Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

[jdobbin]

That's very nice of you but fortunately we still live in a society where you don't get to chose what people can question. You throw a blanket over all of the "right" by accusing them of discrediting scientists. Even scientists discredit scientists. You have embraced the science which you have chosen as your religion. Any questioning of that is heresy from someone who either hasn't seen the light or is in someone else's pocket. Don't you ever think that just maybe it has been suggested to the odd scientist out there that they might want to consider the effect of not embracing the fashionable or PC view might have on their funding or resources, or the funding and resources of the institution he works for? That the odd scientist has thought, Gee, global warming is where it is at and I could do real well if I jump on this band wagon? Or do all scientists wear either white hats or black hats depending on whether their findings or opinions fit your view of the world?

I've said right wing organizations have tried to discredit scientists. The Frontier Policy and Friends of Science are associated and endorse the conservative movement.

I haven't thrown a blanket statement covering all PCs or Conservative membership. In fact, the PCs had an excellent environmental program that was opposed by the Alliance.

I've also said I have no objection to scientists taking opposing views on global warming. I do object when they don't offer research on the subject and are just on the talk show circuit.

[Canuck E Stan]

I've said right wing organizations have tried to discredit scientists.

You should actually have said:

I've said right wing organizations have tried to discredit PRO-MAN scientists.

[jdobbin]

You've seen it, and I've seen it because we take an active interest in it and in politics.

I'm talking about most Canadians who among other things, can't even bother to vote, or don't get into the substance of an issue because it isn't that important to them.

The almost 70% majority of people from the CTV poll who wouldn't want their fuel prices raised in order to cut greenhouse gases.

Do you really think Canadians will be in favour of sending $10 Billion to a place like China that's in an economic boom? Or Russia?

Again let me ask you, are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

I'm not going to get into a debate on how stupid the electorate is and that they really don't know what's good for them.

As far as the $10 billion goes, why does it have to go to China particularly? The Japanese have been sending a lot of their money to other Asian countries and to South America.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/ar...345121&rel_no=1

[jdobbin]

You should actually have said:

I've said right wing organizations have tried to discredit PRO-MAN scientists.

What the heck is Pro-Man?

[Canuck E Stan]

As far as the $10 billion goes, why does it have to go to China particularly? The Japanese have been sending a lot of their money to other Asian countries and to South America.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/ar...345121&rel_no=1

Dobbin,

Actually you know very well it really doesn't matter where it goes,once the $10 Billion is given away to buy credits, it's gone.

So I'll ask you again,

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin,

Actually you know very well it really doesn't matter where it goes,once the $10 Billion is given away to buy credits, it's gone.

So I'll ask you again,

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

Yes.

[Canuck E Stan]

Dobbin,

Actually you know very well it really doesn't matter where it goes,once the $10 Billion is given away to buy credits, it's gone.

So I'll ask you again,

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

Yes.

So where is the $10 Billion going to come from?

How is sending $10 Billion to another country going to solve the greenhouse gas problem right now,greenhouse gases that your scientists say needs to be reduced immediately?

[Wilber]

I agree. But the right wing looks to discredit scientists in general by saying that their science is imprecise so that they can discredit science that they don't like such as smoking causes cancer or the evolution.

I haven't thrown a blanket statement covering all PCs or Conservative membership. In fact, the PCs had an excellent environmental program that was opposed by the Alliance.

Hmm.

Anyway, what's all this talk of this guy Stern spouting off on the effects of global warming? He's an economist isn't he? Barely a science at the best of times. What does he know about climatology? He is just taking someone else's theory and using it to build his own. All of a sudden it is the gospel to the converted. You wonder why all this stuff coming from supposedly intelligent people makes me nervous.

[jdobbin]

So where is the $10 Billion going to come from?

How is sending $10 Billion to another country going to solve the greenhouse gas problem right now,greenhouse gases that your scientists say needs to be reduced immediately?

I imagine it will come where all money comes from. Taxes. If you're asking where money will be saved elsewhere, that's a different subject.

Hydro-electric projects alone in Brazil would do the trick.

If the government wants to invest the $10 billion in Canada, I'd suggest high power transmission lines between Quebec and Ontario and Ontario and Manitoba.

[jdobbin]

Hmm.

