Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Smallc]

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.

Canada is though, one of the UN's top contributors.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Canada is though, one of the UN's top contributors.

75 million out of 2.35 billion, so about 3%.

[Smallc]

75 million out of 2.35 billion, so about 3%.

Yes, well, as you said, the US makes up the bulk of the contributions.

[wyly]

The Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly decides on the scale of assessments for contributions to the Regular Budget every third year. The scale of assessments reflects a country's capacity to pay (measured by factors such as a country's national income and size of population). The Peacekeeping Budget assessments are based on the Regular Budget rates, but with discounts for poor countries. The five permanent members of the Security Council, who approve all peacekeeping operations, pay extra fees to compensate for those discounts. A "ceiling" rate sets the maximum amount of any member state's assessed share of the regular and Peacekeeping Budgets. The US is the only member that is affected by those ceilings. Consequently the US pays less than its share of the world economy. (There is also a minimum rate of 0.001% to the Regular Budget for poor countries.) In December 2000, the Fifth Committee voted to lower the ceiling rate from 25% to 22% for the Regular Budget. The US had promised to pay its longstanding debt to the UN in exchange for lower assessments. Half a decade later, the US still owes around US$500 million to the UN Regular Budget.

if you donate $1000 dollars to charity and Bill Gates donates $10,000 who has actually given more?...and yes I know Bill gates is extremely generous it's just a handy analogy

I should have used the International Haiti donations has analogy, on a per Capita basis Canada is the biggest contributor...

Edited March 17, 2010 by wyly

[Pliny]

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

You mean exploiting children and disasters? Why do we need a global governing body to tend to this? Is humanity cold and inhumane? Are we not compassionate? Bob Geldorf does a better job.

[Pliny]

if you donate $1000 dollars to charity and Bill Gates donates $10,000 who has actually given more?...and yes I know Bill gates is extremely generous it's just a handy analogy

10,000 minus 1000 = 9,000. Answer: Bill Gates

Consequently the US pays less than its share of the world economy. (There is also a minimum rate of 0.001% to the Regular Budget for poor countries.) In December 2000, the Fifth Committee voted to lower the ceiling rate from 25% to 22% for the Regular Budget. The US had promised to pay its longstanding debt to the UN in exchange for lower assessments. Half a decade later, the US still owes around US$500 million to the UN Regular Budget.

They UN ought to kick the US out then! That'll teach them a lesson!

[wyly]

10,000 minus 1000 = 9,000. Answer: Bill Gates

They UN ought to kick the US out then! That'll teach them a lesson!

besides deciding which foot to put a shoe on first do you do anything that requires any meaningful thought in your day?

[Shady]

America makes up for 25% of all United Nations funding.

[Pliny]

besides deciding which foot to put a shoe on first do you do anything that requires any meaningful thought in your day?

Yes. Bill Gates is the answer.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

I see melting glaciers. Cities swallowed up by the sea! Vast swaths of land masses disappearing! (Hmmmm....I think I can make a buck on this!)

Please Mr. Gummerment, tax us, do sumpthin! We is too stupid to know what to do.

Seems this is what your crystal ball is telling us. And golly, "aren't people just "stoopid" in general"? That seems to be another of your unrelenting refrains.

Who's always the most important person in the room when you're in it?

[waldo]

clearly... the Harper Conservatives are replying to the OP's question in the affirmative --- Budget deep freeze will lead to end of climate research lab

In its budget last week, the Harper government provided no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere Sciences. The foundation is the country's main fund for scientists studying everything from global climate models, to the melting of polar ice and frequency of Arctic storms, to prairie droughts and shrinking Rocky Mountain glaciers.

For many in the research community, the budget decision merely confirmed the view that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government remain skeptical of climate-change science and hostile to those who provide evidence that aggressive action must be taken to avert catastrophic global warming.

It's quite clear we have a government that says they believe this is an issue but really don't care about it.

Harper Conservative funding cuts are a part of the strategy... but it gets more overtly devious through Conservative efforts to control the message, to prevent government scientists from commenting on AGW climate change.

