Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[Guest ProudConservative]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Or you could implement a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which is simple and the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions...

Yah the most efficient way for those EU and wallstreet bankers to syphon the money... Then wait till the population hits 20 billion, and put an environmental tax on everyone, so the 1% can become absurdly wealthy.

[Guest ProudConservative]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, no... Banning child bearing is much easier than a small tax.

I never said ban, I said reduce. 

If you ban the bloodlines, the human species will go extict.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

Yah the most efficient way for those EU and wallstreet bankers to syphon the money... Then wait till the population hits 20 billion, and put an environmental tax on everyone, so the 1% can become absurdly wealthy.

Broad-based taxes (i.e. taxes on everything) are generally more economically efficient than a complex tax system of micro-taxes where the government picks and chooses winners and losers instead of allowing for competition, let alone a system of mass regulations and subsidies.

As a comparison, current estimates of efficiencies of various subsidy programs for renewables or electric cars are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars per metric ton of CO2. In comparison, the marginal cost of reducing emissions for a tax is equal to the level of the tax (so in Canada's case $30 per metric ton). Taxes would also generate revenue instead of wasting revenue.

[Guest ProudConservative]

17 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Broad-based taxes (i.e. taxes on everything) are generally more economically efficient than a complex tax system of micro-taxes where the government picks and chooses winners and losers instead of allowing for competition, let alone a system of mass regulations and subsidies.

As a comparison, current estimates of efficiencies of various subsidy programs for renewables or electric cars are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars per metric ton of CO2. In comparison, the marginal cost of reducing emissions for a tax is equal to the level of the tax (so in Canada's case $30 per metric ton). Taxes would also generate revenue instead of wasting revenue.

O ya, as if electric cars will save the planet... The next thing you know, will have a crisis opening Lithium mines in the congo, to get the minerals for those bateries. Then the deforestation it causes with remove the natual carbon sinks, that help combat climate change.

If everyone has an electric car tomorrow, the worlds environment would still be in crisis.

The only way you can reach 20 billion people, without screwing up the earth.... would be to impose a global dictarship, enforcing complete deindustrialization.... We would all have to live under a neo-feudal society, to remain in balance with nature at that number.

Simply put... You can't have your cake and eat it too, at when we reach 20 billion.

It doesn't matter how green we get... the extraction of natural resources, and the expansion of agriculture will put us over the edge.

You can't tax your way to an environmental utopia, but you sure can watch liberals pat themselves on the back. We're all environmentally friendly now... living in our tiny pods. Yaaaayyyy!

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Rue]

Climate and/or weather change have been proven using objective methodology to be both a natural occurrence and also impacted by human activity. Not all desertification was caused naturally and desertification is but one of many examples of human behaviour that can impact on the climate. Methane gas comes naturally from any rotting vegetation and animal life but other gases causing global warning can come from specific gas emissions. Why people still debate this is beyond me. Its like pretending there is no co-relation between smoking and cancer or dangerous driving and dying or the co-relation between inbreeding and the iq's of certain monarchs.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Rue

[August1991]

On 2/2/2020 at 2:08 PM, bcsapper said:

Look what it showed me...

 

bcSapper, this is the graph that everyone points to.

1. Look at the origin of your graph above. In particular, the vertical axis. (The first rule of graphs/statistics is be honest.)

2. In the past, apparently, our planet has had as much as 2000 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere.

3. We simply don't know whether CO2 (at these levels - ppm) change anything. Since so much CO2 is absorbed in our oceans, we simply don't know.

4. I even question this data. Mauna Loa? One place? (Measuring CO2 in our atmosphere is hard.)

====

I fear that some people - call them: European/Leftists/Progressives/White are once again on a Crusade. They want to paint  "Big Oil" as another "Big Tobacco".

   

Edited February 7, 2020 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, August1991 said:

 

3. We simply don't know whether CO2 (at these levels - ppm) change anything. Since so much CO2 is absorbed in our oceans, we simply don't know.

 

What are you talking about?  Are you actually denying the greenhouse effect?

 

I can't believe that the epistemic cancer of political double think has felled you too.  Sad.

[August1991]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What are you talking about?  Are you actually denying the greenhouse effect?

