Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-17-2009, 06:57 PM   #441
FunkMasterFlame
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Exp:
Default

Ex-wrestler, ex-NAVY SEAL, and ex-governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura has a new documentary tv series called Conspiracy Theory, in which he explores some of the most popular conspiracies put forth in the last 10 years, which include Big Brother, 9/11, and last nights episode, Global Warming.

In yesterdays show, Jesse investigated sleazy cap and trade fraudsters, skeptical scientists who have had their careers destroyed and their lives threatened for speaking out against global warming, and the alleged plans to establish a one world government based on global warming hysteria.

It's a fun show and well worth a watch, even if it's conclusions doesn't happen to align with your particular belief sets.

Part 1: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8980
Part 2: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8981
Part 3: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8982
Part 4: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8983
Part 5: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8984
PArt 6: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8985

Last edited by FunkMasterFlame; 12-17-2009 at 08:26 PM.
FunkMasterFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FunkMasterFlame For This Useful Post:
Old 12-17-2009, 09:22 PM   #442
Rockin' Flames
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Texas
Exp:
Default

It seems to me that the entire purpose of the climate change talks and deals is just a way to come up with a global transfer of wealth program and create a world wide socialist system. This is probably the agenda of some people, like Hugo Chavez considering he Blames Capitalism for the worlds problems.

Meh. That's my take on it. Take it or leave it.
Rockin' Flames is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rockin' Flames For This Useful Post:
Old 12-17-2009, 10:44 PM   #443
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
This thing could change climate:

The most detailed seismic images yet published of the plumbing that feeds the Yellowstone supervolcano shows a plume of hot and molten rock rising at an angle from the northwest at a depth of at least 410 miles, contradicting claims that there is no deep plume, only shallow hot rock moving like slowly boiling soup.
A related University of Utah study used gravity measurements to indicate the banana-shaped magma chamber of hot and molten rock a few miles beneath Yellowstone is 20 percent larger than previously believed, so a future cataclysmic eruption could be even larger than thought.
The study's of Yellowstone's plume also suggests the same "hotspot" that feeds Yellowstone volcanism also triggered the Columbia River "flood basalts" that buried parts of Oregon, Washington state and Idaho with lava starting 17 million years ago.
Those are key findings in four National Science Foundation-funded studies in the latest issue of the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. The studies were led by Robert B. Smith, research professor and professor emeritus of geophysics at the University of Utah and coordinating scientist for the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.
"We have a clear image, using seismic waves from earthquakes, showing a mantle plume that extends from beneath Yellowstone,'' Smith says.
The plume angles downward 150 miles to the west-northwest of Yellowstone and reaches a depth of at least 410 miles, Smith says. The study estimates the plume is mostly hot rock, with 1 percent to 2 percent molten rock in sponge-like voids within the hot rock.
Some researchers have doubted the existence of a mantle plume feeding Yellowstone, arguing instead that the area's volcanic and hydrothermal features are fed by convection -- the boiling-like rising of hot rock and sinking of cooler rock -- from relatively shallow depths of only 185 miles to 250 miles.
The Hotspot: A Deep Plume, Blobs and Shallow Magma

