Print

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

[TNAngler]

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:

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.

I can't do your homework for you.  Follow the money.  If you refuse to believe that there is a huge conflict of interest in this, that is your fault.  There have been some scientists that have spoken up.  They get shouted down and ostracized for it.  Do you think all of the companies that give "protection" money to the mob support the mob and think it is a great thing?  Do you think they are corrupt for paying the money or do you think they are too afraid of ending up in the river or with broken fingers or reporting it to a dirty cop?  Do you think the climate change community acts much different.  You go against "the cause" and they close your business down.

So 70% of the population was smart, 30% were dumb.  Seems like a pretty low number of dumb people compared to today.  Why did the 30% have to get forced to comply?  I understand most people wore them already.  I also know the laws were passed to force the others to comply.  But why?  Why must they comply?  Because they are too stupid to decide for themselves?  Seatbelts are good and they obviously save lives and I think everyone should wear them.  Why the gov't has to force someone to comply with something that is good for them I don't understand.  Do you support the gov't tell you that you have to eat so much broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, and tofu every day?  You can only eat a very small portion of meat a couple times a week?  Can't ever eat fast food?  Why or why not?  If you aren't eating like that already, then obviously you are too stupid to do what is best for you, your health, and to help you not die from a heart attack.  It isn't the gov'ts role in my opinion to protect me from my own stupidity.

[RalphH]

Yah right. Who is shouting at who now? You can't do your own homework let alone mine. 

[banx]

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.

My understanding on CFL's and I'm no electrical engineer is that they consume less energy, a 60watt replaced by a 12watt. you also have an 8 to 10x longer life span...... so less 'material' to dispose of. you also have recycling facilities that handle electronic waste and these bulbs.  you might have similar incentive programs in the US as us here where you buy LED bulbs and get money back.  so yes, if people started worrying about efficiencies you would be burning less coal. 

so you think the environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate chance, but you also said man has no effect on climate change? 

I think everything we spew out into the environment can and will effect climate. I witnessed my first green christmas in my home town. I've seen a glacier nearly vanish in my life time (smithers). and I have a very very hard time believing its just the cycle of the earth.  You have the oceans chemistry changing rapidly because of emissions.....

the thread is "some observations.... what has everyone else seen?" Things are very different in my eyes....  but to deny that we have any influence is really silly man.  Especially if your talk about work is legitimate.

There might be a grain of truth in your delusional words, but if the earth is changing naturally, we are accelerating it like gas on a fire.

have you not witnessed any changes in your world? or are things just the same from when you were a little guy fishing with worm and bobber?

[TNAngler]

My understanding on CFL's and I'm no electrical engineer is that they consume less energy, a 60watt replaced by a 12watt. you also have an 8 to 10x longer life span...... so less 'material' to dispose of. you also have recycling facilities that handle electronic waste and these bulbs.  you might have similar incentive programs in the US as us here where you buy LED bulbs and get money back.  so yes, if people started worrying about efficiencies you would be burning less coal. 

so you think the environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate chance, but you also said man has no effect on climate change? 

I think everything we spew out into the environment can and will effect climate. I witnessed my first green christmas in my home town. I've seen a glacier nearly vanish in my life time (smithers). and I have a very very hard time believing its just the cycle of the earth.  You have the oceans chemistry changing rapidly because of emissions.....

the thread is "some observations.... what has everyone else seen?" Things are very different in my eyes....  but to deny that we have any influence is really silly man.  Especially if your talk about work is legitimate.

There might be a grain of truth in your delusional words, but if the earth is changing naturally, we are accelerating it like gas on a fire.

have you not witnessed any changes in your world? or are things just the same from when you were a little guy fishing with worm and bobber?

How many electronics end up in landfills?  How many CFL bulbs end up in landfills?  How many people actually take the time to make sure they get to the electronics place?  I don't think the power plants are having a huge effect on the climate or the environment anymore.  I just find it funny that people are so worried about burning less coal which means using products that are less safe for the environment.  So much so they have to be specially recycled when you and I both know there are way too many people that don't do that causing a net negative to the environment.

I have seen change.  I have seen some hurricanes grow very large, some hit NY, but then I have also seen years with virtually no hurricane activity.  People in TX right now are hoping for a hurricane because that is how they get most of their rain but they haven't had one in years.  As far a climate, some winters are colder, some are not as harsh, some years have more rain, others have less.

You say we are throwing gas on the fire.  By doing what exactly?  Breathing?  Because I am producing CO2 right now.  If you want to fight China because they are completely destroying the environment, great.  I support that.  There are too many ideas right now that are knee jerk reactions, half cocked plans that aren't thought through and people aren't even sure they will help.  It makes them feel better to do something though.  Take for instance the big push for ethanol.  Huge push.  We come to find out there is more pollution made while creating it than we save by using it.  But now the corn farmers are reliant on it and have converted so much of the land to corn for it we can't get funding stopped for it.  Figure out why the models show with current CO2 levels we should be much warmer than we are.  Figure out what the errors are before coming up with a plan.  Stop mandating changes until we understand better because we don't understand enough now.  If our models are not accurate for the first couple years, the chances they are accurate further out is very remote.

