Stoker Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Neither mankind nor the Bush administration caused the ice age. And Ossama bin Laden didn't start World War II either. And smoking cigarettes doesn't cause deafness. And radiation doesn't cause heart failure.What's your point Stoker? Implying that the United States under Bush is the reason for climate change is wrong. Also that if the first ice age can occur without the actions of man, why is it so "crazy" to assume that a possable slight increase in tempature can't be a natural event and not the "reaction" to mankind killing the planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy.asp This is a site with links to the administration record on climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 So? I applaud the Bush administration for not reacting to unproven science. I asked you before, but you never answered, which countries have ratified Kyoto? Has Russia? China? India? What about third world nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Has Russia?Yes.China? India? What about third world nations?They're not part of it. That explains in part why Bush has not pursued Kyoto.Nobody disputes the connection between greenhouse gases and climate change (except maybe you Stoker). The question is how we deal with the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Global warming is proven science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 applaud the Bush administration for not reacting to unproven science. To go by the track record of Bush and co is laughable. They sure went for unproven and fraudulent intelligence reports of Iraq/Saddam having a large store of WMD. And that Iraqis would be welcoming them with open arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Even Bush scince advisors were telling him that global warming was going to get worse if he keeps on going like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 They're not part of it. That explains in part why Bush has not pursued Kyoto. Exactly, and that there is one of the key problems with Kyoto........America has to take actions that will effect it's economy, where as China and India get off scott free. Nobody disputes the connection between greenhouse gases and climate change (except maybe you Stoker). The question is how we deal with the problem. Thats the process, I'm arguing the cause and effect..... Again Has it been proven that climate change is not natrual? And what caused the ice age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Will you keep up the idotoc question of the Ice Age. What on earth does that have to do with the increase in Greenhouse gases? As for India and China, they ARE included in Kyoto. Theare in the second tier of nations and have acceded to Kyoto. I suggested you read about that before you entered any argument. Incidentally, China has reduced its emissions since Kyoto whike the USA (which is responsible for 25% of the gases) has increased its emissions. I am not interested in this argument until you take the trouble to learn something about the matter Cause and effect! What do you think the scientific studies are showing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 I don't think Stoker is as dumb as he lets on; he just likes to argue without providing any proof of his position. You know a friendly troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Russia has also rafities the Kyoto Accord in its upper house earlier this month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Rabbit Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 I voted NDP for 20 years because it seemed to be the only political organ devoted to helping the working person, the poor, the medically and otherwise needy, and had the courage speak from the heart about spiritual and family matters. Many of its leader were ministers; quality people with insightful attitudes and practical application of tough policies without sugar-coating the cost in dollars, or real effort. The NDP or today is not that anymore! It is now so consumed with hidden Leftist agenda, family devaluing, spiritual emptiness, and fiscal absurdity, I can no longer even ponder the thought of a vote for them. Their leadership is stacked with radical feminists who seek to destabilize the family unit ultimately requiring a whole host of new agencies ALWAYS funded by the taxpayer AND ultimately less effective than the component it replaced. Tell me, is there any spiritual figure in the NDP leadership? ... I do not know one. Furthermore, it tends to push beyond its demographic reality the programmes proposed by a small percentage of the nation. I am not an enemy of the homosexual community, but if I, or anyone, even begins, comments, or adds to a discussion which is not homosexual friendly, I/they are branded bigots. Far from the reality. Many people who support family values are not radicals at all, but decent, loving people who wish to have their family members given all opportunity, not only the ones sanctioned by the politically correct bigots themselves dictating in the guise of freedom. Finally, I have worked at many positions over the years only to have found that the most ardent NDP supporters were also, and sadly, for they really didn't care how much damage they were doing the cause, the laziest amongst the work crew. They were the ones who stomped the loudest during contract negotiations, the ones who broke their machines, the ones who manufactured down time on the job, the ones who booked-off sick more than any. That my friends is the sad state of the NDP today. I do and will always value and fight loudly for the existance of unions and the work they do. I will, however rail just as loudly against the unionISM that has overtaken the leadership of labour and it's organs. Without naming any huge unions, you know they are anyway, they have manufactured a need for their own existence and now will protect it. A self-perpetuating unit becomes selfish and self-serving. God bless the union and damn the corporate unionism that has replaced it. That goes equally for the Corporate equivalent. Thankfully, the NDP are in decline and hopefully will return to the legitimate roll they occupied as the conscience of the nation and the watchdog over the other two major parties. White Rabbit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Will you keep up the idotoc question of the Ice Age. What on earth does that have to do with the increase in Greenhouse gases? Was not the ice age "a form" of climate change? Was the Ice Age the result of man? As for India and China, they ARE included in Kyoto. Theare in the second tier of nations and have acceded to Kyoto. I suggested you read about that before you entered any argument. And why is there tiers within Kyoto? I don't think Stoker is as dumb as he lets on; he just likes to argue without providing any proof of his position. You know a friendly troll. What do you want proof of? I've provide conflicting views of climate change.......which proves that there is not a consensus among scientists. Do you need proof that there was an ice age? Russia has also rafities the Kyoto Accord in its upper house earlier this month. More like they were strong armed into it......... Russia forced to ratify Kyoto Protocol to become WTO member I do find this intresting: One hundred and twenty countries signed the Kyoto Protocol, although only 32 states ratified it. Russia needs to ratify the document to make it work, as Russia is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gases: the country has 