Climate Change Unproven: Danielle Smith Wildrose Alliance Leader

[kenny]

Someone willing to speak up and truly challenge? or just someone trying to get some voter attention?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Global%20warming%20unproven%20Wildrose%20leader%20says/2314494/story.html

[Toma]

Show me science, from a journal, that has stood upto peer review, and then we will talk.

So far, all the evidence is one way... GLOBAL WARMING.

Soooo.. Hot Air, and a poor poor, lost sole.... or bought off one.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[kenny]

I was looking at the temperature history of Calgary posted by hakkola in another thread and noticed some data that would support Global Warming (but obviously no link to a human cause)

Almost all the monthly Extreme Low temperature records are set in the 1800's, and some in the 1910's. However, the monthly Extreme High temperature records contain many recent records.

This suggests to me that temperature readings are trending upwards.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[kenny]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
There is a handful of cities around Alberta that have shattered the hold cold temp records this week btw.

I guess you have to load the page up to see what I mean. Its broken down by month. Our summer temps will never touch the record lows that are set.

Just an observation though.

[mr2mike]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I hope a volcano doesn't erput in Canada... our taxes will go through the roof!!

Especially in BC. With their carbon tax legislation, they'll probably setup an account with mother nature and start charging her tax.

Cyclical climate shifts are proven. There is no proof that "global warming" is caused by anthroprogenic means.

There could be a series of Volcanoes in the world and your fag geographic "expert" Al Gore with his nice little hollywood renditions of a global flooding will preach, people need to cut back polluting and gov't will in turn up the tax rates on pollution, yet again. Cash grab. The next cash grab will be lack of "clean" water and water purification taxes.

[snoop101]

:banghead:

I seen this in the news this morning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html

they pretty blame anything that isnt normal is due because of global warming. :facepalm:

[Sugarphreak]

....

[snoop101]

The question should be... When will they start taxing cattle ranchers?

[Deetz]

I came across this video which i thought had a lot of truth to it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0&feature=player_embedded

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by kenny
Someone willing to speak up and truly challenge? or just someone trying to get some voter attention?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Global%20warming%20unproven%20Wildrose%20leader%20says/2314494/story.html

She's a politician. That should answer your question.

[ZenOps]

The oil companies actually love the carbon tax.

They get to pay themselves for "inventing" technologies like pumping carbon dioxide back into the wells to pressurize them.

I mean really - this is the way its been done since the very beginning. The wells in the middle east are all pressurized by pumping saltwater into them. Most oil companies in Canada are not allowed to pressurize the wells with water (because its considered a waste of useable freshwater, which is absolutely true) So they've pressurized it with normal air up until recently.

They used to have to pay to pump atmosphere into the ground, now they can get the environmentalists to foot the bill willingly.

Strange world we live in.

[mr2mike]

Hmm I'll have to look into if this is feasible for my company. I know there was talks about a small damn to generate power rather than our own fuel for facility power.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I hope a volcano doesn't erput in Canada... our taxes will go through the roof!!

from http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/


Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans’—Not even close ...

Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

http://www.grist.org/i/assets/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

[ZenOps]

Yknow, somehow I doubt that it actually costs $15B.

I mean really - for that type of money we can actually build decent refining capacity in Canada.

But if the environmentalists and general populace is happier sleeping at night with a carbon capture system. I really don't see the harm in being bilked out that much money. Massive waste of money for no gain?

So goes the silicone breast argument. Do you really care if they are real or not as long as you are happy with them?

Carbon credit is the new snake oil.

[Criticull]

Originally posted by ZenOps
The oil companies actually love the carbon tax.

They get to pay themselves for "inventing" technologies like pumping carbon dioxide back into the wells to pressurize them.

I mean really - this is the way its been done since the very beginning. The wells in the middle east are all pressurized by pumping saltwater into them. Most oil companies in Canada are not allowed to pressurize the wells with water (because its considered a waste of useable freshwater, which is absolutely true) So they've pressurized it with normal air up until recently.

