Global Warming

[Stan]

No argument there.  GG has to do what the PM says unless it contravenes the constitution, but there's always that final check/balance that makes one feel a little bit safer, especially with a PM like we've got now who changes his mind every week!    You never know when a guy like that will decide to up and try to circumvent the constitution.
Stan

[t19]

Actually compared to the Liebranos who ran this country for decades, I feel very comfortable with this PM

I know that if he has to change his mind, it is for the good of the country, and not to help his pals like the last bunch

He has not panicked over the economy, but come up with solid plans.  At least he is not prepared to get into bed with Separatists who want to ruin this country, or Taliban Jack who thinks you can bargain with the Taliban and win women's freedom and educate young girls by talking to them.... that only happens when they are dead... the Taliban that is


As for the Crown been toothless,,, not so.

The Crown, by extension the GG rules by president and what is best for the country.  There are very few things in our constitution that outlines what the GG has to do.. you should read it some time... btw its why there was so much angst about what she might do cause there were no hard and fast rules like the US does

In our past little crisis, she took the advice of the PM as there was no compelling reason to do otherwise.  The PM brought down a speech from the thrown, and it passed.  He felt that there was a need to kewl down before things got silly, and allow him to react to the growing changes to the economy

That is what a leader does.

She could have said no, but that would not have been in the best interest of the Country to put it into a constitutional turmoil

Next week there will be a budget.. if it fails the GG will decide if she calls an election or asks the coalition of the Inept and traitorous to form a government.  Her, not the PM, not Iggy will make the call.... thats power... benign but still power

[t19]

I can't say I understand what you mean by being "under the crown." If you believe that Canada's governemnt is somehow a subsidiary of the English Monarchy, well, it isn't, hasn't been for a very long time - 1908 or so...

In a single thread, we skip from photographic examples of the existence (or not) of "Global Warming," Chernobyl being safe for habitastion and being fully remediated ( it isn't, the technology to remediate the area around Chernobyl doe not currently exist), to Canadians being slaves of the English Monarchy... and a bunch of other questionable "facts".

I believe that the reponderence of evidence proves that global warming, and the fact that man's activities contribute to it, is real. And I live my life accordingly.

The Queen of Canada... yes that is her official title, but it was Victoria, signed into existence the Canadian Dominion in 1867 - Fact

The British North America Act was the Act of the British Parliament that made Canada independent. - Fact

Canada Declared War in WW1 and WW2 as an independent country - Fact

Canada as she is known today came into existence with the Act of Union with Newfoundland after WW2 - Fact

The BNA was repatriated to Canada by PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1982 and signed into Canadian Law by the Queen of Canada in Ottawa, but without the approval of Quebec - Fact

The Earth and Mars are experiencing climate change,,, Fact... except for the Mars Rover, Man kind has done little in Mars.. can you explain??

[mbryner]

While this is a touchy politital hot-button subject, I have to agree more w/ Mobile_Bob and t19/Andrew.  How much of what you read and view on TV is true?  Is Al Gore correct?  Far from it.  Do a few Google searches and you will find quite a few pre-eminent scientists do not believe in global warming.   Many scientists believe that the earth has multi-decade long cyclical temperature changes (influenced by solar flame activity, etc.), others believe in multi-100 year cycles, and so on.  Some believe in global warming but are convinced that man has minimal effect on the climate.    Like so much of science, it's not cut-and-dried: there are too many variables.   Many think it's sort of ludicrous that the miniscule CO2 shift of 0.000xx% (?) that could be attributable to manmade processes could have a big effect.   As a "scientist" (well sort of, biology degree, MD, etc.), the media scares me.  My college biology and ecology professors still think that the media-portrayed/Al Gore global warming thing is a bunch of BS.   Just this past year that giant global heating of ~1 degree was wiped out by cooling all over the earth.

That doesn't mean we keep trashing the earth.   It's just that overpopulation, the world's energy demand, deforestation should to be much bigger topics than they are.  

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about overpopulation and birth control use more strongly?  Because it's a hot-button religiously?  The world will run out of food when we run out of oil, because of overpopulation and heavy dependence on fossil-fuel derived fertilizers.  Come on, doesn't anyone else besides me think we should be distributing condoms thickly thoughout overpopulated countries, instead of just throwing our food at them!?    

My opinion is, as a scientist, doctor, and Christian (come on, jump on me for using all of those in the same sentence!), we only have so much of the world left that God gave us and we have to take care of it.  Which is why our house will be as efficient as possible, my Listeroid is going to run on WMO, WVO, wood gas, etc., we try to buy efficient cars, recycle, I walk to work, etc.  etc.  and we try to get others to do their part to help clean things up.

OK, enough of my rant... back to you guys discussing the Canadian PM, of which I know nothing about.

Marcus

[compig]

That doesn't mean we keep trashing the earth.   It's just that overpopulation, the world's energy demand, deforestation should to be much bigger topics than they are.  

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about overpopulation and birth control use more strongly?  Because it's a hot-button religiously?  The world will run out of food when we run out of oil, because of overpopulation and heavy dependence on fossil-fuel derived fertilizers.  Come on, doesn't anyone else besides me think we should be distributing condoms thickly thoughout overpopulated countries, instead of just throwing our food at them!?    

