I can’t stand either. (Read: Major gaps existing in otherwise quite good material and design.)
Said tights.
Among the most important memos of the 21st century (aside from ‘It’s highly respected to still know all the words to New Kids on the Block’s ‘Step by Step’” and ‘No, it’s not okay to wear tights as pants, especially the slitted ones from American Apparel.’) is: ‘All other governments in the developed world are doing way more on climate change than Canada’.
Memos are what they are. Pop culture stands strong, fads fade (or are imagined), and the ambition of government tends to fall out of their pocket unnoticeably as they run down the halls of Parliament to their next meeting.
Continue reading Slit-leggings at American Apparel and Current Climate Policy in Canada
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Virtually all of the money spent on research is on potential, estimated and predicted effects, not causes. Global doomers justify the existence AGWing by rationalizing it to “who is saying it” and not “what is being said”. This avoids analyzing this 23 year old CO2 theory making it a faith based self fulfilling prophecy. Is AGW another WMD? Scientists can be bought cheaper than a tomato in August and to sanctify a profession that apparently polluted our planet with the chemicals they invented in the first place, looks about as silly as Carl Sagon predicting a nuclear winter from the first gulf war oil fires. So after 23 years of waiting for this crisis to arrive, a scientist seems about as credible as a lap dancer’s opinion. Let’s call Kyoto, Y2Kyoto shall we?
And notice how this waterhole of facts we all drink from, the Internet, is just an open sewer of untreated information. Pick an opinion. Pick a winner every time. Truth becomes foggy haze in this real science fiction before us called climate change. History will call it witch burning I’m sure.
Melting ice doesn’t prove what caused it so by taking a snapshot in time and ignoring the history of the earth, these global doomers can then make a grim case for the early demise of the planet and even fool themselves into believing it.
The UN has allowed Carbon Trading to trump 3rd world education, clean water and starvation rescue. How sick is this?
IPCC “90% sure”
IPCC Endorse the unscientific “precaution” policy.
IPCC Endorse the “correlation” policy.
IPCC Failed predictions for 23 years.
IPCC Endorse that La Nina “delayed” global warming.
IPCC Endorse the “It’s too late now” policy.
What’s not to question sheople? History will curse us all for this needless panic.
Come on all you radicals and rebels and activists and Liberals and Conservatives alike, let 23 years of predictions put our minds at ease so we can finally end the world’s longest emergency. Preserve, protect and respect our world, not save it from a mistake with mass hysteria more suitable for a dark age, not a civilized age.
Dear Meme Mine,
I am not sure how this relates to my post. I would agree, however, that there is always room for more research on the causes of climate change, as with any realm of scientific research.
‘What is being said’, Meme Mind, is quite clear. Analyzing – and adding to – the decades-old theory is very much what is being done. I see your point, as well, that many individuals become quite passionate about the topic and certainly fail to address the facts. To who in particular are you referring?
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming another… Weapon of Mass Destruction? White Male Dominance? World Message Day? Work Management Department? I’m not sure which you refer to, though I suppose it could be interpreted as any of those.
I am not well-versed on the salaries of scientists, though I would like to think that the chemists and the climate scientists are perhaps not the same individuals. The industry itself may not indeed be perfect, so what would you suggest to improve the credentials or transparency of climate scientists?
A lot has changed in 23 years, it seems. In fact, the projections that were made in the past have recently been found to have actually underestimated the effects we are seeing today, according to a report from the United Nations Environment Program. Do you have a source that would show otherwise? If so, I would be interested to hear.
Agreed – the Internet is a foggy realm of opinion indeed. In which case, should you be interested, may I suggest that you pick up a copy of my and co-author’s book ‘Global Warming for Dummies’ – available at libraries and most book stores. I welcome your comments.
When you refer to “melting ice”, are you talking about melting ice caps and glaciers? Or the process of removing C02 records from 850,000 years ago in the Vostok ice core? Both are elements of evidence (most strongly, the ice core records from hundreds of thousands of years ago) though do not prove any theory in themselves. It is the combination of all climate research over the past decades that very clearly give us the theory of climate change we are faced with today.