Some 17 million years ago, the Yellowstone hotspot was located beneath the Oregon-Idaho-Nevada border region, feeding a plume of hot and molten rock that produced "caldera" eruptions -- the biggest kind of volcanic eruption on Earth.
As North America slid southwest over the hotspot, the plume generated more than 140 huge eruptions that produced a chain of giant craters -- calderas -- extending from the Oregon-Idaho-Nevada border northeast to the current site of Yellowstone National Park, where huge caldera eruptions happened 2.05 million, 1.3 million and 642,000 years ago.
These eruptions were 2,500, 280 and 1,000 times bigger, respectively, than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The eruptions covered as much as half the continental United States with inches to feet of volcanic ash. The Yellowstone caldera, 40 miles by 25 miles, is the remnant of that last giant eruption.
The new study reinforces the view that the hot and partly molten rock feeding volcanic and geothermal activity at Yellowstone isn't vertical, but has three components:
  • The 45-mile-wide plume that rises through Earth's upper mantle from at least 410 miles beneath the surface. The plume angles upward to the east-southeast until it reaches the colder rock of the North American crustal plate, and flattens out like a 300-mile-wide pancake about 50 miles beneath Yellowstone. The plume includes several wider "blobs" at depths of 355 miles, 310 miles and 265 miles. "This conduit is not one tube of constant thickness," says Smith. "It varies in width at various depths, and we call those things blobs."
  • A little-understood zone, between 50 miles and 10 miles deep, in which blobs of hot and partly molten rock break off of the flattened top of the plume and slowly rise to feed the magma reservoir directly beneath Yellowstone National Park.
  • A magma reservoir 3.7 miles to 10 miles beneath the Yellowstone caldera. The reservoir is mostly sponge-like hot rock with spaces filled with molten rock. "It looks like it's up to 8 percent or 15 percent melt," says Smith. "That's a lot."
Researchers previously believed the magma chamber measured roughly 6 to 15 miles from southeast to northwest, and 20 or 25 miles from southwest to northeast, but new measurements indicate the reservoir extends at least another 13 miles outside the caldera's northeast boundary, Smith says.
He says the gravity and other data show the magma body "is an elongated structure that looks like a banana with the ends up. It is a lot larger than we thought -- I would say about 20 percent [by volume]. This would argue there might be a larger magma source available for a future eruption."
Images of the magma reservoir were made based on the strength of Earth's gravity at various points in Yellowstone. Hot and molten rock is less dense than cold rock, so the tug of gravity is measurably lower above magma reservoirs.
The Yellowstone caldera, like other calderas on Earth, huffs upward and puffs downward repeatedly over the ages, usually without erupting. Since 2004, the caldera floor has risen 3 inches per year, suggesting recharge of the magma body beneath it.
How to View a Plume

Seismic imaging uses earthquake waves that travel through the Earth and are recorded by seismometers. Waves travel more slowly through hotter rock and more quickly in cooler rock. Just as X-rays are combined to make CT-scan images of features in the human body, seismic wave data are melded to produce images of Earth's interior.
The study, the Yellowstone Geodynamics Project, was conducted during 1999-2005. It used an average of 160 temporary and permanent seismic stations -- and as many as 200 -- to detect waves from some 800 earthquakes, with the stations spaced 10 miles to 22 miles apart -- closer than other networks and better able to "see" underground. Some 160 Global Positioning System stations measured crustal movements.
By integrating seismic and GPS data, "it's like a lens that made the upper 125 miles much clearer and allowed us to see deeper, down to 410 miles," Smith says.
The study also shows warm rock -- not as hot as the plume -- stretching from Yellowstone southwest under the Snake River Plain, at depths of 20 miles to 60 miles. The rock is still warm from eruptions before the hotspot reached Yellowstone.
A Plume Blowing in the 2-inch-per-year Mantle Wind

