[Mancini]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU&app=desktop

[welfare]

So confusing.
Calm demeanour. Historic charts, graphs and data
Or...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMrtLsQbaok

[MG1]

Global warming is a "hot" topic. In my day, it was the ozone layer.............

Is man responsible for this shit? Maybe, but I'm not 100% convinced. We are definitely polluting the planet. This, I think, is more important. The cleanliness of the air we breathe, the cleanliness of the water, throwing junk all over the place, etc.

Students all over the world went on some protest/strike a week or so ago. This creepier than hell, girl goes on stage saying, "How Dare You!" Uh............ okay, all you kids out there. You have no fucking idea how hypocritical you are. I've volunteered working with youth for decades. As a PAC member, I got to travel with groups to many a schools. What did I see? Garbage all over the playing fields. Drink and water bottles in garbage cans, instead of recycling bins that are right next to the garbage can. Chip bags, chocolate and candy wrappers strewn all over the school property. Most can be seen inches away from the many garbage and recyclable bins that are available.

Instead of this, "How dare you," shit. How dare you kids ruin it for older people like me? I put all garbage into garbage bins. I recycle and reuse, all the time. I even pick up after everybody else......... mainly shit thrown out by young people. Instead of protesting and striking, why don't you spend the day cleaning up your backyards and schools?

I want to take a walk in the park without seeing garbage in the trees and shrubs. I want to go canoeing and not see waste floating in the rivers and lakes. I can go on and on.......


Stop being hypocrites. Instead of looking for your 15 minutes of fame, do something productive. Change your ways, because it's your world in the coming years.

The garbage and polluting of our planet is due to the change in the way we mass produce and package consumables. I don't think that can really change, but at least we can try to keep that shit from the landfills and oceans. Back at you, "HOW DARE YOU!!" /rant and sermon

[SkinnyPupp]

Is man responsible for this shit? Maybe

Not maybe

[RouRK]

i don't understand......... even if we are not the root cause of the problem, what harm are we doing by not trying to change our ways.

[welfare]

Not maybe

I've seen just as much evidence contradicting that claim as I have seen proving it.

[welfare]

i don't understand......... even if we are not the root cause of the problem, what harm are we doing by not trying to change our ways.

Changing our ways can mean destroying entire economies.
What happens when that isn't enough? When it doesn't make any difference whatsoever?
What will be the consensus then?
We need to do more? To what end?

[Manic!]

Changing our ways can mean destroying entire economies.
What happens when that isn't enough? When it doesn't make any difference whatsoever?
What will be the consensus then?
We need to do more? To what end?

Till we fix the problem. You can't just send the earth to the crusher like some old beat-up car.

[welfare]

You're missing the point.
What if the "problem" isn't, or is only minimally, due to human activity?
How do you "fix" a naturally occurring change in climate?
The green new deal is estimated to cost between 50 and 100 trillion dollars. That's just one country.
That money could sure go a long way in dealing with the outcome rather than attempting (futilly) to change it.

I'm not saying one way or the other. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that I haven't seen

[Hondaracer]

Paying higher taxes on literally everything in the western world due to carbon emissions will most certainly teach the most extreme polluters of the world it’s wrong!

[Manic!]

You're missing the point.
What if the "problem" isn't, or is only minimally, due to human activity?
How do you "fix" a naturally occurring change in climate?
The green new deal is estimated to cost between 50 and 100 trillion dollars. That's just one country.
That money could sure go a long way in dealing with the outcome rather than attempting (futilly) to change it.

I'm not saying one way or the other. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that I haven't seen

If we do something and in 50 years we find out environmentalists are wrong we end up with cleaner air, water and really fast self driving cars. If we don't do anything and in 50 years we find out they are right we are dead.

[RouRK]

You're missing the point.
What if the "problem" isn't, or is only minimally, due to human activity?
How do you "fix" a naturally occurring change in climate?
The green new deal is estimated to cost between 50 and 100 trillion dollars. That's just one country.
That money could sure go a long way in dealing with the outcome rather than attempting (futilly) to change it.

I'm not saying one way or the other. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that I haven't seen

i would rather swing and miss, rather then tell my grand kids we didn't take that swing. This is a global problem, maybe if the global economy came together and spent a little less on military or defense we would have no problem coming up with the money.
money in money out, if money is changing hands for the good, its good for the economy. Innovation is good for everyone. I hope one day mass pollution will be looked at as bad as slavery is now.

[underscore]

In the short term polluting less helps us locally, but long term unless China & India get on board what we do here will only help so much.

What I don't like is money getting dumped into anything supposedly green, as a good chunk are scams that don't actually do anything. That takes money any attention away from things that actually help.

[pastarocket]

When I saw Greta give a stare down of Dotard, that picture showed the great divide between different generations of people in terms of their view of climate change.

[Great68]

Lessening our impact on the environment through things like reducing our dependence on non-renewables is a good thing. But I don't believe in kneecapping our economy to do it if the other biggest polluters don't change is helpful at all. All we'd be doing is putting our money in their pockets by artificially making our cost of living and doing business higher.

This video is interesting, because I don't buy into the hysteria that the climate change extremists are putting forward. We get an unexpected snowfall or something and all of a sudden it's like "THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!"

[welfare]

^^
It rained in Winnipeg last week...
https://mobile.twitter.com/elizabethmay/status/1175408814188716032

[welfare]

i would rather swing and miss, rather then tell my grand kids we didn't take that swing. This is a global problem, maybe if the global economy came together and spent a little less on military or defense we would have no problem coming up with the money.
money in money out, if money is changing hands for the good, its good for the economy. Innovation is good for everyone. I hope one day mass pollution will be looked at as bad as slavery is now.

In the short term polluting less helps us locally, but long term unless China & India get on board what we do here will only help so much.

