Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[Partmanpartfish]

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?

That's sort of the elephant in the room. Since there is a scientific consensus on climate change, where are the deniers and truthers getting their fodder? Certainly not from the scientific community. In fact, the only scientist they have cited in this thread is a fellow from Alabama who believes climate change is God's work.

That is why I believe it is politically motivated. If the truthers and deniers wish to reject the scientific consensus on climate change because they believe Ezra and Limbaugh and Mr. Harper know more about science than scientists do, that's fine. Ignorance is bliss.

But they shouldn't pretend what they do is science.

[rustled]

When the evidence is contrary to the theory, science requires that we re-examine the theory.

The catastrophic consequences of man-made climate change that the theory predicted would happen by now, have not happened.

The evidence is contrary to the theory. This is not denial. It's a simple statement of fact.

Scientific method invites and embraces questioning, always. It expects it, always. Science does not label examination as denialism.

[maryjane48]

but the facts are earth is getting warmer and humans should do what they can to slow it down .

[Glacier]

but the facts are earth is getting warmer and humans should do what they can to slow it down .

The fact is that the earth is getting warmer. Humans should slow it down is an opinion.

[Ka-El]

The fact is that the earth is getting warmer. Humans should slow it down is an opinion.

The idea that humans even can slow it down is speculation at best, maybe even naïve. Not to confuse this statement with the suggestion we should do nothing to control pollution or investigate other energy sources. Lets just be smart about it, and maybe even start preparing for changes that are inevitable and we that have no control over.

[Partmanpartfish]

I'll never understand why the right wing is so against the end of fossil fuels and the environmental problems they cause and the amount of money we're forced to spend on them.

I look forward to the day my house is powered by solar panels on my roof, and my cars get juice from same. Fortis will just be for backup and I'll avoid ESSO completely. Those will be good times.

The right wing--the deniers and the truthers--want us to keep using the fuels we've been using since the steam age.

That doesn't make sense. Why are they so against science and the progress science makes? We should stop worrying about ISIS and start worrying about the damage the right wing media does. Which is fill people's heads with garbage and claptrap.

[maryjane48]

because its a moneymaker simple as that . but no one gets keep the money in end . we all die

[Glacier]

I'll never understand why the right wing is so against the end of fossil fuels and the environmental problems they cause and the amount of money we're forced to spend on them.

I look forward to the day my house is powered by solar panels on my roof, and my cars get juice from same. Fortis will just be for backup and I'll avoid ESSO completely. Those will be good times.

The right wing--the deniers and the truthers--want us to keep using the fuels we've been using since the steam age.

That doesn't make sense. Why are they so against science and the progress science makes? We should stop worrying about ISIS and start worrying about the damage the right wing media does. Which is fill people's heads with garbage and claptrap.

FortisBC's power is almost all made up of green power already, but you are right that it can't hurt to add solar panels to that. Heck my mom has been powering her house on solar for 20 years now.

You keep raising non sequiturs. Very few people want to keep using fossil fuels forever, but that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The right's argument over climate (as is the dissenting voices on the left) has nothing to do with whether or not we should abandon oil (we should), but rather it had to do with the science around climate change. Car pollution is very bad irrespective of climate change. Many on the left, including some environmentalists, do not believe CAWG. This does not make them fans of Big Oil or anti-environment or any other such nonsense.

It is you who ties climate change in with politics. It is you that would never change your mind no matter where the science would lead because you are so convinced that this a politically driven issue. You believe that in order for a person to be an environmentalist, they must fully embrace catastrophic climate change predictions even before the science agrees. Even when the science points towards a less catastrophic conclusion, you will not change your mind because you have convinced yourself that you could only do so by first becoming a right-wing oil loving fool.

[highway001]

Since I clearly cannot make a dent in your thinking ill restate a question I asked earlier. Hopfully rustled glacier and company can provide a reply.

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

[rustled]

The way you've framed your question makes it black and white, all or nothing. Act (or don't act) until X factor occurs.

I don't see the issue that way at all, though. Instead, I support a continuum of activity, based on existing realities in different parts of the world, responding thoughtfully to new evidence about our activities and new discoveries in energy production.

