Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[waldo]

The fact that you seem to view anything short of frothing zealotry as contradictory or "concern-trolling" is hilarious, but unsurprising.

hyperbole much! I realize you take exception to having your "concern-trolling" highlighted. Ya, ya... you're all about a concern over the current level of emissions and the need to reduce emissions - except when it comes to the tarsands! Go figure.

Arguing with someone who has more moderate and rational views of the situation is wayoutside his expertise!

how modest of you to declare your views as "moderate and rational"! But hey now, if you feel the need for an ego boost, by all means, start up a thread on, as you say, "what I DO think we should do about climate change". Does it go beyond your already expressed pie-in-the sky fusion solution?

.

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.

no - you simply choose to purposely twist what Hansen really said. The statement was a reference to the current ppm levels and that in the context of shifting to tarsands (and tar shale) the world would have no hope in keeping carbon concentrations below 500 ppm. Given that you've finally acknowledged my point on emissions being cumulative in the atmosphere (in a centuries time-frame), Hansen simply spoke a fact... one that is centered on the total emissions growth, from whatever sources. Your so-called, self-proclaimed rational thought has extreme difficulty with facts... that, again, a world significant shifting to unconventional "dirty" fuels does not enable or promote or incentivize the development of non-fossil fuel based alternatives. Ya think, Mr. Rational!

[waldo]

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

This is your life, and my recreation.

no problem - I will gladly note that, once again, you refuse to back-up/substantiate your claims that in regards to Hansen's 1988 U.S. Congressional testimony, as you say, "Hansen commmitted perjury and fraud". You're a (claimed) lawyer, right? Additionally, you refuse to back-up/substantiate your claim that Hansen's testimony was, as you say, "crap".

[GostHacked]

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.

This is what happens when you put a monetary value to it all. Does nothing to solve the problem.

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.

.

So, when are you NOT condescending?

[waldo]

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.

you seem forever fixated on Gore! Your hyping Lomborg, a guy who accepts AGW, is quite the switch for you, the guy who declared global warming a hoax... or have you subsequently updated your "position"?

as a poly-sci guy, Lomborg knows a few things - principally how to project a do-nothing/delay at all costs approach to AGW/CC... in spite of declaring that he accepts AGW. Lomborg has challenged many people to a formal debate... as he did Gore - that doesn't mean Gore (or anyone) has to accept the challenge. Typically, in a debate setting, guys like Lomborg resort to the standard 'gish-gallop' routine of debate style... which of course, by design, becomes a most one-sided debate even in a formal setting with a good debate moderator. For what it's worth, the setting you describe was to have been a one-on-one interview between Gore and a newspaper journalist... at the last minute, the journalist sprung the idea of including Lomborg as a part of the interview. It wasn't what Gore agreed to originally, no matter how hard your Gore-fixation tries to spin it!

[waldo]

So, when are you NOT condescending?

isn't it about time you flog another "just grow trees" solution? How's that? Was that NOT condescending enough for you?

Edited May 28, 2013 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

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

....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.

The reductions in emissions growth (rates) are well documented....Canada failed to do as well as the non-ratifying U.S. "denier nation"...a colossal KYOTO FAIL. Your continued references and reliance on my "denier nation" research investment (far more than Kyoto ratifying Canada BTW) and data domain just adds more slapstick to your laughable position(s). Spooning with former American Vice president Al Gore is your business, but it doesn't help your cause at all at this point in The Game.

[GostHacked]

isn't it about time you flog another "just grow trees" solution? How's that? Was that NOT condescending enough for you?

A practical solution that we can easily do NOW without having to wait for money or CO2 reducing technologies. You would seem to rather do nothing than to do at least something small. The Kyoto Accord is a failure as are other carbon trading markets. If you have the money you can continue to pollute. It's as simple as that. And all your whining about ERMAGERRRRRRDDD CERRR'ERRR'TERRRR, does NOTHING to address the situation while offering NOTHING in the way of solutions.

All I hear from you is the problem, not the solution.

Yes this is typical Waldo (fancy trademark logo for uber condescending purposes) condescending behavior.

I'll bow out of this thread again.

[Moonbox]

your repeat pattern of belittlement - go with your strengths!

Pot - meet kettle! The lack of perspective you're showing here is literally mind blowing!

