Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yup, allowing trading partners to have low labour standards (wages, working conditions) and low environmental standards is a massive hidden tax that we all pay because of the impact on climate change and the loss of decent paying manufacturing jobs due to offshoring.  Trump should rebrand his tariffs “the bad actor penalty”. 

 

Climate change is not Trump's battle or concern, and Canada has actually done worse on curbing emissions, including rules for refineries.  

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Climate change is not Trump's battle or concern, and Canada has actually done worse on curbing emissions, including rules for refineries.  

Trump has nothing to do with the US’s reduction of emissions so far.  He has undermined the good work of Obama and the states on climate change.  You just haven’t felt the effects yet.  I’m simply stating that an effective way of rebalancing trade so that the west doesn’t have such a massive trade deficit with China is to impose a trade penalty that fluctuates based on countries’ climate change, labour, rule of law, and human rights policies.   Even include IP theft.  If China faced financial barriers related to their lower standards in these areas, trade would be more balanced.  I think these should be enforced international trade rules, but since your country insists on going it alone against the evil globalists, you could simply rebrand Trump’s tariffs into a policy that both sides of the political aisle would support.  Make it about good policy that makes the world a better place in terms of climate and other factors rather than just might is right economic bullying, which Trump gets to wear.  

Edited May 26, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

...why ruin our economy for nothing?  

Because we'll run our ecosystems. They can function just fine without our economy but you cannot have it the other way. Without functioning productive ecosystems our economy will simply dwindle into oblivion.

The way to ruin our economy is to do what you're suggesting which is nothing.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Because we'll run our ecosystems. They can function just fine without our economy but you cannot have it the other way. Without functioning productive ecosystems our economy will simply dwindle into oblivion.

The way to ruin our economy is to do what you're suggesting which is nothing.

Basic disagreement here.  Ecosystems are worldwide and Canada does more to protect them than most.  I'd rather get oil from Alberta than from Saudi Arabia or the Niger Delta.  If you can think of a way for us all to stop using it, then fine, but until then, it makes more sense than not to use ours.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trump has nothing to do with the US’s reduction of emissions so far.  He has undermined the good work of Obama and the states on climate change.  You just haven’t felt the effects yet.  I’m simply stating that an effective way of rebalancing trade so that the west doesn’t have such a massive trade deficit with China is to impose a trade penalty that fluctuates based on countries’ climate change, labour, rule of law, and human rights policies. 

 

Sorry, but it was this very kind of virtue signaling and feminist agenda that got Canada into trouble with China and other nations on trade.   I don't know why you would ever imagine Trump pursuing such policies.   My main point here is that Canada has performed poorly on climate change GHG reductions and industrial emissions standards, so guess how hard it will be for bigger emitters and developing economies.

 

Quote

 If China faced financial barriers related to their lower standards in these areas, trade would be more balanced.  I think these should be enforced international trade rules, but since your country insists on going it alone against the evil globalists, you could simply rebrand Trump’s tariffs into a policy that both sides of the political aisle would support.  Make it about good policy that makes the world a better place in terms of climate and other factors rather than just might is right economic bullying, which Trump gets to wear.  

 

Again, you are relying far too much on the USA and whomever happens to be president.   Climate change is going to continue regardless of any measures taken, especially those measures that appeal to political groups for consolidation of power.    Trump did not create climate change, and he sure as hell is not responsible for saving the world from itself.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, but it was this very kind of virtue signaling and feminist agenda that got Canada into trouble with China and other nations on trade.   I don't know why you would ever imagine Trump pursuing such policies.   My main point here is that Canada has performed poorly on climate change GHG reductions and industrial emissions standards, so guess how hard it will be for bigger emitters and developing economies.

 

 

Again, you are relying far too much on the USA and whomever happens to be president.   Climate change is going to continue regardless of any measures taken, especially those measures that appeal to political groups for consolidation of power.    Trump did not create climate change, and he sure as hell is not responsible for saving the world from itself.

As long as China and the US are reckless on greenhouse gas emissions, you’re damn right climate change will accelerate.  Canada is a small player, and it’s that much harder for Canada to apply climate change policies, which we are doing, without our big competitors on board.  Trump’s tariffs are a blunt instrument, but they could incentivize the kinds of changes we need to see globally if thought and conditions were attached to them.  I don’t expect that kind of thoughtful policy from the current administration, who have demonstrated contempt for science and good policy if it comes from the Democrats.  Trudeau is trying to go it alone, so yes, we would like more progressive policy from the US, and I say that as a conservative.  

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

As long as China and the US are reckless on greenhouse gas emissions, you’re damn right climate change will accelerate.  Canada is a small player, and it’s that much harder for Canada to apply climate change policies, which we are doing, without our big competitors on board.  Trump’s tariffs are a blunt instrument, but they could incentivize the kinds of changes we need to see globally if thought and conditions were attached to them.  I don’t expect that kind of thoughtful policy from the current administration, who have demonstrated contempt for science and good policy if it comes from the Democrats.  Trudeau is trying to go it alone, so yes, we would like more progressive policy from the US, and I say that as a conservative.  

