Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[Armchairprophet]

Let's start off with the original "97% consensus". That "consensus" is another example of leftists using magic math. A bunch of scientists were surveyed about the topic of AGW, as it was being called at the time. The problem is only 33% responded to the survey. Of the 33% who responded, 97% agreed that AGW was the cause. Of the other 67% who didn't respond, several stated their reason was because the survey questions were designed to lead to a preconceived conclusion. That's not science. Since then, a number of scientists who were part of the "consensus" have since distanced themselves from it, questioning if we really are the primary cause.

A former head of the IPCC and a former chair of one the European environmental agencies have both stated that the AGW push is simply a massive transfer of wealth scam.

The climate doom and gloom has been going on since at least the 1950's. What's interesting is the oddly large number of 12 year predictions. Some of the more memorable ones were; 1950's America had 12 years before it became mostly desert.  In the early 70's we were about 12 years from an ice age. In 1998 it was predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2000. In 2001 it was predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013.

The Greenland ice sheet and receding glaciers: The shrinking Greenland ice sheet is a non-starter. It didn't even exist 1000 years ago except at the very north of the island. That ice loss would put sea levels at about where they were 1000 years ago. Scientists are " shocked" at the pace it's receding and yet it only took 400 years to cover the interior of Greenland in the first place. This leads us to the receding glaciers. Again, we really don't know how fast they grew so to be "shocked" at the rate of loss would suggest one knows the previous rate of growth.

Then there's the seriously flawed science and some of it I believe is intentional.  One of the worst cases involved measuring the output from volcanic venting. Not the actual eruptions, just the normal venting they do. When all was said and done, they calculated that volcanic venting generates about 0.2Gt of emissions per year and compared that to humanity's 30Gt/yr.  Problem is they only measured the ones they could reach and failed to extrapolate the data for ones on the sea floor, which conservatives estimates put at around 1000X as many as there are above sea level. That would put volcanic output from venting at about 200Gt/yr, almost 7X higher than human activity.

Finally, there's the damn impressive footage I saw from Wood's Hole. For decades it was believed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was fairly quiet. That is until Wood's Hole took a much better look at it. It was awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time. Mile after mile after mile after mile of active vents,  volcanoes, stacks and smokers.

Now having said all that, I'm not saying our activities have no effect on the climate. After all, we affect every other part of our environment so it would be silly to suggest that's the one part we don't. And I don't think you'll find a single scientist who would suggest so either. The only argument is just how much are we actually responsible for. And shouldn't we actually find out for sure before we start knee-jerking solutions to problems that aren't going to go away anyway? Climate change happens whether we're here or not. If it's happening and all we're doing is merely contributing to it, then all this knee-jerking is only going to temporarily put off the inevitable while leaving our kids and grand kids so deep in debt it won't matter if the world is still here and doing fine, they won't be able to afford to enjoy it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Armchairprophet said:

Let's start off with the original "97% consensus". That "consensus" is another example of leftists using magic math. A bunch of scientists were surveyed about the topic of AGW, as it was being called at the time. The problem is only 33% responded to the survey. Of the 33% who responded, 97% agreed that AGW was the cause.  

Nope.  It's the Oreskes paper " "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" 

If our journalists did a better job people would know more about the actual papers that form the basis of academic thought on these things;

 

In the essay she reported an analysis of "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change'".^[16]The essay stated the analysis was to test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

[Zeitgeist]

The truth is that we are in the anthropocene period and the Sixth Extinction.  Extinctions are taking place at the most rapid pace since sudden catastrophes such as the meteor that created the Gulf of Mexico and probably wiped out the dinosaurs.  Yes there have been warming and cooling periods, usually related to volcanoes or sunspot activity.  There was the year without a summer around 200 years ago.  There were ice ages and sudden dramatic climatic shifts. The problem for people is that either they didn’t exist at these times or in the most recent cataclysms, their numbers were far fewer.  Even then there were mass migrations during ice ages and floods.  So now with 7.7 billion people on the planet, projected to grow to almost 10 billion by 2050, the impacts of environmental disasters and climate change on populations are huge.  

In Canada right now half the country is facing high water alerts.  Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick are in the thick of it.  Montreal is in a state of emergency.  In Bracebridge, Ontario water levels are higher than they were in the “once in a century flood” several years ago.  Get your heads out of the sand.  Climate change is real and happening fast.  Sure, our efforts to slow it by a handful of countries won’t be enough and we’ll have to adapt.  A coordinated effort by all countries is necessary, including the US and China.  

I think to get serious about this issue we’ve go to put everything on the table, including shutting down China’s exports, if they don’t play ball on this and human rights (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-time-for-canada-to-deploy-targeted-sanctions-to-free-our/?cmpid=rss)

What’s more, get Trump out of office in 2020.  