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

Nice job avoiding the point! Shut down the tarsands, slow down development -- take your pick of wording! None of it will have even a noticeable impact of worldwide C02 emissions, and I'm still waiting on you to engage me on those numbers! Keep dodging waldo!

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.

Except the massive expansion you speak of is a relative drop in the bucket (once again feel free to quantify otherwise), and there is more than enough viable oil elsewhere in the world to fuel the long-term reliance you speak of anyways. A halt to tar sands expansion would, at best, cause a temporary and negligible increase in prices, whether it happens now or later. The oil market is demand-driven, not supply driven. Large shocks to prices unfortunately don't change consumption the way they would in other markets. With or without Alberta tar sand oil, there's enough viable goop in the ground to carry us FAR beyond Hansen's apocalyptic climate projections.

no - you simply choose to purposely twist what Hansen really said. The statement was a reference to the current ppm levels and that in the context of shifting to tarsands (and tar shale) the world would have no hope in keeping carbon concentrations below 500 ppm.

I didn't purposely twist anything Hansen said. He gave us as many alarming figures as he could without giving us any idea how miniscule potential exploitation of the tar sands would be in comparison to them. He wrote an article specifically about the Canadian tar sands explaining that fully exploiting it would wipe out 20-50% of the world's species and then goes on to explain the academically potential 120 ppm that would be released. Sure, you and he can worm around being called out on the obvious and gross exaggerations, but Hansen was trying to alarm people, not give them a realistic idea of the impact of tar sands. I can see why you like him so much! You both have a flair for the dramatic!

[waldo]

The reductions in emissions growth (rates) are well documented....Canada failed to do as well as the non-ratifying U.S. "denier nation"...a colossal KYOTO FAIL.

excellent! I trust my schooling you on just what the Chretien/Martin Liberals did... in the lead-up to ratification and formal UNFCCC force deployment,... won't see you attempt to make that false distinction again! You seem to be on quite the roll with your continuing repeat FAIL pattern! So, let's have another:

clearly, from the last dance you attempted to start your rate comparison with your presumption on per-capita rates. In a recall search I've just done, I note you offered your failed wiki-wonder, one that I summarily dispatched with the following waldo gem, clearly showing your big-time fail:

I note I also took your emissions rate chortling down a notch by dropping this other waldo gem... one highlighting the minimal 1990-2010 % emissions rate increase (as a % of U.S. emissions) that Canada had relative to the U.S. - a whopping full percentage point rate increase relative to the 'Great Satin's' mighty emissions belch over that period! Of course, as I said, I dovetailed that with a graph showing the ever-increasing and record U.S. imports of Canadian Crude Oil & Petroleum Products. Yup, just look at that emissions hit that Canada takes to satisfy your (claimed) country's thirst!

and... let's not forget the following lil' ditty (from this study) which showcases the U.S. outsourcing a whopping 11% of it's total (consumption based) emissions to developing nations... it's quite easy for you to presume to 'puff-up' over a so-called rate decrease when the U.S. has developing countries... and Canada... taking the emissions hit for the U.S.!

now, as for your actual claim concerning "emissions growth rate reduction", I can't seem to find what your reference was. It should be easy for you to mention/reference again, right? In any case, I'm waiting with baited breath as I wonder, in relation to your Kyoto-Fail bleating, just what year(s) are you referencing to compare... cause... like, uhhh, you do know what year Canada actually ratified the treaty, right? And you do know what year the treaty actually went into formal 'force effect', right? I trust your so-called Kyoto-Fail claim would certainly accommodate those milestones, hey? Speaking of, I'm kind of partial to the following graphic that hits a few years following those actual milestones... hey now, Canada emissions rate decline @ 9.6%... U.S. emissions rate decline @ 7%!

you're welcome! (note: I have more... if you'd like).

Your continued references and reliance on my "denier nation" research investment (far more than Kyoto ratifying Canada BTW) and data domain just adds more slapstick to your laughable position(s). Spooning with former American Vice president Al Gore is your business, but it doesn't help your cause at all at this point in The Game.

I'll keep highlighting your incessant trolling self... put up the quote where I labeled the U.S. "a denier nation". I keep asking you to do so..... you fail to ever produce it... and, of course, you keep claiming/implying I said such a thing. Troll on, troll on, troll on.....

.

