[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nonsense. Once you hear the evidence against the claim it can be written off as nothing more than Catastrophist's wishful thinking.

Uhh, no. Back to the kiddie table, son.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Well, that puts the oilsands directly in the target, as we've seen. And all sorts of other industries that would be harmed by forcing large reductions. And, individuals, collectively, are huge emitters and can't just be ignored.

Actually, the oilsands are pretty small emitters. They are just larger than easily extractable oil. So are cars. Small potatoes.

andyt andyt:

The thing is, we want strong action taken against GHGs, while not being willing to make and sacrifices to our lifestyles. Ultimately focusing only on big generators will still cost us all, they can't just absorb the costs and stay in business. I don't think the world is ready for that sort of sacrifice. The developed countries are too smug and comfortable to give that up, the underdeveloped countries could just die trying.

As I say unless we have the tech of energy for nothing (emissions) and soon, I doubt we're going to make it. Lots of sturm und drang signifying nothing on the way tho.

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

Anyone keeping track of how much he's given away so far? He`s given multi millions to Africa, at the G20 he made a deal to give $14 million to Indonesia and is giving United Nations $100 million for Syrian refugee relief, Does anyone have a total of all his giveaways?

Guess we have enough hospitals, and the homeless and aboriginals don`t need any help. How is he going to pay for this?

Liberals will be Liberals, no matter who is in charge. No fiscal responsibility. He's also hardly been here running his country since he was elevated to office. He's been away racking up frequent flier miles like crazy.

He's wasting 2.3 billion on foreign aid, when people here in our own country need it. Homeless on the street, soldiers who stood for Canada with PTSD, an under equipped military that needs two supply ships NOW, as well as new warplanes. Community housing, refuge shelters, etc. There are an increasing number of people on food banks, but Justin flips a few billion, and dines out on nothing but the best that the summits have to offer.

Disgusting.

-J.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

Maybe. I doubt we'll do it on time. And I think you're trying to shift blame a bit, where you want to keep your lifestyle but want "big emitters" to do the heavy lifting. Not just you of course, all of us want to keep going just the way we are, but something done about carbon pollution. And going after the big emitters will impact us in the end anyway, and we'll scream bloody murder about it. Just as we all want low taxes but all the govt programs that benefit us.

I think the odds are at least 50-50 that we won't make it.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

And it would continue to be a problem, even if we weren't here to begin with.

We're throwing money at something that's inevitable, with or without man.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

Maybe. I doubt we'll do it on time. And I think you're trying to shift blame a bit, where you want to keep your lifestyle but want "big emitters" to do the heavy lifting. Not just you of course, all of us want to keep going just the way we are, but something done about carbon pollution. And going after the big emitters will impact us in the end anyway, and we'll scream bloody murder about it. Just as we all want low taxes but all the govt programs that benefit us.

I think the odds are at least 50-50 that we won't make it.

You think wrong. If I thought not racing my little Chevette 4 bangers would save the planet, they I wouldn't waste my money doing it. It actually costs about $3000 per weekend to go out, and that's becoming actually rare since many lakes haven't been freezing over the last few years.

So I'm making changes in other parts of my life, including the heavy emitter of 'agriculture' by growing more of what I eat, taking the bus to work and eating less animal protein.

Just like in my own life, if we can only go after bits of the economy then we should go after the bits that will make the most difference to the problems we want to solve. It worked for acid rain (SO2), why would it not work for CO2 emissions?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And it would continue to be a problem, even if we weren't here to begin with.

We're throwing money at something that's inevitable, with or without man.

Your opinion is still completely wrong, according to the thing we call 'science'.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It worked for acid rain (SO2), why would it not work for CO2 emissions?

Because we had easily fixes at hand and the impact on our economies seems to have been insignificant. I don't think either can be said about GHGs.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It worked for acid rain (SO2), why would it not work for CO2 emissions?

