# Q about Global Warming



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm just pondering, since we're approaching absolute bloody zero here, and have been for awhile, why doesn't the ice pack build back up when we have long cold spells?


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

the overall temperature of the oceans is higher- due to global currents and sheer volume, theyre not affected by our low temps. 
the ice packs are really kinda fragile- a small increase in ocean temps is destroying them.

here ya go m8-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yea, it takes a big freezer with electrical gizmos and tubes and shizz to make a small ice cube in an hour.

Only takes a few minutes to use your breath to melt it back into water.

As it is, the raw global temps are now higher than at any time since temperatures were begun to be numerically recorded. How they stack against historically suggested recordings as illustrated by tree ring study I could not say but these days it is hot pretty much everywhere (Nov not out yet):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> but these days it is hot pretty much everywhere (Nov not out yet):
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report


Lies, damn lies, and statistics.:smile:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php


"Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they're all over it! We've been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they're been totally absent. Guess its doesn't fit the plan."

Who do you trust?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

kkjuw what I trust is that in December, being able to stand last night naked on my 11th floor balcony at 1am whith out shivering sure means that it is warmed up some from Decembers past. Not a lick of snow in November and so little snow so far this December too. We are still in sneakers even with the small spots of remaining ice/snow, and trying to convince my kids that it is winter PLEASE zip their coats up is really a lost cause so far.

And if you look at that map, we are in a small region that in October had unusually cooler temps too LOL


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't even want to ask WHY you were standing naked on your balcony, but, it's over 20 degrees colder than normal here. We're supposed to be about -1 in Calgary, at 3PM it's -27. Las Vegas the other day was supposed to be hitting about 0. A friend is in Anaheim, she couldn't believe how cold it is.

What made me ask, I saw a report the other day that they had to change to alcohol thermometers up north, Mercury won't work under -40, they were pushing -45. I was wondering why the salt water isn't freezing.

I understand the concept of Global Warming, I'm not trying to argue against it, hell, we've been warning about this since the 60s. I'd just like the Polar Bears to have a home.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

dwagar said:


> I don't even want to ask WHY you were standing naked on your balcony, but, it's over 20 degrees colder than normal here. We're supposed to be about -1 in Calgary, at 3PM it's -27. Las Vegas the other day was supposed to be hitting about 0. A friend is in Anaheim, she couldn't believe how cold it is.
> 
> What made me ask, I saw a report the other day that they had to change to alcohol thermometers up north, Mercury won't work under -40, they were pushing -45. I was wondering why the salt water isn't freezing.
> 
> I understand the concept of Global Warming, I'm not trying to argue against it, hell, we've been warning about this since the 60s. I'd just like the Polar Bears to have a home.



kkjuw yea I was on my way to bed and stepped out to see if the wife was on her way back from the store. We are too tall up here for anyone to look and see in and on the balcony unlit at night its plain dark! But yea, at 1am it was not what I would call cold. Maybe -4 tops. The day was colder at -6 or -7. Today it feels above 0, would need to check Enviro-Canada to see though.

However, yes, there is a HUGE band of almost insanely cold temps. My friend in New Mexico has faced a lot of days at and below zero and snow too. She just moved there from the coast in Louisiana and is having a heck of the time with the cold temps. It doesn't help her that all her neigbours are telling her "wow, we don't ever get this cold here".


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

About 30 years ago, the headlines were all about global COOLING and how it was going to kill us all, and what science was doing to alleviate the problem.

It all goes in natural cycles. I'm not saying pollution is good or shouldn't be penalized and mitigated where possible, but neither do I believe in global warming as caused by mankind to the extent it gets talked about today. It'll get warmer, it'll get colder, et cetera et cetera et cetara.


----------



## copperhead (May 24, 2006)

global warming ?








that is the lowest a ford thermometer will read it was about -46 that day
haha kkjuw


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

IMHO I think "Global Warming" is a complete scam. BS. A myth perpetuated by the media. That's it. No more discussion required.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> kkjuw what I trust is that in December, being able to stand last night naked on my 11th floor balcony at 1am whith out shivering sure means that it is warmed up some from Decembers past. QUOTE]
> 
> The question here, then, is could you have done it on the 12th floor?:smile:


----------



## copperhead (May 24, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> IMHO I think "Global Warming" is a complete scam. BS. A myth perpetuated by the media. That's it. No more discussion required.


i agree and so is the carbon tax to go along with it another scam could be 911 terrorist attack 
paging Alex jones paging alex jones


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

ill tell ya what isnt a myth, or propaganda or bs -

my mum brought me some white linen drape things to put in my window, 
i hung them up there, they were brand new, white as white can be.
a week or two ago, it was raining out- i love rain, so i opened my window and left it open all night. in the morning, the white linen at the area covering the open part of the window was stained a deep brown- bleach wouldnt remove it, its a permanent hamilton rainstorm shitstain.
i dont think thats cool.

wether its cold here or warm, its no indicator of anything. its the oceans that count, and if they warm up much more, the plankton will die. then the oceans will die. you can say so what, i dont live in the ocean all you want, but we will be fukked for real then.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> IMHO I think "Global Warming" is a complete scam. BS. A myth perpetuated by the media. That's it. No more discussion required.


Umm, you forgot about the part where it's all our fault and it gonna cost us big $$!! Right on!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Stratin2traynor said:


> IMHO I think "Global Warming" is a complete scam. BS. A myth perpetuated by the media. That's it. No more discussion required.


i totally agree. 

something i have never heard satisfactorily answered:

how the heck is melting ice going to flood the world? 
ever seen ice melting in a glass make the glass over flow? no one bothers to ask that question very often.
people like to believe what ever alarmist crap they are fed by the media. that's why toronto people are paying a retarded tax to keep grocery bags out of the landfill. the best part is, if you buy them at price chopper, _they also charge you for gst on top of the bag tax!_ the same bags made from a polymer that is designed to break down. in other words, the bags are biodegradeable. leave one under the kitchen sink long enough and see what happens to it. no sunlight required.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> i totally agree.
> 
> something i have never heard satisfactorily answered:
> 
> ...


what happens when the ice that is above sea level melts?
the ice in your glass is at glass level- it merely displaces liquid that would otherwise occupy the glass- so when it melts it takes up the same space. 
its different when your talking about mountains of ice that reach above sea level- thats frozen water- has to go somewhere.
think of the oceans as a glass- with a stack of ice cubes stacked up a few inches above the top of your glass.
when that ice melts, the glass overflows. not going to overflow the world, but itll rid us of san francisco lol.
and a lot of other stupid places.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

The global warming scam has been busted. hwopv

-The "hockey stick' graph which is the foundation of the argument has been shown to be a scam based on false data. 

-Over 30,000 scientists and climatologists are suing Al Gore after he claimed in his movie that all experts agree and that the matter is beyond debate. 

-the 'climategate' scandal has revealed the collusion to fabricate and promote the scam. 

now the IPCC/Gore/Suzuki gang prefer to call it 'climate change' because it has been shown that there is in fact a global cooling trend in the last few years. 

I am all for reducing pollution of the air water and soil, this agenda will do little to address that, instead it will tax amost every human activity and create a global financial market of carbon trading that is predicted to be the largest commodity trading on the market, larger than oil. 

As soon as I saw The Inconveinient Truth, as impressed as I was, I did what I usually do: I sought out the other side of the argument. I like to listen to the evidence presented on all sides of any debate and make up my own mind. There is alot of info and some good documentaries out there if you want to look for it.


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> The global warming scam has been busted. hwopv
> 
> -The "hockey stick' graph which is the foundation of the argument has been shown to be a scam based on false data.
> 
> ...


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=1

I might be alone in this, but I find this thread a bit depressing.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> The global warming scam has been busted. hwopv
> 
> -The "hockey stick' graph which is the foundation of the argument has been shown to be a scam based on false data.
> 
> ...


so we cant trust the government or anything we see on tv- geez thats new

agendas and shit? wtf is a carbon tax?
thats all bullshit- like when the **** ruined sex for regular folk in the 80s.
politicians and anything theyre involved in is bullshit. 
the inconvenient truth? convenient manipulation is what that was.
what i dont understand is everyones lack of ability to think for themselves, and to care about the consequences.
nobody needs a movie to show them- or a david suzuki show- !


----------



## copperhead (May 24, 2006)

don't forget the biggest crock of shit in history is saying the oil in the ground is a non renewable resource made from animals hahahahahahahaha .......
if your were to discuss this it would be best for business to claim that , i think the earth makes oil f%#k dinosaur bones you want to argue i got allot to back this:rockon2:


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Global Warming hasnt been busted, whats been partially exposed are those who sought to use a theory for personal gain. It has also shown what many "deniers" have claimed in the past, and that is, you dont have all the answers, the data only proves things to a certain point and youve extrapalated a worse case scenerio for all the variables youve disclosed (while ignoring other variables). The best thing this has done is made people ask the most important question of all, if there really is a problem, shouldnt we fix the problem rather then tax it? After all, leaders fix problems, politicians tax them. With Al Gore, GE, the former Enron dudes, NBC, the UN all standing to make a bundle of cash off this thing, youd expect there to be a little better plan than lets just cap and trade. This is the problem when government and business get together to make Payola$. Of course a month from now, and most people wont even be questioning it. Everyone will simply get back inline with the those who toe the IPCC line, even though many in the IPCC dont think there is enough evidence in this theory to base the conclusion presented. Politics should not be a part of science. Continue the research, audit the data, and provide sound conclusions please...............


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

Climate change is not man-made. It's been happening since the beginning of time because the sun's output and volcanic activity is not constant.

The developing countries are going to have another economic advantage and we're going to loose more jobs because we will have a carbon tax. They feel that we created the global warming with our carbon emissions so we should have to fix it, not them. Any restrictions will not affect them.

So if the climate change happens to be due to solar output variations,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation ,then it's clearly beyond our control. 
In two years when the temperature starts to swing the other way, the carbon tax will be proclaimed a great success even though China and India will have ramped up carbon emissions.

Polar bears are not an endangered species.


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

Leaked email recently obtained have confirmed that almost all the data used to create the "hockey stick" like graphs was purposly falsified to push the de-populationist's agenda for forced sterilization and abortion as a means to convince the world that we shouldn't procreate. 

AND 

You should read the schedule of affairs for the copenhagen summit. World government ! No voting! ..... 

Every 1500 years the world gets warmer and colder. There were vinyards in England over 1000 years ago. See "the global warming swindle" to start, read the Post (most un-biased paper) and pray that Obama doesn't have his way with the world (currently his planned budget calls for more deficit than the previous 43 presidents combined!) 

My comments are open for reference based-pier-reviewed scrutiny 





keto said:


> About 30 years ago, the headlines were all about global COOLING and how it was going to kill us all, and what science was doing to alleviate the problem.
> 
> It all goes in natural cycles. I'm not saying pollution is good or shouldn't be penalized and mitigated where possible, but neither do I believe in global warming as caused by mankind to the extent it gets talked about today. It'll get warmer, it'll get colder, et cetera et cetera et cetara.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

There continues to be a misunderstanding of the difference between climate and weather. Some of the posts in this thread are prime examples. There's nothing wrong with questioning the impact, or even the veracity of any given science. The more you know about the science involved in climatology, the better one can interpret the data and how the media and politicians spin it. Unfortunately, the "debunking" as it were in the media lately is a lot like your doctor saying "your heart's not in as bad a shape as we thought, you can go back to eating all that good stuff". It seems to have inspired a lot of "armchair experts" to lament this "bogus theory", without having ANY knowledge to really make an educated evaluation of the facts IMO.



Shawn


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks for that rugburn. It is precisely what I was going to start my own post with. Weather does not equal climate. "Weather" is what you experience in one place at one time. "Climate" is the sum of what is measured (and experienced) in many places over extended periods of time, including noise in the measure (the way your own temperature will vary over the daywhen you're sick). Sadly, some of the most vocal anti-global-warming rhetoric has come from those places that have experienced it the least, or experienced paradoxical weather. I can assure you that folks in Nunavut and folks in Australia are more convinced of the reality of it than folks in the American midwest.

