Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Canuck100

Are humans really responsible for climate change?

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Whoop de doo, the morning consult has an opinion, in my opinion, they are delusional, again, for national security reasons, that's never gonna happen.

Austin Powers Knows. The Morning Consult is Basil.

 

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen is what I said will happen, there will be ever more nuclear electric, they will power the electric vehicles with nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power plants will power the grid which charges your car.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch, the problem will then shift from being air pollution to being plutonium pollution.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

What will happen is what I said will happen, there will be ever more nuclear electric, they will power the electric vehicles with nuclear reactors.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch, the problem will then shift from being air pollution to being plutonium problems.

Well if the Gen IV reactors can be used to eat the waste as fuel, that problem is notably reduced. It's a ways off, but not that far away.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well if they reactors can be used to eat the waste as fuel, that problem is solved. It's a ways off, but not that far away.

Yeah, but then you are back to the fast neutron molten metal model burning P-239, which can be done now,  but again, expensive and not going to be in your neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Yeah, but then you are back to the fast neutron molten metal model burning P-239, which can be done now,  but again, expensive and not going to be in your neighborhood.

Once Gen IV proliferates, it will get less expensive than it is now, making it more commercially viable. It certainly isn't going to happen tomorrow, but it's not that far away either.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, plutonium is so hot, doesn't even have to be fissile. for example NASA space probes are powered by plutonium power cells.

But that's in space, so if that goes wrong up there, no biggie, if that goes wrong in the atmosphere tho; problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Once Gen IV proliferates, it will get less expensive than it is now, making it more commercially viable.

Decades away from being commercially viable, but there is decades of oil available which is vastly cheaper, so I don't see the market adopting Gen IV in your lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Decades away from being commercially viable, but there is decades of oil available which is vastly cheaper, so I don't see the market adopting Gen IV in your lifetime.

I can see it within my liftetime. Will it be cheaper than oil by then? Probably not in my lifetime, but it will likely be cheaper than other energy "clean energy" boondoggles at that point.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I can see it within my liftetime. Will it be cheaper than oil by then? Probably not in my lifetime, but it will likely be cheaper than other energy "clean energy" boondoggles at that point.

Bear in mind history; back in the 50's they said nuclear would soon replace oil, yet here we are 70 years later; oil is still king.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Bear in mind history; back in the 50's they said nuclear would soon replace oil, yet here we are 70 years later; oil is still king.

 

Oil won't be king forever, but it will for a while longer still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Oil won't be king forever, but it will for a while longer still.

The public vastly underestimates the power of oil, what it is, how long it took to make it, how much energy is stored by hundreds of millions of years.

I can't say what will replace it, but in my opinion, they haven't found it yet,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction is oil will persist vastly longer than people are thinking, they will still be using it a hundred years from now, the combustion will just get more efficient.

They will burn vastly less oil to get the same effects, but they will still be drilling for oil in 2120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The public vastly underestimates the power of oil, what it is, how long it took to make it, how much energy is stored by hundreds of millions of years.

I can't say what will replace it, but in my opinion, they haven't found it yet,

The Peak Oil crowd think the same thing, but they just jump to an idiotic conclusion based on those facts, see Speaker to Animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Peak Oil crowd think the same thing, but they just jump to an idiotic conclusion based on those facts, see Speaker to Animals.

There's lots of oil out there, we haven't even come close to peak oil.   Hundreds of millions of years.  Millions with an M. 

There's plenty of oil. We're just wasting it with 20th century internal combustion.   That is where the technological innovation will be; vastly more efficient combustion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 11:00 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

Indeed, but I am right. If you want to ally yourself with those who hold back your cause, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. It's your funeral, I am simply offering you some great advise, fully realizing you are just going to double down on derp instead of taking that advise.

I'll give you that you're right. But you're also wrong. Depends on who you ask.

It's your every right to feel threatened by a girl who is worried about the environmental disaster that is unfolding in front of us. It's your right to declare that she is the one who will hold back environmentalism. I rather focus on what I see is the obvious problem; The old industries who have accumulated a lot of money and power and who want to milk every last bit of the system that brings them wealth at the expense of others. 

There used to be a time when the tobacco lobby groups pulled the same shit the fossil industry has been pulling. From all out 'denial', to 'we can't do anything about it'. 

"In some ways, the face of climate denial in political rhetoric has shifted," said Matto Mildenberger, a Canadian climate policy researcher currently working at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"It tends to be much more either, 'We can't do anything about it' or 'It's not important enough to do right away.'"

The researchers have also found evidence that climate misinformation is affecting public opinion about the nature of climate change and the efficacy of solutions. 

