I hear from every side that we are facing a catastrophe, that our planet is in peril and I just do not get the logic of it. Presume for a second that what these people are saying is exactly what is going to happen, and let us see in what kind of peril Canada is in.
They predict warming of 1 degree at the Equator and warming of 12 degrees in Canada, namely, the further to the North, the greater is the warming. Isn't this "what the doctor prescribed"?
Indeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.
If anything, Canada should not spend a penny on stopping global warming, but rather do all in its power to speed it up and so should Russia and all other Northern countries. Am I missing something?
Fabrikant
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:02 am
benny_patrick7 wrote:
I hear from every side that we are facing a catastrophe, that our planet is in peril and I just do not get the logic of it. Presume for a second that what these people are saying is exactly what is going to happen, and let us see in what kind of peril Canada is in.
They predict warming of 1 degree at the Equator and warming of 12 degrees in Canada, namely, the further to the North, the greater is the warming. Isn't this "what the doctor prescribed"?
Indeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.
If anything, Canada should not spend a penny on stopping global warming, but rather do all in its power to speed it up and so should Russia and all other Northern countries. Am I missing something?
Fabrikant
yes, I'd say you're missing quite a bit. You haven't really thought this through, have you?
CommanderSock
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2681
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:04 am
benny_patrick7 wrote:
I hear from every side that we are facing a catastrophe, that our planet is in peril and I just do not get the logic of it. Presume for a second that what these people are saying is exactly what is going to happen, and let us see in what kind of peril Canada is in.
They predict warming of 1 degree at the Equator and warming of 12 degrees in Canada, namely, the further to the North, the greater is the warming. Isn't this "what the doctor prescribed"?
Indeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.
If anything, Canada should not spend a penny on stopping global warming, but rather do all in its power to speed it up and so should Russia and all other Northern countries. Am I missing something?
take a look at what is happening in BC, Our forests are being devastated by the pine beatle. Which is a result of warmer winters here not killing off the beatle population in the winter.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44548
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:58 pm
But we can grow oranges instead of Pine then! Come on, see the bigger picture! [/sarcasm]
RUEZ
CKA Uber
Posts: 14886
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:04 pm
Canadaka wrote:
take a look at what is happening in BC, Our forests are being devastated by the pine beatle. Which is a result of warmer winters here not killing off the beatle population in the winter.
Funny thing is before global warming became a catch phrase nobody blamed the pine beetle problem on global warming. Man's intervention in the forest has more to do with the problem then any global warming. Consider this, the pine beetle is moving from Central BC to Southern BC. It's moving from a colder climate to a warmer one.
benny_patrick7
Junior Member
Posts: 60
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:15 pm
Canadaka wrote:
take a look at what is happening in BC, Our forests are being devastated by the pine beatle. Which is a result of warmer winters here not killing off the beatle population in the winter.
Come bloddy on! Pine beatle is not the end of the world. I have a surprise for you: there are huge forests in tropical countries and no pine beatle is killing trees there. If pines are not suitable, for this particular place, there are other trees even better. And they are resistant to beatles. You are not going to spend billions of dollars to fight pine beatles.
Grow up, people. Pines will go North where it's still winter.
RUEZ
CKA Uber
Posts: 14886
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:19 pm
benny_patrick7 wrote:
Canadaka wrote:
take a look at what is happening in BC, Our forests are being devastated by the pine beatle. Which is a result of warmer winters here not killing off the beatle population in the winter.
Come bloddy on! Pine beatle is not the end of the world. I have a surprise for you: there are huge forests in tropical countries and no pine beatle is killing trees there. If pines are not suitable, for this particular place, there are other trees even better. And they are resistant to beatles. You are not going to spend billions of dollars to fight pine beatles.
Grow up, people. Pines will go North where it's still winter.
Well thank you very much for your solution. Now in the mean time while we wait 80 years for those newly planted trees to grow into harvest size what shall we do for work?
benny_patrick7
Junior Member
Posts: 60
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:28 pm
RUEZ wrote:
benny_patrick7 wrote:
Canadaka wrote:
take a look at what is happening in BC, Our forests are being devastated by the pine beatle. Which is a result of warmer winters here not killing off the beatle population in the winter.
Come bloddy on! Pine beatle is not the end of the world. I have a surprise for you: there are huge forests in tropical countries and no pine beatle is killing trees there. If pines are not suitable, for this particular place, there are other trees even better. And they are resistant to beatles. You are not going to spend billions of dollars to fight pine beatles.
Grow up, people. Pines will go North where it's still winter.
Well thank you very much for your solution. Now in the mean time while we wait 80 years for those newly planted trees to grow into harvest size what shall we do for work?
Harvest the infected pines. There are so many of them, you won't be able to harvest them even in 80 years. So, you will be quite busy.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm
benny_patrick7 wrote:
Harvest the infected pines. There are so many of them, you won't be able to harvest them even in 80 years. So, you will be quite busy.
Do you realy think harvesting a tree 80 years after its dead will be very economical? Sorry, your'e an idiot.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44548
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:42 pm
Zipperfish wrote:
benny_patrick7 wrote:
Harvest the infected pines. There are so many of them, you won't be able to harvest them even in 80 years. So, you will be quite busy.
Do you realy think harvesting a tree 80 years after its dead will be very economical? Sorry, your'e an idiot.
It least it will have had time to dry!
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:46 pm
Brenda wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
benny_patrick7 wrote:
Harvest the infected pines. There are so many of them, you won't be able to harvest them even in 80 years. So, you will be quite busy.
Do you realy think harvesting a tree 80 years after its dead will be very economical? Sorry, your'e an idiot.
It least it will have had time to dry!
You have to harvest a tree to get it to dry. In the wild it rots. Again, puh-leeze, a little basic BASIC research. Sheesh!
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44548
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:47 pm
Zipperfish wrote:
Brenda wrote:
It least it will have had time to dry!
You have to harvest a tree to get it to dry. In the wild it rots. Again, puh-leeze, a little basic BASIC research. Sheesh!
Grow a sense of humour, sweets. I used that thingy for a reason.
SHEEESH
I thought you should have known by now I couldn't care less about what this moron had to say... I guess I was wrong.
Last edited by Brenda on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12647
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:49 pm
Brenda wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Brenda wrote:
It least it will have had time to dry!
You have to harvest a tree to get it to dry. In the wild it rots. Again, puh-leeze, a little basic BASIC research. Sheesh!
Grow a sense of humour, sweets. I used that thingy for a reason.
SHEEESH
Ooops--sorry I'm not up on the emoticon lingo. My bad.
CKA Uber 
