other favourite go-to's when your back is up, when you've been exposed and when you have no where to turn, is to beak-off about others spending time... "excessive time" on MLW. I laughed at the last time you did this earlier in the this thread, when our respective posts were simply a one-for-one exchange, each of us posting equally. I note I was just away for 3 days... and you kept up your presence/posting - cause, apparently, you have so much time on your hands!!!

.

I explained the circumstances in which it would make sense to stop tar sands development., but you're not interested in reasonable arguments.

you did??? Please, since you're so concerned about the time I spend... rather than me attempt to find where you claim to have, "explained the circumstances"... could you succinctly relate those circumstances, once again. Thanks in advance! Waiting, waiting, waiting......

... US/European/Chinese coal burning

fyi: until this year, U.S. coal usage had been on the decline over a several years trendline... principally, because of the 'fracking boom'. The only reason coal kicked back in again is because U.S. natural gas prices increased - market driven! Which begs the interesting question on why prices increased when a flood of natural gas exists! Clearly, the Obama admin needs to get behind the (proposed) EPA regulations targeted for existing coal plants - executive order, anyone? China has capped it's coal usage - yes, capped it! And over these last recent years, it has invested significantly in new more efficient coal plants, outright replacing older plants... notwithstanding it's pursuit of CCS technology research/deployment. The EU upward shift in coal use this last year is also market driven and deemed 'short-term'... when the U.S. 'switched' from coal to natural gas, it dumped coal on the EU market; the availability of relatively cheap US coal has been the primary driver for the recent spike in European coal-fired generation.

At 1/2 of the world's entire consumption. Good for them!!! Let's see how well they do meeting their 2015 goals.

which the Europeans happily used, further illustrating their hypocrisy.

perfect... You bit! Market forces at play, hey? Kind of like those market forces that will rise with expanding tarsands infrastructure and new/increased market penetration, for decades and decades to come... all fitting in quite nicely with your fake, trumped-up concern over the level of current emissions and your claimed need to reduce emissions!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I, bush_cheney2004, being of sound mind and body, have no concerns about the current level of CO₂ emissions... and I believe "we" (?) have no need to reduce CO₂ emissions. Further, I wish to publicly affirm that my combustion engine cylinder index is 29 if I include dirty two stroke chainsaws and snow blower.

[Sandy MacNab]

Waldo, the fact that you actually go through the effort of digging through 9 month old thread topics speaks volumes as to how desperately you need the ego boost associated with 'winning the thread'. You snipped a bunch of quotes from a 9 month old thread and did not provide any context to it. For most of them, there's nothing more than the quotation itself. There's no explanation of the thread topic, what I was responding to, or anything of the sorts. The best part about it is that nobody else (including myself) will have the inclination to sort any of it out, because it's a sad and pathetic waste of time. The safety of knowing your opponents have less time on their hands than you is likely the main reason this is one of your favorite tactics!

Once again, I explained my position, and once again, you skipped over everything else I said and chose to troll instead. Dumb solutions are not solutions. I explained the circumstances in which it would make sense to stop tar sands development., but you're not interested in reasonable arguments.

At 1/2 of the world's entire consumption. Good for them!!! Let's see how well they do meeting their 2015 goals.

which the Europeans happily used, further illustrating their hypocrisy.

Moonbox, debating with a religious fanatic is futile. You'd have the same difficulty trying to argue moderation with the Taliban. This CO2, tar sands thingy has taken over waldo's life and mind. He is lost.

[waldo]

I, bush_cheney2004, being of sound mind and body, have no concerns about the current level of CO₂ emissions... and I believe "we" (?) have no need to reduce CO₂ emissions. Further, I wish to publicly affirm that my combustion engine cylinder index is 29 if I include dirty two stroke chainsaws and snow blower.

hey now! Your position is clear... there's no need for you to offer an affirming declaration. The request was put to the other guy... the 'concern-trolling' guy with the fake, trumped up concern.

carry on!

[waldo]

Moonbox, debating with a religious fanatic is futile. You'd have the same difficulty trying to argue moderation with the Taliban. This CO2, tar sands thingy has taken over waldo's life and mind. He is lost.

oh good! Fresh meat!!! Nice touch with the Taliban reference. Do you think it helps your "position" to attempt to marginalize someone with labels like, 'religious fanatic'?

[bush_cheney2004]

hey now! Your position is clear... there's no need for you to offer an affirming declaration. The request was put to the other guy... the 'concern-trolling' guy with the fake, trumped up concern.

carry on!

