Jump to content

Copenhagen


Keepitsimple

Recommended Posts

we can segway if you'd like... of course we'll see more of Gore in the next month's lead-up to Copenhagen... your linked article's Gore quote on the melting of the North Pole Ice cap is timely given recent thread references to methane...

Arctic sea ice minimum press release

...where accelerating arctic warming is viewed as one of the early climate change impacts... the prevailing scientific view holds that unless we're able to return to an appropriate CO2 ppm level, the Greenland ice sheet melting has the potential to release major levels of methane associated with related permafrost melting.

Climate projections are filled with terms like "might", "could", and "potential". Are they realistic? That's what the argument is all about. How about the Antarctic having more ice than ever - at least in recent history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about instead? The trouble with CO2 is there are no alternatives that can provide the energy we need at cost that we can afford. What this means is any anti-CO2 policy will fail and the only question is how much money will be wasted while posturing politicians pretend to do something.

Like Harper with his carbon capture in Alberta and ethanol?

It is all the wrong policies if the aim is to get more clean energy. Might have been better to build a high powered lines from Manitoba to Ontario and Saskatchewan.

I think even investing in the LED street lights that the Halifax company is so good could save a ton of energy and unlike the sodium lights, they last 20 years and actually make the streets brighter and safer. Heck, you could even say it was a crime fighting venture.

I still think thermal is the way to go as it is the cleanest and once installed, the cheapest to run.

Even if you don't believe in warming, these are things that make sense, make us less dependent on oil and save money.

Methane is a different story since the capture and disposal of the gas actually produces energy (unlike CO2 which has limited industrial value). Since studies say it may represent as much as 1/2 of the GHG problem it would make sense to focus exclusively on methane for now and revist the CO2 issue in 20-30 years after we have had a chance to further develop non CO2-emitting sources of energy.

If you can capture methane in the north, it might be worth something. Less ice cover means more ground exposed and more methane released which begets more warming and more ground exposed.

As far as CO2 goes, we will see if the change back to El Nino in ocean currents makes for hotter temperatures again. The last el nino ended in 2007.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you don't believe in warming, these are things that make sense, make us less dependent on oil and save money.
Any policy that include targets for CO2 reductions is a waste of money and resources. Saving energy can be justified for its own sake and does not need an imaginary CO2 threat to justify.
If you can capture methane in the north, it might be worth something. Less ice cover means more ground exposed and more methane released which begets more warming and more ground exposed.
Idle speculation for which there is zero evidence. If it had any merit then we should have seen a huge release of methane 10000 years ago when then temps were at least a 1 degC higher than today.
As far as CO2 goes, we will see if the change back to El Nino in ocean currents makes for hotter temperatures again. The last el nino ended in 2007.
Gee. I thought El Nino is just 'weather'? It take a lot more than a couple warm years to get the recent temperature trends back in line with the climate model predictions. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid the evidence is still disputed by some with "could", "possibly" and "might."
You love the irrelevant comparisons. The link between tabacco and cancer is supported by millions of independent test subjects that voluntarily exposed themselves to tobacco. That gives us a rock solid statistical basis for a link even if some percentage the test subjects never develop cancer. Nothing close to that kind of evidence exists for AGW since we don't have even one real test subject that would allow us to test for the causal link.

We also know the effects of cancer invariably bad since we have seen it happen millions of times. AGW is just some hypothetical event predicted by a computer model that could easily be good as well as bad.

People who try to claim there is some sort of comparison between science supporting the tobacco/cancer link and AGW simply demonstrate that they do not understand science.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You love the irrelevant comparisons.

And you love blathering on warming raising the same doubts that the smoking lobby still makes today.

The link between tabacco and cancer is supported by millions of independent test subjects that voluntarily exposed themselves to tobacco. That gives us a rock solid statistical basis for a link even if some percentage the test subjects never develop cancer. Nothing close to that kind of evidence exists for AGW since we don't have even one real test subject that would allow us to test for the causal link.

And yet people still use "might", "could" and "possibly" about the dangers.

We also know the effects of cancer invariably bad since we have seen it happen millions of times. AGW is just some hypothetical event predicted by a computer model that could easily be good as well as bad.

And some people still raise hypotheticals on smoking. Some of them in fact are also some of the same people you have cited in global warming as I have pointed out to you before.

