More thoughts on Kyoto
Thanks to "robedger" for commenting... you've helped me formulate some of my thoughts on Kyoto. And now they're posted here for everyone's consideration...
Protection of this God given planet is indeed a high priority... but I don't believe that global warming is something that is unnatural.
I have affirmed on many occasions that I believe that our planet goes through phases... and that if we are starting to get warmer, we should be spending the money on adaptation, not seeking to prevent something that we have no idea whether or not we can even stop.
This does not make me "immoral", as you ("robedger") have suggested. It simply means that we view this particular issue differently.
As for the rest of the environmental issues around us... well, we've screwed up with this planet, and we have a whole lot of work to do. As for me, I'm doing my bit... for the most part, I bike or walk to work, I don't let my car idle, I do my best to recycle and avoid generating waste, I turn the lights off when I don't need them, I don't litter... as much as an individual can do.
But we need to do a lot more... that's why I support Mr. Harper's Clean Air Act. It's one of the most progressive packages ever introduced by ANY Canadian Government... I challenge you to find anything better. Does the Act fully address all the key points the proponents of Kyoto want? No, it sure doesn't... but the Environment is MUCH bigger than just Kyoto.
The Liberals, and those who tout Kyoto, are doing us a great injustice by making this one issue the be-all and end-all of Environmental responsiblity. In my opinion, there are a lot of issues that are more pressing... allowing Kyoto to completely take over the agenda is disgusting.
Protection of this God given planet is indeed a high priority... but I don't believe that global warming is something that is unnatural.
I have affirmed on many occasions that I believe that our planet goes through phases... and that if we are starting to get warmer, we should be spending the money on adaptation, not seeking to prevent something that we have no idea whether or not we can even stop.
This does not make me "immoral", as you ("robedger") have suggested. It simply means that we view this particular issue differently.
As for the rest of the environmental issues around us... well, we've screwed up with this planet, and we have a whole lot of work to do. As for me, I'm doing my bit... for the most part, I bike or walk to work, I don't let my car idle, I do my best to recycle and avoid generating waste, I turn the lights off when I don't need them, I don't litter... as much as an individual can do.
But we need to do a lot more... that's why I support Mr. Harper's Clean Air Act. It's one of the most progressive packages ever introduced by ANY Canadian Government... I challenge you to find anything better. Does the Act fully address all the key points the proponents of Kyoto want? No, it sure doesn't... but the Environment is MUCH bigger than just Kyoto.
The Liberals, and those who tout Kyoto, are doing us a great injustice by making this one issue the be-all and end-all of Environmental responsiblity. In my opinion, there are a lot of issues that are more pressing... allowing Kyoto to completely take over the agenda is disgusting.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 7:57 p.m.
5 Comments:
At Thu Jan 18, 12:41:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
The thing I find interesting is the interpretation of the melting polar caps. It seems that we look at their depletion getting faster and that they've been there for millions of years. What happens when we look at it from the Biblical perspective, based on an ice age following "the flood" of Genesis?
If the caps have only been there for a few thousand years and the earth is slowly returning to the pre-flood condition...of course, without the canopy and the water beneath the earth. Yes, the water levels will rise. How much? I don't know. I suspect that our misuse of the resources around us is helping matters any, but I doubt that it is anything that we can stop or reverse.
At Fri Jan 19, 01:01:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Your views on this issue are in direct contrast to the scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't think willful blindness is an acceptable alternative to the action that must be taken on this issue.
On a side note, I don't think that you're "immoral". I don't even know you, and overall you seem like a well-intentioned guy.
At Fri Jan 19, 08:17:00 a.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
"Your views on this issue are in direct contrast to the scientific consensus on this issue."
Did you take a look at either of the articles I linked to? It's the infancy, and thus, the unreliablity, of "climate science" that they are calling into question... and thus, making the statement that the "science" is far from settled.
At Fri Jan 19, 08:29:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Those aren't exactly reputable scientific sources. Again, the scientific consensus on this is overwhelming.
I could find you a member of the Flat Earth Society to tell you that the world isn't round, but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to believe that to be the case.
At Fri Jan 19, 01:32:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
To robedger -
I think Nigel Weiss' credentials are a whole lot more reputable and impressive than your hypothetical person who believes that the Earth is flat. On what basis do you judge his credentials be not exactly reputable? I hope it not on the basis of his opinions and conclusions. In that event, you are arguing in a circle, assuming what you are trying to demonstrate or prove. Professor Weiss makes some interesting points. Are those points so wrong as to be unworthy of even discussing. Again, on what basis?
By the way, with respect to the hypothesis that humans have a signficant impact on glogal warming, I think it is a hypothesis with a great deal of support that we ignore at our peril. In fact, I think if we should err, I think it should be on the side of assuming that we humans do have a significant impact on global warming. The risks are too great, I think, for us to do otherwise. However, this hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. To say otherwise is, with all due respect to a fellow (former in my case) student of the U of S, to go beyond where the evidence strictly warrents.
Post a Comment
<< Home