Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah you hit that one right on the head. Western economies, markets essentially exploit the fact that environmental regulations are quite lacking in third world countries. That is one reason they manufacture goods much cheaper than they can be made here. Outright ban might not be tenable but I could see a good reason to apply tariffs. Their ability to circumvent regulations gives them an unfair advantage. Make their goods more expensive to buy, unless they meet certain standards. But none of our current leaders have the guts to do anything like this, and we all know why.

Anyone else remember the lol's and references to Stalin and Suzuki et al whenever anyone suggested we stop trading with China even a couple of years ago?

Now if there was just a way to blame climate change on the left we might be able to start taking action. C'mon you guys there's got to be a way.

[montgomery]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Anyone else remember the lol's and references to Stalin and Suzuki et al whenever anyone suggested we stop trading with China even a couple of years ago?

Now if there was just a way to blame climate change on the left we might be able to start taking action. C'mon you guys there's got to be a way.

Conservatives don't believe in manmade climate change and so there's never going to be much of a discussion on the topic until their dragged out of their closets. The Cons need to hear some support for their denial before they will try to make it one of their party platforms.

Til that happens Scheer and his accomplices will only give us subtle hints that the scientific community is wrong. Maybe another way of putting it would be to understand how AGW is so inconsistent with Conservative belief in the 6000 year old earth?

[Hates politicians]

On 12/31/2018 at 3:12 PM, Zeitgeist said:

How do you know that we're in a warming cycle?  Sunspot activity?  The period since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago is the greatest acceleration in annual global temperatures since pre-history.  Sure, we can roll the dice and continue to emit at current levels or even increase emissions.  That's one hell of a gamble and there are no guarantees that adaptation will be possible or affordable.  Look, I'm of agreement that some of this is inevitable because even if all emissions of gg stopped, we'd see an acceleration of temperatures for some time, but making no attempt to curtail emissions through policy, when we have the means of doing so in a reasonable way, is just plain stupid.  On another thread I gave a long list of measures that would go a long way to reducing emissions, some of them quite cheaply.  For example, make solar roof tiles part of the building code.  Boost public transit (especially light rail, subway, and heavy rail RER), implement price incentives for energy use (discounts during off peak periods), incorporate green roofs, geothermal heating, deep water cooling, and substantially increase the tree canopy (tree planting to create carbon sinks), grow food locally where possible... 

There's much more I could say, but many of these measures don't require heavy subsidies to the green industry and in fact would boost productivity and improve quality of life.  Just stopping coal energy generation, as was done in Ontario, would go a long way.  Cap and trade would've been a lower cost option for incentivizing lowering emissions than the Trudeau carbon tax plan, but I'm okay with his plan if it's largely revenue neutral and doesn't hurt household spending.  It's a matter of having sensible and affordable policies that give the biggest bang for the buck.  I also agree that some of the so called "developing countries" aren't so developing anymore and shouldn't be let off the hook from making major cuts to emissions.  That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and carry on business as usual.

Revenue neutral my ass. There is no such thing.

[Hates politicians]

On 12/31/2018 at 6:56 PM, Iznogoud said:

It appears that the source you have chosen is advertising literature that is contradicted by almost every recent climate study.  How can it be getting colder when each of the last three decades has been warmer than the last?  Even a casual study by any non-scientist reveals that climate change is real and affecting the Earth in a variety of ways.  A simply example is that the USA has experienced five "Once in a century" hurricanes in the last two years.  Another is the devastating fire that destroyed Paradise, California; a fire that occurred at a time of year that is considered the rainy season.  Except that in 2018, the dry season extended into September and October, two months longer than normal.  There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples occurring every year worldwide.  They can't all be "once in a century" flukes. 

Show me data for the past 2 million yrs and I'll believe you.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Anyone else remember the lol's and references to Stalin and Suzuki et al whenever anyone suggested we stop trading with China even a couple of years ago?

Nope.

Quote

Now if there was just a way to blame climate change on the left we might be able to start taking action. C'mon you guys there's got to be a way.

Your persistent need to descend into partisanship in every discussion is disingenuous. It's not as simple as just "left" vs. "right".

