More nonsense from the government’s around the golbe. We buy everything from the biggest polluters in the world, China and India, who are never going to be on board. So as long as the hypocrites keep doing business with these disgusting nations who could care less about the environment, nothing will change.

What a bunch of tools.

2100? that is 85 years from now… yup they are really serious about getting things changed… I am sure they will find ways to sidestep it…

Its all just political garbage from the globalists.

I would be incline to take them a little bit more serious if there was a carbon tax on global air travel and global shipping which accounts for nearly 20% of all emissions.

As it is they are pushing for what amounts to a regressive flat tax on energy that will hinder growth and industrial competitiveness for the ‘volunteers’ (ie useful idiots) that implement measures in national economies… transfer carbon tax dollars in broad bureaucratic wealth transfers… and put local economies at a distinct disadvantage to the globalist economy that pits carbon tax economies against non carbon tax economies, therefore enriching the arbitrage economy of banksters that even get to ship carbon tax free.

This is a disaster deal for Northern citizens of Canada that will pay huge flat taxes to heat their homes and conduct business in a rural economy. It makes living and doing business in the north uneconomical.

I would like to see the government focus more on real issues like air pollution in Prince George and the particulates that cause health issues, or the protection of our rivers and streams and wet lands. All this climate talk C02 scare is an opportunistic diversion from the real issues at hand.

The last ice age started with a 7 degree drop in temperature over only 200 years.

Clearly with the Paris deal the notion of global free trade is dead.

How can we have a national economy when we compete with nations that don’t tax carbon and don’t pay carbon taxes on getting their subsidized products to our markets?

Clearly we would need to implement an import tariff or duty to cover the ill gotten gains of non carbon tax competitiveness… or is the plan just to give our economy away to the globalist traders?

Eagleone, I like your last point of view. Adds clarity on what we should be doing to countries that don’t implement a purposeful way to deal with polluters.

Than again, it sounded like a purposeful way to tax the abusers, but isn’t it just another scheme for governments to tax the populace. So we manage to get the world to get a bit colder. does that mean we will see a reduction in the carbon tax…. NOT.

So what happens if all the tree huggers and fish kisser’s get their way. We stop the temperature from rising and it starts to fall. Than the artic get frozen solid. The snow don’t melt in the summer in northern Manitoba, the sound of mile high ice grinding the Canadian Shield drives everything into pulverized dust…. Is this what we really want!!!

This too will be the end of humanity as we know it. As more and more fresh water gets locked up in the ice. the population of the planet being compressed into smaller areas. There will be world wide starvation. Is this what the environmentalist wants!!!!:-)

It is a scam to give governments the ability to tax non existent problems

Oh I believe it is a problem, it has changed PG climate in a big way. It has changed the east coast climate every winter now. Tee hee hee, they just get hammered now with snow.

I believe is a problem, but as eagle one has stated, if the big polluters, china and india is not on board. nothing is going to change. Do we force china and india to comply, it will do two things, drive up Walmarts prices up, as well slow down the resource based country.

A catch 22.

The greatest cause is Over Population of this Plant.
We are living in an Inter Glacial Period and it will get much colder again,may have to wait a few 1000 Years or less, until then Earth will look like an Anthill crawling with Humans . Enjoy your Time on it, it wont last.
I think all the “Experts” have the next Trip booked, Party time again!

“And it calls for countries to limit the increase in global temperature by 2100 to less than two percent above pre-industrial levels. With wording that suggests that we’re going to try and limit it to 1.5 degrees.” – if they think that there is anything humans can do to be this precise then they are delusional.

“The greatest cause is Over Population of this Plant”

Exactly.

It really does not matter what we tax. But if that is the problem, instead of CO2, which human bodies produce as well as methane, and we follow the principle of taxing CO2, we should be taxing countries that have the highest densities of humans …. Hong Kong, for instance. Macao …. Liechtenstein ….

bent wrote: “if they think that there is anything humans can do to be this precise then they are delusional”

Considering that those who make these science based predictions are meteorologists, I agree. We see that every day we wake up to weather that is different than predicted. :-)

May be Greg Fry or Michelle Connolly can point us to the science that shows haw much mans c02 contribution has supposedly warmed the planet. That should be fun as there is no reproducible verifiable science. Heck the rentseeking scientists haven’t even figured out the natural side of climate.

