Saturday, February 10, 2007

More Kyotology

The Blogging Tories have done a great job today highlighting the articles in MSM that are poking holes at Kyoto.

One of my favourites is the Post's front page exposé on the religious fervour of Kyoto. I had noted this myself several weeks ago:

...The second reason why I believe this is such a hot topic today is that there is a huge spiritual void that the worship of the environment and earth serves to fill; especially by those who have abandoned traditional religion.

Today Joseph Brean of the Post discusses Davil Orrell's new book 'Apollo's Arrow', which exposes the "religious nature of modern environmentalism." David Suzuki and Al Gore are likened to saints or prophets. As PTBC notes, the article is well worth the read.

Contrast this with a Second Opinion piece in today's Record, which was written in response to the Record's anti-Kyoto stand from a few days ago. The writer cites Gore right on cue. The whole piece is written as a Churchhillesque call to environmental arms:

Let us remember what previous generations did when collectively they turned the impossible into the possible.

Another convert for Kyotology.

* * * *

Semi-related tidbit: From the Star - Is Susan Delacourt now becoming a Dion denier?

This is totally awesome!!! (H/T Neo Conservative in comments).

This is really funny!!!


Brian in Calgary said...

In our homes, if we reduce the thermostat from 22C to 20.5C, we will achieve a seven per cent cut immediately. In our cars, a seven per cent cut, if we drive 500 km per week, will require only 35 km.

The trouble with Gordon Nicholls' use of the above examples, is that these would appear to be one-time cuts. I'd like to know what we'd have to decrease our driving down to, and lower the thermostat down to, by the end of his six year period.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mmmm... Interesting point, Brian. I hadn't thought of that one.

Red Tory said...

Brian -- Don't be so silly and disingenuous. Of course they're one-time cuts. The writer is just showing a couple of relatively painless ways in which significant cuts to final target can be made by consumers like you and me. No doubt there are some likewise easy cuts that industry can make as well through beter practices that conserve energy and reduce emissions. That doesn't address the whole problem by any means, but it's a start.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Funnily enough I'm watching a cheesy old documentary on TCM about America's massive industrial effort to gear up for the war and rebuild the military. Stirring stuff... We could use a bit of that attitude these days instead of the whiny defeatism and "cant do" attitude of the so-called conservatives.

Swift said...

Red Tory, funny how the left in the US is doing every thing it can to sabotage the current war in Iraq. Maybe they shoulkd start watching cheesy old documentaries.

Swift said...

Of course you won't have to lower your temperature each year. 7% does equal 27%, or 33%, or whatever. By the way what happens when the temperature outside is 22 below. Well you'll have to lower the temperature by three degrees the first year. The 1.5 degree drop only works for zero degree outside temperature. But wait. you generate heat. Lights and appliances generate heat. This is why your house stays warm during the spring and fall without the furnace on. So to save 7% on heating you have to cut the temperature down by more than 1.5 degrees. Just an example of how the Liberals estimate things. How much was the gun registry going to cost?

Anonymous said...

Lights and appliances generate heat. This is why your house stays warm during the spring and fall without the furnace on.

I thought that your house stays relatively warm during spring and fall because it gets warmer outside during the season.

Is the heat generated by appliances and lights significant enough to keep increase the temperature in the house? - i'm curiouse thats why i'm asking

Joan Tintor said...

I suspect the underlying reason the left has seized on so-called environmentalism is because all their other gods have come up short: feminism, multiculturalism, the welfare state, gov't schools, gov't health care, hug-a-thug, etc.

liberal supporter said...

I thought the "left" was supposed to be godless. Why even Ann Coulter says so.

Now everything we do is our religion? I read that you're dumping the so-cons but didn't think it would ripple into the BT noise machine so quickly.

Why would you characterize everything "the left" does as religion? Is it because you now believe that religions should not be running governments? Is it because you now believe religious leaders should not be threatening elected officials with religious sanction if they act in ways contrary to the current dogma?