But China being practically a vanguard of the left, I'd assume leftists such as yourself were well pleased. 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, GostHacked said:

I believe it is to steal money. I'll use the example of the bike share program in many cities, that are to cut down on car traffic (that creates a lot of this CO2 thing) in major cities and provide 'cheap' transportation. However each major city that has put this into place has not made a profit. IN fact they suffer major losses due to how expensive it is to put in place and to maintain. While providing very little benefit. Those who want to use it , have to use their credit card or app on the phone to pay for the bike where you are limited to 30 minute rides. All GPS tracked/monitored.

With all that linked together,  that's more huge data mining.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/despite-losses-city-set-to-pump-more-money-into-bike-share-1.4560453

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/beware-the-hidden-costs-of-bike-sharing-programs

That's 37 million stolen from taxpayers to bail out a private company that is operating at a loss, but providing a 'public' service.  That's outright theft in my view.

Right but if they are paying creditors then it's just mismanagement.

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I said no such thing. 

Go back and read the post and see if my interpretation of it is understandable.

[Iznogoud]

7 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

Show me data for the past 2 million yrs and I'll believe you.

I prefer to believe scientists who have devoted years of their lives to studying climate rather than a those who deny climate change because it suits them to do so.  In any case here you are.

What 2 Million Years of Temps Say About the Future

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2-million-years-global-temperature-20733

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Nope.

Everyone else forget too?

Quote

Your persistent need to descend into partisanship in every discussion is disingenuous. It's not as simple as just "left" vs. "right"

Well it certainly has been for the past 30 years but you guys are just finally catching up so... And it's been the right against the left not the left vs the right.

Quote

China being practically a vanguard of the left, I'd assume leftists such as yourself were well pleased.

Really, a vanguard of the left you say. I guess that explains all the capitalists and millionaires from China snapping up everything in sight.

Edited January 3, 2019 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

22 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I said no such thing.  

What does this mean: "Environmentalism is wherever the big money says it is."

How is that not a conspiracy to steal money ?  I'm encapsulating your words pretty closely and can't see how you would take offense.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What does this mean: "Environmentalism is wherever the big money says it is."

How is that not a conspiracy to steal money ?  I'm encapsulating your words pretty closely and can't see how you would take offense.

Environmentalism has been marketed as "for profit", with the intent to make it attractive to investors. Thus it becomes an industry. That is all I said and it is by and large true. I never mentioned conspiracy, that is not in my view realistic. By theft I presume you mean fraud. That is quite possible, and likely, whenever there is really big money involved.

Feel free to ruminate on this, and the grievous error you have made, and draw whatever moral conclusions you wish.

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right but if they are paying creditors then it's just mismanagement.

It's not solely mismanagement.  The implementation of a bike share in places like Ottawa or Montreal are STUPID. Why? Winter. How many people are going to use it in the winter? Bikes are expensive to begin with, massive money up front to buy the docking stations and maintain it all. Damages, failures, and theft are big issues with the program. Not only that, now you need to pay for salaries for the people who will maintain the bikes/stations and to move the bikes around (via a CO2 vehicle) to re-distribute the bikes. At one point in Toronto I saw a stack of about 20 bikes all locked up together with a large cable lock that were not in docking stations yet.   So it's not just mismanagement. It's a really stupid idea once you factor in all that work against it.

Even in warmer climates, they are dealing with massive debt on bike share programs that were never going to work.

[turningrite]

12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

It's not solely mismanagement.  The implementation of a bike share in places like Ottawa or Montreal are STUPID. Why? Winter. How many people are going to use it in the winter? Bikes are expensive to begin with, massive money up front to buy the docking stations and maintain it all. Damages, failures, and theft are big issues with the program. Not only that, now you need to pay for salaries for the people who will maintain the bikes/stations and to move the bikes around (via a CO2 vehicle) to re-distribute the bikes. At one point in Toronto I saw a stack of about 20 bikes all locked up together with a large cable lock that were not in docking stations yet.   So it's not just mismanagement. It's a really stupid idea once you factor in all that work against it.

Even in warmer climates, they are dealing with massive debt on bike share programs that were never going to work.

