Alberta's climate change policy announced.

[Michael Hardner]

You should realize, Mike, that it's all a massive fraud.

Yes, that's what I said earlier -a conspiracy theory. Hundreds of papers published by thousands of people and organizations with open data as a giant cover-up. Just think about that. It's a 9/11-conspiracy level fraud, in other words it's fantasy.

[socialist]

Yes, that's what I said earlier -a conspiracy theory. Hundreds of papers published by thousands of people and organizations with open data as a giant cover-up. Just think about that. It's a 9/11-conspiracy level fraud, in other words it's fantasy.

Follow the money, Mikle, follow the money. It takes some effort though. Then and only then will you begin to understand the magnitude of the deception. Ic used to believe humans were causing climate change when I was a closed minded socialist. Follow the money, Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

Follow the money, Mikle, follow the money.

A very unsophisticated response. Any single scientist publishing a refutation of the prevailing wisdom would be rewarded beyond his/her dreams.

[socialist]

A very unsophisticated response. Any single scientist publishing a refutation of the prevailing wisdom would be rewarded beyond his/her dreams.

I choose not to be as simplistic as you.

[Michael Hardner]

I choose not to be as simplistic as you.

"It's a conspiracy" and "Follow the money" are as simplistic as it gets. I do trust that you believe these theories, though. If I didn't I wouldn't discuss them.

[-1=e^ipi]

They do know the climate is almost locked in now, a mere glance at the HADCRUT-4 graph from 1990 to 2015 would tell even a person as stupid as a climate scientist that the trend is asymptotic rather than exponential.

It's not asymptotic. The slow down was due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and reduction in solar irradiance.

Warming will pick up eventually.

[socialist]

It's not asymptotic. The slow down was due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and reduction in solar irradiance.

Warming will pick up eventually.

How warm will it get?

[waldo]

They do know the climate is almost locked in now, a mere glance at the HADCRUT-4 graph from 1990 to 2015 would tell even a person as stupid as a climate scientist that the trend is asymptotic rather than exponential. It is slowly but surely grinding to a halt and there's no chance that the increase will reach 1.5 C unless the Sun explodes.

Around 2020 to 2025, guess what, the cabal will report from the lab that, hey believe it or not, the program worked, we saved the world, but let's keep those carbon taxes in place because the revenue stream is very helpful. Con job complete, time to retire.

Now do you get it, Mike?

oh my! Well... you did change one word - from "boffins" to "cabal".

.

[-1=e^ipi]

How warm will it get?

That depends on many factors. A few degrees warmer most likely.

[On Guard for Thee]

Especially in the arctic. Ya know when that ice melts GW accelerates for obvious reasons. (reflection vs absorption)

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-world-average

[ironstone]

The NDP will aggressively implement their climate change policy,just like the Liberals here in Ontario.Albertans now have to expect rather hefty hikes for electricity and all fossil fuels....and so the cost of just about everything will go up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-credit-rating-downgraded-standard-poors-1.3372471

[waldo]

The NDP will aggressively implement their climate change policy,just like the Liberals here in Ontario.Albertans now have to expect rather hefty hikes for electricity and all fossil fuels....and so the cost of just about everything will go up.

hefty hikes for electricity? Based on what? Even if the 2030 complete coal phaseout date was expedited... No taxpayer payout needed for coal-fired power shutdown in Alberta. The Alberta climate change plan intends to provide 1/3 of the replacement for coal through natural gas (for baseload) and 2/3 through renewables. That Alberta government figures show that, based on similar usage, the policy will cost roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018... in line with the revenue nature of the policy, the government stated rebates would be available to cover some of those costs to Albertans. Again, "hefty hikes based on what"?

[Ike Softner]

hefty hikes for electricity? Based on what? Even if the 2030 complete coal phaseout date was expedited... No taxpayer payout needed for coal-fired power shutdown in Alberta. The Alberta climate change plan intends to provide 1/3 of the replacement for coal through natural gas (for baseload) and 2/3 through renewables. That Alberta government figures show that, based on similar usage, the policy will cost roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018... in line with the revenue nature of the policy, the government stated rebates would be available to cover some of those costs to Albertans. Again, "hefty hikes based on what"?

I don't think humans are accelerating climate change. Personally, I don't care if we are. I will continue to burn my garbage 5 days a week. We all have to go sometime. I'm Ok with rising sea levels.

[Shady]

I just don't understand why alarmists can't admit that environmental regulations have costs. Just admit it, and say that it's necessary. But stop the nonsense. Stop the "eat all you want and still lose weight!!!" charade.

[waldo]

I just don't understand why alarmists can't admit that environmental regulations have costs

what's an "alarmist"? Given your sweeping broad-brush, care to name names? In particular, can you profile key regulations and related costs that you're concerned over?

[On Guard for Thee]

I just don't understand why alarmists can't admit that environmental regulations have costs. Just admit it, and say that it's necessary. But stop the nonsense. Stop the "eat all you want and still lose weight!!!" charade.

Emission regulations on vehicles had costs as well. If you do't think it's worth it, go spend a week in Mexico city, or Port Aux Prince and get back to me. Well ya know, after your nose stops running and your eyes stop burning.

[TimG]

Emission regulations on vehicles had costs as well. If you do't think it's worth it, go spend a week in Mexico city, or Port Aux Prince and get back to me. Well ya know, after your nose stops running and your eyes stop burning.

Isn't that the point? Stopping real pollution comes with real benefits. Stopping CO2 emissions provides no measurable benefits.

