 |
But nice try. Give the enviro-left credit – they start the hypocrisy training early. They even have a little logo! |
– Liz McDowell (Vancouver, BC)
– Azra Shivja (Markham, ON)
– Robert Hamon (Montreal, QC)
– Sasha Pippenger (Vancouver, BC)
– Joanna Dafoe (Toronto, ON)
– Olivier James Lavoie (Montreal, QC)
– Katrina Genuis (Sherwood Park, AB)
– May Jeong (Toronto, ON)
– Claire Stockwell (Montreal, QC)
– Rosa Kouri (Saskatoon,SK)
– PJ Partington (Toronto, ON)
– Nicolas Nadeau (Hanwell, NB)
– Hannah McKinnon (Deloraine, MB)
– Courtney Price (Toronto, ON)
– Lise Richard (Antigonish, NS)
– Adam Scott (Guelph, ON)
– Laura Zizzo (Toronto, ON)
– Marley Parker (Halifax, NS)
– Aiden Abram (Guelph, ON)
– Jeff Beyer (Ottawa, ON)
– Jessica Wishart (Halifax, NS)
– Trevor Bennett (Guelph, ON)
– Genevieve Gilbert (Ottawa, ON)
– Josh Darrach (Charlottetown, PE)
– Jennie McDowell (Guelph, ON)
– Adriana Hoogenboom (Ottawa, ON)
– Adam MacIsaac (St. Peters Bay, PE)
– David Noble (Guelph,
– Micah Melnyk (Ottawa, ON)
– Johnathon Constantine (Conception Bay S, NL)
– Derek Pieper (Guelph, ON)
– Catherine Gauthier (Montreal, QC)
That’s right – there are thirty-two names. All members of a “youth delegation” that flew to Bali to demand a meeting with John Baird to discuss their earth inheritance.
Six of these motivated young “heroes” are from Guelph (about 6 hours from Ottawa by minivan), including David Noble, whose “consulting company” 2degreesC, is credited with allowing all 32 to travel “carbon neutral”. Click on the link if you wish – but there’s not much there.
Apparently, his principled objection to Canadian environmental policy fell just short of preventing the carbon neutral Mr. Noble from going taxpayer funding neutral – he secured contracts worth nearly $50,000 from Natural Resources Canada in 2007, for 15 weeks of work.
I have all you over users beat!
Came back in from shoveling out the driveway (4th time this week) in a minus 20 windchill and left the front door ajar in the mad rush to get out of all that warming.
Wondered why the furnace kept coming on 😉
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, whom left Greenpeace has said that the Environmental movement has been adopted by those that favor communism after the fall of communism. The whole AGW thing was a manufactured hysteria so that they can instill a sense of guilt upon the people of the world. The eventual goal is the re-distribution of the world wealth communism style.
Why would people like the Goracle be in it? Well when you’re selling Carbon Credit dispensations it only makes sense to get people to believe the world is in trouble. Guilt = Money to Gore.
Kyoto is really envirocommies coming after our wealth.
Moron Park @12:37: “You are taking shots at people who are doing voluntarily that which should be mandatory.” (“that which”: how classy!)
Surely this person jests.
Those doing “that which” is voluntary are rich bastards whose carbon footprints tsunami the rest of ours. BTW, these con artists also own companies that sell carbon credits.
What part of “hypocrites, opportunists, and conflict of interest” does Moron Park not understand? (These people make Brian Mulroney look like Mother Teresa.)
I, for one, as well as many other SDA regulars, do not intend to submit to the arbitrary measures of the global warming apparatchiks. Although “useful idiots”, like Moron Park, may be willing to pay for the third yacht of these scam artists–hey, it’s a free country (for now)–count me out.
vitruvius – nice summary. And, of course, in true Humphrey style, the reality is being semantically painted in a way that it reflects whatever you think. All it is, is a ‘resolution’ to talk some more.
I see your point about it being a Ponzi scheme (had to look up the term).
