Durban Climate Change Conference 2011

[mentalfloss]

My point is the climate has and will always change regardless of what we do.

Both Tonnington and I acknowledge that this is true in some respects because there are natural forces on climate. But, despite those forces, there is also human-induced climate change and the science shows that our involvement is eclipsing those 'forcings' - like solar radiance, the el-nino/la nina cycle, etc..

Ooooo a tree. Less than one tonne over 100 years. That won't even cover 6 months of coffee drinking.

So tell me. How do you plant a tree in winter?

This is a prime example of you putting forth a pointed question imposing a character flaw or some other stereotype. I've been trying to get through to you about this throughout the entire thread, but you keep on hammering these insults.

I'm not sure how I can get the message across, but it's not conducive to a productive conversation and frankly shows the lack of respect that I know you are capable of displaying. You are much more critical in some of your other endeavours, so please, take the time to do the same on this issue.

 

[petros]

Science at one time (up until 1974 in America) said that a portion of the population were inferior so they were either exterminated or sterilized.

 

[EagleSmack]

Both Tonnington and I acknowledge that this is true in some respects because there are natural forces on climate. But, despite those forces, there is also human-induced climate change and the science shows that our involvement is eclipsing those 'forcings' - like solar radiance, the el-nino/la nina cycle, etc..

You think natural climate change is true in "some respects". It is an absolute that climate changes regardless of mankind. No amount of money changing hands is going to change it.

Heck, all we would have to do is pay billions to this group and we could do what we want. Man, if they had a cash flow like that they'd approve of anything the U.S did.

 

[DaSleeper]

The nuts and bolts of Kyoto withdrawal - The Globe and Mail

[/U]
So, our government knew in hindsight, that even if they didn't keep up with Kyoto targets, they would inevitably have to pay for them.

Why screw over corporations and industry when we can screw over our people directly?

Now you're pulling a Canuck and going in circles...Your link is the same one you posted before...kindly look at the last paragraph..

Long story short -- by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol before the end of December, 2011, Canada would protect itself against an explicit finding of non-compliance and the penalties which go with that. That said, the risk that these penalties would have material implications for Canada is quite small. The question which remains is whether the effect on Canada’s international reputation would be greater as a result of withdrawal or non-compliance. We’ll find out what the government thinks between now and Dec. 31.

 

[petros]

You think natural climate change is true in "some respects". It is an absolute that climate changes regardless of mankind. No amount of money changing hands is going to change it.

Heck, all we would have to do is pay billions to this group and we could do what we want. Man, if they had a cash flow like that they'd approve of anything the U.S did.

For the Karbon Youth

Animaniacs - Yakko's Universe - YouTube

 

[mentalfloss]

You think natural climate change is true in "some respects". It is an absolute that climate changes regardless of mankind. No amount of money changing hands is going to change it.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that natural climate change is true in addition to anthropogenic climate change.

Long story short -- by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol before the end of December, 2011, Canada would protect itself against an explicit finding of non-compliance and the penalties which go with that.
​

As I've always said, I agree!

The $19 Billion we pay for the carbon credits is not due non-compliance. It was an agreed upon compliant term of exit.

We knew it was one of the terms before we decided to exit.

 

[Tonington]

Based on the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) movement getting nothing from our pockets.

Over half of the US states have renewable energy requirements for electrical generation, and renewable is more expensive right now. There are carbon taxes in Canada, Athabasca production has a carbon tax too. Cap and trade elsewhere. So I guess you're wrong. Shocker.

You've said this a few times and I ignored it. Find where I accused you of saying that. Find where I said...

Fine, then if it wasn't you attempting to frame something I said, then I guess you really are just plain ignorant enough to think that this is a logical question:

Oh but the climate changed! How on earth could climate change if man lacked the capabilities to change it in the Iron Age?

It's not. Nobody has ever said that only man could do this. So where did you get it from then?

My point is the climate has and will always change regardless of what we do. If every industry shuts down at this very moment the climate will change.

And right now the climate is changing more rapidly than it has for the past 800,000 years, even faster than it did 60 million years ago. Orders of magnitude faster, and without anything exceptional, except the continued long-term growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

There is no valid reason to deny this simple fact. So what if the climate has changed before? That doesn't mean what caused it to happen before is happening now. As is plainly clear, the current state of climate is far different from the past changes.

