Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Shady]

And so that means that we should do nothing, correct?

For CO2? Yes. However, I'm all for reducing real pollutants.

[Smallc]

For CO2? Yes. However, I'm all for reducing real pollutants.

But what does it matter if we reduce real pollution? I mean, China is putting out so much more, and even if we reduced to to zero, it would be like taking an eye dropper full of water out of a pool.......

[Michael Hardner]

This would be good advice but for the worrying politicians and their ever helpful plans to save us all from ourselves.

Obviously, some posters here are benefiting from the idea of anthropogenic climate change and feel it necessary to refute any challenge by deniers. If you made your living from making buggy whips you certainly would be condemning the intrusion of automobiles on society.

1. If there's a danger, then I would say it is the job of politicians to alert us to that. We seem to be happy when they call us to war under similar circumstances.

2. That's a cheap ad hominem. "Obviously, if people don't agree with me they must be making money from their false opinions." Posters also use this rationale when explaining why they don't trust scientists. To me, this is an example of the psychological concept of "projection", as I can't understand why else someone wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt.

[Shady]

But what does it matter if we reduce real pollution? I mean, China is putting out so much more, and even if we reduced to to zero, it would be like taking an eye dropper full of water out of a pool.......

Because, real pollution from emissions in Canada, like carbon carbon monoxide, can and do have negative effects. Particularly associated with health and respiratory issues. These types of air quality problems are local issues.

[Bonam]

But what does it matter if we reduce real pollution? I mean, China is putting out so much more, and even if we reduced to to zero, it would be like taking an eye dropper full of water out of a pool.......

Pollution can have local effects that are a lot stronger than its global effects. For example, consider how polluted many cities in China are, the huge clouds of smog, etc. And yet we see no trace of that here where we have relatively clean air. Thus cutting the pollution emitted locally has a strong effect on our local environment. Meanwhile, cutting CO2 emissions in Canada, because its effects are primarily global in nature, just gets lost as a tiny speck compared to the activities of much larger economies.

What we can and should be doing, though, is focusing on development of new cleaner, technologies. We can then sell these to other nations, where they may have a real impact on emissions, and we can make a lot of money in the process. We should be investing heavily in technologies like cleaner and safer nuclear power, fusion energy, cheaper and more efficient solar panels, advanced energy storage systems, more efficient lighting, heating, insulation, etc.

[Smallc]

Because, real pollution from emissions in Canada, like carbon carbon monoxide, can and do have negative effects. Particularly associated with health and respiratory issues. These types of air quality problems are local issues.

And according to everything I've learned about global warming greenhouse gasses all cause problems of their own that could result in severe effects. You're simply picking and choosing what you wish to believe in.

[waldo]

What we can and should be doing, though, is focusing on development of new cleaner, technologies. We can then sell these to other nations, where they may have a real impact on emissions, and we can make a lot of money in the process. We should be investing heavily in technologies like cleaner and safer nuclear power, fusion energy, cheaper and more efficient solar panels, advanced energy storage systems, more efficient lighting, heating, insulation, etc.

to which we have the Harper Conservatives refusing to sign on to IRENA (The International Renewable Energy Agency) - about IRENA... with 142 individual state signatories, along with the EU. Hello... Canada!

Mandated by these governments worldwide, IRENA will promote the widespread and increased adoption and sustainable use of all forms or renewable energy. Acting as the global voice for renewable energies, IRENA will facilitate access to all relevant renewable energy information, including technical data, economic data and renewable resource potential data. IRENA will share experiences on best practices and lessons learned regarding policy frameworks, capacity-building projects, available finance mechanisms and renewable energy related energy efficiency measures.

- the Arena 2010 Work Program and Budget

- U.S. Department of State announcement to the U.S. signing the "Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency"

IRENA will engage governments around the world in promoting a rapid transition toward the widespread and sustainable use of renewable energy on a global scale. Our government’s participation is an important element of the Administration’s effort to support clean energy technologies and the development of low carbon economies to address global climate change and to advance our domestic and foreign policy objectives.

As President Obama has said, the development of clean, renewable sources of energy will be the growth industry of the 21st century. Not only is this an important step toward creating jobs, it will help safeguard the health of our planet and enhance America’s future prosperity and security. For these reasons and more, the State Department will continue to make climate change and clean energy priorities of our foreign policy agenda. The Administration will work closely with other signatories, IRENA’s leadership, and Members of Congress to ensure that IRENA’s work augments and complements other renewable energy efforts around the world.