Oh...sorry...I just wanted to cooperate with your narrative while "we" continue to emit CO2 to "our" hearts content and economic delight.

[waldo]

Oh...sorry...I just wanted to cooperate with your narrative while "we" continue to emit CO2 to "our" hearts content and economic delight.

your cooperation is unnecessary - your MLW posting history and denying position is well established; your wanton disregard for the impacts of global warming/climate change is fully recognized and completely acknowledged!

[bush_cheney2004]

your cooperation is unnecessary - your MLW posting history and denying position is well established; your wanton disregard for the impacts of global warming/climate change is fully recognized and completely acknowledged!

Now don't be that way after all we have been through...together. I was never a "denier", freely and enthusiastically embracing "global warming" from anthropogenic forcing and bovine flatulence. Why I even adopted a popular 90's tune by Donna Lewis to celebrate more CO₂:

I love CO₂ always forever

Near and far, emitting together

Everywhere I will be with you

Everything I will do... for more CO₂

[waldo]

I was never a "denier", freely and enthusiastically embracing "global warming" from anthropogenic forcing and bovine flatulence.

no - as before, your denial is of the principal causal link, impacts, consequences, severity, etc.. Somehow, you rationalize this with your claim that you "embrace global warming".

[bush_cheney2004]

no - as before, your denial is of the principal causal link, impacts, consequences, severity, etc.. Somehow, you rationalize this with your claim that you "embrace global warming".

Somebody here has to represent the overwhelming and collective inertia to continue the hydrocarbon economy as-is until a viable departure is motivated by economic common sense. When did you last fill your gas tank ?

Adapt....and enjoy !

[Keepitsimple]

Moonbox, debating with a religious fanatic is futile. You'd have the same difficulty trying to argue moderation with the Taliban. This CO2, tar sands thingy has taken over waldo's life and mind. He is lost.

He's a perfect example of enviro-extremism and why so very little has been done to practically and pragmatically address a steady and incremental move to cleaner fuels. Listening to the Waldos of the world just make people want to change the channel.

[waldo]

Somebody here has to represent the overwhelming and collective inertia to continue the hydrocarbon economy as-is until a viable departure is motivated by economic common sense. When did you last fill your gas tank ?

Adapt....and enjoy !

do you actually have anything pertinent... substantive... relevant - or are you simply padding your post count?

[waldo]

He's a perfect example of enviro-extremism and why so very little has been done to practically and pragmatically address a steady and incremental move to cleaner fuels. Listening to the Waldos of the world just make people want to change the channel.

more of your "enviro-extremism" labeling, hey Simple?

Perspective and context are lost with environmental extremism.

reality and balance are lost with fossil-fuel addiction! Simple, it's quite telling to read you declare a position calling for balanced, 'sustainable' development as "environmental extremism"!

[bush_cheney2004]

do you actually have anything pertinent... substantive... relevant - or are you simply padding your post count?

I already have....in very direct and indirect ways. Years have gone by and your alarmist team has not done very well. No Cap 'N Trade, no Kyoto follow-up, no nuthin'. People make choices every day, and they are still choosing...hydrocarbons !

Edited May 27, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

No Cap 'N Trade, no Kyoto follow-up, no nuthin'. People make choices every day, and they are still choosing...hydrocarbons !

since you mentioned it... and, again, I'm a proponent of 'fee & dividend' (not 'Cap 'N Trade'), apparently you haven't heard of the EU, Australian and California markets. But hold on to your hat, cause China's about to launch:

you've also highlighted your past misunderstandings concerning Kyoto... you never did come back with your mission to substantiate your 'Kyoto failure' claim - still waiting on that one. Clearly you choose to ignore/negate the EU, various non-EU European countries, Australia, etc., agreeing to extend Kyoto to 2020... or the 60 other world governments that have pledged/committed to non-binding agreements to reduce emissions. Equally, as much as you presume to ignore the assorted progressive steps happening within the iterative COP agreements, do you have any update on the preparatory steps/lead-up to the 2015 'binding commitments' agreement?

[bush_cheney2004]

... or the 60 other world governments that have pledged/committed to non-binding agreements to reduce emissions. Equally, as much as you presume to ignore the assorted progressive steps happening within the iterative COP agreements, do you have any update on the preparatory steps/lead-up to the 2015 'binding commitments' agreement?