Prince George has warmed, that is proof, how is that proof. Got proof it has never warmed before? What about the cooling period from the 40’s into the 70’s when scientists and the hyperventilating media where all jumping up and down about the coming ice age.

Folks ever hear of the little ice age, well it was warmer before then than now. The earth is still rebounding from that. What about the Medieval and Roman warm periods, warmer than now. Hey that was before man’s significant c02 contribution which by the way is only 4% of total c02.

This “climate” deal was doomed from the start. 40,000 delegates and hangers-on jetting in from around the world, spewing out 500,000 tons of CO2 in order to tell us to cut our emissions? Besides which, anyone paying attention to the various country’s stated “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” during the build-up to this gab-fest would have been well aware that nobody had any intention of making meaningful cuts to emissions.

Climate change is only the excuse, the real intention is global wealth transfer from the successful capitalist economies to the rest of the world. $100 billion per year has been promised from the wealth producing, capitalist countries to the “developing” nations. How much of that will come from Canadian taxpayers? Hang on to your wallet, it’s going to hurt.

Here’s a thought – How about UNBC do some honest research into the actual science of climate for a change. They’ll discover that the deniers were right all along.

Comments from Jeffery Simpson published in today’s Globe and Mail:

Those who contest the evidence of warming related to human activities predictably sneered, for they have made a good living preaching to the small and dwindling choir of those who deny the scientific evidence. To them were joined the comfortable scoffers who are too smart to deny the evidence but criticize every attempt to do anything.

These critics exist more in North America than Europe, but they have been left in the dust of history as the world unanimously agreed that warming is a serious problem. To get 195 countries to agree that action must be taken is a major international accomplishment on any subject, let alone something as sweeping as climate change. That the countries will meet every five years to review progress is not something the world community often does.

Matt Ridley caught up in dollars for denial scandal . Mr. Big British coal willing to pay big money for fantasies that we see repeated from the House of Lords to the comment section here . At 43 dollars for short ton coal he should go broke and so he should . Just search the first sentence and be amazed at how desperate they are becoming .

Bubba6, Jefery simpson is a elitist bandwagon jumper. He went from knowing dick to an condescending expert.

Ataloss, If you are a believer, The deniers must be right. Your on the wrong side of everything.

Ataloss how about your fantasy solar system?

I boldly predict starting about 2032 the world average temperature will start to drop, and by 2037, it will drop by 3 degrees Celcius. We will see the artic frozen solid for 10 months of the year. Food crops will fail, prices for food will double. Price of fossil fuel will keep rising because of the demand.

here are couple are a couple of more good reads, Greg you should check these out

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-high-church-of-global-warming

http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

Here is how well altermate energy has not worked in Germany, Denmark
and now we get to watch Ontario and Alberta make the same costly mistakes.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/

Trudeau wants to do the same to all of Canada, science was not his major.

Perhaps Mr. Connolly (not a geologist or earth scientist) and the rest of the lefties should present some scientific evidence of global warming that hasn’t been tampered with. And looking forward to new ways to live? The elite on the Hill cannot quite understand their pseudo intellectual bs. would unemploy tens of millions of people and force other multi-millions to starvation.

Well Janet Yellen just improved my environment a great deal . 25 bases points . How soon will canada follow suit ? Or are we going to have a 65 cent dollarette ? Stevie’s chickens are going to come home to roost and that’s not a good thing . Unless you are prepared that is .

Clean renewable energy sources:

Geothermal
Wind turbines
Hydro power
Wave power
Solar Panel (voltaic) power (not imaginary solar system)
Nuclear
etc.

Burning coal, oil and natural gas pollutes air, water and soil. For the sake of clean air, water and food stop BURNING the above! While the switch over is going on who cares whether or not the argument about mankind’s contribution to global warming goes on and on?

I borrowed this

Unfortunately, the Green Industry/Academia continues to preach a man-made CO2 driven apocalypse is coming but, time and again, the evidence for such is either not provided or is very quickly discredited and discounted by subsequent events and investigations.

However, like all true self-interested troughers or religious zealots they then don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of their stated beliefs but alter tack.They then discredit themselves even further like some suspect being formally interviewed and interrogated by the police: each lie leads to necessary further lies which in turn provides more evidence of on-going inconsistency and contradiction.

Alternatively, they re-define their dogma, the classic being changing global warming – something that inconveniently can be measured and commented on, to climate change – something that is not quantifiable, has no datum for comparison and therefore something that can mean all things to all people.