- for those always wanting to point to China... China will be attending next weeks IRENA meetings as an observer.

Harper Conservatives position on IRENA:

[Bonam]

to which we have the Harper Conservatives refusing to sign on to IRENA (The International Renewable Energy Agency) - about IRENA... with 142 individual state signatories, along with the EU. Hello... Canada!

We don't need to submit ourselves to some multinational organization to work on developing new technologies. Working on the national scale is more than enough. Who cares about freaking IRENA? What we need is funding at home for Canadian businesses to develop new technologies, not some scam international bureaucracy, which we already have more than enough of with the UN.

[waldo]

We don't need to submit ourselves to some multinational organization to work on developing new technologies. Working on the national scale is more than enough. Who cares about freaking IRENA? What we need is funding at home for Canadian businesses to develop new technologies, not some scam international bureaucracy, which we already have more than enough of with the UN.

clearly, 142 countries... and the EU don't concur with your assessment. Certainly, Canada can 'go it alone'... can isolate itself from the IRENA 'roadmaps'... could presume to sell that home-grown technology you spoke to, separate from the natural networking afforded through an international agency. What the hell, we should probably bail from the UN as well - hey?

[Bonam]

clearly, 142 countries... and the EU don't concur with your assessment. Certainly, Canada can 'go it alone'... can isolate itself from the IRENA 'roadmaps'... could presume to sell that home-grown technology you spoke to, separate from the natural networking afforded through an international agency.

Oh not not being isolated from the "IRENA roadmaps". Whatever shall we do? We're doomed I tell you, doomed! The agency is nothing but a money sink that will employ a couple worthless bureaucrats pushing around paper, accomplishing nothing.

What the hell, we should probably bail from the UN as well - hey?

Unfortunately, until the UN can be disbanded or replaced, we should probably stay in. Some sane countries have to keep the third world rabble in check.

[waldo]

Oh not not being isolated from the "IRENA roadmaps". Whatever shall we do? We're doomed I tell you, doomed! The agency is nothing but a money sink that will employ a couple worthless bureaucrats pushing around paper, accomplishing nothing.

for an agency that's in it's relative infancy you've made a very quick baseless assessment... ya, right - isolationist positions are clearly the way to go!

Unfortunately, until the UN can be disbanded or replaced, we should probably stay in. Some sane countries have to keep the third world rabble in check.

yes, obviously - first & second world countries project a shining model for the third world to emulate... why bother with the UN if it's simply a 'rabble check' point - aren't there plenty of world policeman ready to take up the cause? And here I thought the UN was much, much more than "that" - go figure.

[Bonam]

for an agency that's in it's relative infancy you've made a very quick baseless assessment... ya, right - isolationist positions are clearly the way to go!

Not signing on to yet another of the thousands of worthless international bureaucratic agencies is hardly isolationist politics.

yes, obviously - first & second world countries project a shining model for the third world to emulate... why bother with the UN if it's simply a 'rabble check' point - aren't there plenty of world policeman ready to take up the cause? And here I thought the UN was much, much more than "that" - go figure.

Amuse me, just what did you think the UN was? The shining beacon of hope for mankind?

[waldo]

Not signing on to yet another of the thousands of worthless international bureaucratic agencies is hardly isolationist politics.

yes, clearly... you've laid down the mantle now. It's not just this localized focus on the upstart IRENA... or the UN proper. Your assessment of worth now includes, wait for it... "thousands" of international agencies. Obviously, you're a champion for non-isolation policy. And here I thought isolationism included both politics... and economics.

Amuse me, just what did you think the UN was? The shining beacon of hope for mankind?

I really have little interest, at least in this thread, to debate the worth/value-add of the UN... it's really a non-starter, for me. However, should you feel so inclined you might wish to create a separate thread to presumptively attempt to denigrate the UN.

[Bonam]

yes, clearly... you've laid down the mantle now. It's not just this localized focus on the upstart IRENA

Let's take a look at IRENA. Here is their statement of goals:

Acting as the global voice for renewable energies, IRENA will provide practical advice and support for both industrialised and developing countries, help them improve their regulatory frameworks and build capacity. The agency will facilitate access to all relevant information including reliable data on the potential of renewable energy, best practices, effective financial mechanisms and state-of-the-art technological expertise.

