Global warming - is it a bad thing?

[#juan]

It's just as ludicrous to say that because you've flown over splotches of bare earth that you know the cause.
Maybe if you actually read what I wrote: There is a whole compendium of different evidence that tells us the Earth is warming up, just as there are a number of different greenhouse gasses.

The argument that people better believe in GW and better make changes or there will be terrible consequences is an appeal to consequence of a belief. Without proof there is no basis to assume believing and making changes is going to help the situation.

Again, that is not what I said. A change of only a couple degrees can have a dramatic effect on all of our lives. At the present rate of increase, it could take over thirty years for the temperature to rise two degrees but how long will it take to reverse the harm that a two degree rise would cause?

Some people need actually real proof before believing things. Some don't. You will alwys have an easier time spreading fear among those that don't need fear. That's just a fact.

If you can't find or see proof of climate change, you must be both blind and deaf.

 

[Scott Free]

If you can't find or see proof of climate change, you must be both blind and deaf.

That isn't the point.

Is climate change natural? Part of a cycle or something we're doing? we need to figure that out. We can't guess at it. We need laws, models and experiments that prove what the cause is. Fear mongering and noticing changes in your little patch of earth isn't proper evidence. If you just react without knowing what is happening you run the risk of making things worse.

For example: I know economists and politicians are really excited about creating a new green bubble to replace the housing bubble (The Economist) but all that new technology must be built and will create even more carbon. If carbon really is the culprit then that is a bad idea.

Another example: there are a lot of hippies excited by hydrogen technology even though it has been shown to be more harmful to the environment! Not at the automobile but at the factories that would need to make the hydrogen and the refitting of the infrastructure.

To make all these changes hippies want we would really have to ramp up our factories. We have new houses to build, old ones to retrofit, new cars to make, new batteries, solar panels, infrastructure to rip up and replace, we need way more electricity to make hydrogen, etc....

The senseless panic gripping some people could make matters far worse than they are now.

This is why we need evidence not fear and correlation.

 

[#juan]

That isn't the point.

Is climate change natural? Part of a cycle or something we're doing? we need to figure that out. We can't guess at it.

Natural? We have dumped over eight trillion tons of CO2, along with other things into our atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Every hour jetliners are burning millions of tons of kerosine in the upper atmosphere. Do you think these things have no effect?

For example: I know economists and politicians are really excited about creating a new green bubble to replace the housing bubble (The Economist) but all that new technology must be built and will create even more carbon. If carbon really is the culprit then that is a bad idea.

Another example: there are a lot of hippies excited by hydrogen technology even though it has been shown to be more harmful to the environment! Not at the automobile but at the factories that would need to make the hydrogen and the refitting of the infrastructure.

To make all these changes hippies want we would really have to ramp up our factories. We have new houses to build, old ones to retrofit, new cars to make, new batteries, solar panels, infrastructure to rip up and replace, we need way more electricity to make hydrogen, etc....

The senseless panic gripping some people could make matters far worse than they are now.

This is why we need evidence not fear and correlation.

What we have to do is rethink our priorities. Flying back and forth across the ocean because we have the money cannot continue. North Americans are the biggest users of bloody near everything. What if China, or India want the same experience we have had? We have to drastically change the way we think.

 

[Avro]

There is nothing to say doing something is better? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unless we understand the consequence of our actions doing nothing may be the best option.

Green totalitarianism may not be the solution. It could be this problem will require more level headed solutions - if indeed there are really any solutions to be found. We don't know what is going on. Finding that out should be our first priority IMO.

Huh?

Okay, let's press rewind....

Karrie said this....

Quoting karrie This is why I could care less what the 'proof' or the reasoning is. Poison belching out of cars. Poison pouring out of plants. Poison pouring into rivers. And virtually all of it is related to our energy hunger, our incessant need to 'power' the world around us. To make it revolve around us instead of us having to move through it. It needs to change.

Then you say this....

I agree. Maybe it'll stop GW maybe it won't but we'll all definitely be better off for it.

Then I say this....

So do nothing?

