I'm sorry. I know global warming is a serious subject, particularly with the release of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But at some point in many big stories, mass hysteria takes over and the subject, no matter how serious, "jumps the shark" as they say on TV.
For me, that moment happened last week while reading a story in the Globe and Mail and coming across this hilarious nugget.
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."
Good gawd! Has it come to this? Are not just global warming "deniers," as Stephane Dion calls them, but mere global warming "refusers to answer the question directly" to be hunted down, as we once did witches?
He then goes on to imagine himself as an MP being questioned by the pressing media. The result is not only brilliant, but also extremely informative and well-balanced.
His imaginary press gallery encounter makes the point that MP's shouldn't allow themselves to be intimidated and goaded into making rash statements regarding this very complex issue.
However, the latest IPCC report does indeed seem to be inducing a kind of paranoia among those zealots in the Church of Kyotology.
And as Lorrie suggested, they may have finally jumped the shark in terms of credibility.
* * * *
Update: Is it just me, or does this report send chills up and down your spine too?
Notice the capital on the word "Earth"? And the word "police"?
One world environmental socialism is coming, folks. Open your eyes.
And with another reality check, Rex Murphy's 'inconvenient' comment from the other night is now available here.
PARIS -- Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France's bid for a new environmental body that could single out - and perhaps police - nations that abuse the Earth.
Notice the capital on the word "Earth"? And the word "police"?
One world environmental socialism is coming, folks. Open your eyes.
And with another reality check, Rex Murphy's 'inconvenient' comment from the other night is now available here.
* * * *
The great Mark Steyn has also nailed it today. (H/T to The Strong Conservative)
Canadian Blue Lemons: Goldstein on Global Warming.
Canadian Blue Lemons: Goldstein on Global Warming.
* * * *
Monday Update: This is worth a read - A Prospectus for Big Government by Lorne Gunter. (The tail is wagging the dog)
Also, Canadian Blue Lemons re: Fraser Institute Report.
50 comments:
Kyoto is a scam...
India and China are global warming deniers.
Between them, over the next few years,
India and China are building over 750 new coal fired energy plants.
Two questions for Dion, Layton and the socialist hordes,
1) Is there a global warming problem or not?
...if there is...
2) Why do we have to cut back our emissions,
while China and India are allowed to destroy the planet?
Could someone please explain...!
Why do we have to cut back our emissions,
while China and India are allowed to destroy the planet?
Dion et al would say that we must 'lead the way'. Never mind if our economy dies in the process. China and India are getting a free ride.
If you really want to do something, stop buying "Made in China" garbage.
Kyoto is a fraud and the world's biggest money transfer scheme. It rewards polluters such as China, Russia and India by allowing them to sell emission credits, while doing nothing to reduce their own emissions.
Yes,
I'm sure some entrapeneur and central planning partnership in a province in the middle of China,
after drawing up plans, projecting profits, assessing the power needs of its nearby ten million inhabitants, and realizing that the coal fired plant (one of an estimated new 500 to go up) is required to allow the vicinity to move forward in development, giving its citizens a quality of life Canadians have come to take for granted,
they'll say,
uh oh, lets scrap it, Canada has agreed to reduce its emmissions?
And were banking on harming our economy for that to happen??
Cherniak; Must you make everyting a jab at Conservatives? WTF has the question of global warming and Canada's willingness to sign on to it have to do with questions about the Prime Minister's waistline?
The main question as I see it is; Are we willing to regress to an economy like we had in the seventeenth century here in Canada in order to "influence" the rest of the world who barely notice us anyway? Canada has become so insignificant on the world stage that no matter what we do, we can not make any difference. Maybe if we had maintained our position that we enjoyed after the second world war whereby the entire world looked at Canada as a leader we could make headway. As it stands now, after decades of wishy-washy leadership and internal navel-gazing we have become a backwater nation little better than some of the third-world nations we so condescendingly look down upon.
What we need to do is chart a course that puts Canada's needs and interests first. Build our economy to the point where the rest of the world again looks to Canada for leadership rather than comic relief.
Hi Joanne -- LOL. I have a rant along the same topic. We are on the same page. Take a read when you get time -- Crux of the Matter at scrux.blogspot.com
There is just so much complaining by the Federal Liberals and MSM. Truly sounds like a witch hunt. The Liberals just have to realize, they didn't win the election. They need to do something to make this minority work -- not just do everything to bring about another expensive election. It's all about power, or lack of it, isn't it?