So, to break this down. They want to:

• - advocate adoption of renewable energies (that is, say the same thing many high profile people and other agencies around the world are already saying)
  
• - help with "regulatory frameworks" (translation: meddle in the sovereign internal politics of nations)
  
• - facilitate access to information (information that is already easily and freely available online and so doesn't need further facilitating)
  
• - help nations to "build capacity" (impossible, with their stated 25 mil budget)
  

So, like I said, they will be a worthless agency that pushes around paper. And yes, this is generally characteristic of many international agencies.

[waldo]

So, like I said, they will be a worthless agency that pushes around paper. And yes, this is generally characteristic of many international agencies.

not a problem - it's clear you're supportive of the Harper Conservatives continuing to keep Canada out of IRENA. Your initial post talked of development and selling to other nations... I interpret you assume a dedicated agency, like IRENA, one with almost wholesale across the board acceptance by the global community of nations, would be a vehicle to "network"... to understand (maybe even influence) development directions and, potentially, market developed solutions through - directly, or indirectly.

[Shady]

not a problem - it's clear you're supportive of the Harper Conservatives continuing to keep Canada out of IRENA.

God I hope so. The last thing we need is for Canada to be involved in another leftwing, useless, symbolism over substance, United Nations type bullshit.

[waldo]

God I hope so. The last thing we need is for Canada to be involved in another leftwing, useless, symbolism over substance, United Nations type bullshit.

oh ya - obviously left-wing... that's why it's got the 142 state signatories. As for useless symbolism over substance, you've got that down pat!

[Bonam]

not a problem - it's clear you're supportive of the Harper Conservatives continuing to keep Canada out of IRENA. Your initial post talked of development and selling to other nations... I interpret you assume a dedicated agency, like IRENA, one with almost wholesale across the board acceptance by the global community of nations, would be a vehicle to "network"... to understand (maybe even influence) development directions and, potentially, market developed solutions through - directly, or indirectly.

You've yet to specify what you think IRENA can accomplish. I, on the other hand, have clearly pointed out why its listed goals in its mission statement guarantee its irrelevance. Oh and the direction of development should be and will be determined by technical merit, not by some enviro-social theorists hired by an international bureaucracy.

That's exactly why IRENA and agencies like it are a bad idea, you get a bunch of bureaucrats that couldn't explain how a solar cell works if their life depended on it in charge of deciding which technologies should be developed, totally ridiculous.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

You've yet to specify what you think IRENA can accomplish. I, on the other hand, have clearly pointed out why its listed goals in its mission statement guarantee its irrelevance. Oh and the direction of development should be and will be determined by technical merit, not by some enviro-social theorists hired by an international bureaucracy.

That's exactly why IRENA and agencies like it are a bad idea, you get a bunch of bureaucrats that couldn't explain how a solar cell works if their life depended on it in charge of deciding which technologies should be developed, totally ridiculous.

"Explain how a solar cell works"?? Hell, we've got posters in this very thread who claim that our sun is the centre of our galaxy!

Talk about your "techie challenged"! As I like to say, they dropped hard sciences in school shortly after their bean sprouts in that jar of tissue paper popped up and died!

And they snottily insist we respect their opinion!

[jbg]

just curious where has anyone, anywhere, at anytime stated global warming was "SOLELY" anthropogenic...

You post kinda of insinuated it, I was waiting for this post....just trying having a little fun with you.

The right question is whether it's primarily anthropogenic. If hypothetically only a small part is anthropogenic it makes no sense to spend billions on studies, cap and trade, and massive bureaucracies.

[jbg]

Unfortunately, until the UN can be disbanded or replaced, we should probably stay in. Some sane countries have to keep the third world rabble in check.

It woiuld be better if the sane nations stopped funding it. Let Ahmejenejad (sp) sustain the U.N. It would be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Bonam]

That would only work if all sane countries withdrew together simultaneously. If we're talking just about Canada, us withdrawing would not significantly hamper the operations of the UN, and there would be one less voice of sanity.

Now maybe if the US pulled out it would have the impact you seek since they are the UN's biggest source of funding, but Canada would not have that effect.

[jbg]

Now maybe if the US pulled out it would have the impact you seek since they are the UN's biggest source of funding, but Canada would not have that effect.

I'd like to see the U.S., Canada, U.K. and Japan, at the very least, withdraw.

[Bonam]

Yeah I'd like to see that too. Seems very unlikely though.

[Michael Hardner]

It woiuld be better if the sane nations stopped funding it. Let Ahmejenejad (sp) sustain the U.N. It would be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Vaccinating children, helping people in times of famine... nothing...