Seismic imaging shows a "slow" zone from the top of the plume, which is 50 miles deep, straight down to about 155 miles, but then as you travel down the plume, it tilts to the northwest as it dives to a depth of 410 miles, says Smith.
That is the base of the global transition zone -- from 250 miles to 410 miles deep -- that is the boundary between the upper and lower mantle -- the layers below Earth's crust.
At that depth, the plume is about 410 miles beneath the town of Wisdom, Mont., which is 150 miles west-northwest of Yellowstone, says Smith.
He says "it wouldn't surprise me" if the plume extends even deeper, perhaps originating from the core-mantle boundary some 1,800 miles deep.
Why doesn't the plume rise straight upward? "This plume material wants to come up vertically, it wants to buoyantly rise," says Smith. "But it gets caught in the 'wind' of the upper mantle flow, like smoke rising in a breeze." Except in this case, the "breeze" of slowly flowing upper mantle rock is moving horizontally 2 inches per year.
While the crustal plate moves southwest, the warm, underlying mantle slowly boils due to convection, with warm areas moving upward and cooler areas downward. Northwest of Yellowstone, this convection is such that the plume is "blown" east-southeast by mantle convection, so it angles upward toward Yellowstone.
Scientists have debated for years whether Yellowstone's volcanism is fed by a plume rising from deep in the Earth or by shallow churning in the upper mantle caused by movements of the overlying crust. Smith says the new study has produced the most detailed image of the Yellowstone plume yet published.
But a preliminary study by other researchers suggests Yellowstone's plume goes deeper than 410 miles, ballooning below that depth into a wider zone of hot rock that extends at least 620 miles deep.
The notion that a deep plume feeds Yellowstone got more support from a study published this month indicating that the Hawaiian hotspot -- which created the Hawaiian Islands -- is fed by a plume that extends downward at least 930 miles, tilting southeast.
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 11:18 PM   #444
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

That's crazy!

If you copy pasted that you should link the source(s) tho.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 06:59 AM   #445
Calgaryborn
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor View Post
Is that so? Care to point them out?

He provides a link to an economic analysis.
I don't read Russian but, the graphs in this report are temperature graphs:

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Calgaryborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 08:52 AM   #446
Flame Of Liberty
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, NSfW
Exp:
Thumbs down

How come no one is posting this stuff? No one cares? $100 bilion a year, unfrickinbelieveable. What the heck is wrong with them?

The United States, the number two emitter of greenhouse gases behind China, helped the mood by promising to back a $100 billion a year fund for poor nations from 2020.

"If each and everyone does a little bit more than we can do this," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. She said the European Union was willing to do more but would not act alone.

Merry christmas to all german taxpayers! (because it's going to be them who'll foot the biggest chunk of the bill).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091217/...ate_copenhagen
Flame Of Liberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 09:02 AM   #447
Pastiche
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Enil Angus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty View Post
How come no one is posting this stuff? No one cares? $100 bilion a year, unfrickinbelieveable. What the heck is wrong with them?

The United States, the number two emitter of greenhouse gases behind China, helped the mood by promising to back a $100 billion a year fund for poor nations from 2020.

"If each and everyone does a little bit more than we can do this," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. She said the European Union was willing to do more but would not act alone.

Merry christmas to all german taxpayers! (because it's going to be them who'll foot the biggest chunk of the bill).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091217/...ate_copenhagen
Can't disagree with this at all. What is wrong with people that would help pay for the world's poorest and most expose to climate related environmental damage to help mitigate that damage, adapt, and produce clean energy. What a freaking waste of money. I'll gladly cut that fund so that my taxes are lower which allows me to buy more crap.

And really who cares if its the rich countries that started this problem and emitted ALL of the historical emissions that have gotten us to this point over the past 150 years. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it. Those developing world people should have been more on the ball and been more responsible while we colonized them.
Pastiche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 10:04 AM   #448
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

The united states is hardly a rich country right now in terms of their economy and thier budget. As much as we like to pretend that its play money, $100 billion a year is a signicant chunk of change.

Its great that they're promising this, but I have a funny feeling that its a useless gesture. First and foremost non of that money should be going to China or India or the other so called developing countries with emerging economies that should be able to pay their own tab and get on board with an agreement that doesn't harm developed nations economies for their benefit.

Second of all, until somebody tells me that this money is heavily auditable by someone outside of the UN, my guess is that the $100 billion will be siphoned off by corrupt UN officials and third world tin pot dicators that would rather build castles and buy guns.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 12-18-2009, 01:22 PM   #449
Flame Of Liberty
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, NSfW
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
The united states is hardly a rich country right now in terms of their economy and thier budget. As much as we like to pretend that its play money, $100 billion a year is a signicant chunk of change.

Its great that they're promising this, but I have a funny feeling that its a useless gesture. First and foremost non of that money should be going to China or India or the other so called developing countries with emerging economies that should be able to pay their own tab and get on board with an agreement that doesn't harm developed nations economies for their benefit.