[waldo]

A practical solution that we can easily do NOW without having to wait for money or CO2 reducing technologies. You would seem to rather do nothing than to do at least something small.

no - your incessant 'planting trees' solution is not practical... it's anything but. I've gone to the trouble of putting together several detailed posts, with study reference/citations, showing you the folly of your claimed solution. You simply choose to ignore the science that clearly shows the limitations and constraints of your continued nonsense. Notwithstanding that, your claimed practical solution... even in the limited geographical regions where planting trees actually would help the source/sink ratio, you just think countries would line-up and agree to the wholesale re-use of land and related population shift requirements... that it would just somehow "magically happen". You clearly have a unique definition of "practical"!

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'll keep highlighting your incessant trolling self... put up the quote where I labeled the U.S. "a denier nation". I keep asking you to do so..... you fail to ever produce it... and, of course, you keep claiming/implying I said such a thing. Troll on, troll on, troll on.....

Don't take your anger out on me or my country for Canada's Kyoto FAIL. Maybe you shouldn't write checks cheques you can't cash. In a way I feel sorry for such alarmists, investing so much naive hope in a flawed treaty and impotent political leadership. Such promise and hope at the beginning of the last decade, only to be repeatedly undermined by domestic and international FAILURES on so many fronts. Happily, Kyoto was allowed to die on its own, along with such shrill alarmist ideology.

My "denier nation" will continue to invest far more into "climate change" research than Canada...it has always been thus.

[waldo]

Don't take your anger out on me or my country for Canada's Kyoto FAIL. Maybe you shouldn't write checks cheques you can't cash. In a way I feel sorry for such alarmists, investing so much naive hope in a flawed treaty and impotent political leadership. Such promise and hope at the beginning of the last decade, only to be repeatedly undermined by domestic and international FAILURES on so many fronts. Happily, Kyoto was allowed to die on its own, along with such shrill alarmist ideology.

My "denier nation" will continue to invest far more into "climate change" research than Canada...it has always been thus.

what? You have no emissions decline rate reference to offer? Are you enjoying your personal FAIL burns?

Like I'll keep saying, you/your (claimed) country have no standing in regards to Kyoto... you sign/commit to the treaty and then you walk away... typical U.S. action seen many times over with international agreements. I'll also keep highlighting you have yet to provide the substantiation that Kyoto was a fail in terms of emissions reduction. I'll keep issuing that challenge and I'll also keep highlighting you fail to provide your substantiation each and every time you start up another of your trolling Kyoto-Fail missives! Also, as you've been asked before (several times)... have you any updates on Kyoto II and the countries that have pledged their target reductions as a part of it?

keep on referencing the phrase "denier nation"... that I never said. And I'll challenge you again to produce the quote... or continue to be the good lil' trolling wonder that you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I'll keep saying, you/your (claimed) country have no standing in regards to Kyoto... you sign/commit to the treaty and then you walk away... typical U.S. action seen many times over with international agreements.

The United States never ratified Kyoto....Canada did and with much fanfare, only to FAIL miserably and when faced with real penalties, abandoned the treaty. Even more laughable, the U.S. slowed growth in CO2 emissions better than Canada, even though it never ratified the treaty.

Canada is (was) nowhere close to meeting that commitment. In 2009, Canada's emissions were 17 per cent or 100 megatonnes above its 1990 total of 590 megatonnes. Fossil fuel extraction and production, as well as the transportation industry, were responsible for 42 per cent and 45 per cent of that growth respectively.

When mitigating factors such as land use and forestry are not taken into account, Canada's emissions grew by 24.1 per cent from 1990 to 2008.

This puts Canadian emission growth first among G8 countries and sixth overall among the OECD members and "economies in transition" (mostly in Eastern Europe) that signed Kyoto.

By contrast, U.S. emissions grew just 13.3 per cent during the same period and those of the European Union fell 11.3 per cent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/19/environment-greenhouse-gas-canada.html

Edited May 29, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I didn't purposely twist anything Hansen said. He gave us as many alarming figures as he could without giving us any idea how miniscule potential exploitation of the tar sands would be in comparison to them. He wrote an article specifically about the Canadian tar sands explaining that fully exploiting it would wipe out 20-50% of the world's species and then goes on to explain the academically potential 120 ppm that would be released. Sure, you and he can worm around being called out on the obvious and gross exaggerations, but Hansen was trying to alarm people, not give them a realistic idea of the impact of tar sands. I can see why you like him so much! You both have a flair for the dramatic!

