"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml

While I don't agree with all of it, this just shows that there is NOT concensus on the issue:



Research is on-going:



Now.. this isn't entirely supported by all:



but it shows that there isn't a concensus.

I did agree that there was debate on how much cosmic rays were contributing, but everything I've seen still has it as a minority contributer to global warming.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

At the worst it may shut down the oil sands, but with general progression, even that will still last us many many years.

Can you image what would happen to not just Alberta's economy but the economies of BC and Sask if decide to shut down the oil sector? You also talk talk about new tech....yes, there will be new tech.....but I find it hard to believe that it will be created and implemented by 2012....not to mention the cost. We can shift the amount of energy we use in the oil sector....but it has to be done over a much longer period of time. That is all I am saying.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Right...and it is people like you that are going to sink our economy.

Please provide quotes where I suggest courses of action that would be detrimental to our economy.

Thanks.

First of all, if the price is our economy, who the ##### cares? Would you rather a planet habitable by your great grand children, or a bigger pay check?

Second, I don't think there has to be any negative economic impact. In fact, I think countries who take the lead on this will benefeit economically as they are first to develop technologies that will be used by the rest of the world to address this issue.

I'll use Norway as an example. Cars are a huge source of C02. Norway has provided tax breaks on the purchase of electric cars, as well as free parking, no tolls, and use of bus lanes. As you can imagine they have a HUGE demand for electric cars there. Now think.. lets say someone there figures this out and starts developing and producing electric cars. Oddly enough lots of people would buy them. Now there electric car industry is ahead of the rest of the world, and they start selling them internationally. Jobs are created. Lots of people are buying new cars. Your right... that would totally kill their economy.

There was already a huge demand for electric cars in California in the 90's (there still is, the last electric Rav4 that sold on ebay went for something like $48,000. More than it cost new). There is a 2 year waiting list that costs $50,000 to get on to by the Tesla (and electric car faster than some Ferrair's). International growth of this industry would be very possible.

Anyways, one example. There would be many other industries such as cleaner coal power, nuclear power etc. All would require new technologies, all would be selling new products.

Your right. The economy would be totally #####ed if we decided to do anything about this over here.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Your right. The economy would be totally #####ed if we decided to do anything about this over here.

Because that is what I said....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because that is what I said....

I don't mean to poke my head in (don't want to be involved in the name-calling, etc.) but isn't that sort of what you said? As I understand it, your argument is basically that doing something about what you agree is an irresponsible level of energy usage would be bad for the economy.

If I'm wrong, correct me--I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But it seems to me that if that's your argument, you've basically conceded that the scientists are right, and that global warming is a reality--but you're not sure whether the remedies that are suggested are worthwhile. That's a fair argument, but one that is far more complicated, since you do have to factor in the long-term economic costs associated with continuing on our current path. Saving a penny today to lose a dollar to-morrow isn't just a bad strategy in an environmental sense--it's a bad strategy in an economic sense.

BTW, did anyone happen to catch Jon Stewart's guest yesterday? A fellow from the American Enterprise Institute who just published a tract on global warming. Apparently the "science content" of his book is pretty weak--but my favourite part was where he blamed global warming on a worldwide socialist conspiracy. Bizarre. Paranoid and bizarre. These are not people who should be listened to, folks. They're crazy.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Right...and it is people like you that are going to sink our economy.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because that is what I said....

Gee, don't know where I got that from. Go ahead and explain how thats not what you meant though, I'm sure its coming.

[ken0042]

Not sure if this is fake or not, but somewhat ironic:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

(and yes, I do understand that there is an overal corolation between global warming and climate change)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I
BTW, did anyone happen to catch Jon Stewart's guest yesterday? A fellow from the American Enterprise Institute who just published a tract on global warming. Apparently the "science content" of his book is pretty weak--but my favourite part was where he blamed global warming on a worldwide socialist conspiracy. Bizarre. Paranoid and bizarre. These are not people who should be listened to, folks. They're crazy.

