[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

And it's your Dogma demanded brain training making a false claim without being able the example of "air, and water and dirt being made "clean" by limiting carbon dioxide.

You know you can't illustrate that with a real world example. This makes what you claim a lie.

$1:

DrCaleb wrote:

Because in Canada, we have air and water and dirt. And we want these to be clean and not killing things. Like people, for example.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

No, you are.

Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario said this is about tackling climate change and specifically, our greenhouse gas emmissions.

The text on the front of her podium was "Taking Action on Climate Change"

[Regina]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

And it's your Dogma demanded brain training making a false claim without being able the example of "air, and water and dirt being made "clean" by limiting carbon dioxide.

You know you can't illustrate that with a real world example. This makes what you claim a lie.

$1:

DrCaleb wrote:

Because in Canada, we have air and water and dirt. And we want these to be clean and not killing things. Like people, for example.

Speaking of dogma............

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Odd how that formula from South Park keeps playing out so well in Canada, especially with the Ontario Liberals.

1) Bring in ever single tax-increasing, business-wrecking, and job-destroying policy under the sun that we can think up.
2) ???????
3) PROFIT $$$$$$$

The Ontario Liberals practising Underpants Gnome economics. It's the perfect description.

[Regina]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

No, you are.

Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario said this is about tackling climate change and specifically, our greenhouse gas emmissions.

The text on the front of her podium was "Taking Action on Climate Change"

She's latching onto any buzz word or fad she can just to make cash. Her government is overspent and is generating revenue under any umbrella they can get under. All that's missing is that "It's for the kids" and her day will be complete.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

And it's your Dogma demanded brain training making a false claim without being able the example of "air, and water and dirt being made "clean" by limiting carbon dioxide.

You know you can't illustrate that with a real world example. This makes what you claim a lie.

$1:

DrCaleb wrote:

Because in Canada, we have air and water and dirt. And we want these to be clean and not killing things. Like people, for example.

Hahahahahaha! A lie! And yet you quoted me! In my quote, I made no such claim. It's the veterinarian ringing the 'climate change bell' to provoke your response that's got you on the 'climate change' track.

I said "we have air and water and dirt. And we want these to be clean". No CO2 involved. Besides, you know perfectly well that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide gives rise to acidity in the oceans! Now who is lying?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Although I know it's your Pavlovian response, but we are speaking of pollution.

No, you are.

Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario said this is about tackling climate change and specifically, our greenhouse gas emmissions.

The text on the front of her podium was "Taking Action on Climate Change"

She is, and I am not. I was only addressing your question; "Why are we focusing on a solution?".

Don't be like fiddledoggie and read more into my responses than I write.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I said "we have air and

$1:

water

and dirt. And we want these to be clean". No CO2 involved. Besides, you know perfectly well that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide gives rise to acidity in the oceans! Now who is lying?

Cap and trade is designed to limit what?

I'll answer that for you because you don't seem to have the answer to real world based questions. The topic on this thread is Cap and Trade. Such schemes are designed to limit "CO2".

If you're talking about cleaning "air and water and dirt" here with a Cap and trade scheme, you're claiming you can do it with a Cap and trade scheme. If you're not, are you sure you're in the right thread?

Now as to ocean acidity, I try not to respond to the nonsense coming out of the state run media such as the "PH now is rising faster than during the Permian extinction" article you posted last week.

It isn't because there isn't a common sense, real world based argument against that computer modeled fairy tale. There is.

http://junkscience.com/2015/04/11/the-n ... ion-again/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/31/o ... ntal-data/

I don't post to such threads, because the truth is most people have been alerted to the climate issue by their BS detectors and prefer to ignore the "end is nigh" prophesies of that issue. I like to encourage that.

This however is my thread. BS is called by it's proper name here.

[Thanos]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Thanos Thanos:

Odd how that formula from South Park keeps playing out so well in Canada, especially with the Ontario Liberals.

1) Bring in ever single tax-increasing, business-wrecking, and job-destroying policy under the sun that we can think up.
2) ???????
3) PROFIT $$$$$$$

The Ontario Liberals practising Underpants Gnome economics. It's the perfect description.

All Canadian politicians and parties are the same. Some like the Ontario Liberals are just a bit better than some of the others at pushing the pretense that they care anything at all about anything (or anyone) but themselves and their ideologies. The Canadian variety of politician is a fairly remarkable example of the entire specie though, mostly because they're so expert at doing so very little for the betterment of so very many.

The worst fault doesn't lie with them though. The bulk of the blame lies entirely with the voters that keep doing the same stupid and insane thing (i.e. voting) and expecting Utopia to finally arrive. Hard to blame the politician for succumbing to it's natural predatory and self-enriching urges when the voter keeps proving itself to be so consistently gullible and stupid. It's about as dumb as blaming the vampire for doing what comes naturally to it when the dipshit victims does the stupidest thing possible and keeps bleeding all over the fucking place.