Because we had easily fixes at hand and the impact on our economies seems to have been insignificant. I don't think either can be said about GHGs.

The fixes may not be as easy, but they are available. The only reason we don't use them is we don't have the will to do so.

[andyt]

what I've been saying all thru this discussion. I doubt we'll find the will until it's too late - until then there will always be a reason why the economy has to take precedence, except for little fixes around the edges to look good. We, as in the population, can't handle the truth, and as we see on this site will always point to some other countries that have to go first.

the underdeveloped countries want 100 billion a year to help them turn their economies to green energy. No way the developed countries will pony up that kind of cash. You said yourself the money if often promised but not delivered. And India seems pretty stubborn about having to keep polluting, while China is doing the usual bullshitting about their true emissions. Meanwhile we're still running on "if we stop spending the terrorists win," and can't seem to understand why our spending isn't lifting us out of the economic doldrums. (Hint, wages and maxed out credit.)

[PluggyRug]

Instead of giving away billions to "poor" nations despot leaders bank accounts, why didn't Trudeau invest the money in green energy research in Canada.

After the summit thing will go back to business as usual and Canada will be $2.3 billion poorer.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your opinion is still completely wrong, according to the thing we call 'science'.

Since you like 'science' so much, you should consider all of it, not just the parts that you agree with.

During the last million or so years, our planet has gone though some extreme climate cycles. None of those man-made.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nonsense. Once you hear the evidence against the claim it can be written off as nothing more than Catastrophist's wishful thinking.

Uhh, no. Back to the kiddie table, son.

Uhh, yes. And as usual you have nothing more than a snotty remark to defend yourself with.

It is understandable in this case. Even the "Ship of Fools" media at the Guardian newspaper are back-pedaling on this turkey notion that proposes fossils fuel use caused or even had some connection to the Syrian war.

$1:

In the UK, the Syria connection has been drawn in government-commissioned reports and by leading NGOs, as well as by activists and commentators ranging from Charlotte Church to George Monbiot.

Having spent some time analysing the evidence, we believe there is good reason to doubt the veracity of these claims.

The earliest reports on the subject were not scientific studies but military-led attempts to dramatise the importance of climate change by linking it to security interests. And the recent outpouring of claims about Syria’s civil war is motivated by a similar attempt – in our view misguided – to “securitise” climate change ahead of the Paris summit. While some scientific studies do find that climate change has conflict and security implications, just as many disagree.

This time round, there at least appears to be some scientific support for the climate-conflict thesis: a study by Earth scientists at Columbia University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found: “Climate change is implicated in the current Syrian conflict”. The problem is, this study is deeply flawed.

And that's from the media the gullible Greeniacs, watermelon section of the loony left and the fraudulent regressives I would associate you with generally get all weak at the knees over.

Not even the Guardian is prepared to accept the lunatic proposal of Syrian war/fossil fuels connection

So does the the Guardian also have to sit at the kiddy table? Please say yes. I want to quote you on it in the future.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

No, the next generations will be busy paying even higher taxes for all the money we throw away today.

It will be even worse for them.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your opinion is still completely wrong, according to the thing we call 'science'.

Since you like 'science' so much, you should consider all of it, not just the parts that you agree with.

During the last million or so years, our planet has gone though some extreme climate cycles. None of those man-made.

I consider it all. You might want to take your own advice. The temperature has been hotter, but it's never become so hot so fast in the temperature record.

Temperature would not be a problem if we were not here to make it so bad. It's not inevitable, and it's our fault. None of that is even disputed by science.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We may not be ready for that kind of sacrifice, but it still must be made. We've had inklings that this was going to be a problem for almost 100 years now. Time to pay the piper. If not us, then what the next generation has to do will be that much harder.

No, the next generations will be busy paying even higher taxes for all the money we throw away today.

It will be even worse for them.

Survival is worth it. I'm sure they'd rather pay to clean up the last generation's mistakes, and be around to say 'I told you so'.