By the way, granddaughter seemed perky today. Even with two broken wrists, managed to hold a Wendy's burger at lunch time. She can't do much though with the left one which is the one that has to be re-set tomorrow. Anyway, she doesn't want to miss any school! Great kid. I know -- I sound like a proud grandma -- right on!
Glad to hear your granddaughter is on the mend, Sandy!
Thanks Joanne. I removed the link.
To Cherniak_wtf
Interesting that you should concentrate on the one part of Lorrie Goldstein's column that you find amusing (did you even read it, or did you just read Joanne's synopsis?), but ignore the rest of it. You particularly might find this part of Lorrie's column amusing (I know I did, as I mentioned on Sandy's blog):
"I trust scientists to continue their dispassionate investigations of these issues, employing the professional scepticism you people think is a dirty word, but is in fact a fundamental part of what is known as the 'scientific method'.
"Again, if any of you still have your Grade 8 science textbooks, look it up."
If what you said in your post is all you could think of to say, and I doubt it, then it might seem that you have your doubts about the wisdom of trying to cut back our own ghg emmissions while ignoring those of China & India, but do not want to publicly admit to your doubts.
If you do not have such doubts, then you could show it to all of us by actually addressing the points made by Joanne, William, tony, and biff, instead of an OT jab at Stephen Harper's waistline. I look forward to a response.
Brian, I agree. Talk about hitting below the belt!
- or in this case, above...
So what’s your position on dealing with global warming, Joanne? Or are you just waiting for the Rapture to take care of everything?
Hi Red. I'm glad you survived your ordeal. So is it a mellower Red Tory now?
Joanne,
We need not worry about using our brains on this. I have it on good authority that David Suzuki is on a 28 city tour telling us all what we need to think.
Just go and download the good doctor's views.
RT, I imagine he will be coming through Victoria.
Tomm
check out the CTV poll...sounds like Enviro-Cop would be big hit...
Wow! Vicki, the results so far are frightening!!
If Joanne and friends would frame the question different, I’d be happy to have a civil discussion – at it is, I’m not interested in debating shop-worn talking point with Conservadroids.
Not a problem. Bonsoir!
So what’s your position on dealing with global warming, Joanne
We're waiting....
Hey, if it helps, harper is becoming a believer....
I know that many conservatives feel that everything in life is "black and white"
for example, William:
Is there a global warming problem or not?
1. There is no doubt that EMISSIONS of greenhouse gases by humans is a problem.
2. There is also accumulating evidence that the global warming process is exceeding and lasting longer (beyond the "natural rythm" in the last half century.)
3. There is also a lot evidence, and a general consensus by scientists that Emissions of green house gases by US HUMANS is leading to the acceleration and prolongation of the Global warming process.
---Scientific evidence is NOT black and white, but it it shows that something is "VERY LIKELY". get used to it.
if there is...
Why do we have to cut back our emissions,
while China and India are allowed to destroy the planet?
if we're doing anything wrong, its usually morally right to undo it, regardless of what others do and dont. However,
the Kyoto protocol is not simply a Canadian program. It involves over 160 countries - all towards the effort to reduce green house gas emissions.
If we can show China and India that we are seriouse about this problem, then they too will join.
Otherwise, its useless (even though highly notable of conservative thinking) to sit around and just assign blame.
Finally, Joanne -what’s your position on dealing with global warming?
Finally, Joanne -what’s your position on dealing with global warming?
I don't debate with people who sign in as anonymous. At least assign yourself a number.
Newsflash,
we are all going to die, likely within the next few decades. Each and every one of us!
What is the Canadian Government going to do about it!!!
Some things, like death, taxes, and Canada's miniscule part in the emission of GHG's (assuming they're even causally connected to the Earth's warming) are a simple fact.
The liberal mindset is that all problems can be solved by big government initiatives.
Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. And I'm sorry for the liberals out there who were led to believe by their party, and the accompanying media frenzy that Canada could actually help change the Earth's temperature.
But that's life (or death as the case may be).
we are all going to die, likely within the next few decades. Each and every one of us!
