Canadians want government to meet Kyoto targets

cybercoma · September 8, 2006

We should pay for the use of the environment.

I think the government should implement a fee to "air" users. That would be those who are inhaling our atmosphere. I mean....we're expected to pay for just about everything. Why not charge people for the oxygen they breathe?

Argus · September 8, 2006

Kyoto was based on science of the environmental activists, and while it does have roots in many things, it is not by any means the answer to even a small amount of the problem. It is all about appeasing the activists and do little for the true causes of the environment. One volcano eruption will put more pollutents into the air then a 100 years of man made pollutents. Any large natural disaster such as forest fires etc do more harm then man has ever done in a decade. So why is it so hard for people to understand that all the hype about global warming addresses only a very small part of what is happening around our world. The contribution by man is very small, and while small the activists will say it is better that we do our part no matter how small, just to help the cause.
If we here in Canada could put out forest fires within days instead of weeks and months, then we would contibute 100's of times more to the climate stablization, then we ever would in years of regulated emmissions.

Now if all that's true that would make a hell of a sound bite to show what a waste of time Kyoto is. You ought to send it to the Tories.

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

Good grief, a 25 post circle jerk.

The subject of Global Warming really lites a fire under the ignorant...gets 'em hopping.

Water vapor? Water vapor is responsible for Global Warming? Yeah, and Bush paid Bin Laden to blow up the twin towers. Ho-K!

:rolleyes:

cybercoma · September 8, 2006

Good grief, a 25 post circle jerk.
The subject of Global Warming really lites a fire under the ignorant...gets 'em hopping.

Water vapor? Water vapor is responsible for Global Warming? Yeah, and Bush paid Bin Laden to blow up the twin towers. Ho-K!

How many citations would you like, or are you just going to go look it up yourself before you're made to eat your words?

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

How many citations would you like, or are you just going to go look it up yourself before you're made to eat your words?

Bring on all your links that support water vapor being the cause of the unwanted global warming we're experiencing.

I need a laugh, and that should do just fine.

My question is this: The people who swallow the Global Warming denial lobby B#LLSH#T....are they doing it willfully or are they truely stupid?

cybercoma · September 8, 2006

How many citations would you like, or are you just going to go look it up yourself before you're made to eat your words?

Bring on all your links that support water vapor being the cause of the unwanted global warming we're experiencing.

I need a laugh, and that should do just fine.

My question is this: The people who swallow the Global Warming denial lobby B#LLSH#T....are they doing it willfully or are they truely stupid?

I can't be bothered wasting my time pointing things out that even those who support Kyoto know, but you're unwilling to accept because you refuse to educate yourself.

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

How many citations would you like, or are you just going to go look it up yourself before you're made to eat your words?

Bring on all your links that support water vapor being the cause of the unwanted global warming we're experiencing.

I need a laugh, and that should do just fine.

My question is this: The people who swallow the Global Warming denial lobby B#LLSH#T....are they doing it willfully or are they truely stupid?

I can't be bothered wasting my time pointing things out that even those who support Kyoto know, but you're unwilling to accept because you refuse to educate yourself.

I figured as much.

I'm fully educated on the subject, thankyou. I've followed the money and I've followed the b#llsh#t, such as this water vapor red herring, before.

You would be a good candidate for answering my question above, btw.

Argus · September 8, 2006

I'm fully educated on the subject, thankyou. I've followed the money and I've followed the b#llsh#t, such as this water vapor red herring, before.

And yet, you appear thoroughly incapable of countering arguments put up by others. Is it that you're only used to talking to those who already agree with you?

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

I'm fully educated on the subject, thankyou. I've followed the money and I've followed the b#llsh#t, such as this water vapor red herring, before.

And yet, you appear thoroughly incapable of countering arguments put up by others. Is it that you're only used to talking to those who already agree with you?

Oh I'm sorry, was that an "argument"? I didn't recognize it assuch.

What, exactly, is it arguing in the context of humans causing Global Warming?

Anything?

Argus · September 8, 2006

I'm fully educated on the subject, thankyou. I've followed the money and I've followed the b#llsh#t, such as this water vapor red herring, before.

And yet, you appear thoroughly incapable of countering arguments put up by others. Is it that you're only used to talking to those who already agree with you?

