Poll: Mans contribution to climate change

[The Green Barbarian]

In short, we're all a bunch of hypocrites who do a lot of talking and not much action.

And yet Merry, if I "took action" on this obvious hoax, I would be a hypocrite. I am all for the environment - recycle, reuse etc. and let's clean up the oceans for sure, that's a great thing. But I'm not going to give up beef or pets in the name of something that doesn't exist. Let's get people some clean drinking water - why is that not the biggest priority of us as a species? Staring up at the clouds and screaming like Chicken Little for a 100 years has done nothing to fix this basic human need for so many mega millions of people. Give them drinking water, educate them, give them access to a secure food supply. THEN we can go on problem-solving for fairy tales. Not one minute before that.

[rustled]

I'm not a scientist, so I don't know for sure whether or not human behaviour is contributing to global warming. But I DO know that we have a tendency to use our planet as one big garbage can. And I DO know that when we do that we destroy certain animal habitats, poison many living creatures (including ourselves), and possibly have a negative effect on our climate. All of which are very bad things.

Why can't we stop arguing about whether or not our behaviour is negatively impacting our climate, and simply agree that we all need to clean up our act?

There are so many things that we could do to reduce our negative impact on our planet, yet it seems to me we're all so busy trying to prove that we're right about our position on climate change that much of what could be done to improve our "footprint" is being overlooked. Governments hide behind the imposition of taxes that are supposed to solve all the problems, while doing very little to solve most of the actual problems. And individuals pride themselves on participating in demonstrations, or recycling items they shouldn't have bought in the first place, while doing very little to change their lifestyle in a meaningful way that really would make a difference.

In short, we're all a bunch of hypocrites who do a lot of talking and not much action.

IMO, as someone who was involved in environmental activism in the 1980's and 90's, this conversation matters a great deal because what we do - and the outcome - depends so heavily on the goals of those driving the bus.

We used to focus our resources (time and money) on sensible, measurable policies which were aimed directly at reducing pollution and the negative environmental impacts associated with the way we use resources, and restoring habitats we'd damaged.

With CAGW, our resources were redirected through policies which have done far more harm than good in the name of "fighting global warming" and "fighting climate change". Too many people embraced the alarmists' apocalyptic messaging, and refused to listen to the climate scientists who have been telling us all along this is no emergency - we DO have time to develop cleaner energies, along with better methods of extraction and recycling and disposal of materials.

For a variety of reasons, the people pushed the "emergency" narrative loud and hard have been driving the bus in the wrong direction, at great cost to the environment. This shift has had us going away from - not toward - our goals as described in bold above. Worse, this shift in focus has resulted in even more challenging messes for us to deal with.

This conversation has never, for me, been about determining who's right and who's wrong. It has always, for me, been about how to be sure the policies we collectively support actually do more good than harm.

I hear a lot of people saying "I'm not a scientist..." Well, it doesn't take a scientist to listen to the very knowledgeable climate scientists who ARE saying we DO have time - there IS NO EMERGENCY. And it certainly doesn't take a degree in climate science for any of us to admit we ARE doing more damage to the environment with "green energy" policies people have been mindlessly supporting at the behest of those who have been preaching the apocalypse.

[Jlabute]

Take-aways from the "reasoning" video:

1) Your brain is Tofu?
I doubt it. I think he was just making a comparison. lol

2) Stronger and more frequent weather events.
This is proven to be a wrong by actual observations. So right away, his rationale to give significant attention to "climate" as a "hyper-object" for group thought is losing urgency. Not necessarily the point of his video, but one should begin with facts of which are very few with climate.

3) CO2 affects people in the future, so should we extend empathy to future generations. Why? Among other things, debt also affects people in the future, and availability of reliable fuel affects the future. The current 'oil culture' lifted people out of poverty and doubled the average lifespan. Spending future generations in to oblivion is worse. Climate Scientists also say there is no emergency. There is no proof CO2 is doing any harm. Perhaps, the proposed catastrophic feedbacks have not happened. Maybe they never will. This all means climate sensitivity is lower than thought.

4) Behavioral inertia - there is no need to change behavior at this time for an issue that is extremely over-hyped by media and activists.

5) Groups of people deliberate better, like a jury for example. This is not always true, since a "jury" can be pressured to make a particular decision. The idea a large anonymous crowd knows better is not the case in complex issues with no facts.


This has been fun! The votes have been quite interesting so far, going near 0% to near 100%. What does it say when you see no votes cast in the middle, 40% to 60%?

Voters tend to be honestly polarized over climate and for good reasons. Why are we so polarized?
One side believes CAGW is over-hyped and not enough science has been done, too many assumptions made, too much politics involved, too much money at stake, and the media over-simplifies a complex system!
The opposite side believes we are already doomed since obviously India and China won't change, and natural climate change no longer exists, CO2 is THE knob, and I see this line on a graph that shoots straight up!

Yet in reality, we do not see dramatically changing climate. Richard Lindzen says temperatures go up, and down, and up , and down and will continue to do so. After the 500 year mini ice age, we didn't expect temperatures would be level forever, did we? We didn't expect temperatures to continue to plummet? Why can't temperature naturally increase after a mini ice age?

Up is the only way to go after the elbow of the LIA in the late 1700's.

There appears to be a cycle happening.

[GordonH]

This planet has been around for number of billions of years. In that time it’s been either coming from or going to an Ice age, impo I strongly suspect it currently traveling from last Ice age.
Hence it’s getting warmer and warmer... once this cycle is complete it will be heading towards another Ice age were it will get slowly colder and colder.

I am sure there are numerous posters going to shoot holes throughout my post... I really don’t care, so shoot away.