 

[mentalfloss]

There is no valid reason to deny this simple fact. So what if the climate has changed before? That doesn't mean what caused it to happen before is happening now.

Yep. This a very common fallacy surrounding the issue. Propter hoc, methinks.

edit: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

 

[petros]

Even faster than 13,000 years ago?

 

[mentalfloss]

Oh ****.

I'm sorry Das.

I'm wrong on this one - the carbon credit purchase is for non-compliance as per the G&M article.

Both me and the global warming denier at National Post cannot read.

Even faster than 13,000 years ago?

Are you asking for graphs? :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Over half of the US states have renewable energy requirements for electrical generation, and renewable is more expensive right now. There are carbon taxes in Canada, Athabasca production has a carbon tax too. Cap and trade elsewhere. So I guess you're wrong. Shocker.

Oh so the Climate Change Conference has mandated the US, Canada, etc. to pay?

Curbing polution and requiring renewable energy is smart, not because of Climate Change. It is healthier for the environment to use sources other than fossil fuels and nobody is denying that.

My point is that a foreign body is not forcing the U.S Congress to pay into their wealth distribution scheme with regards to climate change. The UN takes enough money as it is.

Fine, then if it wasn't you attempting to frame something I said, then I guess you really are just plain ignorant enough to think that this is a logical question:

So you were wrong... shocker.

Secondly, your use of insults is unbecoming. Weren't you bestowed with a special blue font in your name by CanCon regarding this topic? Do you think maturity should have followed with the title? Apparently not.

Grow up Tonington. If you have to use insults give up the special title and join the rest of us.

It's not. Nobody has ever said that only man could do this. So where did you get it from then?

Helloooooo? Are you not comprehending my posts?

And right now the climate is changing more rapidly than it has for the past 800,000 years, even faster than it did 60 million years ago. Orders of magnitude faster, and without anything exceptional, except the continued long-term growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

I bet you don't want to venture further than that.

Prehistoric Canada a refuge during extinctions

Enjoy!

There is no valid reason to deny this simple fact. So what if the climate has changed before? That doesn't mean what caused it to happen before is happening now. As is plainly clear, the current state of climate is far different from the past changes.

As I said... Enjoy!

 

[mentalfloss]

Secondly, your use of insults is unbecoming. Weren't you bestowed with a special blue font in your name by CanCon regarding this topic? Do you think maturity should have followed with the title? Apparently not.

Grow up Tonington. If you have to use insults give up the special title and join the rest of us.

:lol:

 

[petros]

Oh so the Climate Change Conference has mandated the US, Canada, etc. to pay?

The next Karbon Rally is in Nuremberg.

 

[EagleSmack]

The additional penalties are for non-compliance in buying $19 Billion worth of credits.

I doubt very highly Canada is going to be flushing $19 Billion into some cesspool.

And what is this "blacklist"? What can they do to Canada? Where is the teeth to punish your country?

 

[petros]

I doubt very highly Canada is going to be flushing $19 Billion into some cesspool.

That is a similar number to what is being invested into oil infrastructure by Canadian Govt.

 

[mentalfloss]

My point is that a foreign body is not forcing the U.S Congress to pay into their wealth distribution scheme with regards to climate change. The UN takes enough money as it is.

We can quibble about policy, but since you actually seem decent enough to try and dissect the truth - we should stick to the science.

And what is this "blacklist"? What can they do to Canada? Where is the teeth to punish your country?

2015

 

[captain morgan]

We can quibble about policy, but since you actually seem decent enough to try and dissect the truth - we should stick to the science.

Just so long as it's your science, right?

 

[petros]

If you lived in Brazil and grew your own food, had no need for electricty, nat gas, gasoline, but some assholes from Canada came a long and said "You can't do that any more. We are designating YOUR land as a carbon sink. You have to move to Sao Paulo and get a job."

How would you feel about that?

 

[EagleSmack]

We can quibble about policy, but since you actually seem decent enough to try and dissect the truth - we should stick to the science.

The science and policy are now one. There is no separating them at this point.

2015

That's a year and really not an answer as to how a body, not even a governing body, can punish Canada for waking up. They got suckered into Kyoto.

 

[mentalfloss]

The science and policy are now one. There is no separating them at this point.

Why?

Do we accept evolution as false just because U.S. schools still teach creationism?

That's a year and really not an answer as to how a body, not even a governing body, can punish Canada for waking up.

It's the year the CPC goes back to minority status.