Oh I'm sorry, was that an "argument"? I didn't recognize it assuch.

What, exactly, is it arguing in the context of humans causing Global Warming?

Anything?

It's saying water vapour is much more responsible. Now I don't know if that's true or not. But you haven't done anything to counter it. Likewise, a previous poster suggested that putting out forest fires more quickly would do far more to lower our er, contribution to greenhouse gases than formal emissions cutbacks would. Again, I don't know whether that's true or not, but if it's not you've done nothing to make that case.

I mean, are you here to bitch at people, or make a case? Because if it's the former then you're "full education" on the subject isn't being put to much use.

bradco · September 8, 2006

I'm fully educated on the subject, thankyou. I've followed the money and I've followed the b#llsh#t, such as this water vapor red herring, before.

And yet, you appear thoroughly incapable of countering arguments put up by others. Is it that you're only used to talking to those who already agree with you?

Oh I'm sorry, was that an "argument"? I didn't recognize it assuch.

What, exactly, is it arguing in the context of humans causing Global Warming?

Anything?

It's saying water vapour is much more responsible. Now I don't know if that's true or not. But you haven't done anything to counter it. Likewise, a previous poster suggested that putting out forest fires more quickly would do far more to lower our er, contribution to greenhouse gases than formal emissions cutbacks would. Again, I don't know whether that's true or not, but if it's not you've done nothing to make that case.

I mean, are you here to bitch at people, or make a case? Because if it's the former then you're "full education" on the subject isn't being put to much use.

I come out of my shell at university and encounter people who do not believe in the science of global warming. I am quite shocked to be honest. Get over it people....our actions effect our environment....it isnt really all that shocking. If you want to argue that the costs of lowering emissions outweigh any potential benefit, fine. If you want to say we could never possibly get the entire world to agree to lower emissions, then fine. But please, dont continue with trying to deny accepted science. Those in the scientific community who still deny that human activity effects the global glimate are the minority.

On the subject of water vapour... Water vapour, as a greenhouse gas, I would assume is responsible for the greenhouse effect. There seems to be people here who don't realize that the greenhouse effect is something we depend upon for our climate....it isn't a bad thing. The water vapour in the air is there naturally....there is a relatively stable amount there and that is good. CO2 is there naturally as well....however our actions have greatly increased the amount of CO2 in the air which has increased the greenhouse effect above its natural level.

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....nt/climate.html

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere"

"Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide"

I remember reading research that suggested that the global (natural) trend should not be in a warming period. Instead, the scientist (an academic, not some leftie tree hugger) argued that we should be in a natural cooling trend and therefore the impact we have had on the global temperature is actually more than the 1 degree increase in the last century. I have his essay around somewhere but can't seem to locate it....Ill keeplooking and post his results if/when I find it

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

It's saying water vapour is much more responsible. Now I don't know if that's true or not. But you haven't done anything to counter it.

You don't know if that's true or not? You must be wholly ignorant of the available facts then.

I have some advice for you: don't waste your time arguing with Global Warming deniers. Their goal is not to seek or inform the truth, their only goal is to argue. The more nonsensical the better.

You obviously lend weight to the nonsense they spew, which means you're woefully ignorant on the subject or you are complicit.

The fact that you would chastise me for not engaging the bizarre denial claim seen in this thread tells me you're probably complicit.

Argus · September 8, 2006

It's saying water vapour is much more responsible. Now I don't know if that's true or not. But you haven't done anything to counter it.

You don't know if that's true or not? You must be wholly ignorant of the available facts then.

I have some advice for you: don't waste your time arguing with Global Warming deniers. Their goal is not to seek or inform the truth, their only goal is to argue. The more nonsensical the better.

You obviously lend weight to the nonsense they spew, which means you're woefully ignorant on the subject or you are complicit.

The fact that you would chastise me for not engaging the bizarre denial claim seen in this thread tells me you're probably complicit.

So you're just here to bitch at people and strut around in your moral superiority. You don't actually know anything about global warming - at least nothing you want to tell anyone.

BTW, the main point on this thread - there is no way of meeting Kyoto goals, no matter what the ignorant sheep who still support Kyoto think.

Harper can with some justification make the point that previous Liberal governments -- in power from 1993 to early 2006 -- did little to meet Kyoto targets obliging Canada to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Current emissions are some 35 percent above the target.

