Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[waldo]

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!!!

except you didn't expose anything, and this criticism is reserved exclusively for you!

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!

no - your inconsistency, your contradictions, your hypocrisy has been exposed, whether you'll admit it, or not. I revel in each and every time you pull out this, your latest deflecting go-to, where you whine about others spending more time on MLW than you! Says you: "Oh me, oh my, if only the waldo wasn't so detailed and comprehensive... he wouldn't catch me with my pants down all the time!"

.

[waldo]

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......

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.

so... your bold-highlighted reasonable argument was missing hey? It's refreshing to have you acknowledge one of your Alzheimer moments! And, of course, to reinforce your inconsistency, contradictions and hypocrisy... that you don't care about emissions at all, you don't care about reinforcing the world's decade-upon-decade reliance on fossil-fuels ... to you, as you admit, It's all about, "keeping the money here"! (note to Moonbox: Chavez is, uhhh... dead now).

.

[waldo]

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! 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!

no - we've been on topic... reinforcing the inconsistent, contradicting and hypocritical position of yours that you prefer not be highlighted. And, again, no... your depletion timeline isn't the salient one; certainly not, if as you claimed, you accept that emissions are cumulative (over a multi-centuries timeline). What we can be assured of is that your favoured type of tarsands development will ensure that the fossil-fuel reliance (and accompanying emissions accelerated growth) continues well into the timeframe of your 'pie-in-the sky' alternative "fusion saviour"!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

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!

.

We've already had this dance....Canada ratified Kyoto and then proceeded to do zilch about it, while the U.S. actually slowed emissions growth far better. My "denial machine" seemingly provides your clunky narrative with copious amounts of "climate change" research and data. I have to remind myself that you think NASA, Goddard, and many other U.S. institutions are really "Canadian" because you get them via Google Canada.

I guess 2015 will be a big year.....maybe that pipeline to the U.S. will be approved by then too!

[cybercoma]

The US just moved their emissions to China.

[TimG]

The US just moved their emissions to China.

Which proves why Kyoto-style agreements which exclude developing countries are a complete waste of time.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US just moved their emissions to China.

Welcome back....I guess that explains why Canada desperately wants the Keystone pipeline to the U.S. approved.

[jbg]

Who cares? He's one more tree-hugger who thinks you can power cars with self-righteousness alone.

I still remember his hilarious and fraudulent "greenhouse effect" testimony during the summer of 1988, where he touted a La Niña-driven heat wave as proof of man-made global warming. I thought it was funny then.

A lot of resources have been poured down the drain in large part because of charlatans and fraudsters such as Mssrs. Hansen and Gore.

[Sandy MacNab]

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'?

Your zeal and behaviour are more than enough evidence. You've marginalized yourself. As to my "position", I was a common-sense environmentalist long before you threw out God and substituted Gore and Suzuki.

[Sandy MacNab]

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.

The way waldo behaves, I'm sure his underwear also needs changing.

[Sandy MacNab]

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

Sorry, it is only extremists like you who don't listen or think and try to bury your opponents under mountains of BS.

[waldo]

We've already had this dance....Canada ratified Kyoto and then proceeded to do zilch about it, while the U.S. actually slowed emissions growth far better. My "denial machine" seemingly provides your clunky narrative with copious amounts of "climate change" research and data. I have to remind myself that you think NASA, Goddard, and many other U.S. institutions are really "Canadian" because you get them via Google Canada.

I guess 2015 will be a big year.....maybe that pipeline to the U.S. will be approved by then too!

no - you've tried your same dance, several times now. You've already failed with your diminishing emissions growth rate claim. As before, I relish your highlighting the disgraceful pullout of Kyoto by Harper Conservatives... done simply to save the cost of an imposed monetary penalty for failing to meet Canada's Kyoto commitment. And again, you/and your (claimed) country have no standing to challenge any country on Kyoto given the refusal to ratify the treaty after signing it! But this is so old news - can't you ever come up within anything but your recycled crap?

speaking of recycled crap, your ultra-sensitivity and low-confidence levels must have peaked for you to require another 'ego-stroke' to your (claimed) American citizenry.

.

[waldo]

I still remember his hilarious and fraudulent "greenhouse effect" testimony during the summer of 1988, where he touted a La Niña-driven heat wave as proof of man-made global warming. I thought it was funny then.