Then you spew out the above.

Make up your mind Scott, either it benefits us or it doesn't.....it can't be both.

 

[Scott Free]

Huh?

Okay, let's press rewind....

Karrie said this....

​

Then you say this....




Then I say this....



Then you spew out the above.

Make up your mind Scott, either it benefits us or it doesn't.....it can't be both.

I just meant pollution in general. We produce too much. I think the a real emergency is the amount of pesticides we are spreading on the planet.

I'm not mixing up theoretical postulations about the atmosphere with the real world and demonstrable problems of pollution. We don't need a GW bogyman. The ecosystem that supports us is being destroyed by us. There is actual proof of that. The GW fear mongering is taking away from the everyday issues like you can still buy Roundup at Canadian Tire!

 

[Avro]

I just meant pollution in general. We produce too much. I think the a real emergency is the amount of pesticides we are spreading on the planet.

I'm not mixing up theoretical postulations about the atmosphere with the real world and demonstrable problems of pollution. We don't need a GW bogyman. The ecosystem that supports us is being destroyed by us. There is actual proof of that. The GW fear mongering is taking away from the everyday issues like you can still buy Roundup at Canadian Tire!

A reduction in carbon production would decrease pollution. You......don't want to reduce carbon and yet you claim to hug a tree now and then.

So which is it, reduce pollution or not?

What is your motive in your denial of AGW other than to have something to talk about and look like a fool in the process.:-?

 

[Scott Free]

A reduction in carbon production would decrease pollution. You......don't want to reduce carbon and yet you claim to hug a tree now and then.

Carbon is one type of pollution. There are other kinds demonstrably worse. I would like those reduced.

So which is it, reduce pollution or not?

Reduce the ones that are demonstrably causing a problem like pesticides and fertilizers.

What is your motive in your denial of AGW other than to have something to talk about and look like a fool in the process.:-?

My position has never changed Avro!

Your argument is: There is a correlation between carbon and climate change therefore carbon has caused climate change. Also, for good measure you throw in an appeal to belief: if you don't do something about carbon then things are going to get worse.

Those are complete fallacies. They need to be proved and they haven't been. The fact that models have had so much trouble demonstrating the carbon/temperature theory indicates it is false; that there is more going on.

If we are going to try and save our biosphere then lets start with the things we know are causing trouble so we don't just end up causing more harm.

 

[coldstream]

As I said, I've flown over the north over a period of over three decades. There are hundreds of square miles of bare ground now, that was covered with ice and snow for many centuries. This bare ground will absorb more heat from the sun than the ice and snow and that heat will lead to exposing more ground to absorb even more heat. This is not rocket science. To say there is no global warming in the face of all the obvious evidence is ludicrous. The world's climatologists and meteorologists have shown us proof that the Earth is warming. Space surveys of ocean temperatures provide more evidence that the temperature of the oceans is rising. The sea level is also rising. Virtually every country in the world is working on a way to cut carbon emissions and you want to cling to Bush's original weak kneed ostrich arguments. Even Bush has changed his tune a hundred and eighty degrees.

I grew up in the North, at the upper reaches of the Boreal Forest, north of Superior, and no such change is occurring. It is i remember it as a child. My problem with this anecdotal evidence is that they form the only evidence for Global Warming and are selectively sorted to eliminate anything that doesn't agree with the thesis. These are packaged to appeal to unsophisticated audience by way of FEAR, and support a corrupt political agenda around Kyoto, and Carbon Credit industry, which will the acerbate the already dire world economic situation.

It's no accident that the 'solution' to this fabricated threat dove tails perfectly into the Global Trading and Investment paradigm that is destroying the world's productive economy. Why do we never hear that the ice shelfs in a large part of Antartica are advancing, that the cooler weather we are experiencing in COMPLETELY inconsistent with GW, that the earth's oceans are not rising or warming. These are neatly shelved until the next few days of hot weather or when waxing and waning glaciers are on the wane, when alarmist headlines scream of impending doom. It's ridiculous, it's aimed at fools, it is a product of an ecomomic, political and philosophical agenda that will be disastrous for the world if it is accepted.