What I don't like is money getting dumped into anything supposedly green, as a good chunk are scams that don't actually do anything. That takes money any attention away from things that actually help.

Is co2 pollution?

[!LittleDragon]

Whether it's happening or not isn't a question anymore. Scientific consensus says yes. Did we cause it? More than likely. But the thing is, nobody is 100% sure what nature wants. What if it likes it warmer but we're making efforts to keep it cool...

I do my part to keep things clean but if things get warm, I'm not going to stress about it. We're just another species on the planet and since life began on this planet, it's done one of three things when faced with a changing environment or a new predator... Adapt, evolve or go extinct. There were times when most of the species were wiped out due to rapid climate change but the species that survived continued to adapt and evolve into what you see today. I'm not worried about the planet.

[MarkyMark]

Whether it's happening or not isn't a question anymore. Scientific consensus says yes. Did we cause it? More than likely. But the thing is, nobody is 100% sure what nature wants. What if it likes it warmer but we're making efforts to keep it cool...

I do my part to keep things clean but if things get warm, I'm not going to stress about it. We're just another species on the planet and since life began on this planet, it's done one of three things when faced with a changing environment or a new predator... Adapt, evolve or go extinct. There were times when most of the species were wiped out due to rapid climate change but the species that survived continued to adapt and evolve into what you see today. I'm not worried about the planet.

Of course you're not worried about it, you can still live above ground without the sun melting your face off. If there's any chance we are causing it and can do something about it then it's worth the shot. It's not even about us it's about the generations to come.

Who the fuck wants to adapt to a world that looks like a Mad Max wasteland?

[SkinnyPupp]

I've seen just as much evidence contradicting that claim as I have seen proving it.
Why am I not surprised LUL

[Great68]

^^
It rained in Winnipeg last week...
https://mobile.twitter.com/elizabethmay/status/1175408814188716032

Fuck I can't stand that woman. The border of her riding is literally less than 2km from my house. Her candidate for my riding David Merner actually dropped by my house a few weekends ago "So do you think you'll be voting green", do you think the 3 trucks (my dad was visiting with his at the time), Mustang and turbo Mazda says I'll be voting green?

[!LittleDragon]

Who the fuck wants to adapt to a world that looks like a Mad Max wasteland?

Nobody... but that was my point. We're only concerned because we only care about ourselves. We're doing it for us. The planet doesn't care, if it doesn't want us around anymore, we're gone. Let's say we slow down, stop or even reverse global warming.... what about the species that have already adapted to the warmer climate? Should they suffer or go extinct because we like it a little cooler?

[MarkyMark]

Nobody... but that was my point. We're only concerned because we only care about ourselves. We're doing it for us. The planet doesn't care, if it doesn't want us around anymore, we're gone. Let's say we slow down, stop or even reverse global warming.... what about the species that have already adapted to the warmer climate? Should they suffer or go extinct because we like it a little cooler?

Ok what's the long list of species that would suffer if we stop the Earth from rising to scorching temperatures? I'm pretty sure the majority of living things on Earth are suited just fine for shit not getting hotter than it currently is.

[StylinRed]

Are there peer reviewed papers which show a direct causal link between humans and climate change? Last time I looked there wasn't, and all we had was correlation

Climate changes, it used to be a lot hotter than it is now (geologic temperature record)
we're in an interglacial period, it's supposed to warm

You wanna make changes that will make us cleaner and more responsible as a species? great!

Just don't kill my bank account because you've found a way to profit from hysteria

[SkinnyPupp]

People worrying about their bank accounts is literally going to ruin the future of the human (and many other) species. It blows my mind

[SiRV]

Are there peer reviewed papers which show a direct causal link between humans and climate change? Last time I looked there wasn't, and all we had was correlation

Climate changes, it used to be a lot hotter than it is now (geologic temperature record)
we're in an interglacial period, it's supposed to warm

You wanna make changes that will make us cleaner and more responsible as a species? great!

Just don't kill my bank account because you've found a way to profit from hysteria


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Scroll down to the references if you wish.

[SiRV]

I've seen just as much evidence contradicting that claim as I have seen proving it.

Your evidence is obviously a joke.

If it wasn't, you would have shared some of your evidence, because I don't see it.

[!LittleDragon]

Ok what's the long list of species that would suffer if we stop the Earth from rising to scorching temperatures? I'm pretty sure the majority of living things on Earth are suited just fine for shit not getting hotter than it currently is.

Seeing as how things die or hibernate every winter and most of the biodiversity lives around the equator, one could conclude that life prefers a warmer climate. Maybe if the planet was warmer, there would be more biodiversity?

But my point was that as a single species on this planet, we shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. Let nature figure that out.

[Great68]

People worrying about their bank accounts is literally going to ruin the future of the human (and many other) species. It blows my mind

The human race is not going extinct.

What's going to happen is that it's going to get harder to live in some parts of the world. A whole wack of people are going to die off, but eventually hit a population equilibrium with what's still possible to sustain life. The people who remain in that equilibrium are likely going to be the most wealthy today and can afford to migrate and pay the inflated costs of living.

It's the days of unchecked, exponential population growth of the human race a la today that's going to be over.

Best thing I can do is make sure my kids are left well off for that new reality.

[MarkyMark]

Seeing as how things die or hibernate every winter and most of the biodiversity lives around the equator, one could conclude that life prefers a warmer climate. Maybe if the planet was warmer, there would be more biodiversity?

But my point was that as a single species on this planet, we shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. Let nature figure that out.

As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.

[mr00jimbo]

I don't deny that we're a huge cause of global warming but I don't believe this "omg we only have TWELVE YEARS to turn it around!"

Haven't scientists been wrong several times over? I mean, how many fucking times should we have run out of oil now? Shouldn't certain cities be underwater by now?

Not saying I don't agree with doing what you can to lessen your impact, but I'm still going to drive my V8 car like the captain of the Titanic going down with the ship.

