The sky is falling......bullcrap !

Jason P

HeidiJam wrote:

What is that article? an opinionated pseudo-science piece. You keep talking about the scientific process and nothing in that article expressed that... From my link that I doubt you read.
"Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!"


Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

And you sitting at your computer on a PJ forum are going to tell me there is a concensus when this guy quotes this??? Please shut up about your concensus and learn to do research yourself. You claim concensus and you posted one link to a site with no scientific data.
You should probably read through the link I posted as ther are other atmospheric physicists coming to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons for climate change and mans effect is negligible.

Political squabbling aside, do you believe that the earth is experiencing a warming period in the last 100 years?

I believe that the Republicans and Democrats have turned global warming into a turf battle, thus it is almost impossible to believe claims without questioning the motives and political beliefs of the author. The one thing I do know is that glaciers are residing and the polar caps are shrinking. The thing I don't know is the root cause behind it.

Nonetheless, pollution is bad. I think the US is not the root cause when you have countries like China which have almost no regulation as well as rain forests being burned off at an alarming rate. I feel that if the EPA increases regulation it will actually cause more greenhouse gases because companies will move their operations to China and other countries that don't have tough regulations rather then make costly upgrades to North American plants.

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

What is that article? an opinionated pseudo-science piece. You keep talking about the scientific process and nothing in that article expressed that... From my link that I doubt you read.
"Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!"


Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

And you sitting at your computer on a PJ forum are going to tell me there is a concensus when this guy quotes this??? Please shut up about your concensus and learn to do research yourself. You claim concensus and you posted one link to a site with no scientific data.
You should probably read through the link I posted as ther are other atmospheric physicists coming to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons for climate change and mans effect is negligible.

haha

you post a one page link that has no tie ins to any organization and then you gripe about the link that i sent that basically answers all your questions relating to water vapour ... AGAIN, the guy you keep using as a reference is a strong proponent of anthropogenic climate change ... if your "scientific" rebuttal is based on a guy who doesn't support your stance - what kind of legs are you standing on?

it's like me quoting something bin laden said decades ago and saying al qaeda loves america ... you do realize you keep quoting him from 1996 - 15 years ago ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey of earth scientists published by the University of Illinois with 3146 respondents, 97% of the 77 actively publishing climate scientists included in the survey, and 82% of all respondents, agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

However, according to a 2009 World Bank report titled Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll, there is high unawareness of the achieved consensus.[6] In addition, some[who?] deny there is a scientific consensus,[7] dismiss it altogether,[8] and/or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they claim to be 'unsettled' science.[9][10][11] Others maintain that US government scientists have been stifled or driven underground.[12]


97% of the 77 actively publishing climate scientists. ...

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

I was right, you did not know what the Design of Experienment is. Look it up. and I was not refering to what the link said about DOE.

but i'm guessing the irony is lost on you ...

feel free to tell me how your DOE is relevant in the matter ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

haha

you post a one page link that has no tie ins to any organization and then you gripe about the link that i sent that basically answers all your questions relating to water vapour ... AGAIN, the guy you keep using as a reference is a strong proponent of anthropogenic climate change ... if your "scientific" rebuttal is based on a guy who doesn't support your stance - what kind of legs are you standing on?

it's like me quoting something bin laden said decades ago and saying al qaeda loves america ... you do realize you keep quoting him from 1996 - 15 years ago ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey of earth scientists published by the University of Illinois with 3146 respondents, 97% of the 77 actively publishing climate scientists included in the survey, and 82% of all respondents, agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

However, according to a 2009 World Bank report titled Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll, there is high unawareness of the achieved consensus.[6] In addition, some[who?] deny there is a scientific consensus,[7] dismiss it altogether,[8] and/or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they claim to be 'unsettled' science.[9][10][11] Others maintain that US government scientists have been stifled or driven underground.[12]


97% of the 77 actively publishing climate scientists. ...

Wikipedia is not a scientific study of climate change or peer reviewed. If there is a concensus you should have no problem linking me to a peer reviewed man made concensus.

