.. Then we have Joe Stalin on another thread comparing AGW proponents to Hitler.
Prove it.
and walking away a wiser man in 20 years you will also be walking away a much poorer man.
Well, only if I were wrong about global warming. Have you ever stopped to consider that you may be wrong? Anyways as the old Beatles song goes..."I don't care too much for money."
Joe_Stalin
Forum Junkie
Posts: 710
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:04 am
You probably are too well off to worry about money. Many single moms with 2 kids earning $30k do. Today's NP editorial states that the effective marginal tax rate on $30K is 80%.
Where are those taxes going? They are pissed away against the wall buying carbon credits to keep fuzzy wuzzy eco extremists happy.
Here are some other YouTube skits for you. I have no idea what he is saying in the foreign language one. It may be political correct or not as I don't speak French.
You probably are too well off to worry about money. Many single moms with 2 kids earning $30k do. Today's NP editorial states that the effective marginal tax rate on $30K is 80%.
But I thought you said we couldn't trust our "farleftoid media"?
Quote:
Where are those taxes going? They are pissed away against the wall buying carbon credits to keep fuzzy wuzzy eco extremists happy.
Canada has not spent a dime buying carbon credits. Not a dime. And with that statement, you are offically too stupid to argue with.
Joe_Stalin
Forum Junkie
Posts: 710
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:33 pm
Zipperfish wrote:
Joe_Stalin wrote:
You probably are too well off to worry about money. Many single moms with 2 kids earning $30k do. Today's NP editorial states that the effective marginal tax rate on $30K is 80%.
But I thought you said we couldn't trust our "farleftoid media"?
Quote:
Where are those taxes going? They are pissed away against the wall buying carbon credits to keep fuzzy wuzzy eco extremists happy.
Canada has not spent a dime buying carbon credits. Not a dime. And with that statement, you are offically too stupid to argue with.
LMAO. Methinks you are too dense to be a 2nd rate geetah picker never mind a purported scientist.
Your are right I do not trust the farleftoid media. The CBC is for 'scientists' apologists and their ilk.
The National Post is for main stream centre Conservative types. And you are wrong again! Not a dime? How about a billion taxpayer dollars in one year? How many billion since?
Yep I must agree. You are officially and unofficially too dense to argue with. You have lost every argument and tried to slither out of it. I believe you would qualify as one "Useful idiot."
Quote:
The folly of Kyoto
National Post Published: Saturday, February 10, 2007 Pablo Rodriguez, a Liberal MP from Quebec, has a private member's bill proceeding through the House of Commons that has the backing of all three opposition parties. If it passes, as appears likely, the resultant Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would require Ottawa to honour Canada's Kyoto commitments and reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third over just the next five years.
Working Canadians and taxpayers had better hope Mr. Rodriguez's legislation fails, because there are only two ways to achieve his goal by 2012, both unpalatable. Either the federal government could force a radical change in Canadians' lifestyles -- restricting automobile use, limiting electrical consumption and shutting down industries employing hundreds of thousands of workers, thereby sending our economy into a tailspin -- or it could send tens of billions of tax dollars abroad to buy "carbon credits" from developing and underdeveloped nations.
Mr. Rodriguez, his Liberal caucus mates and environmentalists are reassuring Canadians that the emissions targets imposed by the new bill could be achieved with very little pain for ordinary Canadians. But that is a pipe dream. There is no magic new technology on the horizon that would enable a nation of 32 million to cut hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide output in five short years -- no hydrogen cars, no emissions-free smelters, no solar-powered 18- wheelers. In order to reach our Kyoto targets at this late date, Canada would have to shutter all its coal-fired power plants, plus all its auto plants and Alberta's oilsands. In the late 1990s, the Liberals' own economic forecasts projected 450,000 lost jobs from such reductions.
Mr. Rodriguez's bill is naive in the extreme. It would consign us all to freezing together in the unemployed darkness. And despite all this sacrifice, it wouldn't even do any good against global warming.
The Kyoto accords were more about symbolism than substance. None of the large developing nations -- China, India, Indonesia or Brazil -- is covered by its strictures. Not only do they not have to scale back their emissions under Kyoto, they are not even required to hold them constant. Their emissions may grow without penalty.
