Moonbox
-
Posts
9,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
TimG, he said many of the measurements are. He didn't say all of them. That's the problem here though. Some of the model predictions are supported by recent climate effects, but then some of them aren't, and in some cases, the opposite has been happening. It's such a mixed basket that I don't know people claim certainty on these matters.
The climate scientists themselves are getting surprised all the time. The Arctic ice is shrinking, but the Antarctic is growing!? Whaaat? That's also explained as a global warming phenomenon. Apparently Arctic ice grows or shrinks depending on temperature more than anything, while Antarctic ice depends more on wind patterns. I can accept this premise, because I don't know any better, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable about it if the climate scientists had predicted it in the first place rather than come up with an explanation after the fact. At the very best, it shows that these guys and their models don't understand the world as well as people proclaim.
Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy;
Even if I took the climate models and their conclusions faithfully as the Gospel, I would still see the current clean energy strategies for the disasters they are. They're prohibitively expensive both in materials, labour and land usage. To meet current energy needs we'd have to build so many wind turbines that you wouldn't be able to turn around in any direction without seeing one. It's THAT bad, and solar is worse, especially in Canada.
-
Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy; but, your belief about the effectiveness of climate models is wrong. The models can reproduce land, air and sea temperatures back to 1900 and have made future trend predictions that have been observed to be true. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the effectiveness of the tools.
A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying the models are useless. I'm saying the models aren't reliably and consistently making the correct predictions. The excuse is usually that we're only interested in trends, but you start to wonder how much time is needed to establish them. The models are fallible, plain and simple, and people need to stop believing they end the debate on how quickly the climate is changing.
-
Funny ... rampant corruption of politicians, ripping off taxpayers' money for organized crime ... and you're here to tell us that 'lefty unions' are the problem?
Who's paying you off to cover up?
Everything is the problem. Corrupt unions (an ancient outlet for organized crime) and corrupt politicians (same thing) both need fixin'.
-
No doubt; but as I recall from when I used to post here regularly, I always had a hard time figuring out what your conclusions are.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I don't really have any firm convictions on the issue, other than that both sides have turned this into an dogmatic debate similar to Democrats v Republicans or Communism v Capitalism and that nobody knows for sure what's going on.
And I have taken the fact that the climate models underestimate changes like melting Arctic sea ice and the time scales for when they were predicted to occur, as a sign that any leeway has to occur on the side that actual changes are likely worse than climate model predictions.
What's difficult to understand for someone like myself is what the goal posts are. Are we concerned with world temperatures, or just the ice? Is it just Arctic ice that matters? If worldwide temperatures didn't really go up, is possible that the Arctic specifically has been going through a warming period? How does the melting ice affect ocean temperatures and sea levels and what interaction does that have with ocean currents and air temperature? Obviously I have no idea. I don't, however, believe that climate scientist even really know themselves. My skepticism on the subject revolves more around the fact that there haven't really been any accurate predictions yet, whether it be trends or more short-term, and a cherry-picking of deviation from the models. It's sort of like, "Aha! The ice caps are melting even faster than we said! This proves it! No...the fact that temperatures didn't rise overall as predicted, or that hurricanes have been decreasing in number/intensity as opposed to the predictions...none of that matters."
The windmills and solar panels are fine in my view, as long as it is taken into account that we are already consuming too much energy, and replacing the consumption with windmills and solar panel sources won't do much to solve the problem...because building windmills in particular, has a significant carbon footprint, and with the increased prices acting as a leading indicator of non-renewable resource scarcities, it's not even going to be possible to build enough high-tech windmills requiring some of the most exotic rare earths to match conventional power generation.
The windmills and solar panels don't provide near enough power for their cost or materials to be worth it yet. They're also weather dependent. Windmills operate at 30% capacity usually, because there's often not a lot of wind. There was an article I remember reading showing that if people wanted to power New York City with just wind turbines, they'd have to devote an area 3x the size of Manhatten Island to just building wind turbines. That's not feasible on its own, nevermind the cost. Even if NYC was to reduce its power consumption by 50% (not happening) the space require is STILL not feasible, whether on land or on water. Solar is an even bigger mess.
