“Kyoto is a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nation"

Put it this way our plant needs to meet a requirement of 93%removal of toxic gases in flare systems....we run at 99.8%.....its not hard to exceed the norm....

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

That doesn't mean you know anything about Kyoto. All that may mean is you've seen a few Al Gore speeches and an end of the world piece or two on the National Geographic Channel.

I'll admit that made me laugh.

Let me ask this. At what point would you consider someone knowledgeable? Because in my mind you don't have to be a climatologist to form an educated opinion about global warming. Maybe you have a problem with liberals speaking out because you don't agree with it.

Songburst wrote:

But you should know something about Kyoto before using it as a point in an argument. The localized emission permit markets around the US are far more effective in controlling emissions than Kyoto ever could be. Kyoto's targets were stupid. They don't take into into account the vast changes in level of production (especially in Russia) and the fact that Europe starting curbing emissions in the early 90s. And now people look at Europe and say that the targets are easily met. Harper's comments were stupid, but Kyoto is a waste of time and money and at least he realizes this. Now the Liberals are going to jump all over him with their uninformed rhetoric. How many years did they have in power to address climate control? Not enough I guess.

explain to me how setting targets is a bad thing?? ... as for the liberals - (not that i think they did enuf) but their plan was always not gonna show results until 2008 ... it was said all along ... now, compare that to the clean air act the conservatives rolled out this past summer ... that was an insult to every canadian out there ...

smoke and mirrors ... that is all the conservatives are ... they lack neither the will or ability to lead this country ...

*****
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/177620

OTTAWA – Environment Minister John Baird says he'll act to curb industrial pollution that contributes to climate change, but he won't set a national target for cutting greenhouse emissions.

Speaking from Paris following the release of a massive report which says evidence of climate change is unequivocal, Baird promised to regulate industry which accounts for about half of Canada's emissions.

He says this will be done using intensity targets which require companies to produce fewer emissions per unit of output – but could still allow total emissions to increase.

Baird rejected the notion of green taxes to promote more careful use of energy by individuals and small businesses which account for the other half of Canada's emissions.

He said the government is working with opposition parties to strengthen the proposed clean air act, but he will not wait for passage of the act to regulate industry.

Harper is a neo-con and a shame to Canada.

Let's hang 'em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah, I'm kidding, let's just bannish him.

polaris wrote:

kyoto was a framework for setting targets ... all of the components of tradings and caps are really not that relevant ... the targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas) ...

"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.

Commy wrote:

I think the EU was created to protect their soveriegnty, in response to the superpower with a near monopoly on violence that has been ruling since WWII.

Sort of Orwellian newspeak to subjegate ones self in order to gain sovereignty.

I understand the economic advantage created by pooling resources, but I hope none of them actually thought they were protecting sovereignty. That would be assbackwards thinking.

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:

IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[3][4]
Correlation does not imply causation, so just because temperatures have risen overall since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution doesn't necessarily mean that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature.[5]
The period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.[6]
Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [7] [8]
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [citation needed]
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [9] changes in sea temperature [10] and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth. [11]
Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%. [12]
Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).[13][14]
Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however, on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, and which indicated an above-average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.[citation needed]
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. [15]
The suggestion that climatic changes equal or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other planets within this solar system. these include Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton, which one of Neptune's moons. [16]
Proponents of global warming are suspiciously averse to the implementation and proliferation of nuclear power, which would solve many of the environmental concerns raised. This calls into question the veracity of their concern for Global Warming, and raises the possibility of political gains or "rent-seeking" being the true motive for such legislation.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.

Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:

Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [17].