Canada has signed onto the Kyoto treaty and are about to commit a mass amount of public funds to combat climate change. Sixty scientist are calling on the Canadian government to revisit the science of global warming.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government"s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today"s global- warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
I do not subscribe to the "global warming theory." I also was not surprised to find that the main stream media has all but ignored these scientists.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
30 Responses to “60 Reasons Why The Kyoto Treaty Should Be Ignored”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
While I agree that Human intervention is causing a negligable effect on global climate patterns, I do think it is important for us to be good stewards of the world. We should be trying to find a balance between our quality of life, and our impact on nature. Unfortunately, I don’t think either side of the debate is rationally considering the issues from the opposing side. The vocal groups place either too high an importance on “environmental” concerns or on quality of life concerns. While those of us who are in the middle seem to be just watching from the sidelines.
duhmoose
I whole heartedly agree. I believe that polluters should be prosecuted (good stewards) etc. I just believe there is an unnecessary hysteria that is being created by a select group of people that is political.
I beleieve that Al Gore and his ilk are pushing unproven junk science theories as fact. Operative word “theories”.
Well said. We here either “the sky is falling” crowd or the “nothing is wrong its all bad science and communists” crowd. Our modern world has tremendous effects on this planet and our long-term survival is dependent on accepting that fact and working together to find meaningful ways to protect the environment.
Squawk and damoose:
I’m with you. Back in the late 80’s and maybe the early 90’s the hew and cry by some scientists was for global cooling. According to some, the polar ice caps were getting thicker and colder. Either these varied scientists do not know what their talking about or they’re trying to create a “cause”. We certianly should be good stewards of our environment but it is fairly arrogant on mere humans part to think/say/believe that we have control the weather. I most certainly do not and I’m pretty sure that God Almighty would not agree. AND Mount St. Helen’s spewed more pollutants in the air when she blew several years ago than all of mankind did for “many” years.
The earth has been heating and cooling and rotating on a varied axis and orbit since the creation of time. This causes the heating and cooling cycles.
If six guys can make a case so strong that the canadian government is going to committ public funds to combat the weather change, I’d say follow the money. Plus, how are these scientist going to measure their level of success? Doesn’t the wind blow over Canada?
If the Canuks supposedly clean up their air and the reset of the world does little or nothing, how are the Canadians planning to keep their clean air for themselves?
Thanks for posting this Squawk. On another blog, I argued this point with someone whose main defense of global warming alarmism amounted to an appeal to authority, NASA in this case. I posted this from NASA where they basically admit that they don’t know. I’ll never understand how an opinion can so stridently be defended as “fact”, when it’s far from clear that the opinion in question is indisputable.
The problem I have with the folks who claim global warming is real is that they lack proof. They will counter that I don’t have proof that it isn’t real. That ignores the reality of how science works. When I advance an idea, it’s my resonsibility to experiment, verify, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results. In short, the presenter of the idea bears the burden of proof. In the case of global warming, that’s exceptionally hard to do. I recognize that. But the fact that it’s difficult doesn’t change where the burden of proof lies.
Like Simple says, I could be wrong. In my case you’ll have to prove it to me if I am.
The big issue here, is that most Global Warming Science is being done by meteorologists, not climatologists. Any climatologist worth his salt won’t touch a climate issue without at least a couple centuries worth of data, which we don’t have.
We’re all gonna die……..
http://movie-poster.ws/movies/wallpaper/cartoon/chickenlittle/images/chicken.jpg
Duhmoose, and remember, the meteorologists are using the same computers to warn us about global warming that they are using to predicts tomorrow’s weather.
My solution is to let the envirowackos start their own country, completely independent of the rest of the world, live under their own ideas for a couple of centuries, and let us know how it all works out. I’d give them Greenland, which is mostly ice. Couple of years of that and they’ll be begging for global warming!
