Canada Sent More "Participants" To Paris Climate Talks Than Australia, the U.K. And U.S. Together

[Anonymous]

Once again, the far left "news" sources of the Prog Prince get shot down.

I am surprised Romero did not take a look at some real news sources and see that China's use of coal electricity is growing.

[Romero]

So thinkprogress is saying China is weaning itself off of coal? China's thirst for power is waning, but they continue building coal fired power plants at an astonishing rate. Other forms of energy are the loser.

China is building cleaner, efficient coal plants but closing all the dirtier ones.



We'll see! China can't be depending on coal so much forever. Citizens are getting fed up with all the pollution.

[Romero]

I am surprised Romero did not take a look at some real news sources and see that China's use of coal electricity is growing.

The article's info is based on a study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

[cc]

Canada Sent More "Participants" To Paris Climate Talks Than Australia, the U.K. And U.S. Together

   ac_lmfao  ac_toofunny  







Sorry. Can't stop laffin @ the stupidity of the Jay Vee team many of our twits elected

[Anonymous]

We have coal power in Alberta for now, but we don't have the air pollution that China does..



When we lived in Kazakhstan, the air quality was terrible and they use coal..



Australia uses coal and their air quality is acceptable, so air problems have more to do with engineering standards and not simply using coal.

[Anonymous]

Good on Rudy for calling out these idiotic assholes trying to feed us the climate change causes Islamofascism Kool Aid.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in an appearance on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" on Tuesday, disputed the president's assertion that climate change is linked to terrorism, noting that many of the terrorists are middle class or rich, so it's not the result of desperation.



"The terrorism that we're dealing with is not emerging from desperation. Many of these people are middle class or rich people who are involved in the terrorism. This is an ideologically or religiously based – and I would say certainly a misinterpretation of the religion and a, or if you want to call it a hijacking of the religion – but the religion has been turned into an ideology. It's like saying communism was caused by climate change," he said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/rudy-giuliani-linking-climate-change-terrorism-saying-communism-was">http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie ... munism-was">http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/rudy-giuliani-linking-climate-change-terrorism-saying-communism-was

[Anonymous]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12246972_10153466429938801_3720539519038959912_n.jpg?oh=0c7389e0c803859472e63c170d1abf63&oe=5721D8A8">

[Anonymous]

I am surprised Romero did not take a look at some real news sources and see that China's use of coal electricity is growing.

The article's info is based on a study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

[Anonymous]

We have been talking about coal consumption in China, but what is at least as serious if not more is the rare earth mining in China and the environmental wreckage it has caused. It's not that burning coal or mining rare earth metals in theory are disastrous, but like most large scale industrial projects in China, safety and environment are not priorities.



In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz3tT1621sQ">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... z3tT1621sQ">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz3tT1621sQ



Rare earth mining in China: the bleak social and environmental costs

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs">http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... ntal-costs">http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs

[Anonymous]

While I do believe the climate is changing and human activity is likely a contributing factor, I do not believe there is much we can do to stop the cycle even if we reduce our emissions to zero which is impossible anyway.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/">http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... long-time/">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time

The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is "real, man-made and dangerous," as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it's a "hoax," as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time.



This "lukewarm" option has been boosted by recent climate research, and if it is right, current policies may do more harm than good. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other bodies agree that the rush to grow biofuels, justified as a decarbonization measure, has raised food prices and contributed to rainforest destruction. Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without it and the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires.



In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose in a "business as usual" way, which they have done, then global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade). In the 25 years since, temperature has risen at about 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, depending on whether surface or satellite data is used. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, lowered its near-term forecast for the global mean surface temperature over the period 2016 to 2035 to just 0.3 to 0.7 degree C above the 1986–2005 level. That is a warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, in all scenarios, including the high-emissions ones.



At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.



Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.



SEE ALSO:

Health: All Gene-Editing Research Should Proceed Cautiously, Scientists Conclude | Mind: Using Pigeons to Diagnosis Cancer | Tech: "Improving" Humans with Customized Genes Sparks Debate among Scientists | The Sciences: New Law Paves the Way for Asteroid Mining--but Will It Work?

The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about "tipping points" to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are "very unlikely" and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is "exceptionally unlikely."



If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50 years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels.



As the upcoming Paris climate conference shows, the world is awash with plans, promises and policies to tackle climate change. But they are having little effect. Ten years ago the world derived 87 percent of its primary energy from fossil fuels; today, according the widely respected BP statistical review of world energy, the figure is still 87 percent. The decline in nuclear power has been matched by the rise in renewables but the proportion coming from wind and solar is still only 1 percent.