Yes...."binding" or not, nothing substantive will come of such window dressing, just as before. The Kyoto Fail was particularly pronounced in Chretien's "dirty oil" Canada, and I can see why you seek redemption in the EU and China instead. I believe in thermodynamics and economics more than your brand of snake oil alarmism, which is being left behind anyway by the new "climate resilience" narrative.

Sorry, but the world has moved on.....

[Moonbox]

our words... verbatim! Stand up for what you wrote! And no - what really, as you say, 'speaks volumes', is your continued whiny, lame-xxxed attempt to dodge what you wrote.

So funny! I JUST said (on this page) that those quotations show how consistent my position has been since you and I started arguing. The fact that you brought them up without any context only shows how desperately you need the ego boost you'd get from making it appear like you've caught me contradicting myself.

but really, c'mon... if you're so concerned about being taken out of context, simply state, without reservation, completely, emphatically and categorically: "I Moonbox, have no concerns about the current level of CO2 emissions... and I believe we have no need to reduce CO2 emissions!" Just say it!

Now here's a pretty good example of how intellectually bankrupt your tactics are! You're implying that disagreeing with stupidly conceived and costly plans inherently doomed to fail means that I don't believe in global warming or that we should and could do reasonable things about it! Essentially, if I don't agree with you on how to tackle a problem, I don't agree with there being a problem at all? That's a pretty black and white way of looking at things! Maybe that's why people keep likening your rabid devotion to religion!

one of your other favourite go-to's when your back is up, when you've been exposed and when you have no where to turn, is to beak-off about others spending time... "excessive time" on MLW.

except you didn't expose anything, and this criticism is reserved exclusively for you! Nobody else on this board blasts a thread with walls of quotations and re-quotations cross-posted from other old and dead threads! That's only you!

I note I was just away for 3 days... and you kept up your presence/posting - cause, apparently, you have so much time on your hands!!!

Was I posting here in this thread while you were away? Nope! As for time spent, despite joining this forum before you, I barely post 1/3 as much as you!

you did??? Please, since you're so concerned about the time I spend... rather than me attempt to find where you claim to have, "explained the circumstances"... could you succinctly relate those circumstances, once again. Thanks in advance! Waiting, waiting, waiting......

lol no, I actually didn't. My apologies. The circumstances in which I'd support an end to tar sands development would have to pass the same tests I'd put on any other initiative, namely, a practical, realistic solution that will work, and not a stupid one that will just force/allow dirty energy expansion elsewhere. If the rest of the world were to end development of similarly dirty fuel (ie other dirty and heavy oils and things like shale gas and coal), I'd be all for it. If that's not going to happen, I'd rather the money be kept here than go to Chavez's dirty oil or Australian coal miners.

perfect... You bit! Market forces at play, hey? Kind of like those market forces that will rise with expanding tarsands infrastructure and new/increased market penetration, for decades and decades to come... all fitting in quite nicely with your fake, trumped-up concern over the level of current emissions and your claimed need to reduce emissions!

Oh good! We're back on topic! Now, unless you want to go dig up more year-old quotes from me, maybe we could go over current tarsands production, proposed tarsands production, and the amount of 'market force' required to expand them to levels where they'd make even a noticeable impact on world CO2 emissions. C'mon waldo! Let's go over some numbers! Let's look at world oil production, world oil supply, projections of demand in 2020, 2030, 2050 and what sort of tarsands expansion we're going to need.

As we've already seen, you don't have a clue about market forces (although you feel pretty smart using the terminology). As for timeline, there has to be one. You can't term the oil sands depletion out over 200 years, because if we're still burning fossil fuels by then we're screwed either way by your buddy Hansen's projections!

oh good! Fresh meat!!! Nice touch with the Taliban reference. Do you think it helps your "position" to attempt to marginalize someone with labels like, 'religious fanatic'?

You bring it on yourself! Too funny! Maybe it has something to do with how dogged your devotion to the topic has been, or the fact that you lash out at anyone who voices any sort of question/disagreement with you?!? I certainly see some parallels!

[waldo]

since you mentioned it... and, again, I'm a proponent of 'fee & dividend' (not 'Cap 'N Trade'), apparently you haven't heard of the EU, Australian and California markets. But hold on to your hat, cause China's about to launch:

you've also highlighted your past misunderstandings concerning Kyoto... you never did come back with your mission to substantiate your 'Kyoto failure' claim - still waiting on that one. Clearly you choose to ignore/negate the EU, various non-EU European countries, Australia, etc., agreeing to extend Kyoto to 2020... or the 60 other world governments that have pledged/committed to non-binding agreements to reduce emissions. Equally, as much as you presume to ignore the assorted progressive steps happening within the iterative COP agreements, do you have any update on the preparatory steps/lead-up to the 2015 'binding commitments' agreement?

