CupidS Escorts

Why conservatives deny global warming

nervous

no longer.....
Nov 28, 2004
276
0
0
TOVisitor said:
He doesn't live the message and he's only in it for the money and he burns more carbon than a typical subdivision?

C'mon, smart guy, show us what you've got.

What's your evidence for these assertions, other than your half-assed opinion or some rant by Rush?



IMHO?

In my humble opinion?
Like they say, opinions are like assholes. Guess you are one, as well as have one.
Nice. So yopu mean that if I have an opinion that makes me an ass hole, interesting when I read your rants. Do you want to save the planet or show your ignorance (sorry too late). Al Gore is a loser and a fraud.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

http://newsbusters.org/node/11567

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

Al Gore is a smart guy. Make a little movie...make lots of money. But enough. The message is good, reduce pollution, save the planet.

But let's not pretend that this is a partisan notion. Every government in power (at least in North America) is afraid to damage the economy or piss off the voters by hitting us ion the pocketbook.

I don't see Ontario's government doing much either, I guess they are only a little provincial government and need big brother Ottawa to lead the way.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
nervous said:
2005 ....R U Kidding 2005, what about 1995 or 1997 or 1999 or 2001 or 2003...give me a break.
I said those were "just a couple of examples ". I also included a link to the CBC's Kyoto Timeline. It goes all the way back to 1987 and gives a pretty good summary of our involvement with Kyoto. I didn't realize you were such an avid Kyotophile. Knock yourself out:

In Depth
Kyoto and beyond
Canada-Kyoto timeline
Last Updated Feb. 14, 2007
CBC News

Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, on April 29, 1998. Formal ratification came more than four years later – on Dec. 17, 2002.

But Canada's continued participation in Kyoto seemed certain to end with the election of a minority Conservative government on Jan. 23, 2006. Part of the party's platform was to ditch Kyoto and come up with a made-in-Canada approach to reducing the emissions blamed for global warming.

And when the Conservatives tabled their first budget on May 2, 2006, it contained no mention of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the budget merely repeated the earlier Harper government pledge to develop a "made-in-Canada" climate change program that would cost $2 billion over five years. Beyond that, however, there are few details. In October 2006, the government said it would introduce a Clean Air Act focused on cutting smog. There was no mention of Kyoto.

In adopting Kyoto, the previous Liberal government pledged that Canada would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by the five-year commitment period of 2008 to 2012. Canada’s 2002 climate change plan committed the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 240 million tonnes a year by the end of 2012. It proposes a three-stage strategy to achieve that goal through a combination of incentives, regulations and tax measures.

On March 31, 2006, environment minister Rona Ambrose told a Vancouver audience that since ratifying Kyoto, Canada's "greenhouse gas emissions are up by 24 per cent – a far cry from the previous government's commitment to meet a target six per cent below the 1990 levels."

"And that is why we are taking action to clean up our own backyard right here within our borders – local action for global change."

Ambrose said the government would introduce its own Clean Air Act that would focus on achieving tangible results. Part of the plan would be to encourage people to take public transit by offering tax breaks on monthly transit passes and increasing the average ethanol content in gasoline and diesel fuel to five per cent by 2010.

Ambrose later endorsed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol backed by the United States, Australia, Japan, China, India and South Korea. The pact's emissions reductions targets are voluntary.


The Canada-Kyoto timeline:
1987
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 16: Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer signed in Montreal. Treaty bans CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in developed countries by 1995 and everywhere else by 2010.

1988


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27-30: Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere calls threat from climate change “second only to a global nuclear war” and calls for 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005.

1997


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 11: More than 160 nations gather in Kyoto to negotiate binding limits on greenhouse gases in the developed world. Agreement, known as the Kyoto Protocol, calls for a reduction of five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period.

1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 29: Canada signs Kyoto Protocol, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by the commitment period ending in 2012.

2000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 6: Federal government brings in its “Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change” in which it commits $500 million on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2001:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March: U.S. President George W. Bush says the U.S. will not ratify Kyoto, calling it economically irresponsible.

2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 14: U.S. President Bush unveils “Clean Skies” initiative that targets acid rain and air pollution, rather than specific greenhouse gas emissions targeted by Kyoto. Initiative proposes to directly tie cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to growth of GDP.

