By Any Other Name
I signed some papers on Tuesday to help the Wild Rose Party get sanctioned. This was purely in a bid to help strengthen democracy and had nothing to do with my desire to see a competitive right wing party capable to stealing votes from the PCs burst onto the scene. I figured with a credible platform, they'd be able to...what's that? D'oh!
Media Statement
August 16, 2007
For immediate release
"Alberta should host international conference to question climate change" -- Wildrose Party
Labels: Wild Rose Party
posted by calgarygrit at
11:31 a.m.
27 Comments:
"Conference should be held in 1975."
By
Robert Vollman, at 1:22 p.m.
Good. Every thoughtful person knows that this manmade global warming scare is simply fear mongering by ex-communists and pinkos who have an agenda they can't get passed any other way.
The science behind the idea that man is causing global warming is shaky at best, and fraudulent at worst.
By
Unknown, at 1:31 p.m.
When I first read andrew smith's post I thought he had pushed his parody too far. It's been quite a while since I heard the phrase "ex-communists and pinkos" used non-ironically.
But now I can't say that any more.
By
saphorr, at 1:54 p.m.
saphorr, I don't think andrew smith's post was parody. Look at his blog and his lauding of "The Global Warming Swindle" and such.
By
Concerned Albertan, at 2:15 p.m.
It's a parody, even if he doesn't realize it.
By
Saskboy, at 3:50 p.m.
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Michael Lagace, at 4:09 p.m.
You know, I hadn't realized how unthoughtful I was until I read Andrew Smith's comment. All this time I thought that the enormous amount of pollution created by man had some kind of effect on our environment! What a fool I was! As it turns out, I suppose, the world would be going to spoil if it wasn't for our excessive waste! From now on, I'm going to rely solely on unsound logic instead of things that are completely obvious!
By
Michael Lagace, at 4:10 p.m.
Mickie, let's talk logic here as it seems its something in which you are sorely lacking.
The world's temperature has been changing for the past 4 billion or so years. We have had ice ages where massive glaciers covered much of the North America, and we have had warm periods where there was no ice at all. During about 3.99 billion years of Earth's history there were no factories spouting pollution or people spouting hot air. Yet somehow the climate kept changing. Perhaps you think it was a miracle, or divine intervention? I don't know, but perhaps that giant million degree ball of fire called the sun might have had something to do with it??
Now the climate is continuing to change with the earth getting slightly warmer over the past century. If man made pollution is to blame then the atmosphere's temperature should be warming faster than the surface becuase the greenhouse gases (in the atmosphere) would be trapping in the heat. This is simple physics. The problem for the pinkos like the Goreacle and Stephane "sissy" Dion is that the opposite is true! While the surface temperature has increased, the atmosphere's temperature has just slightly budged. This is inconsistant with the greenhouse gas theory. But please, all you ex-commies and pinkos don't take my word for it look up the raw data yourselves before spouting propaganda.
So please before you call me unthoughtful perhaps you should use your own brain and think!
By
Unknown, at 4:38 p.m.
My favorite part is that, apparently, Stelmach has already conceded that "CO2 emission is bad for Earth's atmosphere."
Silly Stelmach! He should have joined the Battle of Kyoto with Stephen Harper back in 2002. Our Prime Minister Harper knew that C02 was "essential to life", so maybe he'll endorse this new party.
By
Matt Grant, at 4:42 p.m.
kyle g. olsen, that was the point of my "now I can't say that any more".
Look, andrew smith, don't waste your time. There is no "simple physics" argument that will conclusively disprove anthropogenic global warming.
Your "simple physics" argument is not obviously true to me (and I know a few things about physics) nor is it obvious to the many scientists who argue that APG is true (for if it were, then they would not believe what they do).
You must therefore believe that we are all either deluded or willingly falsifying or inventing facts for political motives.
If that's your basis of argument, there's really no point arguing with you. You've made up your mind and opted not to think.
By
saphorr, at 8:46 p.m.
Yup AS, in one short post, you have laid waste to the full weight of evidence for GW....impressive!
Surpised you are wasting your time with rubes like us, with your estimable talents, you should have a soap box at least as big as Ann Coulters's.
Well back to my Marxists texts, gotta keep my pinko cred up - I hear the term is coming back into vogue.
By
Ian, at 11:20 p.m.
"Well back to my Marxists texts, gotta keep my pinko cred up - I hear the term is coming back into vogue." I thought the Red Scare and McCarthyism ended in the 1950s? Are the Communist witchhunt's back again? Oh goody⁄!
