Dion and the environment

[BC_chick]

I brought this point up on another board, but it's something I have often thought about. I think it's worth having a debate on just this issue, so I'm going to give it its own thread.

I find it very ironic that when it's time to argue that Dion has ruined the LPC, he's is a lefty who has moved away from core LPC ideas as espoused by Chretien/Martin Liberals. Yet when it's time to discredit him on environmental issues, the LPC is one continuous line with no beginning and no ending from Chretien to Dion.

Which is it? Is Dion different than Chretien/Martin or is he the same?

Whoops, and the sub-heading should have read - Same OLD liberal or new?

[geoffrey]

Different. He thinks that signing papers produces results. Martin never thought like that. He had action (kind of fell apart in his days as PM unfortunately). Chretien never even thought like that.

Dion is very naive in his view of the world, that's my honest opinion of him. He thinks everyone is a big happy bunch that should just get along... and if we commit to Kyoto than Kyoto can be met just because he wills it to be.

The Liberals never were an ideological bunch until Dion. They were always the pragmatists, people that were out there to make our lives better realistically. Dion wants to make it better theoretically.

[BC_chick]

Dion is very naive in his view of the world, that's my honest opinion of him. He thinks everyone is a big happy bunch that should just get along... and if we commit to Kyoto than Kyoto can be met just because he wills it to be.

I think with all the inaction from the last two governments, Dion is aware that Kyoto's 2012 targets are unattainable. But at least he is not using that an excuse to 2050 to get anywhere.

But thanks for acknowledging that he's not the same LPC as before.

It kinda throws a big wrench in the old "LPC did nothing for the environment dossier for 13 years" argument.

[Michael Bluth]

I think with all the inaction from the last two governments, Dion is aware that Kyoto's 2012 targets are unattainable. But at least he is not using that an excuse to 2050 to get anywhere.

But thanks for acknowledging that he's not the same LPC as before.

It kinda throws a big wrench in the old "LPC did nothing for the environment dossier for 13 years" argument.

Fair enough.

Call the new argument "the last Liberal Environment Minister didn't get it done."

Does that work for you?

[BC_chick]

Call the new argument "the last Liberal Environment Minister didn't get it done."

How about...

"The last liberal leader didn't get a chance to prove himself."

Oh never mind, I'm talking to the guy who thinks that just because Harper has put forth a few environmental initiatives, I should exempt him on all criticism of the 50 by 50 plan.

[Michael Bluth]

How about...

"The last liberal leader didn't get a chance to prove himself."

Oh never mind, I'm talking to the guy who thinks that just because Harper has put forth a few environmental initiatives, I should exempt him on all criticism of the 50 by 50 plan.

The last Liberal leader proved himself to be one of the best Finance Ministers in history as well as one of the most disappointing Prime Ministers. (Remember that line when you wrongly accuse me of always attacking the Liberals.)

I haven't exempted Harper from criticism of the 50 by 50 plan. Why won't you provide any?

[BC_chick]

I haven't exempted Harper from criticism of the 50 by 50 plan. Why won't you provide any?

I have, only about half dozen or so times.

My criticism of the 50 by 50 plan is that by the year 2050, it's too late. The damage of the global-warming will be irreversible in 10 years time.

You're the one who keeps retorting with Harper's green initiatives as though they negate the shortcomings of the plan somehow.

[betsy]

My criticism of the 50 by 50 plan is that by the year 2050, it's too late. The damage of the global-warming will be irreversible in 10 years time.

How do you know?

[scribblet]

My criticism of the 50 by 50 plan is that by the year 2050, it's too late. The damage of the global-warming will be irreversible in 10 years time.

How do you know?

They don't know, its all fear mongering. Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is excellent, fictional story but very well researched. Worth a read for all those fearmongers who believe everything we are fed about 'global warming'

[Argus]

I haven't exempted Harper from criticism of the 50 by 50 plan. Why won't you provide any?

I have, only about half dozen or so times.

My criticism of the 50 by 50 plan is that by the year 2050, it's too late. The damage of the global-warming will be irreversible in 10 years time.

You're the one who keeps retorting with Harper's green initiatives as though they negate the shortcomings of the plan somehow.

Haven't the experts already pretty much said that nothing we do can possibly have any affect for many decades?

The original plan called for a 6% cut (for us, for others it was only about 2-3%) over 20 years.And most nations won't meet even that. Now people feel that a whopping 50% or 60% cut can be achieved over what, a weekend?

[BC_chick]

They don't know, its all fear mongering. Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is excellent, fictional story but very well researched. Worth a read for all those fearmongers who believe everything we are fed about 'global warming'

There is a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about GW, the only naysayers are the paid so-called experts who challenge their positions. People are made to believe that there is an actual debate out there between the scientific community when there isn't. The only debate is between lobbyists who work for the oil companies and the scientific community.

Not ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal has contradicted the findings of GW.