Unfortunately, the entire "global warming thing" suffers substantially from a blurring of many separate questions and issues. Since some folks do not like the suggested answers to *some* of the questions, they tend to reject the others. So I'll try and separate the issues:

1) *Is there a documented progressive and rapid shift in overall average temperature?* Yes, there appears to be. Because climate is a bit like skin, all connected, what happens in one place can have paradoxical effects in another. For example, Newfoundlanders are familiar with the consequences of the traditional breakup of the polar ice cap in summer. Huge chunks of the ice cap float down the eastern seaboard and can lodge themselves in your harbour, turning a lovely June afternoon into something much colder. If those chunks of ice stay put in Nunavut that doesn't happen. Paradoxically, warmer weather in Nunavut means colder weather down the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland. As many have noted, the thing to be concerned about is not a continuous change in weather that we can adapt to. Rather it is the anticipated (and occurring) *inconsistency* in weather that can be the major problem. Remember that all plant and animal species have evolved over time in anticipation of regular seasonal shifts. I'm sure you've seen winters where the trees got sucker-punched into budding and then were hit with a few more weeks of sub-zero.

2) *Is this the first such shift in average temperature the earth has experienced?* Seemingly not, however, it is much faster than what one would expect from extra-terrestrial events (e.g., solar changes) or from mere geological change. Fast enough that it strongly suggests a disruption in a planetary climate system that is usually self-balancing (or at least the geological record suggests so).

3) *But if there has been planetary warming in the past, isn't this just more of the same?* Not necessarily. The warming is merely an outcome. The same outcome can have one set of causes at geological time X and another at geological time Y.

4) *Do the causes have to be this OR that?* No, not at all. It is entirely possible that what climatologists are documenting is a joint product of several different sources of causation. Some can be "natural" and others can be man made. As some climate scientists note, there can also be cascading causes where man-made ones initiate natural ones. For example, when the tundra thaws, there is all manner of ancient organic materials that will give off greenhouse gasses. The organic material is obviously not man-made, and you certainly can't eliminate the tundra. Apparently the tundra thing is expected to be self-correcting, but not until it has caused havoc.

5) *Are the things that the Suzukis of the world point to the cause of said warming?* Maybe. It is certainly plausible that there are man-made causes we haven't noticed yet.

6) *Do the solutions have to be this OR that?* Again, not necessarily. There may well be a "natural" self-correction thing that we do not fully understand yet, but human production of greenhouse gasses is not exactly helping matters at the moment. The debate in Copenhagen and other places revolves around the measures that humans, industries, and nations can take to minimize the overall human impact. It is not at all clear to me that many of the suggested measures will have the desired impact. There is a reason why "cap and trade" sounds a bit like "bait and switch". In many instances, well-intentioned activities can have unintended consequences. It is only reasonable to be dubious about solutions which seem to easy to be true.

7) *Are the effects of said warming something everyone everywhere will experience?* Well, they're not experiencing it the same way everywhere now, so I can't see it suddenly turning into a uniform impact. To some extent, that's part of the concern of some of the doomsayers. Let's just say that Europe and North America are fine for now but the coastal population of the Indian Ocean finds itself without a habitable coastal area or immediately arable land. How exactly do we cope with the human migration aspect? How do we get food from here to there? How do we get those people in homes? And if we can't keep them fed, housed, and healthy where they are, how does the world deal with the inevitable public health scenario that arises? Writer Gwynne Dyer has written extensively about the prospects for Africa as a result of food shortages and drought from climatic shifts. If you can bear to live in a world where people are as brutal to each other as we see in Darfur at the moment, be my guest. I was hoping for something a little better, myself.

The general response to the global warming thing among many has been like their response to things like motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, and banning smoking in bars. They will marshall all manner of counter-arguments against something that they find an "inconvenience". The East Anglia thing is one such instance. We'll set aside that the full story of what went on there is not yet fully documents, proven, or understood, and simply note that the history of science is chock full of folks falsifying data to keep their careers afloat. Funny thing, though. They usually falsify data so as to be congruent with what many others have long suspected or believed based on other independent findings. It is rare, if ever, that any so-called falsifications are in direct contradiction of the preponderance of evidence, unless they are deliberately intended to shock. "Rigging" findings to support the warming idea is not controversial with respect to what it leads one to conclude. It merely lines up with the preponderance of evidence from a huge array of other sources. Every week, I hear stories on CBC's Quirks and Quarks by biologists who are not part of the "climatology mafia" that only makes sense if the planet is warming up (e.g., species showing up at latitudes they have not historically occupied, broad systematic changes in marine flora that would only occur through a systematic change in temperature). None of these folks have any connection to East Anglia or climatological journals or sources of funding.

I'm getting tired of writing, and I need to go buy applesauce. I'll leave you folks to haggle it out on your own. I'll just say that accepting the idea of global warming is separate from what to do about it. Do not let your attitudes about what you would prefer or not prefer in the way of corrective action colour your beliefs about reality.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> ... I'll just say that accepting the idea of global warming is separate from what to do about it. Do not let your attitudes about what you would prefer or not prefer in the way of corrective action colour your beliefs about reality.


beliefs about reality? Like I said, lets stop polluting the air water and soil, but that is not what this is about. The US mililtary apparently uses around 20% of all fossil fuels produced, worldwide, the gloabal war machine uses around 40% - now that is a quick and easy fix if you want to reduce c02 emmisions. I bet almost every citizen in the world would sign up for that in a minute and not one political leader or Suzuki drone has mentioned it. 

even the IPCC won't acknowledge the 'hockey stick' graph anymore because it has been shown to be based on false and biased data. and it is the basis of the argument for the recent man-made contribution to climate change.

the reality as I see it is that most of the 3000 or so climate experts that Gore refers to are mostly politicians and lobbyist signed on with the IPCC, not scientists. There are more than ten times that amount of climate scientists who have declared they do not agree them. 

Scientists don't like to talk about absolutes and 'reality' but prefer to look at evidence and suggest probabilities. 

I, and many more everyday, are not buying the story that this agenda has anything to do with saving humanity or the planet. follow the $


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Morbo said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=1
> 
> I might be alone in this, but I find this thread a bit depressing.


Me too. I have kids and I wonder if they should...

Good article BTW. Well cited too. Unfortunately, the naysayers are victims of a well funded and well planned misinformation campaign being waged by vested interests such a oil and energy companies.

There are two kinds of decision making processes in our brains, emotional and rational. The misinformation campaigns seek to create emotional ideas in people's heads by making scientists who's research warns of climate change into a group of "others." It's easy to demonize and dismiss an "other" group, just ask George W. Bush. Unfortunately emotional decisions, like knee-jerk reactions against the climate change consensus, are the hardest to overcome with reason.

An example of the well funded anti-scientific campaign is evidenced by the so-called Wedge Strategy:

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/747

wiki synopsis here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

This is just an example of the kind of well thought out, well funded shit that people do to trick the general public.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand. I do see direct and indirect evidence that supports the climate-change model. What I also know is that the Earth is an enormous open system. 

(For explanation see this: http://www.panarchy.org/vonbertalanffy/systems.1968.html

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory)

Which, thankfully, means that is is susceptible to fluctuation, but ultimately extremely stable. By way of example, our bodies are also open systems, we can smoke, drink and otherwise poison our system, but if we stop, the system can purge the toxins and resume a healthy function.

Food for thought.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

As an Albertan, I do get ticked at the attacks on the oil sands. We're labeled as something like the worst in the world because of it.

The Alberta Environment Minister made an important point on the news the other day:
- Canada generates about .015% of Greenhouse Gas emissions. The Alberta Oil Sands account for about 5% of Canada's emissions.

That works out to about 0.00075% of the worlds emissions.

I mean, really, WTF.

I think Canada is seen as an easy target. Greenpeace isn't going to try to climb government buildings in Moscow or Bejing, or even Washington.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

dwagar said:


> I think Canada is seen as an easy target. Greenpeace isn't going to try to climb government buildings in Moscow or Bejing, or even Washington.


You got that right! For decades now I've resented hearing countries from the tropics criticize Canada for it's energy usage. They live in countries where you don't need a furnace in your home! Countries where you can walk outside your back door in the middle of "winter" and pick citrus fruit off a tree.

Screw them and the horse they rode in on!

There's so much BS over this topic that it can be hard to sort it all out. To me, when you boil it all down you're left with the following:

First off, is the climate getting warmer? We're not sure. There is conflicting evidence. It's easy to think that a bit of change within your own lifetime is a huge factor. To Mother Nature, it's not. She has cycles measured in THOUSANDS of years!

Second, if there is some change going on is it natural or due to Man's influence? This is very important yet almost totally ignored by the "alarmists". If it is due to Man then you would think that it is within our control to do something about it. If it is natural, then it may be beyond our power, no matter if we spend ourselves into world poverty.

Third, is the change large and fast enough to be a catastrophe or will it be gradual enough that we can adapt? (And would adapting be cheaper?)

Even scarier, if it is something we are doing then if we stop hopefully things will calm down. If it is natural and we start screwing around with things like thousands of acres of reflective film to shade and reduce temperatures then in our ignorance we might make things much worse.

As a techie, I can't help but be suspicious of the entire Climate Change crowd. Anybody who trumpets that "The science is all settled so we don't have to answer any of your questions!" and "We have a big list of scientist guys who agree with us so therefore since our list is longer than your list we must be right and you're WRONG!" is untrustworthy in a science context. Those kind of statements are not scientific at all. They are POLITICAL!

And that brings me to the biggest reason I don't trust the "alarmists". I read the Kyoto Accord from front to back. People don't seem to realize that there was very little about actual climate change. It was almost all about wealth transfer from "rich" countries to those in the third world. Now Copenhagen is even more so!

In Copenhagen the "threat" of climate change was taken as a given, with no debate. The entire conference was about "foreign aid". The rationale is that "rich" countries owe the poorer ones for having "ruined the planet" during the last couple of centuries with their industrialization. Supposedly, poor countries can't afford to go "green" on their own and we should pay them so that they don't industrialize in just as dirty a manner as the "rich" countries had done.

This is total crap! Europe and America had a polluting past because nobody had yet learned how to industrialize in a clean manner. We also needed that time to see the negative outcomes of how we made steel and other products. 

Most modern industrial processes are cleaner than the old ways and CHEAPER! Third world countries have the advantage of starting off with the cheaper, cleaner modern methods. Why on earth would they build iron smelters designed in 1885?

Countries like India benefited from modern cell phone technology. They didn't have to run telephone wires all over the country! The same is true in China. Using the modern technology instead of repeating what we did over the past century has saved them billions.

IMHO, we still don't know what's going on but we do know that the emphasis seems to be on wealth redistribution and not actually dealing with a climate change problem, whether real or not or within our power to affect.

Many supporters of things like Kyoto and Copenhagen seem to believe that we should do these things "just in case", since the alternative is that "we're all gonna fry!" What they don't seem to understand is that doing these things is going to make US much POORER! Our drop in living standard will be HUGE!

Stephane Dion told us "Don't worry about it! We'll get rich with "green" jobs making the new technologies!" Yet at the same time we intend to fund third world countries to do all this manufacturing, cutting our workers out of the picture.

I guess to put it most simply, I just can't trust guys who use politics to advance a weak scientific argument. I can't trust people who try to force anyone who disagrees with them to "Shut up! The science has been settled, 'cuz we have a better list of scientists than you do!"

I certainly can't trust Al Gore, who burns more electricity in the lights of his mansion than would be used to power a small village. Also, the man stands to make zillion$ if he can help get a carbon credit scheme established!

Mark had mentioned Newfoundland in one of his posts. I had to smile. When the Vikings landed there 800 years ago the climate was warm enough for growing grapes!

My poor Newfie relatives! They've been waiting all this time to get warm again and other folks are pushing to keep them freezing!

It just ain't fair!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

dwagar said:


> As an Albertan, I do get ticked at the attacks on the oil sands. We're labeled as something like the worst in the world because of it.