Second of all, until somebody tells me that this money is heavily auditable by someone outside of the UN, my guess is that the $100 billion will be siphoned off by corrupt UN officials and third world tin pot dicators that would rather build castles and buy guns.
I agree. But wait for Bagor and pastiche to tell you that you are a terrible person.

It's a farce. These "poor countries" demanding money (so called G77) to pay for enviro damage and produce clean energy are led by...you guessed it - Sudan! Forget Darfur, we're on the green energy bandwagon!

Mohamad is Sudan's ambassador at the United Nations and is also chairman of the G77 and China bloc of developing countries. The topic was the U.N. climate conference scheduled to start December 7 in Copenhagen. The Group of 77 and China bloc has played a leading role in shaping the framework for future treaty negotiations that is to be adopted at the UN conference.

Yet, the group has as its spokesman an official from one of the world's most blood-soaked regimes. Mohamad's boss, President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, was indicted by the International Criminal Court on March 4 for war crimes (two counts) and crimes against humanity (five counts).

Sackur, however, pressed on, saying, "Sudan has a fundamental problem. It wants to be a player ... but the international community sees a country led by an indicted, suspected war criminal." Mohamad rejected the characterization of Sudan being isolated. He argued that the unanimous election of Sudan to lead the G77 and China group after the al-Bashir indictment was evidence that the international community has "confidence" in the Khartoum regime. And he may well be right, given the U.N.'s actual record (as opposed to its rhetoric) on violence in the third world and the standing it accords dictators and warlords.



You bet the money is going to chinese pockets:

The Chinese connection to the G77 bloc also plays a role. China is the largest investor in the Sudan. The state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. owns 40 percent, the largest share, in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company.

In exchange for oil, Beijing provides weapons and diplomatic support. China has supplied Sudan with tanks, artillery, helicopters, and fighter aircraft. China has flooded Darfur with antipersonnel mines. It is estimated that as much as 80 percent of Sudan's oil revenue goes to the purchase of arms, while the general population remains one of the poorest in the world.

It is now Sudan's turn to provide diplomatic support to China at the U.N. climate talks. The G77 is pushing the concept of "climate justice" and a "climate debt" owed by the developing world to the developing countries.



and there's more:

Meeting in Beijing on November 29, officials from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Sudan drafted a document with four "non-negotiable" elements for Copenhagen. They will never accept legally binding GHG emissions cuts, mitigation actions that are not paid for by the developed countries, international (foreign) measurement of mitigation actions, and the use of climate change as a trade barrier.

The term "climate justice" is used by the international Left to put a moral spin on this political struggle with the kind of anti-Western flavor that is common at the U.N. and among guilt-ridden liberals in the U.S. and Europe. On November 6, Climate Justice Fast announced that activists around the world were starting a hunger strike to call attention to the failure of the developed countries to impose sufficient limits on themselves.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...s_climate.html
Flame Of Liberty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flame Of Liberty For This Useful Post:
Old 12-18-2009, 02:36 PM   #450
yads
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn View Post
I don't read Russian but, the graphs in this report are temperature graphs:

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Here's the gist of the paper. HadCRUT used stations that covered only about 60% of the total available coverage of Russia. That is to say if you split the country up into 5x5 degree squares and only take all of those squares that have a station in them they only took 60% of the squares. This excluded large sections of northern parts of Russia which purportedly show no temperature trends either way given a small sampling of stations in those regions (see graph 1 & 2).