As a conservationist (NOT an enviromentalist), I have always maintained that post war America has been a very wasteful society. For example, our landfills are full of plastics and packaging that took a lot of energy and petroleum to make. We prefer to get into our air-conditioned SUVs to drive down to the corner to buy a pack of cigs, lottery tickets, or 6-pack of beer when we could just as easily walk. So when I hear the lefty environmentalist types talk about “America’s conspicuous consumption” I have to agree with them to a point. I feel that this global warming malarkey gains traction with the uninformed public because of our tendency to over-consume (be wasteful) while at the same time we feel guilty because much of the world lives in abject poverty. As Americans, I think we tend to equate our personal success with how many high-priced material things we own and how much we consume in front of others, not necessarily what’s in your bank account that nobody can see. Just like most conservatives want the gov. to check its spending and stop raising taxes, I believe the American public needs to learn how to maximize the energy resources we have rather than trying to consume more and more of declining sources.
#9 The Deacon—Speak for yourself. The American is not a dumb as you think. Sounds like a leftie mantra to me.
The Deacon
This country has worked hard for the success and comforts it enjoys. Al Gore and his ilk would have us (the United States) return to the days of horses and carriage all to quell their misquided guilt all the while driving around in their SUV’s. No thanks I’m not buying it.
These clowns demonize the United States all the while giving Russai and China a pass. It is all about politics.
Can we and should we recycle more? Yeah. But I am not going to feel guilty because I live here and enjoy the creature comforts that are available.
Squawk,
You are
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/sargevining/SPOTON.jpg
#10
I never said Americans were dumb. On the contrary. But do you actually think that future generations of Americans will be consuming at the same pace we are now (infinite resources)? Or will it have to be curtailed at some point in the future (finite resources)?
Deacon, only a liberal would feel guilty “because much of the world lives in abject poverty”. Conservatives don’t feel guilty. We’re willing to show them how, but they have to be willing to change their culture. Vast majority are not willing. There are no inferior races….only inferior cultures, and that sir, is a self inflicted wound over which we need not feel any guilt whatsoever.
The Deacon
What finite resources are you talking about? Future generations of Americans will be consuming in direct relation to the growth of population and will probably adapt to whatever may be at that time.
Funny how throughout the history of man that when a shortage of some supply, save a food or water source, people have adapted and overcome.
ANNNNDDDD to add to what Big said above, not only has the conservatives “shown” people how to” better their lives they have also contributed monetarily to that growth. What I see is a suppression of those peoples by the Al Gore’s of the world.
Oh and lets toss this into the mix. If the United States stopped all this EVIL consuming that is going on there are many “3rd world countries” that would be thrown directly to places they once were. Families that depend on that small wage from the evil cheap labor market would starve because they would not have a job to support their family.
Deacon, the notion that we’ll run out of resources only works if we stop finding resources and ways to use them more efficiently.
Hell, some resources that we were going through like crazy aren’t even used anymore, leading to excess of those resources. When was the last time you bought whale oil to light your home?
At current trajectory, yes, we’ll run out of everything. But we never stay on current trajectory long enough to run out of anything. Before we run out of it, we move on to using something better.
I guarantee you this world will never — NEVER — run out of oil.
#11
Yes, I agree with you about Algore’s lunacy and China’s free pass.
I do believe that American society as a whole wastes more energy and natural resources than necessary. Just because something is there doesn’t necessarily mean we should just burn it up and not leave some for the future.
My only gripe is that we have never really rewarded those who conserve. I just did my taxes this month. Where are all the tax credits for people who conserve energy? Other than fuel prices, what is the public’s incentive to conserve? GM and Ford are bankrupt because they bet the farm on the American public’s desire for gas-guzzling SUVs and low fuel prices. Now that we’re looking at future of $3 to $4 a gallon, what happens to all those people who loose their jobs at GM and Ford and all the small businesses that supplied them?
I’m not asking for anybody to feel guilty, because I certainly do not. I just think we as Americans need to take a more conservative approach when it comes to managing our energy and natural resources. If that’s a leftie mantra, then so be it.
