ToadBrother Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 If by 'it' you mean global warming, then yes, it actually IS hopeless. It's happening and it's going to continue to happen, and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it in time to matter. A better use for money would be research into how to prepare for and ameliorate the likely outcomes of a warmer globe, as well as alternative energy. A heck of a lot of researchers disagree. Why do you feel you're better qualified than them? Quote
Argus Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Another 'dog ate my homework' excuse. On a per capita basis (the only fair way of looking at it), Canada is in the top 3 worst in the world. We don't need to wait for China to cut its emissions. How is that fair? It fails to take into consideration that Canada uses about 40% of all energy consumed on keeping us from freezing our asses every year. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 How is that fair? It fails to take into consideration that Canada uses about 40% of all energy consumed on keeping us from freezing our asses every year. Since when is oil the only source of energy? Quote
Argus Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 A heck of a lot of researchers disagree. Why do you feel you're better qualified than them? Really? Can you suggest one single plan which has ANY chance of being carried out across the world, which will stop global warming (presuming, of course, some large part, which they're not sure about, is caused by Co2 emissions) Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 projects? You used the word "wells"! In any case, this is simply you, once again, deflecting away from your big-time failure and lack of knowledge concerning surface mining versus in situ drilling! I note you haven't managed to yet comment on that graphic I put forward that speaks to industry supplied projections... I mean, c'mon... that was the thrust of your failed post, right? I didn't comment because it's not worth commenting on. Your graph was conveniently based on oil prices that at the time, were well over $100 per barrel. With the drastic drop in the price of oil and a lack of pipelines, many of those projects will be/are delayed - and may in fact die on the vine. Or again, maybe you didn't know that? Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Since when is oil the only source of energy? There's also the fact that we have to drive and transport things a lot further than in, say, Bermuda. And let's add in that we have an oil and gas sector which most countries around the world don't. The very idea that every country should be compared merely based upon a per capita basis is inane. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 If by 'it' you mean global warming, then yes, it actually IS hopeless. It's happening and it's going to continue to happen, and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it in time to matter. A better use for money would be research into how to prepare for and ameliorate the likely outcomes of a warmer globe, as well as alternative energy. Perhaps you could enumerate your scientific qualifications so perhaps we could take your claims a bit more seriously. Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I didn't comment because it's not worth commenting on. Your graph was conveniently based on oil prices that at the time, were well over $100 per barrel. With the drastic drop in the price of oil and a lack of pipelines, many of those projects will be/are delayed - and may in fact die on the vine. Or again, maybe you didn't know that? I always relish when you come back with such bravado after yet another of your big-time failures... how could you not know about 'in situ' drilling? How could the full extent of your "knowledge" on the tarsands be associated with your belief that surface mining was the only means of extracting tarsands sludge? I also quite enjoy your "own goals" - that graphic represented multiple projections from industry... somehow your "quite infuriating" comment against those concerned over so-called unfettered/unsustainable tarsands development didn't bother to account for actual industry fronted projections. The declining price of oil is simply you continuing your dance routine! Why are you lamenting the price of oil... the lack of pipelines? Why hasn't your guy Harper been able to "close the deal", hey? Quote
Argus Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Perhaps you could enumerate your scientific qualifications so perhaps we could take your claims a bit more seriously. Well, to start with, I'm as much a climate scientist as David Suzuki. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Since when is oil the only source of energy? standard member Argus response where he fails to actually understand Canada's energy source 'mix': over half (57.6%) of Canada's electricity comes from hydro, with coal @ 18% percent, nuclear @14.6 percent, with oil and gas comprising just 6.3% and 1.5%, respectively. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Well, to start with, I'm as much a climate scientist as David Suzuki.I have my doubts. How about those on the IPCC? Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 If by 'it' you mean global warming, then yes, it actually IS hopeless. It's happening and it's going to continue to happen, and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it in time to matter. yet another incorrect understanding in just how global warming occurs... as in accumulated... long-term accumulated... GHG emissions. Measures to mitigate emissions are intended to both stabilize ongoing increases as well as put an end to that increasing accumulation that will, even as it stands today, have significant impacts on future generations. Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 ... which will stop global warming (presuming, of course, some large part, which they're not sure about, is caused by Co2 emissions) the carbon-cycle imbalance is caused by increasing GHG emissions... other than your deflecting/distracting, suggestions to the influence of internal/natural factors is understood with relative degrees of understanding/certainty - none of which counters the actual impact of GHG emissions. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Well, to start with, I'm as much a climate scientist as David Suzuki. Fortunately there are hundreds of scientists who are climatologists. So let's talk about what the say, and ignore David Suziki entirely. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 Really? Can you suggest one single plan which has ANY chance of being carried out across the world, which will stop global warming (presuming, of course, some large part, which they're not sure about, is caused by Co2 emissions) Yes, they do know the large part of CO2 emission increases comes from fossil fuels. In fact, they've known it for decades. So let's just get rid of faux skepticism right here and now. And there are plenty of alternatives, which have all been listed countless times in countless places. There is no technical obstacle to moving away from the use of long-chain hydrocarbons, or indeed simpler hydrocarbons, other than money. Even there, the economic costs overall will still be far smaller than refusing to curb CO2 emissions and waiting for the proverbial feces to hit the proverbial wall. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 How is that fair? It fails to take into consideration that Canada uses about 40% of all energy consumed on keeping us from freezing our asses every year. Which is because energy has been so cheap that nobody cares much about making buildings use energy efficiently. 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 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 If by 'it' you mean global warming, then yes, it actually IS hopeless. It's happening and it's going to continue to happen, and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it in time to matter. A better use for money would be research into how to prepare for and ameliorate the likely outcomes of a warmer globe, as well as alternative energy. Yeah. Just hop in your huge SUV and drive home 50 miles from work to relax in your hot tub and contemplate how many people in poor countries will die from climate change and there's not anything that anyone can do. Sad, right? 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 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 No, not at all. Humanity reacts when necessary, and never before. It has never been any different. Hey, that's the attitude! Just don't mind that the human species is too stupid to survive and when the end comes, just crank up the hot tub. Maybe you and Argus can have an 'end times' party. 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
Smallc Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 You seem completely ignorant of human nature throughout history. It simply is. Nothing I can do about it. When global warming affects enough people they'll care. Until then, they'll treat it with indifference. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 There's also the fact that we have to drive and transport things a lot further than in, say, Bermuda. And let's add in that we have an oil and gas sector which most countries around the world don't. The very idea that every country should be compared merely based upon a per capita basis is inane. Why do you even bother to make excuses? Why don't you just own it? Just tell us all you don't care if your wasteful lifestyle contributes to a mass die-off in a hundred years. You won't be around. And like smallc says, we'll wait 99 years, 11 months and 29 days and deal with it then! 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
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 .....Just tell us all you don't care if your wasteful lifestyle contributes to a mass die-off in a hundred years. There is no factual basis for a belief in a "mass die-off in a hundred years" due to anthropogenic climate change. This is pure alarmist religion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 There is no factual basis for a belief in a "mass die-off in a hundred years" due to anthropogenic climate change. factual??? Do you even have the remotest clue of how science works? Nobody knows for sure what's going to happen in 10 years, much less 100. It might be better than the scientists think. Or it could be far worse. The climate is a complex system. Facts are what has happened. Projections are what might happen. We haven't yet completed the experiment of increasing CO2 in our one and only atmosphere so there are no facts. The idea that we should wait until climate scientists are positive about the models and can predict the weather on the 21st of January 2094 before we do anything is madness. The attitudes on this forum are varying forms of denial. It won't be that bad (how do you know??). We can't do anything about it (in North America, we're barely even trying). We'll figure it out when it happens (How do you "figure out" sea level rise?) This is pure alarmist religion. As usual, you're wrong. Prudence is anticipating what could go wrong and taking intelligent steps to avoid it. Religion is believing everything will be just fine no matter what we do. 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 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 I always relish when you come back with such bravado after yet another of your big-time failures... how could you not know about 'in situ' drilling? How could the full extent of your "knowledge" on the tarsands be associated with your belief that surface mining was the only means of extracting tarsands sludge? I also quite enjoy your "own goals" - that graphic represented multiple projections from industry... somehow your "quite infuriating" comment against those concerned over so-called unfettered/unsustainable tarsands development didn't bother to account for actual industry fronted projections. The declining price of oil is simply you continuing your dance routine! Why are you lamenting the price of oil... the lack of pipelines? Why hasn't your guy Harper been able to "close the deal", hey? Now you're just embarrassing yourself...... Quote Back to Basics
ReeferMadness Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 You seem completely ignorant of human nature throughout history. It simply is. Nothing I can do about it. When global warming affects enough people they'll care. Until then, they'll treat it with indifference. Luckily, wiser people than you have prevailed through history. With that attitude, we'd still be living in caves beating each other with clubs. 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
Smallc Posted September 29, 2015 Report Posted September 29, 2015 factual??? Do you even have the remotest clue of how science works? Nobody knows for sure what's going to happen in 10 years, much less 100. So, you agree with him then. Quote
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.