Edited April 28, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 ....I think to get serious about this issue we’ve go to put everything on the table, including shutting down China’s exports, if they don’t play ball on this and human rights (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-time-for-canada-to-deploy-targeted-sanctions-to-free-our/?cmpid=rss)

What’s more, get Trump out of office in 2020.  

 

Of course climate change is real....so stop whining about it and adapt, just as before.

Canada has no impact on who will be the next U.S. president, and very little impact on China as well.

Even within Canada, there is a huge backlash because of Trudeau's carbon tax, helping conservatives to 7 out of 10 provinces.

Wanna stop the flooding ?    Raise the carbon tax !

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Of course climate change is real....so stop whining about it and adapt, just as before.

Canada has no impact on who will be the next U.S. president, and very little impact on China as well.

Even within Canada, there is a huge backlash because of Trudeau's carbon tax, helping conservatives to 7 out of 10 provinces.

Wanna stop the flooding ?    Raise the carbon tax !

We’re sacrificing enough.  Our most populous provinces — Ontario, Quebec, and B.C.— have done more to reduce climate change than most US states.  All of our provinces now have some form of carbon tax, even Alberta.  We’re tired of the coal emissions blowing into Ontario from Great Lakes states. Canada’s policies aren’t worth much without the US and China playing ball.  In fact it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.  We pay double what you pay for gas in the US.  Do something!

Edited April 28, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

We’re sacrificing enough.  Our most populous provinces — Ontario, Quebec, and B.C.— have done more to reduce climate change than most US states.  All of our provinces now have some form of carbon tax, even Alberta.  We’re tired of the coal emissions blowing into Ontario from Great Lakes states. Canada’s policies aren’t worth much without the US and China playing ball.  In fact it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.  We pay double what you pay for gas in the US.  Do something!

 

That's great, but the U.S. has actually reduced emissions more than Canada, without a national carbon tax.

Just accept that Canada's policies amount to only a token message with very little impact either way.

Hell, Trudeau can't even get the illegal garbage containers back from The Philippines !

As for the coal, the Nanticoke plants ran for almost four decades....not sorry !

 

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's great, but the U.S. has actually reduced emissions more than Canada, without a national carbon tax.

Just accept that Canada's policies amount to only a token message with very little impact either way.

Hell, Trudeau can't even get the illegal garbage containers back from The Philippines !

As for the coal, the Nanticoke plants ran for almost four decades....not sorry !

 

There are no coal generating stations now in Ontario.  Get your climate change deniers out of the EPA. Alberta is the reason for the rise in emissions.  It’s not just the oil sands themselves, it’s the diesel trucks and trains since we don’t have pipelines.  Want us to ship less oil?  Burn less gas, which is too cheap in the US.  You need massive carbon taxes!

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

There are no coal generating stations now in Ontario.  Get your climate change deniers out of the EPA. Alberta is the reason for the rise in emissions.  It’s not just the oil sands themselves, it’s the diesel trucks and trains since we don’t have pipelines.  Want us to ship less oil?  Burn less gas, which is too cheap in the US.  You need massive carbon taxes!

 

No....watching Canada fight over carbon taxes is proof enough that it's a stupid idea.

Canada simply does not matter in the overall scheme of climate change, so party on !

Humans are responsible for building pipelines, so please get on with it.

Best selling vehicle in Canada are U.S. made Ford F-series pickup trucks.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....watching Canada fight over carbon taxes is proof enough that it's a stupid idea.

Canada simply does not matter in the overall scheme of climate change, so party on !

Humans are responsible for building pipelines, so please get on with it.

Best selling vehicle in Canada are U.S. made Ford F-series pickup trucks.

That’s probably where it will all land come the fall federal election.  It’s all about tax cuts and buck a beer.  Meanwhile Rome burns...

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s probably where it will all land come the fall federal election.  It’s all about tax cuts and buck a beer.  Meanwhile Rome burns...

 

Probably...everything has gone sideways for the sunshine band....they didn't even get legal cannabis right.

Mess with the price at the pump at great peril, and pay come election time.

 

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

That's great, but the U.S. has actually reduced emissions more than Canada, without a national carbon tax.

You certainly didn't do it for free though, somebody had to pay something so...who? Taxpayers for a good part of it I bet, one way or another.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You certainly didn't do it for free though, somebody had to pay something so...who? Taxpayers for a good part of it I bet, one way or another.

 

Nope....the decline in U.S. emissions is mostly due to the conversion to natural gas from the shale boom starting in 2005.  Natural gas supplies soared, and prices for consumers dropped.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#4aa162e93535

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nope....the decline in U.S. emissions is mostly due to the conversion to natural gas from the shale boom starting in 2005.  Natural gas supplies soared, and prices for consumers dropped.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#4aa162e93535

Yup...A heavily subsidized conversion paid for by taxpayers. 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/oil-exploration-tax-deduction-57139.html

 

Figures climate action deadbeats would rub the costs of inaction even deeper.

