Print

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

[TNAngler]

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?

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?

Gas companies have reported record profit in some recent years.  How much were those profits?  A couple billion dollars.  How many big oil companies are there?  Five?  Ten?  If they put all their extra profit, they wouldn't be able to still match what the US gov't puts in.

What has any gov't to gain?  Seriously?  Does the gov't want more control of your life or less?  Given some of the other statements in here (restricting food content, etc.) it is obviously more.  If there is this demon out there of man made climate change, will it give them more control of your life or less if they are going to combat it?  There is talk in the States about how the gov't wants to be able to set a max on your power/heater.  If you use too much power or are using too much gas to heat your home they can just turn your thermostat down.  They want make you buy carbon offsets which amazingly many of the people pushing this are heavily invested just waiting for their payday.

As for having enough oil for a century, research recent finds in Australia and Israel.  Australia supposedly found a reserve that has at least as much oil as Saudi Arabia has, more than Canada, Venezuela, Iraq, or Iran.  It is thought to actually be much larger.

As for coal plants, the link below (from the EPA which I think we can agree won't deflate the numbers at all, says the average discharge from a coal plant

The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

No mercury left.  Can it be better, sure.  Compared with what it used to be?  Unbelievably better.  If we could get the rest of the world to match that level the planet would be a better place.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

[TNAngler]

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.

I agree.  I am not saying we shouldn't do anything, but we should be smart about it, think about it, and make sure what we are doing is the responsible and correct solution.  Make sure we know the effects.

For instance, the push for electric cars.  Huge push in the States.  Big push when the infrastructure wasn't there to handle it.  So, now we can't mine all the rare earth minerals needed for the batteries so we are having to buy the stuff mined in China which is being done so environmentally damaging it is dumb.  The electricity to charge these still comes from coal plants so it is just putting a bigger strain on those.

There are technology changes coming that people are exploring that will take care of a lot of these issues if they pan out.  New way of burning coal where there is no pollution created, more effective solar panels, stuff like that.  But we have to push to do it all now and making things worse instead of better.

Although I believe a couple years ago one of Bellingham's creeks was on fire along with blowing most of the manhole covers in part of the city.  That was a natural gas leak that was leaking into the storm drains and down into the creek that some fisherman found when lighting a cigarette.  Compared to how it used to be, things are SO MUCH BETTER.  We still have improvements we can make but all of this sky is falling we gotta act now is now healthy and doesn't lead to good results.

[RalphH]

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.

there was  (and is)  a similar argument around cigarettes. However it's now known tobacco companies deliberately spiked cigarette tobacco to make it far more addictive than it normally was. They made enormous profits for decades while the externalities to smokers, their families, health insurance carries and society at large were far larger. You ok with that? Is that a fair expression of personal freedom and responsibility? Did you miss my comment that the snack food and beverage industry is following a similar strategy? External costs are similar to the tobacco case

I expect government to set rules in the market place. One rule is products should not be designed to hook people into unhealthy consumption where they choice is in essence chemically manipulated.

[TNAngler]

there was  (and is)  a similar argument around cigarettes. However it's now known tobacco companies deliberately spiked cigarette tobacco to make it far more addictive than it normally was. They made enormous profits for decades while the externalities to smokers, their families, health insurance carries and society at large were far larger. You ok with that? Is that a fair expression of personal freedom and responsibility? Did you miss my comment that the snack food and beverage industry is following a similar strategy? External costs are similar to the tobacco case

I expect government to set rules in the market place. One rule is products should not be designed to hook people into unhealthy consumption where they choice is in essence chemically manipulated.

Then make a rule that they can't spike our food or spike the cigarettes or make it so that they have to disclose all of this.  Don't take the path of New York where instead they tell you that you can't order a pop bigger than such and such a size.  Health insurance carriers should not be included after the 30s or so as they were able to underwrite for smoking and so their costs should have been covered.

Make me aware of the issues, make it very clear and easily obtained what effects these things have.  If I still want to partake, then I am doing so at my own risk.  I don't need or want a babysitter but that is what the gov't is trying to be.

[RalphH]

Make me aware of the issues, make it very clear and easily obtained what effects these things have.  If I still want to partake, then I am doing so at my own risk.  I don't need or want a babysitter but that is what the gov't is trying to be.

