Canada ranked near last place on emissions
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Why doesn't the government just come out and say they don't support the issue instead of pretending they do?
The thing is petros, you can't put in a post about science is full of crap, and then use science to buttress your argument. If you think religion has more truth than science, then, logically, your argument should be "God said he wouldn't punish humans with floods anymore."
Exactly. The answer is because they have calculated that spending their effort on PR--greenwash--is more effective than actually doing anything about it. Simply issue press statements about Canada being a world-leader in the environment, and muzzle your scientists. This is because the Harper Conservatives well and truly believe that epople are so stupid they will believe any lie told often enough, even in the face of conflicting evidence (like the numerous international reports identifying Canada as an environmental laggard, for example).
However, as they are belatedly finding out, people aren't that stupid, and people actually do care about the environment and now they can't seem to get their pipeline through anywhere because nobody believes the platitudes the government is spouting about their commitment to the environment.
Do you think GDP should be based on geography?
This is what we are seeing:
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:
SO the temperature has gone up half a degree in 120 years. Doesn't even cover the varients in measuring equipment. Why does your graph end at 2000? temperature drop after that spoil your theory?
But the graph goes past....oh nevermind...it might be a little over your head then.
The lines might but the dates don't. That indicates the last bit is conjecture. Like AWG.
Definitely. Proof is a logical construct. It doesn't exist in the natural sciences. And for good reason. It's so that people like you don't decide that all the science they like is "proven" and all the science they don't is "unproven." :lol:
Like I said, if you can't read a graph, maybe you should stay outside of the big-boy area.
I can read it. You just choose to put your own slant on it. WHen you finish school you might understand how things work in the real world.
The same deficient sort of logic supports the Higgs boson and the big bang and it is invariably found to be financial/power based. Logically that is undeniable. Keep in mind the above mentioned modern scientific logic also tells us that at this very moment there is a giant burning slush ball approaching the sun.
Greenwash... So tell me, what ever happened to Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Last I heard, Suzuki and Gore declared that the debate was over
Nothing is proven. Proof is a logical construct. It does not exist in the naturaol sciences.
I don't see the problem here. It's just all environmental hogwash. "Carbon emissions" are doing no harm to the planet whatsoever. If they are then all 7 billion humans and the billions of other animals should stop breathing. But that would be interfering with what nature intended. I don't know how the enviroMentals came to the conclusion that a natural gas is a pollutant, but I'm someone who they don't fool.