They used to have to pay to pump atmosphere into the ground, now they can get the environmentalists to foot the bill willingly.

Strange world we live in.

A carbon tax will still reduce the demand for oil, so they don't love it.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Criticull


A carbon tax will still reduce the demand for oil, so they don't love it.

Uhhh huh. Like a 400% tax on tobacco has really stopped people from smoking... I don't see anyone having any problems selling cigarettes.

[kenny]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Uhhh huh. Like a 400% tax on tobacco has really stopped people from smoking... I don't see anyone having any problems selling cigarettes.

While it didn't work for Tabacco, it seemed to work (at least for gasoline). When prices hit $1.40, transit use went up and sales of vehicles that had better mileage went up.

[ZenOps]

True enough.

And it does benifit Canada. People use less oil locally (hopefully) AND the world is set to an artificially high price standard with carbon tax built in.

The only non-taxed gasoline in the world is in Venezuela. 13 cents per gallon last year.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

If the US ever got word that that is the price it "should" be at, Canada would be bankrupt.

But it does underline the already high levels of taxation that are on oil.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[atgilchrist]

Originally posted by ZenOps
True enough.

And it does benifit Canada. People use less oil locally (hopefully) AND the world is set to an artificially high price standard with carbon tax built in.

The only non-taxed gasoline in the world is in Venezuela. 13 cents per gallon last year.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

If the US ever got word that that is the price it "should" be at, Canada would be bankrupt.

But it does underline the already high levels of taxation that are on oil.

The prove in Venezuela is as low as it is because the state owns the oil and gas production. The price is artificially lower than the cost of production.

Canada's tried the state-owned thing, we know how well that turned out.

[Criticull]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Unless you are willing to give up your car, your house furance, plastics, rubbers (tires & other) and pretty much everything else in your life that makes it worth while demand will stay as strong as ever. A carbon tax does nothing to help reduce C02... this aside from the fact that Global Warming is just a big hoax.

You are also kidding yourself if you don't think that "Big Oil" isn't about to make gigantic profits from a trade & cap system.

Shoving C02 back into the ground for profit is the next big thing... not to mention it would be the easiest thing to falsify!

As gasoline prices increase from a carbon tax, people will move to smaller cars with smaller engines. An example of this is Europe. So demand will decrease in the long-run. More people will also buy hybrids if the price of gas goes up enough and the cost of the extra motor is justified.

Do you know how much CO2 sequestration costs per ton of CO2? No. Because there are no commercial-scale projects operating at present. We don't even know if it's going to be an economically viable solution.

[Toma]

Originally posted by atgilchrist




Canada's tried the state-owned thing, we know how well that turned out.
Exceptionally well actually.... very profitable, government funds for oil sand technology development, this technology is still used to day by the private sector...Exploration during times of low oil prices when the private guy went silent and refused to spend etc....

[Criticull]

Originally posted by ZenOps
True enough.

And it does benifit Canada. People use less oil locally (hopefully) AND the world is set to an artificially high price standard with carbon tax built in.

The only non-taxed gasoline in the world is in Venezuela. 13 cents per gallon last year.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

If the US ever got word that that is the price it "should" be at, Canada would be bankrupt.

But it does underline the already high levels of taxation that are on oil.

For sure the US is completely unaware of the true cost of oil. It's only posted everywhere.

If the World price of oil is artificially high through taxes, demand will decrease relative to a non carbon tax scenario.

This means less demand for Canadian oil too. If producing heavier oil creates more CO2 than producing lighter oil, then Alberta will lose out as it becomes heavy-oil dominant, as that will create a greater spread between the intrinsic values of heavy and light, since more permits will be required per barrel of heavy.

At the end of the day, the consumer will always pay the tax, which will in turn cause them to spend less on discretionary items, which will have an effect back onto those suppliers. Suppliers that use energy will have higher costs, which again are passed onto the consumer, who will therefore spend money of fewer things.

The only winner here will be those selling permits.

Your comment about Venezuela has already been addressed. You should look into the world price of oil, compare it to the 3:2:1 spread, look at what refining costs are, and figure out what the true cost of producing gasoline is.