The $200 Billion Fossil Fuel Subsidy You've Never Heard Of 

Dirty Energy Dominance: Dependent on Denial – How the U.S. Fossil Fuel Industry Depends on Subsidies and Climate Denial

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup...A heavily subsidized conversion paid for by taxpayers.

 

And happy to do it for cheaper natural gas with no stupid ass carbon taxes at the pump.

The U.S. has lowered emissions better than Canada.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

And happy to do it for cheaper natural gas with no stupid ass carbon taxes at the pump.

The U.S. has lowered emissions better than Canada.

Irrelevant. Emissions didn't get lowered for free and I suspect better is a pretty subjective statement.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Irrelevant. Emissions didn't get lowered for free and I suspect better is a pretty subjective statement.

 

Nothing is free...especially in Canada, where emissions have actually increased.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nothing is free...especially in Canada, where emissions have actually increased.

Emissions decreased just about everywhere in Canada except the oil sands.  Smart move of the Yanks: Make Canada pay for increased emissions on the supply side in Canada rather than on the demand side at the US pumps.  We pay in Canada at the pumps too!  That’s called double screwed.  

Edited April 29, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[taxme]

On 4/28/2019 at 3:05 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....watching Canada fight over carbon taxes is proof enough that it's a stupid idea.

Canada simply does not matter in the overall scheme of climate change, so party on !

Humans are responsible for building pipelines, so please get on with it.

Best selling vehicle in Canada are U.S. made Ford F-series pickup trucks.

That is mostly what Canada's politicians are only good for. Finding and creating more new taxes like the carbon tax. It was a stupid idea but so many fools out there do not think that it is a bad idea to have more taxes. Some want more taxes. The fools out there think that those carbon taxes collected will go to fighting climate change when in fact they will go into general revenue to be wasted on more useless and stupid liberal socialist government programs and agendas that the politicians can dream up next.  

Canada has never mattered in the world. I can't party on anymore. I have no money left to party on. 

Leftist liberals and NDP socialists and Greenie environmentalists do not want any more pipelines. They want less. They do not care about jobs. It would appear as though they would prefer to see more job losses. Those idiots mentioned think that flooding Canada with more legal and illegal immigrants will do wonders for Canada? So far, I have seen anything happen at all because of having all those new immigrants. "Get on with it"? If Canada had a leader like Trump, Canada could get on with it. 

 

On 4/28/2019 at 3:05 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....watching Canada fight over carbon taxes is proof enough that it's a stupid idea.

Canada simply does not matter in the overall scheme of climate change, so party on !

Humans are responsible for building pipelines, so please get on with it.

Best selling vehicle in Canada are U.S. made Ford F-series pickup trucks.

Oops. 

[taxme]

On 4/28/2019 at 1:28 AM, Armchairprophet said:

Let's start off with the original "97% consensus". That "consensus" is another example of leftists using magic math. A bunch of scientists were surveyed about the topic of AGW, as it was being called at the time. The problem is only 33% responded to the survey. Of the 33% who responded, 97% agreed that AGW was the cause. Of the other 67% who didn't respond, several stated their reason was because the survey questions were designed to lead to a preconceived conclusion. That's not science. Since then, a number of scientists who were part of the "consensus" have since distanced themselves from it, questioning if we really are the primary cause.

A former head of the IPCC and a former chair of one the European environmental agencies have both stated that the AGW push is simply a massive transfer of wealth scam.

The climate doom and gloom has been going on since at least the 1950's. What's interesting is the oddly large number of 12 year predictions. Some of the more memorable ones were; 1950's America had 12 years before it became mostly desert.  In the early 70's we were about 12 years from an ice age. In 1998 it was predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2000. In 2001 it was predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013.

The Greenland ice sheet and receding glaciers: The shrinking Greenland ice sheet is a non-starter. It didn't even exist 1000 years ago except at the very north of the island. That ice loss would put sea levels at about where they were 1000 years ago. Scientists are " shocked" at the pace it's receding and yet it only took 400 years to cover the interior of Greenland in the first place. This leads us to the receding glaciers. Again, we really don't know how fast they grew so to be "shocked" at the rate of loss would suggest one knows the previous rate of growth.

Then there's the seriously flawed science and some of it I believe is intentional.  One of the worst cases involved measuring the output from volcanic venting. Not the actual eruptions, just the normal venting they do. When all was said and done, they calculated that volcanic venting generates about 0.2Gt of emissions per year and compared that to humanity's 30Gt/yr.  Problem is they only measured the ones they could reach and failed to extrapolate the data for ones on the sea floor, which conservatives estimates put at around 1000X as many as there are above sea level. That would put volcanic output from venting at about 200Gt/yr, almost 7X higher than human activity.

