Canada weakens Rio draft for sustainable development

[Cabbagesandking]

The whole problem is no one really knows the state of the environment.
Is it human caused that things are changing? Is it more likely that we
have been seeing change that is natural and now its in a more pronounced
stage? The answer is we don't know for sure.
The other problem is Environmentalists chose to over dramatize the problems
turning the movement into a new religion sold and packaged to the youth.
On the other side instead of delving into the potential seriousness of the issues,
those from industry and skepticism set to discredit everything that might be a
problem.
Now we have two problems and one answer. Instead of using real science both
chose a more voodoo form of facts and figures to discredit each other instead of
addressing the problems that might or do exist.
The way to rectify the problem? Sit down and tell the truth on both sides and
maybe even work together to determine where we are but the truth is difficult for
these people who are intent on spending money to make more money confusing
the hell out of people in the general public. Wouldn't want that no way.
I don't support doing nothing if something can be done, I don't support turning a
movement into a religion. I do support a joint effort at finding the truth and then
addressing what problems really exist. I am also not holding my breathe.

The state of the environment is very well known and it is parlous indeed. There is not even a smidgen of doubt left and there are no two sides. There is one side only: that of science and that is unanimously agreed by every scientific body in the world and yvery government - even Canada. But this Canadian government does not care. Harper et al are concerned only with their political advantage and the Devil take the future and your grandkids.

I don't know where you get the idea that this may be natural since there is no question in science that it is not natural. The only natural influence at this time is the low sunspot count that would give a very small cooling effect.

As for making it a religion, that is funny since it is only a few religious groups that, with certain industrial and political interests. still deny warming and that it is now entirely anthropogenic. Scientists tend not to be religious so how do you propose that they are "making a religion."Natural variations do not count since they smooth out and do nothing to the trend.

The truth is well known and understood well enough to know that denial is denial of the laws of physics. Only deniers are not telling truth and they are not a side since they have no observational or scientific support for their frauds and lies.

The facts are not in doubt and the certain consequences are becoming grimmer with each season.

 

[relic]

I liked that clever comment,something like,I guess she doesn't realize how big the world is.So when the habitat of some critter is distroyed,they just go someplace else ? Christ,that's not the stupidist thing I've ever heard,but it's right up there.

 

[Walter]

The state of the environment is very well known and it is parlous indeed. There is not even a smidgen of doubt left and there are no two sides. There is one side only: that of science and that is unanimously agreed by every scientific body in the world and yvery government - even Canada. But this Canadian government does not care. Harper et al are concerned only with their political advantage and the Devil take the future and your grandkids.

I don't know where you get the idea that this may be natural since there is no question in science that it is not natural. The only natural influence at this time is the low sunspot count that would give a very small cooling effect.

As for making it a religion, that is funny since it is only a few religious groups that, with certain industrial and political interests. still deny warming and that it is now entirely anthropogenic. Scientists tend not to be religious so how do you propose that they are "making a religion."Natural variations do not count since they smooth out and do nothing to the trend.

The truth is well known and understood well enough to know that denial is denial of the laws of physics. Only deniers are not telling truth and they are not a side since they have no observational or scientific support for their frauds and lies.

The facts are not in doubt and the certain consequences are becoming grimmer with each season.

Perilous. I see no unanimity; please provide a link.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Perilous. I see no unanimity; please provide a link.

Try opening your eyes then and stop making your foolish reps. You need no link since you have had the links and the evidence scores of times.

98% consensus among climate scientists: the statements of the Scientific Academies of every major nation. That should convince even you that there is near unanimity.The only dissenters lack any credibility and include proved frauds and liars and paid shills for certain industries.
The International Energy Authority as well as the Club of Rome and many of the most prominent climate scientists all say that we have at most five or six years remaining to get with the programme or face truly devastating consequences.

 

[Locutus]

Rio+20, the unhappy environmental summit

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — It was hard to find a happy soul at the end of the Rio+20 environmental summit.

Not within the legion of bleary-eyed government negotiators from 188 nations who met in a failed attempt to find a breakthrough at the United Nations conference on sustainable development.

Not among the thousands of activists who decried the three-day summit that ended late Friday as dead on arrival. Not even in the top U.N. official who organized the international organization's largest-ever event.

"This is an outcome that makes nobody happy. My job was to make everyone equally unhappy," said Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the conference, nicely summing up the mood.

In the end, this conference was a conference to decide to have more conferences.


more


The Associated Press: Rio+20, the unhappy environmental summit

 

[L Gilbert]

"long-term, sustainable development"?
I don't think humans have any idea of what "sustainable development" is or means. Our entire history has been one of unstable "development".

 

[Walter]

Try opening your eyes then and stop making your foolish reps. You need no link since you have had the links and the evidence scores of times.

98% consensus among climate scientists: the statements of the Scientific Academies of every major nation. That should convince even you that there is near unanimity.The only dissenters lack any credibility and include proved frauds and liars and paid shills for certain industries.
The International Energy Authority as well as the Club of Rome and many of the most prominent climate scientists all say that we have at most five or six years remaining to get with the programme or face truly devastating consequences.

Your argument has convinced me; I'm right.