-
Hehe. Quebec is like the Greece of North America. Corrupt, lazy, and needs subsidization from its neighbours to stay afloat.
-
That's the denier -- the one who uses any shards that are/or may just appear to be contrary evidence (like the reported modest increases in Antarctic ice in some regions) to get to the conclusion that there is not, and never will be global warming regardless of all of the sequestered carbon in the earth that we've unleashed since the start of the industrial revolution. So, where does your questioning of science lead to?
My 'questioning the science' leads to the conclusion that we're making some really expensive and really bad decisions based on predictions that so far have proven unreliable. The computer models on which we've been making multi-billion dollar decisions haven't proven anything and haven't been able to predict anything accurately, which means that nobody has as good an understanding of the climate as they're trying to say. Sure, I believe we're warming the planet. How quickly, I'm not so sure. The world warmed by around 1 degree or something over the last 100 years or so and hasn't warmed much over the last 15 years. This leads me to believe that we have time to do more research, spend money on clean energy research (rather than wasting it on primitive, inefficient and ineffective tech in its infancy) and not blow our loads on feel-good inititatives that don't solve any of the underlying problems.
Paying farmers guaranteed, hugely premium rates on energy generated by solar panels they install on their farms, which won't even have an noticeable impact on the grid, was the type of idiotic idea that resulted from climate hysteria. Politicians have been taking advantage of it for votes and then companies like Samsung have milked it for all its worth. How did Ontario end up with their finances in such shambles? $7B solar/wind deals that will be screwing Ontario taxpayers and energy consumers for a LONG LONG time is a good example of how.
-
While the climate 'scientists' have shown consensus, and I'll respect and believe their conclusions indicating more carbon in the atmosphere can lead to warmer temperatures, they've shown a fairly obvious inability to accurately predict much of anything. The timeframe has been fairly short, so that doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does shed some doubt on the hockey stick graphs and climate models showing us a doomsday scenario. Making multi-billion dollar decisions, like Dalton McGuinty's green energy plan, based on relatively near-term end-of-days predictions doesn't seem very smart to me, especially when any of the hard data we have for the last ~15 has shown the world hasn't been warming over that time.
-
Ontario has been run by incompetents or crooks for the last 10 years. Mike Harris made a lot of the cuts we needed as premier in the beginning but by the end of his term something funny was going on. Dalton McGuinty was the worst premier Ontario's ever had by a long shot. I'd rather have Bob Rae, and we all know what Ontario thinks of him. He spent and spent and spent and appeased the public unions at every opportunity, blew our wad on idiotic green energy initiatives and we were pretty much broke before the recession. Is it surprising that when the recession hit, we were totally screwed? Nope.
Dalton McGuinty should be a case study for students highlighting the danger of nanny-state economics.
-
Ah. so when I ask "who?" the answer is, "a few specific posters."
Just to clarify what we're talking about here.
So, there we go: asked and answered, I guess.
If you'd been much a part of this thread you would already know. Go back and read anything waldo or wyly has written in here. They're not the only ones, but they're among the most rabid on this forum.
-
I'm not sure you've been following this thread, but there are a few specific posters that rabidly label anyone who even questions the science as a 'denier'.
-
An admission that the climate models aren't as infallible as they want people to believe would be nice.
-
We're not supposed to be just making general (negative) statements about groups of people on here - how does that promote discussion ?
"Unnamed immigrant group sucks !" isn't discussion - it's just sloganeering of a bad kind.
I wasn't supporting this kind of statement. You've pretty much nailed it.
I was taking issue with the brain-dead tendency of people on this forum to demand support or citations when it's not necessary, either because the argument is weak and easily refuted or because it's just a vague, general statement that doesn't require one. Responses like the one I quoted show that the poster is either too lazy or too dumb to think up a real argument. Asking for links/support proves nothing unless someone's written something specific that the reader either has reason to believe is not true or just didn't know anything about and wants to learn about it.