[!LittleDragon]

As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.

That's the thing... which is the right direction? We're only guessing. How do we know a warmer planet isn't a greener planet full of plants thriving on the CO2 and a lot more species feeding on these plants. But if we keep thinking in terms of "we" and "us" then keeping things the way they are is the thing to do.

[StylinRed]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Scroll down to the references if you wish.

So, no, but they think it's extremely likely

Well that's more than what they had the last time I looked I guess (10 or so yrs ago)

[GS8]

When I saw Greta give a stare down of Dotard, that picture showed the great divide between different generations of people in terms of their view of climate change.

I heard that her cold stare lowered the planet's temperature by 2°

[corollagtSr5]

We're just a species living on a rock until something happens like an astroid, ice age, nuclear war, alien invasion or some crap kills us. Doesn't change the fact that this rock is placed just at the right distance from the sun to sustain life. Earth will always regenerate life even if we all end up dying for some reason.

[Mr.HappySilp]

As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.

It is due to medical advancement that the human race is running into over population, over use of natural resources, over pollution. If we let cancer and other disease due what they were meant to do maybe we wouldn't have all these issues we are having now.

Just saying.

[SkinnyPupp]

The human race is not going extinct.

What's going to happen is that it's going to get harder to live in some parts of the world. A whole wack of people are going to die off, but eventually hit a population equilibrium with what's still possible to sustain life. The people who remain in that equilibrium are likely going to be the most wealthy today and can afford to migrate and pay the inflated costs of living.

It's the days of unchecked, exponential population growth of the human race a la today that's going to be over.

Best thing I can do is make sure my kids are left well off for that new reality.
Note when I say "ruin the future" I don't necessarily mean "go extinct". Humans are a hardy species, and will make do with all types of living conditions. They'll wipe out anything in their path in order to do so (as they always have). Their future is going to be pretty well ruined though, and I don't just mean that it's going to be a bit hotter outside than what we're used to.

All these people who are worried more about attaining extra wealth instead of seeing if they can take action now to make the world a more liveable place (if it's not too late) might be in for a surprise when nations (and their currencies) crash and are suddenly worth much less, or nothing at all.

The point is that many people are overly concerned about attaining excessive wealth, to the point where they ignore science and literally become idiots. And interestingly, generally the richer people are, the more damage to the environment they do. So it's more than twice as bad that people think like this.

[welfare]

Your evidence is obviously a joke.

If it wasn't, you would have shared some of your evidence, because I don't see it.

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CO2-history.png

Do you see a direct correlation between atmospheric co2 and temperature? Because i don't.



Haven't scientists been wrong several times over? I mean, how many fucking times should we have run out of oil now? Shouldn't certain cities be underwater by now?


Just a few times
1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age

1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 – “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007– “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Section updated by Anthony:

2009 – Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters. Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis – “Not only are the oceans and atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms and floods, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too,” – Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, at University College London, – The Guardian, Sep 2009.
2010 – What Global Warming Looks Like. It was more than 5°C (about 10°F) warmer than climatology in the eastern European region including Moscow. There was an area in eastern Asia that was similarly unusually hot. The eastern part of the United States was unusually warm, although not to the degree of the hot spots in Eurasia. James Hansen – NASA GISS, August 11, 2010.
2011 – Where Did Global Warming Go? “In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development. – New York Times, Oct 15, 2011.

2012 – Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists. “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines,” said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London. Reuters, Mar 26, 2012
2013 – Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way. New York Post, Dec 5, 2013
2014 – Climate change: It’s even worse than we thought. Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer. – New Scientist (undated in 2014)
If you saw a psychic this many times and they were wrong 100% of those, you'd laugh in their face if they asked for more money. And you'd be a fool to believe them.

[Manic!]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg

[DragonChi]

Note when I say "ruin the future" I don't necessarily mean "go extinct". Humans are a hardy species, and will make do with all types of living conditions. They'll wipe out anything in their path in order to do so (as they always have). Their future is going to be pretty well ruined though, and I don't just mean that it's going to be a bit hotter outside than what we're used to.

All these people who are worried more about attaining extra wealth instead of seeing if they can take action now to make the world a more liveable place (if it's not too late) might be in for a surprise when nations (and their currencies) crash and are suddenly worth much less, or nothing at all.

The point is that many people are overly concerned about attaining excessive wealth, to the point where they ignore science and literally become idiots. And interestingly, generally the richer people are, the more damage to the environment they do. So it's more than twice as bad that people think like this.

... you do know that one of the wealthiest persons in the world is attempting to end our reliance on coal generation, one of the largest co2 emitters on our plant. It will provide reliable power and be orders of magnitudes more productive than all of wind, tidal, geothermal, and solar combined. I'd like to see stats to your points. Unless you were talking about the bitcoin farms that gobbled up loads of coal power, then I see your point.

https://terrapower.com

[SkinnyPupp]

... you do know that one of the wealthiest persons in the world is attempting to end our reliance on coal generation[/url]
Some people are good, yes SeemsGood

Those aren't the ones I'm complaining about though.


Unless you were talking about the bitcoin farms that gobbled up loads of coal power


That would be some of them, for sure SeemsGood

[unit]

these graphs are terrible.. if you guys want to present 'evidence', then you can't show graphs that have time scales of 100s of thousands of years, or millions of years, with peaks and valleys that look sudden but are really gradual.

We're on track to have increased the global temperature by several degrees in just 100 years

[welfare]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg
Classic deception. Take a tiny sliver of data from the entire scheme and present it as evidence.
There have been periods where co2 was many times higher than what we have today and yet the temperature was similar and even lower than present.
The fact is none of the plethora of past climate models have been correct. And yet for some reason it's now seen as crazy to even question them? Ridiculous.

these graphs are terrible.. if you guys want to present 'evidence', then you can't show graphs that have time scales of 100s of thousands of years, or millions of years, with peaks and valleys that look sudden but are really gradual.