Some of these 5x5 cells contain more than 1 station and in some cases (as presented in the paper) they picked ones that had less data, but showed a bigger warming trend (see graph 4). They also state that some stations had data excluded that would show less of a warming trend (see graph 5 & 6)

They used a higher percentage of available stations in urban areas vs sparsely populated areas (see table 6)
eg. They used 5/6 available stations of cities with more than 1 million inhabitants vs 60/314 in unpopulated areas. They also seemed to take stations that were in cities even if there was a nearby station that was outside the city, purportedly due to the city one showing a bigger trend. (see graph 7)

The penultimate graph (8) shows HadCRUT used stations (red) vs all stations (blue) and the final graph (9) shows the difference between the 2.
yads is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to yads For This Useful Post:
Old 12-19-2009, 07:56 PM   #451
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Great article, I love how it talks about global dimming something I brought up a year or two ago in one of these debates. Its so rarely talked about and it was demonstrated so well during the grounding of all flights in the USA on 9/11.

Anyhow check it out:

Quote:
n September of 2001, we got our first real glimpse of what happens if we aren’t pumping vast quantities of particulate crap into the air alongside all the carbon dioxide waste. Current climate change forecasts only take into consideration CO2 emissions, which predict a maximum warming of 5 degrees by the end of the century, plenty of time to ‘do something’, everyone can relax, sit back, wait for scientists and politicians to come up with the answers all in the nick of time, don’t worry, be happy. But climate change forecasts haven’t been factoring in global dimming. We don’t have a hundred years to come up with a solution – we’ve got about twenty to apply those brakes before it’s too late. Cooling particle pollution is already dropping off while the CO2 warming pollution is continuing to rise, which means a doubled accelerated warming - reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time. With the dual effect of global warming/global dimming, temperatures could rise twice as fast as previously thought, global warming exceeding two degrees by around 2030, at which point the Greenland ice sheet would melt, causing irreversible damage.

http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mous...-change-idiots
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 12:31 AM   #452
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

In the not to distant future the cooling period we are in will become un-contestable. Then these AGW types will start spouting off that they saved the world. Just like that guy who claimed he invented the internet.
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 06:24 AM   #453
Devils'Advocate
#1 Goaltender
 
Devils'Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
In the not to distant future the cooling period we are in will become un-contestable. Then these AGW types will start spouting off that they saved the world. Just like that guy who claimed he invented the internet.
How about this.... if the global temperature's are lower in 2014 than they are in 2009 then I owe you $1,000. If they are higher in 2014 than they are in 2009 then you owe me $1,000. And we will base this on National Climatic Data Center data which belongs to the U.S. Department of Commerce and it will be for January thru December. You can get their reports here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index....r=2009&month=7

Since you are stating this as fact, you must believe it to be fact, and therefore I ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
Devils'Advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 12:12 PM   #454
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
How about this.... if the global temperature's are lower in 2014 than they are in 2009 then I owe you $1,000. If they are higher in 2014 than they are in 2009 then you owe me $1,000.
Nice idea. I want more immediate gratification though, and how about using Calgary data from here instead?

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec....&Month=1&Day=1

I'll bet the 2010 Yearly Mean Temperature is colder than the 2009 Yearly Mean Temperature as per the data on the link above
(For example, Calgary in 2008 had a mean temp of 4.5 degrees celcius).

$1000 CDN paid by paypal to the winner's email of choice.
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 02:07 PM   #455
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

That'd be an especially bad bet since even the staunchest AGW scientist would never claim that it's a steady upward trend with no variation or that there won't be large variations across the globe with some places becoming colder as weather patterns change.

To propose such a bet seriously either means you are oversimplifying what scientists are saying to the point of absurdity, or you are trying to make an unfair bet.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 02:13 PM   #456
Devils'Advocate
#1 Goaltender
 
Devils'Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

This is GLOBAL climate change, not Calgary climate change. Picking a specific city would be crazy.

And the time period is the whole problem with this debate. Global warming is a trend that varies from year to year but on a whole, generally goes up. So I don't know if it will be up or down next year from this year, but I am willing to bet that it will be up 5 years from now. And I'd put more money on 10 years from now. But this is such a slow acting poison that we won't know who is right until many years from now.
Devils'Advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 11:06 PM   #457
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Next year will be an interesting year of spin regardless of where it is in the recorded temperature record due to the possibility of a strong El Nino.