Russia and the former Soviet bloc states, which are covered by Kyoto, have since been exempted from its emission targets. Which means the only countries to which the reductions apply are Western industrial nations. And even if they all managed to cripple their economies to meet their limits, their actions would serve to delay the warming expected in the next century by only four years. The other option is for Ottawa to buy emissions credits from other countries, notably Russia. (Russia has unused emissions room because since 1990, Kyoto's baseline, a lot of the country's old, dirty Soviet-era power and manufacturing plants have been closed.) This, though, is just a feel-good accounting trick whose only purpose would be allowing Canada to assert technical bragging rights about meeting its Kyoto targets -- it wouldn't result in preventing a single molecule of actual carbon dioxide from being emitted. Canada has already spend about $1-billion buying up Russia's unused emissions room. To meet Mr. Rodriguez's targets, it would have to spend another $20-billion to $60-billion. As well as being a complete waste of money from the point of view of Canadian taxpayers, consider where the cash would be going: the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin -- which is helping to protect Iran's nuclear program at the UN, turning Chechnya into scorched earth, bullying its European neighbours and rolling back domestic civil liberties to the Cazarist era -- would become Canada's biggest foreign aid recipient, larger than all others combined.
We have a question: If it were so easy to cut Canada's carbon dioxide output by nearly 35% -- the reduction needed to honour our Kyoto commitments -- why didn't the Liberals bring forward legislation when they were in government that obliged them to do so? The answer: Because it can't be done except by devastating the national economy.
The Liberals were in charge of the Kyoto file for over eight years. During that time, our greenhouse gas emissions went from 12% above 1990 levels to more than 30% above. From 1998 onward, the Liberals spent over $6-billion on environmental initiatives. But as former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas said in her final report last fall, much of that money could not be accounted for, and none of the spending produced any measurable improvement in Canada's emissions. The Liberals -- including then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- could never figure out a way to reduce emissions, or even slow their growth.
Now for crass political gain, the opposition parties seem set to saddle the Tories with Pablo Rodriguez's pie-in-the-sky bill, and perhaps start a recession in the process. When the next election comes, voters should remember who set Canada down this road.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:16 pm
Joe_Stalin wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Joe_Stalin wrote:
You probably are too well off to worry about money. Many single moms with 2 kids earning $30k do. Today's NP editorial states that the effective marginal tax rate on $30K is 80%.
But I thought you said we couldn't trust our "farleftoid media"?
Quote:
Where are those taxes going? They are pissed away against the wall buying carbon credits to keep fuzzy wuzzy eco extremists happy.
Canada has not spent a dime buying carbon credits. Not a dime. And with that statement, you are offically too stupid to argue with.
LMAO. Methinks you are too dense to be a 2nd rate geetah picker never mind a purported scientist.
Your are right I do not trust the farleftoid media. The CBC is for 'scientists' apologists and their ilk.
The National Post is for main stream centre Conservative types. And you are wrong again! Not a dime? How about a billion taxpayer dollars in one year? How many billion since?
Yep I must agree. You are officially and unofficially too dense to argue with. You have lost every argument and tried to slither out of it. I believe you would qualify as one "Useful idiot."
Quote:
The folly of Kyoto
National Post Published: Saturday, February 10, 2007 Pablo Rodriguez, a Liberal MP from Quebec, has a private member's bill proceeding through the House of Commons that has the backing of all three opposition parties. If it passes, as appears likely, the resultant Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would require Ottawa to honour Canada's Kyoto commitments and reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third over just the next five years.
Working Canadians and taxpayers had better hope Mr. Rodriguez's legislation fails, because there are only two ways to achieve his goal by 2012, both unpalatable. Either the federal government could force a radical change in Canadians' lifestyles -- restricting automobile use, limiting electrical consumption and shutting down industries employing hundreds of thousands of workers, thereby sending our economy into a tailspin -- or it could send tens of billions of tax dollars abroad to buy "carbon credits" from developing and underdeveloped nations.
Mr. Rodriguez, his Liberal caucus mates and environmentalists are reassuring Canadians that the emissions targets imposed by the new bill could be achieved with very little pain for ordinary Canadians. But that is a pipe dream. There is no magic new technology on the horizon that would enable a nation of 32 million to cut hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide output in five short years -- no hydrogen cars, no emissions-free smelters, no solar-powered 18- wheelers. In order to reach our Kyoto targets at this late date, Canada would have to shutter all its coal-fired power plants, plus all its auto plants and Alberta's oilsands. In the late 1990s, the Liberals' own economic forecasts projected 450,000 lost jobs from such reductions.
Mr. Rodriguez's bill is naive in the extreme. It would consign us all to freezing together in the unemployed darkness. And despite all this sacrifice, it wouldn't even do any good against global warming.
The Kyoto accords were more about symbolism than substance. None of the large developing nations -- China, India, Indonesia or Brazil -- is covered by its strictures. Not only do they not have to scale back their emissions under Kyoto, they are not even required to hold them constant. Their emissions may grow without penalty.