no - that's exactly what you did. For nothing more than your self-serving purpose, you've deliberately twisted Hansen's words to imply something he never said. I keep repeating the same thing... you simply refuse to accept it. Once more with vinegar: in the article you're forever beating on, Hansen clearly offered a distinction between long-term and short-term effects/consequences of continued warming. Again, he pointedly refused to put any timeline around tarsands depletion. Hansen's exact words:

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

we've just hit 400 ppm. The rate of per-decade acceleration is increasing, decade upon decade. This most recent decades rate increase of 2.07 ppm/year is twice that of what occurred in the 1960's. For the longest time 350 ppm has been referenced as what would have been the target level to attempt to stablize the climate... that's long past now. Hansen's reference to 500 is clearly within relative sight given projections of 2.5-to-3.5 ppm/year in the upcoming decade(s). And it should be quite obvious, even to you, that 500 ppm (Hansen's reference) is within the timeframe of the most immediate next 3-4 decades of tarsands extraction. Perhaps you can easily dispatch 500 ppm; however, the consequences of so doing are dire... regardless of your throwing around the 'alarmist tag'.

Hansen simply states, in direct relation to the 500 ppm level, "If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control." As I've repeatedly stated, expanding the tarsands and opening up new and increased markets, de-incentivizes countries from investing in alternate energy pursuits... it aligns with your repeated personal money focus and does absolutely nothing to help reduce world emissions use/accelerating growth. You know, emissions use and the need to reduce them... what you raised your fake/false concerns over!

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hansen simply states, in direct relation to the 500 ppm level, "If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control."

WTF ? So humans are "in control now", but not before, and not after ? Do we have that right ? Please get the narrative straight so we can be sure what we are laughing at.

[Moonbox]

Hansen clearly offered a distinction between long-term and short-term effects/consequences of continued warming.

Yeah, he offered a clear distinction between long and short-term warming, not the actual impact of the tar sands along any time frame. His words, not mine, were, "If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate." He immediately follows up with "Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history." The first statement was a giant exaggeration considering how little impact Canadian oil has now and will have anywhere in the near or long term future. The second statement was a scare tactic. Hansen gave numbers that, like I said before, were academically irrelevant, but dramatic and poorly explained for his audience. It's akin to saying "Don't eat apple cores because the seeds have cyanide in them." without explaining that you'd need to pull the seeds out of 20+ apples and crush them before eating them to hurt yourself.

Again, he pointedly refused to put any timeline around tarsands depletion.

No, he didn't. He simply avoided the topic, much like you do, and much like he danced around the interview question of whether or not he exaggerated the impact of the tar sands, giving the audience the scaaary slippery-slope metaphor of "ifyou open the spigot."

As I've repeatedly stated, expanding the tarsands and opening up new and increased markets, de-incentivizes countries from investing in alternate energy pursuits... it aligns with your repeated personal money focus and does absolutely nothing to help reduce world emissions use/accelerating growth. You know, emissions use and the need to reduce them... what you raised your fake/false concerns over!

As I've repeatedly stated, the tar-sands are a small piece of the puzzle, and singling them out as a target for restrictions will not have any effect because there are lots of viable alternatives. Your assertion that complicating tar sands development will have even a noticeable impact on oil prices, now or in the future, is not based on reality, and even if it did, we have plenty of history to show us that increasing prices doesn't decrease demand the way you're proposing it would! This is a market controlled by suppliers, who gauge demand and price accordingly.

As for alternate energy, there are none for transport, and none coming any time soon. There are very good alternatives to fossil fuel burning for electricity, however, and that's where we should be looking for emissions reductions. Instead, however, brilliant EU environmentalists are shutting down their nuclear stations and doing smart stuff like importing wood-chips from the US to burn in their power stations!

