Climate change discussion.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're both smarter and better than this response.

I mean, you saw his post directly before mine, right? Hyperbole meets hyperbole.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I just trying to figure out why ES deliberately posted this knowing the chaos that would ensue? Just for shits and giggles?

Some men just like to watch the world burn.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You know what else can be used to attract Tech companies? Money.
Money that will be made from a booming energy industry in Canada, which has the net effect of reducing global emissions.
Now with all of this money, and the attraction of said tech companies we can further invest and continue to reduce emissions through alternative energy.

Please explain to me why we wouldn’t leverage an absolute golden goose in order to achieve the end goal of reduction in emissions?
No offence but your line of thinking is extremely illogical.

History tends to repeat itself.

[ZenOps]

Saskpower no longer subsidizing (grid connection) homeowner solar, they have hit their quota.

[ZenOps]

Y'know its pretty freaking awesome to make it to Oct with summer weather.

[ExtraSlow]

On a more serious level, if you believe that humans have caused climate change and that we should be do something about it, WHAT should we do about it that is:
a) something that YOU are willing to do TODAY,
or b) something that our government can implement today that would be effective.

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On a more serious level, if you believe that humans have caused climate change and that we should be do something about it, WHAT should we do about it that is:
a) something that YOU are willing to do TODAY,
or b) something that our government can implement today that would be effective.

Personal: I stopped driving and bike every day, I take the train 1-2 times a week if I have to leave the core, I cut out amazon deliveries. It’s pretty minor in the grand scale, but at least it’s someth

Larger scale: Increase the carbon tax, remove the rebates to individuals, scrap it being revenue neutral and instead it entirely gets invested in cleaner technologies. Create incentives for green tech startups exploring new technologies. Push forward the end of our coal plants to phase them out. Spend some of that 50 million $ war room to try and convince the public nuclear isn’t that bad. Push for the green Ctrain line to start construction on both legs to expand our transit. Change the zoning rules to allow more medium / high density infill options to bring people closer to the core. Raises the fees on developers creating new neighbourhoods to slow down the sprawl and cover the significant cost of the city providing roadways and emergency services to all these new neighbourhoods

[phreezee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Personal: I stopped driving and bike every day, I take the train 1-2 times a week if I have to leave the core, I cut out amazon deliveries. It’s pretty minor in the grand scale, but at least it’s someth

Larger scale: Increase the carbon tax, remove the rebates to individuals, scrap it being revenue neutral and instead it entirely gets invested in cleaner technologies. Create incentives for green tech startups exploring new technologies. Push forward the end of our coal plants to phase them out. Spend some of that 50 million $ war room to try and convince the public nuclear isn’t that bad. Push for the green Ctrain line to start construction on both legs to expand our transit. Change the zoning rules to allow more medium / high density infill options to bring people closer to the core. Raises the fees on developers creating new neighbourhoods to slow down the sprawl and cover the significant cost of the city providing roadways and emergency services to all these new neighbourhoods

This is nonsense. All you have to do is take the day off work and attend a protest.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Personal: I stopped driving and bike every day, I take the train 1-2 times a week if I have to leave the core, I cut out amazon deliveries. It’s pretty minor in the grand scale, but at least it’s someth

Larger scale: Increase the carbon tax, remove the rebates to individuals, scrap it being revenue neutral and instead it entirely gets invested in cleaner technologies. Create incentives for green tech startups exploring new technologies. Push forward the end of our coal plants to phase them out. Spend some of that 50 million $ war room to try and convince the public nuclear isn’t that bad. Push for the green Ctrain line to start construction on both legs to expand our transit. Change the zoning rules to allow more medium / high density infill options to bring people closer to the core. Raises the fees on developers creating new neighbourhoods to slow down the sprawl and cover the significant cost of the city providing roadways and emergency services to all these new neighbourhoods

I totally applaud you for taking personal action AND having some real ideas for governments. That's miles (or kilometers) ahead of most people.

I need time to write it out, but I don't hate the idea of a carbon tax. I hate the implementation and spinelessness of the politicians.

[ZenOps]

I just know the day is going to hit that some Gen Z in Texas has his Grandma pass away in 50 Celsius heat and ends up blaming Buzz Aldrin.

History is definitely heading in that direction.

[R-Audi]

Somewhat related...

It was ~15 years back, there was a group in Alberta going through the process of starting up a Nuclear plant. (permits, planning etc) The company was bought out and project was canned by an anonymous group (so I was told) that wanted to keep other energy sources in business.

[ickyflex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Somewhat related...

It was ~15 years back, there was a group in Alberta going through the process of starting up a Nuclear plant. (permits, planning etc) The company was bought out and project was canned by an anonymous group (so I was told) that wanted to keep other energy sources in business.

