Canadian Politics

[The Unknown Poster]

Lol climate change is a scam.

 

Even the chairman of exxon says that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.

 

I need a laugh. someone come here and post that he's in on the hoax. Or that you're smarter and better informed than he is.

 

Lol !!!

 

Also, You people that think burning fossil fuels is not a problem should read about the affects of the oceans absorbing  CO2.

 

It's measureable, and there's only one source. here.....

 

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

So how did the climate change before man burned fossil fuels?

[kelownabomberfan]

Lol climate change is a scam.

This is just applying a simplistic comment to a much bigger issue. First of all, the climate is always changing, so of course anyone saying that climate doesn't change is ignorant of basic facts. There is that giant glowing ball in the sky that emits energy on a non-consistent basis that has a huge effect on our climate. Sun burns hotter, suddenly we have a warm period. Sun burns cooler, suddenly there's an Ice Age. Amazing how that works.

Now there's the entire subject of man-caused climate change. Is man affecting climate? If so, by how much? And if so, what can done about it? So far not one prediction from the so-called experts has come true. The UN has had egg on its face so many times on this issue that they've given up on predictions. So the question I had was simple - if you believe in man-caused climate change, what do you want to do about it? Other nations have shown that carbon-trading scams, taxes and other methods of "fighting" man-caused CC are useless, and have just caused billions of dollars of taxpayer cash to be diverted from much better and more solvable world problems. Should we be spending billions? Trillions? Nothing?

Bjorn Lomborg had a great take on this subject, just a few weeks ago:

By

Bjorn Lomborg

Oct. 21, 2015

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.

On Oct. 9, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim pledged a one-third increase in the bank’s direct climate-related financing, bringing the bank’s annual total to an estimated $29 billion by 2020. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to match President Obama’s promised $3 billion in aid to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, the U.K is diverting $8.9 billion from its overseas aid budget to climate-related aid over the next five years, and France is promising $5.6 billion annually by 2020, up from $3.4 billion today. The African Development Bank is planning to triple its climate-related investments to more than $5 billion a year by 2020, representing 40% of its total portfolio.

All these pledges had their genesis in the chaos of the Copenhagen climate summit six years ago, when developed nations made a rash promise to spend $100 billion a year on “climate finance” for the world’s poor by 2020. Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president and special envoy for climate change, recently told the Guardian (U.K.) newspaper that the $100 billion figure “was picked out of the air at Copenhagen” in an attempt to rescue a last-minute deal. Yet achieving that arbitrary goal is now seen as fundamental to the success of the Paris summit.

This is deeply troubling because aid is being diverted to climate-related matters at the expense of improved public health, education and economic development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has analyzed about 70% of total global development aid and found that about one in four of those dollars goes to climate-related aid.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

Not surprisingly, in an online U.N. survey of more than eight million people from around the globe, respondents from the world’s poorest countries rank “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”

According to a recent paper by Neha Raykar and Ramanan Laxminarayan of the Public Health Foundation of India, just $570 million a year—or 0.57% of the $100 billion climate-finance goal—spent on direct malaria-prevention policies like mosquito nets would reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025, saving an estimated 300,000 lives a year.

Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But they are largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world’s poor.

According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

A 2014 study by the Center for Global Development found that “more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation”—the U.S. government’s development finance institution—“were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.”

Addressing global warming effectively will require long-term innovation that will make green energy affordable for everyone. Rich countries are in a rush to appear green and generous, and recipient countries are jostling to make sure they receive the funds. But the truth is that climate aid isn’t where rich countries can help the most, and it isn’t what the world’s poorest want or need.

Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” ( Knopf, 2007).

[The Unknown Poster]

I liked it better back when we were in an ice age.  Which was when I was kid, or so we were taught in school.  Go figure.

 

Not being a Susuki-embracing chicken little scammer automatically makes you a "denier".  Its almost like not being able to admit to being Conservative because everyone jumps down your throat.  Except worse.  Its not denial.  its being a Climate Change Realist.  Or a Climate Change Reasonist. 

 

Rich hypocrits in their big houses, big cottages, big busses and being pranced around by hot college co-eds have warped the discussion away from sanity.

 

We should always strive to be kind to the earth.

[Mr Dee]

Lol climate change is a scam.

 

Even the chairman of exxon says that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.

I need a laugh. someone come here and post that he's in on the hoax. Or that you're smarter and better informed than he is.

Lol !!!

Also, You people that think burning fossil fuels is not a problem should read about the affects of the oceans absorbing  CO2.

It's measureable, and there's only one source. here.....

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

Thanks for posting that Mark F.

Yes, there is a problem. People who try to point that out shouldn't rolled on either.

[17to85]

Lol climate change is a scam.

No not what anyone has said, things like cap and trade are scams, Kyoto was a scam, it was a big old wealth transfer agreement. Real action is something I could get behind, but no one wants to touch real change, too difficult and too expensive. Let me ask you this, what have you personally done to lower your footprint? Or do you fall into the category of "Something MUST be done! By people other than myself"

[The Unknown Poster]

There is only one source for CO2 in the oceans?  That's simply not true. 

