Climate change.

[The Green Barbarian]

Climate Einstein busted in a big fat LIE!

McKenna caught telling porkies! Real actual porkies!

[hobbyguy]

While there are those who choose to believe that climate change is 100% not human caused and those who believe it is 100% human caused, I personally am in the camp where I believe that humans are significantly exacerbating climate change as a natural process.

Nature has its balances and systems that work for all of us, but if we upset that balance too much then we get undesired effects. A simple example is fertilizer runoff intro waterways. If we dump too much fertilizer into a body of water, then certain species of algae will gain an unnatural advantage, bloom, and and suck all the oxygen out of the water (the balance between the creatures that eat oxygen consuming algae and the algae gets out of whack). (can't say as I have that 100% correct, but the principle is there).

The atmospheric systems that control our climate are way too complex for me to understand, and given the state of weather forecasting, I doubt that human understanding of climate/weather systems is anywhere near complete. That leaves a lot of room for arguments on both sides of what has become a polarizing argument.

Why has such a polarized situation developed? My view is that special interests have taken over the discussion, each selecting pieces of an overall truth from a very complex topic that suit their own agendas. That is really a disservice to us all. From the David Kochs to the David Suzukis we only get a very narrow but loudly proclaimed set of pieces of a puzzle that is not completely understood.

It does, however, behoove us all to do what we can to get more in balance with nature. The difficulty is that the "advocates" are giving us solutions that are not workable for most, and are being promoted by people that simply don't have the skills and knowledge to evaluate potential steps that can work for most.

Put simply, if I want a better design for a mousetrap, I will call up an engineer and a practical person who knows how to make mousetraps. I will not ask David Suzuki or Tzeporah Bermann to design a better mousetrap - they simply do not have the background to properly ask the "and then what?" questions.

Site C is a good example of the advocates going all nuts over something that will, for a looong time, provide non carbon energy at an acceptable delivered cost.

Something that wind and solar power have proven, in the real world, to be unable to do. There is a big difference between generated incremental cost and delivered cost. By that I mean the real world costs to the user, if a store in Edmonton has Ketchup on sale for $.50 a bottle, it does you no good in Kelowna because the shipping cost from Edmonton Similarly, if a store in Kelowna has Ketchup on sale for $1 a bottle, but isn't open on Sunday when you discover you need it, then that does not do you any good. wind and solar are like that, you need to turn up the heat in an evening, and the wind isn't blowing and the sun has gone down - no wind and solar power.

Both Green* party and the NDP are really touting wind and solar, plus electric cars, this election. The sentiment, doing something about climate change, is a good one - but they are sending people down a rabbit hole of unintended consequences.

In the real world, wind and solar only work for the better off and wealthy - and then not that well, but they have extra $ to burn that most of us simply do not have.

There are obscure things that also fall into the whole "wind/solar/electric car" thesis. Wind and solar require a lot more electrical grid infrastructure. When one presents that fact to advocates, their answer is MORE grid infrastructure and "smart grid technology".

Well, there are obscure things that happen when you do that. Most of us know about PCBs and big time health consequences surrounding them. PCBs are largely banned now - a good thing. But what replaces them? Turns out it is a gas called Sulfur hexaflouride (SF6). Turns out that SF6 is a really potent greenhouse gas - roughly 23,5000 times as potent as CO2 - and it lasts 1,000 years or more in the atmosphere. SF6 emissions in Europe are the equivalent of running 1.3 million cars. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Then remember that wind farms etc. and transmission lines often result in deforestation - which certainly does not help at all.

Electric cars just can not fill the non urban needs of Canadians. Maybe great in a small country like England or New Zealand, but not much use in a very large country like Canada. Electric cars with good ranges take 68% more CO2 to manufacture - and thus the lifetime emissions, given the short lifespan of EV batteries, is not a free lunch reduction in CO2. Never mind that the cost of EVs is beyond what many, many Canadians can afford. Then there is the pollution problem from Lithium iron and rare earth metals required to manufacture Evs (and solar panels)....

So there is no free lunch in the rabbit hole of wind/solar/EVs. Many of us, either intuitively or after careful research realize that. It is a catchy sort of pat answer for advocates and politicians, but wind/solar/Evs aren't going to get us very far.

So what can we do? Mass transit in urban areas (cheaper and big time emission reductions). Fast trains for intercity travel where feasible (that jet you hop on is a pollution machine). Better building designs, better heating systems, better air conditioning systems, and better electricity generation that actually works (safe nuclear - especially thorium reactors - and possibly EGS enhanced geothermal - I accept that we can not be damming any more wild rivers).

But no matter what, we will have to accept that there are going to be impacts that must be mitigated. Home insurance prices are already rising quickly in response to climate change induced costs. Our food chains are being disrupted - we have another "blob" of the coast - which is devastating to salmon.