We actually had one of the executives from that project come to class to speak. It became uneconomic because of a lot of issues + power becoming cheaper via other energy sources. Even with the subsidies at the time it still didn't make sense so it was eventually canned. He mentioned that even with red tape in your favor it was an incredibly painful process so he does not envy any infrastructure company in Canada.

[R-Audi]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We actually had one of the executives from that project come to class to speak. It became uneconomic because of a lot of issues + power becoming cheaper via other energy sources. Even with the subsidies at the time it still didn't make sense so it was eventually canned. He mentioned that even with red tape in your favor it was an incredibly painful process so he does not envy any infrastructure company in Canada.

Wonder if its the same group.. (either original or buyers) Story I got was it doing well and they were bought out and it was trashed almost right away. Family friend made a bunch of money on it.

[ZenOps]

The unintended consequence of carbon (and assuming global heating, which may be curable with three well placed nukes) is the added expense of doing things like sewage water treatment for 700,000 residents of El Paso that must be maintained 24/7 with 100% uptime and no failures, or it is a literal shitstorm disaster. If you factor that in, renewable (more importantly, non-polluting) energy does have a big long term advantage. If you have to spend more energy to combat the long term effects of carbon, then carbon has far more expense in the long run.

Mind you, in Alberta - we will simply have to pay less to heat homes for six months of the year as the unintended consequence.

The greatest dollar impact loss will probably be felt in Metropolis cities founded on ocean ports (New York, California and especially Florida) As rising ocean levels hit, there is no doubt you will have to rebuild entire cities on higher ground. In the USA alone I can imagine global heating will cost at least a couple Trillion dollars (if not hundreds of Trillions by the time inflation catches up), this is the added cost of carbon dependency. Portugal and Greece? Probably best to just write off some countries. China is also screwed.

Add in Category 6 hurricanes too.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

I blame Buzz Aldrin, damn you for forsaking the Earth for a joyride on the moon Buzz.

[Misterman]

With Michael Mann being proven to be a fraud, along with his Hockey Stick temperature graph that is the backbone of the entire Climate Change movement, despite it being completely anecdotal on top of now being a proven fraud. It is a wonder that people aren't asking more questions, and are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon of climate change.

First of all, what IS climate change? I just keep hearing about the idea that higher temperatures will somehow kill us all. That was originally known as global warming. From my understanding climate change was a way to account for all weather, good or bad.

Do humans affect climate change? This is such a pointless question. Everything affects the climate, including humans. The question is how much do we affect climate compared to other factors? Which is a pretty major distinction that is completely ignored by the other claim that is one of the backbones of climate alarmism. "97% of scientists agree humans cause climate change". Once you read into that completely fabricated and misleading headline, things aren't what they seem. 97%(of scientists who were asked to answer the survey, not 97% of ALL scientists), were asked a simple yet corner backing question "Do humans contribute to climate change, yes or no" You would have to be an idiot to say humans have no affect whatsoever, hence the massive 97%!! number. However there is more than a few scientists on record saying it was not their intention at all to say that humans were the main driver. Hell that is even what their published work was about in the first place!

I'm curious how someone automatically designates human activity as the main driver for climate change, when we have been experience some of the most temperate weather for humankind in the history of earths existence?

I'm not saying climate change does not exist. But I am more interested in scientific method. And the rigors of scientific method doesn't normally allow anecdotal facts to determine scientific laws. So even if there was a legitimate non fabricated graph showing a temperature change that follows CO2ppm, if you can't explain how the main energy source for this galaxy(the sun) is NOT responsible for our temperature variance, then you cannot conclusively say that CO2 is the cause.

Now, if we are going to accept anecdotal science as gospel, then why do we accept the anecdotal CO2 emissions theory? Instead of the Milankovich cycle which our temperatures seem to mimic perfectly? That is literally the reason we have 60 degree temperature swings every single year between seasons. But for some reason it is just outlandish to consider that this could also be responsible for small temperature changes over hundreds of years?

Based on the evidence and science we currently have available, it appears that humans don't play much role at all in climate change. Anything is possible, scientific method always welcomes new findings, so we shall see what the future brings. It just becomes harder and harder to buy into this theory when so much of the smoking gun science on the matter keeps winding up being fabricated or falsified. If the phenomenon is real, then why is there a need to fabricate science to prove it?

Anyway, here is some light reading for anyone that cares(I know most people don't)

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global...FnlpUT8lIJCkGk

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ZLzIbFcnDv_QHU

https://principia-scientific.org/cli...VVn8fzkJFmRDF8

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science...8kLHBKi0WzwKwE

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...7kqVOg7ekUpgeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8v...qSnuMMeO8j6tJ4

[arcticcat522]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With Michael Mann being proven to be a fraud, along with his Hockey Stick temperature graph that is the backbone of the entire Climate Change movement, despite it being completely anecdotal on top of now being a proven fraud. It is a wonder that people aren't asking more questions, and are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon of climate change.

