Will Al Gore Melt? (Cowardice in Denmark)

[jdobbin]

Could be a separate issue... but GHG takes up this pressing issue's airtime and dollars, so I think they are quite linked.

Lately the toxins people in Canada have been getting lots of press.

[geoffrey]

Lately the toxins people in Canada have been getting lots of press.

If anything other than environmentally related cancer was killing tens of thousands of Canadians annually, it'd be getting far more press. SARS killed what, 25?

[jdobbin]

If anything other than environmentally related cancer was killing tens of thousands of Canadians annually, it'd be getting far more press. SARS killed what, 25?

That's probably why Canadian scientists have tested some MPs to bring awareness on the issue.

As I said though, it is a separate environmental issue. I attach no less importance on it than other areas that scientists say are a threat.

[tml12]

If anything other than environmentally related cancer was killing tens of thousands of Canadians annually, it'd be getting far more press. SARS killed what, 25?

That's probably why Canadian scientists have tested some MPs to bring awareness on the issue.

As I said though, it is a separate environmental issue. I attach no less importance on it than other areas that scientists say are a threat.

It is not a separate environmental issue jdobbin.

Additionally, are you an apologist for the Liberal environmental record or do you acknowledge that it is clearly worse than the American one?

[jdobbin]

It is not a separate environmental issue jdobbin.

Additionally, are you an apologist for the Liberal environmental record or do you acknowledge that it is clearly worse than the American one?

Do a search in these forums and you will see I say the Liberal environmental program was piss poor.

The Conservative Clean Air Act was not an improvement on that and it didn't even need a strong Liberal opposition to defeat it. Canadians themselves didn't think much of it.

[geoffrey]

I agree with dobbin here. The Liberals are a mess on the environment, the CPC isn't much better (though they've made progress... though creativity was a littel sparse on their recent plans...).

I did like the CPC's study of many and ban of some chemicals in our environment, that was a huge step forward in my eyes. But there is no plan addressing some of the easily solvable environmental problems (California style emissions controls from cars for example). If a California Republican can sell these ideas, Harper surely can. And he'll need to if he ever wants a majority.

[jbg]

If a California Republican can sell these ideas, Harper surely can. And he'll need to if he ever wants a majority.

People in Canada don't realize that California has severe local pollution problems, because of the shape of the valley in which the Los Angeles/San Diego/Santa Barbara megalopolis exists in.

[jdobbin]

People in Canada don't realize that California has severe local pollution problems, because of the shape of the valley in which the Los Angeles/San Diego/Santa Barbara megalopolis exists in.

Smog and emissions are related?

[tml12]

It is not a separate environmental issue jdobbin.

Additionally, are you an apologist for the Liberal environmental record or do you acknowledge that it is clearly worse than the American one?

Do a search in these forums and you will see I say the Liberal environmental program was piss poor.

The Conservative Clean Air Act was not an improvement on that and it didn't even need a strong Liberal opposition to defeat it. Canadians themselves didn't think much of it.

Fair enough.

[Black Dog]

The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming.

I was intrigue duntil I saw who the authors were and started to wonder where "people who actually know something about the environment and global warming" entered the picture," since the only person referenced was Bjorn Lomborg.

If anything other than environmentally related cancer was killing tens of thousands of Canadians annually, it'd be getting far more press. SARS killed what, 25?

Why do people think a concentrated campaign against environmental toxins wouldn't come up against the exact same skepticism and attacks as the climate change? I'm sure the same arguments about why dealing with climate change would be too costly and would destroy our way of life would be duly trotted out by those with the vested interest in the status quo and the cash to support the propigation of their views.

[jbg]

The GHG scare is phony.

Why do a majority of scientists disagree with you?

You have to look at who funds the scientists. You also have to look at whether having a problem, or non-problem, is better for the purposes of obtaining funding.

[Who's Doing What?]

The GHG scare is phony.

Why do a majority of scientists disagree with you?

You have to look at who funds the scientists. You also have to look at whether having a problem, or non-problem, is better for the purposes of obtaining funding.

You mean like the ones that worked for the tobacco companies who told everyone smoking was good for you?

Or the ones who work for oil and gas and are telling everyone that humans have no impact on the earth?

[jdobbin]

You have to look at who funds the scientists. You also have to look at whether having a problem, or non-problem, is better for the purposes of obtaining funding.

This is sort of sounding like a conspiracy theory.

[gc1765]

You have to look at who funds the scientists. You also have to look at whether having a problem, or non-problem, is better for the purposes of obtaining funding.

The government funds most science research, and the level of funding does NOT change as a result of global warming. Nice try though.

[B. Max]

You have to look at who funds the scientists. You also have to look at whether having a problem, or non-problem, is better for the purposes of obtaining funding.

The government funds most science research, and the level of funding does NOT change as a result of global warming. Nice try though.

That's a big lie.

[gc1765]

That's a big lie.

Oh, well, if you say so, I guess everyone here will just have to take your word for it. Seriously though, why don't you try to provide at least some sort of argument to back up your claim?

[B. Max]

That's a big lie.

Oh, well, if you say so, I guess everyone here will just have to take your word for it. Seriously though, why don't you try to provide at least some sort of argument to back up your claim?

Actually everyone here but you already knows or should. Plenty of scientists have said if you don't toe the global warming line you don't get the money.

[bush_cheney2004]

The government funds most science research, and the level of funding does NOT change as a result of global warming. Nice try though.

This is patently false (pun intended). "Science" encompasses a broad field of disciplines.

In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government, although in poorer countries such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly less.

[Wiki]

[gc1765]

Actually everyone here but you already knows or should. Plenty of scientists have said if you don't toe the global warming line you don't get the money.

Again, want to back up that claim? Or are you just trolling?

[B. Max]

Actually everyone here but you already knows or should. Plenty of scientists have said if you don't toe the global warming line you don't get the money.

Again, want to back up that claim? Or are you just trolling?

Go and watch the great global warming swindle and here it in there own words.

[gc1765]

Go and watch the great global warming swindle and here it in there own words.

You never did answer where the funding comes from.

I'll give you a clue, next time you are reading scientific articles on global warming (which I assume you do all the time), take a look at the acknowledgements...then google "NSERC".

[jbg]

Opening post edited to update link.

[Wilber]

Smog and emissions are related?

Emissions of what? People need to realize that emissions which produce photochemical smog, certain other toxic emissions and CO2 emissions are all different animals. By concentrating on on the elimination of one you can end up increasing the production of another. Make up your mind which you want and act accordingly.

[jbg]

Emissions of what? People need to realize that emissions which produce photochemical smog, certain other toxic emissions and CO2 emissions are all different animals. By concentrating on on the elimination of one you can end up increasing the production of another. Make up your mind which you want and act accordingly.

You are right. The problem is that the enviro lobby's goal is to shut down and/or regulate growth, not necessarily to make any real gains for the environment. Ask how many global-warming fetishists has gone for an outdoor hike in the last year.

[peter_puck]

Oh, well, if you say so, I guess everyone here will just have to take your word for it. Seriously though, why don't you try to provide at least some sort of argument to back up your claim?

Actually everyone here but you already knows or should. Plenty of scientists have said if you don't toe the global warming line you don't get the money.

The last place for really bad ideas to hide is conspiracy theories. By resorting to this really silly "everyone is afraid to tell the truth because of funding" idea, you are putting the anti-AGW idea right up there with the aliens-among-us idea.