It's available on the show's website.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...ow/index.jhtml

That guy has some pretty kooky ideas. He appears to lay blame on both big corporations (he named Enron specifically) and communists. He doesn't even make sense. He paints all environmentalists as crazy commies and makes his case by quoting some nobody from the German Green Party.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's available on the show's website.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...ow/index.jhtml

That guy has some pretty kooky ideas. He appears to lay blame on both big corporations (he named Enron specifically) and communists. He doesn't even make sense. He paints all environmentalists as crazy commies and makes his case by quoting some nobody from the German Green Party.

Yeah, he was pretty weird. I mostly mention him to point to the fact that some of the people who are trying to confuse this issue and pretend that there isn't a scientific consensus are not really qualified to make that judgement. But then again, it's the AEI, so I guess it's no worse than I expected. He's a kook who works for kooks.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Gee, don't know where I got that from. Go ahead and explain how thats not what you meant though, I'm sure its coming.

This is to both you and Iowa

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. 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.

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.

Are you people prepared to give up your job over this idea???? These are the things we need to ask our selves. And to be quite frank....most people on this site think that implementing Kyoto...will not effect them. Think again.

As far as your comments above....I was refering to people like you who want to implement Kyoto.....you will destroy our economy.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

First of all, if the price is our economy, who the ##### cares? Would you rather a planet habitable by your great grand children, or a bigger pay check?

Come talk to me and tell me this is how you feel when your job is the first to be cut because of this. I think you will be singing a different tune.

[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?"

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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 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.



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?"

You believe what you want, I am done with this debate, I have not been had as you so delicatly put it....but you can believe it.

BTW...if you think the oil sector would be the only industry affected by a policy such as Kyoto, or Iowa Flames Environmental Program.....you really do not have any clue. Not trying to be a jerk Iowa, because I respect you...but my God.....I almost want want the Libs to win....ruin the economy, just so I can laugh at all you people who think everything will be fine and dandy. I know my job wont be effected, I have a government job....which is usually recession proof....but for the rest of you....if you really dont care....why should I bother. Hell....at least I could by some affortable property.

[Salisbury]

This is becoming such a political football now, I am not happy. It is so 'mainstream' its alarming; its not even up for debate any more....yet there are many many well respected climatologists who are still uncertain if a reduction in carbon emissions will stop the current cycle of climate change.
My big issue is that even if, we, as good natured, and environmentally concientious Canadians complied FULLY with the Koyoto protocol at heaven knows what expense to the economy, I dont believe it would make ANY difference to the global picture, when there are no controls planned from the developing world. Countires such as China and India have no compunction about this, and will continue to spew CO2 unchecked, in fact China has plans for over 500 new coal powered plants to meet their energy needs, and that is just one aspect of their economy, excluding their instatiable demand for vehicles etc. India is another problem all together. Vast tracts of bush forest and jungle are burnt each year in the developing world taking away the carbon sink and releasing carbon at the same time. A double whammy.
So......we will all feel so good about ourselves in reducing our CO2, but it would not make one iota of difference to the total output, as other more careless nations continue unabated. In the meantime we would need to deal with a shattered economy, and wait....the climate will continue to change.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As far as your comments above....I was refering to people like you who want to implement Kyoto.....you will destroy our economy.

Show me where I said we should implement Kyoto.

Enough with putting words in my mouth.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Come talk to me and tell me this is how you feel when your job is the first to be cut because of this. I think you will be singing a different tune.

As I said above, I think things can be done without hurting the economy, but infact with economic growth. The statement you quoted outlines the fact that economies should rate FAR below the importance of not killing millions of people.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Since Iowa didn't believe my comment about hearing someone on the radio talking about 1 million job loss.

Meeting Kyoto targets will cost the Canadian economy a third of its output....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...a79e2c&k=97678

By 2010 it would cost the economy roughly up to two-and-a-half per cent of GDP, which is around $30 billion," says Nancy Hughes Anthony, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce

http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/kyoto/

This commitment cannot be met without enormous and costly changes to Canada's economic structure and to the lifestyles of Canadians.

http://www.yorku.ca/robarts/projects.../schwanen.html

Greenhouse gas action could hit 40% of Canadian stock market: study

This warning comes from CIBC World Markets economists who reported Tuesday that companies representing 40 per cent of the Canadian stock market's value could be affected - mostly negatively

http://www.680news.com/news/business...ntent=b021377A


Shall I keep going....or do people still think this will not hurt the economy or affect their life????

