Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[GostHacked]

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

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!

Clearly.

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

He speaks directly of the long-term in the context of "fully exploiting" the tarsands...

Yes, fully exploting the tar sands, which he explained have enough Co2 in them to match all historical emissions (scary) but he didn't explain that we'll never use more than a fraction of it!

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

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.

He purposely didn't attach one because you have to stretch it out 100-150 years before the impact of the tar sands would even be noticeable, and that's not a timeline that will get people on his side!

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

What you refuse to accept is that the salient timeline isn't tarsands exploitation......

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.

I didn't say it helps. I said that that it doesn't doom the world like Hansen is trying to tell people. I also said that there are much better and much more reasonable ways of reducing emissions.

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

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.

I said there were viable alternatives for electricity (lol), and the best and most economic way of reducing emissions significantly would be to increase capacity via nuclear, especially considering most of the world's largest polluters already have the tech and the means to make this a reality.

As for the Green Energy Act, you brought it up with you sad wall of year-old quotations. That was one of the topics being discussed in that old thread, where I proposed that nuclear was our best short/mid term option and not the currently immature and unviable wind/solar tech being peddled. We also talked about Europe, and look at THEIR green shift. It's not hard to see how much of a failure it's been so far. They've lowered their nuclear capacity and shifted it to wind, essentially choosing the most expensive tech available to replace existing clean tech that, after factoring decommission costs, is the most expensive to phase out. That's pure genius. How have they met their expanding generation needs? A continued reliance on coal and massive natural gas expansion. Brilliant stuff really.

[waldo]

Yes, fully exploting the tar sands, which he explained have enough Co2 in them to match all historical emissions (scary) but he didn't explain that we'll never use more than a fraction of it!

see relative short-term within more immediate tarsands expansion timeframe... see cumulative emissions from all manner of continued, expanded and accelerated fossil-fuel reliance... see 500 ppm reference focus... see emphasis on no ability to avoid 500 ppm in the relative short-term. See all that and quit fabricating what you interpret Hansen to have said.

.

He purposely didn't attach one because you have to stretch it out 100-150 years before the impact of the tar sands would even be noticeable, and that's not a timeline that will get people on his side!

see relative short-term within more immediate tarsands expansion timeframe... see cumulative emissions from all manner of continued, expanded and accelerated fossil-fuel reliance... see 500 ppm reference focus... see emphasis on no ability to avoid 500 ppm in the relative short-term. See all that and quit fabricating what you interpret Hansen to have said.

.

I didn't say it helps. I said that that it doesn't doom the world like Hansen is trying to tell people. I also said that there are much better and much more reasonable ways of reducing emissions.

see relative short-term within more immediate tarsands expansion timeframe... see cumulative emissions from all manner of continued, expanded and accelerated fossil-fuel reliance... see 500 ppm reference focus... see emphasis on no ability to avoid 500 ppm in the relative short-term. See all that and quit fabricating what you interpret Hansen to have said.

.

As for the Green Energy Act

no - I was referring more to your earlier, again unsubstantiated, nonsense attributing increased electricity costs in Ontario to wind deployments. But like I said, you really should raise a thread to attempt to impress your claim (while substantiating it)... and, at the same time, zero in your repeated, unsubstantiated claims, about EU alternative energy pursuits. Ya, that's what you should do. Let's finally get you to provide substantiating support to your many, many claims. That would certainly be a refreshing change, hey?

[waldo]

Clearly.

pfffft!

[bush_cheney2004]

... and has Canada take the emissions hit for extracting all the crude oil/petroleum products that it imports.

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).

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.

Canada / Alberta seemingly had no problem accepting Yankee and other foreign investment and royalty payments for such exports/imports of dirty, ethical oil. With that came the burden of higher emissions, and higher per capita emissions for all Canadians. A green pity for patriotic Canadian treehuggers.

Canada's KYOTO FAIL is not defined by me, but by Canada's lack of action(s) and ultimate avoidance of treaty penalties to the tune of billions. The Americans never entered into such a stupid arrangement. PM Harper only recognized the obvious FAILING legacy and charade of Kyoto.