People who try to claim there is some sort of comparison between science supporting the tobacco/cancer link and AGW simply demonstrate that they do not understand science.

Think I pointed that out to you about some of the people you cited on global warming to no avail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any policy that include targets for CO2 reductions is a waste of money and resources. Saving energy can be justified for its own sake and does not need an imaginary CO2 threat to justify.

Guess you should tell that to Harper next time you post here. Carbon copy each message you write.

Idle speculation for which there is zero evidence. If it had any merit then we should have seen a huge release of methane 10000 years ago when then temps were at least a 1 degC higher than today.

Gee. I thought El Nino is just 'weather'? It take a lot more than a couple warm years to get the recent temperature trends back in line with the climate model predictions.

Once again tell Harper all about it. He doesn't seem to to be listening to you since he is still pursuing a carbon reduction program.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think I pointed that out to you about some of the people you cited on global warming to no avail.
Look, if you are unable to understand the difference between the scientific evidence supporting the link between tabacco and cancer which has been observed millions of times and a hypothetical link between CO2 and global temperature which has never been observed then you don't understand science. There is a huge difference and that matters when it comes to making policy decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again tell Harper all about it. He doesn't seem to to be listening to you since he is still pursuing a carbon reduction program.
You are right. Harper is wasting money on this CO2 crap because there are a large number of clueless people in this country that have been brainwashed into believing that it is possible to "do something". His only virtue is he is probably spending less money than the libs would. I would love to see a politician which guts enough to tell people that they have been lied to and there is no way to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining anything close to the standard of living we have today. Unfortunately, such a politician would not last long in office because CO2 has become a religion in this country and telling people that the have been lied to about CO2 is as pointless as going into a church and telling the people that they have been lied to about god. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/indent]

Speaking generally... when does providing financial support to developing countries migrate into the sound bite/catch phrase, "wealth transfer"? :lol:

Oh....nice...the sound bite/catch phrase "wealth transfer" is not in the least similar to "providing financial support" whatsoever. Wealth transfer is exactly that. "Providing financial support" is something that people do - not governments. Governments "transfer wealth". They have no wealth to provide financial support. They have to extract wealth from the economy they are charged with protecting and give it to those they deem, for whatever reason, have a need for it.

Your dream of transferring education and technology along with providing financial support is called nothing but meddling and do-gooding. Certainly a nice ideal but are you sure they want to create the same culture that you live in? That's pretty presumptuous. I know you like your life and if everyone lived like you the world would be perfect. Did you ever think that the people you are transferring all this wealth to actually want you horning in on them like that - you are worse than capitalists in enforcing your ideals on others and what a colossal waste of resources to provide people with "things" they see no need for and might particularly not want. An improvement they might like would be one they asked for specifically. They would get lost in the sea of technological transfer you imagine. People will work for what they want - whatever you give to someone for nothing they will waste because it's value to them was nothing and.... surprise..... they will demand more for nothing.

The Copenhagen agreement is about a massive transfer of wealth and has nothing to do with helping the climate.

I don't see how the Arctic ice caps are melting when the temperature change over the last century is a plus one degree centigrade. It doesn't make sense. Things are just as frozen at -40 as they are at -41.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we can segway if you'd like... of course we'll see more of Gore in the next month's lead-up to Copenhagen... your linked article's Gore quote on the melting of the North Pole Ice cap is timely given recent thread references to methane...

Arctic sea ice minimum press release

...where accelerating arctic warming is viewed as one of the early climate change impacts... the prevailing scientific view holds that unless we're able to return to an appropriate CO2 ppm level, the Greenland ice sheet melting has the potential to release major levels of methane associated with related permafrost melting.

How about the Antarctic having more ice than ever - at least in recent history?

Does it? I expect you're being influenced by a lot of the "skeptics blog science" that interprets ice increases in the central parts of Antarctica (and Greenland) as a refutation of climate change impacts... where, in fact, overall ice mass size is being reduced. Effectively, the warmer air holds more moisture... and snowfall increases in the central regions; however, the net effect overall is mass loss due to increased melting along the coastal regions.

A recent press release from the British Antarctic Survey:

The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along the coastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise.

.

.