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

jolinar, I never actually said that I thought Kyoto was a great idea either. I'm a little confused as to how this suddenly has become a debate about the merits of Kyoto, which is only one proposal, and a very short-term one at that.

I'm also a bit puzzled. Climate science is, in your view, too complicated for scientists to make accurate predictions. Yet economics is not so complicated that you won't believe off-the-cuff predictions from Chamber-of-Commerce types?

That's a little weird. One group is trained in making predictions in a field where trends are by and large predictable in the longer term. The other group lacks academic training and is working in a field where predictions have historically been impossible. Why are you willing to believe the second group and not the first?

I'm not suggesting that I know what the economic impact of Kyoto or any other proposal would be. All I'm saying is that we must FIND a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while preserving our way of life, finding alternative sources of energy, cultivating environmentally responsibly uses of resources, etc. This has to be done on a global level, not only a national one--but of course the largest offenders MUST be brought on board for any initiative to make any sense at all.

It isn't realistic to suggest that we can stop using fossil fuels overnight. But it is long past time to start developing alternatives. And I'm not the only one who thinks this. Oil companies have started spending millions of dollars researching alternatives so that they can make the transition when it inevitably must happen. If THEY believe that this is important, why can't everybody else?

Even GEORGE W. BUSH has acknowledged that there's a need to address climate change. Other "socialists" who have said that this must be a priority in the next little while include Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and a host of both Republicans AND democrats in the U.S.

No-one's saying it's going to be easy--what we are saying is that it must be done. When even Bush comes on board, you know that it's time to sit up and listen.

I'm even more confused by your comment about the Liberals. Nothing in the Liberals' history inclines me to believe that they will take swift, decisive action on global warming. This isn't about party politics. It's about the Earth, which is kind of important because we need it to live on.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Even GEORGE W. BUSH has acknowledged that there's a need to address climate change.

Funny, because I don't think that anyone has denied that there is a need. You seem to take any kind of discussion on how much of a part humans play to mean that no action is needed. That's making the same mistake as automatically assuming that all those who are hell bent on convincing the world that humans are the primary and major cause of it are all 100% behind Kyoto.

Action does need to happen, regardless of whether humans are the major, minor, or negligible cause of climate change.

What frustrates me most is our government "leaders" who decide that any kind of action is better than no action at all. Proof of this are all of the opposition parties who forced through that Kyoto legislation yesterday. Obviously they think that it will be some kind of magic solution. Fools.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Funny, because I don't think that anyone has denied that there is a need. You seem to take any kind of discussion on how much of a part humans play to mean that no action is needed. That's making the same mistake as automatically assuming that all those who are hell bent on convincing the world that humans are the primary and major cause of it are all 100% behind Kyoto.

That's a fair point, actually. The thing is that frequently people who claim we aren't the cause are doing so as an argument against taking any action at all. And if you think about it, if we aren't a primary cause of climate change, it stands to reason that not much that we do will help. But you're right that there are a range of opinions on that point. I was specifically responding to another poster's prediction of dire economic consequences is ANY action were taken (even the hypothetical Iowa_Flames_Fan environmental program! )

What frustrates me most is our government "leaders" who decide that any kind of action is better than no action at all. Proof of this are all of the opposition parties who forced through that Kyoto legislation yesterday. Obviously they think that it will be some kind of magic solution. Fools.

I actually agree with this. Kyoto is only one proposal, and it deals only with the very short term. It also has huge flaws--not least of which is that any emissions-reduction plan that doesn't involve the U.S. is like building a fence around half of your property. What worries me is the possibility that the passage of Kyoto will lead to a belief that this issue is done and over with, when what's needed is long-term change in the way that we consume energy.