Getting the price of low-carbon energy much lower will do the trick. So we should spend the coming decades stepping up research and development of new energy technologies. Many people may reply that we don't have time to wait for that to bear fruit, but given the latest lukewarm science of climate change, I think we probably do.

[J0E]

Of those not mentioned, is our useless mayor and his equally useless Vision council, Gregor Robertson.



I welcome any of you living in other Canadian cities to take him off our hands.



Robertson is costing the taxpayers of Vancouver plenty, and he's getting absolutely nothing done.



http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/02/gordon-clark-who-is-our-hobnobbing-mayor-actually-serving/">http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/02 ... y-serving/">http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/02/gordon-clark-who-is-our-hobnobbing-mayor-actually-serving/

In 2010, Canada's then-top spy Richard Fadden gave a rare interview to CBC host Peter Mansbridge in which he warned that "several municipal politicians in British Columbia ..." were "under at least the general influence of a foreign government."



Apart from China, I have no idea which countries or politicians Fadden was talking about. But if it doesn't include Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and other members of his fake municipal party of activists, perhaps CSIS should give some thought to looking into them, given their dubious and disturbing behaviour and deep connections to U.S. "foreign" interests.



We learned this week that Vision politicians and taxpayer-funded political staff and municipal bureaucrats are at the climate meetings in Paris, thanks in part to cash they were given by C40, an organization of world cities led, for now, by green politicians "committed to addressing climate change."



Robertson is attending four C40 events while in Paris, where he and his friends will drink more green Kool-Aid from Bloomberg and his C40 pals, including the notion that mayors should solve climate change with what one political scientist, Harald Fuhr of Potsdam University, called "elitist policy-making," since national governments have so far failed.



Robertson either doesn't understand that politicians shouldn't accept gifts from those pushing a particular public policy, especially when they stand to profit from public funding, or he's so arrogant he thinks the rules don't apply to him because he's "saving" the planet.



I'm concerned about another problem with Robertson's behaviour. When he jets off, as he frequently does, to participate in these international climate blabfests that are far outside his mandate as a mayor, is he acting for Vancouver taxpayers or is he an agent of people like Bloomberg, inflicting their useless and expensive policies on Vancouver taxpayers? Or is he lining up a lucrative green career option for when he's done being mayor in two years?



In Vancouver, after seven years of Vision rule, homelessness is worse than ever, traffic congestion is at an all-time high, in part thanks to their street-restricting policies, no one can afford a decent home and neighbourhoods are being ruined by Vision's push to increase density while ignoring what citizens want.



I'm sure Robertson enjoys sipping champagne with his girlfriend in Paris and hobnobbing with his rich pals, but he's not doing his job as Vancouver's mayor while doing it. If you look around the city, it shows.

The residents of Vancouver are sick of Mayor Gregor Robertson.



Edmonton, Calgary, if you don't mind, you can take him and Vision Vancouver off our hands so you can put them on your civic welfare payrolls.



You can have 'em we don' want 'em.

What a waste of taxpayer dollars not to mention C02 emissions.



Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396).



Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet's greenhouse gases, eh?



Mon Dieu, I shudder to think what it's all costing taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

I don't read too much about the city council in Vancouver. When I do, it's usually how they are leaders in climate change which usually means charging people more for symbolism.

[Anonymous]

The climate change hysteria continues.



The world's temperature has risen approximately one half of a centigrade degree, or almost one fahrenheit degree, in 35 years. There has been minimal global warming for 18 years, though carbon emissions in the world have steadily increased throughout that period. It is indisputable that the world has been warmer several times in its history than it is now, so whatever impact man may have on it, the world's temperature is evidently subject to fluctuations for other reasons. There is also legitimate disagreement about the consequences of such warming as might occur. Recent research at the University of Sussex, widely recognized for its expertise in this field, indicates that warming up to 3.5 centigrade degrees from where we are now would have no appreciable impact on anything, except a positive impact where increased volumes of carbon dioxide increase arable area and make crops more drought-resistant. There has also been a good deal of reciprocally corroborating research in different countries by recognized experts that uniformly demonstrates that the world's temperature is much less sensitive than had long been feared to increased carbon use. Antarctic polar ice is thickening and world water levels are not rising. Apocalyptic statements of imminent consequences of not reducing carbon use have been fairly thoroughly debunked.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-great-climate-conference-charade-playing-out-in-paris">http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... t-in-paris">http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-great-climate-conference-charade-playing-out-in-paris