Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[banx]

Ya I find it hard to believe that some of you have the power to actually vote yet you think humans have no influence over the environment.

I don't think a water supply has ever been ruined extracting energy.  forests around industries never ever have trees that look dead and not growing.  there are never any warnings about eating shellfish around industries dumping their crap in the water.

there is no such thing as smog.  the chinese wear masks for fashion. and acid rain is a song prince had to scrap and went with purple instead.

 

[TNAngler]

in my line of work what you speak of refers to projection not assumption...educated and calculated forecast based on history with formulated adjustments to account to the demographics  and needs of a population...in layman's term supply and demand.

the problem with your theory is you base everything on a linear model where patterns allow for natural occurrences, but you fail to incorporate occurrences created by humans...variances that get thrown into the mix and have created havoc in our overall climate scheme... chernobyl, hiroshima, nagasaki, 9/ll, gulf war and the burning of 600 kuwait oil wells, exxon valdez spill, fukushima,...etc, etc... and we're not even talking the many world wide incinerators and fossil fuel burning factories and vehicle emissions that create gases that get into the atmosphere...forget the conspiracy theory and just open your eyes.

Yes, I make a projection of what will occur.  Built into that project are layers and layers and layers of assumptions.

What they do to project the climate forward is very similar.  And there is nothing linear about my models.  There are extreme shock scenarios that are built in.  Are there extreme shock scenarios built into their models?  I don't know, I would assume so.  If you are going to build a proper model, you build in a certain percent chance of an event occurring and let stochastic scenario generators generate the random numbers that then fit into the probability distribution of what occurs.

I remember many stories and seen many pictures from back in the day where acid rain killed entire forests.  That might still happen in China but it no longer happens here.  Our vehicle emissions are mostly CO2 and water.  We have put scrubbers on power plants so that they are very clean.  Yes, accidents happen.  Take the deep water gulf leak.  How horrible did they predict that was going to be?  Thousands of miles of beaches were going to be covered in oil.  What happened?  Pretty much nothing because deep sea oil leaks happen all the time without us doing anything and the Earth is built to handle those.  Exxon Valdez, bunch of animals died but the area is recovering much better than all of the dire warnings predicted.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to take care of our planet and yes, disasters happen and can hurt the environment.  Those you listed have very little effect on the climate.  Yes, atomic explosions can throw particles into the air that shield some sunlight and cool the Earth.  A single volcano eruption can do much worse.  I think you are confusing ruining the environment and climate change.  They are not the same.  I'm not saying we should all go dump all our trash into our rivers because it won't have an effect.  I'm not going to stop driving my truck because I think it is going to cause Florida to be under water.

[TNAngler]

TNA Believes seatbelts are forced to protect you from your own stupidity. Never mind people hitting you, or when hit that the non seatbelt wearing people will projectile into others killing vehicle occupants.

There are some sound minds here, but holy Fin jumping monkey balls are some if you out to lunch.

If someone hits you and you aren't wearing your seatbelt and you get thrown from your car, you are still the stupid one.  If you are driving and let someone ride in your car not wear a seatbelt and you crash and they projectile into the back of your head, killing you, that is your own stupidity, and theirs.  It is like if you get diagnosed with cancer, stage 2, very treatable.  We can do surgery and radiation and chemo and you have a high chance of surviving, or you can just turn you back on all that and possibly survive it but chances are you will die.  If you turn down the treatment for no good reason, that would be pretty stupid.  Seatbelts are provided to keep you safe.  If you choose not to wear them or let others not wear them, you are playing Russian Roulette.  Or do you think the gov't should force people to get treatment for cancer too?

[TNAngler]

It is, in the sense that it is easier to predict what the climate in the lower mainland will be like on February 10th 2015 than it is to predict what the weather will be like on February 10th 2014.

Now this is just dumb.  If you had said it would be easier to predict what the climate on the lower mainland would be for the month of February 2015 than it is for February 10th this year, maybe.  If you are going to tell me that you can predict what the weather will be like on a specific day next year, you are fooling yourself.  Even if I gave you a 5 degree cushion, I bet you would be wrong more than you are right in 10 tries as would anybody else.  That is just pure luck.

Let me put it in terms of life insurance that I have to explain a lot.  I can't predict when you will die exactly.  I can provide probability distributions.  Get a 1000 people exactly like you and I could tell you 1 or 2 or whatever will die in the next year.  If you want to say the weather in winter or in February might average a certain temperature or a certain amount of snow or anything like that, fine.  Saying you can predict on a specific day, not a chance.

[TNAngler]

it's not just about weather pattern in general...it's what's in it and how it affects the balance of ecology...we're talking long term consequences...biology 101...google photosynthesis/acid rain/and ph balance of soil then factor in all the variables.

it's not enough to say it's a natural cycle we're in when thousands of years ago pollution didn't play a role in the equation.

