ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 What's upsetting to some is the kidnapping of the term "Environment". Clean air, clean water, expanded parkland and all the associated rules and regulations that have reduced smog in Toronto (for example) and made Lake Ontario swimmable again - all these good things are ignored as the Global Warming alarmists hold the term "Environment" hostage. Hmmm.... So, how was it that smog was reduced and the water made "swimmable"? Was it done by politicians burying their heads in the sand and pretending the problem didn't exist? Was it done by finger pointing and waiting for someone else to do something? Or was it done by setting standards and holding people accountable to them? Maybe we could use those same methods to reduce GHG's. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) That NOx is bad doesn't mean CO2 isn't bad as well.NOx is real pollution that has impact day. CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. Increases in CO2 will produce a combination of good and bad effects at some point in the future. We don't really know which of those effects will be large enough to notice nor do we know if the positives will outweigh the negative. Edited September 28, 2015 by TimG Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 NOx is real pollution that has impact day. CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. Increases in CO2 will produce a combination of good and bad effects at some point in the future. We don't really know which of those effects will be large enough to notice nor do we know if the positives will outweigh the negative. Argon is a natural component of the atmosphere, but if I stuck you in a room filled with it, you'd die fairly quickly. Are you trying to impress me with silly rhetorical talking points? CO2 in large concentrations traps heat in the lower atmosphere, which increases the amount of energy in climate systems which leads to large scale changes in global climate. Therefore, CO2 is not simply benign. Why is it that you are so determined to absolutely and completely misrepresent science? Quote
TimG Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) CO2 in large concentrations traps heat in the lower atmosphere, which increases the amount of energy in climate systems which leads to large scale changes in global climate. Therefore, CO2 is not simply benign.Climate change is neither good nor bad. It is change. Any change has positive and negative effects. Some of these effects will be too small to notice others will be obvious. We have no way to know whether the balance will be a net negative or a net positive. Your assertion that is it is necessarily a net negative has no evidence to support it. OTOH, NOx is obviously bad today for anyone living in a smoggy city. Why is it that you are so determined to absolutely and completely misrepresent science?You are the one making assertions that cannot be supported with the currently available data. If anyone is misrepresenting the science it is you. Edited September 28, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 NOx is real pollution that has impact day. CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. Increases in CO2 will produce a combination of good and bad effects at some point in the future. <face-palm> NOx is part of the nitrogen cycle, which supports plant growth. NOx is produced naturally by lightning strikes, forest fires and microorganisms. Like CO2, NOx becomes a pollutant when there is too much of it. We don't really know which of those effects will be large enough to notice nor do we know if the positives will outweigh the negative. Citation? I mean aside from the usual cranks supported by the fossil fuel industry. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Keepitsimple Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 Do you even understand what AGW is? What's that supposed to imply? What does that have do with the separation of the as-yet unquantifiable human-induced Global Warning.......and clean water, clean air (CO2 is not a pollutant - but plenty of other crap in the air is), increased parkland....? Quote Back to Basics
overthere Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 “My feeling is that none of the parties except for the Greens is really taking it seriously.” My bfeeling is that none of the candidates take Suzuki seriously. It a rare moment of all of them being correct about something. Suzuki has been a professional attention whore, and a grotesque hypocritic, for a very long time. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 My bfeeling is that none of the candidates take Suzuki seriously. If that's true, why did Trudeau phone Suzuki to ask for an endorsement? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 (CO2 is not a pollutant - but plenty of other crap in the air is), .? I'm tired of this nonsense. Defend your statement. Tell us why you are smarter and more knowledgeable than thousands of climate scientists. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) NOx is part of the nitrogen cycle, which supports plant growth.Your own link does not support your claims that it is part of the natural nitrogen cycle. It only says humans interfere with the nitrogen cycle by producing NOx and that lighting produces an insignificant amount. Citation? I mean aside from the usual cranks supported by the fossil fuel industry.Can't prove a negative. The trouble with people claiming net negative effects is they always exaggerate because fearmongering gets funding and admitting uncertainty does not. i.e. you can't get a paper printed in a journal if all you can say is 'the evidence in contradictory and we can say nothing for certain'. You can get a paper printed that says 'CO2 hypothetically linked to end of the world'. This creates a publication bias that is amplified by the media and various groups that benefit financially from the scaremongering. Now bias does not mean it is all false - just that any negative effects are likely be a lot less severe than claimed. The same bias also ensures that positive effects of CO2 are ignored or minimized. Edited September 28, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 Climate change is neither good nor bad. It is change. Any change has positive and negative effects. Some of these effects will be too small to notice others will be obvious. We have no way to know whether the balance will be a net negative or a net positive. Good or bad??? Well, Tim, we know that we are changing the atmosphere at a pace that is extremely rapid compared to normal geological timescales. And we know that rapid climate changes are associated with mass extinction events. That's because organisms (and that includes people) can only adapt so fast and within limited parameters to changes in their environment. So, that doesn't sound too good to me but hey, maybe you can find a way to profit from it! But hey, what is good and what is bad? If Canada's agriculture benefits from a longer growing season but 200 million people starve to death in Asia, do you consider that good? If the result is a war involving China, India and Pakistan (all nuclear armed), is that still good? Why don't you tell us what is good and what is bad. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 Your own link does not support your claims that it is part of the natural nitrogen cycle. It only says humans interfere with the nitrogen cycle by producing NOx and that lighting produces an insignificant amount. You claimed NOx was pollution and CO2 wasn't because it occurred naturally. NOx also occurs naturally - some is produced by lightning but most is produced by bacteria. Go back and read it again. Can't prove a negative. The trouble with people claiming net negative effects is they always exaggerate because fearmongering gets funding and admitting uncertainty does not. i.e. you can't get a paper printed in a journal if all you can say is 'the evidence in contradictory and we can say nothing for certain'. You can get a paper printed that says 'CO2 hypothetically linked to end of the world'. This creates a publication bias that is amplified by the media and various groups that benefit financially from the scaremongering. Now bias does not mean it is all false - just that any negative effects are likely be a lot less severe than claimed. The same bias also ensures that positive effects of CO2 are ignored or minimized. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you for actual evidence to support your ridiculous claim. Instead you come back with the old "all the scientists are in a big conspiracy" story. You can't find anyone with any credibility who will tell you what you want to hear so you invent some tinfoil-hat theory to explain it. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 28, 2015 Report Posted September 28, 2015 I asked you for actual evidence to support your ridiculous claim.I am saying there is no real evidence to support the notion that CO2 is necessarily a net negative. You are asking me to prove a negative. Instead you come back with the old "all the scientists are in a big conspiracy" story.ROTFL. You are the one peddling conspiracies with your "I mean aside from the usual cranks supported by the fossil fuel industry" comment. My position is everyone is biased an you have to understand the bias when evaluating their information. I simply reminded you how the science funding process introduces bias into research. You can believe in unicorns but anyone who is honest will understand that that the bias I identified does exist. Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 He, and his environmentalist zealots continue to breathlessly rant on about the dangers of extracting all the oil in the Athabaska Oil sands - when in fact - of the total area of 141,000 square kilometers - less than 4% is commercially viable to be mined. It's infuriating to see such wild exaggerations that serve only to hamper our economy... 1) Alberta's oil sands underlie 142,200 square kilometres (km2) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. 2)Reserves shallow enough to mine (up to 75 meters) are found only within the Athabasca oil sands area. Surface Mineable Area (SMA) equals to about 4,800 km2 and accounts for about 3.4 per cent of total oil sands area. once again... as you've shown in the past... you continue to focus only on surface mining! And you're just so sure of yourself with your "It's infuriating" nonsense... of course you are. waldo factoids: only ~10% of the tarsands is suitable for surface mining... the majority of the tarsands lie more than 70 metres (200 feet) below the ground, and are too deep to be mined. These reserves can... and are... recovered "in situ (in place)" by drilling wells. In situ drilling accounts for 80% of tarsands reserves and these reserves are located below 97% of the land in the tarsands sector. Now Simple, considering I've had to correct your misunderstandings concerning tailings ponds/reclamation efforts in the past... one wonders just what game/sham you're playing here. Notwithstanding the amount of water required and concerns for the Athabasca River impacts... notwithstanding the amount of natural gas required for in situ 'mining'... Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I am saying there is no real evidence to support the notion that CO2 is necessarily a net negative. You are asking me to prove a negative. don't hesitate to produce your interpreted science that speaks to the "net positive" impacts of CO2 emissions! Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I am saying there is no real evidence to support the notion that CO2 is necessarily a net negative. You are asking me to prove a negative. Ridiculous. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof? There is mountains of evidence to support the notion that CO2 is a net negative. I asked you for any evidence (not proof) that it is not. You've provided none because evidently you have none. ROTFL. You are the one peddling conspiracies with your "I mean aside from the usual cranks supported by the fossil fuel industry" comment. My position is everyone is biased an you have to understand the bias when evaluating their information. I simply reminded you how the science funding process introduces bias into research. You can believe in unicorns but anyone who is honest will understand that that the bias I identified does exist. Of course everyone has biases - and that includes the power engineers you claim agree with you. Anytime you consult an expert on any topic, those experts have biases. Do you ignore them all or just climate scientists. Debating you is just like debating anti-vaxxers. They tell me that mainstream medicine is is biased towards selling pharmaceutical products - and there is some truth to that. But they ignore that the naturopaths and the makers of "natural remedies" also have biases and are also there to make money. So, you need to be able to evaluate the available evidence and take a position on risks and rewards. Most normal people would side with the experts unless they understand the science well enough to knowledgeably disagree. Since you were clearly unaware of the nitrogen cycle or the fact that NOx occurs naturally (which I learned about Grade 5), you might want to brush up on your science knowledge before you take a position contrary to almost all of the experts. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) There is mountains of evidence to support the notion that CO2 is a net negative.Nope. They have crude computer models which could not even predict the global temperature trends over the last 15 years (nevermind region trends). They are not evidence. They have some theory but no data that would allow them to determine whether the theoretical effects are significant in the real world. Theories are not evidence. If you look through the literature for actual evidence that is backed up by real data you find next to nothing. In some cases, (e.g. climate-extreme weather links) the literature finds no evidence of a link between rising temperatures and the 'negative effect'. Of course everyone has biases - and that includes the power engineers you claim agree with you. Anytime you consult an expert on any topic, those experts have biases. Do you ignore them all or just climate scientists.I said many times - everyone is biased and you must factor in that bias when assessing their evidence. Scientists are biased towards exaggerating problems so in reality the problems are most likely less serious than claimed. Companies have an interest in minimizing problems so in reality are likely worse than they claim. What I think are ridiculous are people who claim their preferred sources are unbiased. They tell me that mainstream medicine is is biased towards selling pharmaceutical products - and there is some truth to that.Bias does not mean wrong. It just means bias. So a coal industry report on the environment may be biased but is can also be correct. That is the point you seem to miss. Bias is also unconscious - most biased people believe they are objective. Edited September 29, 2015 by TimG Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 once again... as you've shown in the past... you continue to focus only on surface mining! And you're just so sure of yourself with your "It's infuriating" nonsense... of course you are. ... the majority of the tarsands lie more than 70 metres (200 feet) below the ground, and are too deep to be mined. These reserves can... and are... recovered "in situ (in place)" by drilling wells. In situ drilling accounts for 80% of tarsands reserves and these reserves are located below 97% of the land in the tarsands sector. Now Simple, considering I've had to correct your misunderstandings concerning tailings ponds/reclamation efforts in the past... one wonders just what game/sham you're playing here. Notwithstanding the amount of water required and concerns for the Athabasca River impacts... notwithstanding the amount of natural gas required for in situ 'mining'... What's your point Waldo - more infuriating nonsense? To my knowledge - after decades of development, there are only 5 or 6 operational in-situ wells under your 97% oil sands area......a miniscule pinprick. Quote Back to Basics
