Canada ranked near last place on emissions

[captain morgan]

Without including the why and size, It's impossible to properly compare nation to nation.

Bingo

Why would it look much different? The report is about emission reductions, and the land area of most nations has not changed significantly. For those that have, then the per unit area metric is even more worthless.

Interesting comment. A nation like Japan that has a 127 million people in an area 1/2 the size of BC would be generating a large multiple of ghgs per sqft as compared to Canada.

Does this mean that is the manner in which we measure?.. No, but what it does do bring into the question the current logic behind the standards that the IPCC et al have set which allows a ranking similar to the one in the OP.

What I'm really saying here is that the standard and measuring technique is essentially arbitrary and the actual 'rankings' in this case are not necessarily accurate (depending on the perspective you take)

 

[petros]

The article is meaningless. Next to the Soviets we have far more to tackle based on size, climate and population density alone.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

F uck'm, do whatever you can to reduce emissions without harming your economy. When China is on the chopping block with their gazillion tons each year, then maybe we can slap your hand.

 

[coldstream]

Its report says Canada still shows no intention of moving forward with
climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized
countries

Good.. the entire AGW Scam and its 'solutions' are a massive waste money and a squandering of economic potential.

The human component of C02 is so infinitessimal.. to a fractional element in the atmosphere at any rate.. that NOTHING we do will change the atmospheric make up.. even if you buy the laughable climate models and calculus that have NEVER been able to predict ANYTHING about the weather.

Only those dummies demonstrating last weekend fall for this nonsense.. AGW rightly is steadily being diminished to the dustbin of pseudo scientific poppycock.

 

[petros]

The sun was at 70% of it's normal output this year. Did it change the weather at all?

 

[Zipperfish]

The human component of C02 is so infinitessimal.. to a fractional element in the atmosphere at any rate.. that NOTHING we do will change the atmospheric make up.. even if you buy the laughable climate models and calculus that have NEVER been able to predict ANYTHING about the weather.

Only those dummies demonstrating last weekend fall for this nonsense.. AGW rightly is steadily being diminished to the dustbin of pseudo scientific poppycock.

I'm sorry, calculus is laughable? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. I've seen it literally make students cry. :lol:

Scientists--indeed, all experts--vastly overinflate their ability to predict things. That does not stop them from doing so, often with an unwarranted amount of confidence. However, that said, it's worth keeping in mind that science makes more correct predictions in a minute than the combined religions of the world have made ever.

The concentration of CO2 is certainly not infinitesimal. It's quite easily measurable. As is the anthropogenic contribution. Weather is predicted all the time--the most famous recent example being the recent typhoon in the Philippines, which was predicted. By scientists. Based on models.

The sun was at 70% of it's normal output this year. Did it change the weather at all?

Well, I'm not sure if I buy your premise. If the sun was at 70% of it's energy output, I'm quite sure there would be no human life on this planet right now.

 

[coldstream]

I'm sorry, calculus is laughable? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. I've seen it literally make students cry. :lol:

Scientists--indeed, all experts--vastly overinflate their ability to predict things. That does not stop them from doing so, often with an unwarranted amount of confidence. However, that said, it's worth keeping in mind that science makes more correct predictions in a minute than the combined religions of the world have made ever.

The concentration of CO2 is certainly not infinitesimal. It's quite easily measurable. As is the anthropogenic contribution. Weather is predicted all the time--the most famous recent example being the recent typhoon in the Philippines, which was predicted. By scientists. Based on models.



.

Hah.. what a JOKE. This is the latest gambit of the AGW Industry.. to reprise the Narrative from GLOBAL WARMING which is clearly NOT happening.. to CLIMATE CHANGE by which they can attribute ALL climate events to CO2.

Never mind that this completely undermines the original premise that predicted specified events that have NOT happened. Never mind it flies in face that bad weather is caused by relative infusions of COLD weather.. if the planet were really warming we should see a diminishing of storms and extreme weather as those variants diminish.

And the 'measurable' amounts.. even if you take the AGW lobbies figures (and they've been proven to be liars).. represent much less than 1% of the suspended CO2 in the atmosphere that THEY report as about 391 parts per million. That means the human element is less than 3 ppm. Natural processes regularly engulf or diminish that figure.. and the processes of photosynthesis and precipitation regularly cleanse the atmosphere.

