[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If you go back and read all my posts, even on different threads you will realize that I have never said global warming isn't happening. I have simple said that it is so complex that humans do not have all the facts to specifically say it is humans. The facts are that the earth has been warming over the last 11,000 years. That is a fact.

This is a favourite claim of global warming skeptics. Unfortunately, it's hogwash. Warming has taken place much more quickly in recent years than anything that was taking place earlier. Not to mention the fact that many global warming skeptics have changed their tune: they used to claim that the globe wasn't warming at all, then they admitted it was warming, but claimed that it's not our fault. Saying "it's too complex" is exactly the logic that's used by people who believe in UFOs or the Chupacabra--it's essentially the science of negation, poking holes in other people's theories and data without presenting any of their own. I don't mean to be rude: but you've been had. There's no debate: there's only the illusion of a debate being created by a few cranks along with cynical think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

What I have been saying is that something can be done and should be done.....but not with this idea that the world will end in 40 years if we do nothing....or the only thing that will help is if we jump head first into this policy. I have said on many occasions that something needs to be done.....but things must be done in a way that works for both the environment, industry and the economy.

What policy? No-one is suggesting Kyoto is the only answer. If anything, Kyoto doesn't go far enough. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical of your predictions of economic disaster, but let's just leave it at saying that neither of us is an economist. Either way, I'd rather go through some temporary economic hardship than put my children and grandchildren through permanent hardship. Would I lose my job? I find that unlikely--oil doesn't really pay for what I do. But let's put it this way--if I were working in a job that depended on unchecked damage to the environment, I would find a different line of work--or better yet, work to find ways of implementing change in that industry.

There is absolutly no reason why Canada needs to cripple our economy when the major pollutors are doing nothing. I just heard an expert on the radio today explain that inorder for Canada to reduce its CO2 emissions under 1990 levels, it would cost the Canadian economy more than 1 million jobs and push Canada into a recession.

Sorry, not buying it. An "expert" on "the radio"? Don't believe everything you hear. "Experts" like Timothy Ball? These guys are at best fabricators, and at worst liars. It's a simple matter to figure out where they're coming from--just look at who signs their paychecks. If I pay you 100,000 dollars to write editorials claiming that leprechauns are real, my guess is that your answer would be "single or double-spaced?"