Link

Edited by marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, marcus said:

I'll give you that you're right. But you're also wrong. Depends on who you ask.

It's your every right to feel threatened by a girl who is worried of the environmental disaster that is unfolding in front of us. It's your right to declare that she is the one who will hold back environmentalism. I rather focus on what I see is the obvious problem, and the real people and groups who are holding environmentalism back. This would be the old industries who have accumulated a lot of money and power and who want to milk every last bit of the system that brings them wealth at the expense of others. 

There used to be a time when the tobacco lobby groups pulled the same shit the fossil industry is pulling has been pulling. From all out 'denial', to 'we can't do anything about it'. 

"In some ways, the face of climate denial in political rhetoric has shifted," said Matto Mildenberger, a Canadian climate policy researcher currently working at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"It tends to be much more either, 'We can't do anything about it' or 'It's not important enough to do right away.'"

The researchers have also found evidence that climate misinformation is affecting public opinion about the nature of climate change and the efficacy of solutions. 

Link

Nah dude, the market is your friend, use it, stop shunning it. The real people who are holding back environmentalism is not the fossil fuel industry, it's the extremists who demand we stop using fossil fuels and want to use government coercion to enforce it. If you ditch the crazies, you'll find industry much more accommodating to your goals.

The anti-smoking laws are dumb too, the tobacco industry was right about that, and they have done more harm than good by making smoking more taboo and thus more addictive, yet more counter-productive virtue signaling for the fail. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and putting your faith in government moral policing of human vices is one of the quickest routes there. 

Meanwhile the market comes along with vaping and has done more good than the prohibitionists could ever dream of with their silly government regulations. Now the anti-smoking extremists want to ban or regulate the sh*t out of that as well. "Won't someone please think of the children?" is simply cover to help sell ineffective government power grabs to "save people from themselves", when they do nothing of the sort and simply backfire.

Down with the prohibitionists, may their children go blind.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Nah dude, the market is your friend, use it, stop shunning it. The real people who are holding back environmentalism is not the fossil fuel industry, it's the extremists who demand we stop using fossil fuels and want to use government coercion to enforce it. If you ditch the crazies, you'll find industry much more accommodating to your goals.

I have a thing for libertarianism. I agree with the concept and I understand how the government shouldn't get into people's business. What the issue here is that the effects of continuing business as usual, there is going to be negative consequences. In fact, we are already seeing the consequences. When the actions of any industry is directly causing harm to people or their land, then the government must step in to stop them. It can be argued that the feds should stay out of this and instead the provincial or municipalities should be in charge of protecting its people. 

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The anti-smoking laws are dumb too, the tobacco industry was right about that, and they have done more harm than good by making smoking more taboo and thus more addictive, yet more counter-productive virtue signaling for the fail. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and putting your faith in government moral policing of human vices is one of the quickest routes there.

Re: Tobacco vs Fossil fuel industry
I compared the two industries to demonstrate how the lobby groups manufacture consent and resist the science behind the findings.  

Anyway, what are you talking about in regards to "the tobacco industry was right"? You mean smoking does not cause the death of over 7 million people a year? That it does not costs over $300 billion dollars a year to the economy just in the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, marcus said:

I have a thing for libertarianism. I agree with the concept and I understand how the government shouldn't get into people's business. What the issue here is that the effects of continuing business as usual, there is going to be negative consequences. In fact, we are already seeing the consequences. When the actions of any industry is directly causing harm to people or their land, then the government must step in to stop them. It can be argued that the feds should stay out of this and instead the provincial or municipalities should be in charge of protecting its people. 

Re: Tobacco vs Fossil fuel industry
I compared the two industries to demonstrate how the lobby groups manufacture consent and resist the science behind the findings.  

Anyway, what are you talking about in regards to "the tobacco industry was right"? You mean smoking does not cause the death of over 7 million people a year? That it does not costs over $300 billion dollars a year to the economy just in the United States?

If government intervention does more damage to the environment and economy than it fixes, then it should stay out. A market failure occurring doesn't mean that replacing it with a government failure will be any better. Government should interfere when it actually does some good in a few rare instances, not when it does more harm than it helps.

The tobacco industry was right that the laws being proposed don't save anyone from themselves, and that the overreach by the anti-smokers was a bad idea. They simply fought dirty to try and prevent that from happening. Just because smoking is bad for your health doesn't mean that is should banned and regulated to a ridiculous extent. If a bar wants to allow smoking, they should be allowed to, and if you don't like it, then frequent another establishment, don't ruin it for everyone who doesn't agree with you, just because it would be better for their health.