Basically Global Warming is crock of s****. that has a structure around it through Kyoto that will make some people very rich, and will rob the rest of us of sustenance and shelter. That is the reason big business, and G. Bush and his ilk have gotten on the GW wagon.

 

[Tonington]

It's no accident that the 'solution' to this fabricated threat dove tails perfectly into the Global Trading and Investment paradigm that is destroying the world's productive economy. Why do we never hear that the ice shelfs in a large part of Antartica are advancing, that the cooler weather we are experiencing in COMPLETELY inconsistent with GW, that the earth's oceans are not rising or warming. These are neatly shelved until the next few days of hot weather or when waxing and waning glaciers are on the wane, when alarmist headlines scream of impending doom. It's ridiculous, it's aimed at fools, it is a product of an ecomomic, political and philosophical agenda that will be disastrous for the world if it is accepted.

And this paragraph, full of the oft repeated memes clearly illustrates the bankruptcy of your comprehension of the issue and the solutions...

 

[Avro]

Carbon is one type of pollution. There are other kinds demonstrably worse. I would like those reduced.



Reduce the ones that are demonstrably causing a problem like pesticides and fertilizers.



My position has never changed Avro!

Your argument is: There is a correlation between carbon and climate change therefore carbon has caused climate change. Also, for good measure you throw in an appeal to belief: if you don't do something about carbon then things are going to get worse.

Those are complete fallacies. They need to be proved and they haven't been. The fact that models have had so much trouble demonstrating the carbon/temperature theory indicates it is false; that there is more going on.

If we are going to try and save our biosphere then lets start with the things we know are causing trouble so we don't just end up causing more harm.

So you think that we should still burn coal and oil without any thought of reduction?

Let's take out the fact that carbon is one the main causes of global warming, something we will never agree on, which is fine. However, in the production of carbon we are polluting, should this be curbed or go on about our business as usual?

I know why you won't answer Scott, it makes your arguments irrelevant.

Btw, I'm with ya on fertilizer and pesticides, our city has banned the use of pesticides for next year as are many others in the surrounding aea.

 

[Scott Free]

So you think that we should still burn coal and oil without any thought of reduction?

Let's take out the fact that carbon is one the main causes of global warming, something we will never agree on, which is fine. However, in the production of carbon we are polluting, should this be curbed or go on about our business as usual?

I know why you won't answer Scott, it makes your arguments irrelevant.

Btw, I'm with ya on fertilizer and pesticides, our city has banned the use of pesticides for next year as are many others in the surrounding aea.

This conversation started because I objected to us curbing our carbon production while the developed world increases theirs. My argument was that while the developed world continues taking our jobs that placing restrictions on ourselves for unproved environmental hysteria was stupid. I still say it's stupid. We need to get the developing world to shoulder responsibility too.

If curbing carbon can be done in a fair way so we don't have to destroy our country and our economy and thereby simply pass all our wealth to the Chinese (for example) then fine - hippies like you can live out your fantasy all you want. I couldn't care less. If done properly maybe it would be a good replacement bubble. I still think hippies and their purposed environmental fascism will create more pollution. But lets face facts: hippies never were the brightest bulbs in the pack.

 

[Mulk]

I do but not without the rest of the world doing it also. You may remember that my main objection to the GW myth was its assumption carbon was the only (the primary) culprit, (I know that since we have started this debate other gases are now being recognized as bigger contributors) a claim based entirely on correlated data, and that we should curb our carbon emissions immediately regardless of what China and other emerging economies do.

I still maintain that as completely ridiculous. Obviously carbon should be cut down but not to our own nation’s detriment.

This was my original objection and still is my objection.

My questions to you are these; should we not all have homes that are as energy efficient as possible? Are energy efficient vehicles a bad thing? What about appliances that are efficient? Just because China is not doing it, should we not? What about increased use of wind energy in wide open areas? What about municipal laws that allow greater use of solar panels in cities despite the aesthetics, is that a bad idea???