They have moved the goal posts so many times that the playing field looks like the aftermath of a plague of moles!

Pathetic!

Whatever we do, if we keep on increasing our Numbers, it will mean nothing at all!

PG ever see a wind generator manufacture a wind generator?

Geothermal, limited and costly

Wind turbines, very inefficient and very costly. See Germany, Denmark, Australia

Hydro, limited for most of the world

Wave, again limited and costly.

limited and costly for mass source of generation, again see Germany, Protugal, Spain and the general boondoggle in Australia.

Nuclear now you are talking.

You also ignored the enviromental issues with, Geothermal, wind turbines, hydro and wave.

Nuclear makes the most sense going forward but clean moderal coal for most to the world is still king until methane hydrates takes over.

Nuclear is the most expensive electricity in the world . It’s at least a thousand times more expensive then any other source . No insurance company in the world will under write a reactor against melt down anywhere at all . The cost of clean up and decommissioning is under written by the rate payers of the utility and our taxes . Decommioning can take over a hundred yes . Nuclear for those that know is a joke . It’s the only industry in the world with a negative learning curve .

Another thing . Do you know what the difference between a military nuke plant and a civilian nuke plant is ? Answer : none .

Can you back up your nuclear plant rant. Hey China and India are building.

Difference between and military and civilian nuclear plant, say what are you smoking.

France 80% nuclear for electricity. Germany and Denmark pushing wind, not working out so well. They buy nuclear sourced power from France when the wind don’t blow.

Of coarse I can .” There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one ” -Los Alamos National Labratory Report LA8969MS,UC-16.

That Germany Denmark bs ? You just made that up .

One nuclear disaster has done more damage to the planets ecosystems than C02 ever will. Fukushima has all but destroyed the Pacific Ocean and soon will contaminate most of the worlds oceans and the land mass of the northern hemisphere. Nuclear energy will be the end of mankind IMO.

SEamutt:”You also ignored the enviromental issues with, Geothermal, wind turbines, hydro and wave.”

No, I did not. You ignore the nasties that are spewed into the environment when fossil fuels are burned, especially coal! Ever heard that coal burning releases mercury into the air? Ever heard of (sulphuric) acid rain? Ever heard of many apartment developments in Vancouver use geothermal power extracted from the ground beneath them?

Germany is at the 29% lean energy level! That means it is working! Of course Germany has to get its power in the meantime from conventional sources, which are being phased out as more clean energy is put on line. It will take more time and money, but they are determined to get off fossil fuels altogether eventually. Being negative accomplishes nothing. The USA is also installing wind turbine farms and solar panel farms at an astounding rate!

The air is unbreathable in many cities in India and China – peoples’ lifespans are being shortened by pulmonary issues and heart diseases due to poisoned air! That is why they showed up at the Paris conference!

Why debate ad infinitum the mute point about whether or not mankind is contributing to global warming when the environment is being relentlessly becoming more poisonous?

Don’t worry too much eagle solar is going to snuff out nuclear soon enough .sadly the reactors that exist will be bilking us for generations to come long after they cease to produce power . If they had to pay for their own insurance they would never have been built . If you haven’t yet . Look up industry learning curve . The learning curve of nuclear in a nut shell . Every generation of nuclear takes longer to build and costs increasingly more . That’s a negative learning curve.

Who cares what people think at UNBC. They can’t even pick a Chancellor without creating a disaster. Is the UNBC opinion on something as huge as climate change worthy of a news story?

PG, there is no question China and India are a toilet bowl of pollution. Were many Canadians get frustrated is we are a fly on a camels ass as far a the world is concerned. If we ceased to exist China would still continue their polluting ways. Ask Ontario how their big co2 fight is going. They are up to their ass in debt with the highest power rates in North America. The province is becoming an economic waste land.

It pisses me off that I have to pay a carbon tax to heat my house, when there is no economic alternative. for what? So some smug eco nazi can say we need to do our part even though it makes no difference to global co2/pollution levels.

Whitcomb in the citizen continues to trot out we have very high per capita co2 emissions. Well duh Dr. whitcomb. we are big and cold. Comparing us to Belgium is asinine. But lay on the guilt Todd. Your job will be safe as many others are out of work. Jerk.

bubba6 wrote: “To get 195 countries to agree that action must be taken is a major international accomplishment on any subject”

What really matters is whether ISIS agreed. If they did not, heads will start rolling. :-)

Outwest had the right answer however it seems that his post was ignored.

