Global Warming Is Happening!

[B. Max]

Remember Reform.

Who sold out to become...Conservatives.

Yep some did. Those who didn't were added to the ranks of secessionists. As Harper continues to screw up those ranks are growing.

[sharkman]

Remember Reform.

Who sold out to become...Conservatives.

And only then did they beat the Liberals. Politics is full of such deals, becoming CPC was a kingmaker deal. I don't believe Reform could have ever won the PM office since it was wwaaaaay too regional. But within a CPC framework, reformers can do much good, like win a majority and rescind that silly gay marriage law.

[jdobbin]

And only then did they beat the Liberals. Politics is full of such deals, becoming CPC was a kingmaker deal. I don't believe Reform could have ever won the PM office since it was wwaaaaay too regional. But within a CPC framework, reformers can do much good, like win a majority and rescind that silly gay marriage law.

They've done a fine job of that so far. Didn't Harper now say "case closed?"

[JerrySeinfeld]

Just what the dippers need, another vehicle to destroy an economy, just like every other economy they've destroyed where they've been allowed to set up shop.

And now your own political party is watching An Inconvenient Truth for inspiration.

You mean...for VOTES

[blackascoal]

Ooopps, looks like the naysayers have been caught with their pants down again.

An excerpt ...

Exxon cuts ties to warming skeptics

Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 8:43 a.m. CT Jan 12, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

------------------------------

Exxon has been the biggest suporter of the naysayers, but even they are bending to the weight of the truth.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ooopps, looks like the naysayers have been caught with their pants down again.

An excerpt ...

Exxon cuts ties to warming skeptics

Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 8:43 a.m. CT Jan 12, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

------------------------------

Exxon has been the biggest suporter of the naysayers, but even they are bending to the weight of the truth.

I see them bending their image to suit the public's latest faux crisis (what happened to the ozone layer crisis? how about that shrinking ozone layer - gosh the lefties hate good news)

[jdobbin]

I see them bending their image to suit the public's latest faux crisis (what happened to the ozone layer crisis? how about that shrinking ozone layer - gosh the lefties hate good news)

Perhaps that was helped by the CFC ban that Mulroney signed. What do you think?

[jdobbin]

You mean...for VOTES

Well, they have your vote no matter what they do. They probably think there is no price to be paid for being strong on getting Canada on board with Kyoto.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You mean...for VOTES

Well, they have your vote no matter what they do. They probably think there is no price to be paid for being strong on getting Canada on board with Kyoto.

huh?

maybe they've learned a thing or two from the Liberals about electioneering. The libs have made all kinds of noise about Kyoto, yet haven't lifted a finger in 10 years to comply with it.

Or in the words of Andrew Coyne:

"At the Second World Climate Conference in 1990, Canada committed to stabilizing its emissions of greenhouse gases at then-current levels within a decade. The pledge was repeated in the federal government’s Green Plan of that year.

There followed a federal-provincial National Action Strategy on Global Warming, the federal Efficiency and Alternative Energy Program (1991), and a National Action Program on Climate Change (1995). A revised commitment, at Kyoto, to reduce emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-12, resulted in the National Climate Change Process (1998), soon overtaken by Canada’s First National Climate Change Business Plan (2000), not to mention Canada’s National Implementation Strategy on Climate Change and, inevitably, a second National Climate Change Business Plan (2002). Meanwhile, the federal government was churning out Action Plan 2000, a Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002), and, in 2005, Project Green, billed as “a plan for honouring our Kyoto commitment.”

Altogether, I make that two programs, four plans, a process, two strategies, and a project. The result: by 2004, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were nearly 27% above their 1990 baseline, having risen in more or less a straight line throughout this period. Ottawa alone had spent, by the federal environment commissioner’s count, $6-billion on sundry climate change schemes, to no discernible effect."

So if anyone is "not paying the price", it's the Liberals, not the conservatives.

[jdobbin]

So if anyone is "not paying the price", it's the Liberals, not the conservatives.

So you support the Conservatives accepting the science of global warming and moving ahead strongly on it as as issue?

[JerrySeinfeld]

So if anyone is "not paying the price", it's the Liberals, not the conservatives.

So you support the Conservatives accepting the science of global warming and moving ahead strongly on it as as issue?

No. I OBSERVE a wise campaign strategy: One of Dion's strong suits is environment and he may have been gearing up to make that a major campaign issue. If so, the CPC has stolen his thunder.

