Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[Partmanpartfish]

Should scientists definatively come to the conclusion we are not accelerating climate change I will accept their findings.

I'm sure if Fox News, Ezra and Rush changed their minds, so would the deniers in this thread.

[Gone_Fishin]

Let's see. Some of the largest and most successful and most tech-savvy companies in the world, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, are spending billions to go green, including building massive solar generating plants to power their server farms and factories.

I guess they're just not as smart as GBLV and are wasting their money.

Looks like you have no concept of advertising on popular social issues. Millions of people exploited the 1972 oil crisis too, but then the masses later realized that oil supplies hadn't actually run out. Smart companies like you mentioned will flog their oil-dependent products to complete idiots who believe that oil use is causing the planet to burn in excessive heat. Morons use their plastic Microsoft keyboard to praise "green" marketing campaigns, without realizing what they have in their hands. Duh to the 10th power.

[logicalview]

Should scientists definatively come to the conclusion we are not accelerating climate change I will accept their findings.

I honestly believe you Jenny, but you and I both know this is a false hope. Any scientist who comes out and questions the AGW dooms-day myth is immediately black-balled, and like the nuclear scientist who said that Fukishima was not causing any harm, is hit with death threats by fanatical maniac AGW religious cult members. Plus, what is in it for a scientist to question AGW dooms-day myths? Right now there is billions of dollars of government cash flowing into "fighting" this myth, and a gullible public swayed by fear-mongering and outright lies to keep those taps open and flowing. So do the math - speak up and say that AGW doom is a lie, and be black-balled and sent death threats, or just keep lying, and get a BMW and a Nobel prize? It's pretty simple.

We also know that by now, not just governments have committed and blown billions on this myth, but also huge global banking institutions (those guys who you always say you hate so much). Not only would there be egg on all of their faces and they would look just plain awful, but they'd lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars of commissions and income, all culled from money spent "fighting" this fraud.

The forces of big government and big Green will ensure that this fraud will perpetuate, right until the next Ice Age finally convinces people, that maybe, just maybe, the whole thing was just a giant fear-mongering hoax.

[logicalview]

Let's see. Some of the largest and most successful and most tech-savvy companies in the world, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, are spending billions to go green, including building massive solar generating plants to power their server farms and factories.

It's comments like this that just expose the ignorance of those that have chosen to join the AGW religious movement. These "tech-savvy" companies are spending hundreds of millions, that is correct, but it's not their money they are spending, or if it is, they are getting it all back. It's the brainless taxpayer who is actually fronting the cash for these gross endeavors, either directly through tax grants, or indirectly through giant subsidies. Elon Musk is a brilliant guy, but most of his brilliance stems from being able to con gullible morons in various levels of government to hand him giant gobs of taxpayer cash. If you were presented with a power source that was 100% paid for by the government, why wouldn't you take it? It's just good business, to fleece the government dumb enough to hand you these free goodies.

And I don't know why you would say that anyone here is against "going green". I am all for going to nuclear power, which is about as green as it gets, and much more cost effective than solar and wind, which are grossly expensive, and basically only somewhat viable thanks to idiotic governments and massive subsidies. All of these "tech-savvy" companies should be switching to 100% nuclear power, and taking taxpayers off the hook. They aren't "tech-savvy", they are "government exploiting" savvy.

I guess they're just not as smart as GBLV and are wasting their money.

You were told this by a mod:

*okay. while i'm sure some think this GBLV bit is cute, i don't. stop it NOW.*

If you want to keep posting here, I'd advise you to listen. But you don't listen to anyone here, so why doesn't it surprise me that you wouldn't listen to a mod either. Do so at your peril. There are other ways to vent your enormous and totally blind rage and anger. This isn't one of them.

[rustled]

Should scientists definatively come to the conclusion we are not accelerating climate change I will accept their findings.

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

JLives, I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

[logicalview]

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

JLives, I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

Excellent post Rustled! I hope you don't mind, but I've been using some of your excellent prose in rebuttals on other sites where today the AGW religious cultists are gloating about how now "things are going to change". I keep asking them how they are going to change, and all I get is bunch of gobble-de-gook about Harper and "right wing nutjobs". It seems no matter where you go, you just get the same talking points babbled back if you bother to question anything that in the minds of the brain-washed militant conflicts with the "Everything is Settled" mantra.

[Urbane]

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

JLives, I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

10/10

Great points rustled! I too think that some of our activities are having some effect on climate change. But as you say, not as much of an effect as we were led to believe. Even the father of AGW, Dr. James Lovelock, acknowledges that his projections of a decade ago were way off. The rest of your post is right on the mark as well!

[Partmanpartfish]

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

JLives, I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

Basically right-wing claptrap that we've all heard before.

Do you truly expect the poorest nations on earth to be the leaders in cutting emissions?

[rustled]

It seems very unlikely any scientist would ever definitively conclude that man's activities are not accelerating climate change, period. It seems likely that some of our activities are having some affect.

Clearly, those affects are not anywhere near as imminently catastrophic as we were told.

Yet we continue, as a group, to focus our attention in the wrong places entirely.

Our efforts should be aimed at seeking sensible ways to provide the cleanest energy possible to the most people possible.

Instead, we are dumping money into knee-jerk solutions. It's now obvious that we do have time to step back and re-think. How can we choose not to? It's pretty clear that today ideology, not science, is driving public policy. And what an ugly ideology it is turning out to be.