Anyone who expects anything different from the system needs to have their head checked out by a professional. Either that or just simply grow the fuck up already.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She is, and I am not. I was only addressing your question; "Why are we focusing on a solution?".

Don't be like fiddledoggie and read more into my responses than I write.

The article is about climate change. I'm talking about climate change. The Premier is talking about climate change.

You said "we" are speaking about pollution. Who's we?

The only one here talking about pollution is you, the rest of us are talking about the original article and climate change.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I said "we have air and

$1:

water

and dirt. And we want these to be clean". No CO2 involved. Besides, you know perfectly well that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide gives rise to acidity in the oceans! Now who is lying?

Cap and trade is designed to limit what?

I'll answer that for you because you don't seem to have the answer to real world based questions. The topic on this thread is Cap and Trade. Such schemes are designed to limit "CO2".

And, just by accident mind you, they also limit pollution.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If you're talking about cleaning "air and water and dirt" here with a Cap and trade scheme, you're claiming you can do it with a Cap and trade scheme. If you're not, are you sure you're in the right thread?

If I were talking about it, I'd be writing things like words and punctuation.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Now as to ocean acidity, bla bla bla . . .

This however is my thread. BS is called by it's proper name here.

Which is why I don't bother to engage deniers any longer. It got boring. Because science.

And this is not your server any more than it's mine. I'll participate in any thread I choose. Suck it up, buttercup.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She is, and I am not. I was only addressing your question; "Why are we focusing on a solution?".

Don't be like fiddledoggie and read more into my responses than I write.

The article is about climate change. I'm talking about climate change. The Premier is talking about climate change.

You said "we" are speaking about pollution. Who's we?

The same 'we' as in "Why are we focusing on a solution?".

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The only one here talking about pollution is you, the rest of us are talking about the original article and climate change.

And the difference is . . .? Tackling pollution also serves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Is pollution reduction not a good enough reason to also address CO2 emissions?

If not, then I'll return you to our regularly scheduled 'Climate Change' thread.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Anyone who expects anything different from the system needs to have their head checked out by a professional. Either that or just simply grow the fuck up already.

I think you agree with me that your underpants gnome analogy is dead-on here.

But I think you are pre-programmed to disagree, because you suspect a partisan restriction on my part.

I think maybe you don't understand me as well as you think you do, so I'll explain.

Basically with anything on the Political spectrum from Progressive to Communist, you're right. I'm like you here. My response is grrr, and I want to attack.

But where we differ is that's where my political aggression ends. I think if you can produce an actual Liberal by the classical definition you'll find me pretty open minded towards him.

I don't have any real animosity to the type that comes from wherever on the political spectrum you "It all sucks. Tear it all down types" come from, but I think you need to calm down, get out of the cultural Marxist, critical theory tub you're soaking in (even though you don't appear to know you're in there) and make better use of your common sense.

Moving on, I think these independent wishy washy guys who go in the direction of the strongest wave and believe that's strength are just ever so wrong.

So what's left? That's where I am. And it's even smaller than that, because the group I belong to don't even necessarily agree with everybody on where you would put us - on the right. We don't even always agree with each other. But my little group of what I'll call grassroots conservatives share a belief not in utopia, but in a superior and illusive and ever-shifting goal to be worked towards out of a belief in individual freedom tempered by responsibility.

It's interesting though. We both believe we see stuff about the other they don't see in themselves. You go grrr, and I just shake my head. It's interesting that you want to believe you're the mature one.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The same 'we' as in "Why are we focusing on a solution?".

We were talking about climate change.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If not, then I'll return you to our regularly scheduled 'Climate Change' thread.

Not.

Thank-you.

[N_Fiddledog]

Let's pretend that we really are just talking about pollution for a sec though, even though nobody considered anything as economically insane as Cap and Trade until the climate scare.

Let's go with Doc's idea that CO2 emissions are meant as nothing more than an indication of how badly polluted Canada is getting and that's why Kathleen Wynne needs to dash in on her white horse to limit emissions. It's cause of pollution you see. It's for the children.

OK here's a graph from a site about how terrible the oilsands are.



The red line represents oilsands emissions. The others are emissions from other contributors to the economy. Kathleen has nothing to do with the oilsands, so we can throw that line out.

What do you see?

Don't see it yet. Look at this one from Environment Canada, and keep in Mind Stephen Harper took power in 2006.



So if emissions really are an indication of Pollution, and what Kathleen really wants to do is limit pollution. Wouldn't she want to emulate whatever Stephen Harper is doing? It wasn't cap and trade, yet he appears to be having success.