Anyway, what's all this talk of this guy Stern spouting off on the effects of global warming? He's an economist isn't he? Barely a science at the best of times. What does he know about climatology? He is just taking someone else's theory and using it to build his own. All of a sudden it is the gospel to the converted. You wonder why all this stuff coming from supposedly intelligent people makes me nervous.

The British government commissioned a study by Stern on the economic effects of global warming. He's not a scientist but then again, climatologists are not economists. Europe wanted some hard numbers on the price of doing little, some or a lot and what the effects of the climate would be on the world economy.

If Conservatives disagree with those numbers, commission another report but don't discredit global warming scientists because they are not economists and then on the other hand discredit economists because they are not climatologists.

[Leafless]

So where is the $10 Billion going to come from?

How is sending $10 Billion to another country going to solve the greenhouse gas problem right now,greenhouse gases that your scientists say needs to be reduced immediately?

I imagine it will come where all money comes from. Taxes. If you're asking where money will be saved elsewhere, that's a different subject.

Hydro-electric projects alone in Brazil would do the trick.

If the government wants to invest the $10 billion in Canada, I'd suggest high power transmission lines between Quebec and Ontario and Ontario and Manitoba.

"Hydro-electric projects alone in Brazil would do the trick." Improving other countries economies when we are so debt ridden that we can't even build and supply enough hydro for provinces like Ontario without putting taxes through the roof, sure.

You mean you would actually trust Quebec with the generation and distribution of hydro electricity to feed Canada's most populous and important key province? This of course is not meant to downplay any other province in the ROC.

[Canuck E Stan]

I imagine it will come where all money comes from. Taxes. If you're asking where money will be saved elsewhere, that's a different subject.

Hydro-electric projects alone in Brazil would do the trick.

If the government wants to invest the $10 billion in Canada, I'd suggest high power transmission lines between Quebec and Ontario and Ontario and Manitoba.

I'm sure Canadians in Ontario will jump up and down in glee sending $10 billion to build hydro electric projects in Brazil while they take deep breathes of coal fired air from generating plants in their province.

[Wilber]

Hmm.

Anyway, what's all this talk of this guy Stern spouting off on the effects of global warming? He's an economist isn't he? Barely a science at the best of times. What does he know about climatology? He is just taking someone else's theory and using it to build his own. All of a sudden it is the gospel to the converted. You wonder why all this stuff coming from supposedly intelligent people makes me nervous.

The British government commissioned a study by Stern on the economic effects of global warming. He's not a scientist but then again, climatologists are not economists. Europe wanted some hard numbers on the price of doing little, some or a lot and what the effects of the climate would be on the world economy.

If Conservatives disagree with those numbers, commission another report but don't discredit global warming scientists because they are not economists and then on the other hand discredit economists because they are not climatologists.

Again, there can be no hard numbers because whatever is going to happen hasn't happened yet, there are only theories and theories built on theories. If the Conservatives commissioned a report, it to would be a theory built on theories. I'm not saying Stern is wrong but for gods sake, surely you have to admit that at best it is an educated guess.

[madmax]

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

You have asked this many times. I see Jdobbin has said "yes".

What would you do?

[Riverwind]

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

You have asked this many times. I see Jdobbin has said "yes".What would you do?

For starters that $10 billion figure is misleading. It came from the G&M editoral but $10 billion was what was left AFTER closing down all tar sands development in Alberta and all coal power generation in Ontario. Both things are not practical by any stretch of the imagination which means the real cost of meeting kyoto is closer to $20 billion - minimum

Another factor that is left out is carbon credits will get more expensive as time goes on which means that $10 billion today could easily be $30 billion_ in 4 years.

The last problem is the fact that kyoto obligations are an average starting in 2008 - this means that we will have to significantly over shoot our targets in 2012 to meet the legal obligations. This is a cost that is not factored into the estimates.

[Canuck E Stan]

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

You have asked this many times. I see Jdobbin has said "yes".

What would you do?

Seeing as shutting down Canada for 50 years would only make a .0006 change in the climate temperature I would ignore the fearmongering of the scientists who are concerned with the 5% of greenhouse gases that man is responsible for and say little of the 95% produced by the earth.

I would forget about Kyoto's and it's credit system as a solution to solving any kind of problem.Kyoto is a failure.

