Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 3014 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,897 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those us us who remember the "man made global cooling" of the 70's, only to see them backtrack in the 90's to become "man made global warming" finally, to smarten up and call it "man made climate change" to ensure they are right no matter what happens... (personally, I agree that the climate does change, and agree that it will continue to do so).

Anyway, another discovery by NASA (remember how some incontrovercial "proof" was the changing ice in the Antarctic?), shows that the world systems may be a lot more complex than the doomsayers may like to think.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground

Turns out that the Antarctic may be melting from below due to geothermal heat from the core.

Oh, did anyone read the articles about how the ozone (remember how it was huge and would never recover, only grow larger or stop at best?) has actually shrunk to the size of when it was first measured in 1988...

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7771119-the-earth-s-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-and-is-the-smallest-it-has-been-since-1988/

Ironically, they attribute "warmer weather" as one of the factors in "healing" the hole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
I knew the Global Warming or Climate Change scam was on its last legs when Goldman Sachs bailed out of the carbon credit exchange 2 or 3 years ago. The Warmists conventions are pathetic, down to 1/10 the size they were in their hayday. You still have a few old timers like Al Gore making wilder and wilder claims, and the usual herd of nitwits like Justin Trudeau who are so brainwashed they will never wise up. But as time goes on you are hearing less and less about this and eventually it will join Phrenology, Eugenics and all the other discredited pseudo sciences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,753 Posts
I agree there isn't much to debate anymore. Pretty well everyone agrees climate change is one of the world's biggest challenges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,897 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yep, the earth's climate is a lot different today than say 4.5 million years ago. Heck, we're just getting out of the little ice age, which had followed the medieval warming period...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The world is far more complex than most people realize...

Anyone need a top up on their koolaid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
People would be more open to some of the science of climate change (which is no where near settled) if govt solutions to it wasnt always to send money to 3rd world dictators and be hypocrites about immigration and population.

You want to stop climate change, the solution is innovation and less people on the planet and then less people in your country, or go back to caves like Suzuki wants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
I suspect there is an element of carbon production influencing climate change but I've never understood why many environmentalists feel they can speak with such scientific authority; such as saying that almost all the change is due to human activity. We've only had accurate measurement data since around 1880 and before that the scientific evidence is going by what I consider extremely sketchy proxy data derived from such things as tree rings, pollen, ice cores, old ship logs etc. As far as I've searched, I can't find anyone who will state the accuracy of this proxy data. However, I can't see it being better than a half degree Celsius and far more likely it is only accurate to a degree or more, probably becoming less and less accurate the farther we go back. The temperature has warmed about 0.85 degrees Celsius since 1880. However, if you take out the margin of error from the proxy data this may be perfectly normal. 137 years of accurate measurements or even 1000 years for that matter, is mere "milliseconds" in the history of climate data. To me, man-made global warming is a reasonable hypothesis but to state that it is "absolute fact" where the "science is settled" appears to be analogous to basing a stock market trend from one days trading activity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
Always follow the money;

research grants
nebulous unquantifiable problem
aggressive govt involvement
opinion shaming/virtue signalling
3rd world country support
UN support
meetings, accords etc
bogus deadlines and milestones
big time hypocrites involved (Gore, Suziki, Bono)
davos crowd support
tax scheme attached
wealth transfer associated
fringe group and celebrity support
subsidies for inefficiency
moving goal posts
etc etc

All hallmarks of a giant boondoogle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,577 Posts
I agree there isn't much to debate anymore. Pretty well everyone agrees climate change is one of the world's biggest challenges.
if by "challenge" you mean adapting to the overwhelming power of natural change, that makes sense.

but if you mean some man made boiler room type weather machine with levers knobs, and dials by which mankind will control climate, I'm not so optimistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,211 Posts
if by "challenge" you mean adapting to the overwhelming power of natural change, that makes sense.

but if you mean some man made boiler room type weather machine with levers knobs, and dials by which mankind will control climate, I'm not so optimistic.
That was also my reaction to Sag's post. We should all make a practical and sensible effort to decrease our footprint on the planet, including pollution of air, land and sea. By doing that, we also automatically reduce CO2 and Methane emissions which also have to be good. The real problem is that emphasis has switched from pollution that is tangible to climate change which is mostly intangible. How could mankind get so derailed on a tangent?

I agree with a prior post that our main problem is the human species over-populating the planet. Until we come to terms with how to manage world population, we will be like every other species* in nature... swing between over-population and under-population.

* Call it the rabbit cycle if you want. They breed until there are so many that they start dieing off due to lack of food and disease...helped by a growing population of predators, which then decimates the rabbit population through the bottom of the cycle before recovering again. Homo sapiens seem destined for the same cycle albeit of a much longer wave length of perhaps thousands of years. Our cycle will likely be topped by starvation, multiple coincident wars for scarce resources and perhaps a superbug disease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,187 Posts
We are reaching the point where war, superbugs or resource depletion could eliminate 99.99% of the population in a matter of weeks or months.

Most of the science suggests that man is contributing to climate change/global warming. It's too late to sit around with our thumbs up our collective behinds debating the relative merits of various scientific, pseudo-scientific and political arguments. We need to reduce our GHG emissions.