[Ka-El]

Things that won’t be fixed by less pipelines or a carbon tax …

The Gulf Stream is migrating closer to Canada, and scientists are concerned

North-central and eastern Canada experienced some of the most extreme temperature anomalies on Earth, along with parts of Russia and southeastern Europe, in the past. Temperatures that were 3–6°C above average in Atlantic Canada occurred and scientists observed the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record in December 2010.

Fisheries significantly suffered from the harsh temperature anomalies and researchers have spent years investigating the causes of this unusual warmth. A study published in Communications Earth & Environment reports that the abrupt warming from 2009 to 2010 in the Northwest Atlantic is linked to the Gulf Stream migrating closer to Newfoundland.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topst ... li=AAggFp5

[lifegives]

This planet has been around for number of billions of years. In that time it’s been either coming from or going to an Ice age, impo I strongly suspect it currently traveling from last Ice age.
Hence it’s getting warmer and warmer... once this cycle is complete it will be heading towards another Ice age were it will get slowly colder and colder.

I am sure there are numerous posters going to shoot holes throughout my post... I really don’t care, so shoot away.

Yes, the planet has been here for billions of years, but how many of those was it habitable? The planet can survive in some fashion but can we? and that's ignoring the extinction events we've already caused for other species that were living on this planet too.

[rustled]

Things that won’t be fixed by less pipelines or a carbon tax …

The Gulf Stream is migrating closer to Canada, and scientists are concerned

North-central and eastern Canada experienced some of the most extreme temperature anomalies on Earth, along with parts of Russia and southeastern Europe, in the past. Temperatures that were 3–6°C above average in Atlantic Canada occurred and scientists observed the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record in December 2010.

Fisheries significantly suffered from the harsh temperature anomalies and researchers have spent years investigating the causes of this unusual warmth. A study published in Communications Earth & Environment reports that the abrupt warming from 2009 to 2010 in the Northwest Atlantic is linked to the Gulf Stream migrating closer to Newfoundland.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topst ... li=AAggFp5

I'm pleased to see "fixing" doesn't seem to be the intent:

The researchers say that increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions will continue to slow down the AMOC and lead to warming in the Northwest Atlantic, which is “expected to increasingly alter historically exploited stocks in this region” and require “adaptation of fisheries risk assessments to maintain resilience in a changing climate.”

The study concludes that monitoring sea levels at the Grand Banks would enable scientists to predict abnormal warming events up to one year in advance, which could help stakeholders better mitigate the risks and impacts to ecosystems and fisheries.

[Jlabute]

This planet has been around for number of billions of years. In that time it’s been either coming from or going to an Ice age, impo I strongly suspect it currently traveling from last Ice age.
Hence it’s getting warmer and warmer... once this cycle is complete it will be heading towards another Ice age were it will get slowly colder and colder.

I am sure there are numerous posters going to shoot holes throughout my post... I really don’t care, so shoot away.

Thanks for your input GordonH. Frankly, scientists do NOT know what caused previous ice-ages. Every 100,000 years (Milankovitch eccentricity?) the earth has plunged in to a chilling cold and the last one ended 11,000 years ago. Kelowna had 600m of icing on top, the height of two Eiffel towers. Only a tiny change in CO2 occurred during these transitions of about 80ppm, likely released and absorbed by the oceans after the temperature changed. There is evidence of a settlement found 400 feet below the water off our west coast. That is a lot of ice melt to raise the oceans. Imagine how warm it must had been 11,000 year back to raise ocean levels by a few inches per year. I think over the following thousands of years the earth has cooled, but an initial 'shock' jolted us out of the last ice age and temperatures have been gently falling over the last 10,000 years. Viking artifacts have been found under ice left from warmer times. A ton of stuff we have barely a clue about.

Earth spends most of its time in the cold. Warmth is good. Canada won't like the next ice age. Lets NOT build a wall on the border.

[GordonH]

^^^ I find the programs Dr. Brian Cox does to be very interesting, if you haven’t seen him maybe check him out.
I am sure they are on youtube

btw... my post wasn’t taken from anything he said, just my own opinion.

[youjustcomplain]

Why can't we stop arguing about whether or not our behaviour is negatively impacting our climate, and simply agree that we all need to clean up our act?

whoa whoa !!! Hold up a second here. We have reduced our plastic straw use. I'd say we're well on our way to saving the world. :)

It's funny to me that society has chosen to do nothing about the big problems but instead, we've decided that we can make an impact by doing something that really has no effect on anything. Plastic straws.

[GordonH]

I used one of those paper straws... imo totally useless, fell apart before I finished my drink.

Oh that’s right I am suppose to carry around with me a metal straw, that idiots.

[Jlabute]

Why can't we stop arguing about whether or not our behavior is negatively impacting our climate, and simply agree that we all need to clean up our act?

It is a good question. You may be talking more about environment and pollution rather than effects of CO2 on climate. Maybe the effects of CO2 will be tiny, but if we spend trillions of dollars fighting CO2, is any money left over to clean up real pollution? Are straws over-hyped? Do we offer paper straws now which puts more CO2 in the air like paper bags, but are more biodegradable? What are we trying to fight? Paper products put around 4x more CO2 in the air than the plastic counter-parts. Do we care?

[BC Landlord]

Has anyone noticed, you can hardly find powder laundry detergent in stores lately? They are pushing that pod type nowadays. What is that all about, ... something environmental again?

[Ka-El]

What is that all about, ...

$$$

[BC Landlord]

China's emissions now exceed all the developed world's combined

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-s-emi ... -1.1599997

And, another carbon tax would fix that, ... but not in China. Here in Canada!