[jdobbin]

They don't know, its all fear mongering. Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is excellent, fictional story but very well researched. Worth a read for all those fearmongers who believe everything we are fed about 'global warming'

Hmm, another Tory denial about global warming. Evidently if someone believes that emissions are important, they shouldn't vote Stephen Harper.

[Keepitsimple]

They don't know, its all fear mongering. Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is excellent, fictional story but very well researched. Worth a read for all those fearmongers who believe everything we are fed about 'global warming'

There is a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about GW, the only naysayers are the paid so-called experts who challenge their positions. People are made to believe that there is an actual debate out there between the scientific community when there isn't. The only debate is between lobbyists who work for the oil companies and the scientific community.

Not ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal has contradicted the findings of GW.

Unanimous Consensus sounds pretty formidible - except that it's misleading if not impossible. The process of arriving at a consensus does not mean that everyone agrees - it means that a majority agree with most of what is being considered - which brings us to the point that if there are 2500 scientists on the Payroll of the IPCC, there have got to be at least a small minority that do not agree and another group that partially agree - we'll never know how exactly they arrived at this "consensus". My understanding is that there is almost total agreement that Climate Change is occurring (duh!) but there had to be a lot of arm twisting to reach a consensus that humans are mainly responsible. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_dec...ision-making.3F

[BC_chick]

Can you provide an example of a peer-reviewed scientific journal which refutes the findings of GW as caused by humans?

[fellowtraveller]

Is Dion different than Chretien/Martin or is he the same?

He is an indistinguishable clone, a long term/old time Liberal stalwart.

7 years as a Minister under Chretien, closely followed by two as a Minister under Martin makes it indisputable. He was trained in the traditional style by Chretien, and plucked from the same type of Never Had a Real Job in My Life background as Allan MacEachern and PET. More Liberal tradition.....

He won the leadership for this very reason - he was safe- and with the blessing of the inner circle, a serious mistake that will haunt the Libs for a long time, as they don't show any real signs of fixing their grievous error.

[Michael Bluth]

He is an indistinguishable clone, a long term/old time Liberal stalwart.

7 years as a Minister under Chretien, closely followed by two as a Minister under Martin makes it indisputable. He was trained in the traditional style by Chretien, and plucked from the same type of Never Had a Real Job in My Life background as Allan MacEachern and PET. More Liberal tradition.....

He won the leadership for this very reason - he was safe- and with the blessing of the inner circle, a serious mistake that will haunt the Libs for a long time, as they don't show any real signs of fixing their grievous error.

Yeah, it's sad but all the contenders out there pretty much fit this mold.

Sure Iggy wrote his books, but come on.

Maybe it's just part of being a Liberal.

[hiti]

Why don't you people check history for yourselves instead of swollowing the crapola put out by the Harperites?

Excerpt from 'Against the Current' by Linda Diebel

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70516/20070516/

The Liberal government finally revealed Wednesday its plan to meet Kyoto targets -- spending approximately $10-billion over the next seven years.

April 13, 2005 at 4:37 PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

one-tonne challenge

retro-fitting homes

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/archives/news...03/200388_e.htm

[betsy]

They don't know, its all fear mongering. Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is excellent, fictional story but very well researched. Worth a read for all those fearmongers who believe everything we are fed about 'global warming'

There is a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about GW, the only naysayers are the paid so-called experts who challenge their positions. People are made to believe that there is an actual debate out there between the scientific community when there isn't. The only debate is between lobbyists who work for the oil companies and the scientific community.

Not ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal has contradicted the findings of GW.

And who are these so-called peers who did this review on the findings about this so-called global warming?

[gc1765]

And who are these so-called peers who did this review on the findings about this so-called global warming?

You don't know what a peer-reviewed journal is? The reviewers are other scientists in the field.

[Michael Bluth]

You don't know what a peer-reviewed journal is? The reviewers are other scientists in the field.

Fair enough.

But peer-reviewed journal articles is a bit of a wild goose chase.

I know that none of the academic journals in my field are available for free online.

[gc1765]

Fair enough.

But peer-reviewed journal articles is a bit of a wild goose chase.

I know that none of the academic journals in my field are available for free online.

Some journals are, but most aren't. If you live close to a University you can access them through their library for free.

[betsy]

And who are these so-called peers who did this review on the findings about this so-called global warming?

You don't know what a peer-reviewed journal is? The reviewers are other scientists in the field.

But who are these so-called scientists?

[gc1765]

But who are these so-called scientists?

"so-called scientists"? Huh? They are scientists working at Universities.

[betsy]

But who are these so-called scientists?

"so-called scientists"? Huh? They are scientists working at Universities.

So? This so-called "peer-reviewed" journals shouldn't be taken without any questions.

I'm opening up a new thread so we don't hijack this one. Check out: An open letter to Harper.

[jdobbin]

So? This so-called "peer-reviewed" journals shouldn't be taken without any questions.

I think the very nature of peer reviewed means that it is open to question. If someone has an academic argument against the data, they put it forward in their peer reviewed article.