It's economically viable. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are getting cheaper. Nuclear still has merit. Oil and gas will be with us for decades but demand for them as sources of energy may peak in the next decade or so. In 30 years, the oil and gas industry may be more about petrochemicals than fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
I agree with a prior post that our main problem is the human species over-populating the planet. Until we come to terms with how to manage world population, we will be like every other species* in nature... swing between over-population and under-population.
I thought we had already started solving this problem in all the developed countries. Most developed countries have negative population growth rates and require immigration to supplement the population. Will third world countries not eventually suffer the same fate as developed countries?

Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required.

Many countries in the world (all in dark blue) are now below replacement level including 3 of the 4 BRIC countries (China, Russia and Brazil), all of Europe (except France, Ireland and Turkey) along with Japan, Canada and Australia, among others.

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,897 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
Most of the science suggests that man is contributing to climate change/global warming. It's too late to sit around with our thumbs up our collective behinds debating the relative merits of various scientific, pseudo-scientific and political arguments. We need to reduce our GHG emissions.
This is a typical misunderstanding of science. If you actually understand how science works, you'd know that they tend to believe anything is possible, until it's proven not to be.

So, when asked the question "does man contribute to climate change?" Any real scientist will look at mankind, how he behaves, and answer "yes". There is no debating that.

The problem with the non scientists is they take that for gospel and decry "the debate is settled", case closed, the world is ending, science says so.

What these people fail to ask is the obvious follow up question, "to what extent?" And here is where the science has no real idea and the debate rages.

Like all typical "debates" people pick and choose which "facts" they want to use, while completely ignoring anything that may jeopardize their "religion". The uneducated masses follow the sound bytes along like puppies, never wanting to think, question or understand...People who actually understand how facts get manipulated by the way you phrase the question just sit around and shake their heads until, years later, when the "debate" begins to unravel and the crusaders take up a new quest and he cycle begins again.

I'm sure, in a few years sags jr, and Olivia jr will decry how windmills are killing birds and bats along their migratory paths, how solar has depleted the world's supply of rare earths, how geothermal has contaminated groundwater and the natural flow of underground waterways causing earthquakes, sinkholes, and the cooling of the mantle.

Of course, when they ask a scientist if man had any impact in these results, the scientists will all agree they did...

We'll not want to ask if this actually has spans significant impact worth worrying about however.

As a little homework, go look up how much of the GHGs Canada contributes compared to the rest of the world. Now, figure out how big of an impact there would be on the world if Canada eliminated all GHGs.

As a follow up, look at how many GHGs are produced naturally from things like volcanic activity, hydrocarbons leaching out of the ground, etc.

Oh, and my favourite, look how much methane is produced by cows. Now imagine the methane produced by all those wild animals that are roaming around unchecked...(by the way do any of you not fart?).

Of course, all these numbers are actually best guesses, but a case would be made we should stop flatulence, or maybe incur a "fart tax" to help curb climate change.

Go ask a scientist if flatulence could have any impact on climate change, I can tell you what any real scientist would answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
All for efficiency and reducing pollution and new technology under a made in canada solution.

Oppose carbon taxes, subsidy schemes and transfer of wealth under the guise of climate agreements.

Hate hypocrites for calling out the oil patch then financially supporting the auto and aerospace industry which burns them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,211 Posts
I thought we had already started solving this problem in all the developed countries. Most developed countries have negative population growth rates and require immigration to supplement the population. Will third world countries not eventually suffer the same fate as developed countries?

Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required.

Many countries in the world (all in dark blue) are now below replacement level including 3 of the 4 BRIC countries (China, Russia and Brazil), all of Europe (except France, Ireland and Turkey) along with Japan, Canada and Australia, among others.

ltr
The UN had done a comprehensive study some time ago (can't find the link) that suggested population would peak and hold circa 2050 or so, but some of the content seemed politicized (compromised) to some degree. The thrust of the study was around the thesis that increasing the standard of living was the one key fundamental to lowering TFR, and it manifested itself in part to improved education and health. I get it that these are important criteria to families having less children, but to embody that into a foreign aid plea of trillions of dollars from developed countries undermined the credibility of that study. From the graphs in your link, it is pretty easy to tell where the problems are, but it is also not yet readily acknowledged that certain faiths remain an influence to excessive TFR as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,753 Posts
The climate deniers are the people laughing at Noah..........."rain, it isn't going to rain you old fool."...........glub, glub, glub............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,753 Posts
The seas have risen to the point fresh water bayous in Louisiana and Mississippi are been inundated with salt water which kills the vegetation.

Florida cities are spending millions to drain the water from their downtown areas.

European cities are building seawalls to keep the water out.

Insurance companies are measuring risk in areas impacted by climate change. Forested areas subject to drought and fire may not be insurable in the future.

Lloyds of London has measured consistantly higher rogue waves each year. They are becoming dangerous to shipping.

Hundred year storms are happening every year.

That is just the start of the evidence. How much proof do people need ?
 
1 - 20 of 3014 Posts
Top