First of all, what IS climate change? I just keep hearing about the idea that higher temperatures will somehow kill us all. That was originally known as global warming. From my understanding climate change was a way to account for all weather, good or bad.

Do humans affect climate change? This is such a pointless question. Everything affects the climate, including humans. The question is how much do we affect climate compared to other factors? Which is a pretty major distinction that is completely ignored by the other claim that is one of the backbones of climate alarmism. "97% of scientists agree humans cause climate change". Once you read into that completely fabricated and misleading headline, things aren't what they seem. 97%(of scientists who were asked to answer the survey, not 97% of ALL scientists), were asked a simple yet corner backing question "Do humans contribute to climate change, yes or no" You would have to be an idiot to say humans have no affect whatsoever, hence the massive 97%!! number. However there is more than a few scientists on record saying it was not their intention at all to say that humans were the main driver. Hell that is even what their published work was about in the first place!

I'm curious how someone automatically designates human activity as the main driver for climate change, when we have been experience some of the most temperate weather for humankind in the history of earths existence?

I'm not saying climate change does not exist. But I am more interested in scientific method. And the rigors of scientific method doesn't normally allow anecdotal facts to determine scientific laws. So even if there was a legitimate non fabricated graph showing a temperature change that follows CO2ppm, if you can't explain how the main energy source for this galaxy(the sun) is NOT responsible for our temperature variance, then you cannot conclusively say that CO2 is the cause.

Now, if we are going to accept anecdotal science as gospel, then why do we accept the anecdotal CO2 emissions theory? Instead of the Milankovich cycle which our temperatures seem to mimic perfectly? That is literally the reason we have 60 degree temperature swings every single year between seasons. But for some reason it is just outlandish to consider that this could also be responsible for small temperature changes over hundreds of years?

Based on the evidence and science we currently have available, it appears that humans don't play much role at all in climate change. Anything is possible, scientific method always welcomes new findings, so we shall see what the future brings. It just becomes harder and harder to buy into this theory when so much of the smoking gun science on the matter keeps winding up being fabricated or falsified. If the phenomenon is real, then why is there a need to fabricate science to prove it?

Anyway, here is some light reading for anyone that cares(I know most people don't)

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global...FnlpUT8lIJCkGk

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ZLzIbFcnDv_QHU

https://principia-scientific.org/cli...VVn8fzkJFmRDF8

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science...8kLHBKi0WzwKwE

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...7kqVOg7ekUpgeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei8v...qSnuMMeO8j6tJ4

BOOM.....what he said....

[JRSC00LUDE]

@Misterman it's already been clearly established that the SCIENCE. IS. SETTLED. It is unassailable.

Every layperson who thinks there's any question as to the scope of human impact is a complete moron from the far right. Every scientist who questions it is a Holoca....er I mean Climate Denier and likely not a real scientist and their research is no doubt funded by big oil/the boogeyman. Period. Shut up.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

@Misterman it's already been clearly established that the SCIENCE. IS. SETTLED. It is unassailable.

Every layperson who thinks there's any question as to the scope of human impact is a complete moron from the far right. Every scientist who questions it is a Holoca....er I mean Climate Denier and likely not a real scientist and their research is no doubt funded by big oil/the boogeyman. Period. Shut up.

Yes. All we need to do is scream "BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!" overtop of the Heretic Denier (ironically ourselves in denial) and the Denier gets swept under the rug.
It's the environmental (predominantly Left) movement taking a page out of the Right a la Bill O'Reilly!
A theory that is so incredibly, undeniably completely factual that it was accepted more quickly than gravity.

*But don't mistake me for questioning it! I can't deal with the repercussions.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Remember, like any sane person, I am 100% for moving toward nuclear, renewables, and less pollution. I am against the way our Government is being an ineffectual virtue signalling saviour at our expense. But maybe killing a few dozen kids in a country I'll never see to get some more cobalt for my batteries will make me feel better? Or a snickers.

[ZenOps]

Scientists can only watch the weather and the climate. Trends can be established from those observations and concensus can be achieved by a majority.

However, that does not make climate change (from 0.025 to 0.04% carbon in the atmosphere) an actual fact. There can be many reasons for such a thing, maybe we are in a natural warming period, we still have not got to the heat level of previous tropical dinosaur reigns on earth (if of course, you believe that data) Its reasonable to assume that the seven billion people now on earth simply farting and lighting their farts on fire might be the cause of global warming - see?

There was a point in time where every scientist in the world said it was flat, and then they all said it was a sphere, now some smarter ones are saying its a doughnut.

Faith in science is not really what you want, you want faith in the scientific method - which is a constant reproving or disproving of conclusions based on observations and actual "do-ing". Which is also why we should be spending more on developing Mantis Shrimp visual perception, because human eyes and brains are stupendously "dumb" in some circumstances. And also why any good scientist should by now definitely have doubts about the moon landing.