[waldo]

The United States never ratified Kyoto....Canada did and with much fanfare, only to FAIL miserably and when faced with real penalties, abandoned the treaty. Even more laughable, the U.S. slowed growth in CO2 emissions better than Canada, even though it never ratified the treaty.

nice touch with the Sierra Club graphic! I note you still haven't provided any reference to your claim, relative to Kyoto, of reduced reductions. Is there a problem?

as I anticipated, you lamely come forward with something dated from 1990!!! I even gave you a heads-up concerning Canadian/Kyoto milestone dates... although I held back the special one, I'll mention below. Clearly your googly prowess has (also) failed you. From my last post I provided you a graphic relative to those earlier referenced milestone dates... apparently, you didn't like the results from that graphic that show the U.S. rate reduction to be lower than Canada's.

now, I've somewhat urged you on to showcase just how weak Harper Conservatives have been in regards to Kyoto. But, quite obviously you haven't a clue as to what's really transpired - where Harper Conservatives outright ignored Kyoto targets/commitments in 2006 and brought forward their own 'made in Canada' emission reduction requirements/targets... and, of course, as you now parrot (me), outright formally renounced Canada's participation in Kyoto in 2010 (to avoid the penalty payment). Other than for your trolling purpose, what relevance is there to you to continue to harp on Kyoto and Canada's targets within Kyoto... again, Harper abandoned those in 2006! But don't let that stop another of your trolling pursuits!

and like I also said, it's quite easy for you to beak-off about presumed emissions reductions... when your (claimed) country outsources 11% to developed countries and has Canada taking the emissions bullet for extracting/developing all the crude oil/petroleum products the U.S. imports from Canada! How convenient of you to completely ignore those lil' facts, hey? Here's another reminder of one of those... we should also pay particular attention to the actual emissions levels. It's freaking heelarious to have you playing your charade out given the level of emissions the U.S. emits.

and for the much needed perspective, who can forget the 'big one'... U.S. world-leading cumulative emissions. The last update I read had an estimate that, at China's current rate of emissions, it will still take them to 2021 before usurping the U.S. in the overall cumulative amount. Well done - USA!, USA!, USA!

[waldo]

WTF ? So humans are "in control now", but not before, and not after ? Do we have that right ? Please get the narrative straight so we can be sure what we are laughing at.

is there a translator for this... it clearly has nothing to do with the Hansen quote extract you've gleaned

[waldo]

Yeah, he offered a clear distinction between long and short-term warming, not the actual impact of the tar sands along any time frame.

yes, thanks for acknowledging that he did! He speaks directly of the long-term in the context of "fully exploiting" the tarsands... while continuing to burn conventional oil, gas and coal supplies. Fully exploited in the long-term... you have the most self-serving, selective reading capability! And, after speaking in that long-term reference/context, he shifts into a near-term focus: His words:

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. Californias Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

No, he didn't. He simply avoided the topic, much like you do, and much like he danced around the interview question of whether or not he exaggerated the impact of the tar sands, giving the audience the scaaary slippery-slope metaphor of "ifyou open the spigot."

yes, again thanks for agreeing that Hansen didn't put a timeline around the tarsands full exploitation. He didn't avoid it and he hasn't avoided it... as I said to you, probably a couple of times already, Hansen was asked directly about the timeline... just as you keep harping on about it. He said he purposely didn't attach one, because it's irrelevant, whether one speaks of the relative short-term (say 50 years) or the long-term. What you refuse to accept is that the salient timeline isn't tarsands exploitation... it's the cumulative rise of CO₂, and what timeframe covers continued and accelerated fossil-fuel usage leading up to those every increasing/accelerating/accumulating CO₂ levels. And as before, somehow... somehow... you can't see that massive tarsands expansion and new/increased tarsands markets, for decades and decades to come, doesn't help reduce the world's reliance on fossil-fuels, particularly when coupled with a continued use of conventional sources of oil, gas, coal.

If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. a level that would, as earths history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

As for alternate energy, there are none for transport, and none coming any time soon. There are very good alternatives to fossil fuel burning for electricity, however, and that's where we should be looking for emissions reductions. Instead, however, brilliant EU environmentalists are shutting down their nuclear stations and doing smart stuff like importing wood-chips from the US to burn in their power stations!

there are viable alternatives for electricity - just ones you won't accept. Perhaps you should expand on your earlier misinformation concerning the Ontario Green Energy Act... maybe start up a separate thread. As for your stated "EU environmentalists shutting down nuclear stations", I thought it was EU governments doing that.

.

[jbg]

no - I've already detailed (for you) the monumental effort taken by Liberals to actually get the treaty ratified...

Yes.

Treaty ratification in a majority government is a real challenge </sarcasm>

[bush_cheney2004]

nice touch with the Sierra Club graphic! I note you still haven't provided any reference to your claim, relative to Kyoto, of reduced reductions. Is there a problem?

as I anticipated, you lamely come forward with something dated from 1990!!! I even gave you a heads-up concerning Canadian/Kyoto milestone dates... although I held back the special one, I'll mention below. Clearly your googly prowess has (also) failed you. From my last post I provided you a graphic relative to those earlier referenced milestone dates... apparently, you didn't like the results from that graphic that show the U.S. rate reduction to be lower than Canada's.