We're on track to have increased the global temperature by several degrees in just 100 years
No, it's silly to look at an infinitesimally small amount of data when attempting to assume something as complex as variations in climate

[!LittleDragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v9Fnovur0Y&t=244s

For those not familiar with Patrick Moore, he's a local Ph.D. and one of the founding members of Greenpeace.

[Ferra]

Yea we should totally do something to combat climate change!!
*continue driving solo to work instead of taking public transit
*set air conditioner to 22c during summer, and heat to 23c during winter
*travel 2-3 times a year around the world for vacation
*say I support carbon tax, but get angry when gas prices and energy prices shoot up so I have to pay more at the pump and for utility (whole point of carbon tax is to make energy more expensive so people would use less of it)
*New phone, laptop, pc, clothing every few months
*Owns shit tons of unnecessary things..80% of them end up in trash after 2-3 years
*Consume to excess everyday....steak, wine, cheese. Zero consideration how damaging your food choice is to the planet
*Does nothing to actually help reduce co2, just complain and say climate change bad. Someone else should do something to reduce greenhouse gas.


A bit of a rant but I just think ultimately, our lifestyle and entitlement is the biggest problem.
Can't blame it all on politician, corporation. They are just tools making stuffs we ask for.
If Shell tomorrow say they will produce their gas in a carbon neutral way, but it will cost 50% more. Pretty sure they will go out of business because no one would buy from them.
Same goes for politicians who tax gas to $4/L. High gas price will reduce consumption, promote public transit, carpooling, cycling, etc, but they won't get elected.

[Bouncing Bettys]

https://twitter.com/KellyRDay19/status/1177600515162722307

[hi-revs]

Cant remember where it read it, but somewhere it said that the girl giving that speech had major anxiety.
Someone hired her as an actor and "transitioned" her anxiety to being climate change, than her own issues. Therefore, it resulted in the "crazy kid" speech that we all saw.

[Manic!]

Cant remember where it read it, but somewhere it said that the girl giving that speech had major anxiety.
Someone hired her as an actor and "transitioned" her anxiety to being climate change, than her own issues. Therefore, it resulted in the "crazy kid" speech that we all saw.

Facebook.

[pastarocket]

-saw quite a few families, couples, and students walk along east 10th today towards Vancouver City Hall for the climate strike at 1pm.

One guy held a sign that read "We need a 500 year plan for climate change."

One student's sign read "I love Greta".

[hi-revs]

All these ppl doing the climate change walk doesnt realize they're creating gridlock in the city, where cars are idling much longer than usual...

[jasonturbo]

A bit of a rant but I just think ultimately, our lifestyle and entitlement is the biggest problem.

Indeed the underlying issue is simply population growth and consumerism. Pointing the finger at any specific industry or group is futile, virtually all social/economic activity on the planet will affect the environment in a negative way.

My opinion on climate change is generally not aligned with the climate sensationalists or the deniers, there is absolutely a link between C02 levels and global temperatures, C02 levels are higher now than they have been in the last 800,000 years, global temperatures have increased by roughly 1 degree Celsius since the start of the industrial revolution, these are facts that cannot be denied.

However, the correlation between C02 levels and global temperatures is just that, a correlation. Though I do believe we are harming the environment with our polluting 'consumptuous' ways, I don't at all agree with the outrageous predictions of irreversible damage to the planet within the next xx years.

I think back to the expert predictions around acid rain and peak oil, we now know those "experts" were full of shit. The predictions of rising ocean levels offered by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (2006) suggested we would see an increase of 20ft "in the near future", in 2019 we now know the maximum increase we can expect to see between now and 2100 is more like 20 inches.

The majority of people I know that like to regurgitate the climate crisis sensationalism are hypocritical dullards that get their "information" from headlines and facebook posts. They celebrate the dramatic rants of a 16 year old girl raised by an opera singer and an actor/director, she's not a researcher performing groundbreaking work, she's a child that was elevated to the status of hero by her classmates for getting them out of school every other friday on the notion of a "climate strike".

If you've never taken the time to actually digest the data related to climate change then you shouldn't be entitled to an opinion on it. There is absolutely a political motivation by which the "end of the world" as a result of climate change is the instrument by which irresponsible or unfounded policies and spending is justified.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg

Note the long term trend of correlation between C02 and global temperatures.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/002.jpg

C02 levels over the last 1000 years (Peaked out today around 400ppm, currently increasing at about 3ppm/decade)

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

And the standard global temperature deviation over the last 1500 years.

For sure we are fucking up the planet and we need to do better, but GTFO with the doomsday bullshit. People just need to start making a more conscious decision to do better in their personal lives, just like we learned to "reduce, reuse, and recycle" as kids we need to practice an overall reduction in consumerism to reduce our impact on the environment.

The government is full of shit, on one hand they are pushing unfounded climate crisis related policies and on the other they are pushing for increased population. These two issues are damn near as mutually exclusive as it gets.

AND YOU CAN TAKE MY GT3 RS AWAY WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!

[twitchyzero]

did you guys have fun biking in the torrential downpour just now? :troll:

main & king ed was flooding (the curb was disappearing)

[DragonChi]

Our temperature regulator still exists. For example, an ice bath will stay at 0C until you add enough heat to melt all the ice. Then the sensible heat can be measured as temperature, as it will rise. A measure of how much heat we're holding or absorbing is watching the ice caps shrink over the years. IMO.

[welfare]

Indeed the underlying issue is simply population growth and consumerism. Pointing the finger at any specific industry or group is futile, virtually all social/economic activity on the planet will affect the environment in a negative way.

