Canada having second thoughts over Kyoto

Post #38,611 by SpiceWare 5/14/02 10:20:13 AM Reply	Canada having second thoughts over Kyoto [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1984000/1984427.stm\|Canada mulls Kyoto pull-out] interesting Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #38,669 by Ashton 5/14/02 3:59:51 PM Reply	A telling stat: He points out that the politicians seem to be out of tune with the general public - opinion polls suggest three-quarters of Canadians want the government to ratify Kyoto. It shall always be (barring revolution?) Corporate-$ in the next quarter or two VS: all other nameable considerations. And the Canadians aren't inventing a straw-man either IMO -- supplying US with energy at er "competitive rates" means exactly: US would enjoy its ingrained habit of eschewing any overall responsibilities to planetary considerations.. as long as it possibly can. World record-holder of all time in convenient rationalizations. We would cheerfully enjoy the fruits of Canada's bearing the financial burden / while we 'buy' the benefits cheaply. Same deal with our love for maquiladores (not 'Mexico' per se!): your Corp can build rilly cheap -- when the effluent can be dumped in a nearby ditch and the workers are fired (maimed for effect, at times), if they try to organize in any way. This Dell monitor was likely made this way - so we all feed at that trough [OK it's Used! but that's just how we rationalize all this shit and still go to WalMart and still buy Billy's stuff. It's so EZ.] Dunno where this shall lead - but am in no doubt about what the odds are, given that there is no trend yet.. away from US pref for UAVs / soccer-moms and wannabe Indiana Joneses in Navigators, merrrily turning turtle whenever road-rage leads to a rapid steering-wheel wrench.. I noted in paper an article about State employees entitled to supplied transportation: these also support this trend to arrogant waste, via ordering the same kinds of guzzlers! for driving about on State bizness. THERE are our examples. Not looking good for Canada's 75% [if that's an accurate stat] .. whatever the corresponding US non-Corporate opinion% is. And if the present economy does not soon restore a bevy of Platinum parachutes for the 3%, guess what other "measures" shall be taken to er maximize Growth in Corp profits by any means imaginable ? Ashton Sayonara Kyoto.. planet remains too immature to save itself, despite occasional brief forays into sanity. PS - yeah I expect too, that when that Canadian "75%" are told that their gas and other prices will rise, merely to extend the precarious life of the planet? - while keeping Corp profits (at the top-skimming) rising at their preferred rate? Well, we know.
Post #38,671 by boxley 5/14/02 4:20:15 PM Reply	they sell gas by the quart up there, 60 cents or so already The gummint is trying to pay off the national debt with taxes on the stuff. What should be cheap and plentiful to create jobs and mobility is just another resource competing equally with food. Hmm do we eat or drive to work. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #38,840 by a6l6e6x 5/15/02 5:01:55 PM Reply	They are fat quarts, called liters/litres. :) Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #38,893 by boxley 5/16/02 11:00:48 AM Reply	no heathen measuring units please!:) TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #38,789 by mmoffitt 5/15/02 11:32:51 AM Reply	One does wonder, however, ... if Canada would be considering not ratifying had the US bailed out so spectacularly. I'd like to think otherwise, I've always had a soft spot for Canada. My hope is that, notwithstanding your summary's merit, you are guilty of projection.
Post #38,791 by boxley 5/15/02 11:49:59 AM Reply	is global warming a fairy tale? [link\|http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200205/NAT20020514b.html\|yup] according to scientists. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #38,800 by Brandioch 5/15/02 12:50:44 PM Reply	:) Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity. I don't see how those two statements are linked. #1. Global temperatures have varied greatly in the past. #2. Global temperatures are unrelated to human activity. "The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of humans," Berner said. True. But that does not mean that humans are not influencing the climate. After all, species went extinct before humans arrived. That does not mean that humans have not extinct'ed species since we've been here. Berner also declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases. "There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," Berner explained. So, because CO2 is not the ONLY thing that affects temp, it is not a concern when predicting temps? "Carbon Dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added. Yes. If humans all died this week, we'd still have another ice age and such. Eventually. Again, because the effect has happened WITHOUT human influence does NOT mean that human interference has no effect. Singer agreed, stating, "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small." Okay, finally some "science". Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said. And the death of such "science". Yes, the sun is responsible for climate changes on a daily basis. The question is.... If all other factors remain constant (sun, moon, no meteor strikes or cataclysmic volcanos or such), will the emission of "green house gasses" cause the climate to change? And I fail to see any mention of the "ozone hole" that is verifiably present.
Post #38,803 by boxley 5/15/02 1:37:20 PM Reply	The answer to the question is Define greenhouse gasses. The Kyoto agreements concentrate on CO2 emmisions which by the icecores in greenland according to the article do not affect the heat index. If there is an ozone hole all we have to do is to get in a major metro area like DC where they have surpluses of ozone and pump it into the atmosphere which should fix the hole. anything else I can help you with :) thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #38,807 by Brandioch 5/15/02 2:17:52 PM Reply	Unified Field Theory, please. :) The Kyoto agreements concentrate on CO2 emmisions which by the icecores in greenland according to the article do not affect the heat index. But the stuff that I've read says that they do affect the climate. Just that they aren't the ONLY thing affecting the climate. Example, the sun goes through a cool phase. No matter HOW MUCH of what gas you have in the atmosphere, the Earth will cool. Example, the sun goes through a hot phase. No matter HOW LITTLE of what gas you have in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm. Which gets back to my point with the ozone hole. We are, verifiably, altering the environment. What we need to do is to skip the "it's gotten warmer in the past and we weren't doing anything" bullshit and focus on what the effects of the gasses are. This isn't easy. The world is a very complex system.
Post #38,812 by boxley 5/15/02 2:39:02 PM Reply	unified field theory is easy yin/yan been solved for about 3k years :) TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS

Welcome to IWETHEY!