Learn who these people are: The Energy Working Group - Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
What are their goals within our Govt?
What are their goals within our Govt?
Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawal
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Seems like quite the waste of money considering Redford admitted we don't have a national energy policy.
Have you ever considered that "energy" is a "strategic asset" just like potash was recently confirmed to be by Parliament and are now under SPP control rather than Parliament or Senate and whatever system they have going in Mexico?
It's all optics.
Article 27 of the protocol:
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Protocol.
So, we're withdrawing one year ahead of the commencement of the first Kyoto period, which began on January 1, 2008, and finishes December 31, 2012. Even though we did nothing from the get-go, the first period resides entirely within the Conservatives as our governing party. That's a point the opposition parties would hammer them on.2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Protocol.
Essentially what Harper et al. are doing is dropping a class at the last minute to avoid the inevitable F on the report card. We won't be a "non-compliance" country when the final reports are tabled.
Left/Right is monkey musings. It has taken over decades to see and several party and leader swaps but major developement is beginnning to follow the infrastructure as it's being built.
Oil is an abundant renewable resource. Carbon taxes are pure confidence game. Real science knows that the suns climate changing power over that of CO2 makes CO2s impact insignificant. Only a rube would pay the tax and only a banker would suggest it has any value whatever. The earths climate is changing and there is absolutely nothing humans can do to stop check or modify its progress. Climate conferences are rewards for carbon tax floggers working for global governance. They should be banned from posting and driven from their villages with fork and torch. When the courts finally deal with the perpetrators of the enormous CO2 fraud I certainly hope that we will have adopted a Chinese efficiency with respect to crime and punishment. Much of the mass media must be put to trial at the same time.
god bless Chairman Harper
god bless Chairman Harper
Sounds like that's what Canada is about to do, but hasn't announced it yet.
Really? I thought more where bailing off that train than getting on board. Huh...97%.
No...that might be what bloggers and journalists say, but if you read the publications in journals like Science, Nature, Nature Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, Journal of Climate, etc. it's clear that the large majority of climate scientists accept the mainstream view that humans are causing climate change. And why wouldn't they, the evidence is staggering. One of the scientists who published that study in 2010 where the 97% claim has come from has an extensive web collection, many lists, and rankings of publications and citations. A Canadian climate scientist is number 10 on the list, his offices were broken into around the same time as the CRU hack.
The science hasn't changed...people's perceptions have.
Fiction doesn't speak to some folks so how about this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Veteran-Meteorologist-Exposes-Warming/dp/1935071831
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Veteran-Meteorologist-Exposes-Warming/dp/1935071831
Just because it's in the non-fiction section, doesn't mean what the man writes is true. Your lesson for the day. Much of what Sussman writes is not factual.
Apparently the 97% is a ruse, too. I guess you can makes stats say anything you want.
Is it 97% or 66% of climate scientists who believe in AGW?
Citation?
If you do enough research on the topic in scientific journals like nature, you'll find that there isn't much skepticism left.
The 97% figure is accurate, despite what Adam Jones' lemmings say.
The 97% figure is accurate, despite what Adam Jones' lemmings say.
No, you're just easilly lead astray by sleight of hand. Take a look:
Doran 09 is flawed, but it is not the only paper cited to make the 97% claim. There is one other, Anderegg 2010. This study breaks down climate scientists into two groups, those who are convinced by the evidence (CE) on anthropogenic climate change, and those who are unconvinced by the evidence (UE). Here is the abstract (emphasis mine):
The database they are talking about includes more than just actively publishing scientists, it includes some who haven't been working as scientists for decades. But I guess you missed the part I highlighted in red. There are plenty of fields where the old fogies who aren't actively researching anymore still refuse to accept where, they wouldn't want to give you all of the context on Freerepublic afterall... the science has progressed since their days in the lab. It's not surprising at all that the retired folks are outside of the mainstream. Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
There is the 97% claim. Someone reading this might agree it supports the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They mention a dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and then give the 97% number. You might think this mean 1331 researchers believe in ACC, and only 41 researchers reject it. You'd be wrong. The actual numbers are 903 who accept AGW, and 472 who reject it. That gives us a percentage of researchers who believe in ACC of about 66%.
You could start with any of the investigations of the emails, that found the underlying science to be sound.