As a *Canadian* the oil sands make me want to puke. The only good thing about this energy source, is the money. However, it's dirty money. IMO a country like ours has a responsibility to develope industries that are forward thinking. I see the outrage as less to do with exactly how bad the oil sands are for the ecology, but rather that Canada would stoop so low for some quick cash. Incidently, a national study recently reported tainted groundwater and waterways due to the oil sands project. These leaks have reached Saskatchewan and the N.W.T., making this a truly* Canadian* problem.


Here's a nice piece in the Calgary Herald that somewhat aknowledges the water issue, but ultimately gives the last word to the sustainability of the project by some fellow who states "the 1.3 million barrels a day has to come from somewhere". That's some journalism there!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entert...y+sticks+province+oilsands/2084227/story.html

Here's a piece by the CanWest news service:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1049842

I found the second article to have more. ......."tanginess" .


Shawn


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i have been attended every meeting of the climate change conspiracy since its inception, and i think its time you all knew the truth: yes, kiddies, the fellow behind this conspiracy is none other than the boogeyman himself.

these meetings are held in the basement of a nightclub called "the slippery slope".

honestly, it was all in fun.

come on, we all know that the average joe knows much more about science and weather than any scientist or meteorologist.

we've been placing bets on how long it would take some of you to figure it out.

to those of you who are onto us, congratulations!

your prize is in the mail.

:wave:

-the boogeyman


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Questions I did not address yesterday:

The difference between "preventing" and adapting". Assuming one accepts the documented trend, no matter what its origins, and no matter what its' duration, the fact still remains that with the north changing, with droughts increasing in some sensitive areas of the world, and with a huge chunk of the world's population living in climatically risky areas (i.e., in makeshift housing along shorelines), something has to be done about *people*. I'm not talking about tsunamis or 2012 scenarios. I'm talking about all those places that if you had to move the shoreline in about 100 yards, the entire face of the city would change. For starters, lets move Vancouver, Tokyo, Mumbai, and New York in about 100 yards from shore. Okay, now what do you do with the airports, the warehouses, the high-end condos, and the tenements? Where do you put all that stuff? What do you do with all the people who have to move? Who the hell is gonna pay for all of that?

Bill's resentment over public resentment about Canada is well placed. We too often forget about geography; acting as if Canada were simply another European country like Belgium or Poland. Meanwhile, people come from all over the world to visit Canada and can't get over _just how far it is between places_. Indeed, one of the things I love about the prairies and northern folks is that their idea of a "neighbour" often includes people who live 20km away. The very idea of a 20km distance between oneself and the nearest neighbour makes the heads of many Americans, Europeans, and indeed some Torontonians, explode. Not only do Canadians have to provide more heat for themselves, they need to bring goods to markets over vast distances, have to run cables over greater distances, and often have to travel farther to work and school on a daily basis. We are just immense, relative to our population base.

Now, having said that, the sheer difficulty of making some industries profitable under those circumstances tends to make us stick our collective heads in the sand, and just hope that the nagging from both the environmentalists and the environment would just go away. The fact is, when you have a lot riding on something, you tend not to want to hear about, or believe, arguments that suggest you've taken on the wrong commitments. We should be cut some slack, but only as much as is warranted under the circumstances.

So the challenge is to manage those commitments in the most conscienable way possible. Sadly, everybody wants to take a Mulligan. Developing nations want to say "Well, it's not our fault we were colonized and now have 50 years of catch-up to attain the same standard of living as you guys, so cut us some environmental slack.". And industrialized nations say "Well, if we respond too aggressively with environmental controls, carbon taxes, etc., our economy will suffer and we will lose the standard of living we have come to expect." And it turns into an "After you" - "No, after you, I insist" - "No, really, after you" scenario. Meanwhile the consequences of climatic change do not look at their watches, pull up a chair, and take a break until we figure it out between ourselves.

I hate to say it, but unilateral action is simply the only viable path. If it takes the others 5 years to catch on, so be it. If I pay more taxes, so be it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

kqoct I can drink a glass of water in one go. I open my mouth and down it sides. But if someone were to replace my glass with a 10 gallon jug you can sure bet I wouldn't be none too happy iffn I lived.

That is the crux. Not that the environment changes, but how fast it changes. Yes, we here in Ontario used to be sub-tropical. The Nile Valley used to be fertile. Siberia used to be more tropical than sub-tropical. 400 years ago Italy was under a blanket of snow, the last recorded 'ice age' hence why all the Renaissance paintings featured so much snow. There are "ice ages" and "great ice ages". All these things will come to pass again too. 

But if the natural pace of events is on the order of 1000's of years and we push a button and make that 10's of years, what has the chance to either migrate or adapt? Be they Polar Bears of Prairie Farmers.

We all do know recent history and what happens when a major environmental change happens for a long or short period of time. Potato famine, Dust Bowl, Ethiopia etc. When drought or blight or floods sucker punch your food chain, even for a short time, lots of hungry ... and then dead people follow. 

Global warming is not really an issue to me. No matter where in the planet you are, you hear one of two main lines "wow, its never this hot" or "wow, its never this cold" and you hear a lot "it was never like this when I was a kid". The world has changed; how fast has it changed is the issue to me.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Jeez, I didn't want to open up a whole Climate Change debate with this thread. I was just pondering why the ice cap doesn't rebuild, or perhaps how long an extended period of extreme cold it would take to somewhat rebuild it? Or is that possible?

Does it build up in the winter when it's 50 freaking below zero up there, then melt back in the summer, ie, the warmer summer months outdo the cold winter months?


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Me too. I have kids and I wonder if they should...
> 
> Good article BTW. Well cited too. Unfortunately, the naysayers are victims of a well funded and well planned misinformation campaign being waged by vested interests such a oil and energy companies.
> 
> ...


wow, those are some pretty broad generalizations: the naysayers are all irrational poeple who respond emotionally and are victims of a well funded campaign. and yeah, I certainly haven't noticed much emotional manipulation in the "the world is gonna end if you don't let us cap and trade" camp...

I wonder why such a well funded naysayers campaign gets almost no mainstream media coverage? I have yet to hear a debate on radio that has experts from both sides of the debate. it is always a pro-climate change expert responding to allegations and 'setting the record straight" 

I consider myself a rational and self-directed person. I read and listen to both sides of the debate and make up my own mind. I don't believe what I am being told by any side without considering all available info. Have you done the same?


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2009)

dwagar said:


> Jeez, I didn't want to open up a whole Climate Change debate with this thread. I was just pondering why the ice cap doesn't rebuild, or perhaps how long an extended period of extreme cold it would take to somewhat rebuild it? Or is that possible?


Hmm...well, I'm not meteorologist, but: the ambient temperature and the temperature of the water or land around the air are not the same. It's a gradient. The more you want to change the temperature below the surface of the water or ground the longer you need to expose it to the lower ambient temperature, and even then you can only go so deep with the change because you've got heat rising from the lower layers that'll stop you from being able to freeze that deep.

Most of what's melting was made a loooooong time ago. When ambient temperatures were consistently much colder. So you had long exposures. A long time for the gradient to shift, to make ice well below the surface of the water.

All that being said: there are some glaciers that are growing. Reference: 
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm (some in Canada even) (Edit: I have no way to verify the validity of that page BTW...I just searched for "Norway glacier growing" and that's what popped up. Read with care please.) 



> Does it build up in the winter when it's 50 freaking below zero up there, then melt back in the summer, ie, the warmer summer months outdo the cold winter months?


Not really. At the surface you'll get some accumulation, but its also the first to melt off when the temperatures. You need prolonged exposure to cold build up a deep reserve of ice that will resist melting when the exposure to heat occurs in the summer time.

It's kind of how the surface of a lake freezes in winter, but below the surface -- maybe 2 or 3 feet -- the water is still in liquid form. If you wanted to freeze it deeper so the lake would stay frozen throughout the summer you'd need two things: 1) really cold ambient temperatures; and 2) a lot more time.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

"_I was just pondering why the ice cap doesn't rebuild, or perhaps how long an extended period of extreme cold it would take to somewhat rebuild it? Or is that possible?_"

Those are good questions. For those of us who live somewhere south of the polar ice cap (which is well over 95% of us, I would imagine), it is difficult to conceive of the polar ice cap. We see chunks, but we don't see chunks big enough to fill up lake Ontaro.

"Breaking up" is also a fairly complex concept. There is breaking up in the sense of large scale fractures (the sort that resulted in that huge chunk of Antartica challenging shipping lanes off the east coast of Australia and New Zealand recently http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091211/wl_afp/australiaantarcticaiceberg ), and there is breaking up in the sense of chunks that are normally in close proximity to each other (and not really going anywhere) but are now starting to have enough interstitial space to float away.

"_Most of what's melting was made a loooooong time ago. When ambient temperatures were consistently much colder. So you had long exposures. A long time for the gradient to shift, to make ice well below the surface of the water._"

One also needs to realize that ice caps at either pole take place in salt water, so the time frame and freezing dynamics are different than what lets you snowmobile across the lake where your cottage is.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> As a *Canadian* the oil sands make me want to puke. The only good thing about this energy source, is the money. However, it's dirty money. IMO a country like ours has a responsibility to develope industries that are forward thinking. I see the outrage as less to do with exactly how bad the oil sands are for the ecology, but rather that Canada would stoop so low for some quick cash. Incidently, a national study recently reported tainted groundwater and waterways due to the oil sands project. These leaks have reached Saskatchewan and the N.W.T., making this a truly* Canadian* problem.
> 
> 
> Here's a nice piece in the Calgary Herald that somewhat aknowledges the water issue, but ultimately gives the last word to the sustainability of the project by some fellow who states "the 1.3 million barrels a day has to come from somewhere". That's some journalism there!
> ...


I wouldn't say the oil sands make me puke, but I would say they highlight a short-sighted tendency we have as Canadians. It's a great resource, and one that, if managed properly, could bring wealth and stability to a great many Canadians. It could also, in time, be done safely and without damaging the environment. However, our attitude towards planning in the country is roughly equivalent to a teenage girl's diet. Lots of binging and purging (see how I worked the puke back into the story?). We see a great resource, we binge on it. Until it makes us sick. Then we have regret, and start talking about shutting it all down because it's so horrible.

We can develop the tar sands properly. At the same time, we should also be developing other resources, properly. And by properly, I mean with a 50- to 100-year planning horizon. Or at least 30 years. Maybe 10 years? Do I hear a 10?

I was at a wind energy conference in Toronto recently, made up mostly of Spanish and Danish companies. They were astounded at how far behind we were in wind power generation. They have relatively tiny countries, but are the world leaders in the field. We have what is almost certainly the largest wind resource in the world, and have not developed it. At all. Not even a bit.

Anyway, I could go on, but I might get nauseous myself. It's time for a more mature outlook on our economy and a more mature planning ideology for our resources generally. I am tired of this mediocrity.

--- D


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Duster said:


> --I wouldn't say the oil sands make me puke, but I would say they highlight a short-sighted tendency we have as Canadians. It's a great resource, and one that, if managed properly, could bring wealth and stability to a great many Canadians. It could also, in time, be done safely and without damaging the environment. However, our attitude towards planning in the country is roughly equivalent to a teenage girl's diet. Lots of binging and purging (see how I worked the puke back into the story?). We see a great resource, we binge on it. Until it makes us sick. Then we have regret, and start talking about shutting it all down because it's so horrible.
> 
> We can develop the tar sands properly. At the same time, we should also be developing other resources, properly. And by properly, I mean with a 50- to 100-year planning horizon. Or at least 30 years. Maybe 10 years? Do I hear a 10?
> 
> - D


Well, since analogies describing "teenage girls' diets" being a lot of "binging and purging" seem reasonable to you, I'll add another tasteful insight. Sticking with the oil sands is a lot like sticking with a husband that beats on you. You convince yourself it's OK and it might get better because you need the financial support and shelter, but when he comes home.........