Biff, you're so selfish.
Don't you care about the next generation? perhaps your kids? or your grandkids?
Why do soldiers put their lives on the line? for the FUTURE generation -you idiot!
If good folks in the past didn't give a rats ass about the future generation, you my friend would not be alive today.
Its our responsiblity to give our future generation this planet in Goodshape.
I don't debate with people who sign in as anonymous. At least assign yourself a number.
what does that have to do with anything? my questions and arguments are valid...
Plus Red Tory asked you the same question?
Red Tory said...
So what’s your position on dealing with global warming, Joanne?
I've read your blog many times. the fact is, -you dont debate. then again, many conservatives just can't.
Canada does not have legislative authority over the world.
Not China.
Not Brazil.
Not India, or the U.S.
Just little ol Canada.
We emit 2% of the GHG's (not including China et al's increase).
We can't reduce more than 2% (even 2% means we all live in caves).
Sorry, its called math.
Don't blame me. Blame the special interests of this country who failed to let you know about this tiny little fact when promises of cooling down the world were made.
And unlike defeating mathematical laws, I know we can defeat enemies militarily, we've done it a few times.
Sadly my belief system forces me to deal with realities/possibilities.
Possible/Impossibe - the difference is important.
Joaane you are right as usual, This is a way for control. DDT was banned for specious reasons many years ago and has led to the deaths of millions from malaria.
The report is just a summary. Why don't they release the whole thing yet? Because it is not finished. One must then question how you make conclusions before your report is finished.
It makes sense to me to recycle and give tax incentives to industry to reduce pollutions, Huge government bureaucracies to regulate such things will not work
Joanne -- Still no answer I see...
You are very good it seems at criticizing the Liberal’s sorry track record on the environment. (Not a terribly difficult task, I might add. Kind of like finding hay in a haystack.) But it would be nice to know what YOUR position is regarding the matter of addressing the issue of global warming (or climate change, if you prefer).
Perhaps you are a bleak defeatist like Biff and advocate doing absolutely nothing.
Dr. Roy you said:
DDT was banned for specious reasons many years ago and has led to the deaths of millions from malaria.
The report is just a summary. Why don't they release the whole thing yet? Because it is not finished.
First off, whose "they"? Whose doing the study -if this is a study?
Secondly, DDT is effective against mosquitoes that carry malaria. Churchill hailed it as "miraculous in 1945" because it did save lives. The problem however, especially in agriculture, had been with its overuse.
The acummulated high environmental concentrations that in ensued led to:
a. deterioration of reproductive abilities of many animals/birds.
b. resistance of many insects to DDT.
You can read about the environmental problems due to DDT in Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring
In 1973, The Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT uses expection uses essential to public health. Its still being used now in developing countries (e.g. Mexico, countries in Africa) to control disease.
Lastly, I dont know what you said initially about DDT relates to what you said with:
It makes sense to me to recycle and give tax incentives to industry to reduce pollutions, Huge government bureaucracies to regulate such things will not work
But in anycase, taking this issue as a separate matter - who would look after giving tax incentives? who would look after ensuring that Pollution is being reduced? you need political will (i.e. Beureaucracy)--otherwise, industries have nobody to be accountable to.
You are very good it seems at criticizing the Liberal’s sorry track record on the environment.
I agree - all comments are uni-directional and there is absolutely no proper response to critical comments made by others.
This is a comment trend...
If you can't properly defend your comments or other's critical appraisals - then why bother making comments in the first place?
Anonymous said...
the Kyoto protocol is not simply a Canadian program. It involves over 160 countries - all towards the effort to reduce green house gas emissions.
You are right. The Kyoto protocol does involve 160 countries, but only 35 countries have emission targets. That means that the other 125 countries are free to continue increasing their emissions and polluting the planet.
Anonymous said...
If we can show China and India that we are serious about this problem, then they too will join.
I disagree. China is too busy building new factories and power plants in a massive effort to industrialize and overtake the United States, so it is in their interest to keep polluting. India, Russia, Brazil are industrializing as well and are increasing their emissions, while building new factories and plants as well.
My argument is that since Canada's contribution to the world's output is only 2% and does nothing to dent the world's emissions output, then why kill our economy and society to achieve unrealistic target of a 40% reduction in 5 years?
