Ottawa reneges on Liberal pledge to help poor countries cut greenhouse

[gerryhatrick]

Ottawa reneges on Liberal pledge to help poor countries cut greenhouse gases

at 16:58 on September 10, 2006, EST.

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Conservatives are cancelling a $1.5 million pledge by the previous Liberal government to help developing countries cut greenhouse emissions under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol.

Abandoning the pledge made at a United Nations conference in Montreal last December is another blow to the teetering climate treaty which the Conservative government still claims to support.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=na...=./n091027A.xml

Well of course Harper doesn't consider greenhouse gases to be "pollution", so why would he waste money on that?

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record??

[B. Max]

Ottawa reneges on Liberal pledge to help poor countries cut greenhouse gases

at 16:58 on September 10, 2006, EST.

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Conservatives are cancelling a $1.5 million pledge by the previous Liberal government to help developing countries cut greenhouse emissions under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol.

Abandoning the pledge made at a United Nations conference in Montreal last December is another blow to the teetering climate treaty which the Conservative government still claims to support.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=na...=./n091027A.xml

Well of course Harper doesn't consider greenhouse gases to be "pollution", so why would he waste money on that?

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record??

The only question I have is what took so long, and why doesn't he tell the UN to take a hike.

[Riverwind]

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record?

Tell me something. Let's assume global warming is happening. Why should anyone in Canada, who does not own property on the seashore, care ? Warmer winters is Canada is a good thing and will reduce heating costs and expand the amount of arable land in the country.

[gerryhatrick]

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record?

Tell me something. Let's assume global warming is happening. Why should anyone in Canada, who does not own property on the seashore, care ? Warmer winters is Canada is a good thing and will reduce heating costs and expand the amount of arable land in the country.

Go to google, type in wikipedia global warming effects

The effects on Canada are not as rosey as you might want to believe.

Oh, and as for "increase arable land" in Canada....what will you grow with no water?

[B. Max]

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record?

Tell me something. Let's assume global warming is happening. Why should anyone in Canada, who does not own property on the seashore, care ?

Go to google, type in wikipedia global warming effects

The effects on Canada are not as rosey as you might want to believe.

All part of the scare mongering. But hey, hold onto your parkas.

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/climate/60908_04.html

[Riverwind]

The effects on Canada are not as rosey as you might want to believe. Oh, and as for "increase arable land" in Canada....what will you grow with no water?

What makes you think there would be less water in Canada? Nothing wikipedia suggests that would be the case. In fact, almost all of the effects described in the wikipedia article are either neutral statements of fact (i.e. the north west passage opening up) or affect places other than Canada (parts of the lower mainland of Vancouver being obvious exceptions).

[jbg]

Ottawa reneges on Liberal pledge to help poor countries cut greenhouse gases

at 16:58 on September 10, 2006, EST.

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Conservatives are cancelling a $1.5 million pledge by the previous Liberal government to help developing countries cut greenhouse emissions under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol.

Abandoning the pledge made at a United Nations conference in Montreal last December is another blow to the teetering climate treaty which the Conservative government still claims to support.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=na...=./n091027A.xml

Well of course Harper doesn't consider greenhouse gases to be "pollution", so why would he waste money on that?

Has anyone every actually asked him if he believes Global Warming is happening? I know nobody can ask him any questions anymore....but maybe before he was elected there's something on record??

Even if global warming is happening, it may well be cyclical. A "chicken little" response to inevitable and natural cycles, that will not help cut warming but will definitely hurt the poor and middle class, is senseless. Well, not senseless for the people who believed that the September 11 attacks made sense.

[watching&waiting]

I give Harper and the CPC credit for catching this very stupid waste of money. Why should we here in Canada be helping other countries to cut their emmissions. If they are that poor they probably will not have enough industry to have high emmissions to start with, and if they can afford to have the factories and the cars etc. then they can pay for their own emmission reduction.

Canada would be one of the countries to greatly benefit from global warming and even the tar sands would give us much more and easier to get oil if the temps went up 10-15 degrees. As far as for Canadas water goes will will have plenty of it and our farmers may even get two crops per year making them much more competitive on the global markets.

Now seriously I do not even begin to have any faith in kyoto and I do not see any real pressing need at this time, as global warming has come and gone quite naturally many times. Even long before the industrial age. The one thing awareness has done is make us develope more efficient machines and equipment. If we all used the newest of these out there today emmissions would drop considerably, but that would not be enough for the "End is near Group" that constantly is on about how things need to go back to preindustrial times.