[featfan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FP7q86hzbc

We are so screwed in how our Country is being run.

[GordonH]

bumped up

Now only a damn idiot doesn’t realize the climate has been changing.
When I first moved to Central Okanagan (mid 80s) there was a group of people who would race small cars (motorcycles) on Duck Lake aka Ellison Lake.
What has happened to cause this activity to stop... right winters are no longer cold enough to freeze the Lake solid enough.

Question is how much of climate is due to normal cycles of this planet and how much is due to human activity. This planet currently has the most humans ever at about 7.8 billion.

People can debate about that right up to the next ice age (of course none of current humans on earth... lol).

[Glacier]

[Rat Fink 318]

Professor Tom Mulcair issues a dire warning.

"Tom Mulcair: The stakes couldn't be higher as Canada's top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mul ... -1.6002655

[bidwell2]

While there are those who choose to believe that climate change is 100% not human caused and those who believe it is 100% human caused, I personally am in the camp where I believe that humans are significantly exacerbating climate change as a natural process.

Nature has its balances and systems that work for all of us, but if we upset that balance too much then we get undesired effects. A simple example is fertilizer runoff intro waterways. If we dump too much fertilizer into a body of water, then certain species of algae will gain an unnatural advantage, bloom, and and suck all the oxygen out of the water (the balance between the creatures that eat oxygen consuming algae and the algae gets out of whack). (can't say as I have that 100% correct, but the principle is there).

The atmospheric systems that control our climate are way too complex for me to understand, and given the state of weather forecasting, I doubt that human understanding of climate/weather systems is anywhere near complete. That leaves a lot of room for arguments on both sides of what has become a polarizing argument.

Why has such a polarized situation developed? My view is that special interests have taken over the discussion, each selecting pieces of an overall truth from a very complex topic that suit their own agendas. That is really a disservice to us all. From the David Kochs to the David Suzukis we only get a very narrow but loudly proclaimed set of pieces of a puzzle that is not completely understood.

It does, however, behoove us all to do what we can to get more in balance with nature. The difficulty is that the "advocates" are giving us solutions that are not workable for most, and are being promoted by people that simply don't have the skills and knowledge to evaluate potential steps that can work for most.

Put simply, if I want a better design for a mousetrap, I will call up an engineer and a practical person who knows how to make mousetraps. I will not ask David Suzuki or Tzeporah Bermann to design a better mousetrap - they simply do not have the background to properly ask the "and then what?" questions.

Site C is a good example of the advocates going all nuts over something that will, for a looong time, provide non carbon energy at an acceptable delivered cost.

Something that wind and solar power have proven, in the real world, to be unable to do. There is a big difference between generated incremental cost and delivered cost. By that I mean the real world costs to the user, if a store in Edmonton has Ketchup on sale for $.50 a bottle, it does you no good in Kelowna because the shipping cost from Edmonton Similarly, if a store in Kelowna has Ketchup on sale for $1 a bottle, but isn't open on Sunday when you discover you need it, then that does not do you any good. wind and solar are like that, you need to turn up the heat in an evening, and the wind isn't blowing and the sun has gone down - no wind and solar power.

Both Green* party and the NDP are really touting wind and solar, plus electric cars, this election. The sentiment, doing something about climate change, is a good one - but they are sending people down a rabbit hole of unintended consequences.

In the real world, wind and solar only work for the better off and wealthy - and then not that well, but they have extra $ to burn that most of us simply do not have.

There are obscure things that also fall into the whole "wind/solar/electric car" thesis. Wind and solar require a lot more electrical grid infrastructure. When one presents that fact to advocates, their answer is MORE grid infrastructure and "smart grid technology".

Well, there are obscure things that happen when you do that. Most of us know about PCBs and big time health consequences surrounding them. PCBs are largely banned now - a good thing. But what replaces them? Turns out it is a gas called Sulfur hexaflouride (SF6). Turns out that SF6 is a really potent greenhouse gas - roughly 23,5000 times as potent as CO2 - and it lasts 1,000 years or more in the atmosphere. SF6 emissions in Europe are the equivalent of running 1.3 million cars. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Then remember that wind farms etc. and transmission lines often result in deforestation - which certainly does not help at all.

Electric cars just can not fill the non urban needs of Canadians. Maybe great in a small country like England or New Zealand, but not much use in a very large country like Canada. Electric cars with good ranges take 68% more CO2 to manufacture - and thus the lifetime emissions, given the short lifespan of EV batteries, is not a free lunch reduction in CO2. Never mind that the cost of EVs is beyond what many, many Canadians can afford. Then there is the pollution problem from Lithium iron and rare earth metals required to manufacture Evs (and solar panels)....