My opinion on climate change is generally not aligned with the climate sensationalists or the deniers, there is absolutely a link between C02 levels and global temperatures, C02 levels are higher now than they have been in the last 800,000 years, global temperatures have increased by roughly 1 degree Celsius since the start of the industrial revolution, these are facts that cannot be denied.

However, the correlation between C02 levels and global temperatures is just that, a correlation. Though I do believe we are harming the environment with our polluting 'consumptuous' ways, I don't at all agree with the outrageous predictions of irreversible damage to the planet within the next xx years.

I think back to the expert predictions around acid rain and peak oil, we now know those "experts" were full of shit. The predictions of rising ocean levels offered by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (2006) suggested we would see an increase of 20ft "in the near future", in 2019 we now know the maximum increase we can expect to see between now and 2100 is more like 20 inches.

The majority of people I know that like to regurgitate the climate crisis sensationalism are hypocritical dullards that get their "information" from headlines and facebook posts. They celebrate the dramatic rants of a 16 year old girl raised by an opera singer and an actor/director, she's not a researcher performing groundbreaking work, she's a child that was elevated to the status of hero by her classmates for getting them out of school every other friday on the notion of a "climate strike".

If you've never taken the time to actually digest the data related to climate change then you shouldn't be entitled to an opinion on it. There is absolutely a political motivation by which the "end of the world" as a result of climate change is the instrument by which irresponsible or unfounded policies and spending is justified.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg

Note the long term trend of correlation between C02 and global temperatures.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/002.jpg

C02 levels over the last 1000 years (Peaked out today around 400ppm, currently increasing at about 3ppm/decade)

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

And the standard global temperature deviation over the last 1500 years.

For sure we are fucking up the planet and we need to do better, but GTFO with the doomsday bullshit. People just need to start making a more conscious decision to do better in their personal lives, just like we learned to "reduce, reuse, and recycle" as kids we need to practice an overall reduction in consumerism to reduce our impact on the environment.

The government is full of shit, on one hand they are pushing unfounded climate crisis related policies and on the other they are pushing for increased population. These two issues are damn near as mutually exclusive as it gets.

AND YOU CAN TAKE MY GT3 RS AWAY WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!

The sawtooth pattern of that first graph points out just how consistently the climate changes. it always has and always will.


much debate has centred around the accuracy of the methods used in that second graph. The "hockey stick".
and here's a more complete picture showing the huge variation immediately prior
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/da/26/c8da26068accf8e8e0538f5d14d019ff.jpg

If you look at the third graph you'll notice the very large "uncertainty" shaded area.

Like I said earlier on, I'm not saying one way or the other. Just that the science is fuzzy and far from conclusive.
The methods used to obtain long term temperature data, ie through tree rings or isotopes is not considered to be entirely accurate. Even the methods to obtain global average temperatures can be contentious.

Like many, i believe in airing on the side of caution. With the size of our population now and projected growth, just about anything we do is bound to have at least some effect.
I just feel like there's a real lack of objectivity. Science should always be scrutinized. And it's a shame the matter has become so politicized. It only serves to influence perceptions rather than determine the facts.

[danned]

climate change for a real?
think again...

[Mr.HappySilp]

Until the world most pollutant country change their ways. Nothing we do can really change anything.

[Manic!]

Until the world most pollutant country change their ways. Nothing we do can really change anything.

Someone has to take the lead. You think Ford would be working on an electric truck if it wasn't for Tesla?

[welfare]

So it looks like stating anything other than complete catastrophe, in regards to climate change, is controversial and just may be tantamount to hate speech

https://globalnews.ca/news/5968266/university-of-alberta-vice-president-resigns-following-controversial-billboard/

The vice-president of university relations at the University of Alberta has stepped down from her position amidst backlash over a billboard promoting potential benefits of climate change.

Jacqui Tam issued a statement late Sunday announcing her departure from the position.

“The research highlighted by the ad does not promote climate change as a benefit; nor was that the meaning intended by the ad,” Tam wrote in the statement Sunday night.

The billboard, located on 178 Street in the west end, read “beefier barley,” with subheading saying, “Climate change will boost Alberta’s barley yield with less water, feeding more cattle.”

Students and staff with the University of Alberta have slammed the message saying it ignores the catastrophic damage climate change is having.

[Mancini]

Greta Thunberg is in Vancouver. I wonder how many people are going to support climate change initiatives and who is going because she’s now a celebrity.

[Great68]

Someone has to take the lead. You think Ford would be working on an electric truck if it wasn't for Tesla?

There are many benefits to electric vehicles that warrant their development and use regardless of climate change.
Tesla took the first plunge and showed they can be viable, but I'm not sure I'd attribute them taking that plunge solely for reasons of climate change.

In the world of selling goods such as cars, there's a direct tangible monetary benefit if you can be the first out of the gate: Market Share.

Taking a lead on implementing measures against climate change doesn't offer that same tangible benefit. All you're doing is hoping that other countries follow suit rather than just swoop in and take over areas where you made yourself less competitive in the world arena.

[unit]

Until the world most pollutant country change their ways. Nothing we do can really change anything.

yes, lets rely on the 3rd world to be the leaders in solving problems even we cannot.

[Great68]

yes, lets rely on the 3rd world to be the leaders in solving problems even we cannot.

No, the one first and the one second world country which amount to nearly half of the whole world's emissions need to take the lead on this.

[6793026]

There are many benefits to electric vehicles that warrant their development and use regardless of climate change.
Tesla took the first plunge and showed they can be viable, but I'm not sure I'd attribute them taking that plunge solely for reasons of climate change.

In the world of selling goods such as cars, there's a direct tangible monetary benefit if you can be the first out of the gate: Market Share.



great point; also read that in Simon Sinek's book. Look at iphone, they were 1st to market and dominated. Is it the best product, nope, but mass market adoption side of things.. Apple definitely did.