Harper Conservatives muzzle climate change scientists

:

New report details Harper Conservative actions that undermine research into the science of climate change

The Government of Canada has cut virtually all programs aimed at funding climate science. I get the sense that they feel that science is a nuisance. They ignore science in their decision making; they muzzle their federal scientists by imposing impossible media-contact regulations; they cut programs designed to allow scientists to develop knowledge.

[Pliny]

We wouldn't know anything if it weren't for government handouts. Looks like climate science will have to make their case again after a windfall decade. Politicians are so fickle.

Has it really come down to being all about the money?

I don't know, Waldo, what do you see in your crystal ball there?

[waldo]

We wouldn't know anything if it weren't for government handouts. Looks like climate science will have to make their case again after a windfall decade. Politicians are so fickle.

Has it really come down to being all about the money?

I don't know, Waldo, what do you see in your crystal ball there?

your equating funding for scientific research as a "government handout" certainly narrows your options on accepting the fruits of other government funding. However, I am encouraged that you accept the case has already been made...

in just a few short statements we're gaining real Pliny insights - one would have thought that given the way you prattle on about "isms" and the economy, you wouldn't be so dismissive over causal/driver relationships.

as for predictions, how could one presume to usurp your self-professed psychic capabilities... you own that crystal ball, Pliny - would you like your latest round of psychic emanation played back to you?

[ironstone]

Your misquote here illustrates that you didn't understand what was being said, and in fact that the problem lies with the public understanding of science, mostly from hog-callers like the Sun group of newspaper.s.

By all means,enlighten me.What do the scientists in the global warming industry really mean when one of them says "we can't account for the lack(LACK!)of global warming"?Tell us why this candid admission doesn't raise any red flags?

Assuming the global warming threat is real and is mostly man made,I have yet to hear any solutions that make sense.Giving some of the biggest emitters like China a pass is idiotic to say the least.Pollution from Canada and the U.S.is awful,but pollution from China and India is just peachy?Have you heard about massive fraud within the carbon trading market in Europe?Doesn't anyone have balls enough to come clean and tell us just how much this will cost?

[waldo]

The Global Warming people seem to be quieting down lately for some reason.It must hurt when the foundations of their arguments seem to be crumbling around them.

And still they are upset because they "can't account for the lack of global warming".

quiet is your perspective on the debate ending...Global warming is a fact and anthropogenic in nature, other than a handful of scientists it's accepted fact...the debate has shifted to how quickly change is coming, what will the extent of the damage and can change be slowed, stopped or reversed..

please list the crumbling arguements...

wyly, clearly... ironstone has his best argumentum ad ignorantiam parrot game face on... and even better... ironstone is now parroting himself from an earlier MLW thread where he presumed to trot out the same Trenberth quote. Obviously, he didn't take well to the comeuppance he received back then

By all means,enlighten me.What do the scientists in the global warming industry really mean when one of them says "we can't account for the lack(LACK!)of global warming"?Tell us why this candid admission doesn't raise any red flags?

you continue to trot this fallacy out - why should Michael Hardner bother to respond to you... he's done so previously - you've ignored that as easily as you've ignored the, twice now, rebukes I've presented to your continued nonsense concerning that statement. If you put your mouse thingee over text and you're presented with an external link reference... don't be shy in following it. Alternatively, you could take the Simple road and make your case for a lack of warming (cause I do believe Simple has finally backed off his "cooling meme"... for now, at least).

[Bonam]

Assuming the global warming threat is real and is mostly man made,I have yet to hear any solutions that make sense.Giving some of the biggest emitters like China a pass is idiotic to say the least.Pollution from Canada and the U.S.is awful,but pollution from China and India is just peachy?Have you heard about massive fraud within the carbon trading market in Europe?Doesn't anyone have balls enough to come clean and tell us just how much this will cost?

Honestly setting up a bunch of giant orbital mirrors to control the incoming flux of solar radiation would probably be cheaper (not to mention more interesting) than making a real cut in worldwide CO2 emissions. I'd estimate the cost of implementing such a system on the order of several tens of trillions of dollars over a several decade timespan.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Bonam

[ironstone]

Honestly setting up a bunch of giant orbital mirrors to control the incoming flux of solar radiation would probably be cheaper (not to mention more interesting) than making a real cut in worldwide CO2 emissions. I'd estimate the cost of implementing such a system on the order of several tens of trillions of dollars over a several decade timespan.

