Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

Civilized, with a Bickering Room for those who aren't.
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
Posts: 9792
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 4:59 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by logicalview »

George+ wrote:So, most graphs go up at a 45 degree plus angle and Glacier says it is slowing??

Ah ha ha ha....


It's posts like these that demonstrate your ignorance George, and show why people like you are perfect fodder for the AGW doomsday cultists. You see what you want to see, all based on your confirmation bias.
Not afraid to say "It".
George+
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10008
Joined: Oct 10th, 2011, 12:08 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by George+ »

Echo, echo, echo.
highway001
Fledgling
Posts: 126
Joined: Aug 31st, 2014, 9:46 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by highway001 »

logicalview wrote:
can you actually point to any example, anywhere, where Glacier has done this?



Ok...two posts ago

He posted "the world's longest climate record" 1880 to present.

He chose the graph "Mean Central England Temperature"

rather than NASAs data of global temps that I shared a few posts ago...the same info he used earlier when it suited his argument.

What would you call that if not cherry picking? Can't wait to hear your reply.



Also Glacier still hasn't informed me as a data driven guy about what the trend in that graph looks like. You say you post Paleooceanography data from 500million years ago...you post data from 20 years ago. Yet you are skeptical of NASAs graph of 1880 to present day.

Data only and lets use global data not Mean Central England Temperature data...give me a break. What would you say these graphs inficate...based on data only no left right stuff.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
Posts: 7638
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by Omnitheo »

So I had written out a long response for something back on page 14 or something, but then lost it as my iPads battery died. I then realized however that everything I had written had already been written by me earlier in the thread, including the part about number of bird deaths due to wind turbines or other causes (and I'm glad Donald G is now going after cell towers and high rise buildings and cats for causing exponentially more bird deaths than wind turbines. I love birds. Thanks Donald).

What would have been the point of reposting it all anyways, when it's been clear that the right wingers in this thread are incapable of reading, let alone comprehending my posts (as evident by numerous responses which were completely ignored, and then followed up by people demanding I respond...to something I already had several pages ago).

The fact is though, it's pointless. There are 4 people in this thread who will never be convinced, and who will always keep their mind closed and allow their biases to convince them that 2 fringe scientist are somehow as credible as a thousand climate scientists with the proper instruments and know how.

But I don't need to waste my time convincing 4 truck drivers. The majority of Canada already accepts this, and they have chosen a government who shares those concerns and is willing to make a difference. For this Canada is gaining international attention. Finally a nation ready to stand up to climate change, to accept scientific reality, to take a science based approach instead of an ideological approach. I can't describe how proud I am to be Canadian, after a decade of shame.

Better luck in 4 years, but with the way the last 4 days have gone, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
"Dishwashers, the dishwasher, right? You press it. Remember the dishwasher, you press it, there'd be like an explosion. Five minutes later you open it up the steam pours out, the dishes -- now you press it 12 times, women tell me again." - Trump
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13610
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by rustled »

Omnitheo, I wonder if you'd respond to this.
rustled wrote:That's the result of volcanic activity?

I'm curious, why is this image being used to frighten people about catastrophic AGW or ACC?

How likely is it that normal human activities could do this?

It interests me that as one who has "accepted", you can so easily dismiss those who continue to question. (Trucker drivers? What an odd choice.)

I suspect it's difficult for people like you and JLives and highway001 to seriously contemplate anything that might shake your faith in what you have supported for so long. But is it necessary to be divisive in your responses? It shouldn't be. I do my best to listen to those of you who have accepted with an open mind, and to believe that people like you are rational and intelligent and that your intentions are good. Ridiculing and dismissing you isn't necessary for me as one who questions, and to my mind it shouldn't be necessary for those of you who have accepted.

Many of those who whipped up the fear of imminent catastrophic man-made climate change did so for ideological reasons, to force public policy to change. This has always bothered me, because when we take a science based approach, exaggeration and emotional argument are unnecessary. (This is why I question using the cattle killed by natural causes to make a case against man-made CO2.) It bothers me more now, as their predictions are proving inaccurate.

You say we have had a decade of shame, presumably because we opted to slow down in our knee-jerk responses to a threat which is clearly not as imminent (and may never prove as extreme) as we had been told it would be.

How do you not feel shame that the vast majority of our pollution reduction resources are being deployed against what we were told is an imminent catastrophic disaster, while ignoring the hardships of the 1.1 billion people who have no electricity at all? To me, continuing an elitist response to this crisis flies in the face of humanitarianism.