By
John Murney , at 6:18 a.m.
All of your visceral reactions to a simple smidgen of evidence proves my point. If you were confident in your points of view, and the evidence was there you would refute what I said with evidence. Unfortunately since none exists, yours are the reactions of most of the fearmongers - simply mock thoughful people like myself.
Furthermore, the fact that you denounce the idea of having a conference to question manmade global warming proves you are more interested in forcing a certain political agenda than learning the facts.
By
Unknown, at 9:44 a.m.
andrew smith: I don't know who you think you're arguing with here!
You said "If man made pollution is to blame then the atmosphere's temperature should be warming faster than the surface because the greenhouse gases (in the atmosphere) would be trapping in the heat. This is simple physics."
How is this simple physics? It doesn't make sense to me.
I very much doubt that there's any aspect of the physics behind the greenhouse effect that can be summarized in one sentence with no recourse to technical terms.
However, speaking rather naively, I would expect that in a situation where heat is trapped as per the greenhouse blanket, that the termperature rise in any particular piece of matter (air, surface, etc.) would correspond more to its individual capacity for retaining heat than to its position (i.e. how far off the ground it is).
Anyway, I rather doubt this blog is the place for detailed discussions of the physics of global warming, nor do I believe you are genuinely interested in such discussions. It is fairly obvious that only purpose here is to walk away from the discussion with a self-satisfied smirk, because no one was able to disprove your "evidence". You might enjoy talking with a conspiracy theorist sometime and seeing how it looks from the other side.
By
saphorr, at 12:35 p.m.
Considering that Alberta is the only province where the majority of its citizens are right wing, it probably makes sense to have two right parties. One centre-right and one more ideological one. In every other province, winning as a united right is enough of a challenge so there is no need for two right wing parties, but in Alberta one right wing party simply ensures they always win.
By
Monkey Loves to Fight, at 6:13 p.m.
I wonder if the huge influx of people moving into Alberta for jobs will alter the province's political makeup... will Alberta become more conservative... or maybe less as time goes on?
By
MERBOY, at 6:59 p.m.
In response to Merboy, I would suggest that democracy is putatively about making a choice. Every other province's electorate seems to have the sense to keep their politicians "honest" by turfing them before they get complacent, or corrupt, or just plain incompetant.
So the influx of people from other provinces may have an effect "at the margin" (for example, in close ridings) in the short term, and perhaps a bit of an effect on the political culture in the long term (mitigated by the fact that THEY may simply assimilate into the dominant political culture here), but it's doubtful that we'll see wholesale changes any time soon.
By
Party of One, at 11:33 p.m.
Miles,
Alberta is not right-wing. Alberta is less left-wing than the rest of Canada, but that's doesn't make it right-wing.
Nevertheless, I agree there should be a right-wing party, just like we have the NDP on the left. Theirs is an important voice that should be heard.
Of course, we already have a boatload of right-wing parties ...
By
Robert Vollman, at 10:45 a.m.
“All of your visceral reactions to a simple smidgen of evidence proves my point. If you were confident in your points of view, and the evidence was there you would refute what I said with evidence. Unfortunately since none exists, yours are the reactions of most of the fearmongers - simply mock thoughful people like myself.”
You offered no evidence, only a weak, erroneous explanation. Proof exists, go read the papers and supporting evidence off the many sites (IPCC has numerous links to the science papers supporting climate change concensus). We don’t have to defend it, that’s already been done. Deniers just want to keep making it look like there is still a debate. Don't need to open it up to panel discussions either - again - that's been done but you just don't like the conclusions.
But I will say this about your “proof” - air doesn’t just sit there, it circulates and is absorbed into water, ice (which is melting - gee!) And land.
By
900ft Jesus, at 1:40 p.m.
Hey CG, isn't this 'Wild Rose Party" just another party full of right-wing kooks?
By
John Murney , at 2:27 p.m.
andrew smith said:
Now the climate is continuing to change with the earth getting slightly warmer over the past century. If man made pollution is to blame then the atmosphere's temperature should be warming faster than the surface becuase the greenhouse gases (in the atmosphere) would be trapping in the heat. This is simple physics.
Your explanation makes no sense. The immediate surface of the Earth and the atmosphere are in thermal equilibrium on the time scale of climate change. There is black-body radiation transfer between the surface and the atmosphere, and vice versa. Similarly, the is this thing we call 'wind' which generates a great deal of convective mixing.
