Jump to content

ReeferMadness

Member
  • Posts

    3,953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ReeferMadness

  1. It is part of human nature. Like any other flaw in human nature, humans with intelligence and self-awareness can recognize and compensate for it. I see a lot of statements that indicate that people are quite unaware of this tendency.
  2. I think that warming will continue for 50-100 years after the GHGs in the atmosphere stop increasing. I think that the more we change the climate, the greater the odds that we will trigger massive releases of CO2 or CH4 from permafrost, from the soil, from oceans or from forests that dry up and burn off. The massive amounts of stored carbon would dwarf our emission cuts and could result in runaway climate change. I think nobody can really predict how bad it's going to get but that scientists are in the best position to guess. So maybe we should start paying attention to them. Most of all, I think I'm worried about the Dunning-Kruger effect and how it it has prevented any effective measures on climate change to date.
  3. Then maybe you need to start paying attention. It is impossible to ascribe any one event to climate change but it is possible to consider the range of events and calculate the odds of it happening without climate change. This has been done and the odds against it are astronomical.
  4. And drugs? Good drugs? I'll bet all those scientists who wasted their time on degrees and research are gonna feel pretty silly when they realize that all they need is logic and reason.
  5. That's never stopped right wingers before. In fact, they probably view it as a plus.
  6. The idea that Canada is going to be some sort of "beneficiary" of climate change is a stupid and dangerous notion. As is the idea that the worst that will come of climate change is a "disaster relief" effort. Here is a short (and partial) list of what's potentially in store for us if we don't deal with climate change: Reduction/loss of the pacific rain forest Reduction/loss of boreal forests from drought and fires Decline/collapse of pacific salmon stocks Flooding of portions of our coastal cities (notably Vancouver) Loss of farm productivity due to drought and flooding Increase in precipitation extremes leading to periods of drought and flooding Increase in duration and intensity of heat waves I'm assuming you believe we will benefit due to warming of the arctic but I'm not clear what benefits you anticipate. It's not like the arctic consists of millions of acres of prime farmland buried under snow and ice. The most dangerously stupid idea is that Canada can somehow sit back and enjoy climate change while the rest of the world suffers. While we are in a fortunate position compared to say, Bangladesh, we now live in a global village and global problems make themselves felt everywhere. Again a short list of possible effects that will make themselves felt here: Effects on the global economy If there are global food shortages, it will be felt everywhere When effects start to become severe elsewhere, the inevitable effect is mass migration. And the effect of mass migration is a rise of racism and racial tensions in the world, Canada included. So look forward to white supremacy as being one of the effects of climate change. Southeast Asia has about half the world's population and 4 densely populated, nuclear armed countries who don't like each other very much. There are already strains in the relationships due to lack of water. What do you think is going to happen when glaciers start to disappear?
  7. I'm not sure which climate scientists would have made that claim. The effects are already noticeable to anyone with an open mind - melting arctic ice, massive increase in the intensity of wild fires in North America, temperature warming. It's happening, now, not in 200 years. The effects are cumulative, though, and subject to feedback effects - positive or negative. That means climate scientists can't be certain of future impacts. Now, for those of you who argue that uncertainty means we go right on polluting until we're certain, I say 2 things: 1. It takes time to modify the climate and will take even more time to fix it. Waiting until we're certain is a recipe for disaster. 2. It's possible that climate scientists are being too aggressive in their climate change projections but it's more likely they're being too conservative. Most of the potential feedback mechanisms are positive in terms of accelerating climate change and many are poorly understood (and not reflected in the models). In the face of uncertainty, you turn to risk management techniques to manage the outcomes. In this case, that means cutting GHG emissions.
  8. Fascinating how people who arrogantly sneer at climate science still use microwave ovens and GPS's. Are you sure those people in your TV screen are just pictures being beamed in from somewhere else? Maybe there are actually little people inside your TV. Better take it apart to be sure.
  9. The world's dumbest conspiracy theory posits that the poor oil companies are victims to all of the big money to made by environmentalists inventing a phony climate crisis.
  10. Jesus. You guys really don't get it. They thought they were voting for change when they elected Obama but he let them down. Clinton was completely out of touch and didn't even bother to campaign on change until long after she was defined as a tired, corrupt legacy figure. So, they held their noses and voted for the buffoon Trump. If AOC were old enough to run for POTUS, she would probably win in a landslide. She's young, smart, savvy and not afraid to say what she thinks.
  11. Your analysis paints you as someone completely out of touch with reality. You obviously want the next George Bush. Unfortunately for you, hardly anyone else does. People want change. When Obama couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver, they were so frustrated, they elected a senile know-it-all who talks like someone's embarrassing racist uncle. Trump won't deliver either, at least not in any way that will make most people happy. It looks more and more like Trump's main accomplishment will be to demonstrate conclusively that about one third of the US electorate consists of racist lunatics who aren't too bright. It's likely Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is controlled by people who (like you, it seems) are perfectly happy with all the wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. The tsunami is coming and people like you are going to find yourselves swept away. Buh bye.
  12. Wait. Are you talking about the China that completely owns the solar panel manufacturing market? Or the China that is winning the battle to control the battery market? Or the China that has almost 100% of the world's electric buses? Or the China that is positioning itself to take over the auto industry as it electrifies? Right wingers need to stop eating their own bullshit. China is a harsh dictatorship and they won't shed tears if there is a die-off, including some of their own population. But they are also realists and they are skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it used to be. Yes, they have modernized their country using coal - who hasn't?? But while we squabble over pipelines for dirty bitumen, they are leapfrogging us. Wake up.