To me these are beneficial to consumers, i.e. lower costs to operate. Gasoline and utilities seem to be ever increasing in cost, so why not start migrating to efficiencies that will contribute to a reduction in Canada's combustion of fossil fuels.at the same time?

Do you see any reason to not implement any of these ideas?

 

[Scott Free]

My questions to you are these; should we not all have homes that are as energy efficient as possible? Are energy efficient vehicles a bad thing? What about appliances that are efficient?

Not necessarily. Are your going to replace everything you own and if so isn't that going to exert a worse tole on the environment?

Just because China is not doing it, should we not?

That depends on how badly and quickly you want to become a 3rd world country.

What about increased use of wind energy in wide open areas? What about municipal laws that allow greater use of solar panels in cities despite the aesthetics, is that a bad idea???

Again you’re making things; you’re creating new industry you only suppose will be better. Without a proper understanding of the problem you run the risk of making things worse.

What if it turns out GW is caused by something other than carbon? I know one gas used to manufacture LCDs has been identified as 1000 times worse than carbon!

Your relying on the guesses of people that can't even accurately tell you if it’s going to rain next week - they sure as hell have no idea how hot it's going to be next year.

To me these are beneficial to consumers, i.e. lower costs to operate.

Artificially made so, yes. What if we find out carbon isn't the bogyman people think it is? There is evidence which suggests it isn't. Then that technology becomes a waste and we will lose our incentive to use it.

Gasoline and utilities seem to be ever increasing in cost, so why not start migrating to efficiencies that will contribute to a reduction in Canada's combustion of fossil fuels at the same time?

This is an artificial contrivance by industry. Oil and gas could be very inexpensive in Canada. It is just because of some terrible business and trade deals we have made. Canadians are being raped and they don't even know it.

Do you see any reason to not implement any of these ideas?

I do. The whole reason to implement them is artificial, contrived and guess work. It is a great economic and corporate blunder that we are so wrapped up in we can't see it. Not a conspiracy but a really bad and corrupt system that would like us to export all our jobs, technology and resources to poorer countries or destroy ourselves so we are the poorer country.

 

[Tonington]

That depends on how badly and quickly you want to become a 3rd world country.
...
Again you’re making things; you’re creating new industry you only suppose will be better. Without a proper understanding of the problem you run the risk of making things worse.

These two points are at odds. Creating new demand for products manufactured here is not going to turn us into a third world country. The net economic effect is positive, and it would only strengthen Canada's competitive edge on the World market.

This isn't some crack pipe carbon offset scheme. Energy efficiency and infrastructure is a bona fide stimulus to the economy, with real potential for all aspects of the economy.

 

[scratch]

These two points are at odds. Creating new demand for products manufactured here is not going to turn us into a third world country. The net economic effect is positive, and it would only strengthen Canada's competitive edge on the World market.

This isn't some crack pipe carbon offset scheme. Energy efficiency and infrastructure is a bona fide stimulus to the economy, with real potential for all aspects of the economy.

Gotta go with you, Ton.

 

[Scott Free]

These two points are at odds. Creating new demand for products manufactured here is not going to turn us into a third world country. The net economic effect is positive, and it would only strengthen Canada's competitive edge on the World market.

This isn't some crack pipe carbon offset scheme. Energy efficiency and infrastructure is a bona fide stimulus to the economy, with real potential for all aspects of the economy.

It is a temporary stimulus that might do harm not good. It is also an artificial stimulus which requires higher taxes to force people into compliance. There is also nothing to say China and other emerging economies won't start supplying us with green technology once demand becomes high enough. They already produce everything more cheaply and not just because of labour costs but because of lower health and safety standards. Forcing greenness on our companies gives China and other countries yet another advantage.

I do understand what your saying however IMO your making some pretty big and unwarranted assumptions about this "green" revolution.

Not to mention it's a pretty silly method for fixing a trade imbalance. Raising taxes and/or increasing production costs does not ever stimulate the economy.

