Jump to content

Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?


Guest ProudConservative

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So do I but we have to negotiate our way there.  If it takes generations so be it that's often how humanity rolls deal with it.

You seem to be able to deal with it enough for the pair of us.  I'll stick with leaning towards democracy instead of birthright when it comes to making decisions for people, especially when so many of them are being denied such obvious economic opportunities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You seem to be able to deal with it enough for the pair of us.  I'll stick with leaning towards democracy instead of birthright when it comes to making decisions for people, especially when so many of them are being denied such obvious economic opportunities.

Good, the more you and Trudeau keep thinking that and acting as if title and sovereignty means nothing the longer the blockade will stay up and the farther into the future the development will be delayed.

You deadbeats are sure hip to let everyone else carry your weight aren't you? You're all acting like a bunch of commies.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I know precisely what I'm talking about and it means nothing to me that you think otherwise.

That sounds like one of those mantras you need to keep repeating ten times a day. Probably twenty in your case. And I still think otherwise anyway. Not just think otherwise. I know, without question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Good, the more you and Trudeau keep thinking that and acting as if title and sovereignty means nothing the longer the blockade will stay up and the farther into the future the development will be delayed.

You deadbeats are sure hip to let everyone else carry your weight aren't you? You're all acting like a bunch of commies.

JT's your boy, not mine.  The miserable little coward will do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That sounds like one of those mantras you need to keep repeating ten times a day. Probably twenty in your case. And I still think otherwise anyway. Not just think otherwise. I know, without question.

No need to repeat the obvious unless it's to your ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

JT's your boy, not mine.  The miserable little coward will do nothing.

You work with what you got I guess. The fact his fuck-ups are slowing things down is as good as it gets.   But don't worry when he does get consent he'll be your boy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No need to repeat the obvious unless it's to your ilk.

I don't see the rail blockades ending well. I doubt the Mohawks are going to get off the rails. I hope they do, but we'll see.

Meantime this is costing big money per diem. If they don't come to an agreement soon, they're going to be forced off. And if the government concedes, they open up to being held ransom like this every time there's an issue. Canadians are not impressed by these protests and getting tired of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I don't see the rail blockades ending well. I doubt the Mohawks are going to get off the rails. I hope they do, but we'll see.

Meantime this is costing big money per diem. If they don't come to an agreement soon, they're going to be forced off. And if the government concedes, they open up to being held ransom like this every time there's an issue. Canadians are not impressed by these protests and getting tired of it.

I don't see this issue ending at all if it ends badly at the blockades.  I should be careful what I wish for but if the police go in with batons swinging that's it for pipelines in our lifetimes and conservatives will have to go back to rejigging the constitution and getting rid of the charter... Let me know how that works. By the time you're finished you'll be ducking from all the windmills whirling overhead.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  Unelected chiefs making non-binding calls against elected chiefs.  Seems very dubious.

I isolate the above words. They get to the heart f one of the continuing legal issues. When Canada's non indigenous government created the structure of the myriad of indigenous nations we mixed unelected (inherited, bloodline Chiefs) with elected ones. That in itself has created problems as has a lack of uniformity in approaching business by the Chiefs of each nation. Some take kick-backs and look the other way and do not spent it on their communities but hoard it for themselves. Some engage in actually very creative and constructive alliances with businesses employing people from their nations and protecting their environment and building infrastructure in their communities...and  some do not trust any form of Western business and shun it. Because of that there is no uniform approach and its very complex as technically each nation among the nations is equal in legal authority and there is no strong leader who can unify these nations at this time. As well some nations have unpaid bills from businesses and still seek compensation for  violated treaties while others do not as they have been compensated. 

The nations within the nation of nations are split. That now  requires an indigenous  politician with a backbone to be able to sit down and talk with vision and leadership and rally disparate causes and interests.

Me Z I personally believe the whole reservation system was created because it was an exercise in couching or sanitizing or containing indigenous people in open air prisons and keeping them separate from European settlers. That was then. Dwelling on the past simply prevents moving ahead. Yes the reservation system was part of an exercise to jail people without using walls. Its time to take those walls or reservations down.  Enough already. Its time to  focus on what can be done now to heal any remainingconflicts. It is also  time to deal head on with the corruption within the indigenous self governing structure and with the ineptitude in our own federal government's handing of the indigenous portfolio. The question is will anyone surface from the indigenous and on indigenous communities who can do this?  It certainly won't be Prince Justin of Trudeau or his Band of Merry Men, Bill, Seamus, etc.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So what... This:

I posted 'They are more committed to Paris than the US is now' and you asked what I was talking about.  Well I guess now you know.

