Well, this is obvious, since Bad Weather never happened prior to 1988 when atmospheric CO2 crossed 350ppm
Climate Change Kills, So Charge Canada With Homocide
It was several days before media reports and commentary on the havoc caused by typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines finally began to acknowledge a possible connection to anthropogenic climate change. While no single hyper-storm can be positively attributed to human disruption of the global climate system, climate models predict that extreme weather events will increase in frequency and violence. Unprecedented natural maelstroms like Haiyan provide empirical evidence that the models are likely correct.
So cannot be attributed, but Warmists, including the writer, William E. Rees, do just that. Especially with “hyper-storms” or something.
What continues to be almost entirely missing from media analysis is Canada’s role in all this, particularly the moral dimensions of the nation’s current economic development policies and those of several provinces (e.g., BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland). The facts are that:
1) on a per capita basis, historically and at present, Canada stands among the world’s top greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters particularly of carbon dioxide (CO2). Canadians are therefore as responsible as anyone else on Earth for human-induced global warming. (To argue that as a nation our emissions are only 2-3% of the global total is specious, essentially a form of denial);
Doom.
In this light, is it not time that we had a nation-wide adult conversation about just what is going on here?
Isn’t that what Warmists have been doing for decades? Seems your conversation, ie, spreading awareness, has failed. Especially since Warmists won’t take the plunge and go “carbon neutral” themselves, starting with giving up their own fossil fueled travel.
The Criminal Code (Section 219) is even clearer that lack of intent to harm is no defence if the damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where “duty” means a duty imposed by law). Indeed, “a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being, by being negligent.”
So, all Canadian Warmists who haven’t gone “carbon neutral” should turn themselves in on murder charges.
You first, wingnut, you first.
Somehow, I’m thinking that Canada isn’t exactly the place that man people would want to give up fireplaces!
There is also a possible connection with moon phases. With butterflies. With moths. With cow farts. With space whales. With solar angels. With martian SUVs. With Pluto’s name change.
I think I’m sensing a trend.
So, with a typical storm affecting a typically affected area by these typical storms, we are getting over-hyped sycophants ranting about over-hyped possible causes that they hyperventilate over despite no evidence?
“You go first, wingnut.” Gee, wasn’t that yesterday when Jeffery the hypocrite complained of name-calling and not debating? Like I said, it’s projection. Anyway, why would he go first or go at all? He doesn’t believe in your astrology.
jilly,
The Pirate (or Jane Lynch?) routinely calls climate realists “warmists” and in this case also “barking moonbats (Liberalis dementius).’
Calling him a wingnut seems appropriate.
Jane the Pirate didn’t discuss the topic other than to mock.
Still, why go first if he doesn’t believe? And I take that in the future we won’t be hearing you complain of name-calling, as you now tell us in some instances it’s ok? Glad to hear it.
At the risk of being logical: Of course the law he quotes was intended for more personal, direct actions, like, “Fred Miller was killed in an automobile accident. The accident was caused when Harry Smith stopped his vehicle abruptly right in front of Miller, leading Miller to swerve into the opposite lane and hit an oncoming car. And so Smith is responsible for the accident.” But I suppose he is saying that it should be applied in some analogous fashion to grand social policies. But if so, the best analogy would be something like, “Fred Miller was killed in an automobile accident. Harry Smith has been known to walk along the sidewalk on this particular road, though no one is sure if he was there on this particular day. But if he had been there, he could have said or done something that startled the driver of another car that we are theorizing might have been in the vicinity, causing that driver to stop abruptly. And that might have made Mr Miller swerve into the other lane and hit the oncoming car. So clearly Mr Smith is to blame for the accident.”
Excellent analogy Mark
We all know who to blame!Blame Canada! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBpgcZ1zYJs