(Whooee!) Now that the IPCC report has been basically accepted by prominent former CC deniers like GWB and PMSH, the CC denial community must finally accept science and get out of the way of progress.
Anthropogenic climate change deniers have been relegated to the lunatic fringe along with moon-landing deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who claim there were really no dinosaurs.
The lunatic fringe doesn't get a seat at the debate table. When serious discussions are taking place concerning space exploration, nobody cares what the moon-landing deniers say. They're nutjobs and everyone knows it. To allow them into the debate would be laughable.
We know now that man-made climate change is real. Our PM is smart enough and politically savvy enough to distance himself from the deniers.
The moon-landing conspiracy theorists are harmless enough. The CC deniers want us to ignore science at the peril of our grandchildren. They aren't harmless nutbars.
There really is no debate and we need to marginalize big oil's bought-and-paid-for spokeslobby by ignoring their self-serving junk science. When they rear up, they need to be reminded that they now occupy a place with the Flat Earth Society.
We no longer need to debate those who want to fiddle while the earth burns. We can't waste the time it takes to debate them anymore than we can waste time trying to convince skeptics that the US really sent a man to the moon.
James Robert
8 comments:
You're right there is a difference between the nutbars who deny the science of 40 years ago when we landed on the moon, but it's entirely more destructive to us, for them to deny the science that will predict the coming decades.
Whooee! Thankee fer droppin' by, Sasky. James Robert thanks you, too.
I reckon the debate's over an' it's time t' start in on action. If these deniers stand in the way, shove 'em aside. We ain't got time t' entertain their bought'n'paid-fer skepticism.
I been spreadin' the word a little bit today 'bout ignorin' teh ignoramuses. Seems like they don't like bein' classified as lunatic fringe but that's what they are.
JB
I would suggest there are fewer numbers actually denying changes, wouldn't you?
But that more and more, people are realizing that shipping off our money to other countries will not get the job done in Canada.
That will be the hill to climb...to get some sense of reasoned action, right here...and cease with the squawking like so many Henny-Pennys.
But instead of shipping money off to other countries, why aren't we doing anything about it? Its clear what needs to be done. But unfortunately I don't believe it starts with big oil and other big polluters like nova scotia power and coal generating plants. Sure, capping emmissions is one thing (and I think necessary), but we have to take care of the demand for the product. (this won't happen becuase even if Canadians wean themselves, other countries will gladly take the excess).
And for the deniers, CO2 and global warming aside, there are so many OTHER reasons why we should cap emmissions and stop these environmentally unsustainable practices. One of them is we are completely dependent economically and lifestyle-wise on this destructive commodity. They absolutely cannot stop oilsands production becuase it would mean thousands of jobs lost. Also, our suburban lifestyles predict the need for oil. Nothing's being done. Southern Ontario is becoming a suburban wasteland with people commuting four hours a day to work in TOronto. Yet the houses still keep going up further and further away. The measures to wean ourselves off this energy aren't enough right now. I just want to see something being done, instead of arguing over semantics.
Whooee! Pryminister Harper is usin' language that pries Canajuns apart from one another. Wedge stuff.
Harpoon sez --
"I don't think realistically we can tell Canadians 'stop driving your car,' 'stop going to work,' 'turn the heat off in the winter' these are not realistic solutions"
Nobuddy - an' I mean nobuddy -- is suggestin' any o' them things. Harper's usin' what they call the "straw man" debate technique. Assign an untenable argument to your opponent an' then make the easy argument against the imagined position.
A few weeks ago, Harper sed sumpin' like "we can't tell Canajuns t' heat their homes 1/3 less." But, lo an' behold, a few days later, his Minster restarts a version of the home energuide program that's aimed at reducin' the heatin' fuel consumption by 30% -- close to 1/3.