 

I can't believe that the epistemic cancer of political double think has felled you too.  Sad.

The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2.

So, yes. I believe in the greenhouse effect.

On our planet, CO2 is about 400 ppm - possibly rising. We don't know exactly why.

=====

As I argue, rather than look for other planets where we can live/or may have life (in our solar system, impossible) - I reckon that we should figure out why other planets in our system do not support life as we know it. If I were NASA, I would send missions to Venus - not Mars.

Edited February 7, 2020 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, August1991 said:

 

1. On our planet, CO2 is about 400 ppm - possibly rising. We don't know exactly why.

2. I reckon that we should figure out why other planets in our system do not support life as we know it. If I were NASA, I would send missions to Venus - not Mars.

1. We have a pretty good idea.  Science, you see.

2. Crazy space dreams.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, August1991 said:

bcSapper, this is the graph that everyone points to.

1. Look at the origin of your graph above. In particular, the vertical axis. (The first rule of graphs/statistics is be honest.)

2. In the past, apparently, our planet has had as much as 2000 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere.

3. We simply don't know whether CO2 (at these levels - ppm) change anything. Since so much CO2 is absorbed in our oceans, we simply don't know.

4. I even question this data. Mauna Loa? One place? (Measuring CO2 in our atmosphere is hard.)

====

I fear that some people - call them: European/Leftists/Progressives/White are once again on a Crusade. They want to paint  "Big Oil" as another "Big Tobacco".

   

Yeah, like you said, it's the graph everyone points to.  That's because the Mauna Loa observatory is known for its atmospheric data.  If the graph were from "Buddy's C02 Data and Wheel Alignment" out of Sydney NS, I would be more sceptical of its veracity. 

The planet has been around a long time.  It's seen a lot of atmospheric conditions.  We're mainly interested in those changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution.

I would suggest the people who study and research these things do know whether or not CO2 at these levels make a difference.  Me, I'm content to agree with the scientific consensus when it is so one sided. 

As for a crusade, yeah, I agree.  I don't think it's going to do any good.  In fact, I'm all in favour of all those pipelines heading out of Alberta.  Might as well use our hydrocarbons as anyone else's.

12 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2.

So, yes. I believe in the greenhouse effect.

On our planet, CO2 is about 400 ppm - possibly rising. We don't know exactly why.

=====

As I argue, rather than look for other planets where we can live/or may have life (in our solar system, impossible) - I reckon that we should figure out why other planets in our system do not support life as we know it. If I were NASA, I would send missions to Venus - not Mars.

I don't think there is any argument that atmospheric CO2 is only "possibly" rising.  I think even the most virulent climate sceptics would acknowledge that the concentrations are rising.  And as it started around the same time the Luddites beat up their first Spinning Jenny, we can make a reasonable guess as to why.

I would visit Enceladus next. 

[August1991]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Crazy space dreams.

We should not send missions to the Moon, Mars or Venus with the idea of humans living there. That's impossible. (Hollywood/Trump fantasy.) 

IMHO, we should send missions to understand our own planet, and its sustainability.

And I reckon, missions to Venus are difficult but important. We need to understand better why Venus is the way it is.

Edited February 7, 2020 by August1991

[August1991]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have a pretty good idea.  Science, you see.

No, we don't have a good idea. Measures of 400 ppm are small. (We're talking a few drops in a swimming pool.)

Moreover, our oceans absorb/release CO2 so an atmosphere measure of CO2 near Hawaii is questionable.

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. No, we don't have a good idea. Measures of 400 ppm are small. (We're talking a few drops in a swimming pool.)

2. Moreover, our oceans absorb/release CO2 so an atmosphere measure of CO2 near Hawaii is questionable.

 

1. At the time when CO2 had such a high level, the earth was hot and humans weren't here.  You have fallen prey to the contagion of America.  Advertising or some other factor has inflated your sense of 'public' into a sense of self and now your ego has convinced you that your opinion is of equal weight of an entire BODY of science.  This makes me sad.

2. It doesn't matter that it was taken there.  Global measures have the same graph.  But science has already reached conclusions and you don't believe them because ... [unknown]

 

[Guest ProudConservative]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. At the time when CO2 had such a high level, the earth was hot and humans weren't here.  You have fallen prey to the contagion of America.  Advertising or some other factor has inflated your sense of 'public' into a sense of self and now your ego has convinced you that your opinion is of equal weight of an entire BODY of science.  This makes me sad.