Russia and the former Soviet bloc states, which are covered by Kyoto, have since been exempted from its emission targets. Which means the only countries to which the reductions apply are Western industrial nations. And even if they all managed to cripple their economies to meet their limits, their actions would serve to delay the warming expected in the next century by only four years. The other option is for Ottawa to buy emissions credits from other countries, notably Russia. (Russia has unused emissions room because since 1990, Kyoto's baseline, a lot of the country's old, dirty Soviet-era power and manufacturing plants have been closed.) This, though, is just a feel-good accounting trick whose only purpose would be allowing Canada to assert technical bragging rights about meeting its Kyoto targets -- it wouldn't result in preventing a single molecule of actual carbon dioxide from being emitted. Canada has already spend about $1-billion buying up Russia's unused emissions room. To meet Mr. Rodriguez's targets, it would have to spend another $20-billion to $60-billion. As well as being a complete waste of money from the point of view of Canadian taxpayers, consider where the cash would be going: the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin -- which is helping to protect Iran's nuclear program at the UN, turning Chechnya into scorched earth, bullying its European neighbours and rolling back domestic civil liberties to the Cazarist era -- would become Canada's biggest foreign aid recipient, larger than all others combined.
We have a question: If it were so easy to cut Canada's carbon dioxide output by nearly 35% -- the reduction needed to honour our Kyoto commitments -- why didn't the Liberals bring forward legislation when they were in government that obliged them to do so? The answer: Because it can't be done except by devastating the national economy.
The Liberals were in charge of the Kyoto file for over eight years. During that time, our greenhouse gas emissions went from 12% above 1990 levels to more than 30% above. From 1998 onward, the Liberals spent over $6-billion on environmental initiatives. But as former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas said in her final report last fall, much of that money could not be accounted for, and none of the spending produced any measurable improvement in Canada's emissions. The Liberals -- including then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- could never figure out a way to reduce emissions, or even slow their growth.
Now for crass political gain, the opposition parties seem set to saddle the Tories with Pablo Rodriguez's pie-in-the-sky bill, and perhaps start a recession in the process. When the next election comes, voters should remember who set Canada down this road.
This is just an op-ed piece from the National Post, and a completely unverifiable one at that. The writer doesn't provide any corroborating evidence at all for his claim. Where does he get this number from? There's no way to find out.
According to the Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (here) in a page dated July 23, 2007 (several months after the National Post op-ed):
Quote:
To date, Canada’s experience with emissions trading consists of analysis and consultations, voluntary trial programmes implemented as public-private partnerships, and private sector trades.
Also, from the October 16, 2007 Speech from the Throne:
Quote:
This strategy will institute binding national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions across all major industrial sectors—with requirements for emissions reductions starting this year. Our Government will also bring forward the first ever national air pollution regulations. In so doing, our Government will put Canada at the forefront of clean technologies to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Our Government will also establish a carbon emissions trading market that will give business the incentive to run cleaner, greener operations.
Note that the reference to establishing a market is in the future. Even in the op-ed itself, the writer seems to be referring to somehting that will happen int he future
Quote:
The other option is for Ottawa to buy emissions credits from other countries, notably Russia.
I searched everywhere (although I could not not make head nor tail of the so-called climate excahnges) and could find no evidence that Canada has spent 1 billion, or anything even closet o that, buying unused credits from Russia.
fifeboy
CKA Elite
Posts: 4634
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:53 pm
Toro wrote:
Global warming is happening. Mankind is almost certainly contributing to it, though by how much is uncertain.
But are the effects catastrophic?
Maybe, I don't know. Nobody does. But the probabilities are low.
I do know that people get themselves worked up into a frenzy, including very well respected members of the scientific community, as we saw with the AIDS scare 20 years ago, which is reminiscent of the apocalyptic forecasts for global warming.
Quote:
The tide of doom reached its highwater mark between 1985 and 1987. It was as if scientists were in competition to launch the most titillating picture of impending disaster.
William Haseltine, Harvard AIDS scientist and collaborator with Robert Gallo, declared the epidemic to be
"major peril to our entire species. We haven't seen anything that we can't control except nuclear bombs, that's of this magnitude. We've got big problems".
Another Harvard scientist, Myron Essex, added the exhortation that
"we must act fast enough now so that we won't have 20-40 million Americans infected 5-10 years from now"
The action he indicated was unstinting funding of AIDS research. Dr Matilda Krim, Director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, a recipient of AIDS research dollars, likened AIDS to the 1918 influenza epidemic:
"In ten years it could affect even a million people [in the US]. Worldwide, it can be 10 million, 100 million. God knows."
Jerome Groopman, MD, yet another Harvard scientist, told a Discover Magazine reporter in 1986:
"This is much, much worse than anything I would ever have envisioned. To think there are going to be a quarter of a million people in the US alone with the disease by [1990]."