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> come on, we all know that the average joe knows much more about science and weather than any scientist or meteorologist.


of course! heh, for some things, you just don't need community college :wave:


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

bluesmostly said:


> wow, those are some pretty broad generalizations: the naysayers are all irrational poeple who respond emotionally and are victims of a well funded campaign. and yeah, I certainly haven't noticed much emotional manipulation in the "the world is gonna end if you don't let us cap and trade" camp...


I suppose you're correct, overly broad with the generalizations shwopv... Sorry. I was a little tired at the time. 

I'm just trying to point out that every _irrational _objection to the climate change model has been met. The article from Scientific American does a good job hashing that out. I'm also trying to point out that it is an issue that people FEEL strongly about - few take the time to try to understand the scope of the problem or read enough articles to get any sense of what the problem is. Those people also tend to resist changing their opinions the most. Also, there is no doubt that there is room for error in the climate change models, but isn't it better to err on the side of caution? 

Although i don't have time to dig up the links right now, I have done some homework researching some of the scientists who work for the Oil Companies and who do their best to cast doubt on the climate change consensus. These are the ones who actually claim that there is a debate at all. Most have not published in peer reviewed journals in decades or are engaged in entirely different fields of study. This demonstrates a lack of scientific credibility - and a profit motive.

I'm wasn't offering any political or practical solutions. I also agree with Wild Bill's assessment of Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy and _his _ (Gore's, not Bill's) profit motive. 

What I do know is that i believe in two things. Capitalism and human ingenuity. When there is finally a profit motive to change our impact on the climate, we will. If we stop too late we will adapt. I don't see anyone (apart from a few lonely individuals) changing their "carbon footprint" until it is _much _easier to do.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> kqoct I can drink a glass of water in one go. I open my mouth and down it sides. But if someone were to replace my glass with a 10 gallon jug you can sure bet I wouldn't be none too happy iffn I lived.
> 
> That is the crux. Not that the environment changes, but how fast it changes. Yes, we here in Ontario used to be sub-tropical. The Nile Valley used to be fertile. Siberia used to be more tropical than sub-tropical. 400 years ago Italy was under a blanket of snow, the last recorded 'ice age' hence why all the Renaissance paintings featured so much snow. There are "ice ages" and "great ice ages". All these things will come to pass again too.
> 
> ...


Good post. But it hinges entirely on this sentence:
"But if the natural pace of events is on the order of 1000's of years and we push a button and make that 10's of years, what has the chance to either migrate or adapt?" And thats the Achilles heel of the argument. Suzuki/Gore types state with conviction that they know "smoking gun" of this change can be tied to humans. But its not based on fact any more than the arguments for or against religion. Its a belief system, based on very loose circumstantial eveidence and supposition.

we do not know that we are accelerating these events or merely witnessing them, or what a reasonable amount of time to adapt is, or even if nature has it in mind for all creatures to adapt. It may be for instance that Polar Bears are destined to be the next dinosaurs, and so be it, as unfortunate as it would be....Although I believe even that to be bunk as, when non-Suzuki/Gore types in the far north are asked, they will often say they believe that polar bear populations are INCREASING, not drowning/starving in masses as Gore's movie would have us believe.

I personally believe that once these events begin, momentum grows rapidly as a chain/series/cascade of biological "dominos" begins its move. So that things happen exponentially faster than they did in the centuries before.

Please also add the following to your list of previous examples of natural climate change: Greenland once being named aptly for being much more than a frozen wasteland, and the Australias Outback once being a lush rainforest instead of the desert it now is. :smile:
Change is part of life.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Indeed it is Diablo. I think that was the crux of my point, that we don't know, that it is arguable on all sides. 

Messing with the weather is in a way like peeing in someone's pool. All may be good and cleansed by the filter system, but there have been many cases of late of mass e-coli outbreaks stemming from 1 dirty diaper, 1 little kid having 1 greasy poo in a public amusement park leading to 100's of people with the trots. The system may look huge, it may act huge, it may be able to self repair; but an upset may be small and have far reaching affects. That is the nature of chaotic systems, fractal math, and the bases of the butterfly effect. All aspects that have been shown by many more lay people than scientists as we that art with chaos have show 

So why chance it and why not simply work towards risk minimisation regardles of the impact?


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I'd be real interested in finding out what the rest of the world is hearing about Canada's emissions. 

I just heard a spokesperson for India on the news - India isn't going to do much to curb emissions as they feel it would hurt their growth, their poorest people, etc.
She said India only accounts for 5% of the world's emissions. Even if the country stopped breathing tomorrow it would make little difference. But Canada could make a big difference.

WTF? WTF?

what the hell does the 'world' think we are pumping out?

we've been taking it on the chin way, way too long.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2009)

dwagar said:


> I'd be real interested in finding out what the rest of the world is hearing about Canada's emissions.
> 
> I just heard a spokesperson for India on the news - India isn't going to do much to curb emissions as they feel it would hurt their growth, their poorest people, etc.
> She said India only accounts for 5% of the world's emissions. Even if the country stopped breathing tomorrow it would make little difference. But Canada could make a big difference.
> ...


Hard to say anything without more information. What's the unit of measurement for emissions? Per capita cubic tons? What exactly are the "emissions" of that they're talking about? Air-borne heavy metals? Industrial effluents?

If it's per-capita, you can see how an under-developed, heavily populated country like India is going to come in last: they don't have a lot on industrialization and they have huge population to dilute a per-capita measurement. Sure, they only make up 5% of the total output, but what's the year-over-year growth rate relative to a first world nation? Bet you first world nations are pretty slow growth and India is massive.

You can see how these things can be misleading without more data.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> As a techie, I can't help but be suspicious of the entire Climate Change crowd. Anybody who trumpets that "The science is all settled so we don't have to answer any of your questions!" and "We have a big list of scientist guys who agree with us so therefore since our list is longer than your list we must be right and you're WRONG!" is untrustworthy in a science context. Those kind of statements are not scientific at all. They are POLITICAL!
> 
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Right on Wild Bill, fact is though, the list of scientists who disagree with the climate change campaign is much larger than the one Gore refers to.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I suppose you're correct, overly broad with the generalizations shwopv... Sorry. I was a little tired at the time.
> 
> I'm just trying to point out that every _irrational _objection to the climate change model has been met. The article from Scientific American does a good job hashing that out. I'm also trying to point out that it is an issue that people FEEL strongly about - few take the time to try to understand the scope of the problem or read enough articles to get any sense of what the problem is. Those people also tend to resist changing their opinions the most. Also, there is no doubt that there is room for error in the climate change models, but isn't it better to err on the side of caution?
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but I will say it again: listening to one side of the argument, then listening to those same proponents defend their position and dis the opposition is not a what I would call a balanced approach. 

and again, There are thousands of climate scientists who would not agree that "every _irrational _objection to the climate change model has been met." or that, "the science is settled and the debate is over."

I saw a good documentary film of a public debate on climate change that took place in australia. It is the only time I have seen both sides of the argument presented and debated on level ground. a pole of the audience showed that the majority going in believed in man made climate change (can't remember the exact figures) and after the debate the numbers were reversed. it is worth checking out. 

After listening and reading much material FROM BOTH CAMPS, I am not buying the story that this has anything to do with climate-change.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> Indeed it is Diablo. I think that was the crux of my point, that we don't know, that it is arguable on all sides.
> 
> Messing with the weather is in a way like peeing in someone's pool. All may be good and cleansed by the filter system, but there have been many cases of late of mass e-coli outbreaks stemming from 1 dirty diaper, 1 little kid having 1 greasy poo in a public amusement park leading to 100's of people with the trots. The system may look huge, it may act huge, it may be able to self repair; but an upset may be small and have far reaching affects. That is the nature of chaotic systems, fractal math, and the bases of the butterfly effect. All aspects that have been shown by many more lay people than scientists as we that art with chaos have show
> 
> *So why chance it and why not simply work towards risk minimisation regardles of the impact*?


Well, minimisation is something we should strive towards, but IMO we have to be cautious that we dont 
1)drive ourselves into poverty by falling for trendy eco-gimmicks based on specious science
2) and that our efforts are being put into the most important initiatives. For example, *I fully support efforts to protect and rejuvenate our lakes, waterways and oceans*-this should be the most important thing on environmentalists minds, especially since unlike global warming, it IS obvious that we are having a negative impact on it ie. many of which have become eutrophic...however as there's far less profit to be made from this, all the attention seems to be going into buying new light bulbs (with mercury built in), refrigerators, cars that dont yield ecological benefits until they have reached 10yrs of age etc. with little really being done to ensure future generations have clean water for drinking and vibrant water ecological systems. Its simply much more fun to go buy a shiny new fridge, completely forgetting the waste of resources it takes to make and deliver these products, and fill our landfills with less efficient but serviceable products. *So, "minimisation" may just be a smokescreen that we're doing something positive for the world, when in fact we arent.* Its just a business gimmick, thats distracting the populations from what SHOULD be first and foremost, and therefore having no practical value. 

I'm sick of hearing every environmental initiative being linked to increasing consumerism. It should be the opposite!

But again, even in your example, you're implying that we are "messing with the weather" aka pissing in a pool . What some of us are saying is that the world/weather is not a pristine pool that would be spotless if not for humans, but rather a swamp and that what humans contribute to this swamp is an imperceptible quantity of what it normally has.


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

We rank poorly on the Climate Change Performance Index.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/12/us_wins_fossil_award_in_copenh.html

THIRD PLACE: CANADA and SAUDI ARABIA
Saudi Arabia and Canada receive the third place fossil of the day for their respective last and second-last finish in the Climate Change Performance Index released today by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe. The Index evaluates 57 industrial and developing countries who release 90% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Saudi Arabia’s record speaks for itself. Canada only finished second-last because Saudi Arabia received a zero rating for its climate policy! Canada is in the world’s top ten emitters, has one of the world’s highest per capita rates of emissions at 23 tonnes per person, and is 34% above its Kyoto target (which is just a modest 6% cut from 1990). Simply put: on climate change, Canada has performance issues.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

If you're into the whole climate thingy and feel strongly, use your strong feeling to tell people that instead of arguing about this stuff and instead of trying to develop a new stock market for emissions trading, use the resources instead to fund fusion and solar projects. Yes, ENRON wind power would tell you those are pipe dreams, but we are about 15 years away from working fusion and thats with very little funding. Korea, China, Russia and the US are all working on it, but with little funding. If we put more effort into it, that time frame could be cut. Fusion power is the most important project in the last 100 years, and people just ignore it. Its clean, its cheap, and it provides immense power with very little input. Its the governments and utility companies worst nightmare, but its going to be a huge hit...............


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I'm sick of hearing every environmental initiative being linked to increasing consumerism. It should be the opposite!


You've raised a very good point! Or perhaps I'm just too cynical and suspicious!:smile:

The idea of "clean" is never mentioned anymore! No one's talking much about cleaning garbage out of water systems, or re-forestation, or smokestack scrubbers on factories. All the emphasis is on carbon cap schemes that give oodles of money to the third world and exempt the biggest polluters like China, India and Russia from any emission reductions.

When I was in school (before the last Ice Age) we used to organize cleanup projects. We'd all head out to parks or stream beds and gather up all the garbage we could find. I haven't seen anyone doing that in years.

Being suspicious, I'm sensing a conspiracy!

Long ago I was taught that whenever actions don't seem to make sense it can help to examine just what are the true GOALS of the actions! In this case, is the Green Movement really trying to clean up the planet? Or is there another agenda?

Both Kyoto and Copenhagen seem to be all about hamstringing western countries with their industry while giving Russia, India and especially China a free rein! China is becoming the largest manufacturing nation on earth, surpassing the USA. This growth has been helped enormously by China having little or no pollution or emission controls. India and Russia are doing the same only they are not just using this advantage to out-compete with us. They are demanding we give them aid money under carbon trading schemes as well!

It seems just too blatant for me to respect. Whatever happened to the idea of cleaning up the environment? We're all hung up on climate change that may be natural anyway and beyond our power to influence while we've forgotten about sea turtles choking on floating garbage bags or dolphins caught in abandoned fishing nets.