[jdobbin]

No. I OBSERVE a wise campaign strategy: One of Dion's strong suits is environment and he may have been gearing up to make that a major campaign issue. If so, the CPC has stolen his thunder.

I doubt it is very wise if Alberta feels alienated by it. Still, if Albertans wouldn't change their vote anyways, what is there to lose?

As for stealing Dion's thunder, the bill still has to be introduced and win NDP support. And for that to happen, it will have to be a pretty pill to swallow the the Conservatives. Many already expect that it will be the Conservatives themselves that reject the deal in the end.

[geoffrey]

Still, if Albertans wouldn't change their vote anyways, what is there to lose?

Screw the west, we'll take the rest?

That one sentence is both why Mr. Kennedy isn't leading the party and why there will not be a Liberal elected in Calgary... as there hasn't since the 50's... I'd wager no Liberals in all of Alberta, again.

Mostly because they believe they can't win a seat, refuse to make Alberta friendly policies (which actually benefit all of Canada) and decide instead to make Alberta the payee of their agenda for Quebec and GTA voters.

Which is fine, if that's where they believe their best votes are, then have at 'er. But don't complain that Albertans don't vote Liberal when the Liberals offer absolutely nothing to Alberta in return.

Harper didn't win Quebec seats by saying that Quebec needs to be cut off Federal welfare and join the rest of the world on language laws. Instead, he gave BQ supporters something they liked, and they voted.

What is Dion giving me, or other Albertans like me, to earn my vote?

Zilch.

As for stealing, Dion's thunder, the bill still have to be introduced and win NDP support. And for that to happen, it will have to be a pretty pill to swallow the the Conservatives. Many already expect that it will be the Conservatives themselves that reject the deal in the end.

Vote of confidence, the other parties reject the CPC plan and we have an environmental election in the spring. Eww.

[jdobbin]

Screw the west, we'll take the rest?

That one sentence is both why Mr. Kennedy isn't leading the party and why there will not be a Liberal elected in Calgary... as there hasn't since the 50's... I'd wager no Liberals in all of Alberta, again.

Vote of confidence, the other parties reject the CPC plan and we have an environmental election in the spring. Eww.

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that the Conservatives can screw the west to win the rest. After all, they think no one can touch them in Alberta. Dion introduced one measure so far to appeal to Albertans. It is still early in the leadership, we'll have to see what else there is on the table. Moreover, we'll have to see what sort of candidates emerge in Alberta.

I wasn't thinking a vote of confidence. I was saying the Tories reject the bill, throw up their arms and go to the Governor-General and ask her to dissolve Parliament because it isn't working.

[sunsettommy]

I see them bending their image to suit the public's latest faux crisis (what happened to the ozone layer crisis? how about that shrinking ozone layer - gosh the lefties hate good news)

Perhaps that was helped by the CFC ban that Mulroney signed. What do you think?

CFC's had a negligible impact.There is so little of it and also O3 is created faster than the chlorine that CFC's release can destroy.

The Antartica "hole" ( a media phrase invention) phenomenon is confined to the south pole region and in a limited time frame.

There is reports of similar phenomenon being reported back in the late 1950's by Dobson.

But you knew that.

[sunsettommy]

Who cares what political party is doing.

The planet is warming slowly.

How much of the warming is the fault of mankind is not known.

There ya go.

[Canuck E Stan]

Which causes the other, does excessive Co2 cause gobal warming, or does global warming cause excessive Co2?

Learn you facts, before you make judgements on the cause.

[shoggoth]

CFC's had a negligible impact.There is so little of it and also O3 is created faster than the chlorine that CFC's release can destroy.

It's precisely because ozone cannot be created faster than it is destroyed by chlorine that levels of it reduce in the antarctic each winter and spring.

The Antartica "hole" ( a media phrase invention)

Seems an apt name to give to something that is a regional depletion of something in both area and depth

phenomenon is confined to the south pole region and in a limited time frame.

The hole grows and wanes in a cycle each year (in both depth and area), but the issue was about the maximum depth and area increasing since the 70s

There is reports of similar phenomenon being reported back in the late 1950's by Dobson.

That's a myth based on a misinterpretation of what he did see. Dobson found that antarctic ozone levels in the spring are less than the arctic ozone levels in spring, due to difference in weather. Measurements of ozone at that time show the late 50s were the same as the 60s and early 70s (the hole didn't start growing until about the mid 70s onwards)