17 percent of the world's share at this point. US President George W. Bush announced that America would not ratify the protocol, which was not a surprise, for the USA makes 36.1percent of all emissions. Russian President Putin entrusted the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry for Industry and Energy with preparing a report about consequences that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol might have for the Russian economy. Scientists from the Academy of Sciences analyzed the situation and concluded that the Kyoto Protocol did not have the scientific substantiation. Academicians offered to continue studying the influence of climate on economy. In particular, they advised to look into the matter of possible consequences that the global warming will have for Russia. Russian academicians believe that it would have several rather positive effects for the "coldest country in the world." On the other hand, the global warming might flood a half of Europe. And Academician Yury Israel believes that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will help cut the emission by only 0.3 percent, as the countries that ratified the document make up only one-third of the total share of CO2 emissions. China, India, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification, although their emissions are rather considerable. So the big bad United States is not the only Superpower to be opposed to Kyoto.......in this case, Russia has to sign. I wonder why China and India abstained? I also wonder why 88 of the 120 countries that signed onto Kyoto, have yet to ratify it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Guys, this was topic was first about the NDp having its head in the sand, not the kyoto accord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Finally, someone, in the guise of a White Rabbit, makes a thoughtful comment here. (I mean no harm to others but why are we discussing the Ice Age in a thread about the NDP?) Now, White Rabbit, are you sure the NDP are in decline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I don't think Stoker is dumb, either, just thick and far behind the times. The Kyoto Protocol had to be ratifed by a minimum of 55 if the 80 industrialized countires representing 55%. It has reached the target. China and India are not part of that first stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I agree that we should be talking about the NDP and I have tried to post something to think about. Frankly, I think the issue of "Fabianism" and the need for the NDP to reexamine its lost roots is the central issue. I do not think too much of the post by White Rabbit. The same old disguised anti-unionism is its chief content. The reality is that less than half of the unionised employees vote NDP and the NDP should be finding out why this is. The talk of NDP members being the laziest is a pathetic canard. The striking feature of NDP workets is how deducated to their cause they are. It is unfortunate that they cannot discover where they need to be getting the message out. Why should the NDP be talking about spiritual and family matters more than another party? I had thought that was the pretended preserve of the "Right Wing. The NDP has its roots firmly in secularism: that is the nature of Socialism. It learned that when it saw through the "reward in heaven" ethic that was instilled into the working classes by other classes and creeds. I do not think that "radical feminits" play any major role in Socialism. Feminists do as they should, but radical? No. I think that radical feminists play no role in any major party. They are a breed apart and have little truck with any politcal belief. There is something to the "Corporate Unionism" idea. There has always been. But, is this a stain on the NDP? Any institution tends to become entrenched in its ways and in defending its own interests. That is not Socialism and is, perhaps, the reason that so many trade unionists are not members of the "left" side. Institutions, by their nature, are conservative and fight for their own narrow interests against their own class if need be. Unions would need a constant infusion of new blood to keep them to their Socialist roots. They do not have that. It is the complacency of the age that is at fault and the ignorance of position that goes woth that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamps Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I am not interested in this argument until you take the trouble to learn something about the matter Cause and effect! What do you think the scientific studies are showing? Is Co2 causing the climate to warm or is it a byproduct of a warming climate.. cause or effect..... and if anyone knows this answer I would like to congratulate him or her as being the first person on the planet to do so.... according to Scientific American the only real answer they have is that they do'nt have an answer..... climate change is the rule not the exception and when it does happen it is quick and violent.. our climate over the last 1000 years or so has been unusually stable... the oceans and deforestation contribute the vast majority of Co2 and that of fossil fuels pale by comparison.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bro Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Bro; we saw what Harper had to offer and rejected it soundly. A little bit of a stretch there.The conservatives picked up more seats this past election.The liberals lost seats,hence their minority position.With just a few more Canadians voting with some conscience,the liberals should be the opposition next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Sorry, if there was anytime for the conservatives to win; it was the last election. The Liberals have been chastised. The majority of Canadians do not want to align ourselves with much of the present USA administration and the fiasco in Iraq. The majority of Canadian (other than those who only think of money) do not like being pressured to do something we do not agree with. We do not invade disarming countries nor invade any country without just cause and credible evidence of such just cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 according to Scientific American the only real answer they have is that they do'nt have an answer..... Scientific America or some article by some author published in the magazine????? There is a BIG difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I will create a new thread. You are welcome to ignore it and carry the debate on here (under a thread title about the NDP). Or more probably, stop the debate completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 good idea. How did the NDP turn into global warming anyhow. Seems many of these discussions get side tracked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I think the NDP needs economic legitimacy. People seem to think that the Cons and Libs will manage the economy better than the NDP. I find this sentiment odd as the Conservatives and the Liberals have both demonstrated that they are capable of running up large deficits. The Alberta Alliance is screaming about how the PC's have pillaged the Heritage Trust Fund. Strange how the NDP can get elected provincially but not nationally. Also odd that they are federalists when they keep losing at this level (but are successful provincially). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 IThe NDP has its roots firmly in secularism: Tommy Douglas was a minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.