Welcome to PatsFans.com

UN Kyoto Religion Challenged by Scientists

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWickedPissah, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta


    As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

    Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

    We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
    We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.


    What will Canader do?
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    If environmentalism is a religeon then environmentalists should be able to apply for cash from the White House office of religeous grants. Oh, and research should be tax exempt. Unfortunately envrionmental study has and always will remain a science.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  3. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    A religion relies on faith and authoritative doctrine. Science relies on open discussion of experimental results or data collected from observations. The attitude of UN's Kyoto Protocol is closer to old time religion.

    We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Better to err on the side of caution that the risk of a catastrophe that could kill or displace millions, but I suppose those who pray to the Almight Dollar would not agree. Why waste billions of dollars fending off a possible catastrophe when 60 scientists say there are still questions remaining? Let's listen to the misers.
  5. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    You can't avoid climate change. Humans or not, it does, and will continue to, happen.

    However, an effort like Kyoto which grants amnesty to two of the worst producers of harmfull gasses from the outset is a joke.
  6. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Planetary heating and cooling is cyclical in nature.
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    While I don't think anyone who's ever heard of the ice ages would argue with what you said, it doesn't make it ok for us to ACCELERATE the rate of climate change. Frankly, I don't care what happens in 65,000 years - if we haven't found a way off this planet by then, we're probably screwed anyway - but if our meddling is causing weather patterns to become more severe, and causing oceans to expand, that's bad news right now.
  8. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    Perfect...

    But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.


    I rest my case.[/i][/b]
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Pissah's right.

    The jury is still out on the effect on global warming by man-made atmospheric pollution. The point is moot, though, when one considers the health effect of the same pollutants now. The human impacts today should be enough to demand every attempt possible to reduce, to as close to zero as we can get, the amount of pollution we inflict on the environment in general.

    The cooling-warming thing is a bonus and can proceed naturally.
  10. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    Personally I DO believe that we've established that human activities are raising CO2 greenhouse gas and warming the climate. What % of the entire NATURAL warming trend is much in question.
  11. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think its arrogant on our part to think that we can have an effect on something so grande as the entire planet's heating and cooling cycle.

    Just like those hippy tree huggers who say "we're destroying the earth"

    We do not have the capacity to destroy the earth. We can make it uninhabitable for US but believe me, life finds a way.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    The vast majority of scientists believe there is global warming. The vast majority believe that human activity is partly responsible for it. (See the Wikipedia article on global warming for more info.) I've read that most of those who challenge those assertions are associated with businesses that will be harmed if we do something about global warming. The letter Pissah posted is the same type of crap that the Swift Boat Liars posted. You can find 60 people in any field that disagree with the majority. That letter is just an example of cheap politics.

    As far as Chevy's point about Kyoto being unfair, I agree, but we still should try to take steps to reduce global warming. If we do, it will probably lead to new and profitable technologies.

    The fact is the preponderance of scientific study suggests that humans are partly responsible for global warming and that something should be done. Why conservatives cling to a minority view when the fate of the world is at hand is perhaps because they're more concerned about themselves than the world they leave to future generations. Again, I think we should err on the side of caution and do what we can to reduce global warming.
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    "Just when I think you can't be any more stupid, you do something like this...and totally redeem yourself." - Harry Dunn, Dumb and Dumber

    It may be arrogant/anthropocentric, but man does have an effect on the earth. The atmosphere is a thin skin and prone to change. That is documented. Since the industrial revolution, we've seen CO2 rise dramatically. There is no question we are altering our atmosphere. The questions lie in the existing buffers capacity to absorb these chemical changes. Currently it doesn't look so good.

    But you are correct, we may find it insufferable...but life will continue. Frankly, if sea level rises and a few million people are forced to evacuate coastal areas permanently, why should I care? If hurricanes are intensified by rising ocean surface temps and we have a dozen Katrinas this decade....why should I care?

    It could just as well be an asteroid hurled from God himself that says..."Man, time for you to go...you suck at stewardship...take that"
  14. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Maybe the people of Missouri would suddenly have beachfront property?
  15. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There you go. Man has shown a keen indifference to the earths life support systems, so we should not complain if the earth decides to retaliate. So, keep the fires burning.
  16. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Considering I live in Westerly and am already close to the beach I guess I'm doomed, DOOMED!
  17. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Don't worry...Bush is in charge.
  18. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    Science is not about popular vote. The scientists who wrote that letter are credible experts. Look at the who the signees are below.

    Yet again, just because a position conflicts with your precious Cambridge orthodox group think ideology, you reject it out of hand and attempt to smear those advocating the position rather than dealing with the evidence.

    Such knee-jerk behaviour is just as anti-scientific as that of the religious fundamentalists. Interesting.
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Pissah, those scientists may well be credible, but I doubt if you're any more knowledgeable than I am about global warming. I choose to go with the preponderance of thought, and if it's true that the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is partly manmade and we need to do something, that's good enough for me. The stakes are too great. It's certainly not a knee-jerk response on my part. Environmental issues have never been my top priority, but I've read very little to convince me that global warming does not constitute a serious threat. In my view, it's irrational to discount a danger that could kill millions simply because a small minority of scientists tells you to do so. Now that's more akin to extremism than my point of view.
  20. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,100
    Likes Received:
    379
    Ratings:
    +851 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    You need to READ an article without the ideology program running in your forebrain.

    The signers do not discount the issue but advocate open discourse and study. They say there are more pressign, well defined problems facing the nation like environmental pollution. You on the other hand are advocating massive blind spending because of PC accepted ideology.

    It's the liberal solution to all things. Global warming...restrict debate & spend massive money. Education...restrict choices and spend massive amounts of money. Don't worry about cause and effect, just spend. Anyone who disagrees is 'cheap' and 'mean spirited'. Too many Canterbridgian wine and cheese coc*tail party discussions among the self proclaimed intelligensia.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>