I would be more concerned with Air and Water quality in Canada and get that agenda on track.

I would start a "Toronto" protocol and attempt get the US,China And India on side, to get them to clean up their aIr and water quality problems.

And if I'm chosen Miss Canada, I would want peace and happiness for everyone in the world.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure Canadians in Ontario will jump up and down in glee sending $10 billion to build hydro electric projects in Brazil while they take deep breathes of coal fired air from generating plants in their province.

Canada's shareholders in business have a long history of building hydroelectric projects in Brazil. Considering that the Amazon really does help contributes to cooling, it might actually help on emissions.

However, as I said, if you want to spend the entire amount on Canada, build the high transmission wires in Canada. So far, Harper has only said he will contribute to Quebec's project.

[jdobbin]

"Hydro-electric projects alone in Brazil would do the trick." Improving other countries economies when we are so debt ridden that we can't even build and supply enough hydro for provinces like Ontario without putting taxes through the roof, sure.

You mean you would actually trust Quebec with the generation and distribution of hydro electricity to feed Canada's most populous and important key province? This of course is not meant to downplay any other province in the ROC.

My understanding is that Quebec is still part of Canada and looks to elect a federalist provincial party in their upcoming election. Yes, I'd say I trust them. In any event, when it comes to business, I think New York and Ontario would buy Quebec hydro whether they were sovereign or not.

Ontario needs to build capacity. If Canada wants to make a major impact on emissions create tens of thousands of jobs, create the high power grid east and west from Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba.

[jdobbin]

Seeing as shutting down Canada for 50 years would only make a .0006 change in the climate temperature I would ignore the fearmongering of the scientists who are concerned with the 5% of greenhouse gases that man is responsible for and say little of the 95% produced by the earth.

I would forget about Kyoto's and it's credit system as a solution to solving any kind of problem.Kyoto is a failure.

I would be more concerned with Air and Water quality in Canada and get that agenda on track.

I would start a "Toronto" protocol and attempt get the US,China And India on side, to get them to clean up their aIr and water quality problems.

And if I'm chosen Miss Canada, I would want peace and happiness for everyone in the world.

The Conservatives air and water strategy has already gone down in flames.

They say the believe in the science of global warming so it stands to reason they would act where you would not.

[Argus]

Dobbin,

Actually you know very well it really doesn't matter where it goes,once the $10 Billion is given away to buy credits, it's gone.

So I'll ask you again,

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

Yes.

I vote that we hold a referendum. All those dumb enough to give away $10 billion on this nonsense get their taxes raised sufficient to cover the charge.

[Argus]

Are you suggesting the science on this issue IS precise?

I never said it was. But some right wing organizations used the computer models to deny the very existence of global warming.

I believe the earth is getting warmer. I do not believe there is sufficient data to suggest one way or another whether this is a long-term trend caused by man or simply a part of the natural instability of the earth's temperature variables. Nor do I believe it has been demonstrated without a doubt that CO2 emissions cause a rise in the earth's temperatures.

[Argus]

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

I have been waiting expectantly for someone over there on the hysterical side of the issue to discredit this, and so far no one has tried.

If these figures can't be discredited, then the argument for us to spend any money on this evaporates entirely.

[jdobbin]

I vote that we hold a referendum. All those dumb enough to give away $10 billion on this nonsense get their taxes raised sufficient to cover the charge.

If a referendum for this, why not for war in Afghanistan that will cost as much or more?

[jdobbin]

I believe the earth is getting warmer. I do not believe there is sufficient data to suggest one way or another whether this is a long-term trend caused by man or simply a part of the natural instability of the earth's temperature variables. Nor do I believe it has been demonstrated without a doubt that CO2 emissions cause a rise in the earth's temperatures.

It is not known without a doubt that six million Jews died in death camps either. However, people generally believe the computer models that came up with those numbers.

If one set of computer models can be trusted, why not the other?

[Wilber]

It is not known without a doubt that six million Jews died in death camps either. However, people generally believe the computer models that came up with those numbers.

Come on, the six million number was arrived at long before they were doing computer models or even had computers that could do models. I remember hearing the number when I was a kid. Six million disappeared and there were enough witnesses and physical evidence left to know where most of them went.