My "denier nation" looks forward to continued support of your CO2 crusade in the way of research, data, and investment that has and continues to far exceed any such commitment or resource expenditure in Canada. Your accusations of "denier country" rings hollow when you are so dependent on "dirty" American research and data.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

I am fed up of the personal attacks and third-party insults that you are all posting. I genuinely understand how debate can get heated and spirited. However, you all have to tone things down and I do not have the energy to send out any more silly warnings to people who should know better. So, I am going to try something different.

I am locking this thread with the expectation that each one of you will spend more time thinking about your next replies and expressing them in a more civil fashion. I do not think that should take long. With the rest of your time, you can re-read your previous posts and figure out how you could have got your message across without resorting to personal attacks.

I will re-open the thread later.

Ch. A.

[waldo]

Canada / Alberta seemingly had no problem accepting Yankee and other foreign investment and royalty payments for such exports/imports of dirty, ethical oil. With that came the burden of higher emissions, and higher per capita emissions for all Canadians. A green pity for patriotic Canadian treehuggers.

Canada takes the emissions hit for the significant supply of 'crude oil/petroleum products' the U.S. imports. You conveniently ignore that fact... along with the outright 11% U.S. emissions outsourcing to developed countries. You ignore both significant contributors while continuing to ply your KyotoFail play and trump up a so-called emissions rate reduction... while never providing any substantiation, in a pointed and related Kyoto context, to your claim. And you do all of this in spite of me providing a reference showing the opposite to your claim for a representative period within the Kyoto context.

.

Canada's KYOTO FAIL is not defined by me, but by Canada's lack of action(s) and ultimate avoidance of treaty penalties to the tune of billions. The Americans never entered into such a stupid arrangement. PM Harper only recognized the obvious FAILING legacy and charade of Kyoto.

interesting - you label something stupid and a charade... and then forever troll on about failing to adhere to it. As before, you/your (claimed) country has no standing in regards to Kyoto... walking away from a signed commitment to the treaty does not channel the U.S. or it's (claimed) advocates a position to challenge what any country did or didn't do concerning Kyoto. Again, I detailed you a lengthy description of many of the actions/initiatives the Liberal Party enacted and attempted to enact (during the minority governing phase)... again, as before, you need to apply a proper perspective to the Kyoto Fail attachment you presume to bring.

.

My "denier nation" ... Your accusations of "denier country"

perhaps a different tact is required here. Since you refuse to accept my repeated statements that I never labeled the U.S. a "denier nation/country", since you refuse to accept my repeated challenges for you to provide substantiation that I did attach the label, perhaps you could answer a simple question: why do you continue to use those words, pointedly and repeatedly? I think it's most appropriate for you to explain yourself... wouldn't you agree?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada takes the emissions hit ......

.....why do you continue to use those words, pointedly and repeatedly? I think it's most appropriate for you to explain yourself... wouldn't you agree?

.

Canada should take the hit....it sure as hell takes the cash/revenue. And the U.S. did reduce growth in emissions more than Canada, despite never having ratified Kyoto.

The pointed and oft repeated "denier" slur deserves no less, so I strive to present the unreconciled dichotomy of labeling the USA as a "denier nation" in policy and action (vis-a-vis Kyoto Protocol) with repeated and unrelenting reliance/references to the very same nation's research in climate science(s) and resulting data sets. Holding Canada's symbolic Kyoto treaty ratification without action and ultimate failure/withdraw as a greater commitment just doesn't pass muster. Show me Canada's NASA... GISS....NAS...in equal measure if such contributions exist, or at least acknowledge that the "denier" slur is erroneous and really only part of the usual trash talking "lexicon".

Edited May 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Canada should take the hit....it sure as hell takes the cash/revenue.

so what? Selling the U.S. something it dearly wants/requires, has nothing to do with where the ultimate extract/generating source emissions are attributed. Clearly you have a self-serving way of interpreting source emissions... while ignoring the emission hits other nations take for the U.S..

And the U.S. did reduce growth in emissions more than Canada, despite never having ratified Kyoto.

then you should have no problem providing something showing that emissions reduction within the relevant Canada/treaty force milestone dates provided to you. Again, I've shown you a source graphic that counters your claim.