Nov. 21: Federal government formally releases its Climate Change Plan for Canada. Plan promises annual cuts of 240 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Dec. 17, 2002: Canada formally ratifies Kyoto Protocol, with the Liberal government calling it “an important milestone in Canada's contribution to addressing climate change.”

2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug. 12: Ottawa pledges $1 billion more for its climate change plan, offering incentives to consumers and industry. Total federal spending on Kyoto reaches $3.7 billion.

2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 26: Canadian government issues “One Tonne Challenge,” which calls on every Canadian to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a tonne a year through such things as taking public transit more often, composting food waste, and using programmable thermostats.

April 12: Environment Canada releases 2002 greenhouse gas inventory. Report shows Canada emitted 731 million tonnes of greenhouse gases that year, up 2.1 per cent over 2001, and 28 per cent above the Kyoto target of 572 million tonnes it must reach by 2012.

Sept. 30: Russia approves Kyoto and later formally ratifies it, giving the protocol enough support for it to go into force in February 2005.

December: Canada finally abandons attempt to win emission credits for exporting clean natural gas and hydroelectric power to the U.S.

2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January: Several media organizations say Ottawa is about to announce a revamp of its 2002 Kyoto implementation plan.

Feb. 16: Kyoto Protocol formally goes into force. Canada still has not released details of how it will achieve its Kyoto commitments.

March 23: The federal government and Canada's car makers reach an agreement on emissions standards. Automakers agree that its new vehicles will cut emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010 as part of Ottawa's Kyoto plan.

April 6: The minority Liberal government offers to pull a controversial provision dealing with the Kyoto accord from its budget bill. The opposition Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois have all said they would vote against the budget because of the provision, which would make greenhouse gas emissions a controlled substance so Ottawa could regulate them. In order to appease the opposition, Liberal House leader Tony Valeri offers a deal to Conservative House leader Jay Hill that will allow the finance committee to reject the proposal.

April 13: The federal government announces details of its Kyoto implementation plan, which revamps the plan it put in place almost three years earlier. The government pledges $10 billion to cut greenhouse gases by 270 megatonnes a year by 2008-2012. The plan relaxes emission targets for large industrial polluters.

April 14: Environmentalists say parts of Ottawa's new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be good for the Atlantic region. The Atlantic chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada says promoting the use of alternative energy sources is ideal because Atlantic Canada has a high wind potential. But they're disappointed with the targets set for large polluters. Large companies create almost half of the country's emissions, but they are only required to reduce them by about 14 per cent.

A Yukon environmental group says federal plans fall far short of what's needed. The Yukon Conservation Society says the government is only promising to consult with large firms that produce about 50 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, rather than force them to cut their CO2 production.

Nov. 3: Alberta files a formal objection to the federal government's plans to implement the Kyoto accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta has long opposed the Kyoto accord, saying it will hurt the province's lucrative oil and gas industry. Provincial Environment Minister Guy Boutilier says Alberta should be allowed to put its own legislation in place to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 23: The Conservatives win a minority government, unseating the Liberals. Part of the Conservatives' platform was scrapping Canada's Kyoto commitments.

March 31: Environment Minister Rona Ambrose tells a Vancouver audience that the government will be introducing legislation containing "made-in-Canada" targets in the fight against air and water pollution.

April 5: Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn tells CBC News that the government has cut funding to several climate change programs. They include the much-publicized One Tonne Challenge, 40 public information offices across the country and several scientific and research programs on climate change.

April 25: Rona Ambrose tells reporters Canada supports the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol which holds that emission targets should be voluntary and looks at developing technologies that reduce emissions.

Ambrose says she supports the pact because it includes China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto targets. The other member countries of the six-nation pact are the United States, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

May 2: The Conservatives' first federal budget makes no specific mention of the Kyoto Protocol, but brings in a tax credit for the purchase of monthly transit passes.


Sept. 28: Canada's environment commissioner releases a report critical of the previous Liberal government, saying the country can't meet its Kyoto targets. However, she said the government should set new targets.

Oct. 10: The Harper government says it plans to implement a "made-in-Canada" plan that includes a Clean Air Act. The legislation will impose tough regulations on smog-producing industries. He said the plan would replace the current "ad hoc patchwork system." He did not mention the Kyoto accord.

Nov. 2: Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to send the Clean Air Act to a special committee for review after NDP Leader Jack Layton threatens to topple the government over the issue.

