Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
J
jhk87
Guest
1 - If you looked at the original post, there were multiple sources anyways, and;
2 - It really depends who's doing the counting.
2 - It really depends who's doing the counting.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
No, there were multiple links referring to the same opinion poll done by one person. That's a big difference from "multiple sources".
Another Home Run from Donna . . . if you live in Ontario, be afraid, be very, very afraid. Dulton tries to be a good little greenie and does it by totally screwing the Ontario economy . . .
•“The only people who want to push wind energy for its own sake are those who expect to profit from it.”
•“Windmills don’t run on wind, they run on [government] subsidies.”
•“Solar panels are not powered by sunlight, they are powered by taxpayers.”
Another phrase for subsidies is "Taxpayers money"
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/wind-and-solar-in-fantasy-land/
Dulton will likely try to hide the real cost by not putting the total subsidy on your Hydro bill . . . he'll hide the majority of the subsidies by paying them out of general revenues.
Wonder how many hospitals and schools won't get funded to pay for all those subsidies, or does he just plan to go deeper into debt.
Colour dulton Green.
Colour Ontario's economy screwed.
•“The only people who want to push wind energy for its own sake are those who expect to profit from it.”
•“Windmills don’t run on wind, they run on [government] subsidies.”
•“Solar panels are not powered by sunlight, they are powered by taxpayers.”
Another phrase for subsidies is "Taxpayers money"
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/wind-and-solar-in-fantasy-land/
Dulton will likely try to hide the real cost by not putting the total subsidy on your Hydro bill . . . he'll hide the majority of the subsidies by paying them out of general revenues.
Wonder how many hospitals and schools won't get funded to pay for all those subsidies, or does he just plan to go deeper into debt.
Colour dulton Green.
Colour Ontario's economy screwed.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Haletown said:
Being green is only part of it. He's been thieving from us since he took power.
J
jhk87
Guest
This sounds a lot like fear-mongering about people stealing money. Perhaps we should include the external costs of oil - environmental clean-up, the extra spending on national defence going to contain Iran, Saudi Arabia and to a point, Venezuala that we're funding through oil purchases, the eventual costs of global climate destabilisation, costs to public health, tax breaks given to oil companies....and all of the sudden, renewable energy doesn't look all that expensive. It's also a heavy industry that Ontario might just be able to support without a constant injection of funds into unsuccessful American car companies.
Actually, much of what McGuinty was doing was implented by Germany to rebuild its decrepit GDR-era industrial base in the east, and it emerged one of Europe's strongest economies alongside the Danes and the Swedes, who, by the way, are doing quite well.
As for scientists, I'll point you to the joint declaration of the national academies of the G8 nations - who are accountable to their members and genrally represent the scientific community:
Also, there is the AAAS, which has a wider membership (national academies are usually higher-ranking scientists):
Not, to mention, the Pentagon and even Environment Canada, which is surprising given the federal government's paranoid grip on information and truly pathetic showing in international climate efforts.
Of course there are dissenters - that's science - but because there are scientists who don't believe in evolution doesn't mean we don't accept the view of the majority and use evolutionary genetics to cure disease.
Actually, much of what McGuinty was doing was implented by Germany to rebuild its decrepit GDR-era industrial base in the east, and it emerged one of Europe's strongest economies alongside the Danes and the Swedes, who, by the way, are doing quite well.
As for scientists, I'll point you to the joint declaration of the national academies of the G8 nations - who are accountable to their members and genrally represent the scientific community:
Also, there is the AAAS, which has a wider membership (national academies are usually higher-ranking scientists):
Not, to mention, the Pentagon and even Environment Canada, which is surprising given the federal government's paranoid grip on information and truly pathetic showing in international climate efforts.
Of course there are dissenters - that's science - but because there are scientists who don't believe in evolution doesn't mean we don't accept the view of the majority and use evolutionary genetics to cure disease.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
Public Backlash: Denmark Turning Again Windfarms
Denmark used to be such a pretty wee place......and I found the original windmills, individual turbines scattered in farmers' fields attractive and novel
And then it got to the point that their entire shoreline is covered with the things. The whole country looks like some grand Rube Goldberg electrical sub station.
And Sweden and Norway are very happy with the situation as Denmark exports windpower credits and buys hydropower from both of them and natural gas from Norway....as well as coal-fired power from Germany.
They can't use their own power efficiently.
Denmark used to be such a pretty wee place......and I found the original windmills, individual turbines scattered in farmers' fields attractive and novel
And then it got to the point that their entire shoreline is covered with the things. The whole country looks like some grand Rube Goldberg electrical sub station.
