Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Canuck100

Are humans really responsible for climate change?

Recommended Posts

8 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.

I know you didn't miss the bit about climate change.  I suppose it depends on whether climate change is a real threat or not.  If it's not, we can still afford to pick and choose what we do about it.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I know you didn't miss the bit about climate change.  I suppose it depends on whether climate change is a real threat or not. 

We know China is a threat and that's not stopping us so why would the threat of climate change make us change course?  We also know selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is wrong but look at us peddling them anyway.

 

Quote

If it's not, we can still afford to pick and choose what we do about it.

I always figured you were still on the fence about whether its real or not.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


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

We know China is a threat and that's not stopping us so why would the threat of climate change make us change course?  We also know selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is wrong but look at us peddling them anyway.

 

I always figured you were still on the fence about whether its real or not.

One of the problems with actually acknowledging facts when it comes to dealing with climate change is that people think you are a denier.  It happens all the time.  My wife does it.  I've been on board with anthropogenic global warming since James Burke told me about it in the eighties.  I've always been a bit suspicious of models, and somewhat bewildered by the refusal of almost everyone who agrees it is a thing to see that we aren't going to stop it. 

The reason we aren't going to stop it is that people aren't willing to do what it takes.  (I don't have the answer.  I just know that carbon taxes and windmills aren't it)

If we could reduce greenhouse gases by selling LNG to China, I say let's do it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

One of the problems with actually acknowledging facts when it comes to dealing with climate change is that people think you are a denier.  It happens all the time.  My wife does it.  I've been on board with anthropogenic global warming since James Burke told me about it in the eighties.  I've always been a bit suspicious of models, and somewhat bewildered by the refusal of almost everyone who agrees it is a thing to see that we aren't going to stop it. 

The reason we aren't going to stop it is that people aren't willing to do what it takes.  (I don't have the answer.  I just know that carbon taxes and windmills aren't it)

If we could reduce greenhouse gases by selling LNG to China, I say let's do it. 

I tend to agree.  I think technology is the real remedy.  It could be a combination of carbon capture systems, and the eventual replacement of the combustion engine as the primary source of transportation.  I also think that we’re getting close to breaking through nuclear fission technology which would be a game changer.  Once that happens, emissions will plummet.  Capturing existing carbon will be the most important task remaining.

Share this post


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

I tend to agree.  I think technology is the real remedy.  It could be a combination of carbon capture systems, and the eventual replacement of the combustion engine as the primary source of transportation.  I also think that we’re getting close to breaking through nuclear fission technology which would be a game changer.  Once that happens, emissions will plummet.  Capturing existing carbon will be the most important task remaining.

Fusion?

Carbon capture and especially extraction is a good example of ideology over common sense when it comes to AGW.  There are those who do not want to see developments in the technology because it might give oil and gas companies licence to keep producing.  Even if the end result is a positive one.

It's early days yet, but there's a company in Squamish that has shown that it can extract CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale.  Oil and gas companies have invested in it, so environmentalists are against it, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renewables currently only account for 5% of global energy and when it comes to reliable and plentiful power, not all energy is created equal.   We do have to work on different sources of energy,  lower or try to eliminate pollution etc. but we aren’t there yet and the world is not going to end in 8- 12 years if we don't get it that soon.   For the foreseeable future, our only hope is to rely on oil and gas, though it’s up to us to ensure we do so in the greenest way possible

Next time you buy some pot remember that  “Producing a few pounds of weed can have the same environmental toll as driving across America seven times”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/20/cannabis-climate-change-fossil-fuels 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world according to St. Greta. A column that makes the point of how the 'climate cultists' have rallied around a not very smart, not very capable fanatic as they continue to turn global warming from an argument about science to religious mania about an end-of-days story only the cultists believe in.

The acclamation of Greta Thunberg is as profoundly irrational as the millenarian cult of purgation and redemption that she advocates — puritan in its authoritarian demands, lascivious in its sensitivity to pain. The intrusion of this kind of sub-religious foolishness into politics is always a bad sign. It shows that we are in an environmental crisis, and that the world is coming to an end. But which environment, and which world?

The environment that is dying is the liberal democratic order in which we live. The world that is coming to an end is political: the post-1945 order, led by the United States. The form of Great Thunberg’s protest is familiar to any student of medieval Europe, the civilisation that produced the Children’s Crusade and Joan of Arc. The content of her protest is a deliquescence of Protestantism into narcissistic terror.

‘We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth,’ says Greta. She was five years old when the wheels came off the European economy in 2008, and stole the dreams of a generation. The Swedes, like most other Europeans, have given up on procreation. Their demography is sustained by massive immigration which, their leaders tell them, is necessary in order to maintain the tax base and the welfare system.

Environmentalism is for rich white people, and so is life without religion. ‘The eyes of all future generations are upon you,’ Greta threatens. ‘And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.’ This is prophetic, and pathetic too, in its faithless Lutheranism and reverse predestination.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-apotheosis-of-st-greta/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

500 scientists send a letter to the UN denouncing the idea there is a "climate emergency".

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.

The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation. We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/five-hundred-scientists-send-letter-to-un-saying-there-is-no-climate-change-crisis/

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it matter , AL gore came out with all kinds of numbers and studies, and proof, millions jumped on that climate train, only to find out the world was not going to die in the 10 years as his study suggested....WOW, Here we are today still here ….todays climate change is no different and in a the next 10 years we will still be here , and the next generation will be spewing off about how the world is going to end....remember Y2K and all the panic and billions the government spent on that fiasco... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Abies said:

So where is their study showing otherwise? 500 scientists should know how to back up their claims.

I don't think you understand. They're not claiming that the existing science is wrong. They're claiming that people are not going by the existing science. The existing science does not say that the world is going to end, nor civilization come crashing down, nor will we starve. There will be some impact from global warming but not much in the northern hemisphere, and overall nothing that can't be adapted to.

Share this post


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

What evidence do you have that there is no problem?

What evidence do you have that clearly states we are in a climate emergency ?  what does that mean emergency, on a scale from 1 to 10 where are we now ? There is to much info out there right now nobody knows what is up or down....

Share this post


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

What evidence do you have that clearly states we are in a climate emergency ?  what does that mean emergency, on a scale from 1 to 10 where are we now ?

There's nearly 4 decades of climate science leading the vast VAST majority of scientists to conclude we have a real problem on our hands.  The #1 emergency, in my mind at least, is the near total lack of meaningful action to address it based on no more than good olde fashioned right-wing conservative denial. 

Quote

There is to much info out there right now nobody knows what is up or down....

Nonsense, its been well understood for decades what's up - take the fucking temperature for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't think you understand. They're not claiming that the existing science is wrong. They're claiming that people are not going by the existing science. The existing science does not say that the world is going to end, nor civilization come crashing down, nor will we starve. There will be some impact from global warming but not much in the northern hemisphere, and overall nothing that can't be adapted to.

Having a possibility of movement of millions of people from the coast, disruption in farming and food production. I would say that those would be emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's nearly 4 decades of climate science leading the vast VAST majority of scientists to conclude we have a real problem on our hands.  The #1 emergency, in my mind at least, is the near total lack of meaningful action to address it based on no more than good olde fashioned right-wing conservative denial.

 

That's nice, but scientists do not determine global economic policies.

In many parts of the world, if it pays...it stays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

That's nice, but scientists do not determine global economic policies.

Of course scientists help determine what to do. That said many apparently get drowned out by the olde guys for probably much the same reason they squelch out other scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course scientists help determine what to do. That said many apparently get drowned out by the olde guys for probably much the same reason they squelch out other scientists.

They got drowned out because their proposed solutions are to make the problem worse and destroy the economy. Throw the anti-capitalist crusaders under the bus, they are real reason environmentalists make no headway.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They got drowned out because their proposed solutions are to make the problem worse and destroy the economy. Throw the anti-capitalist crusaders under the bus, they are real reason environmentalists make no headway.

Indeed, charging the barricades of the free market is simply grinding their centrally planned socialist agenda to a halt. Meanwhile money still talks while their bullshit walks straight into a dead end.  The Cult of Climate Doom is trucking out their absurd child messiah, exactly because they are making zero headway.  It's a spectacle which calls for action, in lieu of being able to take any action.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


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

There's nearly 4 decades of climate science leading the vast VAST majority of scientists to conclude we have a real problem on our hands.  The #1 emergency, in my mind at least, is the near total lack of meaningful action to address it based on no more than good olde fashioned right-wing conservative denial. 

Nonsense, its been well understood for decades what's up - take the fucking temperature for starters.

That's what I thought ....yes we do have a issue with the climate, but is it an emergency as most of the climate extremist are declaring ? ...Yes that was what al gore and his band of wing nuts were saying as well, by now we were suppose to be under water, so don't sit there and tell me there is no fake news on all of this....I took the temperature, 15 degrees Celsius today, according to environment Canada that's pretty much average for this time of year, for this part of the country.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That's what I thought ....yes we do have a issue with the climate, but is it an emergency as most of the climate extremist are declaring ? ...Yes that was what al gore and his band of wing nuts were saying as well, by now we were suppose to be under water, so don't sit there and tell me there is no fake news on all of this....I took the temperature, 15 degrees Celsius today, according to environment Canada that's pretty much average for this time of year, for this part of the country.... 

Emergency is in the location of the beholder.  It's not an emergency for me right now.  It was for that economic refugee from somewhere in northern Africa, but currently lying at the bottom of the Med.  Just don't expect it to get any better.

Al Gore is a wingnut, yes, and the models are unreliable, but your ambient temperature is irrelevant.  All that really matters are the graphs.

 

image.thumb.png.efce713ed8fbf3e68cceb93776afe840.png

 

image.thumb.png.49ef0076c9f9803f019e016c7c01c5ec.png

Share this post


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

Emergency is in the location of the beholder.  It's not an emergency for me right now.  It was for that economic refugee from somewhere in northern Africa, but currently lying at the bottom of the Med.  Just don't expect it to get any better.

 

Entire cities are lying at the bottom of the Med, centuries before "anthropogenic" climate change.

No emergency in the longer view.    Adapt as before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Entire cities are lying at the bottom of the Med, centuries before "anthropogenic" climate change.

So what are you actually comparing here? A few thousand people in each case (7 or so sunk by earthquake/tsunami) over thousands of years to hundreds of cities and billions of human beings within a hundred years. It's so silly its silly

 

Quote

No emergency in the longer view.    Adapt as before.

 

Speaking of longer views I've been told the Sahara will one day be our next bread basket given all the plant food we're pumping out - I'm assuming that'll just be in a little nick of time too so maybe no need to adapt, put the pedal to the metal in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Entire cities are lying at the bottom of the Med, centuries before "anthropogenic" climate change.

No emergency in the longer view.    Adapt as before.

I wonder if the NOAA have considered that...

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...