Interesting.Is it fair to assume that the entire cost for this project would be picked up by the West?

It's kind of sad that anyone with the audacity to question the global warming movement is almost turned into some kind of pariah.I've said it before and I'll say it again,nobody should be frightened by honest debate.I read arguments from both sides and then form my own opinion,thank you very much.There's an enormous amount of money at stake here,look at Al Gore,the global warming poster boy who,in a former life,didn't ratify a certain Kyoto accord.

Take care people,there is life outside of MLW.Think I'll whip up a snack before Bill O'Reilly comes on.

[Bonam]

Interesting.Is it fair to assume that the entire cost for this project would be picked up by the West?

I'd assume so if this was started today or in the next several years. Perhaps in a few decades some major Asian economies (China, etc) could be persuaded to contribute significantly too. Don't forget though that nations that participate in building such a system would get a lot of benefits too, besides just incurring huge costs. Space programs stimulate research and development of new technology, create large numbers of high paying and rewarding jobs, and set up those nations for further capabilities to do things in space, both for civilian and military use. For example, America invested very heavily in NASA in the 1960s, but they certainly got a lot of return from it in the way of space capabilities, tech spinoffs, national pride, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

By all means,enlighten me.What do the scientists in the global warming industry really mean when one of them says "we can't account for the lack(LACK!)of global warming"?Tell us why this candid admission doesn't raise any red flags?

Assuming the global warming threat is real and is mostly man made,I have yet to hear any solutions that make sense.Giving some of the biggest emitters like China a pass is idiotic to say the least.Pollution from Canada and the U.S.is awful,but pollution from China and India is just peachy?Have you heard about massive fraud within the carbon trading market in Europe?Doesn't anyone have balls enough to come clean and tell us just how much this will cost?

He didn't say "lack of global warming" he said "lack of warming" and he was talking about the model, not temperatures.

As I said, your misquote and misunderstanding typifies the general public's lack of knowledge on what is going on.

What you said about solutions, though, is true. The talk of solutions isn't reasonable, and China and India aren't condemned as they should be.

[jbg]

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

I suspect that the U.S., France, Canada and Israel did more bilaterally for Haiti than the U.N. did.

[Michael Hardner]

I suspect that the U.S., France, Canada and Israel did more bilaterally for Haiti than the U.N. did.

Maybe so. All of these countries contribute to the UN too, so...

[bloodyminded]

I suspect that the U.S., France, Canada and Israel did more bilaterally for Haiti than the U.N. did.

But of these four, Israel (at least to my knowledge) is the only one not responsible for effing Haiti over in the first place.

So while I'd defend Israel's right to pat itself on the back for helping, the other three become symbols of dark comedy if they do so.

[Pliny]

your equating funding for scientific research as a "government handout" certainly narrows your options on accepting the fruits of other government funding. However, I am encouraged that you accept the case has already been made...

Of course it's a government handout. And yes it should narrow the options for all government funding.

in just a few short statements we're gaining real Pliny insights - one would have thought that given the way you prattle on about "isms" and the economy, you wouldn't be so dismissive over causal/driver relationships.

as for predictions, how could one presume to usurp your self-professed psychic capabilities... you own that crystal ball, Pliny - would you like your latest round of psychic emanation played back to you?

Well, that would only be fair since I played yours back - remember "the sky is falling" - Floods, earthquakes, death, destruction and hellfire.

You wouldn't be an evangelist would you?

[wyly]

I suspect that the U.S., France, Canada and Israel did more bilaterally for Haiti than the U.N. did.

US, France and Canada were responsible for the last coup in Haiti as well if I recall correctly...

[wyly]

Of course it's a government handout. And yes it should narrow the options for all government funding.

so what you're saying is you don't want the government to put money towards scientific research that you can't comprehend or believe... that would probably cut out all research and leave us trailing the entire western world in R&D...