NEW VIDEO ON LINE SHOWS THE IDEAL CPC KYOTO MESSAGE

[free_life2]

I voted yes, but the CPC should really be saying this is junk science and Kyoto is a scam of our money.

I sent those letters also.

[eldeno]

Hey don't steal too much thunder from the CP candidates....this will be a hot button issue in the election and whe expect the liberals to accuse us of hating the environment and wanting people to die....well what a perfect time to drop the bonbshell...after the fools have put their foot in the trap......never go to election handing ammo to your enemy....the liberals are vulnerable on this as well as SSM and Helth care....the only place to get our into out to the people unspun by a hostile press in in direct sound bites in the election.

Just have a little patience and faith

I vote No. The Conservatives should not mention that the science of Kyoto is flawed and ought to be scrapped.

1. As far as the video goes, so-called experts and evidence are always suspect. Especially when their salaries are paid by the oil-rich government of Alberta. Also, those scientists are vastly outnumbered.

2. During the last election opposition to Kyoto was put beside social conservative policies and plainly anti-environmental tax cuts. The reasons have to do with two major underlying assumptions about environmentalism. The first is whether or not there is an environmental crisis. Some social conservatives do not believe that there is any sort of environmental crisis and that people are not dependant on the environment. On the televised debate, when Paul Martin said to Stephen Harper, "you don't even believe in the science," he was reminding Canadians of this. Opposition to Kyoto makes the Conservatives look like religious nutbars that interpret political policy from the bible and refuse to look towards the future.

There are indeed problems with Kyoto, including the corruptability of the international approach, the ommision of population control elements, or giving equal treatment to small european countries that have already outsourced slavery and pollution to developing countries as compared to more diverse economies such as the US. However, the Conservative policy appears as a pre-modern do-nothing strategy based on religious beliefs.

The other assumption is whether the market, through ethical choices by consumers, can prevent environmental degradation and substitute for government action. However, consumers will only choose environmentally friendly products if they are cheaper.

3. Opposition to Kyoto sounds too much like the policy of an opposition party - really just a lack of a policy with a vague substitute. I agree that Kyoto is a total and complete red herring, or even just lip service to a red herring, that the Liberals in fact will not do anything about it. But Kyoto is symbolic for all environmental policy.

Even the Conservative's emphasis on a 'clean' environment as opposed to 'sustainability' is a loser. Tax cuts for public transit use is proactive. Conservatives should talk about that.

[Tina]

woah - lots of mistakes in the previous post:

1 - "so-called experts"

Tina: These are among the top independent experts in the country, and in some cases such as Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas (of Harvard), the world. Why do you doubt their expertise?

2 - "and evidence are always suspect."

Tina: Please specify what you consider suspect among the things they say.

3 - "Especially when their salaries are paid by the oil-rich government of Alberta."

Tina: Completely wrong. Show me even one of these that appear in the video or the dozens that are listed on http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm that have their salaries paid by the government of Alberta, please.

4 - "Also, those scientists are vastly outnumbered."

Tina: Again, completely wrong if you are speaking about the only scientists that count in this debate, namely those who research the causes of climate change. What ex-biologists like David Suzuki think is immaterial.

Although real science (i.e. not the kind practiced by the UN or the Government of Canada) is never decided by a show of hands, the numbers speak for themselves - consider: See the Heidelberg Appeal at http://www.sepp.org/heidelberg_appeal.html where 3,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, have now signed the appeal. They warn of the "irrational ideology" driving global-warming science. See also the anti-Kyoto Leipzig Declaration (at http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html , which has attracted the signatures of 1,500 scientists (see http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html ).
Finally Dr. Robinson's OISM petition whose almost 20,000 (and growing) scientific and technical signatories have endorsed the statement, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." - see http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
I could go on to critique the rest of your posting but with so many mistakes in the very beginning, I'm sorry but I wonder if it is worthwhile.