-
Justin would crush Dalton in a leadership race. He'll also send the NDP back to the stone age in terms of results. His good looks and Papa Pierre's legacy is all he needs aside from the ability to not say anything really stupid.
Watch and see. This was pretty much pre-ordained.
-
That's a lot of complaints. Can you provide any facts at all to back them up?
People need to stop asking for facts/citations for stupid crap like this. He's saying that we end up with a bunch of immigrant scumbags. He has given no percentages or solid facts. He's merely stating that there are bad immigrants. To ask for 'facts' to back this up implies that you do not believe that there are scum immigrants who make it into the country. Do you think that they're all top notch human beings?
If you had a problem with his statement, then put it into words. He made an almost purely rhetorical statement and there's lots of things to question or criticize, but asking for facts to back up his hyperbole is dumb .
-
Well said Jerry.
-
I don't think the Quebec NDP MP's will be involved. They're too young and naive.
-
The Russians weren't terribly concerned with the Canadian Navy. They were more concerned with intelligence the anglo world has been gathering on the Russians themselves. From what's been disclosed, it seems like quite a bit of intelligence (American, British, Australian etc) was leaked to the Russians, which is a catastrophic breach in terms of how it affects our reputation with our allies. Unless we can somehow ensure them that this was a freak occurence, the Americans are going to treat us like incompetents and won't share any of their intelligence with us.
This clown needs to be made an example of. $3000 a month to betray your country and cause possibly immeasurable damage is enough for a bullet in the head in most other parts of the world. At best, this guy should be locked up for life with a bunch of 'bears' somewhere nasty.
-
the private sector as well, just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there...do people walk around the office with their educational credentials pinned on their shirt?...if you need a professional presentation of a report or research paper put together you won't find anyone better for the assignment than a history major, it's what they do, they're experts at documentation...teaching history is only a small part of the discipline...a combined history/law or history/political science degree both have obvious benefits...
A research report is best prepared by a grad from the related field of research. A history grad has no advantage over any other liberal arts major in this regard. They're all highly trained in reading and footnoting, which has extremely limited applications in the real working world. The coffee shops near work here are full of history and geography majors. They make great barristas.
If I want to present a report on 12th century Byzantium, sure, I'll hire a history grad. If I want to present a report on trans-fats, that history grad would probably be the last person I'd look at.
-
Germany relies on coal for their energy. It accounts for probably 40-50% of their electricity generation. As they shut down nuclear plants, they'll be replacing it with clean, yet inefficient and expensive renewables and also a lot more coal. It seems pretty counter-productive, but I don't live there so w/e.
-
I'm embarrassed for you tim, refusing to answer a question to a worst case scenario you introduced refusing to answer now deflecting with another question..what's up with that tim
Deflection? Really?!? YOU are criticizing someone for deflection!?!?
:lol: -
Apparently Hezbollah has drone aircraft these days....
I can buy drone aircraft at Future Shop. What's your point? Hezbollah's drones are garbage and get shot down.
-
Tim no offense but that's pretty broken logic. That type of argument doesn't hold any water and you're best off abandoning it.
-
Nobody is questioning the oil industry's interest in continuing the status quo, so everything you just wrote there is just a big red herring.
All people are saying is that the insurance industry has the exact same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction. Given that the IPCC has concluded that climate related disasters have not been on the rise over the last few decades, the fact that Munich Re has concluded they have is interesting, albeit unsurprising.
-
if 41 Americans were executed america would whipe them out, iran would be fully justified to headlong deploy to syria in droves to whipe them out if they do that.
As far as Syrian rebels are concerned, Iran is already terrorizing them. By supplying Assad with weapons etc they believe Iran is directly involved in the murder of Syrian people. They also know that the Iranian army would be pounded into the ground the minute they crossed the Syrian border.
A countries rights on Immigrants and refugees.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
uh..?