Finally, there's the damn impressive footage I saw from Wood's Hole. For decades it was believed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was fairly quiet. That is until Wood's Hole took a much better look at it. It was awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time. Mile after mile after mile after mile of active vents,  volcanoes, stacks and smokers.

Now having said all that, I'm not saying our activities have no effect on the climate. After all, we affect every other part of our environment so it would be silly to suggest that's the one part we don't. And I don't think you'll find a single scientist who would suggest so either. The only argument is just how much are we actually responsible for. And shouldn't we actually find out for sure before we start knee-jerking solutions to problems that aren't going to go away anyway? Climate change happens whether we're here or not. If it's happening and all we're doing is merely contributing to it, then all this knee-jerking is only going to temporarily put off the inevitable while leaving our kids and grand kids so deep in debt it won't matter if the world is still here and doing fine, they won't be able to afford to enjoy it.

 

When I go to bed at night I never give climate change one bit of thought nor do I lose any sleep over it. I have more concerns in my life and I do not need this fabricated climate change story to interfere in my life. Only paranoid people get all riled up over this so called climate change story. I have learned long ago to never listen to the MSM who just about lies about everything that they get their lying hooks into and report on. When the MSM goes crazy on some issue, I go the exact opposite to it. And in the end, I have found out that I did the right thing. I ignored the fiction MSM storytellers. It's worked well for me. 

[taxme]

17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nothing is free...especially in Canada, where emissions have actually increased.

And taxes have risen even more.   Now king Trudeau wants to put a new tax on plastics. It will never end with these wasteful spending Canadian politicians. Always trying to dream up new ways to create a new taxes. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by taxme

[Michael Hardner]

On 4/28/2019 at 5:29 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Of course climate change is real.... 

My my - am I witnessing BC changing his mind ?  After so many years ?

 

[bush_cheney2004]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

My my - am I witnessing BC changing his mind ?  After so many years ?

 

 

No....you have misplaced the context.

I have never denied global warming or its rebranding as climate change, and in fact welcome the opportunity to mock those who think it is an extinction event for humans, who now number greater than 7 billion.   My country has invested far more in climate change data collection and analysis than Canada could ever imagine, let alone afford.

Climate change just means more adaptation, just as hominids have done for thousands of years.

Trudeau's carbon tax is pathetic political theatre that is deservedly getting consumer and voter backlash.

[cannuck]

First problem: everyone seems to want to put everyone else clearly in one extreme camp or the other.   Reality of the overall positions, as well as the facts around climate change lie somewhere in the middle.

Yes, oxides of carbon as we have recorded in recent history is rising, and yes, in our idiotic pattern of letting population run wild and uncontrolled, we are using resources, clear cutting forests, and generally polluting the crap out of everything we touch.  BUT: there should be two takeaways from this:  #1 is that our real problem is population.  By existing, and using technologies to make our life comfortable, we are going to pollute - and in particular release carbon.   Now, the Earth has had some REALLY high carbon concentrations in the past - how do you think all of this limestone came to be?   Yup, atmospheric carbon.   #2 is that the biggest carbon sink is not forests, it is oceans by a long stretch.   What gets ignored a lot, though, is the oceans RELEASE carbon as they warm.  From what I have read, atmospheric carbon levels rise AFTER ocean temps increase, not the other way around.

In the grand scheme of things. we are not nearly as significant in carbon contribution as Mamma Nature herself.  Does that mean we should just pollute the planet at will??  Not IMHO.   While going to electric cars, etc. is a really bad idea, being aware of our contribution - even though changing it will simply accelerate or delay the ultimate conclusion - is a pretty good idea, as is doing our best to minimize our impact.

And, the real place to start is with population.  We live on a nice 1Bn or so planet, but 10+ is right over the horizon.   As with many extinctions that have gone on before us, we too will simply screw ourselves to death.  Or kill ourselves off by forcing evolution of drug resistant strains of viri.

Edited May 1, 2019 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

 And, the real place to start is with population.   

There's some bullshit in your post, but I'll just say - no.  It's far easier to address CO2 emissions than lower population and even lowering population doesn't mean our emissions will lower.

[cannuck]

On 5/1/2019 at 4:56 AM, Michael Hardner said:

There's some bullshit in your post, but I'll just say - no.  It's far easier to address CO2 emissions than lower population and even lowering population doesn't mean our emissions will lower.

Anthro contribution is too small to be effective, especially when we are increasing population in areas that are not financially able to limit anthro carbon.  EVERY developing economy will mimick the exact path of waste and pollution that we took to get to where we are.  Only way to duck that is to stop population growth.  Yes, it will be very hard, but it will be a hell of a lot easier than the world that will exist when we reach the absolute limit (that in many estimations is not much over 10Bn...and we are not that far from there).

Not ignoring you, BTW, just haven't been in country and near communications for a while.