Opposition parties said they would vote against the bill, so it is now being reviewed by an all-party committee before the second reading.

Dec. 2: Liberals elect their new leader, Stéphane Dion, who served as an environment minister in the Jean Chrétien government. He is a strong supporter of the Kyoto protocol and announces his intention to focus on environmental issues in a post-victory speech.

2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 4: In a cabinet shuffle, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose is replaced by former Treasury Board president John Baird. The move is seen as a response to new Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's pledge to clean up the environment.

At the news conference, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said when it comes to clean air and climate change the government is prepared to "drive this agenda to a conclusion."

Feb. 1: Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion tables a motion to make the Harper government reaffirm Canada's commitment to Kyoto, referring to "overwhelming scientific evidence" that climate change is the result of human activity.

Feb. 2: The United Nations releases a 21-page report that pinpoints human activity as a "very likely" cause of global warming. International scientists and officials hail the report, which states with a 90 per cent certainty that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

After the report's release, Environment Minister John Baird said "real action" is needed on global warming.

Feb. 8: Environment Minister John Baird announces plans to introduce legislation that would regulate industrial pollutants as part of the Conservatives' proposed Clean Air Act, to take effect in January 2010. Baird also said Canada will not attempt to meet Kyoto's greenhouse gas targets.
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,116
2,552
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
enduser1 said:
That argument is just bullshit. Conservatives don't deny that global weather is changing. Conservatives are asking how is it that the ice caps in Mars can melt away in 20 years and Neptune's moon Triton can change colour because of solar warming and yet the entire environmental movement viciously denies that the sun plays any role of any kind in warming the earth.

EU
Maybe it is a hoax that it is all caused by humans???

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
nervous said:
Nice. So yopu mean that if I have an opinion that makes me an ass hole, interesting when I read your rants. Do you want to save the planet or show your ignorance (sorry too late). Al Gore is a loser and a fraud.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

http://newsbusters.org/node/11567

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

Al Gore is a smart guy. Make a little movie...make lots of money. But enough. The message is good, reduce pollution, save the planet.

But let's not pretend that this is a partisan notion. Every government in power (at least in North America) is afraid to damage the economy or piss off the voters by hitting us ion the pocketbook.

I don't see Ontario's government doing much either, I guess they are only a little provincial government and need big brother Ottawa to lead the way.
Sometimes, all we have to do is wait for the bear to come and catch himself in a trap.

The organization that you quote -- the Tennessee Institute for Policy Research -- is a right-wing funded organization whose president is a former Republican staffer who used to work at the American Enterprise Institute. This organization recently got in trouble with the Tennessee Bureau of Revenue, which afterwards called it "not a legitimate organization." Despite the high-minded sounding name, this is not at all a non-partisan organization, but one squarely in the hip of pocket of the right-wingers. Which only gives even more credence to my initial post about why they deny global warming.

Gore's home also holds his and his wife's offices, which I suspect do have a bunch of computers, printers, copiers, and lots of other machines. Gore's people claim that, correcting for this use, he uses about the same amount of energy as other homes in his area. Furthermore, Gore's home is not unlike the home of many of his worst critics. Is he supposed to live in a hovel, so that they likes of you can be satisfied? He buys energy credits and carbon offsets -- practicing exactly what he preaches.

As to not signing Inhofe's pledge, that is a joke. First of all, Inhofe is well-known as being in the pocket of the oil and gas companies. Second, Inhofe's request for this pledge was very disingenuous: he denies the established science on climate change while simultaneously calling on Gore to personally take a pledge to reduce his energy use to that of an "average American home." Remember Gore lives in a home that is a residence and has at least two offices -- hardly an average home.

I knew exactly what you would cite, as these BS claims had been debunked right after Gore's testimony before Congress.

Gotta do better than that -- opinion, er, asshole. The only loser and fraud we have in this thread seems to be YOU.
 

nervous

no longer.....
Nov 28, 2004
276
0
0
TOVisitor said:
Gotta do better than that -- opinion, er, asshole. The only loser and fraud we have in this thread seems to be YOU.
I picked the first four of hundreds I saw. Al Gore is not the shining angel he is made out to be.

You call me a fraud. I say practice what you preach. I do...do you?

And as to being a loser. Very nice. When you have nothing intelligent, you resort to name calling. I thought your message was 'don't shoot the messenger, unless they disagree with you'! Well that is typical.

