# "climate strike"?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

its creeping in everywhere - "climate strike"
"Organizers Expect Thousands For Edmonton's Climate Strike with Greta Thunberg"...etc.. etc...
Ok, I can understand unions striking against a company or govt. for higher wagers or shorter hours or whatever...
But, in. "climate strike"...who or what are we striking against? who or what do we negotiate with....
I'm assuming they MEAN something like "striking for action on climate change", but, thats not what the headlines are saying....
Oh my, i think in years to come.....we'll look back & identify this period, when folks blindly began following a 16 year old girl for leadership, as the point when the "climate strike" movement began to wane...

sidenote: best sign ever! in the recent climate strike parade right here in st. john's:
_"I'm Mudder Nature, and ya got me drove cracked!_


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I think the term "strike" is intended to mean that people will take time off work to protest that the company they work for, if they're employed, or their school, puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Afterwards, they'll use it as a vacation day, go to Starbucks, throw their plastic garbage everywhere, put their recycleable cardboard signs into trash containers for the landfill. You know - really informed, dedicated people with a genuine concern for the environment - or just maybe more like wanting to take a selfie with GT in the background for SnapChat to show their 'followers' how 'woke' they are, but actually clueless about the environmental issue as a whole.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

My teenage decided against striking for climate change because of the added carbon emissions for her to get there. I admire young people caring about more than their snapchat and social media selfies, but they do need to be informed. 

I think Greta has done a good job of getting people inspired and aware of the issue. Now what? I think both sides would be better off using their resource to come up with ways to make the climate better rather than driving there, and blocking traffic. Greta is inspiration for saying that 'there is no more hope' but she is not a leader. Now there needs to be some leadership. The 'strike' is a way for people to do 'something' without actually doing anything. 

Climate change is a complex problem. Some of the protesters in my area were demanding ZERO emissions by 2025. Yet, they had their iPhones there to snap selfies. 
Putin's views on Greta bring another view. I like how he supports Greta as a young person, but is does outline the larger complexities. I don't agree with all his points, but they are valid. 
https://youtu.be/1CnyqLogH0Y


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is about awareness, and it's great for young people to become aware of the matter. That's step 1.

Young people can do a lot on these matters, once they recognize the issue. For example, when I entered the working world, I lived in the city core (e.g. downtown Toronto) instead of somewhere out in the suburbs where I needed a long commute.

These are immediate and tangible actions that young people can do, to reduce their CO2 emissions. I've used some of the calculators on carbon footprint and found that I had a much lower carbon footprint than the Canadian average, because I've adopted a more European lifestyle, and barely use a car at all. It's also a healthier lifestyle, with more walking and biking.

Canadians have among some of the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. On an individual basis, each of us is contributing significantly to climate change -- due to our lifestyles and living choices.

Canada and US have a car & suburb culture. Typically, wealthy people will locate themselves far away from the city center, live in lavishly large suburban homes that require tons of energy, and then emit lots of CO2 with commuting and general lifestyle choices such as multiple cars.

It is a good thing for young people to start thinking about this early on. I am hopeful that we can start changing our culture away from the "big suburban" lifestyle, especially for people who are working.

When I lived in downtown Toronto, I found it shocking that some people were commuting for 2+ hours each day into the downtown. People need to get rid of this idea that they 'deserve' a big home and a big property... it's a cultural mind set.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> These are immediate and tangible actions that young people can do, to reduce their CO2 emissions. I've used some of the calculators on carbon footprint and found that I had a much lower carbon footprint than the Canadian average, because I've adopted a more European lifestyle, and barely use a car at all. It's also a healthier lifestyle, with more walking and biking.


Thank you James for your offset. I will feel better now potentially buying that new 2020 Vette in the next year or two rather than waiting....waiting...waiting for a decent EV with equivalent performance and range.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Canadians have among some of the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. On an individual basis, each of us is contributing significantly to climate change -- due to our lifestyles and living choices.


You left out that we have no choice to heat homes 6+ months out of every year. That's not a lifestyle choice.



> When I lived in downtown Toronto, I found it shocking that some people were commuting for 2+ hours each day into the downtown. People need to get rid of this idea that they 'deserve' a big home and a big property... it's a cultural mind set.


I don't think people commute 2 hours because they enjoy it. Affordable housing options in Toronto are very limited unless you want to raise a family in a 650 sq ft condo or apartment. You can't put everyone in the "We deserve a big house" group when that's far from the reality.

When people like you who travel by air for fun stop doing so then maybe you can think about lecturing others.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All the deflections and nonsense are petty and meaningless considering scientists have concluded that climate change will be a life extinguishing event if we continue on the same path.

Jargey.........do you ever get out to talk to the fishermen ? 

I was reading that lobsters that used to grow in the waters off New England have migrated northward as the temperature of the sea water has risen. They are currently residing off the coast of Atlantic Canada. It is a bit of an economic boom for them now but they will continue to move further north as the sea warms. I also heard that Atlantic fishermen have to travel further north to get their catch as sea life pursues cooler waters.

I would be surprised if there are no effects from climate change being felt in Atlantic Canada.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> All the deflections and nonsense are petty and meaningless considering scientists have concluded that climate change will be a life extinguishing event if we continue on the same path.


The worst part will be when humans change for the better and the climate change keeps on going because it's a natural event that humans only play a small role in.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

cainvest said:


> The worst part will be when humans change for the better and the climate change keeps on going because it's a natural event that humans only play a small role in.


couldn't have said it better


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sags said:


> I would be surprised if there are no effects from climate change being felt in Atlantic Canada.


.....always have been....always will be.........


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

cainvest said:


> The worst part will be when humans change for the better and the climate change keeps on going because it's a natural event that humans only play a small role in.





jargey3000 said:


> couldn't have said it better


I've been singing that tune for quite a while now; glad I'm not doing a solo.

But to be clear, human activity has certainly accelerated the natural process. In math terms, the slope of the warming line has increased because of it. If we could totally stop all GHG emissions, will the slope drop to intercept the original natural path, or just stay at its current vector? If the laws of thermodynamics are applicable here ( I'm not really positive they are ) it will not reverse.

In either case, unless there's some natural occurring event, like rotational wobble, orbital anomoly, asteroid impact, super volcano on a Yellowstone Caldera scale, that sends us into another glaciation period, things are going to get much warmer. Human civilization, as we know it, will be drastically changed. Good part is... we, as a species, should be able to adapt to whatever the new reality is. Adaptation is how we even made it this far, after all.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Which is where we should be putting our resources. It is all about being better at adaptation efficiently and effectively. Time to get on with it and yet we hear nothing from party leaders on policy measures to guide that process. No vision at all.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

But really, if the climate experts are correct, and we continue increasing the rate of warming slope, there will be dire consequences in some of your lifetimes. Lucky for the rest of us, we'll be dead. We're already seeing the effects as severe weather. That will lead to coastal flooding and crop failures. That will lead to mass migration to whatever places that are less affected. That will lead to conflict, and maybe even global wars. Once the dust settles, with less than about 1B people left, the 'survival of species' adaptation kicks in. How that would even be possible without the availability of unlimited Internet data plans, I don't know.

In the meantime, all that the gov'ts can do is try to mitigate the effects, short term - by convincing people to not build in flood plains, leave wetlands intact to act as rain water buffers, upgrade infrastructure to better withstand more intense storms, etc. Yet, all I hear about is a tax that isn't even earmarked to any of these things, or about incentives to industry to create magical energy sources.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Userkare said:


> But really, if the climate experts are correct, and we continue increasing the rate of warming slope, there will be dire consequences in some of your lifetimes. .


I dont think you can discuss climate change in terms of a human 'lifetime'. its infinitesimal by comparison...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Userkare said:


> In the meantime, all that the gov'ts can do is try to mitigate the effects, short term - by convincing people to not build in flood plains, leave wetlands intact to act as rain water buffers, upgrade infrastructure to better withstand more intense storms, etc. Yet, all I hear about is a tax that isn't even earmarked to any of these things, or about incentives to industry to create magical energy sources.


Precisely my point in endless threads here on the subject....


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

jargey3000 said:


> I dont think you can discuss climate change in terms of a human 'lifetime'. its infinitesimal by comparison...


I'm not so sure about that as I was at one time. If you want to be put to sleep, read this... https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3 


What I got from it, is that we're not so sure of how quickly climate can change dramatically, sometimes just decades. Let me know if you interpret it differently, maybe I'm reading into it with my own bias.
_
"Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999). _However, before the 1990s, the dominant view of past climate change emphasized the slow, gradual swings of the ice ages tied to features of the earth’s orbit over tens of millennia or the 100-million-year changes occurring with continental drift. But unequivocal geologic evidence pieced together over the last few decades shows that climate can change abruptly, and this has forced a reexamination of climate instability and feedback processes (NRC, 1998). _ "
_


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......&#55357;&#56447;&#55357;&#56447;&#55357;&#56447;&#55357;&#56447;


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Userkare said:


> What I got from it, is that we're not so sure of how quickly climate can change dramatically, sometimes just decades. Let me know if you interpret it differently, maybe I'm reading into it with my own bias.



I think you are looking at the trees rather than the forest. Climate change IS going to result in some dramatic changes in certain broad regions simply due to ocean current changes and jet stream changes. Change the Gulf Current and there could be huge change in Europe and Scandinavia. The Arctic is seeing significant change but the planet as a whole is only seeing fairly consistent small changes. Climate change cheerleaders cherry pick data to promote their bias, while advocates would take a more science based view.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Climate change activists do indeed use poor science, and I don't like that either. For example, the west coast wildfires. Climate scientists believe there *may* be a link to climate change, but this has not been thoroughly studied yet. One should not jump to say that the fires will continue and inevitably get worse with climate change -- this may or may not be true.

The real story with climate change is the steady global increase in average temperature, atmospheric CO2 levels, and warming ocean temperatures. It's a very long trend, and with respect to CO2 levels, geological evidence (ice cores I believe) lets us see the trend going back 800,000 years. It's just incredible.