Big–
Agreed. That was exactly my point earlier about why the libs buy into the global warming folly. The other point was that we make it very easy for them to make the excuse that we cause climate change through over-consumption.
#15 Squawk
So your point is wasteful policy is good because it supports the 3rd world?
Yes, famine and drought aside, man has always survived and adapted to change. But not without great pain and sacrifice at first. Wouldn’t you like to avoid that if you could?
Before we became industrialized ans began to destroy the earth:
Getting a drink of water was hazardous (because of the natural additives like bacteria) / Horses relieved themselves in the street (and they leave quite a mess) / Sewer systems were a ditch that emptied into the nearest body of water (see getting a drink) / Forests burned with no way of putting them out / Thirty five was a ripe old age / Inside a home it was hazardous to breathe because of the airborne pollutants from oil lamps and torches.
So, picture yourself sitting in the dining room breathing fumes from an oil lamp. You are eating a dinner that hours earlier was hanging upside down from a hook in front of a butcher shop with flies landing on it. And washing it down with a glass of water that smells like crap, because it contains crap. And we are worse off because of our SUV’s??
Deacon
What wasteful policy are you talking about?
We live a consumer society. As I said above yeah we need to recycle more.
What would you have us all do? Move into hovels in the middle of the city. Moving all industry and business to the near outskirts? Everyone drive a YUGO? Have the government control how long and when the lights are on? Clothe ourselves in sack cloth and used shoes? And for enetertainment we will all gather around the communal television?
None of that is realistic.
There’s just too much “consumon” goin on.
Deacon, who cares about their excuse? Liberals and the DLWM are dwindling in size and importance. Liberals continue to cling to the discredited Malthusian outlook on earth’s natural resources. Every doom and gloom projection since then has fallen flat on its face (David Ricardo, Alfred Marshall, British Prime Minister, William Pitt The Younger, Archdeacon William Paley, Francis Place, Charles Darwin, Carl Marx, Paul R. Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb. Ehrlich predicted, in the late 1960s, that hundreds of millions would die from a coming overpopulation crisis in the 1970s, and that by 1980 life expectancy in the United States would be only 42 years), etc. Malthus’ arithmetic model of food supply is almost universally rejected as it can be clearly demonstrated that food supply has kept pace with population for the past two centuries (see Criticisms below).
In short, new technology will overcome any perceived problems. There is one old axiom that is always true - Necessity is the mother of all invention. It has worked since the beginning of time. It will continue to work. And it’s why liberals will fade into the history books as a bad chapter in the history of the world.
#20 faster
Never said we were worse off because of SUVs. Heck, I drive a ‘99 F150 (with environmentally-friendly V6 and manual trans).
Yes, we have come a long way since the 19th century, no doubt. But just in the last 60 years or so, I see a lot of Americans wanting to accumulate more and more “stuff” to the point that now we have to warehouse our “stuff,” or haul it around with us, thereby using more energy for just “stuff.” I realize that buying “stuff” is great for our economy. Thank God for “stuff,” but I also think some folks have carried it to insane extremes by being in hawk up to their eyeballs over “stuff.” I like to call it “afluenza.” I live in a house built in 1954 for a family of 4 to live comfortably. Today, with just 2 adults and a child, my house is about to bust at the seams because of all the stuff. That tells me that previous generations of Americans got along just fine without all that stuff. Older Amercians today just shake their heads and laugh at us younger generations today because we can’t curb their desire for stuff.
Deacon
Ain’t been to many estate sales, or estate auctions have you? Not to mention farm auctions. That is my contribution to recycling, most of what I collect I buy from those old people that did not have much.
that should be (quote)did not have much(unquote)
Look Deacon I don’t mean to sound combative because I’m not. I think your complaint or concern stems more from the cost of goods and toys out there.
Kids today tend to “high end” consumer goods where our folks (and possibly you and I) were possibly more frugal in their purchases. I know as a kid TVs were around for several years before my folks bought one.
We do live in a throw away society but there is only so much of a market for recycling also. Follow the price on recyclable aluminum and you will know what I mean.