The pointed and oft repeated "denier" slur deserves no less, so I strive to present the unreconciled dichotomy of labeling the USA as a "denier nation" in policy and action (vis-a-vis Kyoto Protocol) with repeated and unrelenting reliance/references to the very same nation's research in climate science(s) and resulting data sets.

asking again, for the brazillionth time - where's your citation/quote reference that I used the labeling "denier nation/country"?

Holding Canada's symbolic Kyoto treaty ratification without action and ultimate failure/withdraw as a greater commitment just doesn't pass muster.

no - again, I provided you a detailed accounting of what actions the Liberal Party took and attempted to take (in minority governance). You presume to call-out on emissions and yet you're repeatedly told that Harper Conservatives threw away those emission targets/commitments in 2006... bringing in their own. I suggest you target your fake-outrage/criticism at Canada not meeting Kyoto emission targets towards the Harper Conservatives and their 'home-grown' targets/commitments.

Again, it's hilarious to read you declare the treaty 'stupid and a charade'... and then proceed to attempt to chastise anyone/any country for not adhering to it!

Show me Canada's NASA... GISS....NAS...in equal measure if such contributions exist, or at least acknowledge that the "denier" slur is erroneous and really only part of the usual trash talking "lexicon".

no - the denier label applied to individuals isn't a slur, it isn't trash talking... but, as stated many times, it is a part of the accepted lexicon within a climate change context. You've clarified your position - you claim you deny that anthropogenic sourced CO₂ is the principal causal tie to GW/CC. You're a denier to that scientific consensus point. As stated many times, I'm not concerned about your personal ultra-sensitivities and confidence lacking... I'll certainly choose any source, from any country - as I do, regularly.

[bush_cheney2004]

so what? Selling the U.S. something it dearly wants/requires, has nothing to do with where the ultimate extract/generating source emissions are attributed. Clearly you have a self-serving way of interpreting source emissions... while ignoring the emission hits other nations take for the U.S..

I didn't invent the international scheme for playing this emissions game....Canada/Alberta's bitumen production is particularly hated because of the very nature of extraction technology and energy/water required. The U.S. also exports energy resources but you do not seem interested in such favorable offsets. Little wonder.....

then you should have no problem providing something showing that emissions reduction within the relevant Canada/treaty force milestone dates provided to you. Again, I've shown you a source graphic that counters your claim.

Already done...here and in previous threads. Canada did not achieve its Kyoto goals, and was even less effective than the United States in reducing emissions growth for the treaty period. Yawn.....

...One surprise in the figures is that Canada's emission record is far worse than even the United States, where the Bush administration has refused to ratify Kyoto.

Mr. Bramley said the United States is "actually ahead of Canada in just about every area" of environmental policies used to curb emissions. And he said the record of individual states "is far ahead of any province in Canada."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase/article4200524/

no - again, I provided you a detailed accounting of what actions the Liberal Party took and attempted to take (in minority governance). You presume to call-out on emissions and yet you're repeatedly told that Harper Conservatives threw away those emission targets/commitments in 2006... bringing in their own. I suggest you target your fake-outrage/criticism at Canada not meeting Kyoto emission targets towards the Harper Conservatives and their 'home-grown' targets/commitments.

I don't care about Kyoto targets regardless of party, but it is clear that PM Harper had to put an end to the charade in Canada because it was about to cost billion$ in penalties. Kyoto FAIL.

Again, it's hilarious to read you declare the treaty 'stupid and a charade'... and then proceed to attempt to chastise anyone/any country for not adhering to it!

Canada jumped on that silly bandwagon for political purposes.....didn't work out. The good news is that it makes more laughable the opinions of alarmists who championed and still champion Canada's track record compared to other "denier nations".

no - the denier label applied to individuals isn't a slur, it isn't trash talking... but, as stated many times, it is a part of the accepted lexicon within a climate change context. You've clarified your position - you claim you deny that anthropogenic sourced CO₂ is the principal causal tie to GW/CC. You're a denier to that scientific consensus point. As stated many times, I'm not concerned about your personal ultra-sensitivities and confidence lacking... I'll certainly choose any source, from any country - as I do, regularly.

Wrong....I don't care about the source of warming, and it certainly is warming, but not to the degree predicted by the "alarmists". I embrace warming as both a risk and opportunity. And yes, you will continue to choose any source from any country, even if that country is full of "denier" research, data, and continued government and private investment, far more than from your own ratified Kyoto FAIL nation.