This ideology continues to ignore the very real problems of pollution in the homes and communities of the third-world. It continues to ignore the very real problems the conversion to renewables has caused for the poor of Germany. And it continues to ignore the very real environmental problems we have been creating in our rush to react to what we were led to believe was an imminent disaster.

JLives, I think you're a good person and the only reason you are comfortable ignoring these millions of people and these very serious environmental problems is because you are convinced that when we sacrifice those people and those environments we do so in the name of a greater good: preventing imminent global disaster.

But I wonder, at what point will you become uncomfortable with what is being done in the name of preventing an imminent global disaster that was not imminent after all?

At what point will you expect our resources to be redeployed to those who need real solutions, right now?

Basically right-wing claptrap that we've all heard before.

Do you truly expect the poorest nations on earth to be the leaders in cutting emissions?

Good lord, what a bizarre suggestion! And what an utterly weird response to my post. I can't imagine you getting that from actually reading my posts.

Partmanpartfish, check out the story in this month's National Geographic for a clear example of what the poorest nations struggle with every single day of their lives.

Then come on back and let me know if you still think WE, who no longer rely on burning kerosene, wood, coal, and dung for light and heat and to cook our food, should continue to prioritize replacing OUR relatively clean, relatively affordable energy sources, rather than helping THEM cut the emissions in their homes.

[tylerdaniels]

Wow... The misinformation in here is bad. Climate change is a real threat to us as a species not to us directly, but our future society. This a long term problem and we do need to be doing more to fix it. There is plenty of data from multiple scientist from all fields showing that the climate is changing from man related ignorance, ranging from ocean acidification, Higher ocean temperatures, Higher seas level, glaciers disappearing, Increased and longer Droughts along with longer summer months. Atmospheric concentrations of green houses gases(this is more than CO2, this also includes methane, halogenic gases, etc)

Let alone it should be obvious to anyone who lives in BC the fact that we've had glaciers that have been around for 100,000's of years that within the last 20 years have now disappeared along with the obvious higher winter temperatures, the lakes no longer freezing over. The fact that anyone would dispute this subject is some of the most ignorant load of BS I've ever heard.

We as a man have moved rivers, built huge towers and cities, we dominated the sky and seas with our ships and technology, we've been to space, landed on the moon and sent robots to some of the futhest reaches of space! I find it extremely ignorant when people say man isn't having an effect on the climate or our ecosystem.

This thread started with politics, I want to know why scientist around the world are wrong on these subjects. I want to know logical reason why all these scientist around the planet would be wrong not this subject. I do not want to hear about politics, I do not want to hear conspiracy bs about a corporation secret agenda.

[highway001]

I agree. Whatever's causing the change, we do know that it isn't happening as fast as was first predicted.

To me, the "act now" urgency smacks of being pressured by a salesman who is afraid we'll think to hard about it before we act.

We do have time to get it right. We can't afford not to.

Fair points

Out of curiosity when would be the time to act. By which indicator? Global temp increase, CO2 ppm, arctic land ice melt, ocean PH levels or another indicator?

Is there ever a moment where suddenly it is imperative we reduce our impact on the environment? I say it is now...since full scientific consensus is impossible when are your own tipping points?

[tylerdaniels]

I agree. Whatever's causing the change, we do know that it isn't happening as fast as was first predicted.

To me, the "act now" urgency smacks of being pressured by a salesman who is afraid we'll think to hard about it before we act.

We do have time to get it right. We can't afford not to.

I do not agree, who has been saying that climate change isn't happening as fast as predicted? Where do you get this information from?

Plenty of sources from this year say otherwise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tures.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-finds ... 1433440861

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/us-me ... hgvhn.html

[Glacier]

I do not agree, who has been saying that climate change isn't happening as fast as predicted? Where do you get this information from?

Plenty of sources from this year say otherwise.

What a bunch of anti-science bunk. There are 4 global thermometers: RSS, UAH, GISS, and HADCRUT. Three of them show a hiatus (Two of them show a pause of over 18 years), and you go with the one that doesn't. That is not science. It's cherry picking until you get the answer you want. If you went to 4 doctors, and 1 told you one thing and 3 told you another, why would you totally ignore the 3 other than the 1 gave you the answer that you wanted to hear.

[highway001]

Kind of an ironic analogy considering majority of scientists do indeed agree that climate change is taking place quickly. So to that logic...why glacier do you not listen to the majority and are firmly entrenched with the minority opinion. Heck 3 out of 4....thats 25% opposed. The odds against your position are are worse.

So I guess they'd say that those 3 dentists were oral zealots parroting a predetermined cavity driven diagnosis funded by a world wide organization of hippie flouride companies influencing and muzzling honest dental research....but thats silly.


But to your point just as Ted Cruz made the mistake of looking at The Pause as a sign of no climate change. He only looked at satellite but ignored surface temps and ocean temps.

Most warming...roughly 90% is within the ocean. The arctic is next in its warming acceleration. All easy enough to find.

[Glacier]

Kind of an ironic analogy considering majority of scientists do indeed agree that climate change is taking place quickly. So to that logic...why glacier do you not listen to the majority and are firmly entrenched with the minority opinion. Heck 3 out of 4....thats 25% opposed. The odds against your position are are worse.

I listen to science, not people. It's best to just look at the science and the data, and totally ignore any consensus. When the experts contradict the data, I go with the data.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "
~ Richard Feynman