Here's a good source for people who want to learn more: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The graph over 800,000 years shown at that site is the reason there's a global push to reduce CO2 emissions. Surprisingly, climate activists often get this wrong, and don't do a very good job at explaining that at all.

There are very significant long term global changes recorded, and that's what the climate change argument should actually be about.


----------



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

Climate nuts tried to stop the London Underground from running by glueing themselves to the top of the trains. Gangs of commuters dragged them off and beat the **** out of them. I predict it will be a while before they try that again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ion-rebellion-delay-commuters-in-london-video


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Civil disruption and disobedience by the left does need to have consequences. They do not have any right to disrupt the lives of others.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Climate change activists do indeed use poor science, and I don't like that either.
> There are very significant long term global changes recorded, and that's what the climate change argument should actually be about.


Actually it should be about our strategy to deal with it.
Its coming, we (Canada) can't stop it.

We're going to benefit from it, but there will be things we need to do to adapt.
The Climate change deniers think we can protest our way out of the problem, time for raising awareness is over, we have to lay the foundation for the future generations.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Climate nuts tried to stop the London Underground from running by glueing themselves to the top of the trains. Gangs of commuters dragged them off and beat the **** out of them. I predict it will be a while before they try that again.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ion-rebellion-delay-commuters-in-london-video


.....hahaha.....yes, I saw that. gotta love the Brits!...."Mind The Gap" indeed!........lol


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Looks like the powder pigs will be out early this year despite the strike to stop our climate.

https://electroverse.net/nakiska-ski-resort-will-hold-its-earliest-opening-weekend-ever/


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Civil disruption and disobedience does need to have consequences. They do not have any right to disrupt the lives of others.


FTFY


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Spudd said:


> FTFY


Thank you. That should have been said that way.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Climate nuts tried to stop the London Underground from running by glueing themselves to the top of the trains. Gangs of commuters dragged them off and beat the **** out of them. I predict it will be a while before they try that again.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ion-rebellion-delay-commuters-in-london-video


Very classy. Nothing like holding up those who are travelling on mass transit.

Mass transit is one of the worst human experiences for commuting to work. There are very, very clear reasons why millions of big city dwellers would rather drive 2 hours each way to avoid it.


----------



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

Mass transit is also promoted as the best way to combat carbon emissions, climate change and Global Warming. But common sense, and science mean nothing to climate activists. The whole climate thing is purely political, and has nothing to do with science. That has been obvious for some time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter........this is really bad news.

_Research has found Arctic soil has warmed to the point where it releases more carbon in winter than northern plants can absorb during the summer.

The finding means the extensive belt of tundra around the globe — a vast reserve of carbon that dwarfs what's held in the atmosphere — is becoming a source of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.

Egan notes the research didn't measure methane, a greenhouse gas about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide that is also released from soil.
_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-climate-change-1.5330144


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter........this is really bad news.


Yup, an irreversible, self-feeding process. No tax, or angry Swedish teen, can change that.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

If they really want to protest and stop fossil fuel use, why not protest by not using any fossil fuels ???? They could stop buying gasoline, stop buying products made from petro-chemicals etc. Of course, they would have to stop driving all over to protest and buying the latest electronic devices every time a new one comes out but they would show everyone how it can be done ? But no, they would rather just be a bunch of hypocrites and blame everyone else. I wonder how that teenager is getting around the country ? Do they all get participation medals too ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mechanic said:


> If they really want to protest and stop fossil fuel use, why not protest by not using any fossil fuels ???? They could stop buying gasoline, stop buying products made from petro-chemicals etc. Of course, they would have to stop driving all over to protest and buying the latest electronic devices every time a new one comes out but they would show everyone how it can be done ? But no, they would rather just be a bunch of hypocrites and blame everyone else. I wonder how that teenager is getting around the country ? Do they all get participation medals too ?


Because it isn't about the evironment, or fossil fuel use,hasn't been for years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Climate change activists don't expect the world to go back to the stone age.

They want their governments to fully facilitate the transition to alternative green energy. It will require an array of methods to accomplish the changeover.

A reduction in fossil fuels, planting more trees to absorb carbon, carbon capture technology, research into green energy, building green infrastructure, assisting people to lower their personal consumption, implementing green standards and regulations,.........and more initiatives will all play their part.

Sitting back and saying there is nothing we can do so we should do nothing..........isn't an acceptable option anymore.

Greta Thunberg will be in Vancouver on Friday to attend a rally. She is educating the next generation and they are paying attention.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Climate change activists don't expect the world to go back to the stone age.
> 
> They want their governments to fully facilitate the transition to alternative green energy. It will require an array of methods to accomplish the changeover.


And the only way that can happen is to give the government more control and power which has been the goal the entire time. It has nothing to do with the climate and has never been about the climate. The climate change activists are just the latest in a line useful idiots being used to accomplish that.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> Sitting back and saying there is nothing we can do so we should do nothing..........isn't an acceptable option anymore.


Who is saying "no nothing"? I think I'm hearing "Do something that actually matters"; if not to limit GHG, then to prepare ourselves for the likely worst care future scenarios.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Userkare said:


> Who is saying "no nothing"? I think I'm hearing "Do something that actually matters"; if not to limit GHG, then to prepare ourselves for the likely worst care future scenarios.


Sags remains stuck in the ruts. Doesn't really understand in what and where the most efficient and effective places to put our money are. That is on the same naivety scale as Greta.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Userkare said:


> Who is saying "no nothing"? I think I'm hearing "Do something that actually matters"; if not to limit GHG, then to prepare ourselves for the likely worst care future scenarios.


Training for new economic opportunities would be very useful for Canada. I realize that there's a huge oil & gas industry but as the world turns towards other fuels, Alberta really needs to step up initiative to develop other economies. I'm not at all saying we should neglect oil & gas, but it's only one industry among many.

The AB economy is too highly concentrated in one sector and it's already a big problem. But there are solutions, such as economic diversification.

Energy is not the pillar of the Canadian economy. It certainly used to be, but this has changed in recent years. Even the CAD no longer correlates with oil... these are big changes in the Canadian economy underway, and big positives for our mutual futures. The broad Canadian economy is already diversifying beyond commodities and if we can get more of that thinking in Alberta as well, it will significantly benefit the province long term.

More diverse AB industries and sectors will mean they will be able to cushion against scenarios like the current one, when commodities are weak. It's really the same as portfolio diversification for an investor.

If my investment portfolio was 100% XEG then I would experience enormous volatility resulting in stress and loss of sleep. This is basically what is happening in Alberta -- very close parallel. The province needs to diversify its economy.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

AB has spent billions trying to diversify over some 40 years. Some of it sticks and some of it doesn't. The issue is being at the far end of the logistics chain between product and market. Heavy manufacturing isn't economic if not next to market or tidewater. 

Fortunately, much of the new economy is in technology and light manufacturing, wich makes it more logistics independent. https://investalberta.ca/industry-profiles/ict/ and https://sucanada.org/albertas-tech-boom/ are examples. 

Non-Albertans need to start ridding themselves of stereotypical thinking. Learn and understand before pontificating. Here is the latest on AB's GDP distribution https://www.statista.com/statistics/608354/gdp-distribution-of-alberta-canada-by-industry/ That 16.8% would have obviously been higher in 2014 at the peak of the oil industry. Perhaps 20% or so.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

How lucky we are to have the wise AltaRed on the forum, teaching us cold-hearted, ignorant easterners (and westerners) valuable lessons from his experience in oil & gas.

Everyone except Alberta has it wrong! Who knew?

Hey by the way AltaRed, I also worked in an industry that had a horrible downturn (tech in 2000s) and no government stepped up to give me special assistance. Pop quiz: how much whining did I do about Canada turning its back on me?


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I can't make the generalization that this is the opinion of all people concerned with climate, but people have told me they believe that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, has "injured" the planet; if we stop, the planet will "heal" and go back to the way it was before. 

This is so wrong that it's sad such otherwise intelligent people can be so ignorant. Show them the geological historical record, and explain the relevant physics, they just get hostile and say things like "it's people like you....". 

I don't get offended because it's a symptom of cognitiive dissonance disorder. You challenge someone's tightly held belief with irrefutable facts, and they double-down.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> How lucky we are to have the wise AltaRed on the forum, teaching us cold-hearted, ignorant easterners (and westerners) valuable lessons from his experience in oil & gas.
> 
> Everyone except Alberta has it wrong! Who knew?
> 
> Hey by the way AltaRed, I also worked in an industry that had a horrible downturn (tech in 2000s) and no government stepped up to give me special assistance. Pop quiz: how much whining did I do about Canada turning its back on me?


You need to learn and understand facts before posting erroneous beliefs because your track record for factual posts in these GD threads in the recent past is pretty low. I will continue to correct and educate you as the need arises. 

BTW, neither AB nor Albertans are looking for subsidies or special assistance. Simply support free market forces such as building pipelines to the west coast. They are adults with residual frontier attitudes and can stand on their feet given the chance. It is pretty clear from the vote in BC that most of them feel willing to be helpful.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Userkare said:


> people have told me they believe that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, has "injured" the planet; if we stop, the planet will "heal" and go back to the way it was before.
> 
> This is so wrong that it's sad such otherwise intelligent people can be so ignorant. Show them the geological historical record, and explain the relevant physics, they just get hostile and say things like "it's people like you....".


On the matter of CO2 levels, people are absolutely correct when they say that reducing our fossil fuel emissions should reduce atmospheric CO2 and return things to normal, eventually. At the very least it will prevent further damage and imbalances.

There is an 800,000 year CO2 record (close to _a million years_) which shows an enormous surge in CO2 right around fossil fuel industrialization @ 1950 or so. It's a tremendous spike, well above any previous level over 800,000 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's nearly 100% certain that this spike was caused by the start of fossil fuel burning and the industrial revolution. Does it not make sense to stop the human activity which is causing this dramatic imbalance? And yes, the world ecosystem has the ability to self regulate and normalize this on its own, provided that we don't keep spewing out huge amounts of new CO2.

It might take half a million years to normalize, but at least we can get it back in the correct direction. Nobody thinks climate change can be reversed within the next few years. The goal here is to prevent further catastrophic harm.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

^^^ not so sure about that last sentence...^^^


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

According to NASA hurricanes and tornadoes are down, bad weather is down, and the US recently went through the longest time in RECORDED HISTORY without a major hurricane making landfall.

What can we do to fix this disaster? Don't worry.....Trudeau has the answer :biggrin:


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> According to NASA hurricanes and tornadoes are down, bad weather is down, and the US recently went through the longest time in RECORDED HISTORY without a major hurricane making landfall.
> 
> What can we do to fix this disaster? Don't worry.....Trudeau has the answer :biggrin:


The earliest fossils of modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic period, about 200,000 years ago.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we have had at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, late Paleozoic, and the latest Quaternary Ice Age). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice free even in high latitudes; such periods are known as greenhouse periods.

Since February 1870 we officially started recording and keeping weather data, so that's 149 years. Does that amount of time seem significant that _*"the US recently went through the longest time in RECORDED HISTORY without a major hurricane making landfall."*_?

It's not even a drop in a bucket. A big bucket.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing LTR. Here's a recap of the scientific position, as I understand it:

The primary issue is human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. That's step 1 in this chain of events. This leads to gradually rising temperatures of land, air, and oceans. Additional effects are changes in weather patterns, winds, storms, coastal flooding, ice cap melting, Arctic changes, etc.

We do have a very long, nearly 1 million year trace of the CO2 record because of ice core samples. Which was step 1 in the chain of events.

As you point out, we don't have a very long term record of those other things such as temperatures and storms, floods. But these are knock on effects. In other words it doesn't really matter that we don't have millions of years of those readings, because we DO have very long term records for CO2 which is the core issue.

That being said, I think there also are indirect temperature records for much longer which can be inferred from other sources. So I don't think it's true that there's only 150 years of data for temperatures. I think both very long term CO2 records plus inferred indirect temperature readings for a few hundred years paint a very clear picture of what's going on.

The primary scientifc "leap" being made is the belief that these significantly higher atmospheric CO2 readings are bad for the world, bad for humans. I think that is the only "leap" in direct logic... I also think it is a reasonably good assumption that those higher readings are bad.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> The primary issue is human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. That's step 1 in this chain of events. This leads to gradually rising temperatures of land, air, and oceans. Additional effects are changes in weather patterns, winds, storms, coastal flooding, ice cap melting, Arctic changes, etc.


But if we've already experienced 5 ice ages so far, and man wasn't around for those, what melted that ice?

Where you are sitting right now James, was covered in about 3 kilometers of ice during each ice age. And eventually, it all melted without the help of humans. In fact, the south and north poles were fully forested during the warming periods between those ice ages.

Climate changes occur in tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, with a mere 149 years of man's record keeping arrogance, you are willing to destroy the economy of our country.

ltr


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....somebody, anybody.....start counting out loud...to 1 billion......see how far you get......
then come back & talk about the climate...


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

like_to_retire said:


> In fact, the south and north poles were fully forested during the warming periods between those ice ages.


I don't know about forests, maybe grasslands? 

In the current (Quaternary) ice age that we're still in, there have been glacial and interglacial periods about every 10,000 years or so. Sometimes the glaciation periods are called "ice ages", but technically they aren't; they're cyclic ice cover expansions within an ice age.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am sure the climate experts and scientists know all about the past climate periods of the earth, since they were ones who researched and identified them.

Armed with that wealth of knowledge, thousands of scientists agree there is a climate crisis that is caused by human activity.....predominantly by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> I am sure the climate experts and scientists know all about the past climate periods of the earth, since they were ones who researched and identified them.
> 
> Armed with that wealth of knowledge, thousands of scientists agree there is a climate crisis that is caused by human activity.....predominantly by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


So what caused all the climate swings in the past, mammoth and dinosaur farts or lack thereof?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/b...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Userkare said:


> I don't know about forests, maybe grasslands?.


It may be hard to believe, but Antarctica was once covered in towering forests.

ltr


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> It might take half a million years to normalize, but at least we can get it back in the correct direction. Nobody thinks climate change can be reversed within the next few years. The goal here is to prevent further catastrophic harm.


In 500,000 years, if the history of the Earth is any indication, there will be 4 or 5 periods of glaciation, where large ice sheets will cover most of the high number N/S latitutes. -or- As was the case for almost 200 million years before the current ice age, no ice at all.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

like_to_retire said:


> It may be hard to believe, but Antarctica was once covered in towering forests.
> 
> ltr


Interesting, thanks. I've read about grasslands where the Tundra now is, but that might have been between the ~10,000 year cycles of glacial periods of current ice age.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/b...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/


It's clear from the top graph what we really need are more volcanoes.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> The primary issue is human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.


Repeat a lie often enough and some people will believe it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> So what caused all the climate swings in the past, mammoth and dinosaur farts or lack thereof?


There are certainly other factors over time. Volcanoes and meteor strikes come to mind. However, fossil fuel burning is a factor we can actually control -- it's within our power.

The idea is to take action on this one significant factor that we are aware of, and which we control. There certainly can be other uncontrollable forces that change the climate one way or the other in the future. That does not alleviate us of a responsibility to control CO2 emissions.

Imagine you have a truck with worn out brakes. You can (and should) get the brakes fixed; that's the diligent thing to do, that will make you safer. Alternatively, you can do nothing and hope for the best, or figure that something else will destroy the truck before weak braking leads to an accident. Just because there are many other forces and random chance at play, doesn't mean you can ignore doing the proper thing.

You _could_ ignore the worn out brakes, and still be fine.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Yup...CO2 is just like the brakes on a car :biggrin:


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....now, if we could just jack the earth up on blocks, and get underneath 'er, we'd have this thing fixed in no time....


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> There are certainly other factors over time. Volcanoes and meteor strikes come to mind. However, fossil fuel burning is a factor we can actually control -- it's within our power.
> 
> The idea is to take action on this one significant factor that we are aware of, and which we control. There certainly can be other uncontrollable forces that change the climate one way or the other in the future. That does not alleviate us of a responsibility to control CO2 emissions.


Then again any CO2 changes we make may not have any effect on the current climate path. 

As far a reducing emissions go, why doesn't the goverment do simple clear cut things to help with the carbon tax money?
A couple of easy to understand ideas where people can see exactly where the money is going ...
- A federal grant for buying electric (maybe some hybrids?) vehicles.
- Each province gets one (or more) CO2 -> fuel plants


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Oil companies are being taken to court over misrepresentation on the impact on climate change.

Cities will be following the results closely, as they consider suing the oil companies to pay for climate change damage.

_The essential argument for most of the lawsuits is that the oil industry knew that its products were affecting the climate, but instead of alerting the public and changing their business model, companies deliberately promoted scientific uncertainty about climate change to delay laws that might limit carbon emissions. _

_The details of the cases differ, but they share a common thread. 

"They are based on allegations that the oil companies engaged in systematic misrepresentation of information, [that they] kept sort of one set of information internally and then told the public something else," said Carlson.
_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...torney-general-litigation-documents-1.5331228


----------



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

Why can't everyone admit climate change or global warming is over? We gave Justin Trudeau a few billions in taxes and he fixed it. I point to this year's cool, wet summer as proof.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Why can't everyone admit climate change or global warming is over?


It's not over. It transformed into a crisis, and then into an emergency. Stay tuned.

ltr


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

*Redefining chemistry*

On CBC this morning was a story about an organic waste plant in Toronto that was turning food scraps into "biogas", "natural gas", or in other words Methane. The gas was used for partially powering the garbage trucks. This is a great idea! Rather than let the decomposing waste create CH4 that goes into the atmosphere, capture it and use it. Why not? It's all self-contained in one area; saves transporting the gas in trucks at least.

But then they had to go and spoil it all with the statement... _"They will be just as clean as any other electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle being anticipated," said Dysiewicz. 

_Huh? Explain that please. Combusting CH4 is converted into CO2 (climate boogeyman molecule) & H2O. Do electric cars emit CO2? Do the molecules of CH4 from rotting food behave differently from those extracted from the ground?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...-atmosphere-environment-sustainable-1.5329519


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

jargey3000 said:


> its creeping in everywhere - "climate strike"
> "Organizers Expect Thousands For Edmonton's Climate Strike with Greta Thunberg"...etc.. etc...
> 
> 
> [/I]


 Hitler did the same thing bring out the children to promote a bogus agenda. How can you argue with a child ? Complete child abuse lying to the children.


----------



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

There are other processes that turn carbon garbage, including plastics, old tires, household waste etc, into oil that is equivalent to petroleum oil. The advantage of this is, no new carbon is released into the atmosphere. For every gallon of oil, or equivalent, a gallon of oil does not need to be pumped out of the ground and burned.

It also solves the garbage disposal problem without landfills or shipping the stuff to Michigan. Let's start building these conversion plants, lots of them. I will trade a garbage shortage for an energy shortage any time.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The old Bowden, AB mini-refinery that has been closed is going to be re-furbished as a 're-refinery' taking used oil and re-refining it into new product. About 2500 barrels per day I believe.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

These are the kinds of ideas championed by the oil industry, because they (obviously) don't want anything to stand in the way of their existing business.

Reality is that a far more efficient and straightforward route to controlling CO2 emissions is to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Industry will always push the after-the-fact cleanup / refactoring story as they want the public to believe that you can have "business as usual" and have some fancy tech come and save you. *That's wishful thinking*. The existing technologies are too young to have a significant impact. It's just not there yet. Same goes for carbon capture tech.

This kind of thinking will resonate with anyone who likes business as usual or the status quo, and probably makes more sense to older people. They don't really want to change anything about their lifestyle, so the idea of a magical tech coming to solve the problem seems perfect.

What really needs to happen are significant reductions in oil & gas usage, helped along with big taxes and disincentives for using the product, _together_ with new tech development for other techniques.

But none of these technologies can replace the need to dramatically reduce consumption. Consumption can be reduced... remember, Canada has some of the highest carbon emissions in the world, per capita.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

WTF are you going on about? This is a little itty bitty company https://www.geniiioil.com/wp-conten...II-Corporate-Presentation-August-12-2019..pdf

doing the planet a great service by recycling all that used lubricating oil that could very well end up dumped into the environment via sewers or over the back fence. It refurbishes and re-builds Parkland's facility that has been closed for some time. I really think that James has gone so far off TDC he's going to throw a rod at any moment.


----------



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

Motor oil doesn't wear out. Old oil can be cleaned, reformulated with the proper additives and reused. In fact used oil can be better as the weaker molecules break down and are filtered out.

Unfortunately it is illegal to sell reclaimed oil unless it is labelled as such and no one will buy it. Greyhound Bus Company has been re refining their motor oil since the 1930s.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> These are the kinds of ideas championed by the oil industry, because they (obviously) don't want anything to stand in the way of their existing business.
> 
> Reality is that a far more efficient and straightforward route to controlling CO2 emissions is to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
> 
> ...


Not wishful thinking, the carbon capture tech is already here???

Some lifestyle choices don't make sense in certain areas and don't forget, Canada is a BIG country, so to travel you spend more fuel. Nothing wrong with reclaiming CO2 and maintaining our lifestyle ... or are you being an alarmist that thinks everyone MUST CHANGE to zero CO2 emissions now before it's too late?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Carbon capture tech is here, but still young. Much higher carbon taxes will help encourage producers to rapidly advance the technology... so yes, it's possible to improve all of this. But there needs to be policy actions (such as carbon taxes) to create the correct incentives. We are capitalists after all.

Canada isn't the only big country so this is just an excuse. Russia is similarly big and cold with similar population density. Norway is almost as sparse and reasonably similar, with lots of land, very cold, and has an energy industry as well.

Here are per capita CO2 emissions for each as of 2014, from wikipedia

Canada = 15.2 ... we emit 62% more than the average of the others below!
Russia = 11.9
Norway = 9.3
Finland = 8.7
New Zealand = 7.7

I think we should be doing better. Norway for example has much higher use of renewable energy, and we could improve ours as well. They have a high carbon tax, the highest being on the oil & gas industry.

There are many ways we can, and should improve. There is nothing inherently about Canada that requires such high emissions. It's embarrassing.

https://medicinehatnews.com/comment...-tax-in-norway-has-been-a-success-since-1991/



> Norway has had carbon taxes since 1991. The rate varies with industry sector with some totally exempt. The highest carbon tax rate is on oil and gas production, which in 2015 was about $71 Cdn./tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2). (ClimateActionTracker.org).
> 
> This provided economic incentive to oil and gas producers to improve efficiencies resulting in an emissions intensity of 55 kg of CO2 per tonne of oil equivalent produced, which is much less than the world average of 130 kg (ClimateActionTracker.org). It also provided incentive for development of a carbon capture project that injects CO2 removed from natural gas into caverns below the sea floor (PMR – Carbon Tax Guide).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James appears to be an ideological idealist like the voting Islanders out here, who don't understand the practicality of real life and how the economy really works. Seems to be a trait of mostly single people from what I can tell, perhaps the majority of the folks on the protest line? I guess we just have to recognize James has an obsession with the fossil fuel industry that borders on the extremely unhealthy, and certainly irrational. That is his cross to bear.

Real families trying to make a living, putting the kids through school, and paying the mortgage are NOT going to make dramatic changes in their lifestyles. Fossil fuels will remain a key essential for decades to come and what makes the most sense right now is doing the relatively economic incremental things we can, innovate and invent and apply, where practical. No more difficult to understand than that. There IS room to make a difference, but let it work its way through the system. 

As I have said many times, GDP growth is a necessary part of generating the funds and wealth to do many useful things. What Bill Morneau said today is one of the most practical things I have heard come out of his mouth for months, perhaps years. The dividend stream Canada will get from the shares they own for TM and TMX will pay for large amounts of green projects over many years. And at essentially zero net carbon cost to the environment on a global basis.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Carbon capture tech is here, but still young.
> 
> Canada isn't the only big country so this is just an excuse. Russia is similarly big and cold with similar population density. Norway is almost as spare and reasonably similar, with lots of land, very cold, and has an energy industry as well.
> 
> ...


You will need to explain that more James. Norway is providing incentives to promote O&G exploration and development off its coasts, meant to increase its hydrocarbon sales to the rest of the world.

Added: This is what you are talking about? https://medicinehatnews.com/comment...-tax-in-norway-has-been-a-success-since-1991/ This is all about getting the O&G industry to reduce their own emissions in the production and processing of oil and gas. Huge progress has been made in the Canadian O&G industry reducing their own production and processing emissions too.

Carbon capture projects, co-generation, replacement of coke for fuel, etc, etc. There are numerous examples.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

IMO the main responsibility for climate change is on the consumer. We like to have perfect temperature control at home in all seasons. We regularly travel around in big cars/SUVs for work and leisure. We choose to use cheaper imported goods that are shipped around the world to reach us. We prefer beef over veggies.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Topo said:


> IMO the main responsibility for climate change is on the consumer. We like to have perfect temperature control at home in all seasons. We regularly travel around in big cars/SUVs for work and leisure. We choose to use cheaper imported goods that are shipped around the world to reach us. We prefer beef over veggies.


I think we need government help for this. It's the same issue as pollution. When costs/consequences are externalized, and not priced in, harm occurs. In past decades, we saw that pollution and water waste/contamination occurred. People and companies did not naturally do the "proper" things they should, because there was no immediate consequence.

Humans are short term and selfish actors by nature. This is why we add regulations for harmful behaviours, such as fines for dumping toxic substances, etc. Or pricing for valuable, limited resources.

Conservative thinkers around the world agree that carbon pricing and taxes are the correct method to guide people into the correct behaviours. Billionnaires agree. The only place people disagree with this is in Alberta!

Norway had a Conservative government, which added their massive carbon taxes. Yes, on their O&G industry. We need to do something similar in Canada because without these pricing mechanisms, the O&G industry, and consumers (like the ones buying all those giant cars) have already demonstrated that they don't just take care of it themselves.

Here in Winnipeg, every single person on the road is driving a giant car. It's unbelievable, I couldn't believe it when I moved here. Gas at the pump is only $1.08 per L, extremely cheap and has been cheap for a long time (the price is lower in real dollars than a decade ago).

People do not simply reduce consumption and act efficiently because they should. This is exactly why government has to regulate and create incentive systems, just like we already do with pollution.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

AB is not unique to not wanting carbon taxes. There are at least 2-3 others. Both AB and SK have been overly vocal about it, but that has to do more with trying to keep less firms from going bankrupt than anything else at the moment. Thst noise will diminish once more oil flows out of both provinces on one or more pipelines.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Canada isn't the only big country so this is just an excuse. Russia is similarly big and cold with similar population density. Norway is almost as sparse and reasonably similar, with lots of land, very cold, and has an energy industry as well.
> 
> Here are per capita CO2 emissions for each as of 2014, from wikipedia
> 
> ...


Ummm ok, you can fit 2 Norway's into Manitoba alone so ya ... that's close to the size of Canada, lol.
Adding to that, Norway's population density is very clustered to the south east corner.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

james4beach said:


> I think we need government help for this. It's the same issue as pollution. When costs/consequences are externalized, and not priced in, harm occurs. In past decades, we saw that pollution and water waste/contamination occurred. People and companies did not naturally do the "proper" things they should, because there was no immediate consequence.
> 
> Humans are short term and selfish actors by nature. This is why we add regulations for harmful behaviours, such as fines for dumping toxic substances, etc. Or pricing for valuable, limited resources.
> 
> ...


But it seems that the oil and gas industry are blamed for most of the problem. There is not much talk about taxing HVACs or cattle. Who knows how much energy is wasted on street lights, etc.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Topo said:


> IMO the main responsibility for climate change is on the consumer. We like to have perfect temperature control at home in all seasons. We regularly travel around in big cars/SUVs for work and leisure. We choose to use cheaper imported goods that are shipped around the world to reach us. We prefer beef over veggies.


You are of course correct in your thinking, but looking inwards would be uncomfortable for all the airplane for vacation types like Trudeau and James4Beach. Better to avoid examining personal hypocrisy and assign blame externally.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The TMP isn't even built yet and already the drumbeat has started about the need for future pipelines.

I suspect the TMP will be built and it will be the last pipeline built in Canada. There simply is no support for increased production or transport of more oil.

Canadians voiced their opinion at the ballot box, where they voted overwhelmingly for more action on climate change.

In other news, with all the lamenting of economic conditions for average folks in Alberta........what does the Kenney government do in their budget ?

First they reduce corporate tax rates and then they cut spending and jobs. The Conservative ideology may drive Alberta into a recession.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Canadians voiced their opinion at the ballot box, where they voted overwhelmingly for more action on climate change.


No, that's just in your own mind. Taxes, affordability, health care, social inequality, deficit are far higher on the list than climate change. For those that climate change was the "overwhelming" factor, they vote green.

ltr


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> No, that's just in your own mind. Taxes, affordability, health care, social inequality, deficit are far higher on the list than climate change. For those that climate change was the "overwhelming" factor, they vote green.
> 
> ltr


I thought the most votes went to someone pushing to do away with the carbon tax ? But our wonderful voting system didn't put them in power ?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mechanic said:


> I thought the most votes went to someone pushing to do away with the carbon tax ? But our wonderful voting system didn't put them in power ?


 ~36% (CPC + PPC vote) went to parties that don't embrace carbon taxes, but like anything else, it is the combination of policies that causes someone to vote a certain way. Just because 64% of the vote went to parties that embrace carbon taxes in their platform doesn't mean that any of those votes actually support the carbon tax. Just like I am sure some in that 36% vote support carbon taxes. 

Most people vote on economic issues and may have to hold their noses on policies like carbon taxes when they do vote. We really have no idea where carbon taxes fit in the order of importance. Comments like Sags made are ignorant, incorrect and strictly dogma, and are not worth the bytes used to state them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> No, that's just in your own mind. Taxes, affordability, health care, social inequality, deficit are far higher on the list than climate change. For those that climate change was the "overwhelming" factor, they vote green.
> 
> ltr


Climate change ranked in the first 3 or 4 issues on all the election polls.

Conservative strategists are lamenting the fact that Andrew Scheer had no climate change policy and it hurt their vote count in eastern Canada.

Stay tuned for a new Conservative policy regarding climate change that raises it to the top level of issues.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

yeah....the Number One issue for me, here in Nl, was climate change.
Number Two issue (far behind) was: will I able to afford food after I pay my electric heat bill once Muskrat Falls comes on stream
sheesh!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Motor oil doesn't wear out. Old oil can be cleaned, reformulated with the proper additives and reused. In fact used oil can be better as the weaker molecules break down and are filtered out.
> 
> Unfortunately it is illegal to sell reclaimed oil unless it is labelled as such and no one will buy it. Greyhound Bus Company has been re refining their motor oil since the 1930s.


Oil wears out, I agree that contamination is typically the larger concern, but as the oil breaks down, it does a lesser job of lubrication.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> [
> Climate change ranked in the first 3 or 4 issues on all the election polls.


Nope, the environment ranked that high, climate change much lower.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I hope the Conservatives continue to deny climate change. It works out well for the Liberals.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The strange thing is that conservatives around the world tend to agree that climate change is a problem, and carbon taxes are needed. This is not intrinsically a left vs right issue.

I also suspect that the US will bring in carbon taxes and a carbon pricing market (the kind of system that Ford single-handedly dismantled) even while the Conservative Party of Canada [agents of AB oil & gas] continue to fight it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is pretty much a guarantee that carbon taxes are going to increase.

By the time the next election comes around, people will be so used to them that it doesn't matter.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I strongly doubt USA will have federal carbon taxes any time soon, although various states will make efforts to do so locally and/or promote green initiatives as they are already doing so. The electrical generation industry is moving greener all that time just based on corporate decision making on its own. No Board of Directors is going to approve a new coal fired plant AND some existing ones will continue to convert to NG like what is happening in AB.

But it would be a mistake to believe that ANY country is going to shut down/discourage their GDP generating O&G industry. The revenue generator is way too precious to strangle that golden goose. Even Norway, which is trying to reduce domestic O&G consumption, is still making sure they are getting growth in O&G production for export. Gas has been on a constant increasing trend for 20 years and oil production is now back on increased levels after declines from both legacy shallow(er) waters and starvation of capital during the 2015-2018 oil price downturn. It is not an inconsistent paradigm. Global demand for O&G continues to increase and every O&G producing country wants to supply that demand.

Added: For what it is worth, that is not inconsistent with 'feel good' and 'image' policies to go greener by various means, such as carbon taxes or green incentives. Heck, even JT and his sidekick Morneau are going to use the dividend stream from TM and TMX to fund green initiatives while at the same time exporting increased oil shipments.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I hope the Conservatives continue to deny climate change. It works out well for the Liberals.


Name one actual Canadian Conservative who denies climate change.

I bet the closest you'll come is someone who doesn't think Liberal plan is a good idea.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They deny climate change is happening or they deny it is caused by human activity or they deny it will be destructive or they deny there is anything can be done about it.

Conservatives have "group think" denial syndrome.......GTDS. The only cure for it is a Liberal government.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> They deny climate change is happening or they deny it is caused by human activity or they deny it will be destructive or they deny there is anything can be done about it.
> 
> Conservatives have "group think" denial syndrome.......GTDS. The only cure for it is a Liberal government.


This fictional "denier" doesn't exist. When I say "nobody" below I specifically mean, reasonable mainstream people. Not some kooky wingnut in Indianna.

Nobody is denying it is happening.
Nobody is denying that human activity is having an effect.
There are those who deny that there are any natural effects at play, and there most certainly are.
Nobody is denying change will have an impact. 

The climate alarmists are saying we're at the tipping point and there is little time left before there is nothing we can do about it.

I'm not, and most Conservatives are not saying there is nothing we can do about it, we're simply saying the current plans aren't practical and won't be effective.
That is very different than "nothing we can do about it".

Look at Greta or the kids suing the government, there is a new generation that have Climate change alarmism resulting in PTSD type effects. They're literally terrified and fearful they're going to die.
No wonder they're going so crazy, they're being psychologically abused on a massive scale.

They're being told their opponents are evil anti-science deniers, which makes it even harder to have a real discussion about what we can do.

Even here, you can't have a rational conversation without literally lying about my position.

I'm not a "climate change denier" I simply think the current plans aren't very workable, that's it.
Beyond it being a bad plan I don't deny that there is climate change (has been for billions of years, don't see why it would stop now) 
I believe people have an impact.
I believe changes in climate change weather patterns.
I believe people who are unprepared might experience negative consequences. 

The only deniers of science are the climate change alarmists.
How many of Al Gore and Prince Charles "point of no returns" have we passed?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To add to my post #93, here is a bit more on James' beloved Norway https://fortune.com/2019/10/18/norw...2W5TBfuhGt4h7steLrxxR2YOYVPe34kN1G91JXofj6q78

They intend to be an O&G producer for a long time, increasing production if they can for GDP growth. It is not inconsistent. Work on reducing one's own footprint while providing more of what the world wants and needs. Might as well be Norway versus some despot nation with low environmental standards.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Drive by a climate strike on Friday. Two people with a banner. Right by a university too, usually prime ground.


----------



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

I have been listening to global warming and climate change predictions for 40 years. None have ever come true. All have been wildly exaggerated. By now we were supposed to be drowning and dying of thirst at the same time. The Greenland ice sheet was supposed to melt and raise sea levels 40 feet. The arctic ice cap was supposed to be gone by 2012. 

Barack Obama just bought a $10 million beach front property on Martha's Vineyard. It's 3 feet above sea level. Do you suppose he is in a position to get the real lowdown on climate change? What about the banks that continue to loan mortgages on beach front property and the insurance companies that insure them? Are the banks crazy? Are the insurance companies crazy? Are the Obamas crazy? Or do they know something the main stream media is not telling us?

Not only Obama but Bernie Sanders, Al Gore and David Suzuki all own beach front property. Suzuki owns two of them near Vancouver, both worth over $1 million, one in partnership with an oil company.

Even the climate change fanatics admit that carbon taxes WILL NOT end climate change. It's just another money grab. I don't know how people can be so God damn dumb. If you ever look into any of these claims you will quickly find out it is all politics and if there is any science behind the claims it is filled with fraud and errors.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> To add to my post #93, here is a bit more on James' beloved Norway https://fortune.com/2019/10/18/norw...2W5TBfuhGt4h7steLrxxR2YOYVPe34kN1G91JXofj6q78
> 
> They intend to be an O&G producer for a long time, increasing production if they can for GDP growth. It is not inconsistent. Work on reducing one's own footprint while providing more of what the world wants and needs. Might as well be Norway versus some despot nation with low environmental standards.


AltaRed I am happy with Norway's story. They continue with production and it's still an important part of their economy. At the same time they work at reducing their overall carbon footprint and appear to have pretty good per capita emission numbers.

They are also careful to preserve wealth generated by their industry. Can't we achieve all the same things?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Which is what we are doing, or would like too if we could get more takeaway capacity built. As for per capita emissions, well that depends on lifestyle and population density and climate amongst other things. Norway's population is a lot more concentrated than ours and there are not that many places to drive, nor are distances that great. They pretty much rely on the ferry system and air to get around. Lots of differences that makes it an apples and orange comparison


----------



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

"They are also careful to preserve wealth generated by their industry. Can't we achieve all the same things?"

That isn't what we want. In the NAFTA negotiations Trump went in to get the best deal he could for the US, the most jobs and the most money. The girl Trudeau sent to negotiate said her main goal was gender equality. I leave it to you to guess who got the best of that deal.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> "They are also careful to preserve wealth generated by their industry. Can't we achieve all the same things?"


AB and SK cannot wring out the same level of royalties and taxes that Norway can because our oil fields are NOT as profitable on an 'all in' cost basis. Fiscal (royalty and tax) regimes vary widely across the globe primarily on this quality aspect alone. It is a delicate balance for every government to leave enough for the oil company to make enough profit to invest in the first place, but not to give them a windfall. Every fiscal package I was ever party too was of non-linear design, taking proportionately less as prices fell below a certain reference point and taking proportionately more at higher oil prices to limit the upside. AB is no different with a royalty regime in place for conventional oil and gas and one in place for oil sands, with the latter one recognizing the very large up front capital costs, longer development times, and longer time required for 'pay out' once in production. These are complicated beasts.

Which is a long way of saying, Canada doesn't have the reserve quality to generate large sums of free cash flow to fund sovereign wealth funds. That said, AB blew it 20+ years ago not having a consumption tax like Norway does which puts a heavier burden on consumers while at the same time preserving more of the wealth. AB voters have been intolerant of any suggestion of a sales tax and that includes the very significant population that have in-migrated from other provinces over the years. There is just something that causes taxpayers to go into 'crazy' mode once they cross into AB. There are other things AB could do as well, such as increasing property transfer taxes aka BC and ON and/or increasing probate fees aka many other provinces. I am surprised Kenney didn't actually introduce 'gentle' versions of both things (land transfer taxes and probate fees) as revenue generators.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Alberta energy companies are still profitable. There is wealth to capture here; we just need to divert more of it to the public good, for example with higher taxes or higher mandatory payments into AB-specific funds.

Suncor: for the six months ending June, this year's NET income is $3.7 billion, last year's was $2.0 billion. The total compensation of their executives was $52 million in 2018.

CNQ: for the six months ending June, this year's NET income was $3.7 billion, last year's was $1.6 billion. Executive compensation total was $29 million in 2018.

Gee... doesn't look like hard times to me. Net positive income of nearly $4 billion in half a year, in one of the worst years ever... at a time where truckers have to roll through the province to be heard, and families are hurting. There's so much hurting, so much pain.

While Suncor and CNQ make $15 billion income in a year, and pay $81 million in salaries and benefits to their executives.

There clearly is enough profit here, enough money. Why aren't Albertans getting any of it? Corporations have failed Albertans.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You are sounding like an NDPer or worse. Absolute numbers mean nothing and especially quarterly or even single year annual numbers. Data mining at its finest.

EPS and metrics like 5 year ROE are way more important and must be competitive with those of banks, utilities, rail, etc. to attract capital..... never mind energy investing alternatives available globally. Why would company X invest more capital in the oil sands if they can get higher returns in the Permian or Norway or Guyana or..... Why do you think investors have deserted the commodity sector in droves the past 5 years?

Have you not looked at the charts on annual royalties? BTW, 2016 was the worst year ever in recent history for royalty revenues. Click on revenues at the bottom of https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-budget-real-numbers-2018-data-1.4559769 

Then also look at page 63 for a forward forecast (which may be optimistic since it assumes slight oil price improvements and pipeline takeaway capacity by 2022. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/3d7.../download/budget-2019-fiscal-plan-2019-23.pdf


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Alberta energy companies are still profitable. There is wealth to capture here; we just need to divert more of it to the public good, for example with higher taxes or higher mandatory payments into AB-specific funds.
> 
> Suncor: for the six months ending June, this year's NET income is $3.7 billion, last year's was $2.0 billion. The total compensation of their executives was $52 million in 2018.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First of all, you are cherry picking 2 of the most profitable companies and conveniently forgetting all of those that are struggling. Secondly, you are employing a tactic commonly used by the left which is looking at net income as if that tells the entire story. While it is easy to dazzle some with mentions of large sums of income, income is only relevant in relation to the capital invested. For example, if your billions of income are on an extremely large asset base your net return could still be pathetic. TD has a return on assets (before tax) for SU of 6.52% which is probably not bad but probably not as dazzling as saying "$3.7 billion.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That is classic data mining like a CBC type reporting record profits by banks, rather than per share metrics. James already knows all that but chooses to be confrontational and amateurish.

Added: Investors generally need to see double digit ROE and ROC numbers to invest long term, especially in mon-regulated companies. Further rolling 5 year data is needed to smooth out aberrations.

Another FWIW. O&G fiscal regimes around the world typically use 12-15% as the base DCF-ROR for a risked return in setting the royalty and tax algorithm. That is needed to attract capital.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Even profit per share is irrelevant. It's more about margins/return on equity.

It reminds me of people who moan about grocery stores earning billions by gouging, seemingly not realizing that net income margins are maybe 5%. So if they drop prices by 5% they'd lose money...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Valid point. James knows that too.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Even the climate change fanatics admit that carbon taxes WILL NOT end climate change. It's just another money grab. I don't know how people can be so God damn dumb. If you ever look into any of these claims you will quickly find out it is all politics and if there is any science behind the claims it is filled with fraud and errors.


Some people are actually doing something other than putting hands in your pocket...what a novel idea.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eder said:


> Some people are actually doing something other than putting hands in your pocket...what a novel idea.


500 million are planted in Canada each year


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nt


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

cainvest said:


> 500 million are planted in Canada each year



But that's the forestry companies...doesn't count because they are raping our forests and don't wear man buns...am i right?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Nt



Yes true....https://www.ppec-paper.com/thousand-new-tree-seedlings-planted-every-minute-canada/

Forestry companies are doing much more good for the climate in Canada than the sock puppet and his silly tax grab...even in 2013


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Haha! But did you know the forestry companies are actually doing good? CO2 is trapped in the cells of trees and the trees are harvested for lumber, trapping the CO2 in the wood products forever (unless the wood is burned of course). Then they are re-planting what they had harvested and the new seedlings trap a whole bunch more CO2 while they grow...to be harvested again some day.

Trees just left to grow, die and de-compose put all that CO2 they took out of the air back into the air for a zero sum game on CO2. Think about it. All those urban forests are a zero sum game because the trees are not harvested for lumber.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Did anyone see the latest climate strike in Vancouver? Thousands of people came out. Not hundreds of thousands, not even tens of thousands. Not reported in the media though. The biggest actual numeral I saw was 8000.

You see, Friday was already a day off for many students in Vancouver. A PD day. So, they didn't get to miss class.

No one really cares. People like to make a fuss, but don't change. The oil burn continues.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

If they want to do a true climate strike, they should stop using all forms of hydrocarbon fuel - no cars, no air travel, avoid heating their home (you can actually do that in Vancouver but it will be chilly), etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Congratulations on the tree planting to India and Ethiopia...........both of whom also have carbon taxes.

Canada has a ways to catch up to other countries climate change effort. Our per capita emissions are 4 times the global average.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Spidey said:


> If they want to do a true climate strike, they should stop using all forms of hydrocarbon fuel - no cars, no air travel, avoid heating their home (you can actually do that in Vancouver but it will be chilly), etc.


Most people will never save $1 million dollars. Does that mean they shouldn't save anything at all ?

The goal of climate change efforts is to keep global warming levels below the level that would cause catastrophic damage, not to eliminate CO2 emissions completely.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> The goal of climate change efforts is to keep global warming levels below the level that would cause catastrophic damage, not to eliminate CO2 emissions completely.


Ahh, so it's all for show and no one expects it to have any effect. Now I understand when activists take jet airliners to a climate strike.

ltr


----------



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

Canada has be replanting forests since the 1920s. I can show you reforestation projects of mature trees 10 miles from me that were planted 90 years ago. 50 years ago we were dropping seedlings from airplanes by the millions. It's nice that those Johnny Come Latelies are getting involved at last.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

California fires show 'the horror' world will face from climate change.

https://www.politico.com/states/cal...r-world-will-face-from-climate-change-1226036

University of Alberta professor links Alberta fires to climate change.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfires-climate-change-1.5168355

Some people can't see the forest for the fires.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

sags said:


> California fires show 'the horror' world will face from climate change.


California shows the horror of what happens when you waste all your money on expensive solar and wind electricity and have no money left over for proper maintenance, even with some of the highest electricity rates in North America. How would have California dealt with the fire seasons of the 1920s, 30s and 40s which dwarfed anything today?

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

If any Canadian province let their electricity system degrade as badly as California... well their population would have voted the government way before that as seen with the annihilation of the Ontario Liberal Party.



> University of Alberta professor links Alberta fires to climate change.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfires-climate-change-1.5168355
> 
> Some people can't see the forest for the fires.


Does he also link BC's lack of fires this year to climate change? Or does "evil climate change" only cause bad events?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Heres a pretty good read...explains why the fires from power lines are more common...(warning...it calls Californian irrational and may offend some cmf's)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383989.php


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Eder said:


> (warning...it calls Californian irrational and may offend some cmf's)


No, there's no worry ever about offending CMF's on climate change or Canadian Oil or basically anything that doesn't align with their 'save-the-planet' ideals. 

They simply do not listen to any sensible ideas or principles that are opposed to their wacky positions on the climate.

Feel fee to post any sensible rebuttal that will be summarily trash the alarmists position. They won't listen. Like sheep to the slaughter.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If only California had laid down a thick carpet of flame retardant material over the breadth of the tinder dry fuel source across the entire state.

But then, Saskatchewan had large wild fires a year or two back that where nowhere near dry tinder forested areas. The grass was so dry it was burning.

Maybe cover all of Saskatchewan in a thick carpet of flame retardant material as well...........just be on the safe side.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hundreds of millions of people will be in danger of rising sea levels.

The climate change deniers are right. Scientists got it wrong. It is much worse than they projected.

_Global sea levels are expected to rise between two to seven feet (0.6 meters to 2.1 meters) -- and possibly more -- over the course of the 21st century.
And by 2050, land that is currently home to about 300 million people will fall below the elevation of the average annual coastal flood -- meaning they could face severe floods at least once a year. By 2100, land that is home to 200 million people could sit permanently below the high tide line, rendering those coastal areas all but unlivable._

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/rising-sea-cities-study-intl-hnk-scli-sci/index.html


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> Hundreds of millions of people will be in danger of rising sea levels.
> 
> The climate change deniers are right. Scientists got it wrong. It is much worse than they projected.


Right, so instead of raising the cost of everything, then giving some money back, why not use the money to fortify infrastructure - strengthen building codes for structures to better withstand flooding - change zoning bylaws to prevent further development in at-risk coastal regions - prohibit inland development of homes in wetlands - force developers of new communities to provide reservoirs to hold water, rather than pipeing it quickly into streams and rivers.

All we hear from our politicians is... "there must be a price on carbon" , but nothing about mitigating the effects of CC. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Hundreds of millions of people will be in danger of rising sea levels.
> 
> The climate change deniers are right. Scientists got it wrong. It is much worse than they projected.
> 
> ...


Even in worst case scenario (not realistic) there is plenty of time to move for those who are worried. I'm sure a lot of deniers would be happy to own ocean front property. It's a win/win/. The alarmists can move to higher ground and the deniers will get what's coming to them.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Gore said sea level would rise by 20' by 2015...still waiting for any evidence sea levels have moved. (Real evidence...not computer models that think levels have already risen contrary to observation and physical measurement)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Gore said sea level would rise by 20' by 2015...still waiting for any evidence sea levels have moved. (Real evidence...not computer models that think levels have already risen contrary to observation and physical measurement)


Quote or it didn't happen? There is plenty of evidence that sea levels have changed from pre-industrial levels. Sea levels are up 15-20 cm/ 6-8 inches since 1900, and 3 inches since 1993.

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


----------



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

The Obamas just bought a $14 million dollar beach house on Martha's Vineyard. It is 3 feet above sea level. He certainly had access to the top experts if he wanted to know what to expect in, say, the next 50 years.

He joins such "woke" beach house owners as Al Gore, Bernie Sanders and David Suzuki who owns 2 beach houses in the Vancouver area, one in partnership with an oil company. They are worth over a million each.

The banks still loan money on beach front property and insurance companies still insure them. Is Obama crazy? Are the banks crazy? Are the insurance companies crazy? Or do you think they might know something we don't?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think in the US, most ocean-front property received federal government insurance guarantees.

Insurance companies, in absence of govt guarantees, tend to refuse to insure flood prone properties. Lots of insurance companies are including climate change and sea levels in their risk modeling. I don't think many people are taking out 50 year flood policies, so insurance companies are just making policies that cover the next year. Water levels don't rise all that much in a year. But they are definitely not promising that a house will still be there in 50 years.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Insurance/story?id=94181


----------



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

Would you buy a $14 million dollar house if you knew it would be gone in 20 years and you couldn't insure it?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Depends how much money I had! People buy yachts that cost more and will be worthless in the same time frame. Not to mention that 3 ft of sea level rise is not expected in 20 years (it rose 3 inches since the 90s). Estimates seem to be that this would take until about 2100.

It is possible to have an expectation/belief that lies between 'global warming is a Chinese plot to prevent Making America Great Again' and 'The Day After Tomorrow' cataclysm foolishness.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

Eder said:


> Gore said sea level would rise by 20' by 2015...still waiting for any evidence sea levels have moved. (Real evidence...not computer models that think levels have already risen contrary to observation and physical measurement)


Local sea levels have risen, but at basically the same rate that they have been rising 100 years ago.


















What we haven't seen is the acceleration that would be needed for the apocalyptic predictions to be right.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

and here's an expert explanation, which is probably more trustworthy than amateur interpretation of limited (localized) data

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/ho...level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/



> How long have sea levels been rising? How does recent sea level rise compare to that over the previous centuries?
> . . .
> 
> From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. *And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.*


So for the last few thousand years, sea levels were not trending up. Then, in the last 100 years, the sea level rise was about 180 mm, with half of it happening in just 25 years. This coincides with human fossil fuel emissions (also the last 100 years).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

So the sea levels "varied in the past", but they didn't say by how much or at what rates.
it's clearly worded to show specific data recently, but vague minimizing terms regarding past cycles.

They have the data and don't even say that it's rising faster now than in the past.

It seems like even NASA is pushing for Climate change funding.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Would you buy a $14 million dollar house if you knew it would be gone in 20 years and you couldn't insure it?


The US government provides flood insurance.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> So the sea levels "varied in the past", but they didn't say by how much or at what rates.
> it's clearly worded to show specific data recently, but vague minimizing terms regarding past cycles.
> 
> They have the data and don't even say that it's rising faster now than in the past.
> ...



....how accurately were sea levels monitored in say, 1719......?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> ....how accurately were sea levels monitored in say, 1719......?


Exactly. Mostly anecdotal information until recent times, but that said, it is a 'no brainer' that sea levels would rise as we continue our way out of the last ice age. Unless something dramatic happens to the contrary, we should expect all ice caps to melt eventually before the cycle begins all over again. The only question is how fast, and clearly humankind is accelerating the process.

Humans have just gotten too comfortable with a relatively benign inter-glacial period. The cycles are inevitable and our species has to adjust accordingly.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Quote or it didn't happen? There is plenty of evidence that sea levels have changed from pre-industrial levels. Sea levels are up 15-20 cm/ 6-8 inches since 1900, and 3 inches since 1993.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise



From the movie An Inconvenient Truth...I won't crop the movie but can paraphrase it

Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future.” Context further on places the occurrence by 2015....blub blub


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Exactly. Mostly anecdotal information until recent times, but that said, it is a 'no brainer' that sea levels would rise as we continue our way out of the last ice age. Unless something dramatic happens to the contrary, we should expect all ice caps to melt eventually before the cycle begins all over again. The only question is how fast, and clearly humankind is accelerating the process.
> 
> Humans have just gotten too comfortable with a relatively benign inter-glacial period. The cycles are inevitable and our species has to adjust accordingly.


I've been beating that drum for a few years now, but nobody wants to join the parade. Good luck getting the alarmists to even listen to logic - they're locked-in to their belief, and will just attack any source that you can site to back up your claim.

At this point, I just don't care any more; I'll be long dead before things get really bad. So why should I knock myself out to warn our descendents to start preparing for the inevitable, when they believe that if we stop CO2, the planet will enter a perpetual state of equilibrium.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Ideology trumps facts by the fervent, albeit I have no doubt humans are accelerating the trend. More effort needs to be applied to adapt and adjust because no matter how significant the effort is to reduce GHG emissions, the best we can hope for is slow the growth in temperature and sea level rise. Too many countries are just going to ignore the call.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Why do people accept the science about the cycle of historic rising global temperatures but refuse to accept that since the introduction of fossil fuels the rise has been much faster than the historic trend ?

Not that it matters anymore, because I think the mounting evidence is that it is already too late.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Why do people accept the science about the cycle of historic rising global temperatures but refuse to accept that since the introduction of fossil fuels the rise has been much faster than the historic trend ?


It's a combination of poor scientific understanding, plus influence from the oil & gas industry which has pushed their own propaganda on this.

Many scientists have been looking at this problem. They have obviously considered the various things these people in this thread raise, including quality of data sources and uncertainty about the past. This has all been studied, and the expert conclusion is there.

Then we have various kooky ramblings about monetary incentives of climate scientists and NASA. Where do you think there is more monetary incentive to be biased? From university researchers and academics who barely make 30K - 100K salaries, or could it be more likely that the bias and monetary incentives exists in oil & gas ownership, among people who are multi millionnaires (and billionnaires) where everyone in executive circles is making well over 500K a year + benefits?

Do you think it's possible that the fabulously wealthy oil & gas people who have massive fortunes from oil extraction _might_ be pushing out a story to try and tarnish the science, to convince the public it's not as big a deal as the experts claim?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Part of the problem of these conversations is that different people are starting from different sets of agreed facts. It sounds like AltaRed is fully signed on to the proposition that the planet is warming. Many people deny this and say that temps are declining, warming has halted, etc. 

The other proposition is that CO2, concentrations of which have been raised by human civilization, are causing at least some of that warmig. If we can all put the first proposition to bed as agreed, maybe these conversations could be less frustrating. Frankly, the anti-AGW argument seems like a bucket defense:

-the planet isn't warming
-it is warming, but has been for a long time
-it's actually cooling, ice age ahead!
-it is warming, but CO2 doesn't cause it, it's water vapour
-CO2 concentration hasn't actually increased
-CO2 has increased, but humans didn't cause it


So, which is it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the public has already figured it out and voted accordingly.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The other proposition is that CO2, concentrations of which have been raised by human civilization, are causing at least some of that warmig. If we can all put the first proposition to bed as agreed, maybe these conversations could be less frustrating. Frankly, the anti-AGW argument seems like a bucket defense:
> 
> -the planet isn't warming
> -it is warming, but has been for a long time
> ...


Not all of those things are mutually exclusive. Some of the comments depend on context and timing. We have extremes on both sides making having an intelligent conversation difficult. The sides will likely remain apart until reality pretty much lines up with computer modeling. 

The advocates don't help their cause with hyperbole, exaggerations, and sometimes outright lies, etc. and I think at least some of the counter-extremes are just that, countering absurdities. That said, there are a few in complete denial The science is not settled, despite anyone saying otherwise. Though I strongly believe the premise and trends are correct, and the models will be refined over time.

Added: There are two things that really irritate me though: 1) Blaming all weather events, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. on climate change without much evidence to confirm otherwise. Good current example is the California fires, and 2) Not being able to have a rationale conversation on degree of impact mankind has and what also needs to be done to adapt and adjust to changes, not just GHG reduction, i.e. the climate is warming regardless.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^There are clowns on both sides making reasonable compromise impossible. The carbon tax used to be a Republican idea. Now it is an evil socialist plot to destroy the economy. Serious people can agree that a carbon tax like the Liberals have implemented is a) not terribly disruptive to the economy (it's smaller than the federal gas tax) and b) it is not enough to significantly move the needle on emissions. It burned me up when Harper branded a carbon tax & refund scheme as a "Job killing tax on everything". This was conscious deception. Someone who supposedly studied economics would have known that regardless of what you think of AGW, such a tax on carbon is likely less economically harmful than an equivalent tax on income or investment. It could have been a tax on sugar, or french fries or plastic. Essentially a consumption tax. There is a pretty universal consensus among economists that consumption taxes are more economically efficient than taxes on income. Harper instead proposed to achieve equivalent emissions reductions through command and control legislation on an industry-by-industry basis. Another lie. He had no intention of doing anything. But had the gall to pretend that had he not been lying about actually doing anything, this would have had no economic ill effects. Telling Suncor how to run an upgrader is more economically friendly than just giving them an incentive to produce oil with less CO2 emissions as a byproduct?

Harper essentially poisoned the well for many Canadians on this file. I'm not sure I will trust a Conservative leader not to be lying about their environmental plan. It is baked into their incentives & their base to deceive the rest of Canada to protect the O&G sector, probably at the ultimate expense of driving support to the NDP/Bloc extreme of saying Canada should unilaterally shut down the industry. I don't hold our O&G sector accountable for the ultimate consumer who consumes the energy and generates those direct emissions. Those emissions would occur whether they were burning Canadian, American, Saudi, Norwegian or Venezuelan petroleum. Canada and its O&G industry is responsible for how efficiently/environmentally responsibly they extract and refine that oil. Maybe that means nuclear reactors to create process heat. On this token, I think Alberta is reaping what it sowed with Harper. You saboutage the process with bad faith--you get cut out of it and maybe lose influence on the outcome.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think the Conservatives have backed themselves into a corner on the Carbon tax issue and it shows up in some Opinion stuff on G&M and NP and it may well have been Harper that profiled that into a 'hot button' issue. Remember when the liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea may be behind paywall but it goes back to at least Preston Manning in 2014. Kind of like Harper's reduction of the GST twice which was a travesty of its own. That all said, I see some baggage in your post which is not helpful or healthy.

Consumption taxes ARE one key way to influence behaviours, others being tax credits and incentives. As long as the consumption taxes are being put to good use, and in the case of a GHG emission tax, it needs to be transparent and re-allocated in a rational way. I don't object to the BC carbon tax, or at least I didn't until the NDP/Green Darryl and Darryl show took away revenue neutrality. Now I detest those idiots in Victoria.