Could it really be true?

Neo Conservative said...

Almighty Kyoto, we confess and bewail our exhaust manifold sins.

We are heartily sorry and repent of all our SUVs.

Look not on the size of our carbon footprint, but on our platitudes and vague pronouncements and grant that we may serve you in elected office when the fat guy leaves.



Swift said...

Interesting post on small dead animals. Y2Kyoto: Maurice and the media. Follow the link to the Wall Street Journal. Is this the next Liberal scandal? Notice that Mr. Strong was a prime mover in promoting Kyoto both at the UN and in the Liberal party. The money involved in oil for food is peanuts compared to Kyoto. Isn't it wonderful how the left does things for the good of the people?

liberal supporter said...

Yes, like the Montreal Protocol, which worked. Oil for Food is not an environmental initiative, so perhaps comparing with Montreal Protocol would be more apt.

Do you guys really believe that Y2K was a big scam? There were ripoffs by shady consultants, you need look no further than the gun registry to find ripoffs by computer consultants, but do you think there was actually no Y2K problem, and that we could have done nothing, and just sailed on into 2000/01/01 with no problems at all?

Swift said...

Anon, the temperature outside is cooler thean the house temp. Just how much of course depends on how much heat you are generating and how good your insulation is. Ordinary light bulbs are inefficient and give of lots of heat. Florescent tubes are better and give off less, mainly by the ballast not ther tubes themselves. LED's are very efficient and give off little heat.
In my experience the difference can easily be five to ten degrees centigrade. The higher difference is usually when you are cooking, but everybody has to eat now and then. Of course if you have a ten thusand sqare foot house like Al Gore, there won't be nearly that much difference.

Red Tory said...

Oh Swift… you delusional wingnut. It’s not just “the left” that’s fed up with the Iraq War, it’s the vast majority of Americans. Period. Left, right and centre. The general consensus from all sides is that it’s been an unmitigated failure (I have better descriptions, but I don’t want to offend Joanne’s delicate sensibilities) with a bleak prospect for eventual success or what’s laughably called “victory” >cough< in the future. There is no comparison between the war effort in WWII and the Iraq War. First of all in WWII on the “home front” people were asked to sacrifice, giving up anything that wasn’t a necessity, doing without and living modestly so that more resources could be devoted to the industrial base churning out all those tanks, planes, ships, bombs, firearms and other materiel. What did Bush ask people to do? Go shopping, that’s what. Secondly, WWII was a “just war” to defeat the brutal hegemony of a maniacal dictator bent on absolute domination of Europe and beyond. Hitler and the fascist/totalitarian Axis were a proven threat to the world. Saddam Hussein was a jumped up tinpot dictator that was no threat to anyone but dissident elements of his own people.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

(I have better descriptions, but I don’t want to offend Joanne’s delicate sensibilities)

Thank you. I appreciate that. ;)

Torian said...


totally off topic, but i know how much you hate when the press hide or distort info...

It's about the effectiveness of the conservative ads


Swift said...

Saddam is a shinning example of a kind and benevolent ruler, right? Your writtings deserve as much respect as the Holocost denier's writings. The Muslim extremists clearly state their goal: the destruction of the west, staring with the US Longer range they want total domination of the earth.

The war in Iraq has not been waged in a very effective manner. Desert Storm was the largest, well planned and executed war in modern history by far. Desert Fox comes nowhere near that standard, but then most other wars in any period of history don't come close either.

The sacrifice that the American people were asked to make in WWII
were necessary because the Axis had a military superiority that had to be overcome quickly. In the current conflict the US started with a huge military advantage. No sacrifice on the home front was necessary.

Your statement as to the popularity of the war grossly overstates the facts, except in the attitude of the left, who view the war as a political opportunity to gain control of the government. If the war was as unpopular as you say, the Democrats would have done much better in last fall's elections.

Anonymous said...

Dion and his Liberals didn't get it done last time, but they promise to destroy the economy next time. And it's all for nothing.