The truth is that Dion and the liberals did nothing substantive, certainly didn't impose mandatory limits on companies, when they were drafting and signing the Kyoto accord. Dion only became an environmental activist when he saw it as his only chance to win the next election.

Harper hasn't done much either, which seems to affirm it is a non-partisan issue. The difference is the liberals hug the tree before they cut it down while the conservatives just cut it down.

And one more thing...can you make arguments about Canada and our politicians and policy without bring in US issues. I know the US bogyman works wonders on the unwashed, but those on this board should know better!
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
nervous said:
I picked the first four of hundreds I saw. Al Gore is not the shining angel he is made out to be.
You picked four of of hundreds? Bully for you.

I suspect that most, if not all, of those are citing these same two "primary" sources: The Tennessee group and Inhofe.

Once again, the Tennessee group is not a non-partisan group at all. Their President was formerly with the National Taxpayers Union, another cheap right-wing group that claims to represent the "little guy" when, in fact, they are in the pocket of the fat cats.

The Tennessee group claims to have resident "scholars" http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php?page_id=33 . Let's look at the credentials of one of their scholars: Amy H. Sturgis, PhD.

Given that this is a public policy group, you would think they would have "scholars" who are well-grounded in public policy. And given that they are going after Gore, they might have some people who know about the environment. Let's goolge her and look at her website. Let's look at the organizations she belongs to. Surely they must be scientific in nature, covering broad areas of public policy?

http://home.mindspring.com/~ahsturgis/id17.html

AHS is a member of the following organizations:

Alpha Chi National College Honor Society

American Studies Association

The Association of Private Enterprise Education

Cherokee National Historical Society

The Copenhagen Institute (Member of Academic Advisory Board, 2003-Present)

Heren Istarion: The Northeast Tolkien Society

The International Arthurian Society - North American Branch

Liberty and Power Blog (at George Mason University's History News Network)

Lómelindi, The Nashville Smial of the Tolkien Society (Co-Founder in 2002)

The Lord of the Rings Tennessee Fellowship

Mythopoeic Press (Member of Press Advisory Board, 2006-present)

The Mythopoeic Society

Phi Alpha Theta International History Society

Science Fiction Research Association

Science Fiction Foundation

Society for Historians of the Early American Republic

Tennessee Center for Policy Research (Member of Board of Scholars, 2005-present)

The Tolkien Society
Hmmm. Arthur, science fiction and Tolkien.

That's your scholar, nervous, as the kinds of people this organization that you cite has on its website.

Let's look at some of their research fellows:

* TCPR scholar Charles Van Eaton also serves as a trustee for the Lincoln Heritage Institute (LHI). The institute's "About LHI" page declares: "We ... cannot stand idly by and allow ... destructive environmental activism ... to become an accepted way of life in America."

* Martin D. Kennedy, another TCPR scholar, runs the blog TennEconomics. On November 29, 2006, Kennedy wrote: "We don't know if fossil fuels lead to warming and if so, how damaging it is." On February 13, Kennedy linked, without comment, to a Drudge Report flash titled "President of Czech Republic Calls Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity..."

* Vanderbilt University student Douglas Kurdziel, a TCPR research fellow, blogged sarcastically about Gore's lectures on global warming on the website of the Vanderbilt Torch, "Vanderbilt's Conservative and Libertarian Commentary Magazine." He wrote: "On September 28, all of humanity inched one step closer to complete annihilation... Al Gore spoke to hundreds of United Nations diplomats and staff about climate change. Although it may seem like it sometimes, this is in fact not the reason for the impending obliteration of life on Earth."
And who does this non-partisan organization link to?

Cato Institute Washington, DC
Competitive Enterprise Institute Washington, DC
Heartland Institute Chicago, IL
Heritage Foundation Washington, DC
Independent Institute Oakland. CA
Manhattan Institute New York, NY
National Center for Policy Analysis Dallas, TX and Washington, DC
Reason Foundation Los Angeles, CA
What a joke.

You were owned by these people. Shame on you.
 

markvee

Active member
Mar 18, 2003
1,760
0
36
55
Here we go again with the ad hominem arguments.

So and so’s views against the theory of human caused climate change should be discounted because he belongs only to such and such group.

So and so’s views for the theory of human caused climate change should be supported because he belongs to this much more prestigious group.