And Sweden and Norway are very happy with the situation as Denmark exports windpower credits and buys hydropower from both of them and natural gas from Norway....as well as coal-fired power from Germany.
They can't use their own power efficiently.
J
jhk87
Guest
And all of this coming from.......the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a skeptical think-tank funded by extractive industries!
jhk87 said:
If it makes you happy or content to believe in the AGW theory, well just fill yer boots buddy.
If it makes you happy that a multi-$billion, transnational environmental industry is making public policy then be happy.
If it makes you happy that your energy systems are being hijacked by bad public policy and your happy paying an 800% premium for green energy so you can feel good, then feel really good.
Won't change the facts that the predictions of catastrophic climate change are not happening as predicted, the famous models don't work and natural climate variation is really the Big Kahuna in all the multiple factors that drive the chaotic energy distribution system we call climate.
But know that it is over, the environmentalists are already moving on to the next Great Hairy Scary fund raising scam, the vast majority of the public no longer give a rat's patooty worth of thought about Global Warming, I Mean Climate Change, sorry I mean Global Climate Disruption.
It is over now, all that is left is for some of the fraud and criminal charges to work their way forward. Al Gore will be a footnote in history as a weirdo-whacko who got rich on the scam and future generations will wonder who so many people could be so gullible, so stupid to believe microscopic changes in one gas in our atmosphere - .008% change, could drive the entire climate system.
But hey, believe what you want if it makes you happy. Just don't expect anyone with a modicum of thinking ability to agree with you.
Don't worry, be happy, take in a long deep breath and slowly exhale some planet killing CO2
J
jhk87
Guest
As per the earlier post, still looking for a discussion by adults. And really, you're not addressing the point, are you?
GAP said:I do believe I just saw my first internet "pout"..... :
Yup . . . I can "feel" that pout, the face turning blue happening from here. But I guess every exhale that doesn't happen doesn't emit CO2 and therefore saves us from melting Ice Caps and 6 foot sea level increases flooding Manhattan.
So I guess we should be , thankful for the pout. Someone is saving the planet.
If only I knew where to send my hair shirt . . . I would share.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,144
- Points
- 1,160
I'm certainly no climate scientist but my gut tells me that it only makes sense that the major changes we humans have made to the environment (through deforestation for agriculture, urbanization, engineering of waterways, air and water pollution, burning of carbon fuel sources, harvesting of the oceans, etc.) must be having some effect(s) on the planet.
However that certainly doesn't mean that our actions are the only (or even the primary?) factor affecting our climate. That system is so complex that I don't think it would every be possible for anyone to PROVE (or DISPROVE) a direct cause and effect for any single (or small number) of variables on the system.
This is where I think that the climate change "supporters" have taken the wrong approach. They are asking society (Western Industrial Society in particular) to make massive and expensive changes to how we live without a clear cause/effect that can be pointed to. Where will we see the benefits of what we have done to combat climate change? The time frames are far too long, the effects of any changes too unclear, and the personal benefits compared to the personal sacrifices too out of sync to grab the imagination of a society that is so focused on itself to focus on such an ethereal concept as climate change.
Energy is expensive. Focus on the direct and measurable benefits (societal and economic) of becoming a country that uses its energy in the most efficient manner possible. We will spend less on energy making our companies more competitive in the global market, we will have more energy available to export (and earn profit from), and we will develop industries and technologies for maximizing energy efficiency/minimizing energy use that will be desired by other countries. And you know what? We'll put less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as a result. The effect is the same but the approach is different. Don't spend money on inefficient and uneconomical alternate sources of energy for their own sake. Set market incentives to encourage efficiency (not just in energy but in every aspect of the economy) and companies will find the methods and technologies to fill the needs of industries that are striving to remain competitive.
The result will be a stronger economy (from lower per capita energy, labour and resource inputs and lower waste outputs) as well as a cleaner environment (with lower carbon and waste emissions).
Just my :2c:
However that certainly doesn't mean that our actions are the only (or even the primary?) factor affecting our climate. That system is so complex that I don't think it would every be possible for anyone to PROVE (or DISPROVE) a direct cause and effect for any single (or small number) of variables on the system.
This is where I think that the climate change "supporters" have taken the wrong approach. They are asking society (Western Industrial Society in particular) to make massive and expensive changes to how we live without a clear cause/effect that can be pointed to. Where will we see the benefits of what we have done to combat climate change? The time frames are far too long, the effects of any changes too unclear, and the personal benefits compared to the personal sacrifices too out of sync to grab the imagination of a society that is so focused on itself to focus on such an ethereal concept as climate change.