The anti-smoking moral panic was not a good thing, it wasn't enough for the people who don't like it to stop smoking or not take it up in the first place, they have to try and force other people who don't agree with them to change their behavior or somehow you don't care about people's health, absolute insanity.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Ambler looks at the climate change fuss with a calmer view and sets out some of the questions one might ask (though the media and politicians are not doing so) if questioning why we should damage out economy to fight climate change. His point is that the views of children (including Trudeau, May and Singh) of the desperate need to do whatever it takes to get our emissions down have little in the way of logic behind them.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-high-costs-and-minimal-benefits-of-meeting-the-paris-agreement-climate-targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this entire climate change façade were legitimate China would be recognized as the greatest offender, but nothing is being done about them is there? The truth is climate change is a large on going con job to create wealth and power for people that are tyrants and murderers. There is no climate change other than what has always been. Modern climate change has a single purpose and that is to slaughter millions of people, get rid of internal combustion engines, determine what you can and cannot eat. The question is what kind of morons will buy into this crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Doc Holliday said:

If this entire climate change façade were legitimate China would be recognized as the greatest offender, but nothing is being done about them is there?

Some of us are trying to prevent the construction of pipelines to BC that are destined to transport oil to tankers bound for China.  Canada should be sanctioned for even thinking about fuelling the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet.

Quote

The truth is climate change is a large on going con job to create wealth and power for people that are tyrants and murderers. There is no climate change other than what has always been. Modern climate change has a single purpose and that is to slaughter millions of people, get rid of internal combustion engines, determine what you can and cannot eat. The question is what kind of morons will buy into this crap?

/facepalm...oh ffs not another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Some of us are trying to prevent the construction of pipelines to BC that are destined to transport oil to tankers bound for China.  Canada should be sanctioned for even thinking about fuelling the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet.

/facepalm...oh ffs not another one.

But as I suggested earlier, would shipping LNG to China not reduce their coal use, and therefore reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions?  That's just conjecture on my part, as I haven't done any math on the subject, but if such is the case, do we have any right to prevent such efforts to combat climate change based on our personal prejudices?

I'm afraid so.  Try and ignore him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have any illusion about the negative environmental impacts of the oil sands, but realize that people are a negative environmental impact.  We live at the expense of the universe.  I bet Earth will outlast humanity.  What will kill us first, not being able to afford anything because of the cost of living or environmental degradation?  If we kill the oil sands and resource development in Canada, the economic impact of giving up one of our major employers and greatest generators of government revenue, may be the more devastating climate change.  While I think reducing greenhouse gasses is important, we have to make sure people aren’t casualties in the war on climate change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

But as I suggested earlier, would shipping LNG to China not reduce their coal use, and therefore reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions?

That's just conjecture on my part, as I haven't done any math on the subject, but if such is the case, do we have any right to prevent such efforts to combat climate change based on our personal prejudices?

I guess you miss the part where I said Canada should be sanctioned for fuelling the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet.

We shouldn't be selling it anything that makes it stronger but I guess I just have different personal prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

I guess you miss the part where I said Canada should be sanctioned for fuelling the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet.

We shouldn't be selling it anything that makes it stronger but I guess I just have different personal prejudices.

Well the world is buying a lot of oil, including Canada.  Much of it still comes from Saudi Arabia and other problem countries.  If we can’t get our oil to Canadian markets because of angry naive unemployed eco terrorist protesters, then we might as well ship it.  This is what Quebec doesn’t get.  Energy independence is a major component of political independence.  Canada could be entirely energy independent and still set aside revenue to fight climate change and support other priorities, but the people blocking these pipelines are mostly gamers of the system.  They rely on increased handouts from the left without appreciating how they’re funded.  

Only a complete economic shakeup would cause a rethink, when the public suddenly realizes there won’t be decent jobs and the social safety net is bankrupting the country.  That Greta girl is a privileged odd duck who should not be directing government policy, but there are too many ignorant people who are fooled by the cute teenager and Trudeau’s hair.  

That’s the future: raise the cost of production and consumption through green policies.  It will work because life will become unaffordable and people will suffer.  Darn right people will have less children.  They won’t have a choice.  The answer to mass migrations due to climate change and political tensions will be to either absorb these migrants and carry the social and financial costs or militarize to keep them out.  The US has taken the latter approach, Canada the former.  My guess is it’s only a matter of time before Canada tightens up on immigration.  The social and economic costs will get higher.  

If we want a moderate course we’ll need sensible policy that addresses climate change without too great an economic cost.  Otherwise adapt to higher temperatures and hope technology saves the day.  I prefer the moderate course.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...