[banx]

we are throwing gas on the fire by continuing in our ways.  We are consuming a finite resource. by believing that we have no effect. which are your beliefs....

I actually think people are recycling among other things..... most of the hipsters I live around are pretty boisterous about their knee jerk reactions....... and its almost contagious. maybe put on some skinny jeans, grow a beard and come see for yourself... vancouver is kinda like portland, we just don't have as good beer........ as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.

"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/

so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.

you mentioned earlier about stopping breathing and C02. maybe your unfamiliar with this vast environmental debacle called the tar sands and the stripping of the boreal forest..... or the destruction of rain forest for cattle.... what we are removing to make room for growth is effecting us. and this C02 is not being absorbed.  Balance man, we are effecting the balance.  madagascar is a scary example right now.

we won't be fighting china. they pretty much own us now (yeaaaaaa harper). The only way that giant economy will slow its environmental abuse is a creation of a middle class where people have time to care.

as for ethanol. my understanding was that it was a push by your corn growers in the states.  I'm pretty sure american corn is shipped all over the world as food aid, I also understand its traded as a commodity.....  there is also a tremendous use in the sweetening of foods.  so you have a push by a supplier to use its product more..... I think the environmental consideration was an after thought.  maybe a slick sales pitch.

something like 40 million cars start everyday in your country to drive the economy.  how do you stop that without a viable alternative? I don't know how personally.... but you believe we can create models that say our actions have no effect. and can just keep on trucking.


 

[TNAngler]

we are throwing gas on the fire by continuing in our ways.  We are consuming a finite resource. by believing that we have no effect. which are your beliefs....

I actually think people are recycling among other things..... most of the hipsters I live around are pretty boisterous about their knee jerk reactions....... and its almost contagious. maybe put on some skinny jeans, grow a beard and come see for yourself... vancouver is kinda like portland, we just don't have as good beer........ as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.

"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/

so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.

you mentioned earlier about stopping breathing and C02. maybe your unfamiliar with this vast environmental debacle called the tar sands and the stripping of the boreal forest..... or the destruction of rain forest for cattle.... what we are removing to make room for growth is effecting us. and this C02 is not being absorbed.  Balance man, we are effecting the balance.  madagascar is a scary example right now.

we won't be fighting china. they pretty much own us now (yeaaaaaa harper). The only way that giant economy will slow its environmental abuse is a creation of a middle class where people have time to care.

as for ethanol. my understanding was that it was a push by your corn growers in the states.  I'm pretty sure american corn is shipped all over the world as food aid, I also understand its traded as a commodity.....  there is also a tremendous use in the sweetening of foods.  so you have a push by a supplier to use its product more..... I think the environmental consideration was an after thought.  maybe a slick sales pitch.

something like 40 million cars start everyday in your country to drive the economy.  how do you stop that without a viable alternative? I don't know how personally.... but you believe we can create models that say our actions have no effect. and can just keep on trucking.

Destroying rain forests and stuff is bad.  I think there is more than enough oil to support us through the next century in which time we can find an alternative that actually makes viable sense.  Necessity is the mother of all invention.  I don't think that in my lifetime we are going to ruin the climate beyond repair but if is found to be the case, then there is your necessity.

I know we can't create models now that accurately predict much of anything.  They have been trying to build models for decades that predict what will happen.  Almost every one of their predictions has been wrong.  Create a model that is reasonably accurate and I may pay attention to it.  Right now you have a company that built a program to predict the stock market 50 years ago.  Every 10 years or so they come out with a new version.  Every time it fails miserably to predict anything and you lose a bunch of money.  How many more models do they have to come out with that fail before you tell them to come up with one that is proven to work before you will give them more money?  Why are these models any different?  They are costing you just as much money if not more.  The money is not as direct so it is harder to see I guess.

[Sandman]

So 70% of the population was smart, 30% were dumb.  Seems like a pretty low number of dumb people compared to today.  Why did the 30% have to get forced to comply?  I understand most people wore them already.  I also know the laws were passed to force the others to comply.  But why?  Why must they comply?  Because they are too stupid to decide for themselves?  Seatbelts are good and they obviously save lives and I think everyone should wear them.  Why the gov't has to force someone to comply with something that is good for them I don't understand.  Do you support the gov't tell you that you have to eat so much broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, and tofu every day?  You can only eat a very small portion of meat a couple times a week?  Can't ever eat fast food?  Why or why not?  If you aren't eating like that already, then obviously you are too stupid to do what is best for you, your health, and to help you not die from a heart attack.  It isn't the gov'ts role in my opinion to protect me from my own stupidity.

You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn.  Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums.  Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?

[Sandman]

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.

Exactly, I said that it would be easier to predict the climate (the prevailing weather conditions in general or over a long period of time) in the Lower Mainland on any given day in February next year (I predict that on 10 February 2015 the climate in the Lower Mainland will be cool and wet with most of the precipitation falling in the winter and less than 10% of which falling as snow at sea level) than it would be to predict the specific local weather on a given day next week.

The point I was making was that people (like you just did) are going from talking about global warming to saying that you cannot predict the weather that far into the future.