It would seem the Green Movement has sold out saving the whales to favour making China the number one WalMart supplier!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2009)

Accept2 said:


> If you're into the whole climate thingy and feel strongly, use your strong feeling to tell people that instead of arguing about this stuff and instead of trying to develop a new stock market for emissions trading, use the resources instead to fund fusion and solar projects.


Nice one. Yea, that hold "trade pollution credits" market is a scam. It's a way to monetize pollution so you can "invest" in it. Ridiculous. The whole "everything can be a futures" concept is really starting to devolve into Vegas-type off track betting stuff.



> Yes, ENRON wind power would tell you those are pipe dreams, but we are about 15 years away from working fusion and thats with very little funding. Korea, China, Russia and the US are all working on it, but with little funding. If we put more effort into it, that time frame could be cut. Fusion power is the most important project in the last 100 years, and people just ignore it. Its clean, its cheap, and it provides immense power with very little input. Its the governments and utility companies worst nightmare, but its going to be a huge hit...............


Fusion. Wind. Waves. All of it needs to be worked hard.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> You've raised a very good point! Or perhaps I'm just too cynical and suspicious!:smile:
> 
> The idea of "clean" is never mentioned anymore! No one's talking much about cleaning garbage out of water systems, or re-forestation, or smokestack scrubbers on factories. All the emphasis is on carbon cap schemes that give oodles of money to the third world and exempt the biggest polluters like China, India and Russia from any emission reductions.
> 
> ...


You make a good point. I look at it a little differently, with the same results. Whenever someone tells me that I have to BUY something or PAY something to fix a problem, I immediately get suspicious. Money doesn't actually solve problems. Money can't in and of itself, do anything. So when I see cap-and-trade, emission credits, etc., I start looking around for who's making the money.

Now, if we talk about projects that actually CLEAN things, or REDUCE emissions, then we're talking about something good. And of course, we need money for these things, but it's not the money that fixes the problem.

As for Canada's role, I think we should be very dubious of statistics. It's hard to compare different countries. Canada is a sparsely populated, relatively cold, mostly urban, heavily industrialized country, the industry of which is heavily "primary" in nature (agriculture, extraction, mining, etc.). You would expect such a country to have high emissions per capita.

I think the world leaders have missed the point of these kinds of conferences, by focussing so much on national goals, instead of international goals. Saying that each country should meet certain targets is fruitless and counterproductive. The point should be to reduce INTERNATIONAL emissions/pollution/whatever, and then recognize each country's unique economy, demographics, and geography to best reduce overall emissions without "making the pie smaller", as they say.

This isn't the Olympics, it's not supposed to be one country against another. When nationalism finally dies, we will be a happier planet.

--- D


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Being suspicious, I'm sensing a conspiracy!


sigh. Yeah, I agree, and I'm sensing more than one conspiracy. And, as always, it all comes down to who can make a fast buck.

You got the Gore, Suzuki, Greenpeace camps raising money by the bucketload, you got the oil, manufacturing, mining camps not wanting to cut into their profits, you've got third world countries wanting to sell us their credits (so we don't have to actually DO anything to cut emissions, we can just buy our way out), you've got every product on the market becoming suddenly "green", without actually doing much other than adding "green" to their label, and we're actually expected to believe ANY of them.

====
I saw a comment on the news last night by one activist, he said their intention is to get Canada to shut down the Oil Sands (yes I'm an Albertan and it's becoming a real sore point for us out here). We're seeing the govts of Ontario, BC and Quebec trying to distance themselves from Alberta, not wanting to be associated with the evil Oil Sands. (I wonder if they are willing to distance themselves from the money that comes from those Oil Sands.) I also recall a clip from someone from the Ontario govt being concerned if there are any restrictions placed (targeting evil Alberta of course) that they wouldn't apply to Ontario cause, well, that would hurt the manufacturing sector.

One reporter commented that Canadians, like everyone else, are all for reducing emissions so long as we can keep our hands firmly on our wallets.

We're ranked #3 worst today, somehow, but we generate only 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions. If we miraculously cutback 10% TODAY, would that make any real difference? That'd be pretty easy to do. We could shutdown the oil sands completely, oh, no, that's only 5%. We can shut down all coal fired electric generation, that's something like 7 or 8%. Maybe we could simply ban all use of autos in the 3 main cities, GTA, greater Van, greater Montreal. That might do it.

Oh, and increase personal taxes by, a guess, 30% or so to pay for everything we just tossed in the toilet. That may not be enough. Let's tack another 15% onto PST as well.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

It's impossible to really discuss this here. The issue has become a political shitstorm. Politicians change there tune to match the trends of the day. They get their cash by supporting the "movement de jour". I can't, and likely won't ever trust these people. Wild Bill makes a good point about a grass roots issue turning into a lot of cheap globalized rhetoric. I have to take exception to the David Suzuki bashing. This man has been studying, lecturing and championing our shared ecology for as long as I've been alive. He's always maintained that "global warming/climate change" would create unpredictable climactic changes that would endanger wildlife, food crops and cause sea waters to rise. He's been consistent and commited long before it became popular. Don't like his theories, activism or TV show.....fine. Trying to give the impression that he's sold out for the big paycheck, is an outrage. As for his celebrity status, I see him like I do Rick Mercer, Don Cherry or Wayne Gretzky.....a great Canadian! In a debate plagued with charlatans and windbags a plenty on all sides, I believe this man fell in love with the natural world long ago, and will do all he can for it through his convictions.


Shawn


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> It's impossible to really discuss this here. The issue has become a political shitstorm. Politicians change there tune to match the trends of the day. They get their cash by supporting the "movement de jour". I can't, and likely won't ever trust these people. Wild Bill makes a good point about a grass roots issue turning into a lot of cheap globalized rhetoric. I have to take exception to the David Suzuki bashing. This man has been studying, lecturing and championing our shared ecology for as long as I've been alive. He's always maintained that "global warming/climate change" would create unpredictable climactic changes that would endanger wildlife, food crops and cause sea waters to rise. He's been consistent and commited long before it became popular. Don't like his theories, activism or TV show.....fine. Trying to give the impression that he's sold out for the big paycheck, is an outrage. As for his celebrity status, I see him like I do Rick Mercer, Don Cherry or Wayne Gretzky.....a great Canadian! In a debate plagued with charlatans and windbags a plenty on all sides, I believe this man fell in love with the natural world long ago, and will do all he can for it through his convictions.
> 
> 
> Shawn


+1 on Suzuki. One of my best memories of him was when he made a presentation at our public library. I'm guessing it was about 1982-83, I was 9 or 10 years old, growing up in Jane and Finch, which is not a real nice part of Toronto. He gave a presentation to us about his love of nature, I supposed trying to encourage "inner city kids" to learn about the subject. He talked a lot about his daughter, who was a bit younger than us. I don't remember much about the presentation, except his genuine enthusiasm and his feeling that loving nature is about the most natural thing in the world. Every child starts out loving and being fascinated by nature. It's only as we get older that the cynicism and compromises creep in. He's an old man now, but I don't think he's ever lost his childlike wonder about the world. Big fan of the Suzuki.

And BTW, sorry about my eating disorder joke. I didn't realize it was.... in bad taste. 

--- D


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> You've raised a very good point! Or perhaps I'm just too cynical and suspicious!:smile:
> 
> The idea of "clean" is never mentioned anymore! No one's talking much about cleaning garbage out of water systems, or re-forestation, or smokestack scrubbers on factories. All the emphasis is on carbon cap schemes that give oodles of money to the third world and exempt the biggest polluters like China, India and Russia from any emission reductions.
> 
> ...


agreed, I would love to see the world cleaned up. There are horrendous environmental pollutions in our water, air and soil that are not debated anywhere, and these are being ignored, as usual. 

I am also all for reducing use of fossil fuels and emmissions but even if the climate change science was accurate and credible it is clear to anyone looking at the policies that they will do little to reduce emmissions... gotta make you question the real agenda.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My thinking was focussed on the whole topic the other day when I was reading the newspaper. I forget what content I was reading, but it dawned on me that there were a whole whack of articles and letters to the editor where the content was actually quite reasonable and well-reasoned, but the title assigned to it by the paper just tarted it up, tainted it and turned me right off. It was like reading an essay by Bertrand Russell with the title "Hey there, God, pack your bags!!". The immediate public face just ruins what lies underneath.

And that has been the problem here. The arguments underneath, whether scientific, economic, demographic, or spiritual, have simply been ignored because the headlines, the things that get thrust in our face so as to direct attention, have been tawdry, tasteless, sensational, childish, shallow, and naive. And that goes for BOTH sides.

I remember many decades back, when Cheech and Chong appeared on Montreal's CHOM-FM, they did a bit that revolved around a PSA for legalizing marijuana. Tommy Chong played the guy n the PSA, and concluded by noting that the reason why marijuana would never be legalized was because the people speaking for "the cause" were the very last people who ought to be representing it.

And so it seems to have been for the "Let's fix Global Warming" side". Whether the doofuses in the polar bear suits I saw in the paper yesterday, or the doofuses climbing the parliament Buildings to hang a sign, or the protesters in Copenhagen, there is a surfeit of the sort of childish gusto that turns people right off, including many here.

Pity. It starts to turn into a supreme court case decided on by whether the judge looks good in the robes. Not what we were hoping for when important things are riding on the outcome.

As for the idea of money to be made off responding to climate change, keep in mind that a great deal of that was really in response to all those types whose immediate response was to say "Wait a second! I've got a lot invested here. I don't want to lose money. I don't want to give up things, and I certainly don't want to give up my lifestyle and revenue streams.". It was basically a persuasion tactic to bring the resistant people on side, by trying to convince them that maybe responding to climate change needn't be all doom, gloom, and forfeiture of "the good life". We had certainly seen what happened during the oil crisis in the late 70's and how resistant to that people were (hell, Sammy Hagar even wrote a song about it "I Can't Drive 55"), so simply telling folks that it was the right thing to do would not do the trick. The strategy was now to convince them that they didn't have to give up anything because they could get rich other ways. Though I won't dismiss it outright, cap and trade is part of that overall "you can still have it your way" mentality.

Over time, though, and especially with the over-enthusiastic peddling of that argument, it has started to feel to some like making money off climate change was the very reason for raising the topic in the first place. It wasn't, but try convincing all those folks with short memories out there.

Was eliminating the aristocracy in France the right thing to do? Sure, but that didn't stop the rabble from being intoxicated by blood and guillotines. Were there issues of racial politics in many American cities in the 60's and 70's? Yes, but that didn't stop people from smashing windows and walking off with television as "an expression of their political views". Important causes are reliant on a groundswell of support to proceed, and so are always accompanied by legions of doofuses, including those who play along just to get laid or otherwise exploit the situation.

Do not let the headlines distract you, though.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> When nationalism finally dies, we will be a happier planet.
> 
> --- D


good post Duster but when it comes to this quote you will be happy to know that the powers-that-be who are behind the climate change movement are stating that this is one of their ultimate goals, they have been open about the fact that international carbon taxes will be used to fund the establisment of a one world government... me, I'm not so thrilled about that idea.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> good post Duster but when it comes to this quote you will be happy to know that the powers-that-be who are behind the climate change movement are stating that this is one of their ultimate goals, they have been open about the fact that international carbon taxes will be used to fund the establisment of a one world government... me, I'm not so thrilled about that idea.


It won't happen by some conspiracy of "powers-that-be", who get funding to establish the government. It will happen slowly, over time, by a variety of natural factors that push governments together. Increasingly, there will be problems, like the environment, pandemics, and food and water shortages, where only international solutions will be viable. Trading blocs will continue to expand as more and more people see that prosperity depends on cooperation. 60 years ago the idea of a European Community would have sounded absurd, and even sinister. Today, Germans and French have the same money. Africa is slowly pulling itself together. South America has some real problems ahead of it, but the trend is towards increased cooperation. Same for Indo-Chinese relations, that will pull Asia together. World governments are aligning and bringing more and more people into cooperation with each other. It's not sinister, and it's not a conspiracy.