A lot of resources have been poured down the drain in large part because of charlatans and fraudsters such as Mssrs. Hansen and Gore.

yes, another of your 1988 Hansen U.S. Congressional testimony references... I just threw out a MLW search; you've had quite a few. You've gone from stating Hansen perjured himself, to labeling his testimony as "crap"... and now... you double-down with a fraudulent labeling. Given you claim to be a lawyer, one would think you actually know what perjury/fraud entail. I note from the search you were repeatedly challenged to back-up your "crap assessment"... of course, as is your way, you never did so.

to back-up your claims of perjury/fraud/"crap", perhaps you could resurrect the related MLW thread that speaks more directly to Hansen's 1988 U.S. Congressional testimony.

given you've outright declared 'global warming' a hoax, does your being on the 'fringe of the fringe', offer credence to your charlatan/fraudster labeling?

[waldo]

The US just moved their emissions to China.

yes... yes, it did: Developed countries outsource emissions

[waldo]

Sorry, it is only extremists like you who don't listen or think and try to bury your opponents under mountains of BS.

regardless of what thread you post in, you've shown nothing more than you're an aficionado of the drive-by insult. Why not stick around and actually add something of substance.

[waldo]

As to my "position", I was a common-sense environmentalist long before you threw out God and substituted Gore and Suzuki.

what's a common-sense environmentalist... particularly a 'Godly' one?

[carepov]

what's a common-sense environmentalist...?

Here is one that I respect:

http://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827

[bush_cheney2004]

no - you've tried your same dance, several times now. You've already failed with your diminishing emissions growth rate claim. As before, I relish your highlighting the disgraceful pullout of Kyoto by Harper Conservatives...

........you/and your (claimed) country have no standing to challenge any country on Kyoto given the refusal to ratify the treaty

Your denials cannot erase Canada's massive Kyoto FAIL under Chretien/Martin, something that PM Harper finally put out of its obvious misery. Ratifying the treaty and actually doing less than the "denier" Americans for emissions growth gets you zero points.

But please continue to reference the research and data from my "denier" country. We invented the internet and Google just for you.

[Moonbox]

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!

There you go again using big-boy market terminology you read on your internet blogs, but now you've added redundant adjectives for dramatic effect! The unfettered, massive supporting infrastructure is now unencumbered and no-holds barred too! Unfortunately for you, expanding your list of adjectives doesn't make up for the fact that you keep refusing to quantify what you're talking about!

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"?

Shutting them down doesn't meaningfully tackle the problem. Let's go over those numbers again, hey? Maybe we could take a look at how much the tarsands have to expand before they become even noticeable part of the debate? Wait...no...You refuse to go over those numbers with me.

If you step outside of the fantasy world you live in, you'd remember that climate change action has costs. Shutting the tar sands down does nothing but force the expansion of dirty oil projects outside of Canada (market forces), and keeps a lot of money out of the country, with negligible impact on emissions.

As for what you call my contradictory statements, I explain again that I'm not going to support dumb and ineffective ideas. This does not mean that I don't support better ideas to tackle climate change, only that I reject bad ones. Juvenile schoolyard logic and a dogmatic "agree with everything I say or I'll get my panties twisted" approach to the debate are the only reason you have trouble understanding this. A wide spectrum of opinion both on the existence and the need to combat climate change exists, ranging from frothing zealotry to complete ignorance (or apathy). The fact that you seem to view anything short of frothing zealotry as contradictory or "concern-trolling" is hilarious, but unsurprising.

Interestingly, you don't seem to have any interest in discussing what I DO think we should do about climate change. This, of course, would sorely test your claims that I'm just a cunning concern-troll trying to derail intelligent change, so I'm not surprised! It's harder to get the ego boost you chase when you're lashing out at your opponents if they're actually being reasonable! Quick! Someone find waldo a climate-change denier! Arguing with someone who has more moderate and rational views of the situation is way outside his expertise!

"Oh me, oh my, if only the waldo wasn't so detailed and comprehensive... he wouldn't catch me with my pants down all the time!"