 

[Avro]

It is a temporary stimulus that might do harm not good. It is also an artificial stimulus which requires higher taxes to force people into compliance. There is also nothing to say China and other emerging economies won't start supplying us with green technology once demand becomes high enough. They already produce everything more cheaply and not just because of labour costs but because of lower health and safety standards. Forcing greenness on our companies gives China and other countries yet another advantage.

I do understand what your saying however IMO your making some pretty big and unwarranted assumptions about this "green" revolution.

Not to mention it's a pretty silly method for fixing a trade imbalance.

You sound just like a conservative...."it can't be done, the status quo works, what's the point, to much risk, blah blah blah....."

 

[L Gilbert]

Want an example of what can happen when a country can't get oil or refuses to get oil from another country? Take a look at Portugal, they have thousands of jobs in the various industries supporting alternative energy, they are producing their own energy ( more jobs there, too), etc. As far as I know, they have the world's largest PV power generation plant (they get lotsa sun lol). They have wind turbines. So, people are telling me that Canada can't do this. People are telling me that instead of making a mess like China is doing, they could have been developing in a similar manner to Portugal. NUTZ!!

Pelamis Offshore Wave Energy in Portugal

World's biggest solar farm at centre of Portugal's ambitious energy plan | Environment | The Guardian


PORTUGAL: Making Up for Lost Time in Renewable Energy

The simple fact is that we are complacent within the status quo. Bunch of fat old sheep waiting around and watching smarter and more ambitious sheep have all the fun and gain the rewards of venturing forward.

 

[Avro]

Want an example of what can happen when a country can't get oil or refuses to get oil from another country? Take a look at Portugal, they have thousands of new hobs in the various industries supporting alternative energy, they are producing their own energy ( more jobs there, too), etc. As far as I know, they have the world's largest PV power generation plant (they get lotsa sun lol). They have wind turbines. So, people are telling me that Canada can't do this. People are telling me that instead of making a mess like China is doing, they could have been developing in a similar manner to Portugal. NUTZ!!

Pelamis Offshore Wave Energy in Portugal

World's biggest solar farm at centre of Portugal's ambitious energy plan | Environment | The Guardian

PORTUGAL: Making Up for Lost Time in Renewable Energy

Don't forget about Brazil either Gilbert.

You are right about Portugal and in some circle's they are considered a third world country. I was there two years ago and they even used solar energy for the street lights,no.... "it can't be done attitude there."

 

[Tonington]

It is a temporary stimulus that might do harm not good. It is also an artificial stimulus which requires higher taxes to force people into compliance.There is also nothing to say China and other emerging economies won't start supplying us with green technology once demand becomes high enough.

Explain how building new technology and infrastructure that is more efficient, and removed from turbulent fossil fuel markets could be harmful. We export energy. Then import it back again. We can continue to export it, and supply a larger percentage of our own.

Manufacturing here is value added to the Canadian economy, and it's not a temporary stimulus. We could stand by and watch as other countries develop these technologies, and then have no foothold in a already booming market. Is that what you want? You're the one complaining about losing competetiveness, but being unrationaly pessimisstic about the opportunity to become more competetive...

They already produce everything more cheaply and not just because of labour costs but because of lower health and safety standards. Forcing greenness on our companies gives China and other countries yet another advantage.

Building new green companies replaces the weak ones who can't compete. There's more to the options than compliance, there's tax incentives.

I do understand what your saying however IMO your making some pretty big and unwarranted assumptions about this "green" revolution.

So, take it from economists and other professionals then. You can read all about their assumptions.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, concludes that it is possible to make the cuts in emissions while maintaining growth. Energy efficiency is the key.

One Chrysler plant was able to save $627,000 annually, and the payback period on the capital invested is only 2 months...

Some of it requires changing current market incentives, such as the electric utility industry which doesn't favour efficiency at all.

You can google to find hundreds more examples...

Not to mention it's a pretty silly method for fixing a trade imbalance.

Nobodies talking about a trade imbalance...though you certainly can't improve a trade imbalance if all of your efficiency gains come from imported expertise and technologies...