The Middle East is a major exception to the trend, and as a result, the source of the most friction in the world today. Remember that nationalism is really only about 150 years old. And remember that up until the first world war, international cooperation and free trade was more the rule than the exception. The twentieth century, in particular, was a remarkably violent and nationalistic century, in historical terms.

The overall trend is towards cooperation, particularly as the world becomes a smaller place and resources become more scarce. You can disagree with it, or call it a conspiracy, but it will happen regardless.

--- D


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> I have to take exception to the David Suzuki bashing.


sure, we can agree to disagree. 

His foundation brings in about $8million a year.

He is calling for an absolute reduction of 40% of Canada's emissions, or he says, cut them about in half.

Does anyone actually believe that is possible? Has he been putting some of those mushrooms he picked in the woods in his salad? or is he exaggerating the whole issue, and to what end?


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

dwagar said:


> sure, we can agree to disagree.
> 
> His foundation brings in about $8million a year.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible. We waste a lot of energy in this country.

In Europe people drive smaller cars, much shorter distances. A much larger proportion of short trips are done by bicycle, and longer trips by train. Products come with much less packaging, so garbage generated is much less than here. Recycling is more common. In recent years (and I go to Europe relatively often), there has been a huge adoption of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar. They've been using different gasses in cars for many years, including methane / ethanol, and cleaner diesel. 

There's also been a major adoption of simple technology to cut down on the use of resources. Their toilets use less water. Buildings, are being retrofitted with things like motion-activated light switches that turn off when you leave the room, or mechanisms so that the air conditioning will not run if the window is open, and in most hotels, electricity to the room is cut when the guest leaves with their key. Very few people heat their whole home in the winter. They usually heat their living room and kitchen, and keep on a bit of heat in the bedrooms, only when they go up to bed. My relatives think it's a bit ridiculous that we heat all the empty rooms in our houses, so we can walk around in our underwear in January... even our basements!

Most of these changes would be very difficult to achieve in Canada. We'd have to redesign a lot of our infrastructure and spend a lot on new technology. But thankfully, there's a big difference between difficult and impossible.

--- D


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> good post Duster but when it comes to this quote you will be happy to know that the powers-that-be who are behind the climate change movement are stating that this is one of their ultimate goals, they have been open about the fact that international carbon taxes will be used to fund the establisment of a one world government... me, I'm not so thrilled about that idea.


I was unaware of that agenda, as would be most of the scientists involved.

You know, there IS a whole lot of common sense on the side of the articulate voices. Do not let the publicity seekers, and Red-Bull-infused placard wavers distract you. And do not become a placard-waver for the other side, either.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> good post Duster but when it comes to this quote you will be happy to know that the powers-that-be who are behind the climate change movement are stating that this is one of their ultimate goals, they have been open about the fact that international carbon taxes will be used to fund the establisment of a one world government... me, I'm not so thrilled about that idea.



Alex Jones has his moments, but this particular conspiracy doesn't have legs. In order for any of this malarky to come to fruition the U.S. and the E.U. have to maintain a controlling interest. Fat chance, so long as they keep borrowing money from China and India. *"Keep floating our economies, but don't forget to pay all your carbon taxes on all that $hit you make for us to buy"*........9kkhhd


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Duster said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible. We waste a lot of energy in this country.
> 
> In Europe people drive smaller cars, much shorter distances. A much larger proportion of short trips are done by bicycle, and longer trips by train. Products come with much less packaging, so garbage generated is much less than here. Recycling is more common. In recent years (and I go to Europe relatively often), there has been a huge adoption of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar. They've been using different gasses in cars for many years, including methane / ethanol, and cleaner diesel.
> 
> ...


Well-put. Sometimes, the arguments of the nay-sayers start to sound like people who gripe about how poor they are and how low their student loans are. Hmm, if I cut out the high-speed access....and the satellite cable....and the iTunes bill....and kept things to 3 beers on a Friday night....and didn't go to Cancun on spring break.....well, yeah, maybe I *could* make do with my student loan. Or the folks who put on 40lbs and have absolutely no idea where it came from...until they start adding up all the little extras and nibbles. It's often quite surprising how much one can economize without suffering too much at all. I would imagine that cutting carbon emissions could be very easy for a great many people.

The role of municipal design certainly does not account for the lion's share of emissions, but it is not inconsequential either. Too many cities have negligible integration of planning of schools, housing, commercial, and other types of zones. Suburb developments will spring up, and public transit is simply not in the planning. So, when public transit eventually finds its way out there, no one uses it because the people who moved into that development were those who predicated their lives on the need for a vehicle. Expanding roadways so that suburban commuters don't get frustrated is not the answer. Indeed, we should make it MORE frustrating to drive your car than to take public transit, not less frustrating. We should design communities so that people can walk for more of their services and entertainment. We should not allow downtown cores to intensify with high-rise business towers so that the city can reap more taxes from commercial developments, because all that tax money will just have to go back into providing transporation and roadways from the outskirts to downtown and the emissions (whether climate-changing or simply choking smog) go up. Basically, city planners have to rethink what they do, because like it or not, they have been drafted into this..


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

you bet, some of those make good sense. Eventually, I expect more and more people will be using electric cars, especially in the provinces that have hydro, that should cut a lot of emissions.

I see Alberta is looking at proposals for nuclear now (I assume electricity, not subs), maybe we are going to do away with coal (is there REALLY such a thing as 'clean coal' or is it a myth?)

big problem though, this isn't Europe. Way too few people in way too large a space.

and, FORTY PERCENT absolute reduction? Think about what that would mean. I would guess every personal vehicle in Canada would have to shut down. A lot of industries would have to close. I assume many communities would have to be moved. The costs would be astonishing.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> It won't happen by some conspiracy of "powers-that-be", who get funding to establish the government. It will happen slowly, over time, by a variety of natural factors that push governments together. Increasingly, there will be problems, like the environment, pandemics, and food and water shortages, where only international solutions will be viable. Trading blocs will continue to expand as more and more people see that prosperity depends on cooperation. 60 years ago the idea of a European Community would have sounded absurd, and even sinister. Today, Germans and French have the same money. Africa is slowly pulling itself together. South America has some real problems ahead of it, but the trend is towards increased cooperation. Same for Indo-Chinese relations, that will pull Asia together. World governments are aligning and bringing more and more people into cooperation with each other. It's not sinister, and it's not a conspiracy.
> 
> The Middle East is a major exception to the trend, and as a result, the source of the most friction in the world today. Remember that nationalism is really only about 150 years old. And remember that up until the first world war, international cooperation and free trade was more the rule than the exception. The twentieth century, in particular, was a remarkably violent and nationalistic century, in historical terms.
> 
> ...


Yup, that is ok with me, one spieces, one planet, we can all get along and share and cooperate, it is government in general (and the scary prospect of a Hitler character sitting on the throne of world gov) that historically gets in the way of that happening.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I was unaware of that agenda, as would be most of the scientists involved.
> 
> You know, there IS a whole lot of common sense on the side of the articulate voices. Do not let the publicity seekers, and Red-Bull-infused placard wavers distract you. And do not become a placard-waver for the other side, either.


a balanced and thoughtful attitude as usual Hammer, and I won't. I listen to the evidence and make up my own mind, I even listen to the extremist and 'placard-wavers' on both sides, because I don't like to throw out the message with the messenger.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

dwagar said:


> you bet, some of those make good sense. Eventually, I expect more and more people will be using electric cars, especially in the provinces that have hydro, that should cut a lot of emissions.
> 
> I see Alberta is looking at proposals for nuclear now (I assume electricity, not subs), maybe we are going to do away with coal (is there REALLY such a thing as 'clean coal' or is it a myth?)
> 
> ...


There's a lot of smoke-and-mirrors in the whole debate, and a lot of stuff out there that seems good, but upon further examination turns out to be no better than the status quo. A lot of this stems from people wanting to reduce emissions without changing their lifestyle. The analogy to people trying to lose weight is a good one. Everyone wants to drop 20 pounds without exercising, and continuing to eat what they like. That would be nice, but unfortunately it doesn't work.

Electric cars solve some problems, but cause others. The electricity required has to come from somewhere, and the batteries required are an environmental nightmare themselves. Nuclear solves some problems, but causes others, that last for 10,000 years. 

When I was a kid, we learned an expression. It was "Reduce, reuse, recycle". The order of the words is critical. Reduce comes first, always. It wasn't "Recycle, reuse, and if you can, then reduce".

If we reduce usage of resources, a lot of the other problems become easier to solve. For example, replacing gasoline cars with electric cars will cause problems for electrical production and distribution. But if we reduce the amount we drive, the whole issue of gasoline vs. electric cars becomes much less thorny. 

You're right that this isn't Europe. In a lot of ways, it's better. We have much more space, much more resources, and much cheaper resources, so we should be able to accomplish more with less. If they can build a subway under Paris or London, with thousand-year-old buildings sitting on top of tunnels, then surely we can build a light rail line for commuters along the 401, 427, or 407? 

If they can put solar panels on roofs in Germany, then surely we can do the same on the roofs of all the big-box Costco/Walmart/Warehouse/Buy-Crap-Here retail centres?

Canada is sparsely populated, but the vast majority of the population lives in dense centres like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc. These places are not that different from European cities. Sure, they're cold in the winter. But I don't entirely buy that. The country with the highest per capita use of bicycles, in the world, is Denmark, a Scandinavian country.

As for making it inconvenient for cars, I agree, but that should only be done once an alternative is available. Or, in concert with making an alternative available. When the price of gas hits $2.50 a litre, we won't think it's so different from Europe. We'll all be looking for ways to get to work by train. But if the trains don't get built, we'll be in an awful mess.

--- D


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> Yup, that is ok with me, one spieces, one planet, we can all get along and share and cooperate, it is government in general (and the scary prospect of a Hitler character sitting on the throne of world gov) that historically gets in the way of that happening.


The more cooperation among different cultures you have, the less likely a Hitler-type character could come to power. Hitler fed on nationalism, xenophobia, and the myth of the stereotypical "German". If you eliminate the nation, you eliminate xenophobia, and the idea of being a "German". No one group could achieve such dominance over all the others. Unless it was skynet. 

--- D


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks for your replies, gents (?).

Yup, it is simplistic thinking that gets us into messes as a civilization in the first place.

As wonderful (and quiet) as the idea of electric cars is:
- many folks will still need to drive well over 200km a day every day for their work
- no one has electric trucks as yet and we still want our out-of-season broccoli and strawberries
- no one seems to have figured out what the carbon footprint of establishing recharging stations at every Wendy's or McDonalds along the 401 would be

Canada should certainly not be forgiven because of our size, but clearly the suggested solutions that have "worked" in other places need to be tailored, and conceivably re-thought, for the Canadian context. As I'm fond of pointing out to my management masters, just because something seemed like a great idea and had positive results in place X does not mean you can just pick it up and plunk it in place Y with the same outcome.

dwagar,
The seeming impossibility of 40% reduction got me thinking. I wonder how much emissions come from all those trucks used to cart Toronto garbage to Michigan or outside the 416/905...and how much of that garbage is absolutely *necessary* to produce? There are plenty of ways that one can oblige industries and vehicles to produce less emissions. And those double patties and daily hunger for more meat than you need? That can easily be cut back without diminishing the quality of one's life (beef production generates a lot of CO2)

I was looking at the Futurlec website the other day, and the prices on solar cells are starting to be quite attractive. I don't know that I'm ready to cover the roof with them, stick a couple of super-capacitors (e.g., 100 Farads' worth) in the rafters and run white LED lighting on the inside of the house just yet, but you know it isn't that far off.

Speaking of which, I got some compact fluorescents at Giant Tiger the other day, and they behave in an intereasting way. They come on immediately, so you don't fumble around int he dark, but at only about 30% full intensity. They gradually come up to full wattage over about 20 seconds or so. Anyone know anything about those?