Why not instead work with our factories, industries and economy to come up with a real plan that keeps our society and economy going without putting thousands of Canadians out of work?
If the plan takes longer than the 2012 deadline, then so be it. Our emissions (2%)in the meanwhile will not kill the planet and we will have a real plan that will really allow us to clean up our own environment in a comprehensive and organized manner, while preserving our economy, industries and jobs. It will also allow us to spend our money in Canada instead of sending billions of our dollars abroad to buy emission credits from countries that are much bigger polluters than us.
Why should we sacrifice all of that just to meet a target in 5 years that 80% of the signature countries of the Kyoto agreement do not have to meet? If you can give me a logical and convincing answer, I would be the first one to change my views on Kyoto.
Re: Global warming. It's minus 17 out there this morning. I could use some.
Rachel Carson was wrong. The UN is advocating reinstitution of DDT. Your comments are quoting junk science that has been refuted. The cost of your silly comments is the lives of 70 million children.
The environmental movement likes to feel good but their wanton actions have been deadly. Suddenly they embrace this science when much of their previous assertions have proven false. Science evolves by research and empirical data, not just by consensus.
Roy:
1. DDT was not completely banned. It is still used in tropical regions for agricultural purposes and controlling malaria. (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pest1.html)
2. Show me where the science I have been talking about has been refuted.
3. Refering back to your links (and the Baltimore Sun - doesn't quite count as evidence...at least strong evidence).
4.The cost of your silly comments is the lives of 70 million children. My comments did that...?
5. Your arguments are lop sided and biased to begin with. Why haven't you mentioned biomagnification - and the accumulation of the fat-soluble DDT metabolite DDE in animals (THATS A FACT, not an opinion).
6. The issue was the OVERUSE of DDT - without any regard for its repercussions. If its being re-introduced with some control -- it shouldn't be to big of a problem.
Joanne -- Re: Global warming. It's minus 17 out there this morning. I could use some.
Clearly you are not serious about the issue. It's just another cudgel to beat Dion and the Liberals with. Pathetic.
Global warming. It's minus 17 out there this morning. I could use some.
Global warming is a concept that applies to the AVERAGE increase (not day-to-day increase) in global temperatures around the world.
Global warming is a concept that applies to the AVERAGE increase (not day-to-day increase) in global temperatures around the world.
Yep. I know that. Just trying to lighten things up a bit here.
If we can show China and India that we are seriouse about this problem, then they too will join.
I'm glad you have this much faith in human nature. Considering that we just emerged from a century that included the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Rawanda massacres, etc, I find it quite remarkable.
Good Call Joanne and Goldstein.
Canadians have no right to find out where their politicians stand on issues that they find important. If politicians don't want to answer questions of matters that their constituants find important then they never should have run for office in the first place.
"One world environmental socialism is coming, folks."
Brought to us by Jacques Chirac one of the most right-wing politicians. Even right-wingers can make sensible arguements on occassion.
If politicians don't want to answer questions of matters that their constituants find important then they never should have run for office in the first place.
Most politicians don't run away from constituents. Reporters are not constituents. Anyway, you missed the nuance.
BTW, regarding the One World Socialism remark, this is kinda funny.
read this anonymous.
ddt facts
The case against DDT is weak.
I think Goldstein could have summed it up this way;
Ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer.
You want to lighten up Joanne?
Picture this:
Enviro-cops of the future, dressed in green heading over to China, by boat or plane whichever takes less fuel, walking around China in Birkenstocks, demanding a reduction in GHG..or else.
Sorry...just too funny!
Is this the person who Dr. Roy is is making a reference from:
Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself . He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research.
oh boy...
CWTF, nice work with exposing references from junkscience..
CWTF, nice work with exposing references from junkscience..
Picture this:
Enviro-cops of the future, dressed in green heading over to China, by boat or plane whichever takes less fuel, walking around China in Birkenstocks, demanding a reduction in GHG..or else.
lol! That is funny. The "or else" is the part that worries me though.
Hey Dr. Roy & CWTF - Lighten up or I'm sending the Enviro-cops after you guys!!!
Dr. Roy is dealing with a code blue situation with this argument...
CWTF - Why don't you go to his blog and ask him to come out to play?
Post a Comment