Yes...."binding" or not, nothing substantive will come of such window dressing, just as before. The Kyoto Fail was particularly pronounced in Chretien's "dirty oil" Canada, and I can see why you seek redemption in the EU and China instead.

so you agree you know nothing about what trading markets actually exist. As before, you can't put up anything that speaks to Kyoto being a failure in terms of reducing emissions... your only (continued) play is to keep yammering about Harper Conservatives pulling out of Kyoto (to avoid paying a penalty for doing nothing to meet Canada's commitment). But, please, keep this up... I'm always glad to have you/anyone point out the failings of Harper Conservatives! Of course, each time you do this, I remind you that you have no standing to presume to challenge anyone/any country about failing to meet Kyoto commitments... again, your (claimed) country, as the world's largest cumulative emissions hog, signed the Kyoto agreement and then proceeded to subsequently walk away from it! Kind of like your (claimed) country does with a lot of international agreements.

.

I believe in thermodynamics and economics more than your brand of snake oil alarmism, which is being left behind anyway by the new "climate resilience" narrative.

ya, ya... you showed just how much you know with your comment in the recent climate sensitivity thread. If you'd like, press the point - I'm more than willing to school you on what actually will influence the eventual warming realized. Go for it!

.

Sorry, but the world has moved on.....

yes, yes the world has moved on beyond the minority position of dismissives... like you... and your (claimed) country's denial machine. Please come back with something that showcases just how much your (claimed) country is actually doing to reduce emissions - I treasure your showcased hypocrisy!

.

[waldo]

your words... verbatim! Stand up for what you wrote! And no - what really, as you say, 'speaks volumes', is your continued whiny, lame-xxxed attempt to dodge what you wrote. You can keep barking about "context" all you want... or keep deflecting, presuming to play up the (little) effort it actually took to find/present your past comments. Like I said, like your own words highlight, you quite forcefully and repeatedly expressed a concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions.

So funny! I JUST said (on this page) that those quotations show how consistent my position has been since you and I started arguing. The fact that you brought them up without any context only shows how desperately you need the ego boost you'd get from making it appear like you've caught me contradicting myself.

oh yes! Clearly, your inconsistent (fake, concern-trolling) position is consistent. You forcefully and repeatedly played up your concern for the current level of emissions... and that, given dire climate expectations/consequences, the world really, really, really needs to reduce emissions! Except..... when it comes to your lobbying for the unencumbered, unfettered, no-holds barred, massive supporting infrastructure buildup and expansion of the tarsands in order to feed, and accelerate, the world's continuing reliance on fossil-fuels, for decades and decades to come! Except that consistent inconsistency of yours... except that one!

.

[waldo]

but really, c'mon... if you're so concerned about being taken out of context, simply state, without reservation, completely, emphatically and categorically: "I Moonbox, have no concerns about the current level of CO₂ emissions... and I believe we have no need to reduce CO₂ emissions!" Just say it!

Now here's a pretty good example of how intellectually bankrupt your tactics are! You're implying that disagreeing with stupidly conceived and costly plans inherently doomed to fail means that I don't believe in global warming or that we should and could do reasonable things about it! Essentially, if I don't agree with you on how to tackle a problem, I don't agree with there being a problem at all? That's a pretty black and white way of looking at things! Maybe that's why people keep likening your rabid devotion to religion!

no - my only implications are towards your inconsistent tarsands position. I have no difficulty, no qualms, in highlighting your prior words that completely contradict and showcase your hypocrisy. As for your, "tackling a problem", you continue to dodge the repeated question put to you: how does your, "lobbying for the unencumbered, unfettered, no-holds barred, massive supporting infrastructure buildup and expansion of the tarsands in order to feed, and accelerate, the world's continuing reliance on fossil-fuels, for decades and decades to come!"... how does that, as you say, "tackle a problem"? Just answer the question - quit dodging it, hey!

and, alternatively, as before... if you're so concerned about being taken out of context, simply state, without reservation, completely, emphatically and categorically: "I Moonbox, have no concerns about the current level of CO2 emissions... and I believe we have no need to reduce CO2 emissions!" Just say it!

.