Climate denier?
Let's clear the air here
Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
It's amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.
For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:
That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.
That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.
I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.
These aren't radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I'd venture to say many Canadians share them.
However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I'm evil incarnate.
For one thing, I don't support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Worse, it's a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
China's skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years -- exempt from Kyoto because it's a developing nation -- will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won't.
That's just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.
The United States, either the world's largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.
Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.
Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.
Beyond that, the scientific "consensus" on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.
Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."
They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.
Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.
EXTREME WEATHER KILLS
They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.
They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.
They insist we know far more about climate than we do.
They aren't interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.
They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything -- ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.
They can, however, write e-mails.
Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
It's amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.
For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:
That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.
That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.
I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.
These aren't radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I'd venture to say many Canadians share them.
However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I'm evil incarnate.
For one thing, I don't support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Worse, it's a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
China's skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years -- exempt from Kyoto because it's a developing nation -- will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won't.
That's just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.
The United States, either the world's largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.
Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.
Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.
Beyond that, the scientific "consensus" on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.
Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."
They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.
Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.
EXTREME WEATHER KILLS
They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.
They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.
They insist we know far more about climate than we do.
They aren't interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.
They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything -- ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.
They can, however, write e-mails.
posted by Gerry Surtees at Monday, March 31, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home