To my mind, instead of focusing on when, we should instead focus on what (on the actions we take, and those we are proposing) and think critically about the consequences of these actions before, during, and after implementation.

We should already be doing what we can individually to reduce the amount of pollution for which we are responsible. "Live simply so others can simply live." Consume less in the first place, instead of relying on recycling. Make things last, instead of replacing them.

As a society, we should continue to support efforts to monitor the effects of human activity, and to explore ways to mitigate negative impacts without doing fresh damage or introducing bigger problems. This responsibility falls to first world countries, so we should support our governments in this, and we must never be dismissive when our countries' energy and environmental policies run counter to the best interests of impoverished people.

We should always do whatever is practical in terms of reducing the most harmful pollutants, while supporting efforts to develop affordable, environmentally intelligent and humanitarian solutions to phase out our reliance on fossil fuel. Renewables are the solution in some areas, but they are unlikely to provide a realistic alternative in many areas, for a variety or reasons.

To me, this means it's time to think much more critically when presented with fear-mongering about nuclear. Proponents of the new generation nuclear have some interesting things to say about it, that it is much safer than the previous technology (although even the older technology's track record is much safer than most people are willing to believe), and that it will provide all the fresh water and power the world needs. I think we should be looking seriously at it. But if we do determine it is a safe enough option and we go ahead with it, what a game changer it will be. We need to be aware of, and prepared for, the economic and social consequences of that great a change.

That's what I'd like to see them talk about in Paris.

Regardless of which forms of energy production we embrace, if we could take the fear, emotion, politics and pocket-liners out of it, and let the research and development scientists do their work without interference from the lobbyists, perhaps we'd have a very different world within a few years.

[Glacier]

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

We are already acting. The amount we do and how much effort we put into it really depends on how bad the things are going to be. If any of those things listed are actually shown to be negative, then for sure, let's act to stop them.

On another note, Rex Murphy's latest article: Empty words from the climate doomsayers

[maryjane48]

its funny how the right wants to live in delusions .i did my own research in to antartica , and low and behold what nasa is really saying is that eastern edge of antartica is out pacing the western coast meaning the east coast is gaining more ice through snowfall than the west coast is losing ice mass for now . that has been happening for 10 to 20 thousand years . but at some point they expect that to change sooner than later .and there is still sealevel rise going on .


people like glac want to promote their falsehoods simply because they make money from dirty fuel . nothing more or less and thankfully the world is moving forward towards a green energy future without them

[Partmanpartfish]

On another note, Rex Murphy's latest article: Empty words from the climate doomsayers

Do you really think you help your shaky argument by posting the verbal diarrhea of a right wing crank published in a US hedge fund-owned declining wingnut newspaper?

I know there's not a lot of support on the science end for truthers, but Rex Murphy?

Perhaps you guys are so wrong all the time because of the silly places you go for your information?

[Partmanpartfish]

Since I clearly cannot make a dent in your thinking ill restate a question I asked earlier. Hopfully rustled glacier and company can provide a reply.

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

Just like no amount of evidence or proof that Obama was born in the US will ever convince the birther truthers they're wrong, the climate truthers have no endgame.

Rush Limbaugh's Florida estate could be under water, and they'd still be in denial.

[dieseluphammerdown]

Perhaps you guys are so wrong all the time because of the silly places you go for your information?

Or perhaps it is all the suckers who have taken the billion $$ climate change BS hook line and sinker. Glad I'm not naïve enough to buy into the biggest scam known to man.!

Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change
By Prof. Robert M. Carter

James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
Global Research.ca
12-9-9




1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. 2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warmingsince 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts. 3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern. 4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas. 5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback). 6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body. Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz". 7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met). The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later "Bali roadmap". 8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future. 9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change. 10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate. The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change. LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years. Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995. Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude. Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past. Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve and its computer extrapolation). Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway. Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years. Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling. Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike. Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes. Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful. Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration. Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT. Facts 7 The sun's output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions. Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times. Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise. Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase. Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity. Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system. Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. © Copyright Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, 2009