So there is no free lunch in the rabbit hole of wind/solar/EVs. Many of us, either intuitively or after careful research realize that. It is a catchy sort of pat answer for advocates and politicians, but wind/solar/Evs aren't going to get us very far.

So what can we do? Mass transit in urban areas (cheaper and big time emission reductions). Fast trains for intercity travel where feasible (that jet you hop on is a pollution machine). Better building designs, better heating systems, better air conditioning systems, and better electricity generation that actually works (safe nuclear - especially thorium reactors - and possibly EGS enhanced geothermal - I accept that we can not be damming any more wild rivers).

But no matter what, we will have to accept that there are going to be impacts that must be mitigated. Home insurance prices are already rising quickly in response to climate change induced costs. Our food chains are being disrupted - we have another "blob" of the coast - which is devastating to salmon.

That is a very good summation of the problem, and not only do you outline the problems behind the 'listen to me' on media, you provide viable solutions. Fast trains, nuclear power (small nuclear power plants have been in the planning stage for years) etc. Solar power would be great except when I looked into it the payback on capex was 15 years - just to break even. The great leap in EV's was driven by Musk, the same guy who is polluting near space with satellites (wait for them to start coming down - a new generation of disaster movies). Maybe if we could collectively spend our money promoting real alternatives to current power generation and reducing airborne and water pollution, instead of making Musk, Kim Kardashian and her pothead boyfriend richer by the day, then we might get somewhere.
BTW I totally agree with fertilizer runoff problem, I saw it first hand where I lived when orchards with high chemical requirements were planted, and the lake in question now has 'algal blooms' constantly.
Want to see another reason for climate change? Take a look at satellite images over BC, or even scarier, the Amazon. The amount of deforestation is scary beyond words.

[Rat Fink 318]

The question.

“Is this the end of the fight against climate change — or the beginning of a revolution to save nature?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contrib ... ature.html

And here’s what I see is the answer.

“Andrea Mandel-Campbell is a corporate adviser, bestselling author and founder of a new wildlife conservation adventure travel platform.”

So the next question is, “What the heck is a wildlife conservation adventure travel platform?”

And could I take advantage of that with my 318 and the 50 bucks a month I receive from our widened out family’s oil company royalties?

[The Green Barbarian]

The question.

“Is this the end of the fight against climate change —

Man made or natural?

[YzzzR1]

The question.

“Is this the end of the fight against climate change —

Man made or natural?

Aren't we approaching the apex of a solar maximum?

On average, the solar cycle takes about 11 years to go from one solar maximum to the next, with duration observed varying from 9 to 14 years.

Global climate change, including long-term periods of global cold, rainfall, drought, and other weather shifts, may also be influenced by solar cycle activity.

https://www.almanac.com/what-are-solar- ... ct-weather

[Rat Fink 318]

The question.

“Is this the end of the fight against climate change —

Man made or natural?

A man made fight, of course.

[Babba_not_Gump]

Man made or natural?

Aren't we approaching the apex of a solar maximum?

On average, the solar cycle takes about 11 years to go from one solar maximum to the next, with duration observed varying from 9 to 14 years.

Global climate change, including long-term periods of global cold, rainfall, drought, and other weather shifts, may also be influenced by solar cycle activity.

https://www.almanac.com/what-are-solar- ... ct-weather

From the Almanac link,
Conversely, times of increased solar activity have corresponded with global warming. During the 12th and 13th centuries, the Sun was active, and the European climate was quite mild.

[The Green Barbarian]

A man made fight, of course.

But what are we fighting here? The man-made climate change fairy tale or what?

Today I drove back from Vancouver, passed the sites of the evil sky genie's destruction of two bridges on the Coq. Alongside these sites of the ESG's work were a beautiful pile of pipe ready to go into the ground to carry more liquids. Great to see. Then it was on to the Connector, passing five wind turbines sitting listless and unturning with no wind in sight. Oh how this fight against this invisible being is just so freaking dumb.

[captkirkcanada]

A man made fight, of course.

But what are we fighting here? The man-made climate change fairy tale or what?

Today I drove back from Vancouver, passed the sites of the evil sky genie's destruction of two bridges on the Coq. Alongside these sites of the ESG's work were a beautiful pile of pipe ready to go into the ground to carry more liquids. Great to see. Then it was on to the Connector, passing five wind turbines sitting listless and unturning with no wind in sight. Oh how this fight against this invisible being is just so freaking dumb.

who started this fairy tale? why did they start it? what is the aim for starting this fairy tale? what proof is there of this fairy tale in motion? what is the plan of this fairytale? if none of these questions can be answered with real data then i think we know who is telling fairy tales

[captkirkcanada]

While there are those who choose to believe that climate change is 100% not human caused and those who believe it is 100% human caused, I personally am in the camp where I believe that humans are significantly exacerbating climate change as a natural process.

