Castanet

Silverstarqueen wrote:He's not a climate scientist, not even close, not even a scientist at all, so I'm not interested in hearing his opinion. I would not go so far as to say he's a fraud, but some people would.

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpeterson ... r_climate/

The opinion he has been asked for is whether or not combating climate change will bring people of the world, the left and the right, together.

It's interesting to me that people automatically assume some people just shouldn't be listened to, period.

In the first two minutes of his response:

• He talks about how cumulative errors affect the projections, which is true of any projection regardless of topic. We've clearly seen the results in cumulative errors of climate change projections over the past decade, as one doomsday deadline after another has come and gone.
• He asks a question we should all ask regardless of the topic: How can we solve a problem when we are unable to measure with reasonable accuracy the consequences of our actions?
• He refers to the the most sensible and humane solution to reducing pollution: lift the poorest countries out of poverty as quickly as possible. The results of this line of action are measurable, but we are all far too busy tilting at the carbon windmill to bother and in some cases have done the opposite.
• He points out how a list of 200-some-odd goals is not a plan but a wish list until those goals are prioritized, and that the goals are not being prioritized because each "goal" has constituents the climate change "movement" doesn't want to disappoint. (If the constituents believed their own schtick, they'd be prioritizing.)

All of this is common sense and truth. As is what he says in the next couple of minutes of his response.

But people of a certain mindset prefer to ignore everything he says because he's not a climate scientist.

Canada`s contribution! Quote: First, there is insufficient political will. The government’s top experts need a mandate to pursue in-depth measurement of CO2 absorption. Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?End quote. We are in the negative 30% category of carbon emissions.Why do some of our Provinces want scrap the money grubbing Carbon tax. They know the truth! We never hear any Lamestream news ever mention the other side of the story! No wonder people are so crazed believing everything the climate change driven agenda controlled news spews to them! https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret Now for some real news we never hear about! . If you think just because it is a youtube video and has no merit. Do research on the facts presented here before dismissing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8 The real truth needs to be told! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XNEcfWJKPs

Even if there is some degree of error in climate predictions, it doesn't matter, we still can make an effort to improve the end result (so we might experience a 3 degree rise rather than a 6 degree rise).
Even if people have political reasons for being attracted to an idea such as improving future climate repercussions, that doesn't mean that this is not a desirable goal.
Having many goals (possibly too many goals) is not really a reason to not work on them, we should prioritize, and do what we can to improve those that we can, such as lifting more of the world out of poverty, improving nutrition for those who are not well nourished, providing better health care where it is not prohibitively expensive (vaccinations, antibiotics, reducing death in childbirth, treat injuries), so that people can work and feed their populations.
Yes, we will still need heat in cold countries, and cooling in hot countries, and transport people and goods, but perhaps we can do this with less carbon emissions without too much difficulty. The lights don't have to go out because the sun went down, or the wind didn't blow. Perhaps nuclear power could be made safe and less polluting to be a good alternative.
Just because the current western population can't see how these things can be done with less carbon emissions, is not a reason not to make a plan and carry it out, political leanings aside.
The Left and the Right will find themselves going in the same directions as soon as smart people provide reasonably cost effective alternatives to the current fossil fuel systems. As long as coal and petroleium products are the cheapest and most available, they will be used. When attractive alternatives arise, the conversion could be very quickly done, with some political leadership.
In other words, I don't accept most of JP's objections, and I don't find them very helpful to dealing with or solving the problem. (Would he be called a fraud for that then?)

Some more things to ponder from the Climate change crowd. Quote:In other words, it has already been accepted that polluting the atmosphere (geoengineering) is an accepted, mainstream science protocol which advocates claim will halt so-called “climate change.” (They are insane, of course. See more below…)

Note carefully that every science quack in the media — actor Bill Nye, accused rapist Neil deGrasse Tyson and every “skeptic” troll on Wikipedia — has long insisted that geoengineering isn’t real. Chemtrails aren’t happening, they say, and nobody is trying to pollute the atmosphere. This is how they run their scam: Deny, deny, deny until one day that rewrite history and claim geoengineering was always considered “good science.” (Someone owes the independent media an apology, given that the very idea of geoengineering has been mocked for over a decade, yet now it’s suddenly advocated in mainstream science papers.) End quote. More mad scientist What are they spraying? Quote: Lest you think this is all a brand new concept, here’s a WIRED article from 2008 arguing for the mass pollution of the atmosphere via geoengineering. As the article explains, the scheme involves the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere — a form of toxic pollution that even WIRED admits will cause acid rain. In fact, the article is titled, “Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change?”End quote. This is far worse than pollution from fossil fuels. Any pollution is bad pollution!!!!!! Maybe people should be absolutely incensed about what is going on??
https://climatesciencenews.com/2019-07-09-scientists-tout-benefits-of-geoengineering-chemtrails-in-renewed-push.html

rustled wrote:

Silverstarqueen wrote:He's not a climate scientist, not even close, not even a scientist at all, so I'm not interested in hearing his opinion. I would not go so far as to say he's a fraud, but some people would.