Use the tools and data that America has given you for free, but realize that the U.S. doesn't have to reach the same conclusions or (in)actions as Canada.

Edited May 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Already done...here and in previous threads. Canada did not achieve its Kyoto goals, and was even less effective than the United States in reducing emissions growth for the treaty period. Yawn.....

...One surprise in the figures is that Canada's emission record is far worse than even the United States, where the Bush administration has refused to ratify Kyoto.

Mr. Bramley said the United States is "actually ahead of Canada in just about every area" of environmental policies used to curb emissions. And he said the record of individual states "is far ahead of any province in Canada."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase/article4200524/

again, no... you have not provided any substantiation to your claim, one within the Kyoto milestones pointed out to you... both the Canadian ratification milestone as well as when the treaty actually went into formal 'force effect'. On the other hand, as I keep stating, I provided you a countering graphic (recognizing those Kyoto related milestone events). Until you can provide substantiation to your claim, it remains simply your personal claim.

but really, you've outdone yourself with this latest gem - red bold highlighted too!!! A most dated source, from 2005... although updated in 2011. What wasn't updated was your quote reference... I've confirmed your quote relates to the original 2005 article, as it appears in many places. But... c'mon, who is "Mr. Bramley"??? He's not identified anywhere in the article! Oh my... and you went to such trouble with your red bold highlighting!

what appears to have been updated are the chart numbers... they're the same numbers you flogged earlier! The numbers that reflect back to a 1990 starting point? What year did Kyoto negotiations start... what year did Canada ratify... what year did the treaty go formally into effect? Thanks for your continued comic relief.

keep yawning!

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

see relative short-term within more immediate tarsands expansion timeframe... see cumulative emissions from all manner of continued, expanded and accelerated fossil-fuel reliance... see 500 ppm reference focus... see emphasis on no ability to avoid 500 ppm in the relative short-term. See all that and quit fabricating what you interpret Hansen to have said.

There was no fabrication. The numbers Hansen brought up couldn't have been more irrelevant to the more moderate impressions you're pretending he was trying to make. There is already faaar more than enough viable oil and fossil fuels in the world to last numerous generations with or without the tar sands, and therefore enough to put us well past the 500 ppm referenced AND to continue our reliance on fossil fuels. Knowing this, explaining that there's enough potential Co2 in the Alberta bitumen reserves to match the world's total historical emissions is a useless factoid, but one Hansen put in for good reason. Combine that sort of statement with others telling readers that 'fully exploiting' the tar sands (another farty and unquantified term) means 'game over' for the climate, and only the strictest apologist could suggest that Hansen wasn't trying to falsely attribute the relative dangers of the tar sands in order to mislead naive readers.

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

no - I was referring more to your earlier, again unsubstantiated, nonsense attributing increased electricity costs in Ontario to wind deployments.

What...are you saying that wind capacity hasn't increased Ontario electricity costs!?!? Is that what you're telling us waldo? Let's get that straight first, and THEN I'll know what part I need to substantiate.

waldo, on 29 May 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

But like I said, you really should raise a thread to attempt to impress your claim (while substantiating it)... and, at the same time, zero in your repeated, unsubstantiated claims, about EU alternative energy pursuits.

Challenge something specific about what I said and I'll look to substantiate it. As it stands, we're not writing academic essays, so I'm not going to provide a quote for every single statement I make unless you're going to argue that I'm saying something false. Failed energy policy in Ontario and Europe were merely examples of dumb initiatives I would not support, because unlike you I'm going to discriminate between good and bad ideas rather than cheerlead them all no matter how stupid.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

again, no... you have not provided any substantiation to your claim, one within the Kyoto milestones pointed out to you... both the Canadian ratification milestone as well as when the treaty actually went into formal 'force effect'. On the other hand, as I keep stating, I provided you a countering graphic (recognizing those Kyoto related milestone events). Until you can provide substantiation to your claim, it remains simply your personal claim.

No.....you continue to "deny" the obvious for reasons only you understand. Canada's Kyoto FAIL is now a matter of public policy and record. Canada did not slow the growth in GHG emissions as well as the U.S., which never ratified the treaty, and is really the main point. I say again, the U.S. "denier country" performed better than the Kyoto FAIL country...an inconvenient truth !