I simply don’t get what is going on in the ‘minds’ of the activists. When they are told that the G77 countries refuse to consider any constraints on emissions or pollution; that all that they want is money from the G8 countries to industrialize …doesn’t this jerk a slight bell in the minds of these people? Just a slight nod?
Doesn’t it mean that emissions/pollution will, globally, go UP, UP, UP? (Thanks for Steyn’s data, penny).
So, how does that achieve the Activists’ Agenda, which rests on a firm belief in AGW?
And why should the West, which worked and failed and worked for 200 years to develop the technologies of industrialism, why should it simply hand over this knowledge to those who have not worked? I can understand ‘noblesse oblige’ and the ‘greater good’ and so on.
But, this whole thing is supposed to be, according to everything said by the activists in the UN, IPCC, Activist Hordes, the Liberals, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton..this whole thing is supposed to be about ‘global warming’ caused by emissions.
But, paying the G77 to industrialize without constraints, has ZILCH to do with reducing emissions. They’ll increase. Exponentially.
Will the West then be blamed for paying the G77 to emit and pollute? Is that it?
I wish some activist would explain it to me.
me no dhimmi – no, I’ve actually never read any of Ayn Rand’s books; I’ve certainly read Hayek with admiration. Might I also recommend Karl Popper and his The Open Society at some time.
“Strange that you took no issue with executives from EnCana Corporation, Iogen Corp, and PlascoEnergy Group–the last two are based in Ottawa–joining the official Canadian delegation. Were they traveling on the taxpayers’ dime? Not so interested in answering that question, I imagine.”
The fact that these so called “youths” chose to become eco-tourists (and yes they are only carbon neutral if they stayed home – carbon indulgences don’t cover it) has been well covered here.
An interesting point that Orton Park chooses not to answer is why the specific companies he names are going to Bali. It is to protect their business interests, but not in the way you think. Their interest is in promoting more goverment regulation (including Carbon Taxes) not less.
Iogen is promoting Celulostic Ethanol (using non food biomass to create Ethanol). Their interest is in additional government regulation mandating Ethanol, which would drive up demand and Ethanol prices. They benefit as their process is more expensive than current food to fuel Ethanol technology.
Iogen’s partners include Royal Dutch Shell, Petro Canada AND the Goverment of Canda.
http://www.iogen.ca/partners/overview/index.html
PlascoEnergy’s interest is in licensing / operating their waste reduction to synthetic gas technology. As a “renewable energy” play, they are seeking long-term subsidized electricity pricing (higher rates than standard generation technologies – like coal, nuclear or hydro get).
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?k=87349&id=9a551407-3a25-4874-aeb8-885e3b80aef6
http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?The_PlascoEnergy_Advantage
Encana has interests not only for it’s natural gas and Oil Sands business, but also in it’s Carbon Sequestration business. A government mandated Co2 requirement will become a new profit center as they can sell sequestration services.
http://www.encana.com/responsibility/reporting/operatingresponsibly/climate/co2/index.htm
Another business consortium working the same thing.
http://www.ico2n.com/thevision.php
I’ll just state two more things here.
1) I am an AGW skeptic. The belief that that Co2 is the primary driver of climate, or man as the primary generator of Co2, or that we can control climate (via controlling Co2) are all fallacies. The science does not support any of them.
2) I write none of the above to imply any consipracy or bad faith for any of these businesses. They are just persuing the best interests of their investors (as anyone of us would expect them to). I don’t like rent seeking behaviour, but I don’t blame these companies for trying to profit from dumb government regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Overall, I’d expect that within the next 10 years the reality of normal climate variation will make all of today’s irrational fear of Anthropogenic Global Warming look utterly ridiculous.
MND, no, I simply couldn’t know ET worked in academe; she’s pretty darn smart (I’ll leave it there). I never neglect to read her comments when I’m logged on to SDA and she’s pitching ’em. Well written, well thought out.
WLMR (3:30PM).
Yes.
Regarding this bit, “PS: Shame on Steven Harper and John Baird for even paying lip service to such Kyoto-esque inanity…give your heads a shake and stop playing with loonies…it gives their moonbat blathering credibly where none is warranted”, the unfortunate part is that a majority of Canadians actually buy into the AGW crapola. I honestly think that education might be the key here. I figure ET’s intelligence can’t assuage the years of wrong-headed dogma sopped up by her campus confreres, but, if public schools were instructed to leave the politics outside of the education system (just a curriculum based on reading, writing, math, chemistry, physics, biology, music, art, NO “field trips” to see public speakers like Gore,…), the next generation might not so easily vote for the type of politicians that Stephen Harper is forced to play footsie with, just to keep them out of office (read, buy time until a less destructive “fashion” comes down the pike).
MSM gets it wrong again
Manic Misinterpretations of Climate Change Capitulation by US in Bali
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/15/manic-misinterpretations-us-capitulation-climate-change-bali
Exactly !!
The FIVE PILLARS that brought us to this point;
United Nations
Media
Universities
Hollywood
Public scool system
ET: Check out Atlas Shrugged while ignoring negative opinions you may have encountered on her formal philosophy of Objectivism.
Damn, I keep meaning to get Popper while on amazon.ca. Will get The Open Society. I may have “issues” having heard that the evil genius George Soros was a protege.
A friend keeps mentioning Eric Hoffer, the Longshoreman philosopher who evidently talks a lot about the “scribes”. Encountered him?
Vitruvius: Yes Minister. Best possible poli sci course imaginable. In fact, they could replace all university Political “Science” departments with a loop of this series, save a ton of money, and give the students a real education. That’s my take too, and the reason I don’t get too jumped up about global warming: the knowledge that this is really just a talking shop and that in the final analysis no politician is going to wreck the economy acting on it. As Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
ET: 1)You have no proof that CO2 affects the climate.
You say this as though you’ve cited proof, either here or in the past, that CO2 doesn’t affect the climate. So let’s here it, ET–your proof that CO2 doesn’t affect the climate. And please don’t just name-drop a few scientists or cite a couple of studies that, let’s be honest, you haven’t even read. They may offer contradictory information or dissenting opinion, but they on their own aren’t sufficient. I want to hear your incontrovertible proof.
More researchers claim that the UN-IPCC is a money laundering scam.
Money laundering scam? That’s rather an overstatement. There are surely researchers who dispute the IPCC’s conclusions, but money laundering is a bit of a stretch. Oh, and since you are asserting a crime here, you’ll need to come up with some proof.
You have nothing to say about this – despite the clear statements by the G77 that they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with emissions or pollution control.
That’s not actually what they said. Their actual statements are a fair bit more complex than “absolute refusal.” These are nation-states, not four-year olds.
If you and the Youth Gang really were concerned, you’d be insisting that the G77 follow the same rules.
I’m not sure what the CYD’s position is, but being the Canadian Youth Delegation, I imagine they’re more concerned about Canada’s commitments. But you’ll have to ask them.
As for me, my position is that developed nations got rich by polluting, and it’d be rather hypocritical now to tell developing countries hoping to industrialize that they have to play by new rules. Having said that, it’s because of genuine concern about the environment that I’d insist that Canada continue to pressure laggard nations to adopt targets even as they themselves start taking action now to reduce emissions.
Arguing that nobody should do anything until everybody is on board is a recipe for guaranteed inaction.
2) Don’t get into this ‘democratic right’ to protest.
I like how you start by asking, “Who is paying them for this?” and then proceeding almost immediately to answering your own question: “Especially when its taxpayer money.”
All without a single iota of evidence or proof that CYD expenses were paid for through taxpayer money.
4) You also refer to costs of, eg, gasoline. Are you serious? No one individual pays ‘full costs’ of anything; that’s impossible.
Which is why I said, “pay to a greater extent the full costs associated with one’s actions.”
Production of goods and services is a COMMUNAL action, and both costs and results operate within the group. Never the individual!
Except that some of the costs that should be incurred by the enterprising producer and spread out among consumers are currently not being incurred, because they are being treated as externalities. These are effectively subsidies for the entire production-consumption chain, and they distort prices downward for everyone.
Right now, there are some individuals who are voluntarily choosing to “internalize” these externalities through carbon neutralization. It’s not an ideal system for many reasons. One is that it’s voluntary, so only some individuals within the group are bearing the costs. Which is why it should be mandatory, so that the costs are spread communally across the entire group.
what economics class did you miss?
A rather hollow insult coming from someone who also asks, “You refer to the ‘true costs’ of ‘remaining output’? What does this mean?” and “‘externalities back into internalities’…What does that mean?”
To start, try a wikipedia search for “externalities.”
6)Again – why haven’t you commented on several FACTS? That AGW is not a scientifically valid theory, and, that the G77 countries all reject it.
Since when was it a fact that AGW is not a scientifically valid theory? Where is your proof of this?
We’ve had this conversation before. You say there’s no scientific validity to the theory. I point out that every major scientific society in the developed world, plus a great number of national scientific professional associations in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere, have issued a statement of some kind endorsing the view that human activity does in fact have an impact on climate change–which is the nutshell of the AGW thesis.
And then you come back by pointing out that the majority is not always right (true enough, but just saying that doesn’t prove that the majority is wrong on this matter), and that some smaller percentage of scientists disagree, as if the mere existence of dissenting opinion alone is proof that the original theory has been debunked. Such a position is self-evidently and flat-out wrong, but I’ll never convince you of that.
And where is your proof that the G77 countries reject AGW? They are resisting hard emissions targets–that is a fact–but it’s not a fact that all 77 countries also reject the underlying scientific theories. But by all means, ET, correct me wrong: cite some proof, why don’t you?
gordinkneehill: No, the CYD didn’t actually “neutralize” the CO2 produced by their selfish journey. They simply bought carbon credits from a scammer who will probably use the money to buy himself a ski boat. Or an Escalade with spinner hubcaps.
Proof, please! ET is insisting that every statement on this thread be backed up with evidence, so please prove that the CYD’s carbon credit money actually went to buying luxury goods.
*****
lookout: Those doing “that which” is voluntary are rich bastards whose carbon footprints tsunami the rest of ours. BTW, these con artists also own companies that sell carbon credits.
Proof, please! ET is insisting that every statement on this thread be backed up with evidence, so please prove that the CYD delegates (which is whom I was referring to) are “rich bastards.” Also, please prove that they and others who contribute to carbon off-set programs all own the carbon credit companies themselves.
Good link alan.
How can virtualy ALL the media be so ‘out to lunch’ — exactly the same stupid ?
I believe, because they are directed, ruled by media central — Reuters and AP. They set the agenda. (On most major stories)
Media control through fear-mongering — keeps the readers attention, sells papers. (Non better than end-of-the-world)
Most media, large and small, will fall into line. (Do not have to work for stories, just wait for the feed)
Help political parties impliment a Nanny-State. (Nanny states are more “adaptive” to media control. (Pravda)
Help countries impliment ‘One World Governance’ (Kyoto is the altar in Nanny Statism, Jacques Chirac even said so)
Even if a cause is looney (as former enviro min, Chistine Stewart admited) it will be believed if media speaks with one voice. (see above)
My, but doesn’t Orton Park sound like Hana…and A…and A’dam…and so many others. Is there a connection?
To those preaching carbon credits,consider this….
My doctor tells me I must lose weight or I could be facing a life-altering physical catastrophe.That I am in fact part of a worldwide obesity problem.
I told him sure,I understand the seriousness,but I just can’t live on the calories he reccommends.
My doctor then suggested that I could continue to eat well if I paid calorie credits so they could research obesity and test diets in other parts of the world.
I’ve had to make the switch to lite beer,but other than that I consume about the same calories daily.
Thanks to calorie credits,I now enjoy my cheesecake guilt free!
One more thing…
Gore flying around the world preaching that others need to reduce their carbon footprint is no different than an chronic alcoholic driving around drunk to AA meetings and demanding everyone there get sober.
How the MSM can shill for this asshole without gagging on the bile is beyond me.
It turns out, ET & MND, that the first episode of Yes Minister, Open Government, is currently available on the web. While many important lessons unfolded during the course of the series, the first episode is not without its deep insight. In part 3 below, for example, Sir Arnold (then Cabinet Secretary) notes that: The less you intend to do about something, the more you need to keep talking about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBDNlAuMVBU – Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qt-_-glpY – Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwCzEd4z7EM – Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhpT7CIotKY – Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_CxUKSNrug – Part 5
CTV interviewed some of these young ‘experts’ a while back. They probably earned the privilege to travel with merit points based on the number of times they bashed Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Yes.They were prepubescentt when Kyoto was signed, so all they know is that it’s ‘Harper’s fault’.
For those of you who may be interested in a shorter version of the relevance of Y[P]M to the Bali situation, I offer this excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUOkGxGUVs
In which the following dialogue occurs:
“Humphrey: We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside, we can make a complete pigs breakfast out of the whole thing.
“Humphrey: It’s just like the United Nations, in fact, the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
“Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
“Humphrey: Yes, we call it diplomacy.”
This brings me back to the matter of the Bali conference. Some have suggested that people like Prime Minister Harper and Environment Minister Baird should not have gone to Bali. The point is, we had to get inside to break the whole thing up.
Some people don’t like that this is how our species works.
Sorry, nothing I can do about that. Besides, it works quite well.
Vitruvius, may I say again that you are quite a pleasant, interesting and insightful fellow! Well said. Pip, pip and all that rot, eh?
orton
1) with regard to ‘that CO2 doesn’t affect the climate’ – you ask me to prove it. You ought to know that logically and empircally, it is impossible to prove a negative. Next?
2)Money laundering scam – yes, I think vitruvius’ term of ‘Ponzi protection racket’ is more accurate. Why is it a protection racket? Because it has nothing to do with the climate or environment; it’s simply a tactic to transfer huge sums of money from the industrial nations to the ‘developing nations’ so that these countries can industrialize. But – these G77 nations have no intention of submitting to any CO2 or pollution controls. So, it’s not about the climate; it’s about getting money from somewhere to industrialize.
3)Again, the G77 refuse emission and pollution controls. You refuse to acknowledge this and instead, declare that ‘it’s more complex’. So, state the complexity.
4) You are slithering. No, developed nations did not get rich by pollution. That’s a red herring. Do you know how they got rich? They got rich by hard, hard work, over 250 years. Years of working to develop engineering technologies, to figure out theories of physics, thermodynamics, theory of light, heat, magnetism, theories of energy and the development of energy technologies (moving from wind power to steam. Theories of chemistry and applications of chemistry in metal, plastics, biochemistry. Figuring out how to build airplanes, cars, computers, telephones. Medical innovations, germ theory of disease, theories of animal and plant breeding, increasing the supply of food production..and so on.
That took a lot of hard work, a lot of failures and courage. Yet you, who benefit from all this work, spit on it and talk only about ‘they got rich by pollution’.
And you assert that, without any acknowledgment of these 250 years of tremendous work, courage and innovation – the ‘developing nations’ should receive the benefits of this work. They should receive the cars, planes, medical wisdom – and all the money from the West – and be permitted to pollute. Just because they didn’t do what the West did.
Where is your concern for the climate? Heh. It doesn’t exist. Your only interest is that the West pay the G77 to industrialize. You don’t care that they, since you believe in AGW, harm the climate. Hypocrite.
5) No, your statement about ‘nobody should do anything..until everyone is on board’ isn’t a valid defense. Why not? Because your proposal is INCREASING emissions and pollution. You are supporting no controls for the G77. That means that MORE CO2 will be added to the air. Since you support AGW, then, this is a strange thing for you to support.
6) Democratic right to protest has nothing to do with who is paying for the trip. My point remains; their travel has nothing to do with ‘democratic right to protest’. It has to do with the cost (both in emissions and taxes).
7) How does one pay to a greater extent the full costs associated with one’s actions? This is ambiguous and general.
8) Please tell me what costs, incurred by the producer, are not being incurred. Again, ambiguous and general.
9)What is ‘carbon neutralized’? How, outside of the lab, does one do this?
10) No – I’m not doing the google search; you explain ‘internalities and externalities, as YOU use them.
11) AGW is not scientifically proven and there are enough scientists and groups, already given before on this blog, that refute AGW. No, the science is NOT closed, and No, there is NO consensus, and No, there is a great deal of evidence against it. This blog has had numerous discussions, with names, on this issue.
Try again.
When it comes to the Earth’s greenhouse effect:
“Man-made CO2 is equivalent to linoleum on the first floor of 100 story building”
Would Orton be comfortable calling his scientist, Albert Gore, as a ‘technical’ witness ?
After all, Big Al is probably the biggest (pun) reason for the scam getting this far. (and Hollywood)
Orton
you keep blathering like an idiot about these youth’s right to go to Bali.
that right stopped rite at my tax pocket, when I, and my familly have to wait in line for proper health care cuz there ain’t enough “money”, then there ain’t enough tax dollars to send 32 useless foolish children half way around the world on my tax dollar, to go to a useless haydown of money grabbin thieves to do nothing but be fools
when I was 22 I had a familly of 3 children, a mortgage, and a job, about time some one sent these children out to do sum work!!!!
O. Park–he sounds like a friend of Mo–wants proof. OP, have you heard of Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Maurice Strong?
Their carbon footprints are HUMUNGOUS and they are reaping huge benefits from yelling, “The sky is falling!” They live the high life, can easily afford to pay “carbon credits”–no sacrifice for them–for their excessive lifestyles, and even benefit from them as they have financial interests in the companies that sell the credits. Most of the rest of us minions, with very modest carbon footprints, will be left out in the cold.
OP, check out these privileged opportunists, who, like Marie Antoinette, have no sense of noblesse oblige. “Let them pay carbon credits” might well be their motto.
Meanwhile, OP, the problems these con artists say will doom us continue apace, while their “solutions” are useless. These dangerous opportunists are, at the least, stuck on stupid and, if you’re gullible enough to be sucked in by their fairy tales, so, I believe, are you.
Remember the gingerbread man, who climbed on the fox’s back to cross the river. That gullible little cookie thought he was safe . . . as safe as we mere, not affluent, First World mortals are in the hands of the global warming beasts of prey, like Gore, Suzuki, and Strong.
Smarten up, OP! (If you can.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VuUc5UVm3cg
this will upset several sides.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9FFdZBahxWo&feature=related
help a stuggling Chinese by a mercedes and please those europeans who know so darn much.
A-hole post; comments down ?
This whole carbon credit scheme is nothing more than a modern day version of indulgences. Orton, I can’t prove that indulgences didn’t work, as we have no witnesses to prove or disprove the theory, at least none that immediately come to mind. Just let me say I’m pretty skeptical about both of these schemes.
Fortunately, I’ve nothing to feel guilty about so while I’m happy to see you and your fellow penitents throwing money at the problem, don’t mind me if I just take a pass on the whole project.
I figure if worse comes to worse, and you actually manage to convince Canadian PTB’s that we actually should transfer our wealth and technology to developing nations, while paying for the privilege of doing so, I’ll just move to India or China where I can reap all the benefits of your battles.
Gosh, I hope people with really big bucks don’t think of doing this first.