No problema for Estados Unidos, as it never ratified the treaty and was not obligated to meet any mandatory reductions. Nevertheless, and for mostly economic and natural gas reasons, the U.S. reduced growth in emissions (rates) better than Canada over the long haul. Cherry picking years will not hide Canada's massive and self admitted Kyoto FAIL.

Now, please give us more riveting googly climate change analysis using research and data from my "denier nation".

Edited May 29, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

no - your incessant 'planting trees' solution is not practical... it's anything but. I've gone to the trouble of putting together several detailed posts, with study reference/citations, showing you the folly of your claimed solution. You simply choose to ignore the science that clearly shows the limitations and constraints of your continued nonsense. Notwithstanding that, your claimed practical solution... even in the limited geographical regions where planting trees actually would help the source/sink ratio, you just think countries would line-up and agree to the wholesale re-use of land and related population shift requirements... that it would just somehow "magically happen". You clearly have a unique definition of "practical"!

So you prefer to do nothing then.

[waldo]

Yes.

Treaty ratification in a majority government is a real challenge </sarcasm>

no - the effort/time factor involved working with the provinces and business/industry representatives.

but is that your only response? Nothing from you taking up the challenge to have you support your claims that Hansen perjured himself... that he committed fraud... during his 1988 U.S. Congressional testimony? You claim to be a lawyer, right? Or nothing from you to substantiate your claim that his testimony was "crap"? What, c'mon... nothing from you at all... other than this, your nonsense reply that clearly shows you know nothing about what went on, behind the scenes, in the years lead-up to the formal ratification?

[waldo]

No problema for Estados Unidos, as it never ratified the treaty and was not obligated to meet any mandatory reductions. Nevertheless, and for mostly economic and natural gas reasons, the U.S. reduced growth in emissions (rates) better than Canada over the long haul. Cherry picking years will not hide Canada's massive and self admitted Kyoto FAIL.

Now, please give us more riveting googly climate change analysis using research and data from my "denier nation".

2, 2 Trolls in 1!

1. Your Kyoto FAIL troll... where you extend your nonsense a decade+ outside the actual Kyoto relevant years, particularly the milestone dates I highlighted for you! Where your emissions rate reduction idiocy makes no sense from the standpoint that Harper Conservatives walked away from the targets in 2006 (adopting his own)... and then walked away from the treaty in 2020 (to avoid the penalty payment). Where you conveniently ignore the U.S. outsourcing a whopping 11% of its emissions to developing countries... and has Canada take the emissions hit for extracting all the crude oil/petroleum products that it imports. Clearly, a couple of beauty emission covers the U.S. takes on while you trump up a claimed emissions reduction rate! By the by, where's your yet to be produced substantiation, for the pertinent Kyoto years (particularly noting the milestone dates mentioned), for your claimed emissions reduction rate? Still MIA, hey? But as I said before, yes... keep emphasizing the Kyoto Fail... since I've already schooled you on just what efforts Liberals did apply, just put the proper perspective and focus on Harper Conservatives for outright walking away from the target commitments (in 2006) and formally abandoning the treaty (in 2010, to avoid the penalty payment).

2. Your "denier nation" troll... keep saying it! Each and every time you do, I'll highlight I never labeled the U.S. a "denier nation"... and I'll again challenge you to produce a quote citation showing where I did. Produce the quote citation.

[waldo]

So you prefer to do nothing then.

yes, clearly... I've never been about mitigating efforts to reduce emissions. Clearly, I've never brought forward 40-50 year roadmap solutions to realize emission reductions. Clearly, I've never challenged those who steadfastly come down on an 'adaptation only' approach... clearly, I've never done that! Clearly, I've never written a word about COP treaties... not one word! Even with your mind-numbing impractical/non-scientific based Northern Hemisphere 'plant trees' solution, I've never highlighted the narrow band of geographical area where it actually makes sense to reforest... I've never highlighted (for you) the actual work the UN-REDD program does and related agreements that have come forward through COP - clearly, I've never done any of that! Clearly, this thread should leave you with the impression I prefer to do nothing! Clearly!