Source: UNFCCC

http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/E97Ye/index.html

Edited May 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Canada did not slow the growth in GHG emissions as well as the U.S., which never ratified the treaty, and is really the main point. I say again, the U.S. "denier country" performed better than the Kyoto FAIL country.

no - and you can't show it! You keep trotting out graphs/data that have no correlation to the Kyoto treaty period... even the overall recognized period! You continue to ignore the actual milestone dates presented to you. If you're going to continue to play your Kyoto troll, again, what year did Kyoto negotiations start... what year did Canada ratify it... what year did the treaty go formally into effect? Is it such a difficult thing for you to substantiate your claim within the relevant milestone date periods? Again, I provided a graphic presentation within that period... it counters your claim. You ignore it! Of course you do!

equally, what sense is there in you continuing your nonsense when, again, Harper Conservatives, in 2006, advised they would not recognize the Kyoto target and proceeded to, as you've already been advised, bring in their own target/commitment levels. From 2006, the targets weren't acknowledged or being followed. Yet you continue to natter on about Kyoto! The Kyoto treaty itself didn't come into effect until 2005!

again, if you have any intellectual honesty, the only pertinent information that supports your Kyoto Fail claim is that, again, Harper Conservatives walked away from it in 2006... and formally withdrew from it in 2010 (simply to avoid the penalty payment). I've encouraged you to keep mentioning these Harper Conservatives actions... I certainly have no difficulty with them being highlighted.

and... keep on ignoring the emissions hit other countries take for the U.S.!

and again... produce your substantiation that I referred to the U.S. as a "denier nation/country". Why the troll... why do you keep implying I said such a thing?

[waldo]

There is already faaar more than enough viable oil and fossil fuels in the world to last numerous generations with or without the tar sands, and therefore enough to put us well past the 500 ppm referenced AND to continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

well this is progress... at least I have you actually speaking directly to Hansen's quote and the 500 ppm short-term reference.

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.

and yes, when the tarsands are significantly expanded... opening up new markets, expanding on existing markets, keeping the reliance on fossil-fuels for decades upon decades ahead, de-incentivizing countries from considering new/expanded alternative energy strategies... yes, most certainly, as James Hansen states, "there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 ppm.

What...are you saying that wind capacity hasn't increased Ontario electricity costs!?!? Is that what you're telling us waldo? Let's get that straight first, and THEN I'll know what part I need to substantiate.

what I'm saying is what I wrote... if you're going to call something a debacle, if you're going to attribute Ontario's high electricity costs to wind, you should certainly be able to substantiate that claim - yes? These are your words:

... 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. 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?

Challenge something specific about what I said and I'll look to substantiate it.

oh please! When have you ever provided a supporting reference/citation for any of your claims?... more pointedly, you went into a major meltdown not long ago because I happened to call you out with a citation request!

[bush_cheney2004]

....again, if you have any intellectual honesty, the only pertinent information that supports your Kyoto Fail claim is that, again, Harper Conservatives walked away from it in 2006... and formally withdrew from it in 2010 (simply to avoid the penalty payment). I've encouraged you to keep mentioning these Harper Conservatives actions... I certainly have no difficulty with them being highlighted.

Finally......after days of avoidance behaviour and outright denials....a clear admission of Canada's Kyoto FAIL. The Americans had less growth in GHG emissions, and they never ratified the treaty. Not bad for a "denier nation".

[waldo]

Finally......after days of avoidance behaviour and outright denials....a clear admission of Canada's Kyoto FAIL. The Americans had less growth in GHG emissions, and they never ratified the treaty. Not bad for a "denier nation".

no - your selective reading has kicked in! I've encouraged you, several times now, to play up your KyotoFail troll... but properly put it into the right perspective - where Harper Conservatives ignored Canada's target commitment/pledge (2006) by bringing in their own, and formally repealed participation to avoid the penalty payment (2010). Certainly, apply that correct perspective and you can correctly play your troll out... if you do anything else, particularly attempting to bring forward emissions comparisons that have no correlation to the pertinent Kyoto treaty years (recognizing milestone dates you've been provided), you have no standing.

and again, I'll gladly highlight you calling Kyoto, 'stupid and a charade'... while presuming to troll-on with your fail attachment. Failed to live up to your stupid and charade assessment!

perhaps it's time I trotted out a few more graphics (probably just the same ones; you'll ignore them any way) showing the actual levels of emissions the U.S. pumps out... showing the actual cumulative amount emissions the U.S. has spewed... showing the per capita rates, etc. You know, all the things you so want to avoid being discussed/highlighted... the things you so run away from. Run away! Run away!