Who is?  China?  I guess, in that they literally have to do nothing until 2030.  And even that is non-binding.  But if you're looking for real results and reductions, the United States is the example.  I find though that alarmists care less about real emissions reductions, and more about politics and pseudo-agreements that countries never actually follow through with.  See Kyoto and now Paris.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rue said:

Me Z I personally believe the whole reservation system was created because it was an exercise in couching or sanitizing or containing indigenous people in open air prisons and keeping them separate from European settlers. That was then. Dwelling on the past simply prevents moving ahead. Yes the reservation system was part of an exercise to jail people without using walls. Its time to take those walls or reservations down.  Enough already. Its time to  focus on what can be done now to heal any remainingconflicts. It is also  time to deal head on with the corruption within the indigenous self governing structure and with the ineptitude in our own federal government's handing of the indigenous portfolio. The question is will anyone surface from the indigenous and on indigenous communities who can do this?  It certainly won't be Prince Justin of Trudeau or his Band of Merry Men, Bill, Seamus, etc.

 

The truth is that any community that relies on outside funding to remain in a particular location is unsustainable.  Other than transitional funding away from such a location, no matter how "sovereign" one might consider the place, no ongoing outside funding should be provided.  On what basis, being a member of a select race?  It's just wrong.  All conversations about Indigenous issues always end on that note.  No self-determination without self-sustainability.  Those communities that can survive on their own without infusions from the outside, that can collect their own taxes to pay completely for their own services, are indeed independent.  How many such communities are there in Canada that could do that?  I'm also talking about covering the costs of health and education, of course, as currently taxpayers are paying for those for Indigenous.   Independence has to mean independence.  Almost always, when I hear about calls for greater autonomy, there is a request for more programs or funding from taxpayers.  Land claims will continue to go through the courts (unless Canada ceases to exist), but what value does that property have if it can't be privately owned and exchanged?  Reserve land that can't be sold ties Indigenous to one geographic location because that's where the free land and tax benefits are.  Indigenous status cards are another form of race-based privilege that creates pressure to only intermarry within the tribe.  It's retrograde, unhealthy institutionalized segregation and dependence.  No real progress can take place with the Indian Act, status cards, and the current reservation system in my opinion.  My opinion, however, will be construed as "colonial".  The way forward has to come from Indigenous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2020 at 9:45 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Natural gas exists in pockets underground.  It is relatively clean burning and plentiful.  It's a good energy source, certainly better than coal or oil.

 

On 2/19/2020 at 9:51 AM, eyeball said:

Key word being relatively. Natural gas has lot's of issues and is not the panacea implied by its name.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas

Further to the above.

Natural gas is a much ‘dirtier’ energy source than we thought

In addition to which...

We've Vastly Underestimated How Much Methane Humans Are Spewing Into The Atmosphere 

Thankfully we can do something about methane emissions given humans are responsible for most of the methane being emitted. It'll just mean more toe to toe combat with conservatives in the Economy vs Environment Wars I guess. 

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

Further to the above.

Natural gas is a much ‘dirtier’ energy source than we thought

In addition to which...

We've Vastly Underestimated How Much Methane Humans Are Spewing Into The Atmosphere 

Thankfully we can do something about methane emissions given humans are responsible for most of the methane being emitted. It'll just mean more toe to toe combat with conservatives in the Economy vs Environment Wars I guess. 

It's all or nothing with you alarmists.  The United States has been able to cut emissions signficantly more than most other nations, due to using natural gas as a bridge fuel.  You're not interested in real results.  It's time to end your charade already.  It's getting tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

It's all or nothing with you alarmists.  The United States has been able to cut emissions signficantly more than most other nations, due to using natural gas as a bridge fuel. 

Well, that's a conclusion that's looking like it'll have to be revised due to science coming to a better understanding of what's actually happening.  Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Shady said:

You’re a denier.

Not of science and certainly not the fact Canada is a deadbeat compared to the US when it comes to accounting for our emissions.  You'd know that if you'd paid attention to the many many times I've posted this;

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

You don't pay attention though because you're a putz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The Thinking Error at the Root of Science Denial

"Dichotomous thinking...Shades of gray are missed; everything is considered either black or white."

"I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 26, 2020 at 3:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. 

I agree.  And IMHO if Mankind is in fact solely responsible for destroying the ozone layer, then it stands to reason that all climate change is man-made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The complexity of Climate Change leaves the common man scratching hid head – yet many of us have the capacity to understand what has been observed, and put it into context……as long as we are presented with real facts. It’s hard to argue with facts – and most “facts” and “truths” need to be based on observation – not theory. Here’s a couple of examples that expose the untruthfulness/omissions that we have to wade through.

The cry that we are 1.5 degrees about the 20th century average is supposed to emit concern, if not fear. Even granting that there has been SOME warming since the Little Ice Age ended, the term “Average” is just that…..some decades are colder, some warmer….and it’s perfectly plausible that there have been past decades – like the 20s, 30s and 40s that may have been just as warm – and some decades that would be the cooler. That context is missing from the doomsday narrative.

If you can absorb that, think about this. The vast majority of “hottest temperature records” for each US State were all set prior to 2000 – and mostly in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Canada’s provinces follow the same pattern. Given all that, how are we to believe that almost every year since 2000 has been “the hottest year on record”.