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpeterson ... r_climate/

The opinion he has been asked for is whether or not combating climate change will bring people of the world, the left and the right, together.

It's interesting to me that people automatically assume some people just shouldn't be listened to, period.

In the first two minutes of his response:

• He talks about how cumulative errors affect the projections, which is true of any projection regardless of topic. We've clearly seen the results in cumulative errors of climate change projections over the past decade, as one doomsday deadline after another has come and gone.
• He asks a question we should all ask regardless of the topic: How can we solve a problem when we are unable to measure with reasonable accuracy the consequences of our actions?
• He refers to the the most sensible and humane solution to reducing pollution: lift the poorest countries out of poverty as quickly as possible. The results of this line of action are measurable, but we are all far too busy tilting at the carbon windmill to bother and in some cases have done the opposite.
• He points out how a list of 200-some-odd goals is not a plan but a wish list until those goals are prioritized, and that the goals are not being prioritized because each "goal" has constituents the climate change "movement" doesn't want to disappoint. (If the constituents believed their own schtick, they'd be prioritizing.)

All of this is common sense and truth. As is what he says in the next couple of minutes of his response.

But people of a certain mindset prefer to ignore everything he says because he's not a climate scientist.

For some reason I can't access reddit this morning.

But I think this is the video being discussed (previous page on this thread).

And even though I was using it to poke fun at Silverstarqueen's, "some smart scientist," suggestion, by using Peterson's '1 in 10,000,000 theory', I do think, for a clinical psychologist, that he did give a pretty logical (Petersonesque ) analysis on, "Why the world won't unite to solve the complex issue of climate change."




And I think rustled did a great job at summarising the content.

LOL, also, I've seen environmentalist swear they'll never pay any attention to anything 'Ezra Levant', but I think that his book 'Ethical Oil' is a must to read.

http://orl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/129201111

And as Peterson intimates in the video and I've seen him say it on other videos.

"Read!" "Read everything that you can get your hands on!"

Dogma is a useless waste of space during these kinds of discussions. We need to maintain open minds!

So why are we still polluting the planet? Quote:Can you really get something from nothing?

The concept of zero-point energy can be traced back over a century to 1891 when Nikola Tesla stated “Throughout space there is energy…If this energy is kinetic then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the wheel-work of nature…Many generations may pass, but in time our machinery will be driven by energy available at any point of the universe.” End quote. https://theplaidzebra.com/zero-point-energy-generators/Complete idiocy that we are still burning oil on this earth and arguing how much we are doing so!!!! The hydrogen car!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CAzlW14k-w What about the Electric car? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru89x1jmpq4 NOT a word from the GREEN party! More Idiocy!

First of all...Do you trust the government ? on any level ?
If you don't,why are you buying into the narrative ?
The proponents of Global Warming lost me when they called CO2 a pollutant.
What about all the other things we are pumping into the atmosphere,soil and water.
These are being ignored,at our peril,I might add.
When we wake up to the fraud they change the narrative.Now it's fires in the Amazon,which are naturally occurring and relatively minor compared to past years.
Lungs of the earth they say ? Old growth forests only use enough Co2 to maintain and as they decay they release more than they consume.New growth uses more Co2 than they produce.The more Co2,the more vigorous the growth.That's why you talk to your plants...well...maybe some people but that's another discussion.

puterbrother wrote:.Now it's fires in the Amazon,which are naturally occurring and relatively minor compared to past years..

Quote Global News

"The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) has recorded more than 74,000 fires so far this year – an 84 per cent increase on the same period in 2018. It’s the highest number since records began in 2013."

I wonder what else you have wrong?

Bsuds wrote:

puterbrother wrote:.Now it's fires in the Amazon,which are naturally occurring and relatively minor compared to past years..

Quote Global News

"The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) has recorded more than 74,000 fires so far this year – an 84 per cent increase on the same period in 2018. It’s the highest number since records began in 2013."

I wonder what else you have wrong?

Except he is right . Jair Bosalarno said same thing. He is President of Brazil

Bsuds wrote:Quote Global News

"The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) has recorded more than 74,000 fires so far this year – an 84 per cent increase on the same period in 2018. It’s the highest number since records began in 2013."

I wonder what else you have wrong?

Complete and utter FakeNews. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/

Gilchy wrote:I don't get how people think we can terraform a planet, burn oil/gas/coal/wood/forests/etc endlessly for energy, wipe out biodiversity and on and on without impacting the planet and climate.