[bush_cheney2004]

no - your selective reading has kicked in!

Selective indeed, and now apparent for all to see. So partisan is your perspective, as long as it is PM Harper who gets the blame for Canada's Kyoto FAIL. The treaty's 1990 emissions baseline is plain to see, as was the growth in GHG emissions well beyond treaty obligation (reduction) targets. The Americans managed to do better without even trying hard, and didn't even ratify the treaty to begin with.

You can dice and slice the growth in emissions any way you please, but it will never change the sad story of Canada and Kyoto.

The mods have asked that your brand of "troll" rhetoric be avoided, so I will not join you there.

Edited May 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Selective indeed, and now apparent for all to see.

ya... like the other half-dozen or so times I've said the same thing! Like I said, you have a very selective (self-serving) reading pattern... or is it a difficulty with recall you're having?

.

So partisan is your perspective, as long as it is PM Harper who gets the blame for Canada's Kyoto FAIL.

that's right. Again, you've been presented with an accounting of what actions/pursuits the Liberal Party enacted and followed (in majority) and what it tried to do (in minority governance). Notwithstanding the Party had less than a full year between the time the actual treaty came into effect in 2005 and when Harper Conservatives took over in 2006... and proceeded to stop everything the Liberals had done, abandoned the Kyoto targets and replaced them with their own version (which had no association with the Kyoto treaty... or its associated base year).

what do you think you're referencing to when the Liberals are out of power and Harper Conservatives have walked away from the treaty (in 2006)? You're so bent on trying to score some point of minutia you haven't a clue as to how ridiculous your claim even is... you know, where you call the treaty 'stupid and a charade' and then proceed to attempt to attach an emissions fail for not meeting something you declare as 'stupid and a charade'.

.

The treaty's 1990 emissions baseline is plain to see, as was the growth in GHG emissions well beyond treaty obligation (reduction) targets. The Americans managed to do better without even trying hard, and didn't even ratify the treaty to begin with.

it just gets better and better... you really should no when to fold em'! Tell me, please tell me that you kept referencing your reduction rate using data that started in 1990 because you thought that's what the baseline meant! Oh my! Here's a scoop for you: the 1990 baseline was the relative reference for any target reductions... say 6% reductions by 'x' year relative to 1990 emission levels. Another big time fail for you!

again, you have yet to provide any substantiation for your claim, relative to the actual Kyoto treaty years. I, on the other hand, have presented you a counter to your claim; one within the Kyoto treaty years... notwithstanding Harper had already abandoned the Kyoto pledged commitment.

.

The mods have asked that your brand of "troll" rhetoric be avoided, so I will not join you there.

I'm not clear what this means... I trust it means we'll stop reading you purposely using the phrase 'denier nation/country' intended to (incorrectly) imply it's something I stated and attached to the U.S.. Again, as you know, I said no such thing.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not clear what this means... I trust it means we'll stop reading you purposely using the phrase 'denier nation/country' intended to (incorrectly) imply it's something I stated and attached to the U.S.. Again, as you know, I said no such thing.

.

No, it means that the mods have specifically directed that your brand of trolling not be engaged further. Canada's Kyoto FAIL record follows a continuum that transcends partisan politics. Canada's growth rates for GHG emissions exceeded that of non treaty nation United States.

The truth is that a Liberal government gleefully created the unrealistic GHG reduction obligations to begin with, and a Conservative government reverted that decision through complete indifference and practical treaty abrogation. A "denier nation" actually performed better for reasons having nothing to do with Kyoto.