We as a society have been persuaded to pay dearly for relatively inefficient sources of energy which have been destructive to the environment while ignoring (or worse, adding hardship) to the world's poorest people.

How do we not step back and take stock? How do we not question?
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
Posts: 7638
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by Omnitheo »

rustled wrote:Omnitheo, I wonder if you'd respond to this.
That's the result of volcanic activity?

I'm curious, why is this image being used to frighten people about catastrophic AGW or ACC?
How likely is it that normal human activities could do this?

my apologies, did I miss that one? If you notice, each time I referenced that was in response to someone stating "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's plant food. What harm could there be in having more in the atmosphere"
This was an example that enough CO2 in the atmosphere certainly can be a pollutant. Doesn't matter whether it's natural or unnatural. A big fire is going to burn down a city whether it's natural or unnatural. Im not saying that humans are going to release an instant cloud of CO2, but if the amount that we're already releasing isn't concerning enough, where do we draw the line between now and Nyos?

Our bodies have evolved for a specific atmosphere. Changing that has negative effects, as we already have seen in the millions of premature deaths due to polluted cities.


It interests me that as one who has "accepted", you can so easily dismiss those who continue to question. (Trucker drivers? What an odd choice.)

I was really struggling to find an antonym for boffin, but you are not one of the 4 people I refer to.

I suspect it's difficult for people like you and JLives and highway001 to seriously contemplate anything that might shake your faith in what you have supported for so long. But is it necessary to be divisive in your responses? It shouldn't be. I do my best to listen to those of you who have accepted with an open mind, and to believe that people like you are rational and intelligent and that your intentions are good. Ridiculing and dismissing you isn't necessary for me as one who questions, and to my mind it shouldn't be necessary for those of you who have accepted.

I once did not believe climate change either. My understanding of the universe has continued to evolve and will continue to do so with each new discovery and observation. In regards to divisiveness in my posts, i apologize if my previous posts came off that way, as that was not my intention in any of them but rather to counter the arguments that were given. This particular post was written after catching up on 6 pages in this thread and I sort of stooped down to a different level.

Also please do not lump me in with other people. Aside from a few walls on this board I care nothing for those who are making the posts, but rather what the posts themselves have to say. My opinions are my own based on my own understanding.


Many of those who whipped up the fear of imminent catastrophic man-made climate change did so for ideological reasons, to force public policy to change. This has always bothered me, because when we take a science based approach, exaggeration and emotional argument are unnecessary. (This is why I question using the cattle killed by natural causes to make a case against man-made CO2.) It bothers me more now, as their predictions are proving inaccurate.

what about those who whipped up fears of man made holes in the ozone layer? And to clarify, cattle killed by CO2 is a response to the comment that CO2 can't be considered a pollutant.

You say we have had a decade of shame, presumably because we opted to slow down in our knee-jerk responses to a threat which is clearly not as imminent (and may never prove as extreme) as we had been told it would be.

no I say we have a decade of shame because we have lost our respect on the international stage, and undone the progress that we had been making as a country. We lost our seat on the security council. We sided against most of the world on Israel. We restricted access to the information necessary to make informed policy decisions. We made it so that the tax dollars funding scientific studies could not actually be used by those paying for them. We saw continuous scandals and abuses of power, and we saw a government that was going to use vague definitions of "terrorism" be grounds to wrongfully imprison, torture, and exile citizens. That is my decade of shame.

How do you not feel shame that the vast majority of our pollution reduction resources are being deployed against what we were told is an imminent catastrophic disaster, while ignoring the hardships of the 1.1 billion people who have no electricity at all? To me, continuing an elitist response to this crisis flies in the face of humanitarianism.

We as a society have been persuaded to pay dearly for relatively inefficient sources of energy which have been destructive to the environment while ignoring (or worse, adding hardship) to the world's poorest people.

we are not ignoring the hardships of those people. We fund a number of projects. Stop trying to link one arbitrary expense to another. As for inefficient sources of energy that are destructive to the environment, please give me examples with actual numbers and data.

How do we not step back and take stock? How do we not question?

thats exactly what we're doing. We are questioning the previous ideology of disregard for the environment, of unrestricted emissions and pollution. We are questioning the effect this will have on our future, on our children, on our economy.
Last edited by Omnitheo on Nov 7th, 2015, 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Dishwashers, the dishwasher, right? You press it. Remember the dishwasher, you press it, there'd be like an explosion. Five minutes later you open it up the steam pours out, the dishes -- now you press it 12 times, women tell me again." - Trump
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18348
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 11:53 am

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by JLives »

rustled wrote:I suspect it's difficult for people like you and JLives and highway001 to seriously contemplate anything that might shake your faith in what you have supported for so long. But is it necessary to be divisive in your responses? It shouldn't be. I do my best to listen to those of you who have accepted with an open mind, and to believe that people like you are rational and intelligent and that your intentions are good. Ridiculing and dismissing you isn't necessary for me as one who questions, and to my mind it shouldn't be necessary for those of you who have accepted.