[On Guard for Thee]

Isn't that the point? Stopping real pollution comes with real benefits. Stopping CO2 emissions provides no measurable benefits.

Not according to most publishing peer reviewed climate scientists. They seem to reckon it comes with very measurable benefits. Such as not having your Florida waterfront property becoming swamped for instance.

[TimG]

Not according to most publishing peer reviewed climate scientists. They seem to reckon it comes with very measurable benefits.

Except determining that reducing smog has benefits is not something that requires one to place blind trust in a group of people who have shown over and over again that they are more concerned about 'protecting the cause' than communicating the science as they understand it.

More over, even if one accepts the hypothetical benefits of eliminating all emissions it is not hard to determine that the benefits of marginal reductions in emissions are next to zero.

Edited December 22, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Except determining that reducing smog has benefits is not something that requires one to place blind trust in a group of people who have shown over and over again that they are more concerned about 'protecting the cause' than communicating the science as they understand it.

More over, even if one accepts the hypothetical benefits of eliminating all emissions it is not hard to determine that the benefits of marginal reductions in emissions are next to zero.

Sorry, but scientific evidence indicates otherwise. The group of people you seem to speak of are scientists with no particular ax to grind. We are already seeing the results and the only blindness seems to be from those with one to grind. I doubt the governments of nearly 200 countries would allow themselves to be hoodwinked as you see to suggest. No, this train has left the station whether it suits you or not.

[TimG]

Sorry, but scientific evidence indicates otherwise.

The "evidence" is an unproven hypothesis.

The group of people you seem to speak of are scientists with no particular ax to grind.

You may be delusional and choose to ignore the effect of politics and funding on the scientific process. I am not so naive. It is clear to anyone interested in paying attention that the field is filled with people devoted to the "cause" rather than the truth and that these fanatics bully and intimidate those who are interested in honestly reporting the unknowns and the uncertainties.

I doubt the governments of nearly 200 countries would allow themselves to be hoodwinked as you see to suggest.

200 countries agreed to meet whatever targets they think works for them and face no consequences for failing to meet them. I think it is pretty clear that the leaders if these 200 countries think the issue is a joke and are just pretending to care.

Similarly, it is clear that most greens in the country think the issue is not really a concern because although they spend a lot of time telling others to sacrifice for the cause they refuse to make the sacrifice of accepting nuclear power as a necessary part of the solution to the "crisis".

Edited December 22, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

The "evidence" is an unproven hypothesis.

of course, correct me in the following as might be required: as much as your positions have "shifted with the sands" over time, you clearly have stated you accept it's warming (how could you not)... you accept the greenhouse theory (how could you not)... you accept that mankind is contributing to global warming (how could you not). If I recall correctly, your only uncertainty rests with the degree of expected warming and the degree of mankind's contribution to that warming. Apparently, you accept your declared "unproven" with degrees of acceptance - yes?

apparently, you choose to accept the empirical evidence, but only with degrees of acceptance. Have you proven your apparent skeptiism yet... have you finally come up with an alternative principal causal tie to warming, one other than the burning of anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuels?

.

[ironstone]

hefty hikes for electricity? Based on what? Even if the 2030 complete coal phaseout date was expedited... No taxpayer payout needed for coal-fired power shutdown in Alberta. The Alberta climate change plan intends to provide 1/3 of the replacement for coal through natural gas (for baseload) and 2/3 through renewables. That Alberta government figures show that, based on similar usage, the policy will cost roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018... in line with the revenue nature of the policy, the government stated rebates would be available to cover some of those costs to Albertans. Again, "hefty hikes based on what"?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/11/24/notley-ndp-dancing-around-why-they-rolled-out-carbon-tax-the-way-they-did

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/25/ndp-climate-plan-looks-more-like-a-sales-tax

This will cost Albertan's billions more in taxes.1/3 replacement through natural gas,good so far.2/3 through renewables?I presume that means wind and solar.What backs that up when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine?Sounds very much like the same Liberal stupidity we have here in Ontario.

[waldo]

This will cost Albertan's billions more in taxes.1/3 replacement through natural gas,good so far.2/3 through renewables?I presume that means wind and solar.What backs that up when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine?Sounds very much like the same Liberal stupidity we have here in Ontario.

your links don't provide anything to support your statements... notwithstanding their opinion slant, lack of specifics and who they're written by (Lorne Gunter - really!).

add hydro, geothermal and biomass to what you presume... ATCO considering large hydro project in Alberta

many past MLW threads have dealt with "the variability myth". This document from the U.S. National Renewable Laboratory captures that myth quite well -

WIND AND SOLAR ON THE POWER GRID: MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS

equally, if you're familiar with Ted Talks (and Amory Lovins of the (RMI) Rocky Mountain Institute), this video (The storage necessity myth: how to choreograph high-renewables electricity systems), and this article (RMI Blows The Lid Off The “Baseload Power” Myth), also address baseload and mass storage.

.

[overthere]

That Alberta government figures show that

'Alberta government figures' are wholly unreliable, they are just making stuff up as they go. Their own Minister of Finance admitted as much today in announcing they will defer some of their promises to the day when fairy dust and hope pays the bills. He also blew off the credit rating downgrade recently announced....... which will obviously make it more expensive to borrow all the money that same govt has promised to borrow.......all repaid by somebody someday hopefully sunny ways real change....

Sounds very much like the same Liberal stupidity we have here in Ontario.

Yep. Notley is borrowing the money to buy the Koolaid that we are all supposed to enjoy drinking.

mass storage billions. who do you think pays for that Waldo?

Edited December 22, 2015 by overthere