Tesla coming to the world showing it can be done, it can be a luxury vehicle and it sure can be the 300+ km was a really proof to tell the world / car manufacturer a big F U.

[whitev70r]

yes, lets rely on the 3rd world to be the leaders in solving problems even we cannot.

No, the one first and the one second world country which amount to nearly half of the whole world's emissions need to take the lead on this.

Well, aren't most developing countries that are seriously polluting doing so because they are making widgets and clothing for those in the 1st world?

[Mancini]

When rolling out another climate tax I recall Justin Trudeau saying that Canadians don’t mind paying more for environmental initiatives. Later, I learned that climate-related taxes land in the general coffers. In this video we have the UN-IPCC quoted as saying that climate policy is not environmental policy. Unfortunately, that all fits together nicely. Our money isn’t fixing the problem.

We also have a system where citing findings not exactly inline with the current narrative is tantamount to hate speech, as ‘welfare’ points out, without further consideration of their veracity. That approach always seems to turn out badly. Even if the current narrative is exactly and completely true the optics are bad.

There’s no doubt climate change is real. The earth was formed, in part, by climate change. And climate has changed a lot since. It also seems reasonable that human activity would have a detrimental effect on the environment. The question seems to be the extent and consequence of that activity. And debate seems to be forbidden. And that’s wrong. And it’s conspicuously suspicious.

[Obsideon]

Greta Thunberg is in Vancouver. I wonder how many people are going to support climate change initiatives and who is going because she’s now a celebrity.

Greta Thunberg addresses thousands of climate marchers in Vancouver (https://bc.ctvnews.ca/we-are-unstoppable-greta-thunberg-addresses-thousands-of-climate-marchers-in-vancouver-1.4655388)

Ugh what a fucking nightmare downtown was this morning. I was an hour late for work cuz Burrard, Smithe and W. Georgia was all blocked off.
Way to reduce carbon imprint with 200 idling cards stuck in the core of downtown for the afternoon! :2finger:

[!LittleDragon]

Well, aren't most developing countries that are seriously polluting doing so because they are making widgets and clothing for those in the 1st world?

Sometimes I feel like we moved manufacturing offshore so we can point our fingers and say that's the bad guy.



Greta Thunberg addresses thousands of climate marchers in Vancouver (https://bc.ctvnews.ca/we-are-unstoppable-greta-thunberg-addresses-thousands-of-climate-marchers-in-vancouver-1.4655388)

Ugh what a fucking nightmare downtown was this morning. I was an hour late for work cuz Burrard, Smithe and W. Georgia was all blocked off.
Way to reduce carbon imprint with 200 idling cards stuck in the core of downtown for the afternoon! :2finger:


I don't understand why they do stuff like this. Creating awareness is an excuse that went out with the 90's, I don't think there's anyone in major cities around the world that isn't aware of climate change. All I see is them complaining, pointing fingers and offering no real solutions. Just creating a disturbance for social media.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they should stay in school. Come up with new environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, materials to replace plastics, more efficient transportation, better farming practices, etc. Nobody listens when you're shouting and disrupting their way of life.

[whitev70r]

Sometimes I feel like we moved manufacturing offshore so we can point our fingers and say that's the bad guy.



Well, that and the fact that we can exploit the cheap/slave labour. Once the wages increase to a reasonable amount, then companies pick up and find the next country willing to be exploited. Or maybe the better way to phrase is the next country's leader(s) willing to line their pockets while selling out their citizens.

[MG1]

All I see is them complaining, pointing fingers and offering no real solutions. Just creating a disturbance for social media.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they should stay in school. Come up with new environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, materials to replace plastics, more efficient transportation, better farming practices, etc. Nobody listens when you're shouting and disrupting their way of life.

^This.

Just to clarify. It was a Povince-wide Pro-D day. Nobody missed classes. I don’t mind raising awareness, but none of the people in the crowd had any real solutions to the problem. Also, does the girl not realize we all have been concerned about the issues? I don’t want my children and their children’s children to live in a dying planet. Nobody does. Is she leading by example? Is she working with scientists and policy makers? You say world leaders haven’t done enough. Come up with real solutions.

[whitev70r]

^ What kind of carbon footprint is this little girl leaving by jetting to all these different international cities?

[welfare]

I don't understand why they do stuff like this. Creating awareness is an excuse that went out with the 90's, I don't think there's anyone in major cities around the world that isn't aware of climate change. All I see is them complaining, pointing fingers and offering no real solutions. Just creating a disturbance for social media.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they should stay in school. Come up with new environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, materials to replace plastics, more efficient transportation, better farming practices, etc. Nobody listens when you're shouting and disrupting their way of life.

-what do we want!?

-CHANGE!

-when do we want it!?

-NOW!

-what are we going to sacrifice!?

-HUH?

[Zedbra]

"1500 years for sure" I saw posted, yet this planet is millions of year old and that there is the goal posts of the sheeple. But hey, RS has all the smarts here like manic and turbo that truly believe if they type it often enough, it will be true. It has to be.

I'll just listen to these world experts for an hour (and I have read some of their papers to support their teachings), all from MIT, Harvard, and the top schools in the world. Funny how they also see that politics buys science.

https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ

[SkinnyPupp]

"1500 years for sure" I saw posted, yet this planet is millions of year old and that there is the goal posts of the sheeple. But hey, RS has all the smarts here like manic and turbo that truly believe if they type it often enough, it will be true. It has to be.

I'll just listen to these world experts for an hour (and I have read some of their papers to support their teachings), all from MIT, Harvard, and the top schools in the world. Funny how they also see that politics buys science.

https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
*looks at the youtube channel logo*

:fuckthatshit:

[ilovebacon]

We should leave these to the professionals... What I can do to help is to drive less and use transit or bike around

[Manic!]

^ What kind of carbon footprint is this little girl leaving by jetting to all these different international cities?