Mark


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Speaking of which, I got some compact fluorescents at Giant Tiger the other day, and they behave in an intereasting way. They come on immediately, so you don't fumble around int he dark, but at only about 30% full intensity. They gradually come up to full wattage over about 20 seconds or so. Anyone know anything about those?
> 
> Mark


I'm guessing like high intensity discharge lights, they build up enough power in the ballest to ignite the gas in the bulb. Coming to full brightness in about a minute.


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

All our problems can be solved, see if you can get your head around this concept. It's way, way the hell out there.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Pie in the sky shit? I just don't know...


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Thanks for your replies, gents (?).
> 
> Yup, it is simplistic thinking that gets us into messes as a civilization in the first place.
> 
> ...


You forgot one other thing. Have you ever tried to start (or heat) an electric car when it is minus 40C? It just won't work for most Canadians.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

I know a guy here in BC who invented a small gizmo that increases the burning effeciency of combustion motors and reduces emmissions by up to 80%. the Canadian gov would not give him grants to fund his R&D, nor would the Suzuki foundation, Greenpeace, the Seirra group or any others he approached. He finally went to central america and they helped him get it off the ground. I put one on my auto and it improved my gas mileage by about %25 (I did not check the emmissions). He is in the early stages of marketing his product now... 

This water powered cars thing is the best invention I have heard of so far. There are a few people who have converted their engines and you can see stories on youtube... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

I would love to see these kinds of initiatives get widespread support.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

mhammer said:


> As wonderful (and quiet) as the idea of electric cars is:
> - many folks will still need to drive well over 200km a day every day for their work
> - no one has electric trucks as yet and we still want our out-of-season broccoli and strawberries
> - no one seems to have figured out what the carbon footprint of establishing recharging stations at every Wendy's or McDonalds along the 401 would be



I'll handle this one, because Ive faced these questions a million times.
1. Some folks shouldnt dictate the need of all folks. Most people dont actually drive more than 200km a day, so for most people, an electric car is perfect. (A good electric car that is.)
2. Electric cars and trucks (yes they exist) are always getting better and better. The R&D budget on a typical electric vehicle is about the same as the design budget of a typical car's ashtrays. Most gas cars have $1B worth of reasearch just in their engine. Spend that on electric cars, and lets take a peak at what can be made.
3. In Ontario, our electricity comes from hydro and nuclear fission power. There is no dials to turn power up and down, so during the night power is generated, but its lost because no one is using it. If all electric cars were charging overnight, there would a use for this power. Oil companies are the ones who started the myth of the charging having the same carbon footprint, and they actually paid for full page ads to convince people of this "flaw".

The fact is we live in the obstacle generation. Everytime a new idea comes up in the 2000s, it seems everybody will lay out all the obstacles and conclude that it cant be done. If this generation was around in the space race, were the hell would we be today? The most important technologies to research today are fusion, solar cells, and electric cars. Every reasearch project that gets dumped on my desk is none of these, because people want to research bullshit instead................


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> You forgot one other thing. Have you ever tried to start (or heat) an electric car when it is minus 40C? It just won't work for most Canadians.


90% of Candians live within 200 miles of the US border. "Most Canadians" never see minus 40C. Only on American TV do "Most Canadians" see minus 40C. And as a bonus, starting an electric car in minus 40C is actually easier than starting a gas car in minus 40C. A gas car only has 1 or 2 batteries to crank it..............


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> :
> :
> :
> 
> ...



Mark, those CFL's are a faux paw, and they are actually quite an aggravation to a lot of folks. When "government" pushed them, they also did a "hands off" approach to any form of regulation. 

Things to know about them:

They are unregulated, 
they do contain from 1/2 gram up to 5 grams of vaporised mercury, 
the tube glass is a lot thinner than incandescent lamp glass and does break a lot easier, 
they can and do catch on fire so you have to observe them semi-regularly and if you see any darkening of the housing or smell a scorch, working or not, toss them out, 
in Ontario they are classed as hazardous waste and have to be thrown out as such, 
internally they can generate into the kilo-volts,
they cannot be exposed to moisture, humidity, damp, or below 0 temps,
and the issue of slow lighting is one of circuit style used in making them. 

I get the Truly brand of Shoppers Drugmart and with these have no power-on delay and they seem to last quite a while too. The worst ones for that slow-start behavior were the ones sold by Ikea though those ones were probably the safest to use as their glass spiral was inside a hard glass ball that was then silicon coated!! The ones to tank first were ones sold by Home Depot about 8 years back. I bought 5 and collectively they did not last six months. No idea now who made them, they were individually boxed in a black and orange box.


Myself, I cut them open and pop the circuit boards out. Lots of goodness inside one of them


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Fader said:


> All our problems can be solved, see if you can get your head around this concept. It's way, way the hell out there.
> 
> http://www.thevenusproject.com/
> 
> Pie in the sky shit? I just don't know...


once i realized the zeitgeist movement was involved, i knew that it was time to make a fashion statement


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I was watching a special on CBC awhile ago on the CFLs. The story was that we shouldn't actually be using them in Canada, as they generate no heat. So in general any energy saving we gain by using them in electricity, we lose through having to consume extra heat.

I still use them, they last an awful long time. But for us I guess they aren't the big bonus they are elsewhere.

Besides, won't we all be running LEDs pretty soon?

==

on Solar Cells, Enmax (the power co in Calgary) announced awhile ago they are looking into a project whereby they install an array on your house, we finance the cost through them, and get the credit for electricity that flows back into the grid. It'll be interesting to see how the proposal finally turns out, if it does. We get a lot of sunny days, maybe short in the winter, but the concept is a really good one. Now, they didn't address what's going to happen to all the batteries when they have to be replaced.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

David Suzuki invented global warming.
i heard he clubs harp seals when he thinks Paul McCartney isn't watching.

Canada has always been about the easy buck.
kill the wildlife, strip the oceans, sell off the forest and dig anything out the ground worth selling. 
Canada is a member of G8 for the sole reason we have always had more natural resources to exploit than anyone else. when those resources are gone, we are finished.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> 90% of Candians live within 200 miles of the US border. "Most Canadians" never see minus 40C. Only on American TV do "Most Canadians" see minus 40C. And as a bonus, starting an electric car in minus 40C is actually easier than starting a gas car in minus 40C. A gas car only has 1 or 2 batteries to crank it..............


Most engineering and design standards in Canada are for minus 45C. Of course most of us never see these temps (I do), but even minus 10C with an electric car is out of the question. By the time you add heating elements and fans you are going to be out of juice before you get to the end of your street. Sorry, but we will need something better here (Hybrids are a good start).

Pete


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

six-string said:


> David Suzuki invented global warming.
> i heard he clubs harp seals when he thinks Paul McCartney isn't watching.
> 
> Canada has always been about the easy buck.
> ...


Wow, someone is having a bad day.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> Mark, those CFL's are a faux paw, and they are actually quite an aggravation to a lot of folks. When "government" pushed them, they also did a "hands off" approach to any form of regulation.
> 
> Things to know about them:
> 
> ...


A few more facts:

*ALL* fluorescent lights contain mercury.

This bulb's bigger, badder brother the mercury vapor bulb has been around for years.

The different ballasts used in their construction determine warm-up time.

The levels involved are *small*

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Shawn


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> A few more facts:
> 
> *ALL* fluorscent lights contain mercury.
> 
> ...


Hmmm you would have me go try to find that Gov of Canada page on them >.< again. That is where the levels of contained mercury were stated, on the governments web site. The Snoops reads much the same as the governments site for clean up too. *OF COURSE (I edit lol) I may have misread, it may have be 1/2 to 5 MILLI GRAMS, I am willing to concede an error in reading there!!*

This is the first time I have heard of there being mercury in standard fluoressents but then the tech has changed a lot over the last 20 years XD the bigger difference between a 4 footer and a table lamp is breakage. I've never randomly broken a 4 footer, but I have broken at least 10 CFL's in the past year >.< yea, I am a klutz (this is also how I know the glass is a lot more delicate than incandescents) The big-bad bulbs are also not a 'home consumer' product. I've honestly no idea how disposal for those would be handled as they are more an industrial lamp. I know there was a show on Discovery or something like that on lights, one of the lights they highlighted was an extreme high pressure sodium vapor lamp that, if it should crack, would mean death to whomever was near it. The lamps were delivered in a box, plugged in to the socket while still in the box etc, and the spent lamps I believe went back to the manufacturer for re-building.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think accept2 makes some cogent points. Forcing a single solution on anyone for anything is generally foolish.

My own point was not to pooh-pooh electric cars and such. Rather, it was to emphasize that a sensible approach involves using one technology as much as is practical in those contexts and for those uses where it is feasible, and accommodating moderate use of older technologies where it is impractical to do otherwise.

In our musical world, we use batteries where we can, use rechargeable batteries where we can, and use power adaptors where we need to. All technologies in balance.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The role of municipal design certainly does not account for the lion's share of emissions, but it is not inconsequential either. Too many cities have negligible integration of planning of schools, housing, commercial, and other types of zones. Suburb developments will spring up, and public transit is simply not in the planning. So, when public transit eventually finds its way out there, no one uses it because the people who moved into that development were those who predicated their lives on the need for a vehicle. Expanding roadways so that suburban commuters don't get frustrated is not the answer.
> 
> Indeed, we should make it MORE frustrating to drive your car than to take public transit, not less frustrating. We should design communities so that people can walk for more of their services and entertainment. We should not allow downtown cores to intensify with high-rise business towers so that the city can reap more taxes from commercial developments, because all that tax money will just have to go back into providing transporation and roadways from the outskirts to downtown and the emissions (whether climate-changing or simply choking smog) go up. Basically, city planners have to rethink what they do, because like it or not, they have been drafted into this..


Make it MORE frustrating to drive a car, Mark? Seems to me that Hamilton is doing things BOTH ways! They have a public transit system that is all but useless and now that they've built it they feel free to make the only alternative, the car, even more frustrating!

Damned if you do...

Toronto is even more extreme. Granted, they do have a good transit system but it is only convenient to those who live within its borders. If you are coming from out of town to visit or on business it's a big PITA, since the planning has been openly hostile towards the car. This can only have the effect of making Toronto more insular, cutting itself off from the rest of the province.

Then again, for Toronto, what else is new?

So it would appear that civic planners have been following your advice selectively. You seem quite clear that we need to re-design our communities first. This is the part that tends to get forgotten. Talk about a source of frustration!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I think accept2 makes some cogent points. Forcing a single solution on anyone for anything is generally foolish.
> 
> My own point was not to pooh-pooh electric cars and such. Rather, it was to emphasize that a sensible approach involves using one technology as much as is practical in those contexts and for those uses where it is feasible, and accommodating moderate use of older technologies where it is impractical to do otherwise.
> 
> In our musical world, we use batteries where we can, *use rechargeable batteries where we can*, and use power adaptors where we need to. All technologies in balance.


You know, I wish pedal makers would do this. Let us chose to put in a rechargeable, when we run it off the adapter or just plug it into the adapter it charges the battery. Lithium Ion's have no charge cycle memory from what I have read so it's anytime they can be plugged in. Always have a pedal good to go for a performance where there isn't a LOT of plugs to plug into like in the middle of a street fest.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I used to do a lot of renovation, painting and sub-contracting work. Broken fluorescent bulbs were par for the course. My point was/is some of this stuff has to be put in perspective. The RoHs' hardline stance on leaded solder seems disingenous cosidering how hard they're pushing CFLs, but whadya gonna do?

Shawn :smile:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Make it MORE frustrating to drive a car, Mark? Seems to me that Hamilton is doing things BOTH ways! They have a public transit system that is all but useless and now that they've built it they feel free to make the only alternative, the car, even more frustrating!
> 
> Damned if you do...
> 
> ...


Hamilton is one of those perfect illustrations of why you can never just pluck a "best practice" from one locale and plunk it down in another. I've lived in a lot of places from one coast right out to the other, and I cannot think of another Canadian municipality that has anything remotely like the escarpment/"mountain" to deal with. Yes, some places have rivers running through them that restrict traffic flow through a few bridges, but the task of getting people up the mountain and down it is significantly more complicated when it comes to transit, simply because the slope of the roadways puts people a kilometre or more away froim where they started out at the top or bottom of the roadway.