[ZenOps]

True enough, gasoline is slightly subsidized in Venezuela.

But if you believe in a free market. There is nothing stopping a million gallon Chinese oil tanker from taking on gasoline instead of oil, breaking port and then resell... Ooops better shut up right now.

Oil companies love the carbon tax, anything that raises prices (even if they don't see the directly taxable money themselves) is good.

Oil companies need more environmental protestors badly! There is nothing OPEC loves more than an angry protestor willing to go on TV proclaiming the world is "too dirty".

And yes, Rob Anders is what we need more of in Canada too. Rob please come forward and tell the world what race there is too much of and which races of people are terrorists. There is nothing an ethnic person loves more than a politician proclaiming the world is "too bl...".

Damn lazy protestors (and politicians) get off your asses and earn it baby. Papa needs a new pair of shoes.

[mr2mike]

Originally posted by The Toronto Star
COPENHAGEN — Canada received a rare break Wednesday at the environmental summit here from none other than the United Nations' climate chief, who essentially pinned blame for the country's dramatic emissions growth on inaction in the United States.

While Yvo de Boer urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government to take on a "strong and ambitious Canadian target" — code for deeper emissions reductions than Ottawa is currently committed to — he told reporters that Canada was left in an awkward position after the United States ultimately rejected the Kyoto Protocol after signing it in 1997.

"Canada did ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but its main trading partner did not," he said in response to questions.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal government opted to cut emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 under Kyoto. Two years out from that date, emissions have risen by about 30 per cent.

The U.S. Congress's refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord that was signed by President Bill Clinton left Canada in a "very unbalanced situation," de Boer said.

The Conservative government plans to harmonize its plan to cut greenhouse gases with legislation that is now being debated in Washington. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Jim Prentice have vowed to do no more and no less than the U.S. for fear of the damage that could do to the Canadian economy.

Despite the repeated scorn of environmentalists here and back in Canada, de Boer said Canada has been negotiating "very constructively" in the talks.

A coalition of environmental groups have awarded the country two consecutive "Fossil of the Day" prizes, an honour going to the countries judged to be blocking progress at the UN-sponsored negotiations.

Canada does have strong positions that are considered to be out-of-line with what poor nations say needs to be included in a final legal treaty, including its refusal to respect the country's Kyoto targets and desire to do away with an agreement the Tories have called "flawed."

But it's clear that any stumbles in the opening days of the talks have been taking place at a much higher level.

A major rift emerged Tuesday between rich and poor nations after a draft version of a proposed agreement, authored by Denmark with help from the U.S. and the British, was leaked and suggested allowing a more generous emissions cap in developed countries than in developing countries.

The poorest nations and the major emerging economies like China and India, say they are only prepared to accept voluntary reductions in their emissions intensity, something that would allow growth to continue.

They say that rich countries have caused climate change through their dependence on dirty energy sources and should shoulder much of the burden while not impeding poor nations' economic growth.

The leaked document sparked talk of a walkout by poor countries who would be most affected by the strict emission limits proposed. There was a brief suspension of the talks Wednesday, apparently to try and get past what one observer referred to as a "blip" in the two-week negotiations.

Sources say that Denmark and Norway are believed to be collaborating on a new draft text.

Also on Wednesday, Mexico, Britain, Australia and Norway are expected to put forward a proposal for funding the green shift in the developing world, which the UN has estimated will costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Many countries have already put their support behind a $10-billion fund to kick start a clean-energy transformation in the developing world between 2010 and 2012. Longer term funding remains a more difficult issue to resolve.






Originally posted by The Toronto Star


Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal government opted to cut emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 under Kyoto. Two years out from that date, emissions have risen by about 30 per cent.




I LOL'd:facepalm: Typical Chretien blatant lie as he'll never be held accountable for anything.

[ZenOps]

Funny thing is, China has actually been trying to be a little bit greener.

The Three Gorges Dam, which puts out about 11x the power output of Hoover Dam is much cleaner than the approximate 33 coal power plants that it is equivalent to. The Three Gorges would have capacity to feed electrcity to both Calgary and Edmonton combined and still have power left over.

Things are about to get nasty around the Hoover Dam as well. Its actually running out of water.

http://www.nebraskaweatherphotos.org/Lake-Mead-2009.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0418/p02s01-usgn.html

By as early as 2012, they might have to start buying electricity from somewhere else to conserve water. I wonder who they gonna call?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ZenOps
The Three Gorges Dam, which puts out about 11x the power output of Hoover Dam is much cleaner than the approximate 33 coal power plants that it is equivalent to.

Yes, but don't look at the whole picture or anything re: the people displaced and how the environment was severely affected by the subsequent rerouting/blocking of water.


However, the dam has also flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.24 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.

Thats like telling Calgary PLUS the surrounding area to GTFO.

:facepalm:

[Criticull]

Originally posted by ZenOps
True enough, gasoline is slightly subsidized in Venezuela.

But if you believe in a free market. There is nothing stopping a million gallon Chinese oil tanker from taking on gasoline instead of oil, breaking port and then resell... Ooops better shut up right now.

Oil companies love the carbon tax, anything that raises prices (even if they don't see the directly taxable money themselves) is good.

Oil companies need more environmental protestors badly! There is nothing OPEC loves more than an angry protestor willing to go on TV proclaiming the world is "too dirty".

And yes, Rob Anders is what we need more of in Canada too. Rob please come forward and tell the world what race there is too much of and which races of people are terrorists. There is nothing an ethnic person loves more than a politician proclaiming the world is "too bl...".

Damn lazy protestors (and politicians) get off your asses and earn it baby. Papa needs a new pair of shoes.

Haha, slightly . Nice spin.

What's stopping a chinese tanker from doing that is something called a world price, or a country's export price being equal to a world price. Venezuela is not going to subsidize their exports, especially when they are using the money to subsidize domestic consumption.

The rest of what you wrote is just trolling.

[Criticull]

.

[flames4lyfe]

she knows what she is talking about. i trust her more than these scientists like non linear and shit. dumbass.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by flames4lyfe
she knows what she is talking about. i trust her more than these scientists like non linear and shit. dumbass.

get your sunglasses, folks, this here's a bright one!

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Yes, but don't look at the whole picture or anything re: the people displaced and how the environment was severely affected by the subsequent rerouting/blocking of water.



Thats like telling Calgary PLUS the surrounding area to GTFO.

:facepalm:

There is no place in China that does not have a population. Anything you do - you will have to tell someone to leave. Its life.

IE: If you want to setup a hotdog stand in China, you're going to have to step on more than a few toes.

In Calgary - if we want to expand - eventually we are going to have to tell the Tsuu Tina to GTFO too. The Chinese guy in me would like to send them packing - with a few million dollars in their pockets though. Rob Anders - would probably prefer to do it the old fashioned way.

[ZenOps]

Smart maybe, yet to be seen. Bold definitely.

May be a little early in a political career to be taking such a strong stance so early. Environmentalists are very useful mindless zerglings as can be the general population when you are clawing for TV ratings.

But shes definitely Peking Duck worthy of what I can tell so far.

I can play devils advocate because as Rob Anders full well knows, I am the Devil.

[flames4lyfe]

she is one of the most brilliant albertans ever to take office. she will hopefully be victorious and keep spreading the truth, wholesome conservative values, and christian family values. god bless her.

[nonlinear]

allah akbar

[slinkie]

hey, check it out

carbon emissions are causing divorce rates in michigan

http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/Emissions/images/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg



:drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:

[nonlinear]

^^^if by that comment, you're trying to say that correlation of empirical data provides the only evidence for CO2-induced warming - you're wrong.

:drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:

If, on the other hand, you're just showing empirical trends that are also predicted by your physical process models that link General Circulation Models to individual human physiology and psychology, then you sir, deserve a cookie.

:poosie:

[slinkie]

nah man co2 is causing divorce in michigan