... 37 million but what's a extra 20%, eh?
Carbon Dioxide is neither Arsenic or Fentanyl.Well, for anybody that thinks "Shoot, they ain't but a little tiny bit, so what harm can it do?" I suggest taking a dose of one gram of arsenic. Ain't but a little tiny bit, so what harm can it do?
Carbon Dioxide is neither Arsenic or Fentanyl.
Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says
http://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/health/canada-global-warming/index.html
Better get that ish under control up there eh?
*snicker*
I know where you're coming from EagleSmack & I just want to post some perspective. I mentioned last night that the only country you could compare Canada to in a statement like the above is Russia. Here's the back story on my comment:
From: http://business.financialpost.com/o...ic-canada-just-warmed-1-7-degrees-and-thrived
Saying Canada warmed twice as fast as the whole planet doesn’t prove anything. Pretty much any large country warmed faster than the global average, because countries are on land. Oceans cover 70 per cent of the Earth, and the way the system works, during a warming trend the land warms faster than the oceans. So the scary headline only confirms that we are on land.
The best antidote, if you find yourself alarmed by the press coverage, is to turn to chapter four of the Department of the Environment’s report and start reading. The section on the observed changes in 1948 is factual, data-focused and decidedly non-alarmist. But there are some points I would quibble about: 2016 was a strong El Niño year, so the end point of the data is artificially high.
Some of the report’s bright-red heat maps would probably look different if they stopped in, say, 2014. And most of the report’s comparisons start in 1948 to maximize data availability, but this boosts the warming rate compared to starting in the 1930s, which was a hot decade. When the authors talk about attributing changes to greenhouse gases versus natural variability, they don’t explain the deep uncertainties in such calculations. And they make projections about the century ahead without discussing how well — or how poorly — their models can long-term forecast.
If you want to learn about changes to the Canadian climate, read the report. But if you need to look at the report to know what changes you lived through, that tells you how much — or rather, how little — they mattered to you at the time.
Today’s 80-year-olds entered their teens in 1950. Ask them what changes they experienced over their lives and they will have plenty to say. Then ask if, where they live, the fall warmed more than spring did. Without peeking at the answer, most will have no idea. Yet, according to the federal government’s latest report, depending on the province, one likely warmed twice as fast as the other. Which one? If you can’t tell without looking it up, that’s the point.
And so we get reports with charts and graphs to tell us about the changes we didn’t notice. Remember last summer when the media hyped a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that warming 1.5 degrees Celsius (compared to preindustrial times) was a disaster threshold we must avoid crossing at all costs? Now we learn that Canada warmed 1.7 degrees Celsius since 1948. Far from leaving the country a smoking ruin, we got wealthier and healthier, our population soared, and life improved by almost any measure of welfare you can imagine. If only every so-called catastrophe was like this.
Most of what people are noticing, of course, are just natural weather events. Underneath, there are slow trends, both natural and (likely) human-caused. But they are small and hard to separate out without careful statistical analysis. A few years ago, climatologist Lennart Bengtsson remarked “The warming we have had over the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
A recent report, commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada (also known as the federal Department of the Environment), sparked a feverish bout of media coverage. Much of it keyed off the headline statement that Canada warmed “twice as fast” as the entire planet since 1948. If that is self-evidently a bad thing, what to make of the finding that the Canada’s Atlantic region warmed twice as fast as the Prairies? Or that Canadian winters warmed twice as fast as summers?
I’ll bet you didn’t know that the Maritimes warmed twice as fast as the Prairies. But now that I’ve told you, you might tell yourself it makes sense based on what you’ve seen or heard — that’s called confirmation bias. In fact, I was lying. It’s the other way around. The Prairies warmed almost three times faster than the Maritimes.
The Prairies are furthest from the oceans, & Canada is the second largest country on the planet next only to Russia in size.
It's all a plot to Federally suck on your pay check.It's all a PLOT this global warming thing ... probably Easterners.
It's all a plot to Federally suck on your pay check.
Just as dangerous as Gluten, though.Carbon Dioxide is neither Arsenic or Fentanyl.
They want to separate from your sorry Union. It sounds like you'll be happy to see them go.
Texas will follow.
The Senate committee on energy, the environment, and natural resources held a public hearing on Bill C-69 in Saskatoon on Thursday.
It is part of a cross-country tour, gathering feedback on a bill that would change the way Canada assesses major energy projects.
READ MORE: Bill C-69 given a rough welcome at Calgary Senate committee hearing
Representatives from various companies, including Mosaic, Nutrien and Cameco spoke to the committee about their concerns.
"While the U.S. is simplifying and streamlining regulation, Bill C-69 is sending signals that Canada is moving in the opposite direction," Nutrien vice-president Mike Webb said.
"Specifically regarding environmental or impact assessments, Mosaic firmly believes the jurisdiction for the assessment of potash projects should remain with the province of Saskatchewan, which has robustly regulated our sector for the last 40 years," Sarah Fedorchuk, Mosaic public affairs and government relations vice-president, told the committee.
Bill C-69 would repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and retire the National Energy Board, leaving the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Energy Regulator as authorities responsible for assessments of the environmental, health, social and economic impacts of designated projects.
Cameco’s chief corporate officer Alice Wong said Bill C-69 also presents challenges for the uranium industry.
Wong said the biggest hurdle would be an automatic referral to a panel review process, which is a more complicated process that other mines and mills would go through.
"Without the amendments that we'd like to see, it adds a lot of uncertainty. It adds a lot of costs, without adding the extra environmental benefit to it,” Wong said.
Around a dozen people gathered outside the Delta Bessborough to rally in protest of the bill.
“I hope strongly the Senate takes to heart all the things they’ve been hearing,” said Lynn Nellis, with Canada Action.
"I feel confident they will make amendments. If the amendments don't go through that have been suggested, I think it will be a devastating bill for Canadians,” Nellis said.
"We are already talking about amendments and there are many stakeholders that have put forward some amendments, and so the committee will study and review them,” Senate committee chair Rosa Galvez said.
READ MORE: Some northern Alberta chiefs to support Bill C-69 at Senate hearing
“The need for clarity in the rules. The need for giving more certainty to the industry and to investors to come and invest in Canada, but also about reinforcing reconciliation with First Nation and Indigenous people and also to increase the trust with the public. We’re going to have amendments in all those areas,” Galvez said.
Following public hearings at nine Canadian cities, the committee report will go to the Senate in May.
I didn't realize this bill is giving Ottawa the power to review, accept or deny Provincial projects, first step to nationalize resources and taking a slice of the pie
Senate hearing on Bill C-69 makes stop in Saskatoon
Oops. Somebody’s embarrassed. It’s OK. you were only out by 25% give or take
Hey dumb ass, our population or impact on the global environment is insignicant to China, The USA and Europe..
Could care much about our population, but as you said give or take.. Lets take and toss your sorry ass out.
Hey dumb ass, our population or impact on the global environment is insignicant to China, The USA and Europe..
Could care much about our population, but as you said give or take.. Lets take and toss your sorry ass out.
Hey dumb ass, our population or impact on the global environment is insignicant to China, The USA and Europe..
Could care much about our population, but as you said give or take.. Lets take and toss your sorry ass out.