[gerryhatrick]

The effects on Canada are not as rosey as you might want to believe. Oh, and as for "increase arable land" in Canada....what will you grow with no water?

What makes you think there would be less water in Canada? Nothing wikipedia suggests that would be the case.

Well, the wiki page on the effects of global warming does mention increased drought, but you're right it doesn't mention Canada specifically in that. I didn't claim it did.

What makes me think there would be drought as a result of Global Warming in Canada? It's pretty common knowledge, actually. Do you mean to say you've not heard it?

Here's one link quickly found:

Drought's Growing Reach:

NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor

January 10, 2005

BOULDER- The percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Widespread drying occurred over much of Europe and Asia, Canada, western and southern Africa, and eastern Australia. Rising global temperatures appear to be a major factor, says NCAR's Aiguo Dai, lead author of the study.

Dai will present the new findings on January 12 at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Diego. The work also appears in the December issue of the Journal of Hydrometeorology in a paper also authored by NCAR's Kevin Trenberth and Taotao Qian. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's primary sponsor.

Dai and colleagues found that the fraction of global land experiencing very dry conditions (defined as -3 or less on the Palmer Drought Severity Index) rose from about 10-15% in the early 1970s to about 30% by 2002. Almost half of that change is due to rising temperatures rather than decreases in rainfall or snowfall, according to Dai.

"Global climate models predict increased drying over most land areas during their warm season, as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increase," says Dai. "Our analyses suggest that this drying may have already begun."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/dro..._research.shtml

It's a pretty simple concept:

warming = more evaporation. Warm air can hold more water for longer. This = dry conditions.

And paradoxically more flooding as this increased amount of evaporated water gets dumped at intervals.

[gerryhatrick]

Even if global warming is happening, it may well be cyclical.

I'm curious...do you REALLY believe that? Given what the VAST majority of scientists concede as fact, do you actually believe what you're saying?

A "chicken little" response to inevitable and natural cycles, that will not help cut warming but will definitely hurt the poor and middle class, is senseless. Well, not senseless for the people who believed that the September 11 attacks made sense.

What does that mean? That is really an incredibly bizarre thing to say. It appears you think concern over Global Warming is a political stance....akin to agreeing with 9/11 attacks.

[Canuck E Stan]

Go to google, type in wikipedia global warming effects

The effects on Canada are not as rosey as you might want to believe.

Well, the wiki page on the effects of global warming does mention increased drought, but you're right it doesn't mention Canada specifically in that. I didn't claim it did.

You write contracts for a living?

[B. Max]

Even if global warming is happening, it may well be cyclical.

I'm curious...do you REALLY believe that? Given what the VAST majority of scientists concede as fact, do you actually believe what you're saying?

A "chicken little" response to inevitable and natural cycles, that will not help cut warming but will definitely hurt the poor and middle class, is senseless. Well, not senseless for the people who believed that the September 11 attacks made sense.

What does that mean? That is really an incredibly bizarre thing to say. It appears you think concern over Global Warming is a political stance....akin to agreeing with 9/11 attacks.

The so called vast majority of scientists have been proven wrong because they didn't do proper scientific research and they don't like it. In stead the were paid to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen2/debunk.html

[jbg]

Even if global warming is happening, it may well be cyclical.

I'm curious...do you REALLY believe that? Given what the VAST majority of scientists concede as fact, do you actually believe what you're saying?

Absolutely. See below (my original writing).

A "chicken little" response to inevitable and natural cycles, that will not help cut warming but will definitely hurt the poor and middle class, is senseless. Well, not senseless for the people who believed that the September 11 attacks made sense.

What does that mean? That is really an incredibly bizarre thing to say. It appears you think concern over Global Warming is a political stance....akin to agreeing with 9/11 attacks.

What I mean is that the view that global warming is manmade is utterly senseless. Changing the earth's temperature is a Sisyphean (sp) task, which I do not believe human activity can have much power over. I believe, also, that the Native Americans were also altering the environment. See Charles E. Mann's excellent book 1491.

Further, a little historical perspective is in order on the issue of global warming. In the days of the Vikings, around the year 1000, wine grapes were harvested in Newfoundland and Greenland and Iceland were both fit for agriculture. I doubt that man-made pollution made that possible.

Then, during the "Little Ice Age" of the late 1700's cannons could cross the Hudson River near New York City on the solid ice. Dickens' had the snowy settings for his stories in London. In short, we are at neither the warm nor cold extremes of recent history. We should remember that previously we worried about a man-made "Ice Age" during the three cold winters of 1976-77 (with record cold, record Buffalo area snow, though NYC got almost no snow, the Hudson River froze); 1977-78 (with record East Coast snows); and 1978-79 (with record Chicago area snows).