Getting back to global warming my complaint is the lack of sane debate that consumes us everyday. Look how this portinon of the debate has degenerated to a case of one upmanship and you are a reasonable person. We are a society of consumers and there are those that for what ever their reason want to take us back to the age of candles and outhouses. I just don’t get it and I ain’t playing their game.
Squawk–
No offense taken. Let me answer your points and try to clarify my message:
I am in agreement with most people on this blog when it comes to global warming and Kyoto. They are an absolute farce, designed to handicap the US economy and prop up failed 3rd world economies. We have made great strides in protecting our environment since the 70s when that river in PA caught on fire. However, we still have some work to do in this regard, and we still must protect our environment for future generations, even if it means that some commercial interests are prevented from using the land. I know that even saying this is blasphemy to many Republicans.
Our energy policy (or lack of a policy) is an example I would give as wasteful. We are by far the biggest customer of OPEC, but even that won’t slake our thirst for oil. Now we get doom and gloom scenarios from fellow conservatives if the government does not allow the oil companies to drill in ANWR. I used to be for drilling ANWR, but not now because we haven’t done one thing to promote energy conservation (and hybrids are a joke) and the last time I looked ExxonMobil made over 8 billion in profits in one quarter not to mention the other majors who are making the same record profits. Don’t get me wrong, profits are great and keep our people working and economy going, but how much of that profit do you think is going into research on alternative energy sources or better methods of recovery for existing oil fields? If we allow them to drill ANWR, the answer will be zero.
You say we live in a consumer society. That is true, but above that we live in a free society, and not all of us bow down to the gods of consumerism. The one thing I have direct economic control over is my own spending. If more people would use finance and debt as a tool rather than a way of life and learn to temporarily put off things that they cannot afford, I believe we would be a more economically independent society than we are now. What do you think is going to happen to our vaunted economy if everyone is in hawk up to their eyeballs and we suffer a deep recession or God forbid, another Great Depression?
What would I have everyone do? For starters, I would have kids learn real economics starting in elementary school. With this knowledge comes the power to make informed econmic decisions and not just “Do you take MasterCard.”
Well, have you ever been to an estate sale where the old people didn’t have anything? C’mon. I base what I said on the fact that both my parents and grandparents lived through the Great Depression and WWII and would scoff at all this “consumin’ going on.” (Thank you, Sen. Hollings.) Yes, they had some nice things, but they chose to live within their means and pass down their money to the next generation where it could be invested, used for college, etc.
I think #1 duhmoose states my overall position on the debate the best, and you whole heartedly agreed with him. We as Americans should not be afraid to look in the mirror and admit what we see.
Deacon
I knew we weren’t far apart on agreement. One thing that jumped out at me in your statement was on the kids and credit cards. There is a definite lack of instruction on fiscal responsibility with kids today and that starts in the home. My ex has done very well teaching my daughter that very thing. She struggles within herself when her friends can pull out the old CC and she cannot.
(LOL) I am still going to take issue with you on past generations and the stuff thing. I shop many estate sales etc and frankly the best goodies always always come from depression era folks. I won’t argue they may be “more” frugal but lack of stuff? In a lot of cases I might suggest hoarding because of their past expirience.
Oh well so it goes.
Thanks for the pleasant exchange. I enjoyed it.
Squawk–
Same here. For the record, no one who knows me has ever confused me with a Marxist, socialist, Democrat, or utopian.
Actually, we do have a global warming problem.
There are appx. 7 billion people on this planet. Each of us exhale about a liter of CO2 each minute {5 breaths equal about a liter of CO2}.
That means that every hour over 420 billion liters of CO2 are exhaled into our atmosphere. Or, every day, we humans exhale over 10 TRILLION liters of CO2.
Combine that with the natural heat sink that humans are, and we have a real problem. {ever get 50 people in a room designed for 30 people? It gets rather warm!}
We need to eliminate about half the people on this planet to save the human race. I’ll choose which half, OK?