That's not intended to be an excuse for anything whatsoever. Rather, planners have to say "Okay, THESE are good goals for a city that municipalities X, Y, and Z have been able to achieve. So, how do we achieve those same goals here?"

I think, like me, you'd probably agree that too many municipalities that attempt to be on-side with curbing emissions do so in a reactive "thou shalt not" fashion, with a patchwork of disconnected and largely unenforceable by-laws, rather than in a planful and proactive way that makes it easier for people to behave in the most environmentally responsible way.

One shining example is the ban on idling your vehicle for more than 30 seconds. Yeah, there's a winner.

We need more "public policy Splenda", something that makes it so easy to do the right thing that you don't even miss doing the wrong thing.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

>.< the anti idle laws are SO stupid!! The gush of diesel smoke from the buses when they get turned on is way ickier than the bus idling for 5 mins at the turn a rounds >.< and really, there are red lights in this city that are way longer than the minute max for idle >.< and NO WAY would I want those lights shorter, they are hard enough to walk as it is >.<

And if I recall, in Hamilton, to drive from Jackson Square down-town, through the city, up the escarpment, down the road to Limeridge Mall it is 20km trip one way. It's been a few decades so my memory may be wonky on that, but that is the value of distance that stuck in my mind. Hamilton is not a "tiny" city, and I believe its population (urban and rural) is now over 700,000 people. It also, since the forced marriage, covers developed city areas and rural areas and conservation areas each of which is its own management struggle. 

The biggest chuckle is their City Hall. They build that building in the 1970's and it immediately began to fall down. They decided to retro fit it a couple years ago so they moved City Hall into Jackson Square and since doing so I have to say City Hall is SO MUCH EASIER to access and deal with and the employees are so much happier and easier to talk to!! It will of course all tank again once they move back into "city hall", but for a couple years at least Hamilton will have had a decent City Government experience.

OH and, the relocated Farmers Market :O I have not seen that market that busy in years!! Talking to vender's there a few months ago a lot expressed their surprise at their raised income and quietly said they simply wished to stay where they were relocated and not go back to where the market had been ... but ohhh no they City will mess that up too!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

*CFL's anyone*

How many of you changed your incandescent bulbs to CFL crap bulbs? You can't read by em, my Hydro Bill if anything has increased AND they burn out faster than regular bulbs! They actually are meant to be left on so having them say, in a basement stairwell that gets turned off and on several times a day is not good. What a crock!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> I have to take exception to the David Suzuki bashing.


...i dunno, i was under the impression that the whole point of the exercise was to shoot the messenger. that is, to publicly ridicule the david suzukis, al gores, elizabeth mays and anyone else who dares to express concern for the planet, the environment and, you know, the inhabitants, and to defer to the recognized authorities on science and climate: am radio talk show hosts.

does anyone find it at all interesting that those who believe that there is some sort of secret conspiracy behind climate and environmental concerns appear to be the very same people who claim that gays "choose" their "lifestyle" and that they have an "agenda"?

yeah, i know....kkjwpw

but, for what its worth, that has been my observation, culled from way too much time listening to talk radio, reading letters to the editor and participating in internet forums.

i'm not big on conspiracy theories.

that said, i pride myself on having an open mind, so if anyone has actual proof, as opposed to the usual conjecture, rationale and good old fashioned "suspicions", try me.

-dh


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

are you saying there is a conspiracy of an anti-gay/anti-environment agenda among AM radio talk show hosts?
didn't David Suzuki host a radio talk show, Quirks & Quarks?
9kkhhd


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Keep it on topic, everybody!


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

Phew! I just read through this whole thread. My head hurts. Where to begin? Who to believe? Who doesn't have an ulterior or profit-minded motive over the whole global-warming issue? My wife and I have had this debate (with our teenage daughters) over and over again. I believe (in) David Suzuki. I don't believe Al Gore. I don't trust our (or any) government to do the right thing. How _can_ I when they keep taking more money off my paycheck yearly and show absolutely zero regard for how they spend it? In the end, my family and I believe that all we can do is be as thrifty as possible with our energy consumption, put as little waste at the curb as possible and re-cycle as much as we can. We put a half-empty garbage can to the curb every week, recycle all vegetable matter, compost it and try to keep as few lights on as possible at night. The thermostat is programmable and the house is cooler during the day and at night when we sleep. We own two four-cylinder, gas misers. We use a re-chargeable lawn mower. We transport our groceries in cloth bags. All the batteries in our house are re-chargeable. All electronic devices are on power strips that we turn off every night before we go to bed. We replaced all our windows with energy efficient ones and I caulked all cracks and re-weather-stripped all doors. I will go solar when it's more efficient. I would put up a wind generator if the city allowed it. 

I grew up in the '50s on the St. Clair River, 20 miles south of Sarnia. We swam in the river in the summer daily and skated on it all winter. The river used to freeze over so flat that you could drive your car across it to Michigan. The water was so clear that when I dove off the dock, I could see fish a hundred feet away under water. We ate those fish when we could catch them. As more and more people moved along the river and more and more industry developed, the water quality plummeted. In the late sixties, I remember coming home from UWO on summer break. I ran and dove off the dock and came up in a mass of raw sewage and industrial waste. I caught an ear infection and was sick for a week. A CIL fertilizer plant opened upstream that summer near Courtright and within weeks, the weeds on the bottom of the river that used to be a foot high, grew all the way to the surface. People actually drowned from being trapped in the weeds. We could see huge patches of foamy sludge floating on the surface, industrial runoff from upriver. My uncle Stu, who fished the river his whole life died of bowel cancer in his late fifties. My mom passed away (from bowel cancer as well) when she was 62. The older community in Port Lambton was decimated by cancer and other disease. Pollution and other man-made changes destroyed the river before our very eyes in 2 or 3 decades. To this day, when I visit my dad, I won't go in the river because the last time I did, my feet sank six inches into the "sand" and came up covered in black, oily sludge. It saddens me no end to see what *progress* did to my beloved river.

As a family, we try to do our part and hope that everyone else does the same. Actions speak louder than words. :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> does anyone find it at all interesting that those who believe that there is some sort of secret conspiracy behind climate and environmental concerns appear to be the very same people who claim that gays "choose" their "lifestyle" and that they have an "agenda"?
> 
> yeah, i know....kkjwpw
> 
> ...


Merry Christmas, David!

I don't share your observations at all, on this one. I think maybe you spend too much time with those who are anti-everything and might have lost some discrimination.

I know that if someone brought gay-bashing into a climate discussion I would immediately tune him out as some crazy who got into the room through a trapdoor somewhere, rather than a valid spokesperson.

That being said, there are some associations that I think are quite valid. I do think Kyoto and Copenhagen are all about wealth transfer and little to do with climate change. Why? Because I read the Kyoto Accord, David! From top to bottom! All it talks about is wealth transfer!

If it is valid to believe that Big Oil is behind the "deniers" why is it not valid to suggest that China, Russia and India have vested interests in becoming industrial giants without the hindrance of any pollution controls? They don't have any and they do seem to becoming industrial giants. If you read what was being proposed at Copenhagen you see even more of the same. 

Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest of the Middle East depend on oil sales to the west. If we become self-sufficient it will hurt them deeply. Would only a "gay-bashing nut bar" suspect that they might give money to lobbyists to attack the use of Canadian oil sands as being "dirty"? Could Iran develop nuclear bombs if they didn't have all that oil money?

If the Green movement of Kyoto and Copenhagen are truly concerned with saving the planet first and foremost then why do they virtually ignore anything but wealth transfers and exemptions for the countries that have the biggest polluting and emission records? Why do the schemes all revolve around making western countries poorer and third world countries richer, without the third world countries having any accountability to show they are spending the "green" on "going green" and not on more bullets for the Butchers who rule the Sudan?

Nobody's inventing things here, David. It's all public knowledge, for anyone to see. What's more, I've never heard anyone bring gay-bashing into it, until your post, that is!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

*Re: Hamilton. * There are lots of places in the world where people live in mountainous areas and don't drive everywhere. There are plenty of technologies available for this kind of thing. Go to any small town in Italy and you'll likely find an escarpment, often bigger than the Niagara. Funny thing, but logical, is that most of the old towns are built right on the edge of the escarpment, which means the steepest parts of town are usually right in the centre of town. Hundreds, if not thousands, of town have a funicular (I don't know what they call them in English). Basically a small trolley or train, on rails, that just runs up and down the escarpment, often at a crazy angle. Using one, you can shortcut the trip up and down the mountain to mere minutes.

A couple of photos: 
http://legalectric.org/f/legacy/bp-funicular.jpg
http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/Switzerland/Lauterbrunnen/MuerrenFunicular.jpg

I'm sure someone's going to tell me why that would never work in Hamilton. Might have something to do with it being too far a walk to Tim Horton's, or how those things are way too small to fit an F-150.

*Re: St. Clair River.* I'm sure you'd know about this, but have you heard of the floating "blobs" that occasionally appear on the St. Clair? Not sure what they're made of, but they're gooey and oily and occasionally there's a warning issued to boaters and water users about a blob forming and moving along the river. Global warming or not, climate change or not, that just ain't right.

--- D


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Wild Bill - I read your message in the email notification... but it looks like you've been censored!! I won't repeat your fighting words for fear of the same. Next time, take aim at David Suzuki!

--- D


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Merry Christmas, David!
> What's more, I've never heard anyone bring gay-bashing into it, until your post, that is!:food-smiley-004:


...just to clarify, bill, that was not my point.

my point, to further clarify, was in regards to _conspiracy theories_, not gay bashing.

-dh


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, if I may make an attempt to rehabilitate the digression that David introduced, I think it is fair to say that there ARE some people who react reflexively and vehemently to anything that promises to be "good for them".

What is promised to be "good for you" can involve by-laws, social and human rights agendas, environmental causes, immigration, and a wide range of other things.

I'm not dissing these folks. But there is someting about any agenda being presented to them as being "good for you" that just rubs them the wrong way and sets off a reaction that does not evolve into productive dialogue.

I would *not* use the term "conservative" to categorize such individuals because a great many would probably describe themselves as libertarians. If I wanted to be dismissive, I would say it is a childish "You're not the boss of me!" reaction. But I'll give it a little more dignity and merely say that such folks are skeptical of good-for-you causes, for whatever reason. In many instances, that attitude may simply be a reaction to their past experiences with ineptly implemented good-for-you causes.

Again, I come back to this distinction between the article and the headline/caption. Substantive, well-conceived and well-articulated causes and initiatives can grind to a halt and encounter popular rejection simply because of their superficial appearance, and the way that cheap rah-rah enthusiasm-building attempts undermine credibility. 

Certainly, if you want to persuade someone about a social cause - whether environmental or otherwise - you can't build a convincing case by starting out with "Well anyone who doesn't accept this is an idiot". My own experience has been that the vast majority of people want exactly the same things and have the same goals. Where they disagree is on the superficial things, and where they come into conflict is when one side, or both, does not recognize what the shared goals are.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Well, if I may make an attempt to rehabilitate the digression that David introduced, I think it is fair to say that there ARE some people who react reflexively and vehemently to anything that promises to be "good for them".
> 
> What is promised to be "good for you" can involve by-laws, social and human rights agendas, environmental causes, immigration, and a wide range of other things.
> 
> ...


So, if you challenge the popular view, you must be an irrational placard waver, likely with unresolved authority figure issues, or a gay-bashing conspiracy theorist... hmmm.... 

I agree with the main premise of your argument Hammer, as stated in your last paragraph. And there are sensationalist, reactionary parties on both sides of this debate, like any other. 

Again I ask: how is it unbalanced and unreasonable to study BOTH sides of the debate before making up your mind. Listening to one side only and to how they defend their position is not the same. 

David, do your own homework, it is not our job to educate you. your catagorical dismissals and name calling lend nothing of value to the discussion.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

The OP's question wasn't about David Henman or the science of a discussion/debate or gays/lesbians.

Done!


----------