I don't know much about the economics of bike share programs. But I do know that in Toronto, where I live and where serious snow and cold keeps people off their bikes for, perhaps, a few weeks each year, a lot of people who use them own them. In the mid-city apartment complex in which I live, the demand for secure bike storage overwhelms the supply, often forcing tenants to take their bikes up the old elevators, which inconveniences everybody else. Our underground parking lot is generally half-empty and would be much more so if the landlord didn't rent parking to nearby businesses as well as to people in the surrounding neighbourhood who don't otherwise have access to affordable and safe (i.e. security monitored) parking. As I'm sure the situation is replicated elsewhere in the city, I wonder about the actual size of the bike share market?

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

I don't know much about the economics of bike share programs. But I do know that in Toronto, where I live and where serious snow and cold keeps people off their bikes for, perhaps, a few weeks each year, a lot of people who use them own them. In the mid-city apartment complex in which I live, the demand for secure bike storage overwhelms the supply, often forcing tenants to take their bikes up the old elevators, which inconveniences everybody else. Our underground parking lot is generally half-empty and would be much more so if the landlord didn't rent parking to nearby businesses as well as to people in the surrounding neighbourhood who don't otherwise have access to affordable and safe (i.e. security monitored) parking. As I'm sure the situation is replicated elsewhere in the city, I wonder about the actual size of the bike share market?

I was there for a couple weeks recently and people were using them, just not to the extend that the city would like to generate a profit.  But because it's not making a profit, means that they are going to dump more money into it. Makes no sense to me.  It does not take a lot of searching to find the numbers that show it's a money losing venture.

[montgomery]

To get this thread back on topic: Yes, humans are responsible for climate change. Experts in the field are almost unanimous on that fact. Or rather, they are unanimous and those that don't agree aren't experts. They're paid shills of Big Oil or some other interest group that finds profit in lying.

I've purposely made it unambiguous so that the denialists will recognize it as a challenge. It's a challenge to Conservative party supporters who don't believe in manmade climate change but like to pretend they do because they don't think it's a safe platform for the Con party.. 

[OftenWrong]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Everyone else forget too?

Doesn't look like it. Perhaps you are remembering something that never was. Having delusional memories are in fact a hallmark of the left...

Quote

it's been the right against the left not the left vs the right.

Nonsense. We just want to slow you down. It's really thanks to you people that we have global warming in the first place. Humans are not responsible for climate change, no. Not all humans. But actually, you people.

Quote

Really, a vanguard of the left you say. I guess that explains all the capitalists and millionaires from China snapping up everything in sight.

What now, Asian Invasion in BC bugging you? Multi-Culti looking back at you the wrong way? Good.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

What now, Asian Invasion in BC bugging you? Multi-Culti looking back at you the wrong way? Good.

Not at all we need millions of new Canadians. Mocking your notion that an invasion of capitalists money is a vanguard  of mine stands.  You'll find zero support for or apologies from me anywhere you look in this site for any evidence of that.

Instead I've been warning about shit like this for years around here, all to often to the usual lol's and such.

Quote

UBC planning professor emeritus Setty Pendakur, who has been to Mainland China 86 times to advise the government, was recently quoted in The Vancouver Sun saying “Canada is only a big Caribbean country,” given the many loopholes in its immigration and foreign money-transferring policies.

 Story

 

I look forward to the day Canadian right-wing political parties take on Canada's financial sector and their putrescently rich foreign clients at the behest of the racists that increasingly form so much of the base of right-wing political parties these days. 

 

In the meantime...

Quote

 

Nonsense. We just want to slow you down. It's really thanks to you people that we have global warming in the first place. Humans are not responsible for climate change, no. Not all humans. But actually, you people.

 

I've also long predicted it was only a matter of time before right-wingers began making global warming something that was due to the left. I look forward to seeing this fleshed out too.

Who knows maybe Canada's financial sector is a nest of of scheming lefties too.

Edited January 4, 2019 by eyeball

[-TSS-]

On 1/1/2019 at 11:55 PM, taxme said:

Just continue on with this ridiculous massive amounts of immigration from those low carbon footprint countries and add them to Finland and Canada to help create more man made global climate warming. That sounds logical to me. Lol.  

In a country like Finland, and I suspect that in Canada too, if you live in a house which has central-heating your carbon footprint is already higher than that of several people in countries of the so-called developing countries. 

If you turn on the light in your heated house your carbon footprint grows again. If you have a car that really increases your carbon footprint. If you take a foteign holiday especially by flying there your carbon footprint grows exponentially. 