 

But Canada's record on the "climate change" file has not been exemplary, even before Trump or Trudeau.   Total emissions reductions have fallen far short of treaty goals, and clean air standards still lag behind the U.S. and other nations.   I agree that Canada is not going to have much influence given this reality, but it should not be presumed that the U.S. will use any economic measures to force global actions on climate change, regardless of the current administration.

The United States still invests far more into climate change R&D and related sciences than any other nation (e.g. NASA, NOAA) as a percentage of GDP....Trump or no Trump.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But Canada's record on the "climate change" file has not been exemplary, even before Trump or Trudeau.   Total emissions reductions have fallen far short of treaty goals, and clean air standards still lag behind the U.S. and other nations.   I agree that Canada is not going to have much influence given this reality, but it should not be presumed that the U.S. will use any economic measures to force global actions on climate change, regardless of the current administration.

The United States still invests far more into climate change R&D and related sciences than any other nation (e.g. NASA, NOAA) as a percentage of GDP....Trump or no Trump.

Maybe so, but how does that translate to official policy, which is what is needed globally, but which must start locally if we’re to have any hope of swaying other countries?

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Maybe so, but how does that translate to official policy, which is what is needed globally, but which must start locally if we’re to have any hope of swaying other countries?

 

But how do you hope to "sway" other countries when Canada isn't even taking climate change seriously ?  

Hoping that the U.S. or EU emerge as global leaders in "swaying" other nations will not be very effective.

More will be invested in adaptation, because there really isn't any other choice at this point.

[Zeitgeist]

I just don’t think giving up on lowering emissions it the way to go.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I just don’t think giving up on lowering emissions it the way to go.  

 

Emissions will be lowered when it is economically viable to do so, not because of alarmist propaganda.

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

There it is, that unmitigably poisonous attitude that stands in the way of so many right wingers.  Being concerned with or taking action against anything that goes along with what people they've invested so much time in detesting are saying is just not on.

The stubborn pigheaded bastards would sooner watch it all burn.

eyeball , I love you like a little step brother who takes the short bus to school,  or that little dog in the cartoons, can I bark now spike, can I , can I.....please let me bark spike...

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Actually it's arithmetic.

Nonsense. It's not arithmetic, this is about statistics. And statistics is based on theory about data in a distribution, not a precise arithmetic answer. Statistics is my favourite subject, can you guess why?

[ReeferMadness]

18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It's been my understanding that what is happening now is not it yet. Forest fires happen all the time, for various reasons. But what is happening is a spreading sense of climate fear, such that almost any bad weather is now being held up as an example of the impending "climate emergency".

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.

 

Quote

He has done this before: at the beginning of the year he calculated the chance that 13 of the warmest 15 years ever had all occurred in the first 15 years of this century. The probabilities at their highest worked out at one chance in 5,000, unless climate change was taken into account. At their lowest, the probability was one in 170,000.

 

[ReeferMadness]

6 hours ago, Shady said:

I’m not sure what you mean.  So you don’t think technology will advance far enough in the coming decades?  You think fossil fuels are going to be as important in say 2050 as they are now?

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.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

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.

I think that applies to pretty much everything.  Might as well rename it "human nature".

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Basic disagreement here.  Ecosystems are worldwide and Canada does more to protect them than most.

Basic misunderstanding you mean.  Anytime you hear me talk about this issue in terms of ecosystems and climate change you can be certain I mean our entire planet, not just one country continent or hemisphere but the entire globe.

Canada is doing the least in terms of protecting Earth's ecosystems by opening up the Tar Sands for development it is the filthiest most CO2 laden oil on the planet and we should be boycotted and sanctioned for doing so.

Quote

I'd rather get oil from Alberta than from Saudi Arabia or the Niger Delta.  If you can think of a way for us all to stop using it, then fine, but until then, it makes more sense than not to use ours. 

Of course it makes most sense for us to use and conserve our conventional stocks of oil for ourselves but not the Tar Sands, they should be left in the ground. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

eyeball , I love you like a little step brother 

I can feel the smarmy shit-filled condescension from here.

Compare the political climate to Earth's climate and its crystal clear who the biggest filthiest emitters fouling it are.

Edited May 27, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Nonsense. It's not arithmetic

Adding up scientists is.
 

Quote

this is about statistics.

And simply adding up scientists isn't.

 

Quote

And statistics is based on theory about data in a distribution, not a precise arithmetic answer.

That's why you get a mathematical answer instead.

 

Quote

Statistics is my favourite subject, can you guess why?

Probably something to do with conniving, changing the subject and producing weasel shit.