If the evidence for human caused climate change was obvious then it could be stated plainly without us having to place our faith in elite environmental scientists.

I applaud world leaders who protect their nation’s sovereignty against global treaties to limit our freedoms in the name of chicken-little-weapons-of-mass-global-warming-theories.

I see no problem with individuals taking personal responsibility for conservation.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
markvee said:
Here we go again with the ad hominem arguments.

So and so’s views against the theory of human caused climate change should be discounted because he belongs only to such and such group.

So and so’s views for the theory of human caused climate change should be supported because he belongs to this much more prestigious group.

If the evidence for human caused climate change was obvious then it could be stated plainly without us having to place our faith in elite environmental scientists.

I applaud world leaders who protect their nation’s sovereignty against global treaties to limit our freedoms in the name of chicken-little-weapons-of-mass-global-warming-theories.

I see no problem with individuals taking personal responsibility for conservation.
This is great. There is a true and false here, and right and wrong. Don't play games of everyone's opinion is equal. Sorry, bud -- it just ain't that way.

"If the evidence for human caused climate change was obvious then it could be stated plainly without us having to place our faith in elite environmental scientists."

Have you ever had surgery? Do you ever go to a doctor's office? Do you ever take medication based on a prescription from a doctor? How do you know that they know what they are doing? Did you go to medical school or do you place your faith in elite medical scientists?

Have you ever had your transmission re-built? Do you know how to do that? Do you place your faith in elite automotive scientists?

The IPCC, which consists of the leading meterological scientists in the world, have declared that we have a climate problem.

In some ways, I don't care what the cause is, but if humans can do something to fix it, then I am for it.
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
Nice catch. To the zoned-out neo-cons, it seems like every elite is the devil, except the ones that are truly harmful: the superrich and the corporate leadership.

MW
 

markvee

Active member
Mar 18, 2003
1,760
0
36
55
TOVisitor said:
This is great. There is a true and false here, and right and wrong. Don't play games of everyone's opinion is equal. Sorry, bud -- it just ain't that way.
I recommend that you determine what you think is true and false from the arguments, not from perceived differences in the arguers.

TOVisitor said:
"If the evidence for human caused climate change was obvious then it could be stated plainly without us having to place our faith in elite environmental scientists."

Have you ever had surgery? Do you ever go to a doctor's office? Do you ever take medication based on a prescription from a doctor? How do you know that they know what they are doing? Did you go to medical school or do you place your faith in elite medical scientists?
I recommend that you read (or otherwise obtain information) about surgical and medication side effects before undergoing surgery or taking medication, so that you can give informed consent. You usually (unfortunately not always) have a right to refuse treatment. You might have been glad that you did your own research and exercised this right before consenting to a frontal lobotomy from Nobel prize winning surgeon Egas Moniz or taking Thalidomide during pregnancy.

TOVisitor said:
Have you ever had your transmission re-built? Do you know how to do that? Do you place your faith in elite automotive scientists?
The more you know and the more you get a second opinion, the less likely you are to be ripped off.

TOVisitor said:
The IPCC, which consists of the leading meterological scientists in the world, have declared that we have a climate problem.
The scientists were warning about an ice age when I was a child, so you'll forgive me if I don't cave in to scientists when some of them form a group with a four-letter abbreviation.

TOVisitor said:
In some ways, I don't care what the cause is, but if humans can do something to fix it, then I am for it.
I am all for individuals voluntarily taking personal responsibility for their environment.
 
Last edited:

markvee

Active member
Mar 18, 2003
1,760
0
36
55
maxweber said:
Nice catch. To the zoned-out neo-cons, it seems like every elite is the devil, except the ones that are truly harmful: the superrich and the corporate leadership.

MW
I've been called both a liberal (for opposing war in Iraq and Afghanistan) and now a neo-con (for suggesting that we question elites) as well as a Marxist (for, of all things, questioning the need for a central bank).

I consider both sides, liberal and neo-con, to have been infested with statists, to the extent that they are largely indistinguishable.

I argue for an increased role for libertarianism because there has been too much statism of late,
whether from the neo-cons (War on Terror/Patriot Act) or liberals (Global Warming/Kyoto Accord).

By the way, I am in favour of questioning elites in both
the corporate realm (example: Cigarettes are good for you)
and the scientific realm (example: Compulsory sterilization).
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts