76 Replies to “YNoH2OKyoto”

  1. They should post the names of the idiots who signed these petitions and reveal the groups they are associated with.

  4. Penn & Teller pulled that same dihydrogen monoxide “gag” a few years back with pretty much the same results.

  9. Par for the course. They’re already trying to get rid of “mono-carbonate dioxide” so if you add “dihydrogen monoxide” to the list, there’s only one thing left to ban before they destroy the three elements necessary to maintain life on earth: “DIOXIDE”. Ban Oxygen now!
    Don’t worry though, everything will flourish from the arsenic microbes from outer space.

  10. Funny stuff. Their premise is unsupported though…America’s economy is being devastated by fraudulent investments, extremely unbalance trade, and the proliferation of credit…how placing more value on social and environmental issues plays into that I’ve yet to hear.

  11. They want to reduce US GDP by a further 6% from current levels.
    Oh joy, lets get the unemployment rate up to 30%…Weimar States of America here we come!!
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  12. America’s economy is being devastated by fraudulent investments, extremely unbalance trade, and the proliferation of credit…
    Very good, I agree.
    “…how placing more value on social and environmental issues plays into that I’ve yet to hear.”
    Because climate change policy is a bad investment(ie…wind power ect), extremely unbalanced(in application for example), and is unaffordable so it must be carried-out on more credit.
    What you fail to realize BTJ, is it’s almost unanimous here that all climate change funding should be redirected to where much of it was redirected from in the first place…and that’s funding stop pollution, preserve wetlands and many other good ‘investments’ that have had their funding ravaged so as to fund the en vogue cause which just so happens to be a hoax.
    It’s funny isn’t it? That most, if not all Progressive causes cause more suffering for those that they claim to advocate for? Progressives support self government for Indians in Canada. That’s worked well for Indians. Progressives support Ghettos. That’s worked out well for minorities. Progressives support catch & release justice. That’s worked out well for victims of violent crime. Progressives support Hugo Chavez. That’s worked out well for Cubans?
    Need I go on?

  13. “Oh joy, lets get the unemployment rate up to 30%…Weimar States of America here we come!!”
    Herr General Rupprecht . . . no worries. Obozo is working on it, dedicating his presidency to Obamanomics.

  14. I agree with Joey. The names of these causeniks and the groups that sponsor them should be posted for all to see. Such incredible stupidity should not go unnoticed. The only drawback is that anyone signing such a petition is undoubtedly too simple-minded and naive to even be embarrassed.

  15. “Because climate change policy is a bad investment(ie…wind power ect), extremely unbalanced(in application for example), and is unaffordable so it must be carried-out on more credit.”
    Ok, are you going to expand on these statements? Why is it that wind power is always the topic of choice with you folks? Likely cause it’s the easiest to attack, even though it really doesn’t account for much of the debate. Please expand on the statment ‘climate change policy is ‘extremely unbalanced’…how so?
    What makes it unaffordable? What makes alternative energy source so unaffordable compared to oil and gas? You do realize that oil and gas receives absolutely MASSIVE amounts of tax payer subsidies don’t you?

  16. Is Glen Beck on FOX Cable network aware of the petition to cripple the US economy?
    The corrupt Chretien regime committed Canada to the Kyoto scam with as much enthusiasm as those dolts signing in the video above.

  17. Kate that was truly so funny I will be laughing all day – of course funny if not so serious.
    I honestly don’t know how that person running the petition was able to keep a straight face. My hat off to him.
    Up freedom baby! Show the fools for what they are.

  18. Funny. If is quite obvious that our social superiors are more impressed with fancy words than solid reasoning. It explains the need to change the buzzwords when reality intrudes on silly focus group approved slogans:
    global warming -> climate change -> global climate disruption.
    Unfortunately, fancy words do not lead to meaningless action. They lead to absurd bans. Then the “Ban H2O” just as easily falls for rationing, redistribution, and population control (as long as it is framed in high IQ sounding new-speak)

  19. “…it’s almost unanimous here that all climate change funding should be redirected…and that’s funding stop pollution, preserve wetlands and many other…”
    Here, here. What does climate science and carbon trading have to do with practical environmental programs? Nothing.
    I compare carbon trading to two men with undisposed/unrecycled bags of garbage: One man has 1 bag of garbage and the other man has 3 bags of garbage. So the man with the 3 bags credits the man with the 1 bag for the symbolic disposal of one of his bags of garbage and pays him for that symbolic recognition. Hence they share “moral equivalency” — both men are now symbolically responsible for the equvalent of 2 bags of garbage each. 4 bags of garbage total between them.
    Problem is, they started out with 4 bags of undisposed/unrecycled garbage between them in the first place, and even after the exchange they still had the 4 original bags of garbage! Everybody ignored what we actually need to do to get rid of garbage.

  20. If subsidies were completely removed from both green energy and fossil fuels, which would survive? I know where I’d put my money. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would love to test that thought experiment in the real world.

  22. “In fact, as a taxpayer, I would love to test that thought experiment in the real world.”
    So would I…however, the fact that billions have been poured into oil and gas would still remain. By completely removing subsidies I assume you include supporting foreign governments and their armies in order to secure oil and gas resources? I think you’d be surprised at just how reliant oil and gas is on the support of governments.

  23. BTJ; The oil and gas industry doesnt get subsidies,thet pay taxes and lots of them.Plus royalties.Municipal,provincial and federal taxes.If,as you say,oil and gas companys dont pay more taxes than they are subsidized,then how did those middle eastern countries get so rich? From selling sand? On the subject of royalties,when will the provinces collect royalties on the wind that the turbines use? You’ve got a brain,use it.

  25. BTJ
    If we didnt have a oil and gas industry in Canada, Quebec would not be getting $8.5 Billion per year equalization…they would get ZILCH!
    Are you from PQ?…you sound like it!

  26. “BTJ; The oil and gas industry doesnt get subsidies”
    Please, you ignoramus..don’t waste my time.
    “If,as you say,oil and gas companys dont pay more taxes than they are subsidized,then how did those middle eastern countries get so rich? ”
    Huh? Where did I say that oil and gas companies don’t pay more taxes than they are subsidized? How does that change the fact that they are subsidized? Subsidies essentially indirectly lower the amount of taxes they pay.

  27. “What makes it unaffordable?”
    We’re broke!
    “What makes alternative energy source so unaffordable compared to oil and gas?”
    If it was viable, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If it was viable, the market would take care of things. It is not the governments place to invent and improve products for the market.
    “Why is it that wind power is always the topic of choice with you folks?”
    Is this an argument? FYI because it is an excellent example of how Progressives unwittingly wish to knock civilization backwards into the 18th century.
    “Please expand on the statment ‘climate change policy is ‘extremely unbalanced’…how so?”
    Many large emitters are exempt from action plans such as Kyoto(RIP) and others are not. The financial burden in some of regions of Canada is much greater than others under agreements like Kyoto and plans like the “Green Shift”.
    Putting all BS aside, all rhetoric, and the verbal parrying, the bottom line as I see it is this:
    1. The Science Debate:
    the fundamental disagreement between those that prescribe to the AGW theory and those that don’t. This discussion is on going, and it is premise for the larger and more important debate.
    2. The Political Debate
    once the Science Debate has played itself out(which many on both sides claim it has) then the disagreement becomes ‘what to do’? This debate is far from over, and the vast majority of people in Canada and the US do not agree with the solutions that your ilk suggest(sorry for my simpleton generalizing). Most of us, including me, believe that the correct strategy to handle cc (anthropogenic or not) through mitigation.
    So science aside…in my view… the Progressives have done a very very poor job of convincing the population(you know that democracy thing) of their solutions for this theoretical problem. And before you jump all over “theoretical” is that it still hasn’t been proven that AGW is a bad thing.

  28. Since North America has the ability to be self-sufficient in fossil fuels and nuckear power, I do support “completely removing subsidies …supporting foreign governments and their armies in order to secure oil and gas resources”. Self reliance, or near self-reliance would financially starve many of the world’s troublemakers.

  29. this joke is as old as the one about the farmer’s daughters and the brick salesman.
    booooOOOOOOOrrrrrrriiiiiingggggggg!!!

  30. regarding the Political/Policy debate I said…”This debate is far from over”
    Correction. The political debate might be closer to over than Progressives like to think. With the death of the Climate bill in the Canadian Senate. With the massive power shift in the American government with recent revelations from Japan,with Carbon trading markets going bust, and being overwrought with corruption, perhaps the political debate is soon coming to an end also, and perhaps the ‘consensus’ is to ‘do nothing’.
    A question for you BTJ:
    If you do in fact win the Science debate but lose the Political/Policy debate will you be satisfied with the democratic solution (or non solution) to the AGW problem?

  32. There are a few places around Southern Georgian Bay & Southern Lake Huron that would like the Frozen Version Banned about now!

  33. So according to Comrade BTJ, any penny that the government “allows” a citizen to keep is a “subsidy”. Got it.
    I think we used to call that “slavery”…and that game is over, Tovarich.

  34. “”What makes it unaffordable?”
    We’re broke!”
    So why are we in Afghanistan and why are we subsidizing oil and gas?
    “If it was viable, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If it was viable, the market would take care of things. It is not the governments place to invent and improve products for the market.”
    Huh? Typical answer from an oil and gas worshiper…ignore the giant subsidies oil and gas gets, make a claim that our economy is anything close to being a free market, and argue against gov’t subsidies of alternative energies.
    “Many large emitters are exempt from action plans such as Kyoto(RIP) and others are not. The financial burden in some of regions of Canada is much greater than others under agreements like Kyoto and plans like the “Green Shift”.”
    So that’s a problem with the political process, not the idea of climate change policy. More specifically, it’s a result of the US bullying the rest of the world around.
    “If you do in fact win the Science debate but lose the Political/Policy debate will you be satisfied with the democratic solution (or non solution) to the AGW problem?”
    What solution!
    “So according to Comrade BTJ, any penny that the government “allows” a citizen to keep is a “subsidy””
    What the hell are you talking about? Giving money to oil and gas companies in the form of direct subsidies or tax breaks is the same goddamn thing as funding alternative energy projects.

  35. “If we didnt have a oil and gas industry in Canada, Quebec would not be getting $8.5 Billion per year equalization…they would get ZILCH!
    C,mon . . quit singling out Quebec . . they haven’t received $8.5 billion in years . . . it is way more that that now, closer to . . . $15 BILLION.

  36. The little Bolshevik retards signing the first petition belong in Cuba or Venezuela.
    These people with the petition boards need medals for managing to keep a straight face while asking delegates to ban the very stuff they are drinking.
    This exercise shows exactly just how idiotic the left is.

  37. It is shameful, though, that we can’t have our Canadian conservative government rep at Cancun tell the world exactly what many of us think of the AGW and climate change theories and lobbies, not this cynical business of speaking platitudes while secretly hoping to do nothing, but the truth without this layer of b.s. on top.
    What’s wrong with putting this issue out of its misery, the coup direct, and get the hell on with normal living again, mothball the wind farms unless they can pay their own way, and tell the Chinese this doesn’t mean they can spread crap into the atmosphere either. That’s what we need, not this pussyfooting around hoping someone else will do the deed. It doesn’t suit John Baird to walk on eggshells. Maybe we could make Don Cherry our climate ambassador (not sure if he has seen the light here, he’s not batting a thousand in my books after endorsing Fantino, another faux-con if ever there was one).

  38. Banning water and crippling the states more than what the dems have already achieved?Typical liberal way of thinking,I’m surprised a one child per family law here in Canada hasn’t been floated,oh wait….

  39. “So that’s a problem with the political process, not the idea of climate change policy.”
    NO! That IS the proposed and enacted policy! Remember Kyoto?
    “Huh? Typical answer from an oil and gas worshiper”
    Does this invalidate my opinion then?
    “ignore the giant subsidies oil and gas gets”
    NOPE. If we can get rid of those also, and not effect competitiveness then so be it.
    “make a claim that our economy is anything close to being a free market,”
    I make no such claims; but, I do claim that the fact we’re not close enough to a free market economy and THAT is the root cause of our economic woes. Furthermore, Progressive such as yourself are obsessed with moving away from a free market economy and would welcome the economic peril that comes with your ludicrous economic philosophy.
    “and argue against gov’t subsidies of alternative energies.”
    Yes I do, and it’s very consistent of me. If you noticed, earlier in the thread you argued against: “fraudulent investments” yet you support gangster riddled industries such as Carbon Trading and Alternative energy companies which have been demonstrated to be fraudulent on a much larger scale than any other industry I can think of. You argued against: “he proliferation of credit” yet insist that we spend more money we don’t have on “social and environmental issues” and use the argument that we’re all ready over spending so we should over spend more.
    “Huh? Typical answer from an oil and gas worshiper…ignore the giant subsidies oil and gas gets, make a claim that our economy is anything close to being a free market, and argue against gov’t subsidies of alternative energies.”
    You’re projecting.
    “What solution!”
    I said “solution(or non solution)”. Surely you understand what I’m trying to convey here. Please don’t be disingenuous by trying to split hairs about language and other things that are not relevant to this discussion.
    You’re being obtuse BTJ, answer the question please.
    If you do in fact win the Science debate but lose the Political/Policy debate will you be satisfied with the democratic solution (or non solution) to the AGW problem?
    Yes or no will suffice here.

  40. I don’t worship the oil and gas industry but I do appreciate its development as one of our greatest inventions. The use of fossil fuels is right up there with fire, the wheel, and modern agriculture as important technological turning points in human development. Green energy, OTOH, shares similarities to Alchemy and the Ptolemaic system.

  41. Related,
    Why is it that every video, tv show and movie made these days has the music in it 10 times louder than the dialogue???
    I had to crank up my volume to 10 ( on my Altec Lansing PC sound system ) to be able to hear the dialogue on this video but then when the calipso music started I almost destroyed the subwoofer.
    How did we get here?
    Who decided that things should be recorded in that very stupid way?
    It is impossible to watch anything without having your finger on the volume at ALL times.
    So much stupidity in this world.
    I must be from another planet.
    Yes I’m in a bad mood.
    I could punch someone in the face right now.
    I must be from another planet.

  42. Anyone who knows about audio knows that there are limiters and compressors to prevent these large difference in volumes.
    These technical gadgets were invented about 80 years ago.
    So obviously these volume differences in todays recording are intentional.
    but what kind of stupid mind must one person have to make videos, tv shows and movies that have inaudible dialogue – yes INAUDIBLE – and music so loud the walls shake in your home ???
    I’m that close to punching my fist in the wall.

  43. FOA
    Suck-it-up-princess
    you sound like my wife.(kidding…but serious)
    “It is impossible to watch anything without having your finger on the volume at ALL times.”
    Seriously, when I sold TVs there were some models that dampened the sound spikes. I’m not in the biz anymore but I suspect there is something out there.
    Possibly, it could be that your audio set-up is not sufficient for the programs you are watching. The days of plugging your TV in the wall and ‘full speed ahead’ are long gone. Food for thought.

  44. Hay BTJ, come back to me when the Ontario Government stops subsidizing wind and solar power to the tune of some 70 cents a Megawatt produced.
    You are an idiot.

  45. Wonderful quotes from opposition MPs today on a climate change panel discussion on CBC Nubes Wetwork.
    NDP Nathan Cullen said that “Canada has lost all credibility to the point where we can’t lecture anyone any more (at the U.N.).”
    Well that doesn’t seem to stop Iran or Libya.
    A Liberal MP said something like, “it’s not a waste of time, we have to keep talking, or the international community will drop the ball on this issue.”
    Mo Strong’s ball? Pity.

  46. Only a complete moron could think oil and gas are “subsidized” anywhere close to the equivalent of the 80cents/kWh the unworkable, uneconomical useless, intermittent, nightmare of solar power gets in Ontario. There’s your MASSIVE SUBSIDIES, BTJ. Start railing against those.

  47. IMHO the sound quality in that vid was entirely the fault of the guy asking idiots to sign the petition. Watch what he’s doing with the mic while he’s talking. It’s nowhere near his mouth and the hand he’s holding it in is bouncing up and down the whole time.

  48. Getting off topic, but Friend of USA makes a really good point and I couldn’t agree more.
    It drives me nuts when my kids watch DVDs because the sound is so poorly done. One minute you cannot hear a thing, next minute it’s so damn loud you cannot find the remote fast enough.
    Note too that most kids today will be half deaf by the time they are 25 because they have an ipod in their ears 24 hours a day.
    So F of USA expect things to get worse not better once the current generation grows up and some get into the biz of doing soun. In fact I think some of them are already mixing sound in the movie theatres considering how ridiculously loud some films are played at – hence the reason I avoid movie theatres altogether now.
    Any interest people had in appreciating the beautify of sound and looking after one’s hearing fell by the wayside starting somewhere in the 50’s.

  50. “Canada has lost all credibility to the point where we can’t lecture anyone any more (at the U.N.).”
    If the ability to issue lectures at the UN is the measure of a nation, then God help us all.
    Such a denounciation from an NDP MP is understandable since the NDP are quite adept at lecturing. Understandable, but idiotic.
    Hey … there’s another thing that the NDP excel at … stupidity.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation