Reuters: Canada's Harper under fire for clean air plan

[B. Max]

All of that is understood by climatic scientists. It doesn't detract from the simple fact that Global Warming is happening and we're causing it.

Where is your proof. Or anyone elses for that matter.

I find it humorous that the deniers insist on pretending that Global Warming and measures against it are some kind of leftist conspiracy. The inability to face the truth on this issue is sad, but perhaps understandable given the magnitude of it. It frightens people, and weaker minds are unable to face it.

Lets take a look at the reality of the kyoto nonsense. Keeping in that the whack jobs who promote the kyoto scam claim this is only a beginning. After you get rid of everything, what the hell else are they going to get rid of.

If Canada were to remove every plane, train and automobile from service and were to shut down every manufacturing plant in the country, we would still not meet our Kyoto target, according to GHG figures available on Environment Canada's website.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...01/1930112.html

[jbg]

It frightens people, and weaker minds are unable to face it.

Despite overwhelming temptation, I have refrained from personal attacks on you. I am the last thing from having a "weak mind".

[Rovik]

There are several reasons why Global warming may never be addressed, not in the scale that it should be at least and future generations will suffer because of it.

First, countries don't have the will to fix the problem. Governments don't want to pay the political price for a large hit to the economy if global warming was too be stopped and reversed. Such governments may even pay the price politically as angry voters (especially ones that lost their jobs) oust them.

Next, countries do not want to lose any competitive edge to other countries. Therefore, they would say, "what should we cut back on emissions when other countries don't." Sadly, to successfully fight global warming, all countires must be willing to join in the fight or else it is doomed to failure. This would be tough because countries like China and India are developing their industrial base at breakneck speed and the one country in the world that might best be able to provide leadership in the fight, the US, doesn't want to make the sacrifices required to slow down and reverse the global warming threat.

Third, many people say that there is no proof or say it just a naturally-occuring pattern that the earth goes through. They say this even though a majority of scientists believe that global warming is indeed happening. artifically not naturally. The problem with having absolute proof, or "the smoking gun" is that we will only see this when the damage has already been done, when the impact is irreversible. Up to that point, there will be people who will still say that it is part of some natural process that the Earth goes through every so often.

[gerryhatrick]

Don't quote Licia Corbella, she's a cartoon character.

Go to the website and link those figures if you want to make waves there. Licia is ridiculous, and I won't waste my own time confirming that she's bullshitting yet again.

[gerryhatrick]

It frightens people, and weaker minds are unable to face it.

Despite overwhelming temptation, I have refrained from personal attacks on you. I am the last thing from having a "weak mind".

It was not directed at you, and there is no shame in having a mind to weak to face the reality of Global Warming. As I said, it is an issue of some magnitude, overwhelming to some.

[Argus]

I realize you're also wanting to know what specific programs I would support in the Global Warming fight.

Carbon tax would be something to explore. The oil sands output needs to be curbed somehow, but it needs to be enforced immediately.

There should also be a huge push by our leadership to highlight, encourage, and reward individual efforts.

Automakers need to be forced to make vehicles more efficient as well. They've been proven capable of it it elsewhere.

So you're willing to spend tens of billions of dollars on a desperate effort to reduce Canada's emissions even though they are a drop in the bucket so far as Global Warming is concerned?

That's your portrayal, not mine. And it's a dishonest one.

What exactly is dishonest? The amount which would have to be spent, or the fact that Canada's contribution to world-wide emissions is a drop in the bucket?

The topic deals with the fact that Global Warming IS an important issue, and the Harper plan is criticised as not doing enough. That is the message Canadians see and understand.

That is because Canadians, by and large, are ignorant. But you're dealing with thinking people here, bud, and if you've got nothing to back up your complaints you're not going to get anywhere or convince anyone.

[Argus]

Don't quote Licia Corbella, she's a cartoon character.

Go to the website and link those figures if you want to make waves there. Licia is ridiculous, and I won't waste my own time confirming that she's bullshitting yet again.

Are you saying the figures she quotes from Environment Canada are inacurate? If so it should be fairly easy to show it. If not - then you're just farting into the internet.

[gerryhatrick]

Don't quote Licia Corbella, she's a cartoon character.

Go to the website and link those figures if you want to make waves there. Licia is ridiculous, and I won't waste my own time confirming that she's bullshitting yet again.

Are you saying the figures she quotes from Environment Canada are inacurate? If so it should be fairly easy to show it. If not - then you're just farting into the internet.

I'm saying she is routinely full of shit. Her word stands for nothing.

She doesn't quote any figures, btw, she just makes a claim. If that claim is somehow represented by the Environment Canada website I will eat crow, but I won't waste my time trying to find support for claims made by her.

[B. Max]

She doesn't quote any figures, btw, she just makes a claim. If that claim is somehow represented by the Environment Canada website I will eat crow, but I won't waste my time trying to find support for claims made by her.

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

[gerryhatrick]

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

I didn't realize it was up to me to prove all the nutjobs wrong B Max.

[B. Max]

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

I didn't realize it was up to me to prove all the nutjobs wrong B Max.

I would say it is up to you to see that your credibility doesn't suffer.

[jbg]

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

I didn't realize it was up to me to prove all the nutjobs wrong B Max.

A proof is a proof is a proof is a proof.

[gerryhatrick]

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

I didn't realize it was up to me to prove all the nutjobs wrong B Max.

I would say it is up to you to see that your credibility doesn't suffer.

You're living in a dreamworld. Am I to prove your ravings about Global Warming depopulation conspiracies as well? Wake up.

[B. Max]

A proof is a proof is a proof is a proof.