2. It doesn't matter that it was taken there.  Global measures have the same graph.  But science has already reached conclusions and you don't believe them because ... [unknown]

 

You live in Toronto right? Would you say this has been a particularly warm winter?

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

You live in Toronto right? Would you say this has been a particularly warm winter?

Very much so, but I defer to the aggregate data.  If you see the same thing everywhere, it's a big and pervasive change.

[taxme]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. We have had an usually warm winter in Kitchener, where many day's are above freezing. Although, I enjoy being able to walk outside without shivering, this is the dead of winter, and 75% of the time, it should be below freezing. I would like to contrast to the January averages from previous years

I use to build snowmans as a kid, and every winter we would get 10 to 15 days in a row, that were below freezing. Now, were lucky to have more than 4 days below freezing.

Source

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/kitchener/historic

Kitchener

 

January 2010

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2010

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	5 °C (Jan 25, 12:04 am)	100% (Jan 10, 7:00 am)	103.04 kPa (Jan 10, 7:00 am)
Low	-21 °C (Jan 30, 7:00 am)	45% (Jan 30, 2:00 pm)	98.58 kPa (Jan 25, 9:05 am)
Average	-6 °C	82%	101.59 kPa

January 2011

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2011

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	11 °C (Jan 1, 2:58 pm)	100% (Jan 1, 10:08 am)	103.61 kPa (Jan 1, 10:08 am)
Low	-24 °C (Jan 24, 6:00 am)	43% (Jan 31, 12:00 pm)	99.31 kPa (Jan 6, 10:57 pm)
Average	-8 °C	84%	101.51 kPa

 

January 2020

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2020

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	11 °C (Jan 11, 7:06 am)	100% (Jan 4, 5:21 am)	104.56 kPa (Jan 4, 5:21 am)
Low	-18 °C (Jan 20, 4:02 am)	56% (Jan 23, 4:00 pm)	99.89 kPa (Jan 18, 6:24 pm)
Average	-2 °C	85%	101.82 kPa

 

What are you thoughts? Do you remember having colder winters as a child?

 

It's strange as to why the ones who push for climate change are the ones that do not practice what they say or do. They just want fools like you and me to give up our present day lifestyle so they can continue to live their's. When we see the likes of Al Gore, David Suzuki and Leo Decrapio start practicing big time with what they preach, well then maybe people like myself will be willing to do my fair share to fight climate change.  

At one UN conference on global warming, there where over one hundred generators installed in the building to keep the place warm and comfortable for those climate change pushers. Plus all of them came in one car only rather than all get picked up together and take a bus to the conference. These global warming pushers find it very hard to want to practice what they preach. As Trump once said. Global warming is all just a joke. One degree rise in temperature in the next ten or fifteen years is not going to cause any kinds of disasters for mankind. 

If people like you are so concerned about global warming then you had better start to go after the third world and have something done about their population growth every year. It is not the western countries that are at cause here. It is those 3rd world countries that are causing global warming. But yet, I am being made responsible for this so called global warming. 

And maybe this so called global warming has nothing to do with people but more to do with the earth rearranging the earth's land furniture around and is causing this problem. Hey, you never know? 

[Guest]

Hollywood hates climate change so much they are having only vegan food at the Oscars. 

Maybe it never occurred to them to cancel the Oscars

[August1991]

On 2/7/2020 at 7:02 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. At the time when CO2 had such a high level, the earth was hot and humans weren't here.  You have fallen prey to the contagion of America.  Advertising or some other factor has inflated your sense of 'public' into a sense of self and now your ego has convinced you that your opinion is of equal weight of an entire BODY of science.  This makes me sad.

2. It doesn't matter that it was taken there.  Global measures have the same graph.  But science has already reached conclusions and you don't believe them because ... [unknown]

 

On both points, I disagree.

====

Hollywood Mad Men scriptwriter-style, the 2000s Progressive Left would make us believe that "carbon" is another case of 1960s "Big Tobacco, Nicotine and Cancer".