I find it interesting that you would call accepting facts as true as demonstrated by the scientific method as "faith". Do you think you know more than the planet's climate scientists? Maybe you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed so us lowly internet posters can have more insight into your knowledge.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33225
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by Glacier »

highway001 wrote:
Ok...two posts ago

He posted "the world's longest climate record" 1880 to present. The world's old's global temperature is HADCRUT, 1850 to present. If I said 1880, that was a typo since 1880 is the world's second oldest global temperature dataset, GISS.

He chose the graph "Mean Central England Temperature" HADCET is the world's longest continuous temperature record. It goes back as far as 1659.

rather than NASAs data of global temps that I shared a few posts ago...the same info he used earlier when it suited his argument.

What would you call that if not cherry picking? Can't wait to hear your reply. This is not cherry picking. Rather, it's using all the data to answer the questions.



Also Glacier still hasn't informed me as a data driven guy about what the trend in that graph looks like. You say you post Paleooceanography data from 500million years ago...you post data from 20 years ago. Yet you are skeptical of NASAs graph of 1880 to present day. Take all the data into account. Either GISS is exaggarating the warming or HADCRUT, RSS, and UAH are under representing the warming. You are the cherry picker for only going with the dataset that fits your worldview.

Data only and lets use global data not Mean Central England Temperature data...give me a break. What would you say these graphs inficate...based on data only no left right stuff. What are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? HADCET is not global. That should be obvious to you. All that it show is the world's longest continuous thermometer. That's it. Nothing else. Stop reading things into graphs that aren't there.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13610
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by rustled »

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Omnitheo. To me, using the image of cattle killed at Nyos to prove the danger of CO2 is like using images of people killed in flash floods to prove the danger of water. It's intentionally misrepresentative, intended to bring emotion into the discussion. We regularly see this when chimneys emitting mostly water vapour are used to misrepresent the amount of pollution being caused by industries. It seems to me there should be no need for this.

Is it the CO2 in polluted cities that's causing premature deaths, or the particulates? In the homes where they still burn kerosene, wood and dung, is it the release of the CO2 into their homes that is of most concern? Is the focus on CO2 appropriate?

You ask for actual numbers and data to show the harm we've done in our rush to halt catastrophic man-made climate change. I've looked at the deforestation in the eastern U.S. to provide pellets to ship to England where they're burned; the pouring of millions of cubic yards of cement into fragile desert ecosystems (apparently permanently, even if the turbines are decommissioned); the fining of a wind farm in Wyoming for the deaths of protected birds and the Smithsonian's caution about the height factor; the cautionary tale of Ivanpah ("streamers", tortoises, etc.), which led to the next large-scale installation of solar arrays to do things very differently; the misdirection of corn from a food stock to a poor-quality fuel that prematurely ended the useful life of vehicles; and more.

If you're truly able to consider all of those things without bias, you, too, might think perhaps we reacted too quickly, damaged environments unnecessarily, further impoverished people who were already impoverished, and lined the pockets of the wrong people when we could instead have been using some of this money and our resources to better solve other, more pressing problems while working toward more effective, less destructive sources of cleaner energy.

We can see that the predicted catastrophes from man-made climate change are not as imminent as we were told, and may never be as extreme as we were led to believe. So when I compare what we spend to assist the world's poor in developing their electrical grid to what we're spending in our haste to replace our own relatively clean, relatively affordable systems with renewables, I see a very misplaced sense of priorities.

There should be no shame in saying we made a mistake, or in taking a more thoughtful approach.
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13610
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by rustled »

rustled wrote:I suspect it's difficult for people like you and JLives and highway001 to seriously contemplate anything that might shake your faith in what you have supported for so long. But is it necessary to be divisive in your responses? It shouldn't be. I do my best to listen to those of you who have accepted with an open mind, and to believe that people like you are rational and intelligent and that your intentions are good. Ridiculing and dismissing you isn't necessary for me as one who questions, and to my mind it shouldn't be necessary for those of you who have accepted.