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

Wikipedia is not a scientific study of climate change or peer reviewed. If there is a concensus you should have no problem linking me to a peer reviewed man made concensus.

uhhh ... wikipedia is defnitely not a scientific source but the editors post references ... is it really that hard to click on them when you read it to see the source? ...

again - find me ONE ... just one peer reviewed scientific piece that shows global warming is not caused by man ...

feel free to read any of the reports on here ... http://ipcc.ch/ ... this is where all the leading climate scientists are doing their work ...

it really doesn't have to be this hard ... it's quite simple ... forget what you think you know, what your sources tell you and think for yourself ... it's called critical thinking ... stop reading based on your biases ...

you clearly believe in the greenhouse effect otherwise you wouldn't be posting stuff on water vapour ... now, read up on what increases in CO2 will do to the greenhouse effect ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

I was right, you did not know what the Design of Experienment is. Look it up. and I was not refering to what the link said about DOE.

but i'm guessing the irony is lost on you ...

feel free to tell me how your DOE is relevant in the matter ...

Here is the definition - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CBsQkAE

Its pretty much the way the scientific community is able to come to conclusion to climate....
You should probably know how they get their conclusion before you start screaming CONCENSUS!

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

Here is the definition - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CBsQkAE

Its pretty much the way the scientific community is able to come to conclusion to climate....
You should probably know how they get their conclusion before you start screaming CONCENSUS!

sooo ...

approach 1: leaked emails - Fail
appraoch 2: water vapour - Fail
approach 3: quote a guy who actually believes in global warming - Fail
approach 4: say the process by which these scientists have reached their consensus is flawed - i really don't think you want to go this route but seeing as the other approaches haven't worked, i can see why you would

may i suggest approach 5: educate

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

sooo ...

approach 1: leaked emails - Fail - How is it fail, is it true or false ?
appraoch 2: water vapour - Fail - Again how is it fail, Water Vapour makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, again your reading comprehension fails.
approach 3: quote a guy who actually believes in global warming - Fail - I never said i disagree with global warming, wow are you an idiot. I said there is no concensus in the scientific community on what mans effect is.approach 4: say the process by which these scientists have reached their consensus is flawed - i really don't think you want to go this route but seeing as the other approaches haven't worked, i can see why you would - Again you are to stupid to comprehend sentences so i will break it down for you. I am mearly point out the process in which they come to their concensus and you had no idea what it was.

may i suggest approach 5: educate

May i suggest you take the liberal cock out of your mouth and do some actual unbiased research and you will see that the debat on what mans effect on global warming / climate change is very well NOT CONCENSUS.
You - link wikepdeia / biased non scientific site.
Me - Scientific data showing that water vapor is not being calculate in results of greenhouse gases. Thus a concensus can not be reached on what mans actual effect.
Mixing science with politics shold make everybody skeptical consider this could make one group a considerable amount of money.

polaris_x

HeidiJam wrote:

May i suggest you take the liberal cock out of your mouth and do some actual unbiased research and you will see that the debat on what mans effect on global warming / climate change is very well NOT CONCENSUS.
You - link wikepdeia / biased non scientific site.
Me - Scientific data showing that water vapor is not being calculate in results of greenhouse gases. Thus a concensus can not be reached on what mans actual effect.
Mixing science with politics shold make everybody skeptical consider this could make one group a considerable amount of money.

hahaha ... i just want to say that saying cock is good enuf ... adding liberal to it really doesn't add much to it ...

seriously tho ... i've got a bachelor of environmental studies and i've spent two work terms working with climate change research facilities ... i understand this topic better than most ...

the fact that you still are unable to comprehend that wikipedia provides references (that you could easily look at yourself) shows me that you really have no interest in debating this ... your scientific link on water vapour has been addressed ... what is your rebuttal to it? ... i am pretty sure you don't have any because you don't really know what it's talking about ... you can copy and paste all the one-page links you like but all its showing is that you don't understand the fundamentals ... seriously, educate yourself on the basic principles ...

here is a link to a letter written by 18 scientific organizations ... http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ ... t-from.pdf

i will agree with you, as i said very early in this thread, that you shouldn't mix politics with science ... maybe consider taking your own advice ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

May i suggest you take the liberal cock out of your mouth and do some actual unbiased research and you will see that the debat on what mans effect on global warming / climate change is very well NOT CONCENSUS.
You - link wikepdeia / biased non scientific site.
Me - Scientific data showing that water vapor is not being calculate in results of greenhouse gases. Thus a concensus can not be reached on what mans actual effect.
Mixing science with politics shold make everybody skeptical consider this could make one group a considerable amount of money.

hahaha ... i just want to say that saying cock is good enuf ... adding liberal to it really doesn't add much to it ...

seriously tho ... i've got a bachelor of environmental studies and i've spent two work terms working with climate change research facilities ... i understand this topic better than most ...

the fact that you still are unable to comprehend that wikipedia provides references (that you could easily look at yourself) shows me that you really have no interest in debating this ... your scientific link on water vapour has been addressed ... what is your rebuttal to it? ... i am pretty sure you don't have any because you don't really know what it's talking about ... you can copy and paste all the one-page links you like but all its showing is that you don't understand the fundamentals ... seriously, educate yourself on the basic principles ...

here is a link to a letter written by 18 scientific organizations ... http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ ... t-from.pdf

i will agree with you, as i said very early in this thread, that you shouldn't mix politics with science ... maybe consider taking your own advice ...