She came by Sail boat from Europe and is riding in a Tesla that Arnold Schwarzenegger let her use. She is not jetting around the world.

[Manic!]

"1500 years for sure" I saw posted, yet this planet is millions of year old and that there is the goal posts of the sheeple. But hey, RS has all the smarts here like manic and turbo that truly believe if they type it often enough, it will be true. It has to be.

I'll just listen to these world experts for an hour (and I have read some of their papers to support their teachings), all from MIT, Harvard, and the top schools in the world. Funny how they also see that politics buys science.

https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ


https://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14379-why-climate-swindle-film-is-dangerous-despite-ruling/

[twitchyzero]

wrong thread

[donk.]

With climate change, income inequality, racism, xenophobia, religious extremists, war, and famine all around us, I often wonder what the world is coming to.

Then I check PornHub.

Turns out it’s stepsisters.

[Zedbra]

https://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14379-why-climate-swindle-film-is-dangerous-despite-ruling/

Desmog - owned by a public relations firm out of Vancouver.

the Guargian link: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Not one of Gore's predictions have come true, yet his lies have now made him the first climate change myth billionaire. Follow the money.

https://youtu.be/-0Rtystv7dc

[Manic!]

Desmog - owned by a public relations firm out of Vancouver.

the Guargian link: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Not one of Gore's predictions have come true, yet his lies have now made him the first climate change myth billionaire. Follow the money.

https://youtu.be/-0Rtystv7dc

All Gore is not a billionaire.

[underscore]

She came by Sail boat from Europe and is riding in a Tesla that Arnold Schwarzenegger let her use. She is not jetting around the world.

And videoconferencing isn't good enough because...?

Don't forget a crew was flown over to sail the boat back.

[Manic!]

And videoconferencing isn't good enough because...?

Don't forget a crew was flown over to sail the boat back.

Ask the UN because they are the ones who invited her to speak.

[UnknownJinX]

-what do we want!?



-CHANGE!



-when do we want it!?



-NOW!



-what are we going to sacrifice!?



-HUH?This.

I work in the oil industry at the moment and this is how my co-workers make fun of extreme environmentalists.

I especially love those Climate Change protests that leave a ton of garbage behind.

[Mancini]

And videoconferencing isn't good enough because...?

Don't forget a crew was flown over to sail the boat back.

May as well just sail over while towing a coal burning barge.

[underscore]

Ask the UN because they are the ones who invited her to speak.

Why is it only on them? Nobody's forcing her to go anywhere.

[68style]

^
You gotta admit, it's a hell of a creative way to fund a round the world tour... if only I had been such a genius when I was a kid or had a platform for my "super educated" viewpoints to be spread when I was a "super educated" 16 years old hahaha

[Manic!]

Why is it only on them? Nobody's forcing her to go anywhere.

Just because someone believes in climate change they should be not allowed to travel?

If you really want to support alberta you should disconnect from B.C. Hydro and run a gas generator 24/7.

[welfare]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTzCHrbWek

[Mancini]

It’s ironic that the conspiracy theory around CO2-based climate change is that it’s a political agenda, and this same narrative is the basis for civil action against the government. The legal stick handling will be interesting.

[underscore]

Just because someone believes in climate change they should be not allowed to travel?

If you really want to support alberta you should disconnect from B.C. Hydro and run a gas generator 24/7.

As yes, the one extreme or the other response. By all means travel, but when attempting to use the means of travel as some sort of bragging point (when the way you did it actually makes it worse) maybe one should opt for the most eco-friendly option of all. Especially when the trip is a short one.

[!LittleDragon]

Next time there's a climate strike downtown, someone should park a big diesel generator there and offer to charge everyone's iPhone for free.

[PeanutButter]

i don't understand......... even if we are not the root cause of the problem, what harm are we doing by not trying to change our ways.

Wasting resources to try and stop something that's not real.

ie. the money we are spending on climate change can go to other services.

I've never looked at the research, but if neil de grasse tyson says climate change is real, then I believe it. I naively trust that guy.

[Mr.HappySilp]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTzCHrbWek

They can start by suing their parents for driving them around in their cars. Oh and they shouldn't ask their parents to pick them up or nag their parents to buy them/lend them a a car when they can drive. These kids can ride their bike or walk home after a night out with their friends.

[Mancini]

They can start by suing their parents for driving them around in their cars. Oh and they shouldn't ask their parents to pick them up or nag their parents to buy them/lend them a a car when they can drive. These kids can ride their bike or walk home after a night out with their friends.

That’s completely unrealistic. You forgot about public transit.

[MG1]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTzCHrbWek

Ever notice it's always girls who are into this shit nowadays? If a guy is at the march/rally, it's most likely because he's there with the g/f.

[UnknownJinX]

That’s completely unrealistic. You forgot about public transit.Buses use diesel, which should also be sued.

Oh wait, they are going on strike.

[welfare]

Ever notice it's always girls who are into this shit nowadays? If a guy is at the march/rally, it's most likely because he's there with the g/f.

Well sure. Females are generally much more emotionally driven, while men are typically more rationally minded. Generally.
I think that's fairly common knowledge though, as can be seen most pronounced through trends of occupational choice.

[68style]

^
Is that Jordan Peterson posting as welfare? lol

[welfare]

It don't think it takes a clinical psychologist to realize these blatant and easily observable facts

[welfare]

Anyone else watch the new Michael Moore film?
Some pretty eye opening content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

[mikemhg]

^I've been recommending it to everyone I talk to here.

Great documentary, very eye opening to things I've already known or suspected.

[68style]

I always knew Al Gore was a piece of shit, just wasn't sure how big a one

[Jmac]

It touches on a lot of subjects for the length of the film and, as a result, I feel some are misleading. It also makes a lot of good points.

I'm going to be a hypocrite and try to keep this "relatively" short, so my apologies if I make any misleading statements.