We keep on being reminded of this all the time by people who simultaneosly are worried about ageing population and labour-shortage(hahah!) and as a solution propose more immigration. 

 

[montgomery]

Conservatives don't believe in manmade climate change and so they have to own their denial position.                                                                                                                           We must not allow the CPC to escape responsibility on this major issue.

The title of this thread: "Are Humans really responsible for climate change?"

Well, of course humans are. But the Conservatives want to ask the question again and again to keep the debate alive. Conservatives and their party don't believe in manmade climate change obviously, but they don't think they can get away with saying it directly. So this is the method on which they rely.

A little honesty out of Conservatives is what's called for here. If you don't believe in manmade climate change then say so and be prepared to stand behind your opinion. Where are your experts who back your negative opinion?  That's the challenge to the CPC and their supporters. We can't have a debate in which some believe in manmade climate change and the rest just pretend to believe in it. We need some naysayers!

We're being victimized by Conservative tactics. It's familiar because they work the same tactic with our health care system. And it's so similar because Cons know very well that they can't be honest and attack our system directly. They'll have the Fraser Institute do it on their behalf. Who is denyinng climate change on their behalf.

So let's hear from the deniers! 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

 We're being victimized by Conservative tactics. It's familiar because they work the same tactic with our health care system. And it's so similar because Cons know very well that they can't be honest and attack our system directly. They'll have the Fraser Institute do it on their behalf. Who is denyinng climate change on their behalf.

To be fair, hardly any are insisting that climate isn't changing, or even that humans are causing it.  They won, though, just by delaying a response and controls on fossil fuels.

And they laid the groundwork for the shit-show of propaganda we see today, and the coming one which is worse.

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To be fair, hardly any are insisting that climate isn't changing, or even that humans are causing it.  They won, though, just by delaying a response and controls on fossil fuels.

 

Correct..."they" won by doing nothing, which is exactly what was predicted...no modeling required.

The very first mistake that the climate change alarmists made was to assume and insist that a majority of people would adopt the CC religion and worship at the GHG emissions alter, or be forced to do so.

I would like to thank all the scientists for their hard work on the taxpayers dime, and encourage them to keep doing it.    Meanwhile, the collective economic and political choices will not be made by "expert" scientists, nor should they be.    

...drill baby...drill. 

[Kerfuffle]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Correct..."they" won by doing nothing, which is exactly what was predicted...no modeling required.

The very first mistake that the climate change alarmists made was to assume and insist that a majority of people would adopt the CC religion and worship at the GHG emissions alter, or be forced to do so.

I would like to thank all the scientists for their hard work on the taxpayers dime, and encourage them to keep doing it.    Meanwhile, the collective economic and political choices will not be made by "expert" scientists, nor should they be.    

...drill baby...drill. 

A typical evangelical christian response...belief is stronger than scientific data.....

Edited January 4, 2019 by Kerfuffle

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Kerfuffle said:

A typical evangelical christian response...belief is stronger than scientific data.....

 

 

I don't think you understand, and I am certainly not an evangelical.   As a U.S. taxpayer, I have spent far more on climate change data collection and research (e.g. NASA/NOAA) than Canadian citizens, and welcome continued investment going forward as humans adapt to the obvious.   Climate change is real, but so are abundant sources of high energy density fossil fuels.

Economics will ultimately decide what actions are taken on climate change, not the religious beliefs and antics of the alarmists.

 

[Kerfuffle]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't think you understand, and I am certainly not an evangelical.   As a U.S. taxpayer, I have spent far more on climate change data collection and research (e.g. NASA/NOAA) than Canadian citizens, and welcome continued investment going forward as humans adapt to the obvious.   Climate change is real, but so are abundant sources of high energy density fossil fuels.

Economics will ultimately decide what actions are taken on climate change, not the religious beliefs and antics of the alarmists.

 

Ahhh I see it cums down to money......kinda like i ask if you give me head for 20 bucks.....and you say no.....so i say head for 100 bucks and you say no....so i say give me head for 1000 bucks and you hum and ha and say ok...........so now we know what you are but are just haggling over the price.

Save the world from climate change and rake the forests....

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Kerfuffle said:

Ahhh I see it cums down to money.....

 

It always comes down to money....Economics 101.   Did the climate change alarmists skip that class ?