Over population is the cause of pollution, and greenhouse gases. Why? Because everything is produced for consumption by humans.

Higher population means more customers which equals more production.

The major pollution from cattle is because we eat beef. Pollution from cars is because we drive cars. Planes because we fly, and ships because we traverse the oceans. It goes on and on.

The simple solution would be to restrict every family on earth to two children, and as the population declines so would the associated pollution.

Problem is the people on this earth (for the most part) are driven by greed, and therefore there is not much hope in any actual measureable action being taken until we start to drop like flies.

A good gauge of just how serious this problem is being taken could be ascertained by looking at the next 10 or 20 year production projections for the major car companies, meat producers, airlines, etc; etc; etc;.

I doubt if any of them are forecasting a decline in sales.

Just wait until we get a billion more Chinese, East Indian, and other countries driving cars.

PG the majority of world gets its energy from coal, and that will not change any time soon because of its low cost for areas with no hydro.

Coal plants can and are designed to remove the pollutants. Super critical plants burn very cleanly.

Germany because of its irrational shutdown of its nuclear plants is building coal fired plants to make up the difference.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/

There are at least 2400 coal plants being built or planned around the world, most in China.

Wind and solar is very inefficient and costly and requires conventional backup.
Wind power has a low energy density and would require millions of acres to be covered, think of that environmental impact.

“Fukushima has all but destroyed the Pacific Ocean,,say what”. hey the ocean seemed to have survived all those nukes that where exploded in it.

Most of this interglacial was warmer than now, and the previous intergalcials where warmer than this one and the world seemed to survive, imagine that.

So again can some one point out the science that rising C02 is bad? The science not some computer program but real data reproducible data. Todd Whitcombe never has.

C02 makes the plants grow, the world has greened 30% since the c02 levels started increasing from its low level. Heck warmer would be better, thats why lots of people head south for the winter. But wait around a couple of years as this weather/climate cycle is transitioning from warmer to cooler and our 40 below will be back then all of you will be happy. Imagine that carbon tax at 40 below, government friends will be just rolling in dough.

Dow wrote: “we have very high per capita co2 emissions. Well duh Dr. whitcomb. we are big and cold.”

Big and cold have only a small influence on the amount of green gasses produced. You realize, of course, that China is large and cold as well.

Here is the order of the top 20 green house gas countries in the world from highest to lowest

1 China
2 United States
3 India
4 Russian Federation
5 Japan
6 Germany
7 Korea, Rep.
8 Iran, Islamic Rep.
9 Indonesia
10 Saudi Arabia
11 Canada
12 South Africa
13 Mexico
14 United Kingdom
15 Brazil
16 Italy
17 Australia
18 France
19 Turkey
20 Poland

This is the order of highest to lowest per person CO2 output.

1 Saudi Arabia
2 United States
3 Australia
4 Canada
5 Russian Federation
6 Korea, Rep.
7 Japan
8 Germany
9 South Africa
10 Poland
11 Iran, Islamic Rep.
12 United Kingdom
13 China
14 Italy
15 France
16 Turkey
17 Mexico
18 Indonesia
19 Brazil
20 India

This shows the tons of CO2 per person output.

Saudi Arabia 16.843
United States 16.637
Australia 15.711
Canada 13.660
Russian Federation 12.574
Korea, Rep. 11.690
Japan 9.344
Germany 9.018
South Africa 8.838
Poland 8.350
Iran, Islamic Rep. 7.507
United Kingdom 6.948
China 6.613
Italy 6.488
France 5.117
Turkey 4.225
Mexico 3.720
Indonesia 2.216
Brazil 2.132
India 1.602

Note that the USA is not quite as large as Canada, has about 9 times the population which should make it more efficient, yet they put out greater than 20% more CO2 per person. No wonder they do not want high CO2 production input oil sands.

Oh, forgot all about Belgium. It is the 37th highest producer of CO2 by country. It produces 8.706 tonnes per person. That is worse than Poland, Iran, UK, China, Italy, France, Turkey And more than twice as high as Mexico and four times as high as Brazil.