Biomass plants that utilizes waste wood, especially from local sources, is absolutely a good alternative to fossil fuels. BCIT's biomass boiler is a good example. It uses waste sawdust and wood chips from the carpentry building to fuel it. Some local biomass boilers utilize slash that would otherwise be burned at the logging site without any pollution controls. However, we're talking small scale boilers here that can heat a campus or a portion of a campus in these cases.

With the amount of time they spent slagging biomass, it would've been nice if they covered fluidized bed biomass boilers, which significantly reduce pollution compared to more conventional designs, which is what many biomass plants and garbage-burning plants in Europe use.

Natural gas is way cleaner than coal and it's not even close. This also ties into my next likely completely jumbled, rambling point.

Offsetting fossil fuels is very important. The film touches on this at what appears to be a trade show where they interview who I assume are sales reps and the point is brought up multiple times throughout the film that you need a reliable backup source of power, usually in the form of fossil fuels and seemingly tries to make the point that we're no better off than just burning the fossil fuels (in some cases, they're correct).

Solid fuel (e.g. coal) is great with stable loads, but it's not ideal for rapid fluctuations in demand. It also emits crazy amounts of airbourne pollution alongside the carbon dioxide that needs significant amounts of pollution controls just to get it to "acceptable" levels, which are still significantly higher than liquid (oil) or gaseous (natural gas) hydrocarbons.
Natural gas can easily and quickly adapt to fluctuating demand without significant drops in efficiency. Natural gas burners also require significantly less maintenance and a lot fewer pollution controls than oil or coal.

If you have a coal plant providing your base load, their point is correct. But, of course, the film also documented how many coal plants are being retired in favour of natural gas plants as if it's not any better, but it's multitudes better especially if you're moving towards intermittent renewables (and even if you're not).

Good points:
- If you're fueling an EV with coal-generated electricity, you're not any better off than with gasoline (you're actually significantly worse off in the grand scheme of things, but you're concentrating the pollution in what is usually an industrial or rural area rather than in the heart of cities).

- EVs are usually charged at night, when renewables are least effective. Andrew Weaver brought this up shortly after the NDP took power about how, on one hand, BC is purchasing coal-based power from Alberta and Washington at night while, on the other hand, pushing towards zero carbon vehicles, which typically charge at night. It makes no sense from an environmental point of view (although coal power is significantly cheaper at night than our own hydro-generated electricity, so it makes sense from a financial point of view). This is also one of many problems I have with the EV rebate program.

- Renewables consume significant amounts of resources which, if not installed, utilized, and maintained properly, won't offset the resources used to manufacture them.

- Reducing consumption/demand is huge. I've been a huge advocate of demand-side management, which Gordon Campbell was instrumental in getting going here in BC (alongside the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which Christy Clark butchered and Horgan hasn't made any better). If you look at how effective DSM was for BC Hydro in terms of reducing demand, you'd be shocked that they've reduced funding to it (in all likelihood to justify Site C, which is basically just for the liquefied natural gas plants).

[welfare]

Well articulated post. Thank you for taking the time.
What about nuclear? Seems almost taboo. But it also seems that there really are no solutions.
Only trade offs.

[Jmac]

I don't really know enough about nuclear to comment either way. Gates seemed to think it's the future in his Netflix documentary.

[!LittleDragon]

I'm pro nuclear. You get the most output in a much smaller footprint. The nuclear waste can be recycled and reused again. But incidents like 3 mile island pretty much killed it in people's minds.

People don't understand that we learn from past issues and improve on the technology. Gen 4 reactor designs pretty much make meltdowns impossible even if everyone walked off the job at the same time. The reaction can't be sustained without human intervention.

If we had continued down the nuclear path full steam since the 60's, we'd all be driving electric cars right now.

Nuclear fusion would be the future if we can figure that out.

[welfare]

Yea it seems that, aside from fukashima, all the disasters that happened were in the eighties. I'd think the technology would be much more sophisticated now. Especially if there were more focus on it.

[!LittleDragon]

Sad part is, if you add up all the deaths from nuclear accidents around the world... it's nowhere close to the annual deaths in the US attributed to burning fossil fuels.

I remember reading somewhere that you'll need a Chernobyl size accident every couple of weeks to equal that.

[MarkyMark]

These documentaries are hard to watch these days because you know you aren't getting the full story either way. They'll show you everything they agree with and if anyone they interview has a decent rebuttal to their narrative they'll just leave it out of the documentary.

Take a few interviews of college students outraged but don't have a clue on what a real solution is, take a few pictures of forests that were just cut down so people shed a tear because reforestation hasn't happened yet and add some asshole who talks like a robot throughout the whole thing and you have yourself a hit.

*Edit* Just finished it up and saw a dead monkey so I guess I have to agree with everything I saw now. It sounds like the only way to help the planet is to lower the human population, which I don't necessarily disagree with. But how do you do this? Who gets to procreate and who gets sterilized at birth? Well we can all agree that rich people get to have as many kids as they want, but who wins the fertility lottery after that?

[welfare]

Moore and co. are certainly taking a lot of heat for this film..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

[MG1]

Well we can all agree that rich people get to have as many kids as they want, but who wins the fertility lottery after that?

Simple. People with above average intelligence.

Oh, and white folk. ‘Cause they’re a superior race. :troll:

[welfare]

Simple. People with above average intelligence.

Oh, and white folk. ‘Cause they’re a superior race. :troll:

I thought it was the Japanese who believed they were the superior race.
I guess there are just too many of us superior races for our own good :lol

[hud 91gt]

White people? Since when.

I’ve been saying black people were the superior race, generally after any summer Olympics. Lol. Stronger, faster... big .... errr things!

[Manic!]

Moore and co. are certainly taking a lot of heat for this film..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

He takes heat for every film he makes.