# Canada sent 383 people to the climate conference in Paris...



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

... that's more people than the U.S., the U.K. and Australia *combined*.

Prime Minister Selfie spared no expense. Who cares, it's only taxpayers' money.

BTW, Canada is responsible for just 1.6% of the global GHG emissions.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-more-than-australia-the-u-k-and-u-s-together


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals took key people who need to be supportive of climate change policies if they are going to be effective, including Federal and Provincial leaders and business groups.

How to deal with climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. Unless the world acts now......it will be too late and nothing else is going to matter.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

sags said:


> How to deal with climate change is the most important issue facing the world today.


Googled just out of curiosity "the most important problem in the world" - glad that the previous top two got resolved:

"When the WEF asked more than 1,000 experts to rank the 50 global risks on a scale of 1 to 5, based on both severity and probability, their top five essentially matched the Trends top five, which are as follows:


Putting an end to poverty
Addressing chronic fiscal imbalances
Adaptation to climate change, while unleashing our economy
Managing the global water crisis
Facing up to our mismanagement of population aging"


http://www.audiotech.com/trends-magazine/the-worlds-most-important-problems/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Climate change will magnify all the issues listed by the WEF beyond human's ability to deal with them.

Addressing fiscal imbalances ? They believe money is more important than life itself ?

Apparently they do..............

_Adaptation to climate change, while unleashing our economy involves weighing the expected net present value of prevention and adaptation at specific times vs. the expected NPV of taking no actions. The WEF experts ranked both climate change adaption and greenhouse gas emissions high. We at Trends agree with the Copenhagen Consensus Group that says we need to focus on adaptation, because *controlling emissions can't be shown to have a positive return on investment*.
_


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

sags said:


> We at Trends agree with the Copenhagen Consensus Group that says we need to focus on adaptation, because *controlling emissions can't be shown to have a positive return on investment*.
> [/I]


I think they must be referrering to the fact that controlling emissions isn't going to stop climate change, only slow it down, and the costs of climate change are likely to be very high so controlling emissions doesn't produce enough near-term benefit. But on the level of individual corporations, it has been demonstrated thousands of times that controlling emissions has a positive return on investment; in fact I've been looking for 25 years for a single example of a business that lost money through efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and haven't found one yet. DuPont reported some years back that it has saved more than $90 million/year by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions well beyond the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol, and the U.S. EPA's Energy Star program saves Americans enough in energy costs every year to pay the EPA's entire operating budget two times over.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

sags said:


> The Liberals took key people who need to be supportive of climate change policies if they are going to be effective


LOL. The Liberals found 383 "key people". That's more "key people" than the U.S., the U.K. and Australia combined.

What a pile of horse manure.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Isn't climate change suppose to be about "changing the way people think"? If so, why are we doing the same old, same old when it comes to "finding a solution"?

Instead of meeting in 5-star hotels in Paris, why not meet in China where the pollution is so thick you can't see? Or better yet, delegates from around the world meet in Ethiopia...

I doubt 300+ people would want to travel to Ethiopia from Canada. If they did, the economic impact would be very beneficial. Not to mention it may make an impact on them if they "saw their future", if we are to believe the hype. Hard to worry about the consequences sipping Dom in Paris. 

Also, why did Justin and company need to be there at all? I noticed the news reported the other day, as they were leaving, "now the real people will get together to negotiate and try to come up with a plan". So Justin and company were basically just window dressing and a waste of money, not to mention the pollution to fly them there...

Now, aside from location, why not try something different like a big video conference? I used to produce international conferences in the 90's...we'd bring together 1000's of people to exchange information. Now a days, they are going extinct, replaced by technology. Saves on travel costs for the companies, the entire event is recorded, so there is no ambiguity on what was said, and can be done from anywhere with an internet connection.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

sags said:


> How to deal with climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. Unless the world acts now......it will be too late and nothing else is going to matter.


You talk as if we're down to our last habitable planet. ;-)


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Also, why did Justin and company need to be there at all? I noticed the news reported the other day, as they were leaving, "now the real people will get together to negotiate and try to come up with a plan". So Justin and company were basically just window dressing and a waste of money, not to mention the pollution to fly them there...