Energy is expensive. Focus on the direct and measurable benefits (societal and economic) of becoming a country that uses its energy in the most efficient manner possible. We will spend less on energy making our companies more competitive in the global market, we will have more energy available to export (and earn profit from), and we will develop industries and technologies for maximizing energy efficiency/minimizing energy use that will be desired by other countries. And you know what? We'll put less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as a result. The effect is the same but the approach is different. Don't spend money on inefficient and uneconomical alternate sources of energy for their own sake. Set market incentives to encourage efficiency (not just in energy but in every aspect of the economy) and companies will find the methods and technologies to fill the needs of industries that are striving to remain competitive.
The result will be a stronger economy (from lower per capita energy, labour and resource inputs and lower waste outputs) as well as a cleaner environment (with lower carbon and waste emissions).
Just my :2c:
GR66 . . . excellent summary.
When we look back on this episode, we'll ponder the opportunity costs of the $Trillion global public policy actions taken in pursuit of the quasi religious beliefs in low carbon economic activities.
All that research money flowing into climate science means all that money not flowing into Cancer research or finding a cure for Parkinson's disease or on finding how to make nuclear fusion work or ???.
This is the real tragedy of the great scam perpetrated by the global environmental movement in their pursuit of environmental correctness & purity.
When we look back on this episode, we'll ponder the opportunity costs of the $Trillion global public policy actions taken in pursuit of the quasi religious beliefs in low carbon economic activities.
All that research money flowing into climate science means all that money not flowing into Cancer research or finding a cure for Parkinson's disease or on finding how to make nuclear fusion work or ???.
This is the real tragedy of the great scam perpetrated by the global environmental movement in their pursuit of environmental correctness & purity.
J
jhk87
Guest
Or, you know, we could listen to the majority of the scientific community instead of saying "well, from what I see."
This incessant use of simplistic rhetoric, repeated ad nauseum, is in fact a sign of a very immature and pretty pointless discussion.
Pout or not, it's like talking to a group of angry Marxist high school students. I'm out.
This incessant use of simplistic rhetoric, repeated ad nauseum, is in fact a sign of a very immature and pretty pointless discussion.
Pout or not, it's like talking to a group of angry Marxist high school students. I'm out.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Points
- 1,010
OK, take your toys and go home then.
Seriously, we have tried discussing it seriously but you seem to have taken the point of view that it is your way or nothing. Better wake up to the ways of the world, my friend, people are allowed to disagree on opinions and what passes for facts is another issue.
I think a few of us on here have tried to point out there are credible sources on both sides of the argument.
How is that for a "grown up" conversation with Marxist high school students?
Seriously, we have tried discussing it seriously but you seem to have taken the point of view that it is your way or nothing. Better wake up to the ways of the world, my friend, people are allowed to disagree on opinions and what passes for facts is another issue.
I think a few of us on here have tried to point out there are credible sources on both sides of the argument.
How is that for a "grown up" conversation with Marxist high school students?
Well too bad we lost jhk87 . . just when things were getting interesting.
This might be too much for 87's comprehension, but for the rest of us . . .
Judith Curry is hitting homers again
"So were the scientists innocent victims and pawns in all this? Were they just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
The advantages of dogma
When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. "
rtr @ http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
Pretty devastating assessment. A perfect description of screamers like Mike "Dr. Hockey Stick" Mann who saw where the money was, switched from physics to climatology with really studying climatology and as a very, very, very junior professor pushed his Hockey Stick paper into IPCC prominence. He tainted the entire IPCC with that little scam.
This might be too much for 87's comprehension, but for the rest of us . . .
Judith Curry is hitting homers again
"So were the scientists innocent victims and pawns in all this? Were they just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
The advantages of dogma
When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. "
rtr @ http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
Pretty devastating assessment. A perfect description of screamers like Mike "Dr. Hockey Stick" Mann who saw where the money was, switched from physics to climatology with really studying climatology and as a very, very, very junior professor pushed his Hockey Stick paper into IPCC prominence. He tainted the entire IPCC with that little scam.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
jhk87 said:
Here's some simplistic rhetoric, that I guarantee won't be repeated ad nauseum. Curb your attitude or get punted. You have proven nothing of substance that already hasn't been discussed. If you can't agree to disagree like an adult, instead of acting like a spolied petulant child, I'll have no problem helping you out the door.
Milnet.ca Staff
An interesting video on
Livestock production and Global warming.
Planetary Emergency
I'm a Beef eater.
Also
another video to watch:
NASA Global Warming Facts: 2009
Global Warming Facts
Livestock production and Global warming.
Planetary Emergency
I'm a Beef eater.
Also
another video to watch:
NASA Global Warming Facts: 2009
Global Warming Facts
Similar threads