(The actual 1991 figure was 46,986). Pulling out all the stops, Harvard celebrity Steven J. Gould told a New York Times reporter that AIDS might eventually reduce world population by 25%.
Why didn't credible health authorities calm the feeding frenzy? Because credible authorities instigated it. Consider this authoritative statement of the orthodoxy in Confronting AIDS (1986):
If the spread of the virus is not checked, the present epidemic could become a catastrophe. The Institute of Medicine-National Academy of Sciences Committee on a National Strategy for AIDS therefore proposes perhaps the most wide-ranging and intensive efforts ever made against an infectious disease . . . a massive, continuing campaign should begin immediately to increase awareness of the ways persons can protect themselves against infections.
The media loved it. Editors and television producers groomed their symbiotic relationship with experts. HIV mutated to the Media Transforming Virus. The more the media craved calamity, the more forthcoming scientists were. Big-name entertainers got into the act as well. Rock Hudson has been mentioned. Randy Shilts credits his celebrity with collaring free-floating anxiety and sympathy and directing it toward the disease. Benefit concerts and candlelight vigils were held. Comedians diverted audiences with AIDS jokes. Phil Donohue and Oprah Winfrey squeezed the story to the last tear. Oprah beguiled her viewers with a stupendous spectre:
"Research studies now project that one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That's by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me."
They loved it. Oprah knows entertainment.
America exported AIDs infotainment to Oz. Here is Glynns Bell in The Bulletin cover story of 17 March 1987.
He is a victim of the AIDS holocaust, a disease that is insidiously spreading through nearly every country in the world. Caused by a treacherous and slow-acting virus, it knows no national borders, no age or sex, no colour, creed or race. It has already infiltrated Australia and lies silently poised to strike at the heart and health of the country.
After pausing to note that this evocative image is discordant with the actual number of AIDS cases, Bell sugar-coated dull facts with an exciting fantasy:
"But the time bomb is ticking. Australia is counting down to the moment when AIDS stops being a localised firefight and, like herpes, become all-out warfare on the general population".
Our newspapers were an obliging conduit from the World Health Organisation's epidemic hyping. WHO created the monster figures on African AIDS by multiplying reported AIDS cases and infection by 100. Journalists were delighted at the prospect of catastrophe. Thus the Sunday Express, in 1986, reported excitedly:
"the deadly disease AIDS is now so out of control in black Africa that whole nations of people are doomed, leaving vast areas of now populated land devoid of a single living person within the next ten years".
The justification for balancing truth with effectiveness was what WHO AIDS director Jonathan Mann, MD, called the "hidden factor". The hidden factor is the AIDS cases not counted because they haven't been reported. African doctors didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this showmanship. After asking "Where are all the graves?" Dr. Konotey-Ahulu went on to pose a second question: "Why do the world's media appear to have conspired with some scientists to become so gratuitously extravagant with the untruth?"
O.K. I realize that this thread is an attempt to make the science around Global warming look foolish. The quote is to show that 1 out of 5 heterosexual people are not, of course, infected with, or dead from HIV infection, and therefore the dire predictions about global warming will be laughed at in 20 years time. But, 2.1 million AIDS deaths worldwide per year is still quite bad. North Americans and Europeans are not affected too much because, being practical people, we tend to use condoms and have access to drugs. Does not mean that HIV is not a problem though.
Sorry, I'm bored, it's 4 in the morning and I decided to google my usernames. So far, all I've found out where I used to live and hold old I am, fuckin' useless!
romanP
CKA Elite
Posts: 3471
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:05 am
What's with all the necroposting lately?
TheQuietKidd
Forum Junkie
Posts: 640
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:10 am
It wasn't really meant as a necro, rather a "wtf is this doing here?" post...
Fuck, all I know is that these meds are really startin' to work and I fuckin' love 'em!
sasquatch2
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 5740
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:15 am
THE ONE FACTOR WHICH IS THE HALLMARK HERE(CO2 AGW) IS THAT IT IS NOT SO MUCH THE VALIDITY OF SCIENCE OR WHETHER THE ALARMISTS ARE USING VALID SCIENCE.
tHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED----THEY ALSO DO LOUSY MATH....
Ripcat
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 7517
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:27 am
Going back to the original post...
...has anyone been to southern Africa lately?
As education and science helped to prevent a catastrophic AIDS epidemics in western nations the same will prevent global warming catastrophies in these nations.
To refuse to take steps,at least on a personal level, to reduce your impact on the evironment today is the same as having unprotected sex with a complete stranger in 1987....
CKA Uber 
CKA Elite 