Here's the supporting data.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CanadianTrueAndTrue said:

1. most “facts” and “truths” need to be based on observation – not theory. Here’s a couple of examples that expose the untruthfulness/omissions that we have to wade through.

2. The cry that we are 1.5 degrees about the 20th century average is supposed to emit concern, if not fear.

3. Even granting that there has been SOME warming since the Little Ice Age ended, the term “Average” is just that…..some decades are colder, some warmer…. 

4. If you can absorb that, think about this. The vast majority of “hottest temperature records” for each US State were all set prior to 2000 – and mostly in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Canada’s provinces follow the same pattern. Given all that, how are we to believe that almost every year since 2000 has been “the hottest year on record”.

 

1. There really isn't much "theory" involved in climate change predictions, but ok.
2. GlobalTemp2019GraphLN-jumbo.png?quality=

3. Ok - but the fact that there is variance doesn't need to be included necessarily does it ?  If you understand the science, you know this and if you don't you may take false comfort from it.

4. Again this is not comforting.

The basics are:

-Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming as evidenced by laboratory experiments
-We have measured much increased CO2 due to human activity
-The temperature is going up

There is more than enough reason to suspect human activity is causing warming in that.  Whether to do something or what to do is a separate question.

tinyurl.com/MichaelHardnerClimate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reply is all focused on a chart which uses "adjusted" temperatures - not the raw data that was originally captured. I wish I could find it - but I remember a chart from IPCC AR1 that showed the 20s and 30s being virtually the same as the 80s and 90s.........but with subsequent smoothing and adjusting, it magically disappeared. Putting aside the "hide the decline" debacle, common sense dictates that there are next to NO accurate records for Global temperatures prior to 1940, let alone going all the way back to 1880. Countries have come and gone, wars fought and lost. Temperatures from Africa, the Middle Esat, the Arctic/Antarctica, Russia, China? They were busy with other things other than measuring temperatures. Even ENVIRONMENT CANADA deleted all temperatures prior to 1950 from their temperature records because they were "unreliable". The historical data shown in your chart is therefore - mostly made up - created with an understandable bias towards the IPCC mission - to find the human figerprint of man-made global warming. .....and to support that claim, I go back to my point - why are all the "hottest temperatures" in US states and every Province set almost exclusively in the first half of the 20th centure, clustered around the 20s and 30s......could it be that those decades were at least much warmer than the chart indicates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CanadianTrueAndTrue said:

1. with subsequent smoothing and adjusting, it magically disappeared.

2. Putting aside the "hide the decline" debacle, common sense dictates that there are next to NO accurate records for Global temperatures prior to 1940, let alone going all the way back to 1880. Countries have come and gone, wars fought and lost. Temperatures from Africa, the Middle Esat, the Arctic/Antarctica, Russia, China? They were busy with other things other than measuring temperatures.
3. Even ENVIRONMENT CANADA deleted all temperatures prior to 1950 from their temperature records because they were "unreliable". The historical data shown in your chart is therefore - mostly made up - created with an understandable bias towards the IPCC mission - to find the human figerprint of man-made global warming. .....and to support that claim, I go back to my point - why are all the "hottest temperatures" in US states and every Province set almost exclusively in the first half of the 20th centure, clustered around the 20s and 30s......
4. could it be that those decades were at least much warmer than the chart indicates?

1. Yes please cite that.  My feeling is that people who want to falsify the science often rely on the lack of expertise of the general public with regards to statistics, so that they can imply some kind of conspiracy behind smoothing.
2. "Hide the decline" was the slogan behind a huge disinformation campaign.  If there are no accurate records, what is "accurate" and why do they all correlate ?  Do you think they are not measuring temperatures from around the world using proxies.  
3. Yes and there were problems with the data.  This is one of those 'damned if you do damned if you don't' things wherein adjustments and changes are simultaneously regarded as proof that the data is manipulated, and that the data is wrong.
"We adjusted the temperatures downwards after review" Aha !  They were CAUGHT.  "We adjusted the temperatures upwards after review" Aha !  They are CHEATING again.
4. Maybe - but the science continues to look at it.  The fact that so many different individuals, groups and datasets confer on the same result should tell you what is happening.  Unless it's a conspiracy.  If you think that, then please convince yourself that I am paid to post my opinions here for disinfo and stop replying to me.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It truly is a scary thing when it comes to the idea of climate change and people not realizing how our planet is slowing being destroyed by own nature of greed and destruction of this planet's resources. There are multiple sources and evidence that explain how climate change is real and how we can help slow it down before the human race becomes extinct along side other animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, glo135 said:

1. destroyed by own nature of greed and destruction of this planet's resources.   
2. human race becomes extinct along side other animals.

1. Don't turn this into an academic discussion of human nature or you lose focus.  CO2 is a byproduct of our prosperity, but needs to be curtailed.  That's it.
2. By the time we became extinct, the planet would heal itself I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...