[Shamus11]

Kyoto Protocol Implemented

By

James Bredin


Kyoto implemented by Ottawa Decree?
National Energy Program – you can’t disagree,
Intervention again in provincial jurisdiction,
Could face an almighty Alberta contradiction.

High and mighty Ottawa proclaims they know it all,
Plus their special interest cult of Kyoto Protocol,
Support from friends down at the United Nations,
But the US will circumvent these complications.

Six percent below nineteen ninety level,
Numbers mixed in the sky, elusive as the devil,
Complex emission permits exchanged here and there,
No referendum ever so we are unaware.

Dreamed up by Chretien like adscam and Clarity law,
And you are forbidden or mention there could be a flaw,
As we are marched blindly onward by their concerns,
Disciplined with income tax to the eyes returns.

Managed by mixed messages and lack of direction,
Where no one is allowed to mention… rejection,
Environmentalists claim it’s for security,
Nothing to do with their cult of obscurity.

Friday, December 9, 2005

[WatchX4]

I received a call from the CPC last night asking if I would vote for them in an upcoming election. I said it would depend on their stance on Kyoto.

What did the caller say?

[bulldog905]

Even the Conservative's emphasis on a 'clean' environment as opposed to 'sustainability' is a loser. Tax cuts for public transit use is proactive. Conservatives should talk about that.

Though well meaning, Harper's call for tax credits for public transit users, is useless.

When the federal government subsidizes the local transit passes for users, you know the local transit authorities are just going to raise the fares accordingly.

The same for "rent subsidies". Any landlord renting outing low-rental properties will take those into account and jerk up the price.

[PlaidShirt]

This is crazy!

Kyoto is dead! dead! dead!

Harper doesn't need to kill it, cancel it, opt out or even mention it.

Kyoto = Santa Claus

Never existed, never will.

I don't care what Stephen Harper thinks about Santa Claus.

Global warming will either happen or it won't. We will live with the consequences. Adapt if need be.

Unless India and China decide to condemn hundreds of millions of people to poverty and starvation by stopping economic growth in their countries, Kyoto will remain pure fiction.

[Tina]

We now know what we don't know about climate change

The Ottawa Citizen
Monday, December 12, 2005
Page: A17
Section: News
Page Name: Arguments
Byline: Professor Tad Murty
Source: Citizen Special

Over the last 15 years more than $40 billion has been spent worldwide on climate change research, yet the role of humans in the past century's modest warming remains controversial. In fact, the mysteries of climate change have deepened, if anything.

How can the science behind global warming still be so unsettled? The scientific question is deceptively simple. Do rising levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) explain global warming, or is it a natural phenomenon?

To read newspapers or listen to TV and radio, you would think it was all very straightforward -- CO2 levels have risen and so has the global temperature. But this simple story is clearly false.

While it is true that atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily for the last 100 years or so, temperature has not. In fact, as best we can determine, global temperatures fell during the middle half of the last century, while CO2 climbed steadily. Even worse, some parts of the Earth have cooled over the entire last century. So the simple theory -- CO2 up, temperature up -- is unsubstantiated.

The necessary correlation is not there. Other factors must be involved, and it is the search for these causes that has turned climate-change science into a $40-billion puzzle. As always in unsettled science, there are many theories, with much controversy.

Those who believe that humans are causing significant global warming argue that volcanoes may have masked the warming during the 20th-century's cooling period, while natural regional variability explains local cooling.

Those who disagree argue that natural variability has caused both the warming and the cooling. They say the Earth was warm several hundred years ago, then generally cooled for several centuries until around 1850, then started warming again, not smoothly, mind you, but in fits and starts. Variability in the sun's energy is often cited as the cause, and there are some very good correlations to back this up.

Changes in ocean circulation is another prominent theory. But nothing is settled and each new study pulls in another direction.

However, there is one thing we know for certain as a result of all this research, and that is that climate is never constant. We also know that it is extremely complicated, far more so than we imagined just 15 years ago. It is this natural variability and complexity that has made it so difficult to figure out what role humans play, if any.