More often governments respond to public will and pressure. They seldom take notice until the electorate gets upset. Governments seldom lead but mostly follow. What about minors? You expect them to be as able to independent  exercise free will as you? Is it government just for you the folks who deceive themselves into believing they have perfect free will? Maybe we should do away with flashy packaging and replace it all with a skull and cross bones. What about little or no salt or sugar? Users can add as little or as much as they want?

[Sandman]

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.

Oh, so you cannot discuss what the climate of Texas is today (a specific date)?  Does that mean we cannot discuss how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970?  Climate is a long term trend, that means that it doesn't matter that it is warmer or colder on any given day, what matters is the year after year trend and the speed at which it is changing.  Consider the following: the number of nights below freezing in Texas cities (Houston, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Abeline, etc)  has been steadily declining over the last fifty years.  When you plot these days on a line graph, you get spikes to the extreme both ways in some years, but the year after year trend has been steadily down.

Therefore, while it is impossible to predict how many days below freezing there will be in 2014, you can see how easy it is to predict that the line will continue to trend downward if no dramatic change is made (ie: a nucleur winter from an asteroid impact). Therefore, it is safe to say that the climate in Texas will be warmer on 10 February 2015 even if the weather is colder that day..

[Sandman]

What has any gov't to gain?  Seriously?  Does the gov't want more control of your life or less?  Given some of the other statements in here (restricting food content, etc.) it is obviously more.  If there is this demon out there of man made climate change, will it give them more control of your life or less if they are going to combat it?  There is talk in the States about how the gov't wants to be able to set a max on your power/heater.  If you use too much power or are using too much gas to heat your home they can just turn your thermostat down.  They want make you buy carbon offsets which amazingly many of the people pushing this are heavily invested just waiting for their payday
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

I see...the "government" has invented the "demon" of man made climate change in order to exert more control over our lives. 

[Sandman]

As for coal plants, the link below (from the EPA which I think we can agree won't deflate the numbers at all, says the average discharge from a coal plant...

...No mercury left.  Can it be better, sure.  Compared with what it used to be?  Unbelievably better.  If we could get the rest of the world to match that level the planet would be a better place.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

No mercury left?  Hardly.  They are referring to greenhouse emissions (mercury is not a greenhouse gas), so mercury is not mentioned.  While the EPA has strengthen rules for new plants and that would see older plants shut down within 4 years if they are not be able to meet the new rules  (91% capture).  Of course, that is if the courts allow these new rules. Coal burning continues to dump tons of mercury into the environment this year in the US, not to mention in Canada and the rest of he world..

[islanddude]

We live in a world run by insane people. So you think that this place we live in is going to get any better. There is no solution for the problems created by those whose only interest is power,money and complete control. They want a one world government, one world monetary system and one world religion. Oh by the way they want you to be good obedient slaves.
    If you look to the past we have always had heating and cooling climate fluctuations. The worlds ecosystems where still reasonably healthy.
    Are our ecosystems healthy now? Is the population of the world the same as in the past?
      Fracking is destroying the underground aquafirs. GMO's are destroying our food supply. Fukushima is poisoning the oceans. Nuclear power plants  are radiating us daily and there are plans for  building more. BP compromised the Gulf of Mexico with their  Deepwater Horizon well disaster.Poisoned the Gulf with Corexit and the Alantic Ocean. Chemicals sprayed from planes in a so called effort to cool our planet are exposing us to toxic metals.
     Major drought in California which is going to effect our food supply. Our currency is being devalued against the American dollar so we can compete against other countries to sell out raw materials. Costing us more for food, oil, manufactured goods. We manufacture very little in Canada anymore.  No more good paying jobs.
    I could go on. It is a race to the bottom. Have a nice day.

[leadbelly]

is it coho season yet lol

[Quinsam_Lose_Some]

is it coho season yet lol

Nope. The sky hasn't finished falling yet.

[TNAngler]

Oh, so you cannot discuss what the climate of Texas is today (a specific date)?  Does that mean we cannot discuss how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970?  Climate is a long term trend, that means that it doesn't matter that it is warmer or colder on any given day, what matters is the year after year trend and the speed at which it is changing.  Consider the following: the number of nights below freezing in Texas cities (Houston, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Abeline, etc)  has been steadily declining over the last fifty years.  When you plot these days on a line graph, you get spikes to the extreme both ways in some years, but the year after year trend has been steadily down.