Scenario 1.

It is in the middle of the top 10 warmest years on record.

Spin: See, even with an El Nino the temperature didn't rise as much as it should have.

Scenario 2 (most likely IMO).

It's one of the top 2 years on record and the conversation goes something like this.

AGW: "2010 was one of the top 2 warmest years on record. Talk to me now about the temperature decline you keep going on about."

Denier: "2010 doesn't count as it was an El Nino year"

AGW: "So was 1998?"

AGW Denier: "What's that got to do with it?"

AGW: "Well your argument was that temperatures have gone down since then and it was an El Nino year, therefore that shouldn't count either."

"playing by your rules and getting rid of 1998 El Nino, leaves us with the last 9 years having been the 9 warmest on records."

AGW Denier: "You can't get rid of 1998, that's fudging the data."

AGW: "Ok, then so .... we can't get rid of 2010 either ..... the warmest/2nd warmest on record."

AGW Denier: "But, but, you can't count 2010 .... that's not fair .......it was an El Nino year."

AGW: "So was 1998"

AGW Denier: "But that's different....."
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2009, 04:13 AM   #458
Flame Of Liberty
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, NSfW
Exp:
Default

Mr. Obama's inexplicable injunction Friday that "the time for talk is over" appears, in other words, to have produced an agreement to continue talking. The previous 12 days of frantic sound and pointless fury showed that there isn't anything approaching an international consensus on carbon control. What Copenhagen offered instead was a lesson in limits for a White House partial to symbolic gestures and routinely disappointed by reality.

However, the successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol became a pre-emptive dead letter because countries like China, Brazil and India said they were unwilling to accept anything that depressed their economic growth.

At Copenhagen the emerging economies nonetheless proved skilled at exploiting the West's carbon guilt, and in exchange for the nonconcession of continuing to negotiate next year, or the year after that, they'll receive up to $100 billion in foreign aid by 2020. The U.S. will presumably contribute the lion's share, though that has also been left to future negotiations. We can't wait to hear Mr. Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...809749004.html

Western world (OECD) is about to slit its economic throat and bleeding heart liberals are standing up and cheering. The Great White Liberal Guilt strikes again.
Flame Of Liberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2009, 07:43 AM   #459
Pastiche
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Enil Angus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Western world (OECD) is about to slit its economic throat and bleeding heart liberals are standing up and cheering. The Great White Liberal Guilt strikes again.
I hate this kind of simplistic thinking. I work as an economist and I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes relatively to a business as usual scenario output wont be as high under a carbon constrained economy in the short and medium term. But the difference is between one and two percentage points in growth each year, it is not disastrous.

Factor in our reliance on natural capital for both wealth and welfare and there are very strong economic arguments to address climage change in a thoughtful and methodical manner. Does that mean stopping all emissions and growth immediately? No. It means making carbon intensive production expensive and engineering an economic restructuring. We have done that before. For example, there were loud arguments against abolishing slavery because of our economic growth. Dealing with climate change is not necessarily a moral issue like slavery, infact it's much more important.

In my mind your type of opinion is blind and dangerous. It's this idea that economic growth trumps all considerations in policy debates. Sure growth is important, but so are our natural life support systems like biodiversity.
Pastiche is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Pastiche For This Useful Post:
Old 12-21-2009, 08:15 AM   #460
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Until any agreement forces China to actually live up to auditable targets, and forces India to live up to auditable target, and redefines developing nations so that China and India two powerhouse economies are not defined as developing, then any agreement is useless.

China lives by the old movie title of "Other Peoples Money" and as much as I love the little birdies and the tree's, there's no damn way that any of the environmental fund should go to those two countries, they need to pay their own costs, and because of their massive overall levels of emissions they need to be bought to a hard heel.

To me the argument of per person emissions in this case is foolish, the cleanup of the environment has to be done based on a per country emissions level.

And don't get me started on China's trade practices, we shouldn't be slitting out throats to please the middle kingdom.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy