# The Economy, Stupid



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

Just 95 days until the Federal election. Canada is in a recession even if some don't want to call it that.
Where are the national leaders on this. Give us some idea of what your economic plans are for helping to get this country out of this recession or perhaps depression.
Oh, I forgot you were too busy flipping burgers at the Stampede. 
I guess I am hoping for too much out of politicians.
My apologies, feeling a bit frustrated by their lack of attention to this. After all, It is The Economy, Stupid.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think people give politicians too much credit for their ability to influence economic activity. Recessions and booms happen regardless (driven to a significant degree by external factors), with only marginal impact from government policies in the short term.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Oh no, economic growth and job creation is entirely the result of government policy. Recessions and job losses are always the result of global economic events. Just read some government news releases and Ministers' speeches. This has been true since Confederation. 

(Reverse the order for opposition news releases and speeches.)


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

We need some one with a pair to do some nation building and get our 3 pipelines built...end of problem....oh..I guess we can pretend tech and manufacturing can replace resources for a few more months till reality hits.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

How are pipelines going to help when Canadian cost to produce is higher than the US?


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

Perhaps the politicians can't do anything but I don't much like the idea of them "fiddling while Rome burns" either.
The economy just doesn't seem to be on their minds. The environment, increased social programs etc. all require money which means that they are dependent on a strong economy not a weak one.
I would at least like them to be thinking about it or is that asking too much?


----------



## Zoodles95 (Jul 10, 2015)

Would building some more Canadian refineries provide much employment and/or economic stimulus? I know there is the "not in my backyard" element to this but it seems to me that there is a lack of refineries and if we could refine some more of our own crude and some other's crude then perhaps there would be some employment and economic benefit.


----------



## motl (Mar 3, 2014)

martinv said:


> Perhaps the politicians can't do anything but I don't much like the idea of them "fiddling while Rome burns" either.
> The economy just doesn't seem to be on their minds. The environment, increased social programs etc. all require money which means that they are dependent on a strong economy not a weak one.
> I would at least like them to be thinking about it or is that asking too much?


What exactly would you like them to do? I'm sure they are aware of the trends and and watching carefully, but that doesn't mean they need to make it a talking point. Market cycles are what they are and overly politicizing them isn't productive.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Rainbow Snowflake explains his economic policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/18/justin-trudeau-economy-video-cartoons_n_4809263.html

He's just a couple of bong hits away from solving all our problems.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Rainbow Snowflake explains his economic policy.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/18/justin-trudeau-economy-video-cartoons_n_4809263.html
> 
> He's just a couple of bong hits away from solving all our problems.


Rusty - when the Conservatives say they need to remain in power in order to keep Canada's economy strong and/or they need to stay in power because only they can manage Canada in a time of recession, do you believe them?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I do not blame the Harper Government entirely for the recession.

Commodity prices are set by the world market. We are moving towards a new economy and there will be fewer and fewer traditional manufacturing jobs in Canada.
Just take a look at the auto industry. Is it Harper's fault that Ontario now has the highest electricity rates in North America? Significantly higher.

What I do take issue with is the Harper Governments seeming unwillingness to acknowledge the changes in our economy and introduce measures to slow the outflow of manufacturing jobs or to stimulate those parts of the economy that will help offset the recession. Their approach appears to be do nothing and of course send out cheques to parents with children.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

fraser said:


> I do not blame the Harper Government entirely for the recession.
> 
> Commodity prices are set by the world market. We are moving towards a new economy and there will be fewer and fewer traditional manufacturing jobs in Canada.
> Just take a look at the auto industry. Is it Harper's fault that Ontario now has the highest electricity rates in North America? Significantly higher.
> ...


Let's also not forget they (and in fairness, all governments) are happy to claim credit during the good times - even if the good times are the result of global prosperity or high commodity prices.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I blame harper for setting up the condition when almost all stimulation efforts end up being dumped into housing and thus prove fairly ineffective.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> How are pipelines going to help when Canadian cost to produce is higher than the US?


I believe getting our oil to markets more efficiently would lead to lower costs, higher volumes and more taxes paid...not to mention the billions of dollars of spin off business created and paying taxes that many deny would be created.

Maybe Canada should continue to improve at what we are good at so our grand kids get the opportunities we had.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Eder said:


> I believe getting our oil to markets more efficiently would lead to lower costs, higher volumes and more taxes paid...not to mention the billions of dollars of spin off business created and paying taxes that many deny would be created.
> 
> Maybe Canada should continue to improve at what we are good at so our grand kids get the opportunities we had.


It's interesting you bring up future generations - do you believe Canada should focus on achieving environmental and sustainability goals for the benefit of future generations, namely in the form of reducing our need for and consumption of non-renewable energy?


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

martinv said:


> Just 95 days until the Federal election. Canada is in a recession even if some don't want to call it that.
> Where are the national leaders on this. Give us some idea of what your economic plans are for helping to get this country out of this recession or perhaps depression.
> Oh, I forgot you were too busy flipping burgers at the Stampede.
> I guess I am hoping for too much out of politicians.
> My apologies, feeling a bit frustrated by their lack of attention to this. After all, It is The Economy, Stupid.


 Better if politicians do nothing they seam to know how to almost always make matters worse. Just like everything has x amount of energy so does the economy ( energy cannot be created or destroyed) If the government creates jobs in the public sector they take jobs away from the private sector. The government is not efficient they should leave the economy alone. Baby boomers are past peak spending nature has to take its course the economy has to breath contraction - expansion


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I believe that we need to accelerate energy breakthrough's such as Saskatchewan’s Clean Coal Plant ,

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/12/141231-2014-cool-energy-ideas/
http://legendpower.com/news-events/saskatchewans-clean-coal-plant/
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2...ar.html?cmpid=enl-poe-weekly-december-09-2014

Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels won't happen with many new world economies emerging. We need a vibrant economy that will provide enough money to develop new technologies that actually reduce costs...not ruin economies, while providing for societies needs.

It is strange that we bleat about wind & solar but world changing technologies that actually work are ignored, Saskatchewan should have won a Nobel prize. Perhaps in the long run there might be alternatives for the world to nuclear & clean thermal power...lets go find them but for now fossil fuel use does not need to be precluded to achieve environmental goals....

Now back to our imminent recession


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

lonewolf said:


> If the government creates jobs in the public sector they take jobs away from the private sector.


Roght, so every police officer job reduces a security guards job. A doctor -> a mechanic! BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eder said:


> I believe that we need to accelerate energy breakthrough's such as Saskatchewan’s Clean Coal Plant ,
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/12/141231-2014-cool-energy-ideas/
> http://legendpower.com/news-events/saskatchewans-clean-coal-plant/
> ...


denmark, on a day last week, generated a 140% of its electricity requirements by wind (that is all the electricity needed to power the entire country) ... and it still didn't have all its systems activated ... it exported power to its neighbors

oil will be around for a long time but we might be surprised at how quickly we can find non-polluting alternatives


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Eder said:


> I believe that we need to accelerate energy breakthrough's such as Saskatchewan’s Clean Coal Plant ,
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/12/141231-2014-cool-energy-ideas/
> http://legendpower.com/news-events/saskatchewans-clean-coal-plant/
> ...


So would you say the market failing by not adopting these revolutionary breakthroughs, or that these companies are not being efficient?


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

And let's be clear what "environmental goals" we are trying to achieve: slowing down the man-made overheating of the planet that is already causing extreme weather that is resulting in death, destruction, and even harming company profits! This is not a "nice thing to have". It is about survival or destruction of large populations.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

BoringInvestor said:


> Rusty - when the Conservatives say they need to remain in power in order to keep Canada's economy strong and/or they need to stay in power because only they can manage Canada in a time of recession, do you believe them?


I don't believe any of them. They wouldn't tell the truth even if they knew what it was.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Davis said:


> And let's be clear what "environmental goals" we are trying to achieve: slowing down the man-made overheating of the planet that is already causing extreme weather that is resulting in death, destruction, and even harming company profits! This is not a "nice thing to have". It is about survival or destruction of large populations.


And it's working! Global temps stable or down over the last 17 years. Congratulations!


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

So scientists are pretty darn close to unanimous that accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere caused largely by human burning of fossil fuels is causing long term warming of the atmosphere, melting of the ice caps, rising ocean levels, and extreme weather events that are causing the loss of human life. There are some right-wing commentators and journalists who challenge the evidence on this. I'll go with science over ideology.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

BoringInvestor said:


> So would you say the market failing by not adopting these revolutionary breakthroughs, or that these companies are not being efficient?


I am aware of where you are going ...I'm not interested since it will prove unproductive. In the mean time I will be a cheer leader for our economy & our environment...one depends on the other.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> And it's working! Global temps stable or down over the last 17 years. Congratulations!


17 years, eh? What an oddly convenient and specific time frame to select. Absolutely no cherry picking of data there, and the conclusion you would make is consistent with most other randomly selected time frames.

In plainer terms, your conclusion above is akin to saying that based on the past 47 days of data, the TSX will become worthless in about 2 years. This is the new normal, please ignore other time frames that would generate a different conlusion.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

OK let's cherry pick time frames. 1000 years ago Vikings were farming in Greenland, there were vinyards in England, and the climate was warmer than it is now.

On the other hand I fail to notice any "Global Warming" around my house. We are having a rather cool, wet summer this year and have had a series of old fashioned cold winters and cool wet summers.

The climate changes all the time. We are within normal range. 

Go watch An Inconvenient Truth again, or review any of the apocalyptic predictions of 20 - 30 years ago. None of them have come true. The models have all failed.

I like Global Warming. As a Canadian, I approve of Global Warming and have been waiting impatiently for it, for over 20 years and continue to be disappointed.

I also like science. Statements like "3000 scientists believe in Global Warming" or "9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camels" are not science, they are advertising.

Science is never settled. It is always open to criticism and to be revised in the light of new information. The whole dogmatic insistence that certain matters cannot be questioned rubs me the wrong way. Fortunately I am rich enough that I can piss people off and not starve.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

You approve of Bangladesh being flooded and leaving tens of millions without homes or farms to grow food? You approve of vast stretches of arable land in Africa becoming desert and unable to support the local population? 

"Science is never settled"? Well then, there's no point to it whatsoever, is there? Just cover your ears, put blinders on, and close your mind and it will all go away.

You "also like science", but you're just going to ignore it because you don't see it in your home town, and the rest of the world can go f*** itself.

Don't try arguing the science on this one. Either you accept that climate change is happening, or you reject science. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Perchance (Feb 7, 2014)

Davis said:


> You approve of Bangladesh being flooded and leaving tens of millions without homes or farms to grow food?





> Flooding is a *natural* phenomenon in Bangladesh and occurs on an annual basis. The rivers are huge by global standards, and can inundate over 30% of the land mass at a time. The notes below should help you to understand the causes and consequences of flooding in Bangladesh.
> Bangladesh is prone to serious and chronic flooding. Even in an average year 18% of the landmass is inundated and previous floods have affected 75% of the country (as in 1988). *75% of the country is below 10m above sea level and 80% is classified as floodplain as Bangladesh is principally the delta region of South Asia’s great rivers. *
> Bangladesh floods on a regular basis, RECENT notable and catastrophic floods have occurred in 1988 (return period of 1 in every 50 to 100 years), 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2010.
> 
> ...



http://coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year 12/Rivers_Floods/Flooding/Bangladesh/Bangladesh.htm


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Perchance, don't be cute. In the context of global warming, we are talking about rising sea levels and permanent flooding meaning permanent loss of farms and homes. I think it is self-evident that that is something very different from annual flooding. 

And it turns out that 97% is the number -- 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers endorsed human-caused global warming. (article)

So either you accept human caused global warming, or you hold a fringe view. You accept the evidence, or you stick with your prejudice and to hell with the poor, to hell with the future.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Einstein's science isn't settled. Darwin's science is still open to revision. Even Sir Isaac Newton's laws have come in for criticism.

According to this article published today, scientists have discovered a new, previously unknown property of light, 150 years after James Clerk Maxwell "settled" the subject.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/141...al-property-of-light-150-years-after-maxwell/

Science is NEVER set in stone. When someone says "the science is settled and you are not allowed to criticize" that is the statement of a Pope. It is not the statement of a scientist.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Right, but most people play the odds and accept that Einstein, Darwin, and Newton were by and large probably right on the stuff that matters. I don't fully understand gravity, but I won't deny it on the basis that the science isn't settled. Denying climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidernce so that we don't have to do anything about it is pretty close to committing a crime against the poor and future generations.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> 17 years, eh? What an oddly convenient and specific time frame to select. Absolutely no cherry picking of data there, and the conclusion you would make is consistent with most other randomly selected time frames.
> 
> In plainer terms, your conclusion above is akin to saying that based on the past 47 days of data, the TSX will become worthless in about 2 years. This is the new normal, please ignore other time frames that would generate a different conlusion.


No, it is akin to saying "30 years ago scientists predicted steadily rising temperatures, and major natural disasters caused by carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise but the predicted temperatures and disasters have not materialized, therefore the theories are proven false, or at least need more work".

If you won't accept that from me, how about James Lovelock, pioneer climate scientist and inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The only reason you think there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction and none in the other, is that you have never bothered looking for it. The whole question is a good deal more complex than most people think.

Let me ask you a question. Without looking it up, can you tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> OK let's cherry pick time frames. 1000 years ago Vikings were farming in Greenland, there were vinyards in England, and the climate was warmer than it is now.
> 
> On the other hand I fail to notice any "Global Warming" around my house. We are having a rather cool, wet summer this year and have had a series of old fashioned cold winters and cool wet summers.
> 
> ...


You're guilty of cherry-picking because you deliberately chose the hottest year on record, a huge el nino year (and the then hottest year in recorded history), as your base for comparison. 

I don't see how someone who takes a balanced view of the data would conclude that the warming trend ended in 1998. Those that do seem to be suffering from confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> No, it is akin to saying "30 years ago scientists predicted steadily rising temperatures, and major natural disasters caused by carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise but the predicted temperatures and disasters have not materialized, therefore the theories are proven false, or at least need more work".
> 
> If you won't accept that from me, how about James Lovelock, pioneer climate scientist and inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion


 We are creating so much greenhouse gases we are causing the other planets orbiting the sun to increase in temperature, i.e., ice capes on Mars to melt. I have read that man is not the biggest polluter volcanoes are. Green house gasses have been 9-10 times higher in the past & the world was cooler. When a large number of planets corrugate on one side of the sun it pulls the epicenter of the sun off center causing multiple disturbances on the surface of the sun causing the sun to burn @ a higher temperature which has caused the global warming hype of late. The trend I have read has now changed to cooling

What ever happened to all the talk about how man was causing a hole in the ozone to get bigger ? The position of the planets & the angle of pull of gravity from the planets causes the hole in the ozone to grow & shrink. Man has a history of having a big ego, wasn't that long ago he thought he was the center of the universe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Einstein's science isn't settled. Darwin's science is still open to revision. Even Sir Isaac Newton's laws have come in for criticism.
> 
> According to this article published today, scientists have discovered a new, previously unknown property of light, 150 years after James Clerk Maxwell "settled" the subject.
> 
> ...


This is just dissembling. Should we not fly aircraft or launch spacecraft into orbit because our theory of gravity is not 'settled'? Should we ban genetic testing for diseases since the science of evolution is not 'settled'?

There are theories that we can have a great deal of certainty in due to their explanatory power and their long history of not being falsified despite repeated testing. The preponderance of the evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic global climate change, similarly to how to supports of model of gravitation, our understanding of genetics and evolution, etc. We will never be able to wait for science to be 'settled' as that is just a mirage on the horizon. It's impossible to prove a negative--it's impossible to prove a theory is not wrong. There will always remain a vanishingly small chance that any theory is not valid.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The only reason you think there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction and none in the other, is that you have never bothered looking for it. The whole question is a good deal more complex than most people think.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Without looking it up, can you tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide?


To answer your question, it is about 200,000 times higher than the safe concentration of mercury in drinking water. How is this relevant?

You seem to be implying a concentration measured in ppm cannot be a significant factor in the climate.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The only reason you think there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction and none in the other, is that you have never bothered looking for it. The whole question is a good deal more complex than most people think.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Without looking it up, can you tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide?


I know, science is hard. I'm not a scientist. That's I prefer to get my science from actual scientists, rather than from someone who seems to think that a cool summer in his town refutes global climate change. A cooler than average summer in one area supports rather than refutes climate change. And why I prefer to get my science from scientists instead of frtom someone who thinks that short-term data refute the science of long-term global change.

Because we took the ozone hole seriously, CFCs were banned, and we stopped doing so much damage to it. Time to do something about the carbon we are choosing to add to the atmosphere, since we can't do anything to prevent volcanoes.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Davis I went to a library & asked where the science journals were kept the lady gave me a weird look & said they had none. Yet they had all kinds of crank books such as how to lose weight regardless of how many calories were eaten, how to communicate using ESP etc

Some of the scientists that are calling themselves scientists are not being very scientific.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Academic journals are published electronically now. You won't find them in your local library. 4000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and 97% supported anthropogenic climate change. 

But there are always right-wing journalists and oil industry-funded studies to fall back on so we can keep feeling okay about burning fossil fuels.


----------



## Perchance (Feb 7, 2014)

Davis said:


> And it turns out that 97% is the number -- 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers endorsed human-caused global warming.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9




> *Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.* Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists.* However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.* Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/




> So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of* an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> 
> 
> Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.*
> ...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

To answer my own question, latest tests reveal that our atmosphere contains 385 PPM (parts per million) of CO2, up from 285 PPM.

The atmosphere contains 780,000 PPM of nitrogen, 210,000 PPM of oxygen, 9300 PPM of argon, 385 PPM CO2, and traces of argon, neon, xenon, helium and krypton. Also has up to 4% water vapor mixed in.

This means, that tiny 100PPM of additional CO2, which is 1/10,000 or .01% of the total, is enough to raise the temperature of the planet by 1%.

So, what would 100% pure CO2 do? CO2 must be the most powerful insulation in the universe! We should insulate our houses with CO2.

Just encase the CO2 in bubble wrap, and use it to insulate our houses. We would be cozy warm, save money on heat, and best of all this would sequester the CO2 harmlessly, keeping it out of the atmosphere AND reduce the carbon emissions from our furnaces.

The only way this would not work, is if CO2 does not trap heat and we have the assurance of 97% of the world's scientists that it does.

So, problem solved.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Yes and some species of fish can live in water with ONLY 4 ppm of oxygen. If they ever entered the atmosphere they would surly take over the planet.

TL;DR: Rusty is an idiot: re-confirmed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> So, what would 100% pure CO2 do?


Not 100%, but Venus' atmosphere is comprised primarily of carbon dioxide. Its surface temperature is above the melting point of lead.

But then, you are just engaging in misdirection.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I may be an idiot but I'm not stupid enough to believe Al Gore, David Suzuki, the IPCC, the University of East Anglia, and all the other proven liars pushing the Global Warming agenda.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The only way this would not work, is if CO2 does not trap heat and we have the assurance of 97% of the world's scientists that it does.


Are you seriously challenging the basic physical properties of the compound? Is this science not settled that CO2 is an insulator? :eyeroll:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Not 100%, but Venus' atmosphere is comprised primarily of carbon dioxide. Its surface temperature is above the melting point of lead.
> 
> But then, you are just engaging in misdirection.


Not at all. If CO2 really is the perfect insulation we should be making use of it. Either CO2 is a heat trapping insulator or it isn't.

We should also be improving our soil by the addition of charcoal, as found in the terra preta of the Amazon. In addition to improving fertility without chemicals it sequesters CO2 permanently in the soil. If all our farm land was treated this way we could get rid of practically all the excess CO2.

You didn't hear that from Al Gore either.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Are you seriously challenging the basic physical properties of the compound? Is this science not settled that CO2 is an insulator? :eyeroll:


If it is an insulator why aren't we making use of it? I'm AGREEING that it is an insulator, and that we SHOULD use it. Why do you find it so hard to understand plain English?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I found rusty's personal website! RUSTY


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought you were advocating for increased atmospheric CO2 composition--so we are not in a position of having an excess of it. Charcoal production is one possible sequestration technique (and more promising than CCS).

There are other physical properties of CO2 that make it unsuitable for building insulation. For one, there are denser gases that are better insulators (such as xenon). For two, it is unsafe it high concentrations, so probably not a good substance to have in large quantities inside a structure.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

none you are supposed to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when a "non believer" comes along, so you won't be contaminated by new information.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

First I am an advocate for further study to find out what is really going on. Most of the information on climate change is obsolete, incomplete, and being used to push an agenda. That is no way to do science.

Second I am in favor of the most effective, lowest cost ways to deal with the problem. Not making certain interests rich at the expense of the public, while doing nothing to solve the problem.

Apparently this makes me a witch.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have no problem with genuine scientific inquiry that challenges the consensus. I have no time for people who argue for inaction ('inaction' being the status quo of massively increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration) due to existence of some uncertainty.

Agreed about at least pursuing the low-cost interventions to reduce CO2 emissions. That means less waste on things like feed-in tariffs for renewables and other subsidies, and more shifting of tax burden from productive activities to unproductive activities (ie, cut income taxes, raise carbon taxes). And yes, burning rocks is unproductive in itself.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> none you are supposed to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when a "non believer" comes along, so you won't be contaminated by new information.


No, I'm just don't have the time or patience for willful ignorance. People like you are scorned and ridiculed for a reason. You're a joke.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

+1. "The science is unclear... more study is needed... it would be unwise to rush into things... vested interests are at play...." These are all arguments that the oil and coal industries have learned from the tobacco industry so that they can continue making money from killing people. And it is so easy for them to find dupes to argue their case in the face of overwhelming evidence.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

It's unfortunate that this thread was derailed. When it comes to the economy, I believe that criticism regarding the focus on the oil industry is warranted. Canada can't compete in the manufacturing sector, or rather it can, but that requires efficiency increases and more automation, which results in more job loss. Recently, there has been more reshoring of US manufacturers as they set up shop in the USA, but pretty much everything is automated so there are few "manufacturing" jobs, but more on the maintenance and management.
The future is really the knowledge economy, but with the cuts in research funding aside for funding for "oil research", we're falling behind (by the way, all those companies making money like Apple, and Facebook, all their technology can be traced to basic research done in government agencies, including universities). 

So do we want to blame the current government for our current situation? Not really, but the government sure hasn't done much to avoid or alleviate it, and may have contributed to it for a certain degree. 



Davis said:


> +1. "The science is unclear... more study is needed... it would be unwise to rush into things... vested interests are at play...." These are all arguments that the oil and coal industries have learned from the tobacco industry so that they can continue making money from killing people. And it is so easy for them to find dupes to argue their case in the face of overwhelming evidence.


Another parallel is the fact that Exxon was aware of this issue back in the 1980s, but has spent the past 30 years trying to deny it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> And it's working! Global temps stable or down over the last 17 years. Congratulations!


The near-universal scientific consensus disagrees. Climate change has not halted.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Eder said:


> I am aware of where you are going ...I'm not interested since it will prove unproductive. In the mean time I will be a cheer leader for our economy & our environment...one depends on the other.


Agreed they are connected - which is why we should move away from non-renewable energy sources to keep both the environment and the economy strong.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The greenhouse gas global warming BS is causing us to burn our food which increases the price.

Ethanol has caused a lot of problems over the years with small engines I know it has caused me problems with a gas powered trimmer until some told me it was the ethanol.

The government destroys jobs with minimum wage. They will not let someone work if the worker is not worth minimum wage for who will hire them if they are not worth minimum wage. A company has to operate @ a profit not a lose.

Paying half the wage of students or what ever they pay also destroys the economy. I have seen a lot of students that do not work that hard since they do not have to since half their wage is paid for bringing down the moral of other workers & making bad working habits of students as well as other workers that say to themselves why should I have to pick up the students slack.

The frugal government (not) knows how to spend money to burden the economy with taxes of the productive.

I do not get it people want the government to try to create jobs yet their track record is the government just makes matters worse.


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

Wow, when I originally started this thread I had know idea it was going to change to "climate change".
Oh well, back to watching the Canadian dollar slide/crash along with my stock portfolio.
Maybe I should go to the IMF and ask for a bailout.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ Your portfolio should be about 40% USD, No?


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

none said:


> ^ Your portfolio should be about 40% USD, No?


No, 100% Canadian equities but perhaps a re think is in order. However, some of the companies I invest in, do business in the US which means earnings in US dollars. One would think that this should help their net income. Will see.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I do find it amazing that the TSX is currently below where it was in Jan 2008 (not including dividends). crazy.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

martinv said:


> Wow, when I originally started this thread I had know idea it was going to change to "climate change".
> .


 Maybe, although climate change is a good example of why the government should leave things alone. The government is so egotistical the government thinks they can control our climate. The powers that be think they can eliminate the downs in the business cycle. The economy has to breath, trying to stop the exhale will only make matters worse. Talk about some big egos out there.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

People who run cars in a closed garage also think they can kill themselves from CO poisoning. What idiots. Give it a try Lonewolf.o


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

I can see that we have all drowned due to rising sea levels due to global warming and melting ice sheets. :biggrin:
Nope. 

more like drowning in carbon taxes


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Taxes are not used for the most part to help the people, taxes are used so the government can help themselves to your money. Now that cars are becoming more fuel efficient there is talk in the U.S of taxing distance driven by odometer.

We could set off all the atomic bombs & still not be able to destroy the planet. Life has away of adapting.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

And wouldn't quality of life just be amazing.

You life in a very very small bubble. You really need to go outside more often.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think personal insults should stay in the classroom....some here are acting as though this is the G&M comment section.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

+1


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

none said:


> And wouldn't quality of life just be amazing.
> 
> You life in a very very small bubble. You really need to go outside more often.



Quality of life gets better with industrialization, and the best way to stop any negative effects of ''global warming'' is to industrialize as many developing countries as soon as possible. Climate related human deaths have already plummeted to all time lows despite all this doomsday prediction of global warming/climate change.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

What you're saying isn't true. Tsunamis, heat waves, hurricanes, desertification. These are increasing iin frequency and severity. Sea levels are rising putting entire countries at risk.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

tenoclock said:


> Climate related human deaths have already plummeted to all time lows despite all this doomsday prediction of global warming/climate change.


^really? can you provide some statistics on this bs claim tenoclock or did you just pull it outa your a**
___

2,500 deaths in a heat wave in India this year.


> In May 2015, India was struck by a severe heat wave. As of 3 June 2015, it has caused the deaths of more than 2,500 people in multiple regions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Indian_heat_wave


Minor in comparison in terms of human lives, but here in Canada..
Wildfires rage across western Canada, air quality advisories issued
http://globalnews.ca/news/2083922/w...western-canada-air-quality-advisories-issued/

BC has already burnt through it's forest fire budget.. ahead of the normal wildfire season.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...dget-ahead-of-hottest-months/article25194811/


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

mrPPincer said:


> ^really? can you provide some statistics on this bs claim tenoclock or did you just pull it outa your a**
> ___
> 
> 2,500 deaths in a heat wave in India this year.
> ...




no need to get all aggressive. 

Climate related deaths ARE at an all time low when compared to historic figures.

Here are a few graphs and stats:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...nse-to-the-misguided-peoples-climate-march/2/

Access to clean drinking water has significantly increased and continues to improve. 

Human lifespans in most developing countries are have doubled in the last century. 

Cheaper and more reliable sources of electricity means that comparatively less people die today from the climate than they ever did. Don't tell me that heat waves just killed a few hundred people in India. Heatwaves like these and cold waves in winter, killed tens of thousands in India before, but now more people can afford fans, air conditioning /heating and clean and cheaply accessible water sources and clothing requirements, that the damage has been limited to ONLY 2500 deaths. 


BC wildfire is caused by global warming? Apparently the polar vertex was also caused by global warming a couple of years ago, right? It's a logical fallacy to assume that wildfires don't happen ever and it's humans that are causing it. The earth has been proven to be considerably (10 degrees warmer in the past) than it is today and it was full of life back then as it is now.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

There are now seven billion people on the Earth. More than ever before. They are dependent on the land that supports them now. Anthropogenic climate change will cause a rapid loss of arable land in many countries, and of land itself in some. It will increase arable land in northern countries. Are northern countries ready to accept hundreds of millions of climate refugees? I bet they are not. Denying the scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change won't make it to away.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

Davis said:


> What you're saying isn't true. Tsunamis, heat waves, hurricanes, desertification. These are increasing iin frequency and severity. Sea levels are rising putting entire countries at risk.


The sea levels rising is another myth (I would not call it a theory since it has yet to be tested and corroborated with facts for any prolonged period of time) 

Here is a recent peer reviewed study by an international team of scientists from UK, France, Germany, Australia etc and they found that the sea levels have consistently been the same when you consider the time period 1880-2010.

http://www.bau.uni-siegen.de/fwu/wb/forschung/publikationen/wahl_et_al_2013_esr.pdf

Most doomsday projections are just that, doomsday projections based on faulty or incomplete data without any semblance of relativity. For example it is true that some islands are getting smaller, but it is all true that many islands are getting bigger and this is simply due to the natural variation in local sea levels. The city where I was born (a port) - the sea has dropped back quite a bit in 2015 when compared to 1995.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

These are Malthusian predictions that there are too many people and the earth cannot support them. In fact the earth can very well support them and Mathus has been proven wrong every time someone came up with a Malthusian idea. 

Let's say a rise in 0.8 degrees centigrade over 150 years destroys 2% of earth's arable land (as we know it). What's not counted in this common assumption is that warming also opens up earth's frozen semi arid land mass up for farming (thereby creating new arable land) 

Two biggest landmasses in Russia and Canada are mostly frozen and not very arable currently.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

re those stats in your first link, from Alex Epstein, he uses BP as the source.
Call me a sceptic, but I have a little difficulty accepting the credibility of any stats provided by BP for propaganda* purposes. :jaded:

*vvv quote vvv


> Alex Epstein
> 
> I write about the environmental benefits of industrial progress.
> 
> An energy philosopher, debater, and communications consultant, I am the Founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress and *head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign*.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

tenoclock said:


> Two biggest landmasses in Russia and Canada are mostly frozen and not very arable currently.


Umm you do know that the next block of farmable land would be under existing boreal forests right? You want us to cut those down and work up that soil?

Better bet would be to let GMO crops with half the growing season be planted on existing land bases with the hopes of getting 2 harvests a season most years.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It's pretty funny that we can discuss the pros & cons about how our economy is run but when we talk about climate change any discussion is subject to "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" response.
I think that narrow thinking is hurting honest scientific efforts to understand our earth.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

tygrus said:


> Umm you do know that the next block of farmable land would be under existing boreal forests right? You want us to cut those down and work up that soil?
> 
> .


Well according to all the people that have never been to Fort Mac the oilsands have destroyed all our boreal forests already so we've got that going for us.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Eder said:


> It's pretty funny that we can discuss the pros & cons about how our economy is run but when we talk about climate change any discussion is subject to "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" response.
> I think that narrow thinking is hurting honest scientific efforts to understand our earth.


I have no problem with scientists continuing their research and questioning assumptions and conclusions. That's their job. The problem I have is when scientists are telling us that man-made carbon emissions are earning the earth causing climate change and we should do something about it, and then oil companies and their apologists in the media say, "we shouldn't do anything to stop it now - we need more studies". 

The oil companies do not have our best interests at heart.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

tygrus said:


> Umm you do know that the next block of farmable land would be under existing boreal forests right? You want us to cut those down and work up that soil?
> 
> Better bet would be to let GMO crops with half the growing season be planted on existing land bases with the hopes of getting 2 harvests a season most years.


Again, under this hypothetical warming of the planet, tropical areas would expand, meaning more tropical forests. Infact forest cover in many nations throughout the world has actually increased in the second half of the century and forests have gotten denser as a result of C02. This is not even a prediction which has no precedence, the last time the poles weren't covered in ice, the earth was a tropical paradise teeming with life. 

And what about the lands north of the boreal forests which are covered with not much vegetation? Surely those could support boreal forests now that the earth has warmed up a degree or two, right? 

Again, if GMO crops increase crop yield, who am I to say that's bad? Infact that's just another benefit of rapid industrialization that enables the infrastructure required for such advances in technology.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

mrPPincer said:


> re those stats in your first link, from Alex Epstein, he uses BP as the source.
> Call me a sceptic, but I have a little difficulty accepting the credibility of any stats provided by BP for propaganda* purposes. :jaded:
> 
> *vvv quote vvv



Are you denying that humans today are better equipped to deal with the climate? Hurricane Sandy kills half a dozen in an industrialized country, the same hurricane of that magnitude would have killed hundreds of thousands in India or Indonesia. The benefits of industrialization have never been clearer. 

People who say we should save the planet usually imply that we stop rapid industrialization in developing countries and doom those people to a life of misery and poverty


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

tenoclock said:


> Are you denying that humans today are better equipped to deal with the climate?


Not at all, I think we're better equipped than ever, but the science has predicted that extreme events are to be expected with increasing frequency and magnitude, and the evidence is in, polar ice caps melting, tsunamis in greater intensity and frequency, record-breaking heat waves, such as in Australia..
2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2014_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave
2015
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...lbara-as-close-to-record-temps-tipped/6041834



tenoclock said:


> Hurricane Sandy kills half a dozen in an industrialized country, the same hurricane of that magnitude would have killed hundreds of thousands in India or Indonesia.


Agreed, similarly with earthquakes..



tenoclock said:


> The benefits of industrialization have never been clearer.


So by this argument Mexico, Bangladesh and China should be the best prepared for climate change events since we are exporting all our industry there, and our ability to adapt should be in decline since we are now exporting our industry to the nations where people will work for less.
This is where I disagree, clearly it's wealth that allows us to adapt, not industrialization.



tenoclock said:


> People who say we should save the planet usually imply that we stop rapid industrialization in developing countries and doom those people to a life of misery and poverty


There is no need to stop industrialization, just a need to do it smarter.
Developing countries are in a prime situation to leapfrog into the superior tec.

Skip over for example, incandescents and CFLs, and go directly to cheaper, cleaner and more efficient LEDs.
When building infrastructure anyways, go wind, solar, etc, which is coming down in cost as the tech advances, over dirty coal.

I believe China does have the wealth and type of governing structure that can make this kinda stuff happen and I believe that they are.

Lots of other potential energy sources, tidal harnesses for example in coastal areas, or geothermal.
Another critical area for improvement is in energy conservation/efficiency.

Any time there is a need for a change, there are people that will resist, that's what we're up against here in the west, but we will do what's needed.

We had resistance from DDT, to acid rain, to the holes in the ozone layer, but we looked at the science and dealt with it all eventually, and we'll deal with this one too, in spite of the noise from all the flat-earthers (ohh.. I went there, sorry :redface


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Back to the economy for a moment...............

The Harper government will push the button sending out 3 Billion in a one time child benefit tomorrow.

They are calling it their "stimulus package" now.


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

sags said:


> Back to the economy for a moment...............
> 
> The Harper government will push the button sending out 3 Billion in a one time child benefit tomorrow.
> 
> They are calling it their "stimulus package" now.


Well someone definitely got stimulated, and because of that they will get a check from the taxpayers.

Stimulate; Physiology, Medicine/Medical. to excite (a nerve, gland, etc.) to its functional activity.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

yup, I got a check for close to $500. Not bad for no work. Thanks taxpayers!

I'm going to invest it in some VTI and spend it on my next trip to San Diego.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

yur welcome. no check for me, but I'm not in the Harper target voting demographic, so whutevah


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

mrPPincer said:


> yur welcome. no check for me, but I'm not in the Harper target voting demographic, so whutevah


Ditto. But then again, none of the other candidates platforms offer me anything either. Which is fine since it shouldn't be about buying votes.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

ABSOLUTELY. If Harper thinks he can buy my vote for a piddly $500 he got something else coming.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

tenoclock said:


> And what about the lands north of the boreal forests which are covered with not much vegetation? Surely those could support boreal forests now that the earth has warmed up a degree or two, right?
> 
> Again, if GMO crops increase crop yield, who am I to say that's bad? Infact that's just another benefit of rapid industrialization that enables the infrastructure required for such advances in technology.


Please think hard before you just write anything down. We need critical thinkers on this planet.

The next zone higher in latitude than the prairies is the boreal forest and that runs pretty much across the north half of MB/SK/AB. There isn't bare sub tundra lands until you get well into the NWT. The sub tundra is not rich soil, its muskeg and peat and rocks because there has never been any vegetation there. So you are advocating that we will knock down the boreal forests, turn them into grain land, and re-establish the boreal zone a bit father north. At the same time, tropical forests will start magically start expanding all over the world.

Even if this was at all remotely possible, its probably a 500-1000 year process.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Wow, what are the chances that team Harper would be sending cheques to families (using borrowed funds) just weeks before an election?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea, it is just a loan to be repaid back later.

The interest on the 3 Billion more debt will continue forever because we will never pay off our debt.

So the cost of this "historic day" will rise forever.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

tygrus said:


> Please think hard before you just write anything down. We need critical thinkers on this planet.
> 
> The next zone higher in latitude than the prairies is the boreal forest and that runs pretty much across the north half of MB/SK/AB. There isn't bare sub tundra lands until you get well into the NWT. The sub tundra is not rich soil, its muskeg and peat and rocks because there has never been any vegetation there. So you are advocating that we will knock down the boreal forests, turn them into grain land, and re-establish the boreal zone a bit father north. At the same time, tropical forests will start magically start expanding all over the world.
> 
> Even if this was at all remotely possible, its probably a 500-1000 year process.


Forest cover has been increasing in many countries that are industrialized in the past 50 years. US itself went through a phase of deforestation in the early 20th century and then added back 8 million hectares of forests which are greater than they were before deforestation. 

What makes you think that we are cutting down trees and not replacing them? Sure deforestation is a problem in Indonesia and Brazil, but not in Russia, Canada, USA, Europe etc. 

You also say the land does not support vegetation, yet when humans are growing multiple batches of grain from the same land over and over again using fertilizers, you are worried that it will take 500 years to make a piece of land fit for forestation?

Besides, crop yields are increasing every year. Most of the developing countries have not fully automated their farms. Go to South Asia where 1.5 billion reside and most farms are still using muscle power in their farms with literally no machinery. What makes you think that crop yields have maxed out on the current arable land there? Or in most of the world? Are we actually facing a starvation problem? More people are going to die of obesity this century then they will of hunger. And people are worried about food going scarce!


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

mrPPincer said:


> but the science has predicted that extreme events are to be expected with increasing frequency and magnitude, and the evidence is in, polar ice caps melting, tsunamis in greater intensity and frequency, record-breaking heat waves, such as in Australia..


The science on the subject cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy, you are telling us it is predicting the weather and disaster patterns 30-40-50-100 years from now. And what happened to previous predictions? They were all wrong weren't they? Is Florida under the sea yet? Been waiting past 15 years and still no luck!

The problem with statements like these is the ''hottest summer on record'' is precisely that, ''on record'' (disclaimer, records date back only 50-100 years). Does it account for the fact that the earth was much warmer before? Do we have any records before we started keeping them, that the climate was extremely benign and no disasters ever occurred? 
No. none of that sort. 0.8 degrees of global warming over 150 years of industrialization. I would take another 150 years of additional industrialization for another degree of warming. 













> So by this argument Mexico, Bangladesh and China should be the best prepared for climate change events since we are exporting all our industry there, and our ability to adapt should be in decline since we are now exporting our industry to the nations where people will work for less.
> This is where I disagree, clearly it's wealth that allows us to adapt, not industrialization.


I think you misunderstood what industrialization actually means. Using machines to conquer the landscape is what is meant by industrialization. When hurricanes strike, they don't blow away buildings made out of concrete and steel, they can't. They blow away mud brick huts and kill a lot of people. You need machines to fight the climate. Machines need a reliable and cheap energy source otherwise they are useless. Right now, fossil fuels are the cheapest and most reliable. When you say ban fossil fuels, put tax on them, or limit them, you make them expensive, and you inhibit industrialization in many other countries, much poorer than our own. That's patronizing, and selfish. 





> Skip over for example, incandescents and CFLs, and go directly to cheaper, cleaner and more efficient LEDs.


People are already doing it.



> When building infrastructure anyways, go wind, solar, etc, which is coming down in cost as the tech advances, over dirty coal.


Not if it costs more.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

tenoclock said:


> The science on the subject cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy, you are telling us it is predicting the weather and disaster patterns 30-40-50-100 years from now. And what happened to previous predictions? They were all wrong weren't they? Is Florida under the sea yet? Been waiting past 15 years and still no luck!


Much like the stock market, it's difficult to predict daily and weekly yet it's much easier to predict over long periods of time.

It's called the random walk (or correlated random walk) with drift model. It's the absolute basis for investing so I'm surprised you don't grasp the concept.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Much of Canada's north is covered by the Canadian Shield, which is a solid rock formation that doesn't support vegetation.

Visit northern Ontario, and look at the pine tree roots. They spread out sideways across the rock and are easily toppled in a high wind.

It is more likely that future food production, should it become necessary............would be in greenhouses that are supported by alternative energy.

With ongoing drought conditions in California and western Canada, and the rapid depletion of the massive underground aquifer that changed the US Midwest from "dustbowl" conditions to fertile farm land.............it isn't much of a stretch to say the world may require the growing of food in artificial conditions in the distant future.

Today and into the near future though, walking through any supermarket shows the abundance of food we have available to us in Canada.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

That's a false analogy because predicting the climate has nothing whatsoever to do with predicting the stock market. Please note that while historical long term trends of stock market is pretty consistent, the historical climate patterns are NOT. The predictions have already been proven very wide of the mark. As you can see, in 2015, with fossil fuels being burned with an even greater force in the past 18 years, global 'warming' has not occurred. There was another phase between 1940-1975 where there was cooling instead of 'warming' so much so that the predictions in the 60's were calling for a future ice age. They predicted a couple of decades ago that the earth would have warmed up by 4 degrees at this point in time. Not even 10% of that. So it's hard to believe that the models predicting a 4 degree warming in 20 years are any good. Using your false analogy, if anyone told me I would make 100% return annualized over the next 20 years in full equity, I would call fraud.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

sags said:


> It is more likely that future food production, should it become necessary............would be in greenhouses that are supported by alternative energy.


Thats fine for vegetables and maybe even fruits but the world needs grains for its base daily calories and those need wide expanses of arable land to grow. And if we want to still consume meats, meat is supplemented by grain and grassland. 

Canada and the US could be the beneficiary of a 2 harvest season just by shaving a couple months off our winter provided we still get adequate rain fall. That alone would mean a huge jump in our food production. However, there are demographic forces at work as well. Projections are that by 2050 only a couple countries will be exporting their food, which includes Canada. The rest will need all they can grow internally.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Right.

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-warmest-january-may-2015


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> Right.
> 
> http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-warmest-january-may-2015


I'm not sure who to believe whether global warming stopped in 2015:

option a) tenoclock
option b) studies from teams of global scientists.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

BoringInvestor said:


> I'm not sure who to believe whether global warming stopped in 2015:
> 
> option a) tenoclock
> option b) studies from teams of global scientists.


Firstly, except for people who believe that climate change will cause doomsday, nobody else is sounding the alarm and denying that the earth is seeing some warming pattern. The issue is in the numbers and in the politics behind it. The issue is with the scientific method that uses faulty models to 'predict' future scenarios which turn out to be completely false.

So the earth is warmed by 0.8 degrees in the last 150 years (before which there was an actual ice age from 1600-1850) - that's doomsday? 

Why have the polar icecaps not vanished then? Even here: Nasa's own record is saying Antarctic icecap has increased to maximum recorded levels (see the word recorded) and they have no clue whatsoever as to why. 

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

And then the impact of climate change on humans. None whatsoever uptil now, except some predictions about what will happen 100 years from now based on incomplete, inconsistent, inaccurate and non-omniscient models.. 

Please at least PROVE that fossil fuels have made human lives much more miserable in 2015 than we were back in 1850. Quite the opposite.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tenoclock said:


> Firstly, except for people who believe that climate change will cause doomsday, nobody else is sounding the alarm and denying that the earth is seeing some warming pattern. The issue is in the numbers and in the politics behind it. The issue is with the scientific method that uses faulty models to 'predict' future scenarios which turn out to be completely false.
> 
> So the earth is warmed by 0.8 degrees in the last 150 years (before which there was an actual ice age from 1600-1850) - that's doomsday?
> 
> ...


What exactly do you define as 'doomsday'?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Why not start a new thread on the environment?


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

The human race going extinct.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tenoclock said:


> The human race going extinct.


As would I.
From my readings over the years I can't think of hearing any doomsday scenarios - what I do often hear are scientists speak of the increased frequency of weather-related-catastrophes (typhoons, tornados, etc), and the threat of rising sea levels, and that the effects will be especially hard on more marginal areas of the world (where people have the least amount of resources to cope).


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

I see something very different, even famous scientists such as Stephan Hawking and Neil DeGrass Tyson claim that it's the greatest threat to humanity, and just talking to people high on this ideology would make you think we are all raping the earth by pumping gas in our cars. Uptil now, climate change hasn't even scratched humanity yet when you see so much hyperbole and politics around this issue, not to mention the billions of dollars of spending and increased bogey taxes, it's hard to not speak out against it. 

People in this world are dying of diseases that can be prevented at a cost of a toothpaste, yet all we hear is alarmism over some faulty and incomplete models predicting doom a century from now. Malthus lives on.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tenoclock said:


> I see something very different, even famous scientists such as Stephan Hawking and Neil DeGrass Tyson claim that it's the greatest threat to humanity, and just talking to people high on this ideology would make you think we are all raping the earth by pumping gas in our cars. Uptil now, climate change hasn't even scratched humanity yet when you see so much hyperbole and politics around this issue, not to mention the billions of dollars of spending and increased bogey taxes, it's hard to not speak out against it.
> 
> People in this world are dying of diseases that can be prevented at a cost of a toothpaste, yet all we hear is alarmism over some faulty and incomplete models predicting doom a century from now. Malthus lives on.


It is a great threat to humanity and we are all responsible based on how our we allocate and use our resources. We are causing it by our actions small (driving day-to-day) and large (energy production). This is true.
As a species of 7 billion people, many could see increased frequency of disasters and/or loss of land due to rising sea levels.

Canada seems _relatively_ immune to the immediate effects, but other places, those in low lying areas or places that already see occurrences of climatic-disasters, will suffer the consequences.
Even if we escape climate-related issues, the effects elsewhere seem likely to create a fractured, destabilized, world.

On that note, here's what the U.S. department of Defense says:

"Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change," said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. "Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. By taking a proactive, flexible approach to assessment, analysis, and adaptation, the Defense Department will keep pace with a changing climate, minimize its impacts on our missions, and continue to protect our national security."
http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16976


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

US national security is always at risk by something or another. US politicians (and politicians around the globe) are known to manufacture phantom threats to the country in order to raise taxes or increase spending. 

When we actually look at the facts, 'global warming' falls very very short of causing any real damage to humans. The way I see it, every year, the human condition is getting better and better overall by any metric. Why change what is not broken? I wasn't born in Canada, I grew up in a developing country and saw poverty up close. Everything from the price of food, price of drinking water to the price of construction materials is dependent on the price of oil. When countries try to limit global supply of fossil fuels, industry in developing countries is severely hampered because the price of energy increases and affects literally everything. People who have little money feel those affects more so than others. Are there any studies done on how many people are affected by a tax increase or artificial climate regulations on oil? Can't measure that so easily, doesn't mean the affects are not real.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tenoclock said:


> US national security is always at risk by something or another. US politicians (and politicians around the globe) are known to manufacture phantom threats to the country in order to raise taxes or increase spending.
> 
> When we actually look at the facts, 'global warming' falls very very short of causing any real damage to humans. The way I see it, every year, the human condition is getting better and better overall by any metric. Why change what is not broken? I wasn't born in Canada, I grew up in a developing country and saw poverty up close. Everything from the price of food, price of drinking water to the price of construction materials is dependent on the price of oil. When countries try to limit global supply of fossil fuels, industry in developing countries is severely hampered because the price of energy increases and affects literally everything. People who have little money feel those affects more so than others. Are there any studies done on how many people are affected by a tax increase or artificial climate regulations on oil? Can't measure that so easily, doesn't mean the affects are not real.


I disagree with your assessment on the 'facts' (namely that climate change doesn't cause any real damage), as I do believe it causes damage, and will continue to do so at an increasing rate.
I also disagree that this is a large-scale manufactured risk by i) thousands of international climate scientists working, studying, and analyzing the data full-time, as well as ii) large and small government and NGOs across the globe. I view myself as a skeptical person, but I cannot fathom the level of skepticism necessary to share your view.

Our system currently runs on oil (and other fossil fuels) - it's processing at all stages is heavily subsidized, as a lobbing group they have powerful influence on our policies and politics, and many of their costs are externalized to the greater population.

I agree with you that there have been certain benefits to an 'oil-economy', while simultaneously also heeding the warnings re: the existing, and ongoing harm, and will advocate for a change.
We can and should change our behaviours, our energy production and use, and act now to sustain a healthy economy with a healthy environment.


At this point it seems best to agree to disagree.
Cheers - pleasant chatting.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

Renewable energy sources receive more subsidies per kwh than fossil fuels, and that's not even counting the punitive taxation of fossil fuels. I have yet to see actual quantification of the direct damage caused by a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees over the last 150 years, cited in any study that can be verified. 

Regardless, if people believe they need to act, they are free to do so and also free to convince others while leaving out others who do not see the benefit. But I don't like it when politicians seize this as an opportunity to increase taxes or regulations. 

As always, it's best to agree on this disagreement. 

Cheers.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If you look at the historical record warming periods were periods of prosperity, peace, progress, and happiness. Cooling periods brought suffering, starvation, disease, and war.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Although I feel a couple degree warming in the 49-60 deg latitudes could be beneficial to the earth in terms of saving energy and extending growing seasons, the earth probably doesn't work that way and that would cause flooding, heat waves and crop failures somewhere else.

Above all whether climate change exists or not, we need to be efficient and extremely mindful of the environment and waste. A lot of our energy goes to creating consumer junk that ends up in a landfill. I can also tell you over the life cycle of a windmill or a solar panel, its cost including environmental impact is much less than equivalent oil energy.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> If you look at the historical record warming periods were periods of prosperity, peace, progress, and happiness. Cooling periods brought suffering, starvation, disease, and war.


Sure but historical record warming periods were nothing compared with the one we're going through now, where temperatures appear to be the highest they've been in 1,000 years. Is "more" always "better?" Temperatures over the past century have risen ten times faster than the average rate of warming since the last ice age ended. Is "faster" also "better?" Time will tell.










Also, since we're in a record warm period right now I suppose that means the world is at peace, not many people are starving or suffering.

Here's a map from Wikipedia identifying the regions where wars are currently taking place:










You can read here for starvation statistics: https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Yeah, but which is it?

*Global warming is a good thing and we shouldn't do anything to stop it
*Global warming isn't happening?

The cognitive dissonance is palpable.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Yeah, but which is it?
> 
> *Global warming is a good thing and we shouldn't do anything to stop it
> *Global warming isn't happening?
> ...


Oh, I don't think there's any dissonance: even the most rabid climate change skeptics accept the evidence that the climate is changing -- they just don't believe humans have much (if anything) to do with it. But as anyone who's gone more than skin deep into the science knows, nobody's been able to show that natural factors alone could produce the changes observed over the past century, and that greenhouse gases leave a clear "fingerprint" that is consistent with the changes by latitude and altitude (solar variability, for example, couldn't produce the changes we've seen). People have tried and failed to attribute the recent changes to natural variations, while in contrast people have tried and succeeded, using multiple lines of evidence, to show that natural variation can only account for a small portion.


----------