Not exactly something to be proud of given the size and density of the country. I know they produce butter, chocolate and lace plus lots of hot air in Bruxelles.

seamutt wrote: “Most of this interglacial was warmer than now, and the previous intergalcials where warmer than this one and the world seemed to survive, imagine that.”

You have to stay on topic. The topic is not world survival. The topic is not even human survival. The topic is change in the condition of the world as we have known it over recorded history of say 3+ thousand years, and certainly in the last 4 to 500 years.

We have grown to be dependent on the levels of the oceans as they are, on the weather in certain regions to be as it has been, etc. We expect floods, high winds, draught, cold winters, less sun, more sun, etc. All things that change the climate with higher frequency of some things and fewer frequency of others and various changes in extremes.

That is all. No need to be so melodramatic.

Just a bunch of people who not only want to control the indoor climate in buildings with air conditioners, furnaces, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, ozonators, etc. but they want to do the same for the outdoors.

Just consider them to be a bunch of control freaks. Humour them. :-)

Why isn’t Belgium on your list?

As well we have a relatively small population for our size. If we had a higher population density we would be well down the list. Stats are subject to interpretation.

Further more, over the years there has been several warming periods. We were buried in glaciers that melted. They grew grapes in England. Farmed in Greenland. How can this be explained?

Because I took the 20 highest producers of CO2. Belgium is number 37 on the list as you can see from my post at 9:03

Higher density does not necessarily equate to lower CO2/person as you can see from the USA. It has more to do the lifestyle and so-called modern “quality” of life, especially the American lifestyle which much of the world is trying to emulate.

To those who think kike Palopu, societies will not continue to “progress” in the same way that those countries which were leading the change did. China will likely never reach the CO2/person emissions of a USA. They may actually never reach the height of emissions of a Japan or Germany. China is 2/3 od Japan and Germany. With new technology those two will likely drop and China will meet them somewhere on the way down below 9 tonnes per person.

The US, Canada and a few others will have a much more difficult road ahead of them. They were late adopters.

That is all. No need to be so melodramatic.

Say what all I was pointing out is where the world has been temperature wise without scientists believing c02 is some sort of the control knob to temperature. Trillions may be spent on chasing false science that could be better spent on say medical research or hey raising people out of poverty.

Again why spend trillions on a none issue that has no facts in science. Ever hear of the pause that I pointed to above.

Even the IPCC has been backing down on their temperature projections mainly because the real world data is a lot less than the models and the gap is widening.

Climate and weather is chaotic and for scientists to say c02 is the control knob to temperature is both arrogant and ignorant. Paris has shown its all about politics, power, wealth redistribution, not science.

seamutt, read my link.

all I was pointing out is where the world has been temperature wise

Actually you were pointing out more than that. You were pointing out that the world has survived those cycles. Humans were not around for any of them. Other creatures were and some of them fared worse than others based on the findings of archaeologists.

This is the first time that a sentient being can actually observe the high ppm carbon dioxide and methane content of the air and measure an average rise in the temperature. There is no doubt that human activity produces such greenhouse gases. However, in my mind there is no information that I have seen which indicates how much is caused by humans and how much is caused by other phenomena. One thing seems to be for sure, the cycle has repeated itself if one believes the indicators that scientist speculate are there, but the cause then and the cause now are unsure.

There is often a problem when the observers is part of the system being observed rather than being outside of it. There are many things which come into play with the unknown. Fear is probably one of the worst.

So, we can err on the side of safety. After all, as socredible so often preaches, we have tons of assets. The problem is that the parts of the world that are inbred with humans who have WASP attributes and mindsets have difficulty spreading that wealth other than through work.

So, we have a ready-made whole earth project that creates tons of jobs and spreads lots of wealth. The problem is, much of that wealth is spread to comparatively few people. That is actually a consequence of someone noticing that we might, or might not, have global warming and that we might not want that to reach the extent some think it might reach. So, it is an outcome of global warming but, because we are in the experiment, we might not notice it. In fact, we might not be aware of how dangerous that could be.

I am sure there must be a sci-fi movie or two about that somewhere already. 

:-)

I am putting an extra log or two on the fire tonight. It is getting colder. If I had not cut the tree down it would probably have burned up in a forest fire in the next decade or two, so am just releasing the carbon a bit earlier than God had planned. If not that, it would have come down from decay or a wind storm and created carbon dioxide or methane.

Just consider that trees are a like a get out of jail free card when it comes to carbon dioxide.:-)