Nature has its balances and systems that work for all of us, but if we upset that balance too much then we get undesired effects. A simple example is fertilizer runoff intro waterways. If we dump too much fertilizer into a body of water, then certain species of algae will gain an unnatural advantage, bloom, and and suck all the oxygen out of the water (the balance between the creatures that eat oxygen consuming algae and the algae gets out of whack). (can't say as I have that 100% correct, but the principle is there).

The atmospheric systems that control our climate are way too complex for me to understand, and given the state of weather forecasting, I doubt that human understanding of climate/weather systems is anywhere near complete. That leaves a lot of room for arguments on both sides of what has become a polarizing argument.

Why has such a polarized situation developed? My view is that special interests have taken over the discussion, each selecting pieces of an overall truth from a very complex topic that suit their own agendas. That is really a disservice to us all. From the David Kochs to the David Suzukis we only get a very narrow but loudly proclaimed set of pieces of a puzzle that is not completely understood.

It does, however, behoove us all to do what we can to get more in balance with nature. The difficulty is that the "advocates" are giving us solutions that are not workable for most, and are being promoted by people that simply don't have the skills and knowledge to evaluate potential steps that can work for most.

Put simply, if I want a better design for a mousetrap, I will call up an engineer and a practical person who knows how to make mousetraps. I will not ask David Suzuki or Tzeporah Bermann to design a better mousetrap - they simply do not have the background to properly ask the "and then what?" questions.

Site C is a good example of the advocates going all nuts over something that will, for a looong time, provide non carbon energy at an acceptable delivered cost.

Something that wind and solar power have proven, in the real world, to be unable to do. There is a big difference between generated incremental cost and delivered cost. By that I mean the real world costs to the user, if a store in Edmonton has Ketchup on sale for $.50 a bottle, it does you no good in Kelowna because the shipping cost from Edmonton Similarly, if a store in Kelowna has Ketchup on sale for $1 a bottle, but isn't open on Sunday when you discover you need it, then that does not do you any good. wind and solar are like that, you need to turn up the heat in an evening, and the wind isn't blowing and the sun has gone down - no wind and solar power.

Both Green* party and the NDP are really touting wind and solar, plus electric cars, this election. The sentiment, doing something about climate change, is a good one - but they are sending people down a rabbit hole of unintended consequences.

In the real world, wind and solar only work for the better off and wealthy - and then not that well, but they have extra $ to burn that most of us simply do not have.

There are obscure things that also fall into the whole "wind/solar/electric car" thesis. Wind and solar require a lot more electrical grid infrastructure. When one presents that fact to advocates, their answer is MORE grid infrastructure and "smart grid technology".

Well, there are obscure things that happen when you do that. Most of us know about PCBs and big time health consequences surrounding them. PCBs are largely banned now - a good thing. But what replaces them? Turns out it is a gas called Sulfur hexaflouride (SF6). Turns out that SF6 is a really potent greenhouse gas - roughly 23,5000 times as potent as CO2 - and it lasts 1,000 years or more in the atmosphere. SF6 emissions in Europe are the equivalent of running 1.3 million cars. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Then remember that wind farms etc. and transmission lines often result in deforestation - which certainly does not help at all.

Electric cars just can not fill the non urban needs of Canadians. Maybe great in a small country like England or New Zealand, but not much use in a very large country like Canada. Electric cars with good ranges take 68% more CO2 to manufacture - and thus the lifetime emissions, given the short lifespan of EV batteries, is not a free lunch reduction in CO2. Never mind that the cost of EVs is beyond what many, many Canadians can afford. Then there is the pollution problem from Lithium iron and rare earth metals required to manufacture Evs (and solar panels)....

So there is no free lunch in the rabbit hole of wind/solar/EVs. Many of us, either intuitively or after careful research realize that. It is a catchy sort of pat answer for advocates and politicians, but wind/solar/Evs aren't going to get us very far.

So what can we do? Mass transit in urban areas (cheaper and big time emission reductions). Fast trains for intercity travel where feasible (that jet you hop on is a pollution machine). Better building designs, better heating systems, better air conditioning systems, and better electricity generation that actually works (safe nuclear - especially thorium reactors - and possibly EGS enhanced geothermal - I accept that we can not be damming any more wild rivers).

But no matter what, we will have to accept that there are going to be impacts that must be mitigated. Home insurance prices are already rising quickly in response to climate change induced costs. Our food chains are being disrupted - we have another "blob" of the coast - which is devastating to salmon.

complete hogwash. it isnt complex to sit in a car on a sunny day with the windows rolled up and experience the greenhouse effect. that is the mechanism at work and it isnt a debate. what is a debate is local weather predicting but we are not talking about that. we know what happens when co2 starts to increase its percentage of the atmosphere from past events and venus with its runaway greenhouse effect.