Never mind that no attempt has been made to determine the origins of Climate Epochs in the past... but they have cleary occured independent of CO2. No correlation of historical levels of CO2, which have at times been far higher than present levels, have shown a clear correspondence. No answers are provided for the Climate cycles of the last millienium.. when CO2 was relatively constant.. and periods of warming in the 200 years on either side of 1000 AD .. and a 'mini' Ice Age from 1400 - 1700 in the Northern Hemisphere.

It is completely PATHETIC that people fall for such utter nonsense. It is a corrupt political agenda and global financial scam posing as a scientific theory.

 

[taxslave]

That would seem a rather pointless exercise.

Actually it isn't. It is all about perception. Working it out on a per Km basis is much more fair than per person. No credit is given for our massive amount of forests that act as carbon sinks either. Any GHG emitted from oil and gas production should rightfully be charged to the end user country, not the producer. Do that and the numbers change significantly.

 

[petros]

science makes more correct predictions in a minute than the combined religions of the world have made ever

LOL You have no idea how wrong that statement is.

 

[taxslave]

I'm sorry, calculus is laughable? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. I've seen it literally make students cry. :lol:

Scientists--indeed, all experts--vastly overinflate their ability to predict things. That does not stop them from doing so, often with an unwarranted amount of confidence. However, that said, it's worth keeping in mind that science makes more correct predictions in a minute than the combined religions of the world have made ever.

The concentration of CO2 is certainly not infinitesimal. It's quite easily measurable. As is the anthropogenic contribution. Weather is predicted all the time--the most famous recent example being the recent typhoon in the Philippines, which was predicted. By scientists. Based on models.



Well, I'm not sure if I buy your premise. If the sun was at 70% of it's energy output, I'm quite sure there would be no human life on this planet right now.

And last night the weather experts were calling for snow here. Instead we have a gorgeous sunny day. So much for "experts" predicting weather.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yea let's go by square footage.

Then Alberta can foot most of the bill.

 

[taxslave]

Yea let's go by square footage.

Then Alberta can foot most of the bill.

When did Alberta become the largest province? Or the largest consumer of GHG emitting fuels? There would not even BE oil sands if not for the greed and wealth of cities in other countries.

 

[petros]

LONDON, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.

Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium.

Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists

Yea let's go by square footage.

Then Alberta can foot most of the bill.

You think so? How is AB supposedly producing all these emissions?

 

[Zipperfish]

Actually it isn't. It is all about perception. Working it out on a per Km basis is much more fair than per person. No credit is given for our massive amount of forests that act as carbon sinks either. Any GHG emitted from oil and gas production should rightfully be charged to the end user country, not the producer. Do that and the numbers change significantly.

Do you think GDP should be based on geography?

Hah.. what a JOKE. This is the latest gambit of the AGW Industry.. to reprise the Narrative from GLOBAL WARMING which is clearly NOT happening.. to CLIMATE CHANGE by which they can attribute ALL climate events to CO2.

Never mind that this completely undermines the original premise that predicted specified events that have NOT happened. Never mind it flies in face that bad weather is caused by relative infusions of COLD weather.. if the planet were really warming we should see a diminishing of storms and extreme weather as those variants diminish.

This is what we are seeing:

And the 'measurable' amounts.. even if you take the AGW lobbies figures (and
they've been proven to be liars).. represent much less than 1% of the suspended
CO2 in the atmosphere that THEY report as about 391 parts per million. That
means the human element is less than 3 ppm. Natural processes regularly engulf
or diminish that figure.. and the processes of photosynthesis and precipitation
regularly cleanse the atmosphere.

I don't know where you get 3 ppm from. That doesn't seem right to me. I've done the math elsewhere on this site, possibly in this thread, so I won't go into it. But 3 ppm total contribution from burning of fossil fuels isn't correct. Check your math. Don't worry, there's no calculus involved! :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

The answer should be obvious to you. If you are a climate change denier then anytime spent calculalting CO2 is a waste of time. If you are a claimte change believer, then, since the the issue is anthropogenic emissions, you'd want a handle on the anthro- part of that.

I am a climate change believer and a anthro climate change denier at one and the same time. You are clearly from The Church Of Sun Deniers. I wonder how much time and money you and your loonistic congregations have donated toward solar adjustment projects?

 

[captain morgan]

Yea let's go by square footage.

Then Alberta can foot most of the bill.

You've confused emissions with production.

 

[mentalfloss]

So the government has conceded that they lied to us about our actual progress on this issue.

CBC News - Canada only a quarter of the way to greenhouse gas target

 

[petros]

How do you lie about a lie?

 

[SLM]

How do you lie about a lie?

Tell the truth?

 

[captain morgan]

How do you lie about a lie?

Keep making it bigger