You are not discussing climate, you are discussing environment issues.  If you want to say "If the earth warms, the chemicals we have released will become more potent and cause greater problem" great.  And nobody is proposing we just go dump a bunch of crap everywhere.

[TNAngler]

Sigh. Too many deniers here posting links with no credible resources claiming them as fact.

Let the scientists that dedicate their lives for ONE specific thing to publish research papers of their findings. These are called experts. Anyone else INCLUDING YOU PEOPLE are spreading a disease of misinformation.

Next up we'll have the Anti Vaxxers here with the flat earths

You make me laugh.  Someone that has dedicated their lives for ONE specific thing.  That makes it sound even worse for them being unbiased.  Not only will their money dry up if there is very minimal man made effect on the climate, but now they have an entire life's work and the only thing they have trained for that goes away.  This is the person you are going to listen to without any critical thinking?  I don't trust anything anybody says at face value because they do not have my interest at heart, they have their own.  You can't deny they have a vested financial interest in there being man made climate change.  It is like trusting the salesman that gets a commission that you don't want to buy the cheaper car because it is a piece of crap, but this one over here that is twice as much will be much better for you.  He has a financial interest in me picking the more expensive one.  These scientists have their grants and their entire life's work based on the fact that man is causing most of this change.

[obie1fish]

Back to DHMO... The site's main purpose is show how credible websites can LOOK, while providing information that is true (eg., DHMO  is found in 100% of all cancer cells,etc.), but coming to an erroneous conclusion (ie., DHMO is killing us). My kids were shown that site by teachers as a reason to be cautious when selecting and citing websites in their research. My kids and I had a great laugh, especially when they said that many students were totally up in arms over the whole thing.
Check it out yourself- it's pretty well done!

Never took a philosophy class, but I imagine there's an "if...then" sorta thing surrounding this.

[Sandman]

I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.

A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

Yes, you missed it.  I have already pointed it out, but you missed the crucial aspect of my point which is the fact that we are in the midst of an Ice Age (Quaternary Period) which has lasted for two million years and saw the development of large masses of polar ice, we are not "coming out" of one...not yet.  What we are coming out of was a period of glaciation when global ice masses were growing (the last major period was the Weichselian/Wisconsin Glaciation), putting us in an interglacial period when ice masses are shrinking.  However, the fact that the earth has its own rhythms of warming and cooling, and that in all likelihood another period of Glaciation is in our future, does not take away from the prospect that we are having a profound impact on those rhythms.  During the past billion years, there have been numerous cases of animal species going extinct, long before humans crawls out of the primordial ooze.  That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species.  It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.

[Sandman]

Now this is just dumb.  If you had said it would be easier to predict what the climate on the lower mainland would be for the month of February 2015 than it is for February 10th this year, maybe.  If you are going to tell me that you can predict what the weather will be like on a specific day next year, you are fooling yourself.  Even if I gave you a 5 degree cushion, I bet you would be wrong more than you are right in 10 tries as would anybody else.  That is just pure luck.

No. What is dumb is that you substituted "weather " for "climate " again after I told you they were two different things. 

[TNAngler]

Ya I find it hard to believe that some of you have the power to actually vote yet you think humans have no influence over the environment.

I don't think a water supply has ever been ruined extracting energy.  forests around industries never ever have trees that look dead and not growing.  there are never any warnings about eating shellfish around industries dumping their crap in the water.

there is no such thing as smog.  the chinese wear masks for fashion. and acid rain is a song prince had to scrap and went with purple instead.

Environment is not the same as climate.  We can easily destroy a water supply and forests and contaminate water.  Nobody is denying acid rain is bad.  That has no effect on how much rain Vancouver gets in the next three years, what the average temperature will be in Vancouver 10 years from now, or anything like that.

Take a look at light bulbs.  The incandescent light bulb, cheap to make, no harmful materials, easy to use.  Those are now taboo and being completely phased out in the states.  Why?  Because they use too much energy and so we have to have more coal plants to provide power.  Instead, we will have to buy CFLs.  The ones where if you break them, you risk mercury poisoning in cleaning it up along with a bunch of other harmful things.  The old light bulbs you could throw in the trash with very little harm to the environment.  How many people are in the lower mainland?  How many CFLs are broken and thrown away in a way that puts mercury into our water supply?  You willing to tell me that the amount of coal power that was saved by not allowing incandescent bulbs is worth that?  The environment is taking  a hit to prevent man made climate change.

[RalphH]

Yes, obviously the oil companies have a vested interested.  2.6 billion for one project.  A quick search provided this link

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf

I trust that the CBO (for those who don't know, that is the United States Congressional Budget Office, a supposedly non-partisan entity) is a sufficiently reliable source.