Before steps are taken that will bankrupt the Canadian and US economies (mostly to benefit European economies) a bit of calm reflection is in order. The details of the Kyoto accord show its cynicism; the base year for calculating greenhouse gases is 1990, just prior to when Europe and Japan started a major recession and just before the USA and Canada experienced economic growth

If countries are forced to reduce emissions 15% from 1990 levels, guess which countries get to suffer? Almost entirely Canada and the US. On that score, I have a modest suggestion; suggest to the Europeans that the base year for measuring Kyoto compliance be changed from 1990 (12 years ago) to 2000. See how fast the Europeans would look to get out of Kyoto.

If you're interested, I refer you to these links:

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/

and

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Libr...mingArticle.pdf or, if you're having trouble opening,

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/

The summation of this is that there are many causes of climate change; there are the famous, roughly 3-5 year El Nino, La Nina cycles, there is the less famous 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (that has biased towards warming from 1977 on and should now be causing a bias towards cooling), even longer sunspot cycles, etc.

There have, over the millenia, been lots of incidents of both warming and cooling of climate. The Viking era (warm); the period when Dickens wrote (cold). Kyoto - billions for nothing.

On the other hand there have been natural cycles for centuries. It is most arrogant to think that just because we, as humans, congregate between approximately 35 degrees north and 50 degrees north, that the area will forever stay exactly the way we want it. There is nothing a bunch of politicians can do to change this.

[gerryhatrick]

The so called vast majority of scientists have been proven wrong because they didn't do proper scientific research and they don't like it. In stead the were paid to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

Is that right? Wow, that's interesting.

Tell me, is this Global Warming thing a socialist plot to take down Capitalism?

[B. Max]

The so called vast majority of scientists have been proven wrong because they didn't do proper scientific research and they don't like it. In stead the were paid to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

Is that right? Wow, that's interesting.

Tell me, is this Global Warming thing a socialist plot to take down Capitalism?

No the kyoto fraud is some sort of an attempt to do that. However it is firstly an attempt to extort from capitalism.

[jbg]

The so called vast majority of scientists have been proven wrong because they didn't do proper scientific research and they don't like it. In stead the were paid to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

Is that right? Wow, that's interesting.

Tell me, is this Global Warming thing a socialist plot to take down Capitalism?

No the kyoto fraud is some sort of an attempt to do that. However it is firstly an attempt to extort from capitalism.

And by two first-rate capitalists, both Canadians, mind you. Paul Desmairis and Maurice Strong (the latter now on the lam).

[B. Max]

The so called vast majority of scientists have been proven wrong because they didn't do proper scientific research and they don't like it. In stead the were paid to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

Is that right? Wow, that's interesting.

Tell me, is this Global Warming thing a socialist plot to take down Capitalism?

No the kyoto fraud is some sort of an attempt to do that. However it is firstly an attempt to extort from capitalism.

And by two first-rate capitalists, both Canadians, mind you. Paul Desmairis and Maurice Strong (the latter now on the lam).

That's right.

[cybercoma]

How could anyone come to any sort of conclusion about the future of our environment based on 30 years of data? The earth cycles over centuries, not a couple decades.

[B. Max]

The global warming scammers base global warming on their computer models and then trot out everything from one hurricane season to some heavy rains to what have you, as proof for their computer models. In reality none of which can even be made to match the historical temperature records. How could they then be even remotely reliable to predict the future. Then claim the debate is over. In fact they have resisted every slightest attempt at debate by attempting to demonize those who debunk their theories and so called science.

Not much global warming here. Looks like they're wrong for another 14 days.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/1...ef=wxeyewx14day

[watching&waiting]

Kyoto's science was skewed to a certain preclaimed result, and that is a fact that many people do forget or skip over. We have seen Ice cores from the Greenland glacier that have shown many golbal warming and cooling much greater then todays, over many centuries of time. There were no greenhouse gasses around then that were not caused by nature itself. So why are we so sure that todays contribution by man is so harming the natrural way of things.

I will agree that if you can take modles of the earth and it atmospher and do the worst case scenarios that things can look bleak. But we can not account for nature itself in models, so at best we can only say that the model is representative of only one side of the problem. Naturally warming and cooling is an everday thing and we have not even got to the point of being near the warmest ever or the coolest ever so why are we being so alrmed about this. Can any scientist prove that todays warming is not part of a natural event? No. just as we can not prove it is. So for now lets wait and see where and what happens before we go spending wildly on voodoo science.