[RalphH]

You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn.  Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums.  Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?

Exactly and it was the insurance industry as well as motorist advocate organizations such as CAA that had advocated for years for a seat belt law. As if it were the only law put in place to improve vehicle safety over the last 20 to 30 years. Many other changes have been mandated by law for example emissions control. Anyone remember leaded gas?

As far as diet. Significant legislated changes to food content may happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Other changes have been taking place over time since at least the 1960s as food additives and even natural substances (ie sarsaparilla) due to their link to cancer. Salt fat sugar content may be next because of both their link to heart and kidney disease and overeating. Many processed and snack foods foods are literally engineered  to trigger appetite and overeating.

[blaydRnr]

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.

actually i am talking about the climate (long term weather patterns) and how it correlates with environmental issues...here's a finding that can be used as an example...how you perceive it is completely up to you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121130034.htm

[Sandman]

I am still trying to figure out where all this money that is fueling the "global warming conspiracy" is coming from?  The world governments?  What has any government to gain from proving climate change is man made when it is not?  Is the oil and gas lobby not one of the richest and most powerful in the world?  If global warming scientists were so driven by money, would it not be easy for the oil and gas companies (those who stand to lose the most if people stop burning fossil fuels) to simply fund these scientists so they publish the findings they want?  They certainly contribute enough to the major political parties to exert considerable influence on government policy and therefore government funded research. There must be another reason why the majority of the scientific community supports the theory that humans are contributing to the acceleration of the Greenhouse Affect by adding large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere.  What am I missing TNA?

How many electronics end up in landfills?  How many CFL bulbs end up in landfills?  How many people actually take the time to make sure they get to the electronics place?  I don't think the power plants are having a huge effect on the climate or the environment anymore.  I just find it funny that people are so worried about burning less coal which means using products that are less safe for the environment.  So much so they have to be specially recycled when you and I both know there are way too many people that don't do that causing a net negative to the environment.

... as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.

"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/

so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.

Something doesn't jive here... TNA, just what are you basing your claim that coal burning plants are not having a huge impact on the environment any more?  or that we have more than enough oil to support us through the next century?  Where are you getting this data from?

[obie1fish]

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, you are absolutely correct. We should be mindful of our impact, certainly. I guess my point was, if there was one, that while we should be mindful of our impact, there are many hastily made conclusions made every day. While we are somewhat free to say as we wish, we do need to be responsible for what we say.

Yes, we have many impacts on the world, quite a few unique to our species. Yes, we need to change how things are done. And, for you younger folk, things are changing, quite often, for the better. No waterways in North America have caught fire for decades. But we need to do more- sometimes with more technology, sometimes with less.

My point in a smaller nutshell: statistics can be made to say anything one wants, if they're tortured enough.

Works for every side.

[TNAngler]

You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn.  Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums.  Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?

Wow.  Where did I say that research was flawed.  The insurance companies wanted it because they couldn't protect themselves from that risk.  Trust me, most of them don't care whether you live or die or end up in the hospital for a long period of time.  It is what they have to pay.  If the insurance companies would have been allowed to underwrite you as a seatbelt wearer with a stipulation that if you get into an accident where you were not wearing your seatbelt they don't pay for any of your injuries or injuries you cause because of you not wearing your seat belt, they would do that.  They aren't allowed to do that.  If some idiot wants to not wear their seatbelt and pay extra premium for that right, they should have that right.

The difference in this research and the climate research is that there is hard data and very easy studies of the effects.  Climate research can't seem to get the effects to match their models.

[TNAngler]

Exactly, I said that it would be easier to predict the climate (the prevailing weather conditions in general or over a long period of time) in the Lower Mainland on any given day in February next year (I predict that on 10 February 2015 the climate in the Lower Mainland will be cool and wet with most of the precipitation falling in the winter and less than 10% of which falling as snow at sea level) than it would be to predict the specific local weather on a given day next week.

The point I was making was that people (like you just did) are going from talking about global warming to saying that you cannot predict the weather that far into the future.

You can't discuss climate as of a specific date.  If you give a date, you are talking about weather.  For someone who claims to know the difference you don't seem to understand.  The bolded cannot be stated with the second half of that sentence.  One is specific, the other is climate.

[TNAngler]

Exactly and it was the insurance industry as well as motorist advocate organizations such as CAA that had advocated for years for a seat belt law. As if it were the only law put in place to improve vehicle safety over the last 20 to 30 years. Many other changes have been mandated by law for example emissions control. Anyone remember leaded gas?

As far as diet. Significant legislated changes to food content may happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Other changes have been taking place over time since at least the 1960s as food additives and even natural substances (ie sarsaparilla) due to their link to cancer. Salt fat sugar content may be next because of both their link to heart and kidney disease and overeating. Many processed and snack foods foods are literally engineered  to trigger appetite and overeating.

And you are ok with that?  If someone wants to eat something that has a higher chance of giving them cancer, then so be it.  I guess maybe Canadians don't have the desire for personal freedom and personal responsibility anymore.  I consider that a sad discovery.  I deal with the consequences of my choices.  I don't expect the gov't to cover for me or protect me from myself.