Climate Change Schemers in Mexico

[mustardman]

Parsley the debate about whether climate change is actually happening is Long Over (every where except on this dinasour site of homeschooled evolution denying flatearthers that is)

THE DEBATE Should be what are we going to do about it?

[gregpet]

Mustard, you are correct, the debate is over and the science has shown there is now warming but actually a cooling trend.

Did you some how miss climategate and the fact that most or all of the papers put forward by the IPCC were not peer reviewed and refuted by actual scientists?

[chuckChuck]

Pars,
From your previous post:
"Well, those "overwhelming majority of climate scientists" also had difficulty not recognizing, but telling the truth.

"energy difficult to secure" : Hey, chuckiecowboy, there is enough oil in the Bakken underground, throughout the Dakotas and Saskkatchewan, to look after Canada's energy supply every year until lilacs decide to not bloom."

Response
Britains inquiry into "climategate" did not show the science to be unsound.

It does not matter if we have billions of barrels of reserves in the tar sands and the bakken. Only a small percentage of those reserves are economically available at the current time. Under NAFTA we are obligated to continue to supply the US. When world demand exceeds supply then prices will increase. Unless you are advocating that we impose regulated prices and control exports, Canada will be paying world prices for energy.

[parsley]

chuckles

Because HRH Charlie probably funded the report to which you refer, and since he is an irresistable global hearthrob , I will blindly accept whatever that particular report states.

Absolute destiny? No. ie Canada can withdraw from/rewrite Nafa. Pars

[gregpet]

Well then chuck, if you are concerned about the quantity of fuel available the first thing you would want to do is to <b>REMOVE</b> all the emission control devices on vehicles and equipment to <b>REDUCE</b> fuel usage. Better fuel mileage means less fuel used. Since the science from the IPCC was fraudulent, there is no proof the man made emissions contribute to the myth of global warming. Remember we are in a cooling trend.

[Jay-mo]

Anyone with a brain should always be suspicious whenever anyone tells you the "debate is long over" on any issue.

It's usually a desperate arguement when they are grasping at straws.

[FarmRanger]

<i> Britains inquiry into "climategate" did not show the science to be unsound.</i>
Scientists are caught red handed sending emails back and forth which admit they have had to fudge climate data to fit into a prescribed narrative justifying grant money flowing their way. If the science is so sound they wouldn’t have to <i>“hide the decline” .</i> in temperatures, or remove weather station data which doesn’t support their lucrative theory, or fail to question data from weather stations which have glaringly obvious warm bias from urban heat island effect. Maybe we shouldn’t be asking the fox to be reporting on how the chickens are doing?

<i>Unless you are advocating that we impose regulated prices and control exports, Canada will be paying world prices for energy.</i>
Canadians already pay far more than the world price for energy through taxation. These taxes aren’t applied to energy we export (nor could they be as buyers would simply go elsewhere). This makes energy more expensive for our own industries, which is a whole other problem.

Thanks Parsley for pointing out (again) that this scam that won’t have any appreciable effect on climate, but will make sure energy usage switches from western economies to developing countries without the stringent environmental laws we have in place here. A socialist wealth redistribution scheme that a few western elites can skim off of the top, leaving the rest of us to pay the bill.

[chuckChuck]

Ranger,
So when oil hit nearly 150 US per barrel and Exxon made 40 billion in profit in one quarter was this not a transfer of wealth from consumers pocket to Exxon shareholders? Perhaps you don't mind if Exxon takes excessive profits out of your pocket? At least when governments tax energy, the money can be used to pay down debt, build roads, fund healthcare, education, and research alternatives etc. Who do you think will act in the best long term interest of consumers, Exxon or the governments that are elected by a democratic process?

[parsley]

"Exxon takes excessive profits out of your pocket"

You view it as your right to take a percentage of others' wealth creation and put it in your purse.

It is called stealing.
Governments legislate stealing.

It is a view that equates taking a vote for a piece of the action, and calling it democtratic.

it is a view I find deplorable. It is a view I cannot reconcile with decency.

It is a philosophy of envy. Parsley

[parsley]

And further cc:

All, the so-called "poor nations" were functional societies long before 1867 (our Confederation). Most of them have 365 days per year growing seasons.

I will say this clearly.

Iceland just went backrupt. They have a cold clime. They have not a lot of "soil" They had a climatic ash disaster.

Are they rioting, or screwing up their elections, or screaming for the international community to build them an "equal just society"?

No. They are prepared to build their own.

Haiti, for example, et al, would do well to get off their collective asses and rebuild their own country instead of spending their time and money dressing up in designer clothes for foreign cameras, tuning their mp3's to Cancuners plotting how to percentage taxes from farmranger's bushels.

That my dear chuckychuckchuck, will hopefully persuade you, softly I might add, that I am a hardliner.

"You want it? Work for it." Parsley