Marcus

I'm gonna upset a few people now !!  I've long thought that baby licenses would be a good idea ! It should not be a right to have children , would be parents should have to qualify.

[mkdutchman]

That doesn't mean we keep trashing the earth.   It's just that overpopulation, the world's energy demand, deforestation should to be much bigger topics than they are.   

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about overpopulation and birth control use more strongly?  Because it's a hot-button religiously?  The world will run out of food when we run out of oil, because of overpopulation and heavy dependence on fossil-fuel derived fertilizers.  Come on, doesn't anyone else besides me think we should be distributing condoms thickly thoughout overpopulated countries, instead of just throwing our food at them!?     

Marcus

I'm gonna upset a few people now !!  I've long thought that baby licenses would be a good idea ! It should not be a right to have children , would be parents should have to qualify.

Didn't china do something like that, with some very controversial results? Infantcide and privacy invasion, to name a few

If the government can't control promiscuity how will they control births?

Our government is invasive enough without decreeing how many children you can have, and oh yes, how many children are brought into this world intentionally? And let's say a "license violation" occurs. What would you do with the "violation"? That's the sticky situation china finds itself with its 1 child law.

I think baby licenses would be one of the worst ideas ever, right up there with gay "marriage", and mandatory ID chips

[compig]

Difficult to implement yes but , the consequences of children born to bad parents are far reaching for society and continue for generations. We need licences to drive cars and at one time in the UK , to own a Dog , but anyone who is capable of fornication can have children !!!  Effectively , human population is now a plague on planet Earth , nature has ways of dealing with plagues , so the solution may be out of our hands. 

[mkdutchman]

Difficult to implement yes but , the consequences of children born to bad parents are far reaching for society and continue for generations. We need licences to drive cars and at one time in the UK , to own a Dog , but anyone who is capable of fornication can have children !!!  Effectively , human population is now a plague on planet Earth , nature has ways of dealing with plagues , so the solution may be out of our hands. 

Agree 100% with that sentiment, I certainly didn't mean to say humans should reproduce willy nilly. And yes, other than making a small local impact, and doing what you can it's out of our control, IMHO.

And speaking of overpopulation.......

ironic thing seems to be that some of the western world is getting desperate for children

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1313543.php/German_birthrate_continues_to_decline

[mobile_bob]

to my canadian friends up north:

i was not suggesting that you all are beholding to the crown and must bow to the queens every whim, but
my reference was more of one of "culture" that accurate or fact.

certainly you cannot argue that there is a cultural component.

i can tell you as an american, we got so many cultures going on down here it not even funny.
heck in boston there are 5 distinct dialects of the english language, and none of them sound english to me.

in north seattle (fremont) they have a statue of either stalin or lenin (i think it is lenin) in there town square
try to erect that same statue in texas and be hung before dark!

heres the thing, its always been and always will be, "follow the money" on both sides of any arguement
i figure the best funded are usually the one pounding smoke up my tailpipe.
also whatever i am being told should make sense, and not be twisted and convoluted into some sort of babble
that is intentionally worded that way to obfuscate and confuse.

so what do we do?

there are those of us that don't believe man has a significant role in generating global warming, and
there are those that believe man is the sole reason for global warming, or plays a significant role.

everyone by now knows which side of the fence i am on, so...

what if i jump to your side of the fence, man did it, man caused global warming and we are all going to heat up,
drown if we live close to the ocean, dry up and become a tater chip if we live on the plains and all that.
the sky is falling and we simply must do X immediately to save the planet!!! 

now, tell me please,,,

what they hell can be done? and
how the hell do you plan on getting all the worlds people on board in agreement to do what is needed?

especially when there are so many divergent cultures?
for god sakes we can't even agree that there is a man made problem and we are divided by one boarder, speak the same language
and generally are friendly to one another.

how do you plan on getting this across to folks half way around the world that might not like either of us very much to start with?
how do you tell an emmerging economy "ok fella's you got to quit burning coal, go back to donkeys, mules, camels or ricshaws"
you got to take down those poluting smokestack factories that are employing millions of your workers, you people will have to go back to
the farms and work for 10 dollars a year instead of 30 dollars a month"

i just think it is nieve to think man can control much of anything.

the church tried to force the issue on a global scale to mixed results
the nazi's tried their hand at it too, and failed
the communists tried to, and eventually collapsed

you just can't get everyone together on anything

how are we to agree how to fix a problem when we can't agree that there is a problem
(manmade that is)

bob g

[Stan]

I guess it's going to seem like I'm selfish and self serving to say this, but here goes anyway.  I figure if there is a continued general decline of our climate and eventually it becomes evident to future generations that we could have done something about it, but didn't, I don't want my grandkids/great grandkids to think I've been an idiot and not listened to my convictions.  Then at least they can write an essay in grade 5 called "What My Grandad did to help our Earth".