Added: I think a mistake was to actually call this a carbon tax. Probably should have called it a GHG emission tax to focus it on what is the specific issue and to provide some reasonable phase-in concessions to certain industries to make adjustments, e.g. our farmers who really have no alternatives to fueling their tractors, combines and grain dryers. 

I also think there could have been a better effort to cheer (celebrate?) our own O&G industry for the tremendous strides they have made to decrease their HC consumption. In some cases, it is orders of magnitude but they still are tagged as the bad guys. Many of them have electrified their drivers and made major efficiency increases in the use of co-generation in their processes, etc. How about sequestration of CO2 as well? If we want to tag 'bad guys', let us focus on consumption, i.e. demand. Stop beating up on the O&G industry which is doing a much better job than most oil producing nations in the production of oil and gas. Until just this past week (or month), Permian producers were flaring huge quantities of natural gas because there was no pipeline capacity to move that natural gas to the Gulf Coast. Not one word has been said about that.

Added much later: Look at this article on what O&G producers were flaring or venting in the Permian basin https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsev...s-flaring-and-venting-reaching-all-time-high/ That wouldn't be remotely be considered acceptable in our O&G industry. The oil would have been shut in until the natural gas could have been re-injected or transported by pipeline to processing facilities and sold


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the hostility/chafing to rather benign policies like a carbon tax and refund (like current Liberal policy) or 'tax shift' (like previous BC and Stephane Dion policy) makes it easy/tempting to scapegoat. Acting like a villain makes it easy for some to feel justified in treating the industry accordingly. I am generally supportive of the industry, but would find it easier to be wholeheartedly be behind it if it (and its political operatives in the CPC) were obviously responding maturely to a world with carbon pricing.

The industry itself makes outward appearances of being somewhat reasonable, but the party whose ear it holds (behind closed doors) is not reasonable on the subject of emissions and environment, so I question industry sincerity. The industry should be getting the CPC to be more reasonable--the current situation will be an ongoing PR problem in this country. And that trust and goodwill is going to have to be re-earned by the CPC, as Harper thoroughly squandered it. I honestly think a non-AB/SK leader for the CPC would be a good step in that direction. Or at least a leader not steeped in industry bootlicking.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think some people believe there is more of a connection between the CPC and the oil industry than there really is (and they will remain unconvinced otherwise). Clearly there are those in the industry which side with CPC and connect with and lobby CPC, but there are many that are understand the industry must also take responsibility for their own emissions, I thus don't think the industry is as offside with taxation of emissions as some would believe. For the industry, it comes down to competitiveness and if the industry were not constrained by transportation bottlenecks depressing the prices they receive and the volumes they could sell, there would be a lot more cash flow to pay emission based carbon taxes. I suspect the angst and anger would virtually vanish. It's the transportation issues that cause constraints that are likely without precedent in any of our industries. That file was really screwed up starting 5 or more years ago and crystallized initially with the totally politically motivated tanker ban that killed Northern Gateway.

FWIW, I agree the CPC needs a central Canadian leader, a red Tory so to speak, of the likes of Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt or Michael Chong, 2 of those who I supported in the leadership campaign, and the latter of which supported the carbon tax. Whether the CPC can dig itself out of the carbon tax box and have a real climate policy come next April is a big question.

Added: Governments have also done a very poor job articulating that it is consumption (demand) that needs to be focused on, not supply. Norway has been a lot better at this by advocating increased production for export to generate the GDP to fund green initiatives to decrease consumption. What a concept!


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

It turns out the list of "11,000 scientists" pleading a crisis included Bumbledore and Mickey Mouse  The list has since been blocked and is no longer available to view.

Stay tuned for the next dire warning in a few weeks...I'm sure this one will be fully vetted


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> It turns out the list of "11,000 scientists" pleading a crisis included Bumbledore and Mickey Mouse


If Mikey Mouse is on board then I'm in, didn't think it was that serious! 

Maybe climate change needs a animal mascot, like smokey the bear?
- Hotty the polar bear?
- Warmy Whale?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I was on that list...scientific qualification as carpenter wasn't noted.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

wasn't Goofy on there as well? uh-yeah-uh!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> It turns out the list of "11,000 scientists" pleading a crisis included Bumbledore and Mickey Mouse  The list has since been blocked and is no longer available to view.
> 
> Stay tuned for the next dire warning in a few weeks...I'm sure this one will be fully vetted


I guess we could check who signed the Global Warming Petition Project that claims 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

_" The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."_

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

These lists appear to no longer get much media attention. They are so corrupted that they have little legitimacy.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Are you questioning my legitimacy? The nerve!


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

100,000 people can tell you that 1+1=3. But it only takes 1 person to prove them wrong. The most fascinating thing about the climate change argument is that vast numbers of people refuse to listen to dissenting arguments. You simply must accept the conclusions with no independent thought and those conclusions will not change ever.

And not only that, but you cannot accept solutions that are not in line with "accepted" wisdom. Electric cars, windmills, solar panels, moonbeams, and bicycles will solve the problem. And nothing else. Not nuclear power. Imagine if someone invented a way to turn carbon dioxide back into gasoline in a cost effective manner that allowed everyone to keep burning gasoline as long as they wanted. They might be buried by the environmental movement. Good thing people are still trying.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

doctrine said:


> Imagine if someone invented a way to turn carbon dioxide back into gasoline in a cost effective manner that allowed everyone to keep burning gasoline as long as they wanted.


Ummmm ... you know they already do that now, just on a small scale. They say (take with a grain of salt) that the lower cost side is about $1/L. So let say it's a $1.50/L scaled up a little but we could take the carbon tax dollars to subsidize their output into our regular gas chain. Not only does it make us less dependant on foreign oil but it's cleaner fuel to burn as well.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Ummmm ... you know they already do that now, just on a small scale. They say (take with a grain of salt) that the lower cost side is about $1/L. So let say it's a $1.50/L scaled up a little but we could take the carbon tax dollars to subsidize their output into our regular gas chain. Not only does it make us less dependant on foreign oil but it's cleaner fuel to burn as well.


Investigating alternative solutions?

Be careful, that type of crazy talk is enough to get you labelled a climate denier.


----------



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

doctrine said:


> Imagine if someone invented a way to turn carbon dioxide back into gasoline in a cost effective manner that allowed everyone to keep burning gasoline as long as they wanted. They might be buried by the environmental movement. Good thing people are still trying.


It's been done. There is a simple process for turning any kind of garbage that contains carbon into oil. I first saw this written up in Discover magazine in the 80s. It's not a secret. If there are any patents they expired long ago.

Many people are working on this, here are 2 of them.
https://www.inc.com/magazine/201811/bill-saporito/fulcrum-bioenergy-waste-to-energy.html
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...into-diesel-with-its-game-changing-technology

If Toronto were doing this there would be no more need to ship garbage to Michigan and instead of being a big expense it would be a profit center. As well as eliminating pollution.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> It's been done. There is a simple process for turning any kind of garbage that contains carbon into oil ...
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...into-diesel-with-its-game-changing-technology



oh, please



> After a complicated discussion about molecules, negative ions, etc., basically Cielo has developed a synthetic rock that is ground down to a talcum-like powder to become their highly secret catalyst that is added to all kinds of garbage — including contaminated plastic — and out comes fuel. Cielo sold its first batch of diesel in April.


what exactly is that pet rock which, ground down into a secret powder, magically transforms garbage into diesel fuel?

where is Mister Morbidly Obese's chemical engineering degree?

who was that client that he claims bought his garbage-into-diesel fuel in april 2019? where are the trialing results which should have been carried out before the purchaser allegedly ordered & paid for the magical new product?

where are the commentaries from professional chemical engineers who would understand this alice-in-wonderland process?

or is the garbage-into-diesel process just so much investment swindle pixie dust?

how did Mister Morbidly Obese raise all those millions of dollars that he says have been invested over the past 15 years to develop garbage-into-diesel aka GID? who are the angel investors who paid for GID? what, in fact, is MMO's working background history?

it makes me GIDdy to think about this zero science story. For his part, Mister no-background-MMO says he's going to save the world by franchising his secret pet rock GID process. First across alberta. Then the entire planet.

that Calgary Herald story ^^ is one of the worst pieces of journalism i have ever seen. A stock market pump could not have touted this company more glowingly.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> oh, please
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since we already have bio diesel and ethanol working in vehicles today, the idea that we can refactor hydrocarbons (plastic) and biodegradables into a "diesel" type fuel is pretty reasonable. 

However knowing how much trouble industrial composting and recycling are, I think they'll hit major scaling/contamination problems.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Since we already have bio diesel and ethanol working in vehicles today, the idea that we can refactor hydrocarbons (plastic) and biodegradables into a "diesel" type fuel is pretty reasonable.




no one is disputing that a garbage-into-fuel technology is possible.

what i'm saying is that the specific garbage-into-diesel project under development by an alberta company calling itself Cielo Waste Solutions might be an investment fraud.

i've mentioned upthread ^^ what's wrong with the calgary herald's puff promotion piece. The fatal flaw is the secret pet rock which, according to Cielo's promoter, magically generates diesel out of contaminated plastic/elastomer/wood waste once it's ground into powder.

there's no information, no scientific explanation. The promoter himself has no engineering or scientific background.

take a look at the "refinery" in the video. It's not operating. Doesn't even appear to have proper interior hydro, interior is pitch dark. Exterior has a couple shiny new never-used pipes that could have been installed for publicity pictures only.

if i were a scribe following this malodorous story, i'd be looking for the history of that refinery in aldersyde, alberta. It's an old structure, it must have had a previous life before Cielo propped it up as a garbage-into-diesel miracle.

i'd also be looking for the brokers/investors in that $500,000 debenture offering which Cielo just launched this week. Victims - sorry i meant to say investors - will be paid 15% interest under the terms of those debentures.

what could be better for an OK alberta boomer? his household waste including straws, plastic cutlery, contaminated strofoam food containers & used auto tires, will become tomorrow's precious fuel. In the meantime he'll be paid a whopping 15% interest.


----------