The authors conclude that this ‘dynamic thinning’ of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets’ interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades.

... with the accompanying Nature journal publication (abstract) reference (re: British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council & School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol):

Many glaciers along the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are accelerating and, for this reason, contribute increasingly to global sea-level rise.

.

.

We find that dynamic thinning of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic grounding lines, has endured for decades after ice-shelf collapse, penetrates far into the interior of each ice sheet and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. In Greenland, glaciers flowing faster than 100 m yr-1 thinned at an average rate of 0.84 m yr, and in the Amundsen Sea embayment of Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0 m yr for some glaciers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking generally... when does providing financial support to developing countries migrate into the sound bite/catch phrase, "wealth transfer"? :lol:
Oh....nice...the sound bite/catch phrase "wealth transfer" is not in the least similar to "providing financial support" whatsoever. Wealth transfer is exactly that. "Providing financial support" is something that people do - not governments. Governments "transfer wealth". They have no wealth to provide financial support. They have to extract wealth from the economy they are charged with protecting and give it to those they deem, for whatever reason, have a need for it.

Oh really! Canada has a storied history of assisting developing countries, be it indirectly through various UN agencies, ad hoc via humanitarian initiatives (e.g. related to, for example, natural disasters) and directly via the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Do you consider the Canadian government’s expenditures in these regards as “wealth transfer”… and do you object to it, regardless of what labeling is attached?

I note that CIDA uses the phrase, “development assistance” when referring to expenditures… or more specifically, ODA – Official Development Assistance. Would you like me to edit my previous post to change the phrase “financial support” to “development assistance”? Would that be a bit more palatable for you? :lol:

Your dream of transferring education and technology along with providing financial support is called nothing but meddling and do-gooding. Certainly a nice ideal but are you sure they want to create the same culture that you live in? That's pretty presumptuous. I know you like your life and if everyone lived like you the world would be perfect. Did you ever think that the people you are transferring all this wealth to actually want you horning in on them like that - you are worse than capitalists in enforcing your ideals on others and what a colossal waste of resources to provide people with "things" they see no need for and might particularly not want. An improvement they might like would be one they asked for specifically. They would get lost in the sea of technological transfer you imagine. People will work for what they want - whatever you give to someone for nothing they will waste because it's value to them was nothing and.... surprise..... they will demand more for nothing.

Well… perhaps you’ve answered my earlier posed question as to your having objections to the example Canadian government expenditures I mentioned… you certainly can’t be in favour of anything CIDA does… or that UN agencies do on behalf of Canada’s participation… cause… that would be, according to you, “meddling and do-gooding and attempting to create culture”. Dare I say… wait for it… wait for it… that would be “nation building”!!! Hey now, I can’t be bothered to look at your posting history, so let’s hear if you’re in favour of the current nation building exercise in Afghanistan – hey? As for your reference to technology transfer, have a look at the CIDA website – there’s a great detail of project information showing exactly how assorted new technologies have been introduced into developing countries… including the related training/implementation aspects – immediate and/or phased. You’d a thunk – what a concept!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper is wasting money on this CO2 crap because there are a large number of clueless people in this country that have been brainwashed into believing that it is possible to "do something".

sooooo... you're saying Harper is a brainwashing enabler :lol:

why's Harper doing it? Are there votes involved? Do you have any numbers... surely, those numbers would need to be HUGE... to support the continued enablement - the continued brainwashing. Numbers? Anyone... anyone...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, if you are unable to understand the difference between the scientific evidence supporting the link between tabacco and cancer which has been observed millions of times and a hypothetical link between CO2 and global temperature which has never been observed then you don't understand science. There is a huge difference and that matters when it comes to making policy decisions.

Look, if you can't understand that the people you cite are professional naysayers and still throw doubt on tobacco among other things, I don't know that you get where they are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Harper is wasting money on this CO2 crap because there are a large number of clueless people in this country that have been brainwashed into believing that it is possible to "do something". His only virtue is he is probably spending less money than the libs would. I would love to see a politician which guts enough to tell people that they have been lied to and there is no way to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining anything close to the standard of living we have today. Unfortunately, such a politician would not last long in office because CO2 has become a religion in this country and telling people that the have been lied to about CO2 is as pointless as going into a church and telling the people that they have been lied to about god.

Then don't vote for the Liberals. However, don't tell me your vote is for the Tories is not going to end up costing even more money since Harper has ensured his policy is linked to U.S. policy.

You have joined the religion along with others warming naysayers with your vote.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet people still use "might", "could" and "possibly" about the dangers.

Who does? Who doubts the dangers of cigarettes? Even the cigarette manufacturers will not say that smoking is safe.

And some people still raise hypotheticals on smoking.

Who? Let's see the citations. And from now not twenty years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid the evidence is still disputed by some with "could", "possibly" and "might."

Even the actual climate scientists who actually believe in it won't commit to anything beyond that they "believe" the "preponderance of evidence" "suggests" that man-made CO2 emissions are "partly" to blame for rising temperatures - though they can't say how much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is Ignatieff's plan? Does Ignatieff think we should sign onto Cophenhagen and start shipping billions of dollars to the UN?

By all means get upset with Ignatieff but if you are against money going to warming, try to remember that Harper is spending billions now. You might keep telling yourself that he has no choice but I have seen no indication that he is about to cancel his ethanol and carbon capture program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the actual climate scientists who actually believe in it won't commit to anything beyond that they "believe" the "preponderance of evidence" "suggests" that man-made CO2 emissions are "partly" to blame for rising temperatures - though they can't say how much.

And this the argument made by people on the science of smoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who does? Who doubts the dangers of cigarettes? Even the cigarette manufacturers will not say that smoking is safe.

They don't argue it's safe. They argue the evidence that they cause harm is not conclusive.

Who? Let's see the citations. And from now not twenty years ago.

It isn't me who posted them. It is other posters here.

I only showed that Steve Milloy also doubts the science on smoking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

And this is present day.

Go back and read some of the climate threads. The same lobbyists against warming are the same ones lobbying against the science on tobacco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means get upset with Ignatieff but if you are against money going to warming, try to remember that Harper is spending billions now. You might keep telling yourself that he has no choice but I have seen no indication that he is about to cancel his ethanol and carbon capture program.

I'm sorry, was that meant to be an answer to my question? I take it from your evasiveness that Ignateiff has not yet developed a plan, and, as for Copenhagen, he has not yet run throught he complexities of the polling results which will determine what his position ought to be. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't argue it's safe. They argue the evidence that they cause harm is not conclusive.

Let's see the quotes.

I only showed that Steve Milloy also doubts the science on smoking.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy[/url

Your own cite says no such thing. It says he doubts the science behind second hand smoke, which is quote a different thing.

Go back and read some of the climate threads. The same lobbyists against warming are the same ones lobbying against the science on tobacco.

Name them and provide cites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, was that meant to be an answer to my question? I take it from your evasiveness that Ignateiff has not yet developed a plan, and, as for Copenhagen, he has not yet run throught he complexities of the polling results which will determine what his position ought to be. Correct?

The Liberals have dropped the carbon tax and have proposed the energy grid comprising of hydro power. This is something different from what the direction the Tories are taking.

By all means don't support them if that is your bent but if don't believe that warming is happening, you can't be happy voting Tory either.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your own cite says no such thing. It says he doubts the science behind second hand smoke, which is quote a different thing.

Is it? According to who? Milloy has raised doubts on much of the science on smoking. And when he is confronted with peer reviewed work, he raises doubts on the peer review process.

It is well documented the use of doubt raised by the deniers on things like smoking and warming.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/book+outl...3760/story.html

These interests, says Hoggan, deployed strategies developed in Big Tobacco's campaign against the anti-smoking movement. Purported research documents were commissioned with the aim of raising questions about climate change science even though their own scientific advisers knew that science to be sound. Meanwhile, he says, a select group of free-market think tanks implemented the strategy and in the process deliberately polluted public discourse on the subject.

The tobacco companies continue to argue that their product can't be linked to individual cases of cancer in court cases now.

http://www.desmogblog.com/aussie-mp-smokin...ge-doesnt-exist

Many of the same people who told us not to worry about tobacco smoke and asbestos are now telling us not to worry about climate change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,418
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    stevenwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • ironstone went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • reason10 went up a rank
      Veteran
    • Manymoons11 earned a badge
      First Post
    • LTJ earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • akayy earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...