All peer reviewed scientific literature on the topic has been collected and compiled to give us that view. (Read the most recent report, the Fourth Assessment Report. Until a better process is developed, this is what we have. Do you have an idea for a more effective process?
What source do you have that the United Nations has prioritized carbon trading to over-ride developing-country education, clean water and starvation rescue? I would also be interested to hear this.
A few corrections to the IPCC statements, if I may:
- IPCC certainty is at 95% or greater
- IPCC endorsed the “precautionary principle”, the principle commonly known as “better-safe-than-sorry” or, more technically, “based on risk assessment”. Risk assessments are scientific indeed. Do you have reason to suggest otherwise?
- By “correlation” principle, do you mean the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature rise? That is based on the basis of greenhouse gases having the properties of being able to trap gas. That is one of the reasons we can survive on this earth, because our atmosphere has CO2 in it (a small amount, yes, but it’s enough). The “greenhouse effect” would exist even without the theory of global warming.
- Failed predictions are showing to be failed because they under-estimated the impacts of climate change, not vice versa. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I am sure the climate change community would be very interested.
- What La Nina delay are you referring to?
- From where do you source the “it’s too late now” principle? There are many opinions that say there is a chance it’s too late, and there are also many opinions that say it’s not. Scientifically, we’re nearing in on a 50/50 percent chance to be able to change our course.
On a personal note, I could ignore the projections perhaps if they were not coming true. I have enough trust in the scientific community that their projections are to be heard and responded to. Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps that less-than-5% chance that we have no idea what we are talking about will actually come true. Though betting on the 5% when you have a 95% certainty seems more radical to me than the other way around.
I agree with you in entirety that we must preserve, protect and respect our world. I feel that most people in the world would agree with that. So I am certainly glad we agree on this, for it is important for this to remain at the core of all the work we do.
I look forward to hearing more from you and continuing this conversation.
Most sincerely,
Zoë
Could you try any harder to wish for his misery to happen and for this future suffering to be true?
This generation of politically correct environmentalists I’m sure are making Rachel Carson roll in her grave.
Love and respect our natural world, not jump up and down with glee at the thought of impending doom from nature.
History will curse this dead CO2 theory and after 23 years, if this “crisis” in climate WAS happening, this rising flood of doubters such as myself would not be on this board debating and telling you to stop scaring my kids with this threat of death by CO2.
God help us.
I certainly hope you’re right, Meme Mine. I really, really do.
Sincerely,
Zoë
Zoe,
Hope? Is that the best you can do? Hope?
We have one life to live so why waste it embarrassing dooms day when 23 years of the CO2 theory clearly proves that this power to end life as we know it certainly should have started by now. History will curse us all for this.
If it’s humanity you love as an environmentalist, why not join the coming NEW GREENS movement that celebrates nature instead of condemning it to death?
Doing the right thing will get you ahead of the curve and is the responsible and mature thing to do but you may have to find a whole new group of friends.
Good luck and preserve our world, not rescue it with needless fear,
Paul in Canada
Paul,
All the facts, as far as I can see, point to emissions causing irreversible climate changes. Please, if you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, bring it forwards.
I celebrate nature daily, and it’s for that reason that I work with others for this cause. I do not pride this cause above others – conservation, reducing toxins in our environment, clean air – are all directly related to climate change.
I aim to engage in projects with tangible outcomes and direct, visible results that benefit our environment. Theory is just a part of that. If you wish to address the individuals who do little but talk and promote fear, then you are talking to the wrong person.
I certainly understand the deep green movement, though I do not understand the ability to push climate change to the wayside. There is no peer-reviewed scientific article out there that denies human-caused climate change. The day that exists, and out-tips the balance, I will re-assess the work that I do in a heartbeat.
All my best,
Zoë
Education, food, and clean water are certainly important. At the same time, we have sediment cores going back tens of millions of years showing us data on CO2 vs climate. We need a mix of energy sources that can bring the developing world out of poverty without causing climate problems or issues with the worlds’ oceans (i.e., increasing damage to coral reefs is directly from increased carbonic acid formation from CO2 absorbed).