...WERE I ADVISING the government of Canada, I would urge the Harper government, despite the fact that it didn't create the problem, to take ownership of it and seek meaningful ways to make recompense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2009/11/22/why_canada_failed_on_kyoto_and_how_to_make_amends.html

[waldo]

No, it means that the mods have specifically directed that your brand of trolling not be engaged further. Canada's Kyoto FAIL record follows a continuum that transcends partisan politics.

my... my brand! It pales in comparison to yours - obviously!

and no, given the efforts/actions taken by the Liberal Party... many which I outlined to you... the continuum is partisan and starts/stops with the Harper Conservatives who, in 2006, began to undo everything the Liberals had enacted/put in place, while turning away from the Kyoto pledge and introducing their own version of targets/commitments that had no association/relationship to Kyoto... the Harper Conservatives who, in 2010, formally repealed Canada's participation within Kyoto. It starts and stops with Harper Conservatives; as I said, play that one for all you're worth!

Canada's growth rates for GHG emissions exceeded that of non treaty nation United States.

no - you have yet to substantiate that claim in the context of Kyoto and the years since the 2005 'force effect' of the treaty. I, on the other hand, have provided you a counter to your claim, one directly within the applicable Kyoto time frame... you simply choose to ignore it. Of course you do!

The truth is that a Liberal government gleefully created the unrealistic GHG reduction obligations to begin with, and a Conservative government reverted that decision through complete indifference and practical treaty abrogation.

no - the truth is Annex I countries had a collective 'group' percentage emissions reduction level commitment... that group percentage commitment was realized through parsing the group percentage either individually to certain countries or to a collective grouping of countries. Canada was within one such collective grouping requiring a 6% reduction in remissions by 2012 relative to its 1990 baseline.

following your lead, the U.S., as you say, "gleefully created" its own GHG reduction obligation - 7%... signed the treaty and committed before the community of nations to realize a 7% reduction in emissions by 2012 relative to its own 1990 baseline. How did that work out, hey? Oh, that's right... your (claimed) country also turned it's back on Kyoto and refused to actually ratify it within the U.S. Congress. Oh my, a U.S. Kyoto Fail!!!

but fear not!!! Along comes the U.S. commitment in 2009 to reduce emissions 17% by 2020 relative to a 2005 baseline (and, of course, Harper tagged along, in kind). Of course, that 17% relative to 2005 actually works out to an increase of 3% over what would have been the Kyoto 7(or 6)% relative to 1990. So, particularly given all your puffed-up unsubstantiated claims concerning a Kyoto timeframe emission rate reduction, just how are things working out for the U.S. today since 2005? Well, the latest U.S. EPA inventory states U.S. GHG emissions at the end of 2011 were down 6.9% relative to a 2005 baseline... attributing most of that reduction to the recession, some to the coal-shale gas shift and some to vehicle efficiency improvements. Of course, once the 'mighty economic engine' kicks in again, that's certainly going to affect reduction achievements, notwithstanding BigCoal wants back in! I guess you'll have to wait to 2020 to realize whether or not you can 'puff-up' or not, hey?

A "denier nation" actually performed better for reasons having nothing to do with Kyoto.

oh... is this your brand? As before, show the quote where I labeled the U.S. a 'denier nation/country'. What's that? You can't! Oh, then why do you continue... with your brand?

...WERE I ADVISING the government of Canada, I would urge the Harper government, despite the fact that it didn't create the problem, to take ownership of it and seek meaningful ways to make recompense. One avenue open to it is to play a leading role in financing adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change impacts in the world's poorest countries.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2009/11/22/why_canada_failed_on_kyoto_and_how_to_make_amends.html

I've added in the sentence you conveniently removed from that paragraph (bold, color highlighted). I guess Harper didn't take his advice, hey? If you know anything about the article's author, I'm not sure why you would quote from him... he's most certainly not your flavour of denial! He gets some of it right when he speaks "mildly" of Harper's indifference to Kyoto! ... which, of course, began right within the minority Liberal government of Martin... except that Harper "indifference" manifested itself in terms of forcing Martin, to avoid non-confidence, to pull-back on Kyoto wants/intentions. In that regard, Harper certainly did create the problem and proceeded to blow the problem right out of the water starting in 2006, ramping "indifference" up to the full-blown avoidance/ignoring of Canada's Kyoto pledge.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've added in the sentence you conveniently removed from that paragraph (bold, color highlighted). I guess Harper didn't take his advice, hey? If you know anything about the article's author, I'm not sure why you would quote from him... he's most certainly not your flavour of denial! He gets some of it right when he speaks "mildly" of Harper's indifference to Kyoto! ... which, of course, began right within the minority Liberal government of Martin... except that Harper "indifference" manifested itself in terms of forcing Martin, to avoid non-confidence, to pull-back on Kyoto wants/intentions. In that regard, Harper certainly did create the problem and proceeded to blow the problem right out of the water starting in 2006, ramping "indifference" up to the full-blown avoidance/ignoring of Canada's Kyoto pledge.