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore toto

[jbg]

I'm saying she is routinely full of sh**. Her word stands for nothing.

She doesn't quote any figures, btw, she just makes a claim. If that claim is somehow represented by the Environment Canada website I will eat crow, but I won't waste my time trying to find support for claims made by her.

Do you think your use of profanity makes your argument stronger? I cannot believe it complies with House Rules.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You're living in a dreamworld. Am I to prove your ravings about Global Warming depopulation conspiracies as well? Wake up.

Hmmm Grehatrick. Yet again, baiting, insulting other posters and nothing is said.

Seems to me that your special status on this board needs to be explained.

Or is that too "weak-minded" of me?

[jbg]

You're living in a dreamworld. Am I to prove your ravings about Global Warming depopulation conspiracies as well? Wake up.

Then answer this (previous post reproduced for convenience):

Now, in the form of the UN and Kyoto, Europe seeks to re-impose the shackles of statism ...

Bupkiss and rank rightist paranoia. America created the UN. Kyoto isn't a"statist' measure. And Europe has no desire to 'impose' anything of the kind.

Then why did they pick 1990, Europe's peak, and the same year as the US was in recession as a base year? That gave Europe a considerable free pass since, with East Germany's industrial implosion, and matching declines in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, dropped Europe's emssion levels considerably between 1990 and 1992. The US began a long boom around that time, ensuring that the cutbacks to reach a level 25% (or whatever the number is) below 1990 levels would be crippling. The point I am making is that Kyoto is a dagger aimed at the US economy, by means of forcing disproportionate US reductions.

[gerryhatrick]

You're living in a dreamworld. Am I to prove your ravings about Global Warming depopulation conspiracies as well? Wake up.

Hmmm Grehatrick. Yet again, baiting, insulting other posters and nothing is said.

Seems to me that your special status on this board needs to be explained.

Or is that too "weak-minded" of me?

For God sake Ricki, in what way is this "baiting" or "insulting"? Telling someone they live in a dreamworld is an insult in your book? Do you really want the moderators running around clamping down on such mild stuff?

You need to drop this bizarre victim act you perform with rule book in hand. Stop chastising the board admin and complaining about me getting "special status". It is in your mind.

[B. Max]

The US began a long boom around that time, ensuring that the cutbacks to reach a level 25% (or whatever the number is) below 1990 levels would be crippling. The point I am making is that Kyoto is a dagger aimed at the US economy, by means of forcing disproportionate US reductions

The number I believe is 6% although it would still mean massive cutbacks. In this country in 1990 we were in a recession and we would have to have a recession 6% worse with no hope of ever recovering. Another thing about business. If you have business stagnation it means death to the business. Apply that to a country and no hope of getting out and you have the conditions of a third world backwater.

[newbie]

The greens are the threat to the world not global warming.

So I take it you would be against:

- promoting energy conservation,

- the conservation of wildlife, habitats, and natural ecosystems,

- repleting fish stocks,

- cleaning up contaminated water, and

- clear-cutting old growth forests.

Greens a threat to the world? No, just to people like you who are willing to burden your progeny with our mess.

[Argus]

Don't quote Licia Corbella, she's a cartoon character.

Go to the website and link those figures if you want to make waves there. Licia is ridiculous, and I won't waste my own time confirming that she's bullshitting yet again.

Are you saying the figures she quotes from Environment Canada are inacurate? If so it should be fairly easy to show it. If not - then you're just farting into the internet.

I'm saying she is routinely full of shit. Her word stands for nothing.

She doesn't quote any figures, btw, she just makes a claim. If that claim is somehow represented by the Environment Canada website I will eat crow, but I won't waste my time trying to find support for claims made by her.

Well, she says:

Canada is currently emitting more than 30% more than that target and is projected to be at 35% above target in 2012.

From what I've read elsewhere this is correct.

She then goes on to say:

The federal Liberals said Canada needs to cut 270 Mt annually in the 2008-2012 period.

Then for comparison purposes says:

According to the GHG inventories on the government website, in 2002, for instance, Canada's entire manufacturing sector -- which includes the construction industry and mining as well as manufacturing plants -- spewed out 62.9 Mt.

We don't really need to look at any other claims or figures. This is enough one way or another to validate the impossibility of getting anywhere near our Kyoto goals. If we really need to cut emissions by more than four times what our entire manufacturing sector puts out then it's hopeless.

So if you want to discredit her all you have to do is show that this figure is incorrect.

[B. Max]

The greens are the threat to the world not global warming.

So I take it you would be against:

- promoting energy conservation,

- the conservation of wildlife, habitats, and natural ecosystems,

- repleting fish stocks,

- cleaning up contaminated water, and

- clear-cutting old growth forests.

Greens a threat to the world? No, just to people like you who are willing to burden your progeny with our mess.

I oppose all forms of tyranny no matter what guise they operate under.

[gerryhatrick]

So if you want to discredit her all you have to do is show that this figure is incorrect.

Corbella discredited herself long ago.

The CPC gave up, and that resonates with Canadians. Now their new "plan" turns out to not really be a plan at all, but a decision to strike up some new legislation after a year or more of consultations.

This issue is a loser for them.

[B. Max]

Corbella discredited herself long ago.

She is not discredited, and least of all by your assertion, that offers nothing and only discredits your own credibility.

[Canuck E Stan]

So if you want to discredit her all you have to do is show that this figure is incorrect.

Corbella discredited herself long ago.

What kind of answer is that?

'Fraid you're the one who discredited yourself.

Unsupported statements don't mean anything if you're trying to make a rational valid point.

Same old arguement from the left,hit and run.