From 98 to 09, about 99 billion spent by the US.  More than a third of that was spent in 09.  For those with difficulty with math, that is over 33 billion in 1 year for just the US.  You can read the whole report if you wish.  That includes money for technology (ie wind farms and stuff).  If climate change wasn't a worry, 33 billion a year could be removed from the US budget, gas companies could spend less.  How many people are employed because of that 33 billion figure?  How many of them want to lose their jobs because the theory their work supports (that man is causing a majority of the climate change) is not true?

Can't see in that report where the 99 billion or the 33 billion (over '09 ) comes from. Actual spending in '09 outside the ARRA was 7.5 billion. Much of that was directed at technology. Technology is also aimed at alternate energy and energy conservation or efficiency. It's been a US goal since the 70s to reduce dependence on oil since significant supply comes from off shore. Actual climate science is much lower, well under a billion in '09. Even at that so what? Federal spending in the US is on the order of 3500 billion. None of the this goes to the claim, for which you offer no substantiation, that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy established by government and climate science academics are corruptly complicit in this supposed conspiracy.

 

[TNAngler]

No. What is dumb is that you substituted "weather " for "climate " again after I told you they were two different things.

Snort.  Ok, well, climate is, by definition the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.  Speaking of climate on a specific day is meaningless which is what you did.  I had to go with the basis you put forth in your statement which was flawed to begin with.

[TNAngler]

Yes, you missed it.  I have already pointed it out, but you missed the crucial aspect of my point which is the fact that we are in the midst of an Ice Age (Quaternary Period) which has lasted for two million years and saw the development of large masses of polar ice, we are not "coming out" of one...not yet.  What we are coming out of was a period of glaciation when global ice masses were growing (the last major period was the Weichselian/Wisconsin Glaciation), putting us in an interglacial period when ice masses are shrinking.  However, the fact that the earth has its own rhythms of warming and cooling, and that in all likelihood another period of Glaciation is in our future, does not take away from the prospect that we are having a profound impact on those rhythms.  During the past billion years, there have been numerous cases of animal species going extinct, long before humans crawls out of the primordial ooze.  That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species.  It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.

I am all in favor of being mindful of it.  What is happening these days is people run around like chicken with their heads cut off, or like Chicken Little.  We have to do something, we have to do something now.  It doesn't matter if it will help in the long run.  Many people pushing this the hardest would rather we all live in huts and had no modern conveniences like the First Nations used to live.  Or just die off to save the planet.  Just go about it smart and think it through.  Don't severely cripple the economy on a knee jerk reaction that we don't even know is going to work.

[TNAngler]

Can't see in that report where the 99 billion or the 33 billion (over '09 ) comes from. Actual spending in '09 outside the ARRA was 7.5 billion. Much of that was directed at technology. Technology is also aimed at alternate energy and energy conservation or efficiency. It's been a US goal since the 70s to reduce dependence on oil since significant supply comes from off shore. Actual climate science is much lower, well under a billion in '09. Even at that so what? Federal spending in the US is on the order of 3500 billion. None of the this goes to the claim, for which you offer no substantiation, that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy established by government and climate science academics are corruptly complicit in this supposed conspiracy.

This was to prove that the gov't pays most of the bills for these scientists and the entire industry.  The numbers come from the first page of the report, bottom of the first column going into the second column.  This was all an exercise explaining where the money comes from and why the "experts" have a financial interest in keeping this money coming.  Do you believe the sales guy trying to sell you a time share when he says what he is offering is actually going to save you money?  Hopefully not, because you know he is getting paid by the hotel to say those things.  Or the dirty stockbroker pushing hard on a specific stock?  Maybe, but chances are he has already bought his shares, you buying shares will cause his shares to be more valuable, and he will cash his out before he cashes you out?

[RalphH]

This was to prove that the gov't pays most of the bills for these scientists and the entire industry. 

It does no such thing. Per the report spending on a wide variety on "Climate Change Programs" was 7.5 billion in 2009. In 2009 the American Recovery and Re-investment Act included an additional 35 billion to be committed (not necessarily spent) over the course of the next year as follows:

Energy

    Senate — $40 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $2.9 billion to weatherize modest-income homes; $4.6 billion for fossil fuel research and development; $6.4 billion to clean up nuclear weapons production sites; $11 billion toward a so-called smart electricity grid to reduce waste; $8.5 billion to subsidize loans for renewable energy projects; and $2 billion for advanced battery systems.
    House — $28.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $6.2 billion to weatherize homes; $11 billion to fund a smart electricity grid.

note there isn't any mention of pure climate science research. Note most of it relates to existing conventional infrastructure. Even if more was provided for that it does nothing to substantiate wild allegations of hoax and complicity by scientist to get money in a corrupt fashion. Such allegations are baseless smears.

Are even trying to get informed before making statements? These diatribes are starting to appear to be mere trolling IMO. Your comments about seat belt laws are similarly uninformed. Were you even around when that came into law in BC? Considerable public pressure had to be placed on government to get them to put that into law. The overwhelming majority of people were already wearing them as it was and the law was to get the last 30% or so to comply.