Edited May 27, 2019 by eyeball

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Basic misunderstanding you mean.  Anytime you hear me talk about this issue in terms of ecosystems and climate change you can be certain I mean our entire planet, not just one country continent or hemisphere but the entire globe.

Yeah, I should have known better.

Canada is doing the least in terms of protecting Earth's ecosystems by opening up the Tar Sands for development it is the filthiest most CO2 laden oil on the planet and we should be boycotted and sanctioned for doing so.

Of course it makes most sense for us to use and conserve our conventional stocks of oil for ourselves but not the Tar Sands, they should be left in the ground. 

  But that said, a concern for the world's ecosystems as a whole does not find the oil sands lacking.  It's dirty, sure, and it's a high CO2 source to process, but Alberta is the most highly regulated hydrocarbon producer in the world, so anywhere you get them from to replace what you would get out of Fort Mac is going to be dirtier.  There will be a roundabouts/swings aspect to it, but rules around flaring and venting in Alberta do a lot to even the playing field. 

Other producing sites worldwide have laxer regulations on waste from oilfields, produced water, pipeline leaks, transport etc, the latter two even costing hundreds of lives over the last few years.

 

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

eyeball , I love you like a little step brother who takes the short bus to school,  or that little dog in the cartoons, can I bark now spike, can I , can I.....please let me bark spike...

Interesting. To me he's like the cute little child who lives next door. Retared   

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

  But that said, a concern for the world's ecosystems as a whole does not find the oil sands lacking.  It's dirty, sure, and it's a high CO2 source to process,

/facepalm

Did you miss or ignore where I said burned?  The CO2 released from processing is peanuts compared to burning it. 

 

Quote

but Alberta is the most highly regulated hydrocarbon producer in the world, so anywhere you get them from to replace what you would get out of Fort Mac is going to be dirtier.

Perhaps you also ignored where it was pointed out that there are no other Tar Sands in the world.  There's nothing dirtier than Fort Mac.  

As for regulation you also must be ignoring where I pointed out that the oil companies operating in the Tar Sands are under reporting how much they are emitting.

Quote

Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say

The gap between the facilities' reported carbon dioxide emissions and the levels calculated by researchers was 13 per cent for the Suncor site, 36 per cent for the Horizon mine, 38 per cent for Jackpine and 123 per cent for Syncrude. 

Left out of the study, notably, are emissions from all oilsands operations that use in-situ extraction, pumping steam into the ground to get the petroleum out. About 80 per cent of oilsands reserves, and the majority of current production, require in-situ extraction.

That means the overall amount of underreported greenhouse gas emissions could be significantly higher.

 

Further to the above is a link I've provided several times now that should tell you why the regulation of Alberta's hydro-carbon industry can't be trusted any better than the industry.

Quote

Pollution from Canadian refineries an ‘embarrassment’ compared to U.S.

The key culprit behind the Canada/U.S. emissions gap, say experts, is less rigorous industry regulation and enforcement in Canada.

Reminds of the stories about get-out-of-jail-free cards from Ottawa we've heard about so much lately. DPA = deferred pollution agreements

 

Quote

There will be a roundabouts/swings aspect to it, but rules around flaring and venting in Alberta do a lot to even the playing field. 

Other producing sites worldwide have laxer regulations on waste from oilfields, produced water, pipeline leaks, transport etc, the latter two even costing hundreds of lives over the last few  years.

The articles I've linked to seem to suggest the opposite and that rules are being relaxed and ignored to help level the playing field for poor hard-done-by Alberta.

 

You never seem have anything to argue with so maybe you just give up and resort to calling me retared like Oftenwrong.

Edited May 27, 2019 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps you also ignored where it was pointed out that there are no other Tar Sands in the world. 

 

Well that is certainly not true...there are bitumen deposits (oil sands) in different wet grades in other places around the world, notably Russia and Venezuela.   Eastern Utah (USA) also has pilot projects for oil sands extraction.

[Saudi Monitor]

What's happening right now is pretty normal. The only issue is in todays circumstances, many people are settled in urban areas, and will increase so in the coming years.

In the past, when climate change happened and started to sink land, people moved with the weather and land. However, we're trapped.

How are we going to move billions of people from population-intense regions? We can't. This is the real issue.

Sure, limit pollution. There's a whole loads of reasons why we should. We are contributing in part, but even if we lower it completely now, climate change will still happen, just less severely. Also, animals are dying because of our waste (eg plastics).

But the notion that humanity is so all-powerful as to try and form the climate of this planetary body as we wish it to be to suit the way we live and where we live in this moment of space and time is bananas.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Saudi Monitor

[GostHacked]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

eyeball , I love you like a little step brother who takes the short bus to school,  or that little dog in the cartoons, can I bark now spike, can I , can I.....please let me bark spike...

That's quite derogatory. And simply unnecessary.

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Interesting. To me he's like the cute little child who lives next door. Retared   

I think both of you need to rethink how you post.

Edited May 27, 2019 by GostHacked