Therefore, while it is impossible to predict how many days below freezing there will be in 2014, you can see how easy it is to predict that the line will continue to trend downward if no dramatic change is made (ie: a nucleur winter from an asteroid impact). Therefore, it is safe to say that the climate in Texas will be warmer on 10 February 2015 even if the weather is colder that day..

No, you can't discuss

how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970

  You can discuss how the climate in Texas this year is warmer than it was in during this time of year in 1970.  If you are talking today versus this day in 1970, that is weather, not climate.

I agree that you can predict that the line will continue down.  That is average temperature though which is why it is hard to say what it will be on any specific day.  Half the days at -10 degrees and half at 10 degrees results in an average of 0 degrees.  Half the days at -20 and half at 20 results in the same.  Every day at 0 results in the same.  You can split it up a lot more than 50/50.  To say on a certain day that it will fall in the 50% of my example that is below freezing is predicting the weather, not the climate.  Predicting that this winter will average 5 degrees colder than 1970's winter, that is predicting climate.

[TNAngler]

More often governments respond to public will and pressure. They seldom take notice until the electorate gets upset. Governments seldom lead but mostly follow. What about minors? You expect them to be as able to independent  exercise free will as you? Is it government just for you the folks who deceive themselves into believing they have perfect free will? Maybe we should do away with flashy packaging and replace it all with a skull and cross bones. What about little or no salt or sugar? Users can add as little or as much as they want?

You haven't been following US politics in the last, oh decade, have you?  A majority of the electorate didn't want a major change to our healthcare system.  A majority of the electorate doesn't want it now.  A majority of the electorate wanted/still wants the Keystone Pipeline.  Special interests rule and both parties are horrible.

There are certain special interests who support this and push it.  Is the gov't following the general electorate when they listen to them or are they leading the general electorate because the people in gov't think they know better than the general electorate (or see an opportunity to get more control or a bigger gov't to give themselves more power)?

Did the general electorate desire incandescent bulbs be outlawed?  That isn't even something I heard anybody complaining about, not even hardly the most extreme environmentalists out there.  They didn't follow on that one, they lead.

It seems these days, people that get elected to office (in the States at least but it seems world wide) first do everything they can to stay in office and second, do everything they can to make themselves more powerful.  How many these days will vote for or against something because they believe it is the right thing to do even if it will get them voted out of office?  I think people in office should do what they believe is right and if it is truly right they should then be able to explain themselves.

[Sandman]

No, you can't discuss   You can discuss how the climate in Texas this year is warmer than it was  in during this time of year in 1970.  If you are talking today versus this day in 1970, that is weather, not climate.

It is because climate does not change day to day, that you can indeed discuss what the climate is like on any given day. It does not matter if the temperature today is 15 degrees cooler than this day in 1970, the climate (long term average temperature) is still 5 degrees warmer.

I agree that you can predict that the line will continue down.  That is average temperature though which is why it is hard to say what it will be on any specific day. 

That is why it is predicting climate and not weather,  however, the graph is showing the number of nights with below freezing temperatures, not average temperature.

[TNAngler]

It is because climate does not change day to day, that you can indeed discuss what the climate is like on any given day. It does not matter if the temperature today is 15 degrees cooler than this day in 1970, the climate (long term average temperature) is still 5 degrees warmer.
 

That is why it is predicting climate and not weather,  however, the graph is showing the number of nights with below freezing temperatures, not average temperature.

You can discuss what the climate is on any given day as long as your discussion of the climate in any given week/month/season gives you the pretty much the same answer.  You are missing the bigger point though.

Your graph doesn't even show climate, it shows days below freezing.  It doesn't show whether on average the temperatures are colder or warmer.  Stats can be used to show anything.  What are the temps on the days where it isn't below freezing?  If those dropped from an average of 60 degrees down to 40, the number of days below freezing could go down but the average will still go down.

http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html

Using Vancouver's last 25 years, looks pretty darn flat.  The average for the year got above 11 in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2010.  Every 3 years for 9 years it would peak but then you went 5 years and then 7.  Looks like the distance between averages above 11 degrees is spreading out so it must be getting colder.  Of course you aren't going to agree with that but given the data I linked to, that is a reasonable conclusion.

It is amazing to me how many websites will give the 25 year average, the 50 year average, present their information in the way that they want you to see it but won't give the underlying data.  I have gotten to a point where I don't trust anybody showing me their data points that aren't willing to show me the underlying data.  Especially given the whole fiasco a couple years ago with them "massaging" the data to fix "errors" but unwilling to give the data without the fixes.