I’m thinking the fishing story was bait of a sort.
If not I deserve a ‘Kate slapdown’.
This is going to get interesting….
@Orton
Do remember that externalities are positive as well as negative, and that they require contextualization.
To put it quite simply, it is arguable that the planetary ecosystem may experience fewer forcings if humanity did not exit. It is an open question as to whether long-term climate trends would markedly alter, and if they did, whether the change would produce a positive or negative “benefit”.
This current hysteria stems from asymmetrically applying the precautionary principle (the strong version, i.e., the popular/media version, aka “the chicken little wordview) purely on the side of negative externalities. The results are as we have them.
A balanced lifecycle analysis of all contributions is required. The unasked question is: contributions to what? If it is to the “health” of the planetary ecosystem, then killing 99% of the people on the planet ought to get you there. Oh? We must consider the ‘health” of humanity? Long-term or short-term? Who decides?
Who benefits?
Cal2 – I swear I didn’t watch your links before I posted. But thanks, now that I’ve seen them, I don’t feel so alone in my thinking. 🙂
I am deeply saddened by the closure of the Bali conference. No more insightful insights about achieving achievements, no more schoolgirl adulation for the likes of Bianca, Al and Ban, no more travelogue tips about the dangers of Bali celery, no more hilarious anecdotes about the dangers of time zones….*sigh*.
Hopefully Stephane will find something else worthwhile to blog about. Some suggested tittles:
Small Braindead Activist….Prioritizing Priorities…..Koyoto the Educated Dog Said Arf….UnaMusings…
Syncro
ET and MND
how about …
environmental embezzelment.
@ET
Calm, please. You do understand that a point-by point rebuttal only works if someone is keeping score? Focus on the central issues, ignore the cant.
BTW, externalities are those “costs” not incorporated in the “value” of a product.
Please, please, please…let the hysterical chickens keep talking externalities. Loudly…in public, so that even the dim-witted can realize the trade-offs.
Combine this with the travesty of scientific process that under girds the climate alarmists and we can perhaps focus on more important issues.
I wonder what these might be?
“if you need somthing to be afraid of, how about the mercury in those compact flourecents.
scares the sh## out of me.”
Absolutely correct! I haven’t seen one of these lights that wasn’t made in China. Given their track record for contaminating products, you have to wonder if it just mercury in the lights or something that will have far more sinister affects down the road when all these bulbs are discarded.
If you ever break one, be very careful!!
“Orton”
Obviously has rejected fact, scientific disent as well as civil dissent to his utopian resource regulatory order…he obviously wants to be a minion or termite in the propsed new global bureicratic order.
My answer remains..Orton it will take a lot more proof, force and itellect thatn you have shown to make me concede 1 penny or one thought to this new green global bureaucratic order.
Blow all the hot air you want…frog with my freedoms, personal determination or any other freedom and you will get the horn.
Didn’t Baird refuse to meet with these idiots.
Every generation has wanted more for their kids than they had. For the last several years kids married and expected to start life with more than their parents retired with. Now, we have a generation of idiots that want to start with less than parents have, (laugh) live a live of simplicity, going back to our grandparents time. OOPS, can’t do that in Ont, can’t hang out the wash on clotheslines. I wonder if the parents, grandparents, aunt & uncles of these idiots feel guilty for giving them “things” for the past 18-25 yrs. Guess they don’t have to buy presents this Christmas for them. Tell them it is their contribution to reducing emmissions.
And, I bet that most of them are still living at home and mooching off parents, and don’t have jobs. How dare that group go to Bali and pollute the islands air with their co2.
One scary aspect about all of this kerfuffle is the fact that we had to rely upon old-style scientists to get us out of it. What’s the average age of the members of the International Climate Science Coalition? More to the point: how long before they retire?
I don’t want to veer into preachiness here, but we should be thankful that they stepped in. Myself, I’m awfully glad of their ‘truculence’.