  13. There's plenty of smart people out there. And no shortage of good ideas. We just need enough voting citizens with the wisdom and humility to listen to them. And yeah, I've learned that smart ideas are completely wasted on this forum.
  14. Wow. I see we've reached a whole new level of wingnuttery around here. There must be a run on tinfoil for the hats. If the average level of intelligence is anything like what exists on this forum, we are well and truly doomed. Don't worry about that, though. It's New Year's Eve. Get out there and drink your faces off.
  15. Well, let me see. Most people don't read, don't think for themselves, and don't care enough to face unpleasant truths. Hey, look at that. You ARE normal!! Congrats. Grab yourself a participation medal and pat yourself on the back. For all the normal people out there, here's hoping that you can insulate yourself from the real world by burying your head up your ass and pretending reality doesn't affect you. Good luck with that.
  16. Thanks for identifying another big lie. Lie #5 Environmental issues don't really matter all that much. Oil addicts, capitalist sociopaths, right wing fundamentalists and other associated nutbars love to paint environmentalists as fuzzy-headed sentimentalists and environmental causes as feel-good exercises centred around individual species such as spotted owls and Vancouver Island marmots. To them, a healthy environment is just one more luxury that we'd like to be able to afford but not if it raises the price of gas by 3 cents a litre. Real environmentalists look at this attitude and wonder at how stunningly dense people can be. Do you think those people are going to enjoy their cheap gas when their homes are flooded or they can't find food to eat? We say we're trying to save the planet but you understand that's a metaphor. The planet will be just fine. A lot of plant and animal species are dying off and that's a big problem. But the real question is how many people will the changed planet be able to support? Instead of 7 billion maybe 5? or 3? or half? And when the mass starvation and population dislocation starts, do you think people are going to just lie down and die quietly? Probably not. It will start with riots and mass migration and before long it will turn into wars. Given the number of nuclear weapons on the planet, nuclear wars are definitely a possibility. But never mind all that - just enjoy the cheap gas!
  17. How is that any different from farmers being paid not to produce? Or oil company subsidies?
  18. Fossil fuels have huge subsidies - $325 billion per year from OECD countries alone. And that's just direct subsidies. According to the IMF, if you account for the health and environmental costs of burning fossil fuels, it is costing us a staggering 5.1 trillion dollars! You didn't know fossil fuels were subsidized did you? Cuz the oil companies forgot to tell you that part.
  19. You didn't make an argument. You made a dumb statement and supported it with a post you obviously didn't bother to read.
  20. Did you even read your own link? Coal is supported mainly by corruption. Not economics. Here's another take on what's happening in India. India's coal power is about to crash.
  21. Sure. Fossil fuels are making the planet uninhabitable for our kids... but by all means let's keep burning them for the sake of our pensions...
  22. Thanks for the suggestion. Lie #4 Wind and solar will never be more than niche/boutique players. Don't tell Scotland, which, in October generated 98% of its electricity from wind. A few years ago, the story was wind and solar could NEVER compete with coal because they were too expensive. Now even in Trump country, coal is getting crushed, not because of subsidies or because it's dirty but because it's more expensive. It's true that wind and solar do still have to deal with the intermittency issue but that's not insurmountable in the way that most people think. There are a myriad of possibilities when it comes to energy storage. And there are a number of ways that utilities can reduce the amount of storage needed; including demand shifting, smart grids and interconnected grids. On top of that, energy efficiency initiatives like zero energy homes have the potential to dramatically slash the amount of energy we need. True fossil fuel addicts will claim that this is all pie-in-the-sky but in fact it's not. A study done by Stanford Engineering professor Mark Jacobson shows that achieving 100% energy (not just 100% electricity) is possible. He modeled electrical grids across 139 countries at 30 second intervals for 5 years. Jacobson's work has attracted significant criticism but all new ideas are resisted in the beginning. In particular, the nuclear industry sees a huge opportunity in the climate change nightmare, despite the fact that nuclear power isn't cheap, safe or clean.
  23. No, I'm suggesting that posties sitting around, not delivering mail and not getting paid, isn't helping anyone.
  24. Lie #3 The oil industry is environmentally responsible and cleans up after itself This is a whopper and by time the Canadian public catches on to it, the industry will have packed up and left town. Most people are probably aware that the Alberta Energy Regulator has been lowballing estimates of the amount of money it would cost to fix the toxic mess in Alberta. The public estimate of $58 billion is about one fifth of what internal documents say ($260 billion). And that's only Alberta. According to a G&M investigative report, 20% of the 600,000+ wells drilled are inactive and 2/3 of those have been inactive 5 or more years. There is a booming trade in unproductive wells where large companies with the assets to clean them up pawn them off on smaller companies who don't. This is precisely what happened when Sequoia Oil and Gas went under. You'll notice one thing that is missing from the Calgary Herald article. That one thing is that Sequoia, a company without much in the way of assets was allowed to buy the wells from Calgary based Perpetual Energy for basically nothing. The regulator is a toothless dog that obediently follows the commands of its master, the industry. That $260 billion figure is based on today's oil prices. Once low-priced renewables become widespread enough to take a serious bite out of the business, the price of oil will plummet. And that cost will skyrocket. In a related issue, oil companies have essentially admitted they have no idea what to do with the massive tailing ponds created by the tar sands. The ponds contain over 1.2 trillion litres of toxic sludge containing (among other things) carcinogenic, mutagenic hydrocarbons and a variety of heavy metals. The "ponds" (toxic lakes, really, covering an area larger than the city of Vancouver) are an existential threat to one of the world's largest watersheds.
×
×
  • Create New...