JLives wrote:I find it interesting that you would call accepting facts as true as demonstrated by the scientific method as "faith". Do you think you know more than the planet's climate scientists? Maybe you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed so us lowly internet posters can have more insight into your knowledge.

This is my understanding of scientific method:
Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view."

In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. ...
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I find it sad that you need to be rude in your responses, JLives. I don't know everything, but I loathe being manipulated, which is why it's important to me to question everything. I apologize if you find that irritating. I don't mean it to be.

I'm sure all of us want the same thing from Paris: for them to make the best possible decisions moving forward.
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18348
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 11:53 am

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by JLives »

How was my response rude? You don't know more than they do. That's a fact. Why do you assume you are being manipulated because the vast majority of climate scientists around the world find certain facts to be true?
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
Posts: 7638
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by Omnitheo »

Rustled, I do not believe I was misrepresenting anything, as that was precisely the point I was trying to make. Too much of anything can be hazardous. I even used exactly the example of too much water being deadly.

In regards to the cities, i would say both. The particulates are first and foremost causing health issues, but increasing carbon dioxide as well, which is another gas we can't breath, will exacerbate the issue.

We are in much agreement for those energy sources you've listed. Pellet burning may be "renewable" but continues the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at multiple stages too, same for Biofuel. Hydro electric dams which can be a nice long term investment do so at the cost of destroying huge areas, and in some cases causing the extinction of entire species. Wind farms certainly need to be constructed in areas with regards to animals, and thankfully studies are being done to mitigate casualties. I believe in geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power. Not haphazardly mind you, all of these need to be done properly to mitigate harm to the environment or to people.
"Dishwashers, the dishwasher, right? You press it. Remember the dishwasher, you press it, there'd be like an explosion. Five minutes later you open it up the steam pours out, the dishes -- now you press it 12 times, women tell me again." - Trump
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13610
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by rustled »

JLives wrote:How was my response rude? You don't know more than they do. That's a fact. Why do you assume you are being manipulated because the vast majority of climate scientists around the world find certain facts to be true?
I find sarcasm rude. I think most people do.

You keep saying that I don't know more than "they" do. That's obvious, and I've never claimed to know more than "they" do. It seems rude to me that you keep insisting that's what this is about (me thinking I'm smarter than the majority of scientists). It's not about that at all, so please stop trying to make it so.

You brought up scientific method, yet you seem to think those of us who question they theory you have embraced (whether we are are laypersons or scientists) are wrong to do so, that we are somehow being "anti-science". But how does your "it's settled" stance square with scientific method? Scientific method actually insists we continue to question accepted theory, and that we are prepared to discard theories which do not hold true. You'd rather we don't question, don't discuss the discrepancies we see?

You may not feel you were manipulated into accepting "green" initiatives which turned out to be bad for the poor and bad for the environment, when our acceptance was primarily based on the premise of imminent catastrophe. I think it's likely those promoting that narrative honestly believed that narrative. But now we see that the catastrophe is not as imminent or as extreme as predicted, and I for one feel that there are those who capitalize on the widespread and unquestioning acceptance of that disaster narrative. In another thread, I was accused of promoting that as a conspiracy theory. To that, I say "nonsense". Exploiting an obvious business opportunity does not require conspiracy. But when good people say "nobody should question this", it sure gives those who would exploit a lot of leeway.
Last edited by rustled on Nov 7th, 2015, 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rustled
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13610
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 1:47 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by rustled »

Omnitheo wrote:Rustled, I do not believe I was misrepresenting anything, as that was precisely the point I was trying to make. Too much of anything can be hazardous. I even used exactly the example of too much water being deadly.

In regards to the cities, i would say both. The particulates are first and foremost causing health issues, but increasing carbon dioxide as well, which is another gas we can't breath, will exacerbate the issue.

We are in much agreement for those energy sources you've listed. Pellet burning may be "renewable" but continues the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at multiple stages too, same for Biofuel. Hydro electric dams which can be a nice long term investment do so at the cost of destroying huge areas, and in some cases causing the extinction of entire species. Wind farms certainly need to be constructed in areas with regards to animals, and thankfully studies are being done to mitigate casualties. I believe in geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power. Not haphazardly mind you, all of these need to be done properly to mitigate harm to the environment or to people.

My sense is that we could do a lot more about the particulate if we weren't so focused on the CO2.

How do you feel about the new generation of nuclear?
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Trudeau invites Premiers to Paris climate talks.

Post by maryjane48 »

the particulate is a huge problem for sure but so is co2

Return to “Political Arena”