WIP Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Actually, given the fact that scientific/political funding process rewards exaggerations it is pretty safe to assume that whatever happens it will be less consequential than the doomsayers predict. The IPCC reports always have to be revised upwards on CO2 levels, sea level rise, declining ice caps....but what I'm talking about are the proposals to mitigate climate change...let's just say there's no hope in hell of getting atmospheric CO2 levels back to 350 within the next 500 to 1000 years. Any analysis of past enviro-scares supports this line of thinking (population bomb, acid rain, ozone, etc). Those enviro-scares aren't in the past...just not being discussed anymore. Earth's human population consumes too much of the planet's primary production already, and when the oil starts running out in a couple of decades, all of the cheap grain production dependent on fertilizers and underground water goes as well! Population levels should have been brought under control back when Paul Ehrlich wrote his book....and there 3.5 billion people in the world. Instead, the so called Green Revolution was used to allow populations to further expand and absorb all of the food production on new lands that were cleared and irrigated. Now, there's almost nowhere to expand for more food-growing, and the seas are being depleted of fish and marine mammals....so you're dreaming if you think the population bomb was a scare tactic of 50 years ago. It should have served as a warning because the fundamentals haven't changed! Instead, all we did was double down by raising the stakes even higher...meaning that the inevitable shortages, famines, and resource wars will be larger and more threatening to human survival than they would have been if population started plateauing 30 or 40 years ago. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Smallc Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 The IPCC reports always have to be revised upwards on CO2 levels, sea level rise, declining ice caps....but what I'm talking about are the proposals to mitigate climate change...let's just say there's no hope in hell of getting atmospheric CO2 levels back to 350 within the next 500 to 1000 years. If necessary, we will find some artificial way to do it. Quote
WIP Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 One gets the sense that Harper doesn't believe that climate change is even happening - almost like he's a fundamentalist Christian or something.Or maybe he's a sociopath! The reckless conduct of today's business and political leaders would indicate that we're being ruled by psychopaths....who among their features, are poor at risk assessment, and choose immediate gratification regardless of the consequences. It might explain a lot of what's happened in the world over the past 50 or 6o years. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I have full confidence I don't! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Freddy Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I don't! We are so good at survival we are overwhelming this planet with population. Surviving is what humans do best. We will always find a way. Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 What's your point Waldo - more infuriating nonsense? To my knowledge - after decades of development, there are only 5 or 6 operational in-situ wells under your 97% oil sands area......a miniscule pinprick. to your self-stated knowledge - citation request. but c'mon Simple! It was your expression of "it's infuriating" to read raised concerns over the/a tarsands impact... and then you proceed to foolishly speak of the tarsands development strictly in terms of surface mining only... while your lack of understanding/knowledge completely misses any inclusion of the real concern over longer term 'in situ' development that accounts for 80% of tarsands reserves that are located below 97% of the land in the tarsands sector. even accepting to industry projections and the Harper Conservative neutered National Energy Board (NEB), a 2-year old reference graphic that speaks to total tarsands production forecasts released by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), and the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI)... all compared with NEB projections... as described, the first five years of the projection period are characterized by projects already under construction or in the late stages of planning. Over the longer term, the list of currently proposed projects, many of which are in the early planning stages, suggest that tarsands production could potentially reach as much as 1.3 106m³/d (8.3 MMb/d) if most were to go ahead. Quote
eyeball Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 We are so good at survival we are overwhelming this planet with population. Surviving is what humans do best. We will always find a way. Of course humans will survive, we're the weediest species on the planet. We'll make do just fine on the weedy species that survive with us - roaches, rats, carp, scotch-broom - species that do just fine on us. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
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.