Maybe you should use some of your expertise and lobby for Toronto to get a landfill of it's own instead of dumping your trash every where else.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ ... ntoNewHome

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/to ... n-landfill

http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/E ... story.html

or to only want to push your views to the ten club community?

If your that concerned, maybe you should get off the grid completely, walk everywhere, grow all your own food, buy nothing that is wrapped in sort of plastic etc., and the list could go on, you might want to add no more pearl jam shows, because pearl jam is leaving some sort of carbon footprint when on tour. But hay maybe you already do this, I don't know.

http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Can ... story.html

You can post all the science you want, bottom line, I'm not as convinced as you are that man is root cause of climate change.

There are always going to be skeptics, why is that so hard for people to accept?

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Maybe you should use some of your expertise and lobby for Toronto to get a landfill of it's own instead of dumping your trash every where else.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ ... ntoNewHome

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/to ... n-landfill

http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/E ... story.html

or to only want to push your views to the ten club community?

If your that concerned, maybe you should get off the grid completely, walk everywhere, grow all your own food, buy nothing that is wrapped in sort of plastic etc., and the list could go on, you might want to add no more pearl jam shows, because pearl jam is leaving some sort of carbon footprint when on tour. But hay maybe you already do this, I don't know.

http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Can ... story.html

You can post all the science you want, bottom line, I'm not as convinced as you are that man is root cause of climate change.

There are always going to be skeptics, why is that so hard for people to accept?

right ... so, basically, your saying that despite overwhelming evidence - i will choose to ignore it and i should bugger off ... which is fair ...

i always like it when someone resorts to basically going the "hypocrite" route when in a discussion ... i can't really talk to your points about global warming so i'm gonna point out how awful you are ... it's like someone saying torturing animals is bad and having someone point out they have leather shoes ...

i could be the earth's biggest polluter and contributer to global warming but it still doesn't change the fact that it is real and that it is caused by man ... sure, i would lose some credibilty in the eyes of many such as yourself but the reality is that the facts don't change ...

it's ok to be a skeptic ... as long as your opinion is based on all the information ... i don't know anyone who's read the basic principles of global warming who is a skeptic ... it's usually people who don't know the science and listen to right wing media outlets ...

lukin2006

Of course you never answered the question!!!! Right? What are you personally doing about Toronto dumping its trash every where else, but in a land fill in Toronto, are off the grid completely? Do you walk everywhere? Do attend concerts, sporting events, shop, buy things.

haffajappa

Shawshank wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

Nah, saying its a scam just means we can all feel less guilty about idling our big fuck off ford f150s and drink bottled water every day.

That's about as fucking ignorant as saying all white people are trailer trash redneck racists, or all black people are violent hoodlums. It goes without question that certain elements of the climate change argument have been skewed to help push the agenda. You only have to look at some of the headlines last year, the emails, Al Gore, etc. Do a little research into carbon credits, and tell me there aren't huge profits just waiting to be had there.

Just because people don't lock onto something as gospel, when there has not been anywhere near enough consistent long-range data to prove it one way or the other, does not mean those people sit around and just shit all over the Earth. I love how a few people on here who slob all over this topic, try to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are somehow doing more to protect the Earth than those uncivilized heathens who aren't completely sold. I can't think of one person within the community where I live that subscribes to the belief that man is causing the climate to change. However, I bet you ANY amount of money, that these people, along with myself probably do more to conserve, protect and renew our part of the planet than everyone else on this board combined. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying we aren't sitting around in idling trucks drinking bottled water, so it's not smart to make such generalizations. My belief is simple, we should be stewards of this planet for the short time we are here, and I believe it is our responsibility to leave this place better than it was when we got here. That goes for everyone, whether you believe in the climate change business or not.