.

I chose that author specifically because of his well known stance and flavour.....certainly not any friend of my "denier/denier nation" position, but even he comes down firmly on the side of Canada as an unmitigated Kyoto FAIL. Chretien....Martin....Harper...it matters not, as all were/are certainly Canadian, and contributed to the ultimate failure.

"Denier nation" United States had no such obligation or pretense, but still managed to do better on growth of GHG emissions in the context of the treaty's objectives. While this is not important in the overall scheme of things, it does serve to highlight the ill advised path to a Kyoto FAIL taken by Canada and those who believed in such unrealistic goals.

Edited May 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I chose that author specifically because of his well known stance and flavour.....certainly not any friend of my "denier/denier nation" position, but even he comes down firmly on the side of Canada as an unmitigated Kyoto FAIL. Chretien....Martin....Harper...it matters not, as all were/are certainly Canadian, and contributed to the ultimate failure.

get real! You never heard of the guy before you threw a googly out there. But hey now...you keep scoring 'own goals' on yourself! Look at the date the article was written - just about 2010. In line with that date, that's effectively 6 years of Harper Conservative influence on the state of Canada responding to its Kyoto commitment... 5 years of influence after Kyoto took effect in 2005 and a split of that 6 year total between 1 year in (minority government) Opposition preventing Liberals from moving forward and 5 years in government (majority) actively working to scuttle anything Liberals had enacted/planned, while outright abandoning the Kyoto target/commitment and replacing it with his/their own. Well done... another own goal by BC_2004!

"Denier nation" United States had no such obligation or pretense, but still managed to do better on growth of GHG emissions in the context of the treaty's objectives.

keep bringing your brand out! And no, your claim is unfounded... you have yet to provide any substantiation, in the context of Kyoto milestone dates, to support your claim. I, on the other hand, have provided you a counter to your claim... disproving your claim... representing a period of time within the appropriate Kyoto treaty timeframe... one that beings formally in 2005 when the treaty went into effect.

[bush_cheney2004]

In line with that date, that's effectively 6 years of Harper Conservative influence on the state of Canada responding to its Kyoto commitment...

The last time I checked, PM Harper and the Conservative Party were still considered to be Canadian. Trying to pin Canada's entire Kyoto FAIL on the Conservatives does nothing to hide Canada's (failed) responsibility to create an operational national registry system (so sorry, gun registries don't count) and meet GHG reduction targets by 2008 - 2012, something the "denier nation" managed to make better progress on without ratifying Kyoto at all. Remarkable !

[Keepitsimple]

The last time I checked, PM Harper and the Conservative Party were still considered to be Canadian. Trying to pin Canada's entire Kyoto FAIL on the Conservatives does nothing to hide Canada's (failed) responsibility to create an operational national registry system (so sorry, gun registries don't count) and meet GHG reduction targets by 2008 - 2012, something the "denier nation" managed to make better progress on without ratifying Kyoto at all. Remarkable !

As with Climate Change itself, actual observation paints a less "alarmist" situation than spin-doctors would have us believe. From 1990 to 2005 - under the Liberals and their "commitment" to Kyoto, Canada's emissions rose from 592 MT to 731 MT! Since the Conservatives have come to power, they have opted out of Kyoto - but at the same time, total emissions have dropped slightly to 710 MT (2010). There is no reason to beat one's chest over that small accomplishment due to the slowing economy - but at least the upward trend has been arrested.....but to paint the Liberals as some sort of heros for ratifying Kyoto is absolute foolishness. In reality, the US was going to reduce their emissions by 5% so silly Chretien decided to do them one better and go for 6% - not realizing that the US was never going to ratify the treaty. We were hoodwinked.

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/publications/cc/COM1374/ec-com1374-en-s3.htm#fig-4