I disagree.

====

Frankly, unlike Trump, I think that we should send probes to Venus to understand better its atmosphere.

Sending people to Mars or the Moon is costly and pointless. To live there, ludicrous.

Mars. the Moon, travel to either (life on either) means endless, difficult exposure to solar radiation.

And the Moon has really sharp glass shards, unworn from water/air.  

Edited February 12, 2020 by August1991

[August1991]

Frankly, I would send probes to moons of Saturn and Jupiter to understand their atmosphere.

No human can live on the Moon or Mars. Mars is not a "New World". Solar/galactic radiation makes extended travel beyond low earth orbit difficult. The astronauts of Apollo 17 managed at most 14 days or so.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

On both points, I disagree.

 

This is why you are a failed product of our democratic system of discussion.

 

You don't have the option to 'disagree' with facts.  You are the result of people having too much choice.  Your belief that you can literally choose anything has given you the ego of a god.

[Shady]

On 2/6/2020 at 10:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have a pretty good idea.  Science, you see.

2. Crazy space dreams.

You know, you can agree on the science, but also think space exploration is an important issue.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Shady said:

You know, you can agree on the science, but also think space exploration is an important issue.

Yes.  You can also agree on the science and decide to do nothing about warming.... to take a chance or just hope things level off.

That's not the same as saying "In my opinion scientifically proven facts are not true".  That's ignorance in its purest form - with hubris.

[August1991]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

This is why you are a failed product of our democratic system of discussion.

 

You don't have the option to 'disagree' with facts.  You are the result of people having too much choice.  Your belief that you can literally choose anything has given you the ego of a god.

Huh?

I like America. I admire people like Trump/Musk but think that this idea of sending people to the Moon/Mars is wrong/crazy/stupid.

We human beings have evolved to live on our Earth, with our radioactive protection, with our gravity.

Heck, we cannot even recreate our gravity in space through centrifugal force. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  You can also agree on the science and decide to do nothing about warming.... to take a chance or just hope things level off.

That's not the same as saying "In my opinion scientifically proven facts are not true".  That's ignorance in its purest form - with hubris.

 

It has nothing to do with ignorance, and much more to do with economic and political reality.  A deliberate choice.

The U.S. spends more on climate change R&D and space exploration than any other nation, because it can (and so others who don't can argue about it).

...now that's hubris.

Edited February 14, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

On 1/26/2020 at 5:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. We have had an usually warm winter in Kitchener, where many day's are above freezing. Although, I enjoy being able to walk outside without shivering, this is the dead of winter, and 75% of the time, it should be below freezing. I would like to contrast to the January averages from previous years

I use to build snowmans as a kid, and every winter we would get 10 to 15 days in a row, that were below freezing. Now, were lucky to have more than 4 days below freezing.

Source

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/kitchener/historic

Kitchener

 

January 2010

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2010

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	5 °C (Jan 25, 12:04 am)	100% (Jan 10, 7:00 am)	103.04 kPa (Jan 10, 7:00 am)
Low	-21 °C (Jan 30, 7:00 am)	45% (Jan 30, 2:00 pm)	98.58 kPa (Jan 25, 9:05 am)
Average	-6 °C	82%	101.59 kPa

January 2011

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2011

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	11 °C (Jan 1, 2:58 pm)	100% (Jan 1, 10:08 am)	103.61 kPa (Jan 1, 10:08 am)
Low	-24 °C (Jan 24, 6:00 am)	43% (Jan 31, 12:00 pm)	99.31 kPa (Jan 6, 10:57 pm)
Average	-8 °C	84%	101.51 kPa

 

January 2020

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2020

	Temperature	Humidity	Pressure
High	11 °C (Jan 11, 7:06 am)	100% (Jan 4, 5:21 am)	104.56 kPa (Jan 4, 5:21 am)
Low	-18 °C (Jan 20, 4:02 am)	56% (Jan 23, 4:00 pm)	99.89 kPa (Jan 18, 6:24 pm)
Average	-2 °C	85%	101.82 kPa

 

What are you thoughts? Do you remember having colder winters as a child?

 

 

 

I still remember a beautiful warm winter a whole lot more than a decade ago!  Maybe 15 years ago?

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by betsy