I agree that pollution is bound to have an effect on the planet. But it's wrong to use faulty science to try to prove the point. Because if and when that science is debunked, there's a danger that unscrupulous people will use that finding to justify even more pollution, with fewer controls.

I found the article the OP posted to be quite informative, and do believe there's been some "fudging" of the science to support a particular theory which may or may not be fact. And I further believe that there are a lot of people who have made a lot of money by getting others to accept their questionable theory, and money always provides an incentive for people to lie.

That's not a value judgement, but merely stating that nothing comes for free, and our current lifestyle and society has an ecological cost. We, as a society, have to assess whether what we're getting is worth the bill when it comes due.

And I agree 100% with that statement. I believe we DO have to reduce pollution, and also introduce stiffer penalties for those that pollute. BUT if we allow faulty science to steer our focus toward the wrong culprit, to the exclusion of finding ways to limit ALL forms of pollution, then we could be doing more harm than good to our environment.

We should never close our ears to dissenting voices, because history has shown us that sometimes those dissenting voices are correct.

Silverstarqueen wrote: Yes, we will still need heat in cold countries, and cooling in hot countries, and transport people and goods, but perhaps we can do this with less carbon emissions without too much difficulty.

I totally agree with your premise that the world should strive to pollute less and do what it can to protect our environment, regardless of whether the climate change theory is proven or debunked. Because it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that rampant pollution is harming our environment, and ultimately having an effect on human health.

My concern is that we've put so much emphasis on only one kind of pollution (that may or may not turn out to be the biggest problem) that we've virtually ignored all kinds of other types of pollution (that may, in the end, turn out to be much worse than carbon emissions).

In ignoring those other types of pollution, we've failed to find ways to reduce or prevent such sources, and our planet is suffering as a result. Also, in our single minded drive to reduce carbon emissions, we're often replacing one kind of pollution or environmental harm with another that is as bad or, in some cases, much worse.

For example, in Europe they're eliminating coal fired plants and replacing them with wood. But, having run out of their own supply of trees, they're now importing them, resulting in large areas of deforestation in other parts of the world. Which begs the question, which of the two solutions is causing the most harm to our environment?

Another example is the introduction of solar farms which, if not located suitably, can cause great harm to the environment.
Ideally they should be located on old industrial sites and the like, in order not to waste good agricultural land. But often, in the rush to develop such facilities, good land is EXACTLY where they've ended up.

And then of course there's the matter of the hazardous materials used in the manufacturing process of solar panels. If we regulate their production properly we can minimize the effects of those materials, on both the environment and the workers that produce the panels. But, considering we import most of our solar panels from places like China, can we honestly say we ARE effectively regulating their production? I think not.

I could go on, but I think (hope) I've made my point. Which is that if we truly want to protect our environment and ourselves from harm, then we need to focus on a lot more than just carbon emissions. And we need to DO a lot more than just agree to pay higher taxes. We need regulations, with accompanying enforcement, and we need to require all imported products to also meet those higher standards.

But, until we're willing to consider the possibility that faulty science may have resulted in our putting too much emphasis on only one form of pollution, to the virtual exclusion of all other, nothing is going to change.

Glacier wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/

Excellent article Glacier; thanks for posting the link.

The fact is that there have been more fires in the Amazon this year (just as we had a record number of fires in BC last year). And it's also true that there has been a lot of deforestation so that the land can be farmed (just as people did here a hundred years ago). But the sensational, and unscientific, claims about the Amazon being the "lungs of the earth" are just nonsense.

The following is from Glacier's link

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s *bleep*,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.”

Plants use respiration to convert nutrients from the soil into energy. They use photosynthesis to convert light into chemical energy, which can later be used in respiration.

What about The New York Times claim that “If enough rain forest is lost and can’t be restored, the area will become savanna, which doesn’t store as much carbon, meaning a reduction in the planet’s ‘lung capacity’”?

Also not true, said Nepstad, who was a lead author of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. “The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen, but so do soy farms and [cattle] pastures.”

This is just one more example of how the main stream media can get us all whipped up into a frenzy about something that isn't even true. And the unfortunate result of an angry ill informed public, can often be poor public policy that ends up doing more harm than good.

Which is why it's so important to make sure people get good, accurate information, as opposed to sensationalist media reports based on faulty science.

Bsuds wrote:Quote Global News

"The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) has recorded more than 74,000 fires so far this year – an 84 per cent increase on the same period in 2018. It’s the highest number since records began in 2013."

I wonder what else you have wrong?

Glacier wrote:
Complete and utter FakeNews. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... -is-wrong/

No, because even the link you provided claimed 80% more fires than 2018 which was my point that the other poster claimed was false.