It ain't a case o' shuttin' down the oil sands. It's a case o' extractin' oil from there without so much CO2 emissions. An' the Cons is talkin' 'bout increasin' oil sands output 5x. That's so's we can sell energy t' the Merkans who's 'bout as bad as us when it comes t' per capita pollution.
Nobuddy sez we gotta quit drivin' cars. We do gotta quit drvin' gas-guzzlers an' poison-spewers. Fuel-efficient cars exist. Hybrids exist. Publick transit exists. Carpools exist. We can reduce the amount of fossil fuel it takes t' get from here t' there.
Nobuddy sez we gotta stop workin'. We gotta work harder'n ever at creatin' green-collar jobs. There's lotsa jobs in cleanin' up dirty industries an' buildin' up fledglin' industries.
By couchin' the argument as green stuff versus the Canajun way o' life, Harpoon ain't helpin'.
JB
"It ain't a case o' shuttin' down the oil sands. It's a case o' extractin' oil from there without so much CO2 emissions. An' the Cons is talkin' 'bout increasin' oil sands output 5x. That's so's we can sell energy t' the Merkans who's 'bout as bad as us when it comes t' per capita pollution."
You do realize that the oil sands conference was organized by the Libs right? The issue is any scheme to regulate the oil sands must be done by the provincial govt for several reasons. Firstly, that is where the natural resources rights lie and that is not going to change. Secondly, as we found with federal gas taxes, the tax monies were mismanaged and were not spent on building roads as promised. Thirdly, a federal carbon tax scheme cannot guarantee (at least no party has developed an answer yet) that the taxed money will be spent on reinvesting in the same province that the taxes are pulled from. Failing that, you are asking a region of the country to 'bear the burden' to subsidize green investments in other regions of the country. I personally may agree with that concept but only a small minority will.
The feds need to spur on a green economy however while working with the provinces to reduce emissions. And spare the preaching.
While the resource rights do lie with the controlling province, the fact that Alberta is using [destined for] Saskatchewan water for their product makes it a national concern. Not to mention the NAFTA implications if they start shipping more oil to the USA. And don't forget that we aren't counting the air pollution the oilsands makes, and that's another thing the feds have control over. So the money for the oil goes to Albertans, but it's up to Canada as a whole to decide how much (through regulations that hopefully make Alberta both wealthy AND sustainable). It's pretty obvious (to me anyway) that Alberta is a giant "boomtown" and is destined for the kind of bust that kills all boom towns. They can drag out their boom years, by making the same oil they are pumping out now, worth more. One way of doing that is by controlling/limiting supply, duh. It's not in their best interest to pump out as much oil as they possibly can.
Whooee! I didn't mean t' sound preachy but yer probbly right. I get pissed off when people wanna put my grandkids life in jeopardy.
The CO2 emitted by oil sand extraction has an effect not just on Alberta, but on the entire world. Don't say I don't have any right to talk about it. Any human being has that right -- anywhere.
The Government of Canada supports the oil sands with $1.5 billion of Canadian tax dollars annually. We are all stakeholders.
While the Liberals may have been the first ones to accept the idea that oil sands production should increase 5x, it's the CPoC that's in power now and they seem to be onboard from what Lunn has said.
Liberal, Tory, same old story. NDP, too, sez I.
"..a federal carbon tax scheme cannot guarantee (at least no party has developed an answer yet) that the taxed money will be spent on reinvesting in the same province that the taxes are pulled from. Failing that, you are asking a region of the country to 'bear the burden' to subsidize green investments in other regions of the country."
To my knowledge, nobody has discussed carbon tax in great enough detail to make an endorsement or dismissal of the concept or to say definitively that it will not benefit the oil producing regions. My Canada includes Alberta. My Ontario taxes go to makin' like better fer Canajuns in the 'have-not' provinces. Good, sez I, they need it more'n me.
We gotta quit buildin' firewalls. We're all in this together an' I don't jest mean all Canajuns. I mean all citizens o' Planet Earth.
JB
Post a Comment