[MP-Ryan]

Canada is being just as bad as you. So no.

Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them.  That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.

Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.

[IceFire]

Canada is being just as bad as you. So no.

Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them.  That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.

Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.

Yeah but thats partly a cop out by Harpers government who barely believes in the climate change thing.  They do believe something so thats an up against the right wingers in the US but its just barely.

I'd also like to point out that no, Canada is not just as bad, its just our government that is bad.  The average person up here isn't quite as ignorant not to have noticed whats happening locally (never mind globally) over the last 10 years.  We drive small cars, we started up recycling a long time ago, locally we are now encouraging a 1 bag of garbage a week program, we have two recycling bins and a green bin plus composters are available for relatively cheap.  Plus Canadians favour smaller cars (two top selling vehicles in this country are the Honda Civic and the Mazda3 with the Corolla and some other smaller vehicles not too far behind).

Everywhere I go in this country there are some good measures going forward.  The problem is getting our damn government to get its fingers out of its nose and start doing something.  Plus we should be leaders on development of new technologies to deal with this issue (good for the economy too). We shouldn't be waiting for everyone else to do something.

[Polpolion]

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

[BloodEagle]

Is it just me, or does this thread have virtually nothing to do with the theory of global warming?   

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

Agreed.

[Flipside]

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.

This was why postcount was turned off in here.

[Shade]

Is it just me, or does this thread have virtually nothing to do with the theory of global warming? 

Given that today was the last day of the UN climate summit in Bali, and that the US did its usual trick with stalling it until time ran out so that nothing substantial came out of it, it seems fairly obvious that the theory of global warming had nothing whatsoever to do with this the creation of thread.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, regarding the actual topic - have all here already seen this (or the newer version?

Basically, the humanity needs to choose between trying to act against climate warming or not. Whether or not it's actually happening is irrelevant in the light of risk analysis. The risk of taking action against non-existant threat is, in this case, much smaller than the risk associated with not taking any action against a real threat.

It makes all the sense in the world IMHO, scary may it be - by the standards of common sense. Economics and politics, obviously, don't follow those standards as we all know.

[Send in the TMF]

i say we increase our technology level *cost 200 billion* and float up to the moon

[Polpolion]

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.

This was why postcount was turned off in here.

If you imprison murderers, they'll complain, won't they? But if you don't imprison them, the victim's family complains.

The problem won't be solved by locking the murderer and the victim's family in a room and hoping for the best, I can tell you that much.


I hope to God that someone other than me gets that analogy. Because usually no one does.

[Flipside]

Maybe it's because there's a difference between not holding the same opinion and killing each other? Though sometimes in here, it's a little hard to tell.

My memory is a little too clear on the reaction when the General Discussion Forum was first moved to the bottom of the list, that has been my main reason for not interfering in these debates. Open, they are pointless, locked, I'm a censor.

If it's a choice of me having to put up with being accused of censorship, of being a bad moderator etc etc, or you lot having conversations that won't change the world, I'll take option 2.

[karajorma]

Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them.  That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.

Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.

If half measures are stupid doing nothing at all because a half measure isn't enough is ****ing stupid.

The west should at least make a start. Then it can do what it does best and bully everyone else into doing what they want.

[Polpolion]

Maybe it's because there's a difference between not holding the same opinion and killing each other? Though sometimes in here, it's a little hard to tell.

My memory is a little too clear on the reaction when the General Discussion Forum was first moved to the bottom of the list, that has been my main reason for not interfering in these debates. Open, they are pointless, locked, I'm a censor.

If it's a choice of me having to put up with being accused of censorship, of being a bad moderator etc etc, or you lot having conversations that won't change the world, I'll take option 2.

Does locking threads that is hostile towards an entire nation for no reason make you a bad moderator?

Look at this:

I am a US citizen. How much does this thread reflect my attitude towards global warming? None. Am I being insulted for other people's intelligences (or lack thereof), for which I have no responsibility? Yes.

This is a gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US to the point of insult.


But if you really want to be a good moderator, by all means condone these actions...

[BloodEagle]

In all practicality, this is racism bigotry.

[Flipside]

So if the title of this thread was 'Iran's attitude towards Women's Rights', I should lock that one too?

God forbid someone should, you know, have an opinion about your environmental policy, that's quite obviously racist.

[Polpolion]

I changed the last line to "condone" for a reason (sorry if you didn't see that). Something less drastic would suffice, I'm sure.

Plus, I'm unsure if there are any Iranians here to even be offended by that thread. And if all you did was go through this thread and replace words pertaining to the US with correlating words pertaining to Iran, then yes.

And yes, I'll admit that the word racist is technically wrong; I was to lazy to type out "gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US". If it makes you feel better, I'll go back and change it.

And as I stated in my previous post, that's not my "environmental policy", yet I'm still insulted for it. Come back in three years when I can vote, then it will be valid.

[Flipside]

I've had to read some whopping great big assumptions of the EU and UN over the years, I either try to correct the error, or simply ignore it, I don't think it's unfair to criticise another country over its policies, governments do it all the time, and that has far more impact than a bunch of people on a forum board.

People make mistakes or misinterpretations, the purpose of a forum is to exchange information, personally, I suggest, rather than simply attacking the thread, you correct those misconceptions and give your own point of view, otherwise nothing will change.

[MP-Ryan]

Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them.  That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.

Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.

If half measures are stupid doing nothing at all because a half measure isn't enough is ****ing stupid.

The west should at least make a start. Then it can do what it does best and bully everyone else into doing what they want.

However, Western emission cutbacks will reflect in productivity levels.  I'm of the mindset that we're better to put as much effort into new technologies as possible, even if it means continuing with only slight reductions in overall emission levels until a binding deal can be forged that includes everyone.

Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets.  By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found.  Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.

I'd rather have politicians like Harper at the table pointing at India and going "they have to be included too" then setting lesser targets for everyone, than Brown's idealism which is going to make the situation worse - the more China and India develop in industry, they less willing they're going to be to spend more money and give up those production levels.

[jr2]

Go read this: here.  Then come back and talk about it.. will be interesting.  Just keep it nice, will ya?  XD  Ya, riiiiiight...

[Polpolion]

I've had to read some whopping great big assumptions of the EU and UN over the years, I either try to correct the error, or simply ignore it, I don't think it's unfair to criticise another country over its policies, governments do it all the time, and that has far more impact than a bunch of people on a forum board.

People make mistakes or misinterpretations, the purpose of a forum is to exchange information, personally, I suggest, rather than simply attacking the thread, you correct those misconceptions and give your own point of view, otherwise nothing will change.

The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.

[Kosh]

Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets.  By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found.  Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.

Great idea, so where is the money to do that going to come from? You're forgetting that despite their growth they are still poor developing countries. Rather than developed nations (whom they themselves did much the same kind of polluting when they were developing) pointing the finger at developing nations, why not offer technologies and assistance for free to actually make the reduction of emissions FEASABLE? To assume a developing country like, say, India can do it by themselves is rediculous.