What started out as a simple question has turned into one of the biggest scientific puzzles of all time. While this is frustrating to people who want easy answers, it is great science.

Adding to the confusion are the computer models. These are basically enormous computer games, called simulations. Each game, and there are many, starts with a version of the Earth's climate system. This may include the atmosphere, clouds, oceans, polar ice caps, sun, forests and humans, each represented in myriad different ways.

Each model of climate is like a fortress within which an endless series of scenarios can be played out. Given a basic game, one can try different factors to see what happens. People use these climate games to try to figure out why the temperature has gone up and down, and up again, and what it might do in the future. Extreme scenarios are often used, to try to make the effect of a given factor stand out.

For example, in the last 150 years the CO2 level has increased by about 30 per cent, but modellers look at future increases of 300 per cent or more, 10 times reality.

Unfortunately the results of playing these climate computer games with extreme scenarios are often reported in the media as facts about the Earth and our future climate. The reality is that, as with any computer game, a great deal is possible that is not realistic. This is especially true given that we really do not understand why the climate is behaving as it is. We do not know why the Earth has warmed and cooled, so we cannot predict the future. We do not know which game to believe.

For example, some extreme scenarios have the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melting, flooding the world's coastal cities. Many people believe this is actually happening, based on alarmist headlines.

The reality, determined by extensive measurements, suggests that both ice caps are growing in volume, not shrinking. In a paper titled "Snowfall-driven growth in East Antarctic ice sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise," published in May 2005 in the prestigious journal Science, researchers Davis et al used satellite measurements to show that parts of the East Antarctic ice sheet increased in mass by about 45 billion tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Also not appreciated by the general public is the fact that the South Pole itself is colder now than at any time since record keeping began in the International Geophysical Year, 1957.

It turns out that our planet -- and therefore the science that attempts to describe it -- is immensely more complicated than Kyoto supporters suggest. Forty billion dollars buys a lot of science, and that science is paying off. We now understand the complexity and natural variability of climate in ways that were unimaginable just 10 years ago.

But the price of this understanding is that we now know that we do not know why the Earth is warming. We do not know if humans have anything to do with it, and they may well not. The scientific assumption behind the Kyoto protocol, namely that humans are known to be significantly interfering with an otherwise unchanging climate, is simply false. A new era of climate science lies before us.
_____________________________________________________________
Dr. Tad Murty is a former senior research scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and director of Australia's National Tidal Facility. He is currently an adjunct professor in civil engineering and earth sciences at the University of Ottawa and an editor for the international scientific journal Natural Hazards.

Note: After giving the key note address at the 42nd annual conference of the Indian Geophysical Union (IGU) last week, Professor Murty received the IGU Gold Medal in Oceanography. He may be contacted at smurty@hotmail.com.

[Shamus11]

Money and Saddam’s Oil for Food

By

James Bredin



So UN sanctions meant nothing to Saddam and his gang,
In fact it played straight into their hands with a bang,
They got so rich they couldn’t even count their money,
Under normal circumstances this could be funny.

Representatives of famine, hunger, fear and droughts
Did their fifty two UN members know what this was about?
Amid Saddam’s oil-for-food carefully shredded books,
Is the UN a politically correct cartel of crooks?

Should I apologize or even mention this stuff?
Did most of the media avoid this, curiously enough?
Why was nothing done about this oil-for-food scam?
Is it because nobody really gives a damn?

The greatest rip-off in the history of mankind,
Now all water under the bridge and nothing left behind,
Because they spend years shredding every crooked book,
It doesn’t matter now where the investigators look.

Has the UN gone completely off the tracks?
Where representatives from hell make noise and relax,
Now they’ve got Kyoto which the Americans wont buy,
Nor Australia nor India nor China and no hue and cry.

No country has resigned from the UN in protest,
No one has been charged or even put under arrest,
We’re not allowed to notice, the UN might be rotten,
That smell in the air will just have to be forgotten.

Sunday, January 29, 2006