Liberal legislator Michael Ignatieff, a front-runner in the race to become new party leader, last month conceded Canada could not meet its Kyoto targets. He said Canada should aim to halve greenhouse gases emissions by 2050 and proposed heavier taxes on dirtier kinds of fuel.

gerryhatrick · September 8, 2006

So you're just here to bitch at people and strut around in your moral superiority.

If knowing what's right and standing by it gives me "moral superiority" then I guess that's what I'm struttin' with on this topic.

I would say claiming things like water vapor is causing the harmful Global Warming we're experiencing makes a person incredibly immoral if they are being willfully ignorant.

watching&waiting · September 8, 2006

So you're just here to bitch at people and strut around in your moral superiority.

If knowing what's right and standing by it gives me "moral superiority" then I guess that's what I'm struttin' with on this topic.

I would say claiming things like water vapor is causing the harmful Global Warming we're experiencing makes a person incredibly immoral if they are being willfully ignorant.

I am willing to back up anything I say with scentific facts. So far you have spouted off about how you think and what you think, but never about just where or how you get your facts. I will agree that water vapour is not a large threat to the global warning system, but as science will show that the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapour it can hold. Whith the advent od particulate matter it can become supersaturated and that then will naturally fall as rain once it is cooled. It is a normal cycle to some extent. Since you do not say anything that make sense. Please show me just how this can happen to the same volume if the temperature is 10 degrees cooler. Because that is what you imply, so now prove it with this simple easy to follow cycle.

B. Max · September 8, 2006

So you're just here to bitch at people and strut around in your moral superiority.

If knowing what's right and standing by it gives me "moral superiority" then I guess that's what I'm struttin' with on this topic.

I would say claiming things like water vapor is causing the harmful Global Warming we're experiencing makes a person incredibly immoral if they are being willfully ignorant.

Actually no one has claimed any such thing as far as i can see. What we are saying is that water vapor is the most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere. Which it is. Nothing immoral here except for the scare mongers ability to put two false hoods in one sentence and claim them as fact. There is no one claiming that water vapor is causing global warming, nor is there any harmful global warming. Nor is there any proof of man made global warming.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

August1991 · September 8, 2006

Yeah and the treehuggers want to burn hydrogen and pump more water vapor into the atmosphere.

B. Max, would you object if I came over to your house and dumped garbage on your front lawn (without paying you for the inconvenience)?

It's HIS front lawn. But I'm sure you can dump it in your own.

That's right. It is HIS front lawn. Now, who owns the "environment"? Who is going to stop anyone from dumping on it?

So what gives anyone the right to dump garbage into the atmosphere for free?

Everyone pollutes, whether it's by car or whatever.

Exactly, Argus. And that's why we've got a problem.

----

I'm not going to use arcane scientific arguments about CO2 emissions and water vapour. I'm going to use the simple argument that if something appears to be free, it usually isn't. Eventually, the true cost will be apparent. At present, dumping crap into the atmosphere appears free to too many people. Obviously, they abuse this "free" resource.

Most rightwing people realize that Canada's health system doesn't work well because we've tried to abolish market laws - it appears to be free to patients.

Well, there is no market for the environment. It's literally a free-for-all. The environment is like communism. Private ownership doesn't exist. And that's a recipe for disaster, as the Soviet Union made plain.

cybercoma · September 8, 2006

Hey look! The highest humidex level EVER was in 1953 Windsor, ON. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidex

Global Warming must've been much worse 53 years ago. We're actually improving!

Argus · September 9, 2006

So you're just here to bitch at people and strut around in your moral superiority.

If knowing what's right and standing by it gives me "moral superiority" then I guess that's what I'm struttin' with on this topic.

I would say claiming things like water vapor is causing the harmful Global Warming we're experiencing makes a person incredibly immoral if they are being willfully ignorant.

Perhaps, but Bradco explained your side of that argument where you could not, so you needn't bother.

Now would someone care to have a go at the forest fire argument?

jbg · September 9, 2006

I think the burden of the tax imposed on pollution should be on the real pollutors Toronto (cars), Windsor Area (manufacturing) and Montreal (smelting), the real contributors to pollution. It's not even a local issue anymore, the disgusting cancer causing air is as far north as North Bay now.
That has a real economic effect on Canadians, now, today. People are dying right this second, if your living in that area, you right now are sucking on air that is full of cancer causing agents. CO2? Not really a big deal right now, might be down the road, but even still, not even close to what cancer will be 20 years from now.

Now tell me what the real issue is in the environment in Canada?

That would inconvenience Paul Desmairis and Maurice Strong greatly.

Electric Monk · September 10, 2006

Having done minimal reading on the subject of global warming, from what I understand water vapour is a "feedback" agent, which is increased when CO2 increases. This makes CO2 a "trigger" which directly causes increased warming and thus indirectly causes it as well through increased levels of water vapour in the air.

Electric Monk · September 10, 2006

Ok, forest fires, here goes. From what I know about forests, they consist of live plants, and also decaying plants. Decaying plants release methane gas, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Live ones are carbon sinks, intaking CO2 and releasing O2.

When a forest fire comes through, it clears out a lot of decaying matter, and also a lot of living plant matter, releasing a large amount of trapped carbon and water vapour. This results in a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions. After the fire passes, new growth takes the place of the old growth, and starts to sink away carbon again. This may be at a faster rate than before due to the youth of the new plants, and their accelerated growth. (I have no idea how rapidly this offsets the releases due to fire, but logically it has to balance out over time.)

I hope someone who knows more than I on this subject will correct me if I am mistaken.

gerryhatrick · September 10, 2006

Perhaps, but Bradco explained your side of that argument where you could not, so you needn't bother.
Now would someone care to have a go at the forest fire argument?

Oh, thank you so much.

I don't bother with people who are seemingly intelligent but choose to weigh in on the denial side of the "debate". That's my choice...one made after much patient imparting of the available information.

The simple fact is that some folks will never accept the reality. I think it's a mental weakness....they're unable to accept that such a situation could be occuring, so they latch onto any piece of deception or nonsense logic they can get their hands on. And then there's the partisan aspect as well. Some on the right see it as a political issue and truely believe that Global Warming is a plot by socialists to reign in capitalism. Or they have faith in God and have decided that God would not let it happen or it's part of Gods plan.

Stuff like this:

Hey look! The highest humidex level EVER was in 1953 Windsor, ON. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidex
Global Warming must've been much worse 53 years ago. We're actually improving!

is typical.

There is no real "debate" anymore, and well-meaning people who continue to debate the nonsense put forth by those who can't mentally compute the reality of Global Warming or are politically bent on denial are likely wasting their time.

Argus · September 10, 2006

Perhaps, but Bradco explained your side of that argument where you could not, so you needn't bother.

Now would someone care to have a go at the forest fire argument?

Oh, thank you so much.

I don't bother with people who are seemingly intelligent but choose to weigh in on the denial side of the "debate". That's my choice...one made after much patient imparting of the available information.

Yes, I've seen this curious attitude many times before among the proponents of Global Warming. It's an almost religious-like zealotry which demands everyone believe on faith alone, without deigning to explain their position or any of the apparent contradictions in their beliefs.

It's not very convincing.

Global Warming - is. Accept or ye are destined to hellfire and damnation for all eternity!

Canuck E Stan · September 10, 2006

There is no real "debate" anymore, and well-meaning people who continue to debate the nonsense put forth by those who can't mentally compute the reality of Global Warming or are politically bent on denial are likely wasting their time.

People who get all caught up in the "global warming" and the need for "Kyoto" and the necessity for Canada to do something, seem to forget that Canada only contributes to 6% of the world's problem.

Yea,yea, I know we have to do our part, and we will with a made in Canada policy.

But the reality of the situation is,some become obsessed with blaming the wrong governments to do the major reducing of pollution.

Asia's boom is fouling Canada's air, scientists say

Research shows that mercury deposition in the Arctic remained unchanged from 1990 to 2000 despite cuts in domestic emissions.
"There has been some decline [in mercury emissions] in Canada and U.S. emissions but that has been overcompensated by the emissions from Asia," said Ashu Dastoor, one of the scientists who led the research.

Annual Canadian mercury emissions as of 2000 were estimated at 8.6 tonnes, a small amount compared with China's total 606.5 tonnes

Asia accounted for about half of global mercury emissions in 2000, and China accounted for a quarter.
"That has influence all over the world," Ms. Dastoor said.