Well you can substitute any other stupid reckless activity in my sentence but its not as ignorant as stereotyping an entire race or nationality... My oh my, as if to say, me pointing out that throwing garbage in the ocean is just as bad as me saying all Asian people are slanty-eyed laundromat owners who can't speak "engrish" :roll:

What exactly, or WHO exactly was i stereotyping when i said that?
Ugh... Just let me dumb it down for everyone then so it doesn't get misconstrued:

Arguing about climate change and choosing not to believe in it gives people the cop out to not take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions.
To be honest, I hate the entire debate.

As if there aren't enough visible signs of us fucking up the planet, we have to argue only ONE FACET of it.
You know, you may not believe that we're changing the climate, but you can at least recognize that we're polluting the planet... That alone should make people account for what they do a little more.
But no, we'd rather bicker over which scientists work for who and completely ignore every other problem today.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Of course you never answered the question!!!! Right? What are you personally doing about Toronto dumping its trash every where else, but in a land fill in Toronto, are off the grid completely? Do you walk everywhere? Do attend concerts, sporting events, shop, buy things.

uhhh ... i answered the question by saying - what does it matter? ... how is it relevant what i do or don't do ... like i said - i could be the worst polluter in the entire universe and it doesn't change the message ... your question is rooted in your inability to actually discuss the issue so you resort to this line of tactics that is pretty sad ...

as for toronto - i know you are like a lot of other people who like to hate on this city even tho you've never lived here ... which is fine ... i get it everywhere i go ... all i know is i don't show up in windsor and trash the place ... but feel free to do so yourself ... in any case, yes - we produce a lot of garbage ... but there are also 6+ million people here in the GTA ... if you look at our diversion rates (stuff going to recycling or compost) - i'm sure it's one of the highest in the world for a city this size ... our population density obviously puts a strain on the environment but on a per capita basis - i'm willing to bet we use significant less resources than people in windsor ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Of course you never answered the question!!!! Right? What are you personally doing about Toronto dumping its trash every where else, but in a land fill in Toronto, are off the grid completely? Do you walk everywhere? Do attend concerts, sporting events, shop, buy things.

uhhh ... i answered the question by saying - what does it matter? ... how is it relevant what i do or don't do ... like i said - i could be the worst polluter in the entire universe and it doesn't change the message ... your question is rooted in your inability to actually discuss the issue so you resort to this line of tactics that is pretty sad ...

as for toronto - i know you are like a lot of other people who like to hate on this city even tho you've never lived here ... which is fine ... i get it everywhere i go ... all i know is i don't show up in windsor and trash the place ... but feel free to do so yourself ... in any case, yes - we produce a lot of garbage ... but there are also 6+ million people here in the GTA ... if you look at our diversion rates (stuff going to recycling or compost) - i'm sure it's one of the highest in the world for a city this size ... our population density obviously puts a strain on the environment but on a per capita basis - i'm willing to bet we use significant less resources than people in windsor ...

You haven't answered the question! Talk is cheap! Are you sure you use less resources that Windsor, most people can afford to live anywher they choose in Windsor/Essex.

Like I said, I will only what you say with a grain of salt anyways. For last few years you've been dumping your trash in Michigan, now your dumping your trash in London and our landfill here in Essex. Why don't your city get a landfill with in its own city limits? Or at least in the same county? If you buy the land does it mean less condo buildings? Personally, if we were shipping our garbage I would been on the phone to my mayor.

eyedclaar

lukin2006 wrote:

You haven't answered the question! Talk is cheap! Are you sure you use less resources that Windsor, most people can afford to live anywher they choose in Windsor/Essex.

Like I said, I will only what you say with a grain of salt anyways. For last few years you've been dumping your trash in Michigan, now your dumping your trash in London and our landfill here in Essex. Why don't your city get a landfill with in its own city limits? Or at least in the same county? If you buy the land does it mean less condo buildings? Personally, if we were shipping our garbage I would been on the phone to my mayor.

Polaris is the guy deciding what Toronto does with all its trash? The things you learn here on the AMT. Geez Polaris, I used to like and respect you. For shame, buddy, for shame.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

You haven't answered the question! Talk is cheap! Are you sure you use less resources that Windsor, most people can afford to live anywher they choose in Windsor/Essex.