Consider a simple proof of this: the diurnal temperature variations on the Earth's surface are perhaps 10 °C between day and night. Is there a lag between the surface temperature and atmospheric temperature? Yes, and how long is it? A few hours, thanks to the higher heat capacity of the earth. What about climate change? Less than 0.1 ^C per year. Understand now?
Also, greenhouse gases do not really 'absorb' infrared radiation, they scatter it. Infrared radiation emitted by the surface that would otherwise pass through the atmosphere and into space is scattered, and there's roughly even chance it will come back down to the surface and hence not escape. The surface thus warms up (global warming), emits more infrared radiation, until the system reaches equilibrium.
By
Robert McLeod, at 3:00 p.m.
nice, robert mc. Well, andrew asked! The only denier response to that is "you scientists are making this stuff so you can have jobs."
By
900ft Jesus, at 4:45 p.m.
Um. The earth's atmosphere is heated from below. Always has been always will be.
The air won't 'heat up' faster than the surface because air is not static, it's an ocean, it doesn't just stay up forever. As air rises, it cools. As air sinks, it warms.
The natural state of things is for temperature to decline (measured by the lapse rate) as you rise from the surface in a fairly predictable manner (the lapse rate will vary according to the amount of moisture in the air). And this is because, as already said, the earth is heated from below (it 'bakes' the atmosphere).
Yes. It is simple physics M Smith. Physics which I'm afraid you don't quite have a full understanding of.
By
Unknown, at 5:57 p.m.
john murney - looks that way
By
calgarygrit, at 8:09 p.m.
I’m impressed by all the work that went into this contest. BTW, have you guys noticed that there is a financial and realty crisis?
The Americans have issued $2trillion of non-traditional mortgages (read subprime) mortgages between 2001 and 2007 ($600b in 2006). The introductory 2% loans expire in two years. That means that a trillion dollars of shaky mortgages have to be refinanced at much higher rates in 2007/8.
How large are the mortgage losses? No one knows at this time what will be the default rate, or how much realty prices will fall. At the moment, the subprime mortgages are illiquid. There are no buyers at any reasonable prices.
You might sell some at 10 cents on the dollar.
How much wealth will be lost? Forced sales reduce the prices in a neighborhood. The sizes of the surplus inventory (foreclosures and unsold stock) will depress realty prices deeply in many cities for a long time. Eventually, most American property owners will be affected.
Why is there a financial crisis in addition to a realty crash? There will be a huge foreclosure sale extending out for the next two years as the subprime borrowers default. The falling realty market is creating a financial crisis for mortgage lenders and investors. Eventually, the fallout will affect the commercial banks because most of the funds ultimately come from retail banks.
When will it affect the real economy? The recession is just starting. Demand is falling and loans are harder to get. By a coincident, the interest rate cycle bottomed two (you guessed it) years ago.
Why is it a global crisis? America has been the engine of growth because of debt, debt and debt. In 2006, $600billion of subprime mortgages was issued to finance homes. Another $431b in loans were drawn on realty equity. And, the federal government ran a $200b deficit.
This translated into a $750billion external deficit in goods and services. Great for the world economy!
Now comes the payment. What will be our economic growth once the ‘false’ stimulus has been reduced? What is going to happen to the areas where realty prices rose quickly? What will be the Canadian political landscape when there are no surpluses to throw around?
Who is to blame? The central banks for raising rates? The lenders for making bad loans? The consumers for overspending? The media for saying nothing? The regulators for doing nothing? The government for a laissez faire attitude?
Good luck to you.
By
JimTan, at 11:18 p.m.
Andrew the planet is older than 4 billion years. Jeez, life even started before then.It was even hotter before then, everything was molten. So whats your point?
Tell me Andrew what your educational background is because from your comment, I'd say you don't have any.
Got to love those who think they are experts on a subject they can't even get basic time scales right on.
Glad you get the point that temperatures are not static and do change but do you know what a hot house is as opposed to a ice age? Do you know what causes these events? Did you know we are supposed to be cooling down again as part of an interglacial period within the current ice age we find ourselves in? Did you also see that our temperatures instead of dipping again has shot right through the roof? You argument that it is the sun is the dumbest I've heard. Our sun has been dimming since it form. Its a nuclear furnance with a fixed amount of fuel and its halfway through it.
Most likely you have no f**king clue. Thats the price for being coddled and spoiled all your life. You have no need to think beyond yourself.
By
Jay, at 1:42 p.m.
I believe everyone ought to browse on it.
By
www.navarra-3d.com, at 1:16 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home