There it is! That's the ego seeking behaviour I was talking about! Thanks for giving us a good sample! We're all really glad you see yourself that way, but I think the rest of us would describe you differently! Petty and spiteful are good starts!

And, again, no... your depletion timeline isn't the salient one; certainly not, if as you claimed, you accept that emissions are cumulative (over a multi-centuries timeline).

Saying that a timeline isn't salient, frankly, is moronic, and we couldn't get a better example of a dodge. Our argument stemmed from Hansen's claim that the tar sands development means 'game over' for the environment, and he cited how much C02 would be released from it (120 ppm) to support of that claim. My position was that this was a grossly exaggerated and misleading statement meant to paint the picture in as scary a way as possible, and that those sorts of emissions are pretty much impossible anytime over the foreseeable future. You argued that he's talking about 'unfettered and unencumbered no-holds barred massive expansion to market supporting infrastructure" (hilarious and juvenile rhetoric by the way - nice job), and I've simply asked you to qualify and quantify what that means. Tell us what sort of expansion is required before the tar sand emissions even become a noticeable component of world totals, and while you're at it try and show us that Hansen's public credibility can't be challenged in light of his 120 ppm claims.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Moonbox

[jbg]

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

Most people have more important things on their mind than their "post count." Even the number of Facebook friends is slightly more meaningful, especially for people who sit behind a computer all day and have no real friends.

to back-up your claims of perjury/fraud/"crap", perhaps you could resurrect the related MLW thread that speaks more directly to Hansen's 1988 U.S. Congressional testimony.

Why don't you do the resurrecting? I have better things to do with my spare time.

This is your life, and my recreation.

Edited May 28, 2013 by jbg

[jbg]

Duplicate post

Edited May 28, 2013 by jbg

[jbg]

Here is one that I respect:

http://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827

Here's another one (link),

Al Gore was scheduled to debate this author and backed out when he found out that the author actually knew something.

Edited May 28, 2013 by jbg

[waldo]

Here is one that I respect:

http://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827

why so?

[waldo]

Your denials cannot erase Canada's massive Kyoto FAIL under Chretien/Martin, something that PM Harper finally put out of its obvious misery. Ratifying the treaty and actually doing less than the "denier" Americans for emissions growth gets you zero points.

no - I've already detailed (for you) the monumental effort taken by Liberals to actually get the treaty ratified... that took years of working with provinces and the business world. You know... ratify... the thing your (claimed) country failed to do after signing/committing to the treaty. The Liberals also enacted an action plan with a $half-billion commitment intended to reduce GHG's... along with a formal climate change plan with target reduction measures/commitments. The Liberals also pledged an additional $1 billion for its climate change plan - while offering business/industry/consumers incentives. The Liberals also provided an ongoing series of promotional campaigns aimed to bring awareness of climate change and GHGs' as well as what individual Canadians can do to reduce energy use/emissions. The Liberals also enacted an emissions standard agreement with Canadian automakers. The Liberals also brought forward the formal Kyoto implementation plan with $10 billion pledges, target commitments and industry reduction requirements. Of course, we can't ignore the Opposition Conservative party efforts to counter Liberal Kyoto related actions/intent during the minority governing period.

so ya, the Liberals did a fair amount before the anti-Kyoto Harper came on in 2006. Of course, this simply showcases your continuing display of ignorance relative to anything to do with climate change. Well done, keep it up!

as for your continued claim of 'doing less', what were the rates again?

But please continue to reference the research and data from my "denier" country. We invented the internet and Google just for you.

I've challenged you in the past to produce a quote where I've labeled your (claimed) country, a "denier country". Once again... put up the quote or STFU.

[waldo]

There you go again using big-boy market terminology you read on your internet blogs

your repeat pattern of belittlement - go with your strengths!

Shutting them down doesn't meaningfully tackle the problem.

how (deliberately) obtuse are you? Who believes the tarsands will be "shut down"? How alarmist of you!

Shutting the tar sands down does nothing but force the expansion of dirty oil projects outside of Canada (market forces), and keeps a lot of money out of the country, with negligible impact on emissions.

no - what massive tarsands expansion does is keep the world on a continuing many decades upon decades reliance on fossil-fuels. It significantly de-incentivizes countries from considering or expanding on their alternative energy strategies.But yes, again, thanks for highlighting your principal money concern.