Like I said, I will only what you say with a grain of salt anyways. For last few years you've been dumping your trash in Michigan, now your dumping your trash in London and our landfill here in Essex. Why don't your city get a landfill with in its own city limits? Or at least in the same county? If you buy the land does it mean less condo buildings? Personally, if we were shipping our garbage I would been on the phone to my mayor.

and you haven't once talked about the science ... this is a thread about global warming and whether man is responsible and you've turned it into a petty discussion about how green i am or am not ... the only reason i don't answer is because your question does not dignify a response ... i will gladly state that i am the worst polluter in the world if it will make you feel good about yourself ... now, tell me how this is relevant to whether man is responsible for global warming ...

as for resources - on a per capita basis ... i don't have current stats but i know in 2001 we were pretty much the same as Windsor on ecological footprint and since then we've gone from sub 30% diversion rates to 67% in 2008 ... yeah, we ship our garbage to landfills - i wish we could do better but if those municipalities didn't want our garbage, they don't have to take it ... but again - you could slag toronto all you like if it makes you feel good cuz clearly it does ... it still doesn't change the message ...

polaris_x

eyedclaar wrote:

Polaris is the guy deciding what Toronto does with all its trash? The things you learn here on the AMT. Geez Polaris, I used to like and respect you. For shame, buddy, for shame.

haha ... it's cool - people love to slag toronto ... also, gotta love when people don't have anything to say about the topic and resort to trying to attack you personally ... i always take that as a positive sign ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

You haven't answered the question! Talk is cheap! Are you sure you use less resources that Windsor, most people can afford to live anywher they choose in Windsor/Essex.

Like I said, I will only what you say with a grain of salt anyways. For last few years you've been dumping your trash in Michigan, now your dumping your trash in London and our landfill here in Essex. Why don't your city get a landfill with in its own city limits? Or at least in the same county? If you buy the land does it mean less condo buildings? Personally, if we were shipping our garbage I would been on the phone to my mayor.

and you haven't once talked about the science ... this is a thread about global warming and whether man is responsible and you've turned it into a petty discussion about how green i am or am not ... the only reason i don't answer is because your question does not dignify a response ... i will gladly state that i am the worst polluter in the world if it will make you feel good about yourself ... now, tell me how this is relevant to whether man is responsible for global warming ...

as for resources - on a per capita basis ... i don't have current stats but i know in 2001 we were pretty much the same as Windsor on ecological footprint and since then we've gone from sub 30% diversion rates to 67% in 2008 ... yeah, we ship our garbage to landfills - i wish we could do better but if those municipalities didn't want our garbage, they don't have to take it ... but again - you could slag toronto all you like if it makes you feel good cuz clearly it does ... it still doesn't change the message ...

I'll gladly admit I don't trust scientist, nor do I believe scientist. My reasons for that are simple they have turned climate change into a financial windfall, just like scientist/researchers have in the fields of diseases research. The makers of green energy are being heavily subsidized, if these were such good ideas why do they need government subsidies/tax breaks. And I'll state again I'm totally opposed to subsidies or tax breaks for anyone.

As for relevance, I am assuming trash and where it goes and what happens to it is part of the problem that you want solved! Right?

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I'll gladly admit I don't trust scientist, nor do I believe scientist. My reasons for that are simple they have turned climate change into a financial windfall, just like scientist/researchers have in the fields of diseases research. The makers of green energy are being heavily subsidized, if these were such good ideas why do they need government subsidies/tax breaks. And I'll state again I'm totally opposed to subsidies or tax breaks for anyone.

As for relevance, I am assuming trash and where it goes and what happens to it is part of the problem that you want solved! Right?

ok ... well ... then there really isn't anything to discuss if you don't trust scientists ... because science is the foundation of this particular subject ...

soo ... do you believe in cancer? ... obesity? ... diabetes? ... these are all things that someone somewhere has exploited for financial windfall ... unless you want to live in an ultra-socialist regime where everyone works for the state - this is the notion of free market capitalism ... you need to eat - someone sells you food ... that's the way it works ...

the subsidies for alternatives is not even a drop in the bucket that oil and nuclear get ... the reality is that if we took away all subsidies for everyone - we would be only using renewables and that's not even factoring the environment ... whatever subsidies the renewable energy market is getting now is because of a) to create jobs in a sector that is becoming more relevant and b) to help us not use a non-renewable resource that pollutes and causes impacts to our health and the subsequent burden of our health care system ... it is the reason why we tax cigarettes so much ...

yeah - i would like less trash going to landfill everywhere regardless of where one lives ... i will gladly admit our green bin and recycling program have its issues but at least it's a step in the right direction ... yes, we produce too much garbage in toronto but not anymore than anywhere else per person and we are trying to make it less and less ... one of the ways was the plastic bag tax which you didn't like either ...