If it turns out we don't have any control over old mother earth and she's going to kick our butts, oh well, nothing's lost, I've enjoyed my low impact, low CO2 lifestyle. Not that I've been perfect at it, but I have gone that extra mile.   That's what it's all about, if there's no downside, but there is a potential upside,  why not do it?
Stan

[mobile_bob]

Stan:

now that i can agree with!

surely makes sense to me not to polute, to try and leave this rock better than we found it,
like you say, "what can it hurt?"

i can just see one of my grandkids 5th grade report

"my grandpa is a cranky old fart"



bob g

[SteveU.]

Stan all in all a very worthwhile thread to have started.

What I really like about this forum and the group of guys who have collected here is we are DOERS.
We all pay a high price in the eyes of our spouses, some of our families and friends, and most of our neighbors to actually DO something about the world we live in.
Not a one of us wants to ever be responsible for allowing the Lights of Civilization to wink out and live in a world of Darkness, Ignorance and Fear.
Takes guts, courage and a willingness to get your hands dirty to take the responsibility for the heat, power and water for your self and those around you.

This sense of responsibility and the willingness to DO something constructive about it is what truly spans the continents, cultures, and even languages and brings us together here.

It's OK to agree to disagree about the why of it as long as the engines DO keep running and the power stays on for lights, heating/cooling, refrigeration and communication.

Peace be with you
SteveU.

[oliver90owner]

My view of the subject is similar to Stan's.

I am not conviced that global warming is all down to man although I am prepared to accept that it is happening, for whatever reason.  BUT:

I remember Thalidomide.
I remember DDT.
I remember CFCs.
I remember all the heavy metal pollution from mines.
I remember BSE (mad cow disease).
I remember Aids started when Smallpox was eradicated (may or may not be a connection, but HIV is very akin to the smallpox virus).
I remember the foot and mouth outbreak caused by a leak from a research/production site.
I remember selenium poisoning of wild life (mainly birds) through irrigation.
I remember red squirrels being shunted out by grey ones.
I remember Chernobyl.
I even rember Windscale.
We are waiting on confirmation that so called 'safe' insecticides are killing the bee poulation.
The rest of the insect world will be suffering likewise, if that is so.
Our bees are suffering with varroah mites and other assosiated viral disorders.

The honey bee would already likely not survive in the UK if it were not for beekeepers waking up to the problems they caused.

These are only a few of the likely human mistakes which others can recall.  I could list dozens more given the memory and the time.

On a future note:

Genetic engineering - sooner or later a mistake will be made.  We are, after all, only human.

Fossil fuels will be exhausted in a few generations at the current rate of consumption.

We do not own this planet but are simply the custodians of it for our future generations.  We must stop raping the planet for an 'easy' life now.  The only real way out, in my opinion, is population reduction, in one form or another, as the present trends are 100% unsustainable.

Renewable energy, or other alternatives to wasteful fossil fired electricity generation, must be part of the answer and I believe if everyone did their bit, it would send a signal to future generations that we were not all a load of ostriches with heads buried deep in the sand.

End of dis-jointed rant.

Regards, RAB

[SHIPCHIEF]

I don't believe in man made global warming.
Some localized effects do exist, but the over-all effect compared to a single volcanic eruption shows how puny mankind is on a global scale.
I'm concerned about phony global warming initiatives designed to extract money from one societal group and give it to another. That is exactly what the Kyoto accords were.
Offsets for pollution are bunk. They are simply methods of extorting money from producers. When ever that happens, prices are increased for end users. Economic damage occurs, efficiency drops, which leads to pollution.
That's right. Wasteful persuit of phony global warming thru taxes, cap & trade, offsets, and subsidized phony energy research causes pollution (or global warming if you wish).
This whole program is intended to mask new tax increases, and submerge the middle class.
This is so backwards. Being a good steward of your earth is totally different. It's result based. It responds to measure and review.
It's a good idea to reduce your energy consumption. You save money, pollute less on a personal basis. If you are a farmer, you can apreciate that the water you use needs to be clean. The water that runs off your property needs to be clean for those down stream.
Same for the exhaust from power plants, tailings from mines, sewage from municipalities. Buying an offset is just a phoney way of paying off the regulators so pollution can continue. I don't believe in it. If an area of pollution exits that has no immediate solution, yet the production is required for society, why pay the government for it when no solution yet exists? That's negative progress. Effort should be spent on a solution, not buy off with an offset.
Now it has not been established that global warming exists.  Strong assertions are made by well monied advocates tied to the left-anti capitalist green party, and strangley enough, General Electric et al, who stand to make a lot of money from technology they own, but won't make a profit unless the law prohibits less expensive energy.
Cold weather is coming back. Our breif lives see the small picture. Yet the New York Times has been predicting global climate disaster since 1895. They predict doom based on a trend late in the cycle. Then the opposite occurs, they are silent on the subject a while, then predict doom following the next trend. 100% wrong over the course of 104 years!
I don't agree with Stan, that to act anyway, even if you are wrong can't hurt. It can and does. It's wrong to act based on a presumed worry about what your grandson *might* think of you after the fact.

[Stan]

Gotta agree with you on the cap and trade, and offsets plans.  Pure bunk!  Kind of like paying someone to stop smoking for you 
Stan