 

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”

[17to85]

The thing with climate is that it's always been changing throughout the Earth's history and it will continue to change long after our species is gone. The good news is that we are a highly adaptable species and we can survive with a warmer climate. Maybe it causes some deaths but let's be honest the best way to actually lower pollution on the planet would be to cull a good number of humans. 

[kelownabomberfan]

Thanks for posting that Mark F.

Yes, there is a problem. People who try to point that out shouldn't rolled on either.

Just as people that state that there should be a debate about not just if AGW is real, but what should be done about it, shouldn't be rolled on either.

Here's an excellent post from another forum I follow on this topic, in response to a warmist:

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

[sweep the leg]

 

Lol climate change is a scam.

 

Even the chairman of exxon says that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.

 

I need a laugh. someone come here and post that he's in on the hoax. Or that you're smarter and better informed than he is.

 

Lol !!!

 

Also, You people that think burning fossil fuels is not a problem should read about the affects of the oceans absorbing  CO2.

 

It's measureable, and there's only one source. here.....

 

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

So how did the climate change before man burned fossil fuels?

 

Less rapidly

[Taynted_Fayth]

I dont argue pollution isnt speeding up the process but getting back to hot and balmy jurassic like temps might be inevitable,  when the spring time era we've lived in ends, summer begins, long time later cools off like autumn then ice age winter and repeat, 

[Noeller]

The thing with climate is that it's always been changing throughout the Earth's history and it will continue to change long after our species is gone. The good news is that we are a highly adaptable species and we can survive with a warmer climate. Maybe it causes some deaths but let's be honest the best way to actually lower pollution on the planet would be to cull a good number of humans. 

Is there a way to target it specifically toward Millenials? 

[Taynted_Fayth]

we need to revamp captain planet and reteach our youth the 3 R's

[kelownabomberfan]

Less rapidly

Less rapidly then what? We're at 19 years and counting of no warming.

[kelownabomberfan]

The thing with climate is that it's always been changing throughout the Earth's history and it will continue to change long after our species is gone. The good news is that we are a highly adaptable species and we can survive with a warmer climate. Maybe it causes some deaths but let's be honest the best way to actually lower pollution on the planet would be to cull a good number of humans.

Is there a way to target it specifically toward Millenials?

Hee hee...and they wouldn't even see it coming either as they'd all be glued to their I-phones...

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Good to see 2 tobans get cabinet posts.

[Noeller]

Thought The Falcon mighta been one, but good to see a couple others get spots, anyhow.....

[kelownabomberfan]

Good to see 2 tobans get cabinet posts.

Our MP for Kelowna was in the running apparently to get a cabinet post, but for some reason, he was over-looked. Not sure why, he's sure qualified. I really don't understand why Inspector Clouseau is in charge of Foreign Affairs. That one has me scratching my head. As if we don't already look weak-kneed enough with Shiny Pony as PM.

[rebusrankin]

Dion's english is poor and he's Foreign Affairs minister? Hypocritical that many "Progressives" ***** if a potential party leader can't speak french or their french is poor or complain that all Supreme Court justices need to speak both languages but nobody says a word when we appoint people who's english is subpar.

[sweep the leg]

Thought The Falcon mighta been one, but good to see a couple others get spots, anyhow.....

Pretty new on the scene still.

[sweep the leg]

Dion's english is poor and he's Foreign Affairs minister? Hypocritical that many "Progressives" ***** if a potential party leader can't speak french or their french is poor or complain that all Supreme Court justices need to speak both languages but nobody says a word when we appoint people who's english is subpar.

Whose

[kelownabomberfan]

Dion's english is poor and he's Foreign Affairs minister? Hypocritical that many "Progressives" ***** if a potential party leader can't speak french or their french is poor or complain that all Supreme Court justices need to speak both languages but nobody says a word when we appoint people who's english is subpar.

Whose

Tee hee

[Noeller]

 

 

Dion's english is poor and he's Foreign Affairs minister? Hypocritical that many "Progressives" ***** if a potential party leader can't speak french or their french is poor or complain that all Supreme Court justices need to speak both languages but nobody says a word when we appoint people who's english is subpar.

Whose

 

Tee hee

 

I actually slow clapped .....

[rebusrankin]

I pretty much killed my point. Well played Sweep the leg.

 

If I can restate, it bothers me that poor skills in one official language are an issue but not in our other official language.

[Noeller]

I pretty much killed my point. Well played Sweep the leg.

 

If I can restate, it bothers me that poor skills in one official language are an issue but not in our other official language.

That is very fair, but such is the nation we live in where votes from that province are so important. 

[rebusrankin]

 

I pretty much killed my point. Well played Sweep the leg.

 

If I can restate, it bothers me that poor skills in one official language are an issue but not in our other official language.

That is very fair, but such is the nation we live in where votes from that province are so important. 

 

True but Quebec has had too strong an influence given their population size and economic importance for the past 25-40 years.