Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

No argument in the volcano theories here.  The earth has always maintained the balance.

Where the difference lies, imo, is that man is pumping more into the atmosphere than is 'natural', coupled with the fact that we are removing 'filters'(trees, etc) at a rate that the planet can no longer keep up cleansing itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbon taxes NOT REQUIRED!

"Although it may surprise many people, Canada’s air quality has substantially improved over the past few decades. Our recent study published by the Fraser Institute explains this success story.'

 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/amazingly-data-show-that-canadas-air-is-getting-cleaner-despite-more-cars-industry-and-people

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada as a whole cleans more carbon from the atmosphere than it produces.  That is a Net Negative production rate.  The government should be paying us.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a better idea for my carbon tax, stop selling our milk, lumber, oil to the US. Use the carbon tax to support any displaced workers till we find other markets. 

Push through the kinder Morgan pipeline and forget keystone. Better yet, build refineries in Alberta. 

May be a pipe dream but I've had it with the garbage that comes out of trump's mouth. 

Cheers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what the US is saying about the Paris deal.

"Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said on "The First 100 Days" tonight the United States should exit the Paris climate agreement because it's a "bad business deal" for America.

Pruitt said the U.S. "front-loaded" our costs under the Paris accord, while countries like China, Russia and India can continue to pollute and not take steps that our country already has.

He noted that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are at pre-1994 levels, thanks to innovation and technology.

"What we should be talking about is how we export innovation, how we export technology that we've already deployed here," Pruitt said.

He said that the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and the Paris deal represented a $2.2 trillion reduction in gross domestic product over a ten year period for the U.S., in addition to $292 billion of compliance costs and up to 400,000 lost jobs annually.

"That's a bad business deal for this country," Pruitt said, calling it a prime example of the previous administration's "America last" strategy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shift in focus from the basic science of climate change to its public-policy implications has been a disaster for climate activists, exposing the flabbiness at the core of their position. Softened by years of punching down at their opponents’ worst arguments, they became addicted to asserting that “science says so,” and they are now lost when it doesn’t.

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/447215/climate-change-activists-science-deniers-environmentalism-public-policy?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole UN sponsored religious crusade against anyone who questions the 'scientific' findings is what has destroyed my belief that the UN does anything right. The changing of data to suit the man-made-climate-change argument has shown that someone who calls themself a scientist does not mean absolute obedience to their preachings. The examples of David Suzuki and Al Gore wrapping themselves in the 'environmentalist' banner have not made me join in unquestioning obescience to their dogma.

It is good that more people are questioning the whole man-made-climate-change dogma.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DEFCON said:

How did this thread avoid being relegated to the 'political discussion' bin?

Global warming discussion is not limited to political comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is.... Why would so many climate change deniers happen to concentrate in this forum? Could it be that selfish interests have swayed the thinki- ! No! Good heavens! couldn't be! Pardon me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who denies it?  I sure don't deny that climate is changing.  I just do not subscribe to the flawed logic that WE are the primary cause.  If that is the case why has it happened many times over the millions of years this rock has been around.  There were no people to cause it back then.

Do we have an impact?  yes.  Is it as large as the chicken littles of the world would have us believe? Nope.  Follow the money for your answers 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years it's been basically "Shut up, it's already been decided. How dare you question Us.

I have yet to see a green energy policy that will cut global emissions but they certainly are effective at cutting our incomes, making people and businesses poorer. When you tax people into poverty and force businesses to close their doors, there will come a time when there will be no money to collect."

"Never blindly trust someone who refuses to debate their ideas."

 

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good for Trump, but it means that the earlier promise of a 200 year supply of gas for Americans was a junk number & a promise that was only intended to sell the public on fracking.

Never mind the greedy pricks here in Canada, low cost natural gas products could have been used to give American households cheap energy to heat homes etc. and could have provided American industry with a competitive advantage. Low energy cost saving could also have been used to support higher wages and other 'entitlements', but the plan is, just as it's always been, to feed the global market, charge American consumers world class prices and funnel the profits directly to 'investors'. Like Canada, there will be zero benefit to the American citizen, who on top of paying corruptly high prices, will be left to pay for the damages if and when fracking goes bad environmentally.

It is interesting to note that a number of ME dictatorships employ this practice; fuel is basically free to their citizens.

 

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. "

 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...