I was at several of the earlier climate treaty negotiation meetings, back in the 1990s. Having the national leaders and ministers there was in fact a big deal and added a lot of weight to the negotiations; it made it clear that it was a priority and the leaders gave speeches outlining their positions. These negotiations can't really work by videoconference: a lot of things happen in little coalitions and private meetings. I heard negotiations going on in the men's room. On the last day there's usually an all-night negotiating session; the people with the largest delegations have an edge there because they can send negotiators in shifts so people stay fresh.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Isn't climate change suppose to be about "changing the way people think"? If so, why are we doing the same old, same old when it comes to "finding a solution"?
> 
> Instead of meeting in 5-star hotels in Paris, why not meet in China where the pollution is so thick you can't see? Or better yet, delegates from around the world meet in Ethiopia...
> 
> ...


Makes sense in one way, but these delegates like to travel and visit countries that like to host these kinds of summits, and there is always an availability of delegates that
are willing to travel, enjoy the culture and the cuisine. 

Your point is well taken. Climate change will only work if ALL the polluting countries in the world are seriously and actively involved to reduce greenhouse gases..otherwise it is wishful thinking with "motherhood statements" that greenhouse gases will be reduced by 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. 


> In its annual “emission trends” report, Environment Canada says the country can expect 727 megatonnes of GHG emissions by 2020 unless new measures are taken. The target laid down by Mr. Harper in Copenhagen five years ago was for 611 megatonnes by 2020.


 With new technology and changing to electric instead of fossil fuels for power generation and transportation, I'm sure that there will be some progress by 2050...but what about the most densely populated countries...like China, India, the Pacific Rim countries, japan, the Koreas, Russia and Africa/South America and Mexico?

Apparently there are 7.125 Billion people living in the world today and the sad news is that the population will only grow as the years go by.
China's population (2013) 1.357 BILLION, India's population: 1.252 Billion, US 316.5 MILLION, Canada about 35.5 million.
These 4 countries represent about half of earth's populatioin. 3.5 Billion) The other remaining countries account for the other 3.5 Billion or so. 
So if these 4 subscribe to the new accord on green house gases..what about the rest? 



> The world’s population is now odds-on to swell ever-higher for the rest of the century, posing grave challenges for food supplies, healthcare and social cohesion. A ground-breaking analysis released on Thursday shows there is a 70% chance that the number of people on the planet will rise continuously from 7bn today to 11bn in 2100.
> 
> The work overturns 20 years of consensus that global population, and the stresses it brings, will peak by 2050 at about 9bn people.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new-study-11bn-2100


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Seems like this is about building a consensus for action, a consensus that was conspicuously missing under the previous government. They mastered the art of the stalling tactic. Their ever promised and ever delayed command and control industrial emission regulations for the oil and gas sector were years late (as in, never really going to be delivered).

At least now the majority of the Canadian economy is going to be under some form of carbon pricing. A shame that many jurisdictions are going with rather questionable approaches (cap and trade). At least with the provincial governments actively involved, it makes it more difficult for this to become a provincial/federal jurisdictional tussle.

I think this would have been a bit less unseemly if the government had more than a few weeks to prepare for this conference. But at least Canada will actually be participating, rather than skillfully trying to avoid attention while actively trying to saboutage the proceedings, which would have been the approach Canada would have taken under the previous bunch.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

brad said:


> I was at several of the earlier climate treaty negotiation meetings, back in the 1990s. Having the national leaders and ministers there was in fact a big deal and added a lot of weight to the negotiations; it made it clear that it was a priority and the leaders gave speeches outlining their positions. These negotiations can't really work by videoconference: a lot of things happen in little coalitions and private meetings. I heard negotiations going on in the men's room. On the last day there's usually an all-night negotiating session; the people with the largest delegations have an edge there because they can send negotiators in shifts so people stay fresh.


And what exactly was the impact of those conferences? Being in the 90's, and it was a big deal back then, why are we still at square one (if not behind)?

I never implied video conferencing would work, I don't really believe these conferences produce more than hot air and a nice bill for their vacations to the tax payers...I said, it would have less impact on the environment, so my proposal would at least have a minor impact.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I think this would have been a bit less unseemly if the government had more than a few weeks to prepare for this conference. But at least Canada will actually be participating, rather than skillfully trying to avoid attention while actively trying to saboutage the proceedings, which would have been the approach Canada would have taken under the previous bunch.


I seem to recall the previous liberal government saying all the right things at the Kyoto conference...then returning home and doing absolutely nothing. When the government does something more than promise things, then I'll believe there is a chance for change. Of course, I'd like more if they ever did something to actually make a difference instead of the wealth transfer solutions which don't even pretend to make any reductions...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> And what exactly was the impact of those conferences? Being in the 90's, and it was a big deal back then, why are we still at square one (if not behind)?


We are behind, I believe. 25 years later, the emmission target is? (going down to meet the targets set in the 90s, staying the same? or going up slightly?
Now the new date is 2020, and after that, 2050. It remains to be seen if any of these emission targets will be met, but at least Alberta, Ontario and BC, are trying with this cap and trade scheme and green house gas emission taxes added to the cost of fossil fuels. 



> After Harper took power in 2006, greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the year were at* 740 megatonnes* according to Environment Canada
> In 2013, the most recent year available, they were at *726 megatonnes*. So, that’s a drop of about* 2 per cent over seven years*.
> 
> But, as May noted, the only drop came in 2008 and 2009, right as Canada entered a recession.
> ...


http://globalnews.ca/news/2153522/r...gas-emissions-decreased-as-the-economy-grows/


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Also, why did Justin and company need to be there at all? I noticed the news reported the other day, as they were leaving, "now the real people will get together to negotiate and try to come up with a plan". So Justin and company were basically just window dressing and a waste of money, not to mention the pollution to fly them there...


 I told many times that Canadaian will be paying high price for irresponsible PR actions of Justin and Co.



> The Liberals found 383 "key people". That's more "key people" than the U.S., the U.K. and Australia combined.


 The shoul've take also sags, he is "key" person too 



> I doubt 300+ people would want to travel to Ethiopia from Canada.


 Absolutely!

at our company nobody wants business trip to Chennai, but everyone wants to Luxemburg 

P.S. Benefitrs from this summit will be exact the same as from summit about zombies and aliens


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> And what exactly was the impact of those conferences? Being in the 90's, and it was a big deal back then, why are we still at square one (if not behind)?


They accomplished a lot: the framework convention on climate change, which is the basic overall treaty that most countries in the world have signed and ratified. Through that convention, individual protocols can be negotiated, which as we've all seen hasn't gone very well. It's a very political process, and a lot of haggling between developed and developing countries, lots of concerns about who bears the costs, equitability, etc. Progress is necessarily incremental and slow. But we're a long way from where things were in 1990; we're far from square one. It take a long time to move a big ship.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> How to deal with climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. Unless the world acts now......it will be too late and nothing else is going to matter.


Oh man. That's a good one!

I find it wholly amusing/disturbing that one of the least important issues facing the world today (excess carbon) is being discussed in the very city which is the new ground-zero for _the most_ important issue facing the world today (the decline of reason & science and the re-rise of faith & religion)... Is that what irony is called?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

"climate change, climate change, climate change" Hasn't the "climate" ALWAYS been "changing"? When did it ever remain stagnant? Didn't we have an "ice age" already? what caused that? lack of carbon emissions- or what? While yes, I think it's a good thing to try to live in as "clean" a world as possible, the idea that a force so insignificant as the human race can somehow change, or control Mother Nature, I find a bit naive at best. The climate has been fluctuating for millions (billions?) of years, certainly for a period of time that we humans just cannot really comprehend. I predict the climate will continue to "warm" for a few more million years, then it will gradually"cool" a bit - despite all "our" meager efforts. Like it's been doing before we came along, and will continue doing long after we're all gone...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's standard operating procedure for leaders to show up at these kinds of international conferences as more posturing than anything, while the real work is being done by bureaucrats and diplomats in the weeks and months leading up to the event. Do you think Harper was really hammering out the details of the TPP when he went to that meeting during the campaign?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

When the previous Harper Government heard the word environment they all thought that it meant the last voter opinion poll. They were not just off the mark, they were off the chart entirely.

We in Alberta have learnt this lesson the hard way. There are many in the O&G industry here who feel that that between Harper and the Alberta Governments we never really had a snowballs chance at Keystone. They are not voicing it publicly of course but they certainly are saying it privately. It was not the only reason but it certainly was a significant contributor. We did not give Obama any ammunition to say yes...quite the opposite.

The environmental records of both hurt our efforts to get this through. We were not taken seriously despite the sabre rattling for the poor dumb voters here at home in Canada.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> It's standard operating procedure for leaders to show up at these kinds of international conferences as more posturing than anything, while the real work is being done by bureaucrats and diplomats in the weeks and months leading up to the event. Do you think Harper was really hammering out the details of the TPP when he went to that meeting during the campaign?




this has been true for hundreds of years. Occasionally a summit conference will even get called off because the beavering corps of foreign service officers & gummint civil service workers are not able to reach an accord in advance.


meanwhile, back at El Rancho Bitter Loser here in canada, the sour & morose PCs may have missed the real apoplexy-inducing add-ons to the Paris mission. Did the bitter complainers remember to count in toddler Hadrien plus Ella-Grace & their travelling nanny?

as for the ravishing Sophie herself, her personal stylist is the ecumenicaly-chosen Jessica Mulroney. Yes, That Mulroney. Let's remember that Kate doesn't fly london without the royal hairdresser, the royal mistress of the wardrobe & the royal social secretary, among others.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I am a Christian so obviously I believe my creator has the final say on mankind(whoops humankind don't want to upset women)
and from my point of view others who think we came about from a big bang that's fine
Both schools of though imo operate on it's own accord and it's own determination
in other worlds if we came about from a big bang if and when the planet is going to cease that won't be because of carbon(a joke)
and from a Christian perspective the man upstairs calls the shots
we are a spec of dust in the grand of it all
arrogant to think we as humans can shape the planet or it's 'destiny'
There are 300 billion stars like our sun just in the milky way lol think about that
Google hubble telescope not only is our earth a spec in the milky way the milky way is a spec in galaxies amongst the milky way
Yeah we are going to alter our planet give me a break.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Our planet is like a quarter of a penny in warren buffets portfolio thought another way lol just in the milky way


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Someone is going to make a lot of money off the climate change thing that is first and foremost. I am sure there are technologies and things out there that we could support and could be done to use much less energy and really move ahead in the world but like the billions spent on cancer research unless someone is getting rich nothing is going to happen.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

The issue at hand is blatant government waste.

The U.S. is a huge economy responsible for 20% of global CO2 emissions. They sent 148 people to Paris. 

Canada is a relatively small economy responsible for 1.6% of global emissions. We sent 383 people. 

Canadian delegation included an army of marginal players who had no business going to Paris on taxpayer's dime.

Yes, we had to send the national leaders. 

Yes, we had to send the experts and the bureaucrats.

No, we didn't have to send the climate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon, or the interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary.

You have to be a Liberal lapdog to defend the utter waste.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

donald said:


> I am a Christian so obviously I believe my creator has the final say on mankind(whoops humankind don't want to upset women)
> and from my point of view others who think we came about from a big bang that's fine
> Both schools of though imo operate on it's own accord and it's own determination
> in other worlds if we came about from a big bang if and when the planet is going to cease that won't be because of carbon(a joke)
> ...


The trouble with that line of thinking is that you are saying that either God is indifferent to the suffering of people in drought-stricken areas who don't have enough to eat, or powerless to help. 

Either way, if he is not going to intervene to help humans, then it should be pretty clear we shouldn't f-up the planet, unless you are comfortable with your children and their children paying for our negligence.

When you say we are not going to alter our planet, what do you mean? We're not going to cut down the forests, we're not going to drive thousands of species to extinction? We're not going to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? It sure seems to me like humanity has it well within its powers to do all the above. Saying that the universe is huge is not an argument against us being able to mess up the only planet we live and can live on. It's akin to you saying you wouldn't mind it if your house burned down, because your house is an insignificant speck compared to the vastness of Canada. Maybe you're right, and the rest of Canada may not much notice or care, but I'd wager that you might not share that opinion.

This is what freaks me out about religious people. They start talking like they belong to a death cult, and they don't mind bringing other people with them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

GoldStone said:


> The issue at hand is blatant government waste.
> 
> The U.S. is a huge economy responsible for 20% of global CO2 emissions. They sent 148 people to Paris.
> 
> ...


Sure. But waste is inherent in government, no? A recall in excess of a billion (with a b) being spent on hosting a weekend G8/G20 summit in 2010. Remember the fake lake and gazebos? Were they really necessary?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Sure. But waste is inherent in government, no? A recall in excess of a billion (with a b) being spent on hosting a weekend G8/G20 summit in 2010. Remember the fake lake and gazebos? Were they really necessary?


Of course not.

So, no real change?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hey, by all means criticize, but there is an element of 'boy who cried wolf'. And we are talking about several orders of magnitude difference.

Maybe a more deserving area of criticism are some of the holes being poked in the revenue projections due to the tax changes in the Liberal fiscal plan. Or the rather unprincipled change in military strategy in Syria (knee-jerk withdrawal of aircraft). Instead we get nannygate.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> And we are talking about several orders of magnitude difference.


You forgot $2.6 billion that PM Selfie gave to corrupt 3rd world countries, "to fight climate change".

At least gazebo money stayed in the country.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The egotistical have even more power then they realize. Not only are the egotistical so powerful that they can warm the earth ( even though green house gasses were 10 times higher in the past & the earth was cooler ) the egotistical have also warmed the other planets orbiting the sun. Man is not the biggest polluter volcanoes are, Thinking we can destroy the earth is such BS


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Your right there lonewolf, we don't really know what exactly is happening because the climate goes back many thousands to millions of years. We can however destroy the earth for some time if we have a full on world war 3. 

Trudeau however is doing the right thing by getting photo ops and bringing lots of people so the idiots at home will think he is great even if he does nothing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Maybe a more deserving area of criticism are some of the holes being poked in the revenue projections due to the tax changes in the Liberal fiscal plan. Or the rather unprincipled change in military strategy in Syria (knee-jerk withdrawal of aircraft). Instead we get nannygate.



there is no "unprincipled change in military strategy in Syria." Everything has been thought out & planned for months. Some of the details were even put in place by the previous Harper governnment. 

canada is scheduled to eventually withdraw her 6 Hornet bombers, but canada is keeping her 2 far more strategic Aurora radar intelligence aircraft in the anti-ISIL coalition. Manned airborne intelligence is capturing & delivering information that can never be obtained from satellites; the canadian operators are recognized for their expertise. 

canada is also continuing to maintain her Polaris re-fuelling aircraft in the coalition.

in addition, in what looks like a planned in-step move with the US, canada will be increasing the number of strategic ground forces she already deploys in the coalition. Obama has recently announced that the US will be sending elite ground forces into syria. 

none of this is new, or even secret. It was Harper's government that signed the bill to double the number of elite trained canadian strategic forces. It was under former prime minister Harper that early decisions were made to orient canada more towards her traditional role as peacekeeper, away from active aggressor action.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Unprincipled as in there is no principle guiding that decision. I have not been able to discern any reason why the government has decided to make this change in Canada's mission.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^

i give up. I just explained you how the decisions have been flowing in logical sequences since way back under the former prime minister. 

as if that weren't enough, there have been graphic descriptions of air operations & F-18 flight trajectories in syria as reported by one who has actually flown them. Graphic. Here. Now. In cmf forum. It's been like watching a TV documentary come alive.

no one can help it if you don't wish to pay any attention.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Andrew--You are not a Christian but this world does not belong to Christ it is under the dominion of Satan
The Lord sent Jesus so we can have salvation with him in the afterlife
God gave him dominion over non-believers 
I could write pages about this but i know you think Christians are nut bars so i am not going to bother
if you opened up the bible it would explain
Trust me Christ loves his people but he has given each and everyone the choice here on earth to follow him or not
I know I know it's easier talking about Starbucks cups and this seems radical but you ask
You are not a believer so it's useless discussing


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is that before the part about not eating shrimp, or after the part about not wearing clothes with cotton polyester blends?

So, God is all-powerful, but he choses to abandon the people he created to satan? Bang up dude.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Garden of eden---we were in paradise but adam and eve disobeyed the lord
We were banished from the garden of eden(the tree of knowledge was not to be touched--god made that clear)
We are living with that consequence
BUT the lord sent Jesus
I don't know all the why's but i do know in my own life when troubles have hit the lord is by my side(death of a loved not to long ago that had his comfort and he is there in pray)
But you don't believe so it doesn't matter
You think a big bang created everything lol
I believe we are souls in the image of Christ


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Andrew answer these 2 questions
1)The big bang theory ---the first law of Thermodynamics,which says 'everything cannot be created or destroyed '
2)Those who believe in the big bang theory are also either unaware of,or ignore the 'second law of thermodynamics which says 'everything trends to disorder'
So!!!!...rather than the chaos(big bang)becoming ordered (our universe)just the opposite would be true
You have answers to these???


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Donald.........Prior to Adam and Eve, weren't the creation of Lucifer and all the angels that followed him in rebellion 'mistakes" as well ?

Watching debates between evolution and creation are fascinating, but hardly ever a challenge for the evolutionist. 

A pair of every kind of animal, plant, insect, bird and fish on the Ark..........a small wooden boat ?

Tigers with powerful jaws, sharp teeth and claws..........killing machines.......were vegetarians ?

Man lived among the dinosaurs ?

It would be nice to believe in heaven, a second chance at life and all those comforting thoughts......but I think we best take care of this planet first because life is likely a one-time ride.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Donald, you can hate on science, but I'm guessing you would prefer to fly in a plane designed by engineers and flown by a pilot than designed by divinely inspired preacher and with Jesus at the wheel. 

When the chips are down, the religious place their trust in facts and reason, not a wish and a prayer.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I am actually the opposite
When the chips are down I turned to God
The next time you get a chance I suggest you lay down outside on a clear night and look up at the sky and take it(take it in)
Or when a baby is born and grasps it's first cry and breathe
simple things like this
If you think something out of nothing went "bang" and the order of life followed so be it
I disagree


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

TORONTO – Police are still on the hunt for an unspecified number of suspects after *several guns, including silencers and religious items* were found in a car following a crash in North York Friday morning.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2379800/m...upants-of-single-vehicle-crash-in-north-york/

It happened near our daughter's friend's (who's devout catholic) house. Our atheist friend was on the scene. I asked her what those "religious items" were (nope, it wasn't "the theory of everything" )


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I know a lot of medical doctors read cmf(makes senses of course lol)
Idlove a doctors view
esp ones who are involved in stem cell or regenerative medicine
The human body is a awe
No way no freaking way it was all designed by a bang.
look at a cell or a strand of dna it is mind blowing 
the synchronicity of it all


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, 
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Moneytoo said:


> TORONTO – Police are still on the hunt for an unspecified number of suspects after *several guns, including silencers and religious items* were found in a car following a crash in North York Friday morning.
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2379800/m...upants-of-single-vehicle-crash-in-north-york/
> 
> It happened near our daughter's friend's (who's devout catholic) house. Our atheist friend was on the scene. I asked her what those "religious items" were (nope, it wasn't "the theory of everything" )


I also was curious what kind religion books were in this car  Because of political correctness , nobody tells us.... but I doubt it would be Torah there


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Isn't it just a little silly to throw up our hands and trust to God for everything. We have been given the talents to undertake scientific research. If I had a choice of praying that I would not get smallpox or taking the vaccine I would most certainly select the latter. 

Making changes, scientifically proven changes, that have been scientifically proven to reduce harmful emissions and reduce the depletion of the ozone layer seems like a good thing to do. Much better than sitting on our duffs doing nothing but praying and trusting to God.

I know a few people who have never proactively done anything with their lives. Their excuse is that God will show them the way. So they have done nothing-absolutely no positive steps or efforts to improve their situation.

As my parents used to say, God helps those who help themselves, God help those who do not.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe it's silly to think God cares about any one person in particular. If I think of a pet, I can take care of it and make sure I watch over it but, as numbers climb, I don't pay as much attention to the individuals and look more at the group. As you get more groups, you pay less and less attention to even the different types.

For example, I know a farmer, his wife has pet animals each with names, then there are the heard animals which don't have names, and are used for food and profits (unlike the pets), he also has bee hives where all he notices is the overall health of the colony. The farmer does have somewhat God-like control over his farm and his animals.

While the farmer knows every animal on his property, I can assure you he's got no idea what happens to an individual bee other than maybe the queen. Now, that's only one small farm, not an entire planet, let alone universe, if not multiverse...

Perhaps we are a little arrogant to think that God has time to worry about us individual worker bees. That doesn't mean he may not care about his overall farm...


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Id like Andrewf to explain his argument for scientific theory of the human Dna
The notion that dna came about through natural selection or somehow magically just happened out of seemingly nowhere(like a big bang that ushered human life from zilch-nothing in nothing became something)
I read Bill Gates comment on Dna stating "Dna is like a software program.Only much much more complex than anything any human could devise'
Bill seems pretty spot on to me considering he is this day and aged Einstein

Imagine something more INTRICATE than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution????lol

Mutation and natural selection shown NOTHING to contain the mechanism of INTELLIGENCE a requirement for creating complex information that is found in the genetic code of Dna
Maybe that nut ball Hawkings could answer that or Andrew.
That is why I think people who don't believe in a creator are fkning crazy with a capital C


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

fraser said:


> Isn't it just a little silly to throw up our hands and trust to God for everything. We have been given the talents to undertake scientific research. If I had a choice of praying that I would not get smallpox or taking the vaccine I would most certainly select the latter.
> 
> Making changes, scientifically proven changes, that have been scientifically proven to reduce harmful emissions and reduce the depletion of the ozone layer seems like a good thing to do. Much better than sitting on our duffs doing nothing but praying and trusting to God.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with this and I am a god fearing person. We have tools to use so we use them and we can pray to god to give us strength when using them.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

donald, your god of the gaps fall back is both lazy and uninspired thinking. 

Because science hasn't found an answer doesn't allow you to stick in whatever convenient fairy tail in its place. It insanity to come to an unsolved problem then take a giant illogical leap into the supernatural void to explain it. Comforting, maybe, but its not even close to the truth. They did the same think with thunder a few thousand years ago. Every unknown phenomenon has always been explained by science, none have ever been explained by religion. Science continues to shrink your god into irrelevance every day.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

We don't yet have a good understanding of how DNA first began replicating. But we have overwhelming evidence that all the organisms you see around you are the product of about a billion years of evolution. The evidence is in the obvious genetic similarity between surefire that are recent cousins, with gradually and predictably growing genetic differences between species the longer they first differentiated.

One thing we do know is that a book written by a committee of bronze age tribes is not going to be a useful source of knowledge about how the universe works.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

We don't know very much about our vast universe and there are many ways to go that science may not be able to explain. The world is full of mysteries and we don't know what is beyond life or other dimensions that could exist. There are infinite possibilities out there and science can't explain it all.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Gee, a universe billions of years in the making vs. Mankind's 100+ years of a serious, concerted effort to explain it (if you want to be generous, let's even say 2000 years, though most of that was learning the process of figuring out how to even ask the questions properly...yet we still don't have the answers...go figure.

Kind of like medicine, a science less than 100 years old (modern medicine that is, not leaches and bleeding type), yet we haven't found cures for everything yet...

Remember, around the turn of the 20th century (the 1900's) people figured that physics was a dead end science as they figured they'd basically figured out just about everything there was to know in that discipline of science...today, most physicists think we are just beginning to understand a little of a vast field of science.

We are a very arrogant species...


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

From what I have heard we know far less about our oceans on earth then we do about space.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

Donald - you should read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins - http://www.amazon.ca/Language-God-The-Francis-Collins/dp/1416542744. Many don't see a conflict between Science and a Christian belief system.

In fact I think everyone should read this book regardless of your beliefs or lack of beliefs. Just wiki Francis Collins, this is the guy that led the human genome project and is one of many very intelligent folks who believe you don't need to choose between Science and God.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

I would be interested to know the professions of the individuals who we sent. For example are we sending scientists who are having meaningful discussions, or is it mostly low level bureaucrats who don't have the authority to make the big decisions but want a free trip.

I think tax payers deserve to see a list of folks who attended and what the cost is...regardless I think transparency does not hurt here.


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

protomok said:


> Donald - you should read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins - http://www.amazon.ca/Language-God-The-Francis-Collins/dp/1416542744. Many don't see a conflict between Science and a Christian belief system.
> 
> In fact I think everyone should read this book regardless of your beliefs or lack of beliefs. Just wiki Francis Collins, this is the guy that led the human genome project and is one of many very intelligent folks who believe you don't need to choose between Science and God.


Francis Collins is one of those rare incidents that proves how pervasive this religious bullshit is even to people of great intellect. It's disconcerting, but true. Some of his arguments are laughable and completely un-scientific, but there he is just the same.

Anyone that thinks Science and christian belief doesn't have a conflict knows nothing of the religion at best or is twisting the hell out of religion (and it will be that side of the equation) to get it to match whatever science we have on a given topic. It's ridiculous and once again proof that this garbage is wholly man made.


----------



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

Wish I had the stretch limo concession for the climate change conference. For the 2009 Copenhagen get together, they were bringing them in from as far away as Germany to keep up with the demand.

None of the delegates would demean themselves by taking a mere taxi the 2 blocks from luxury hotel to conference center. As for taking a bus or walking, don't make me laugh.

Shows what they REALLY think of the danger of carbon emissions. Don't look at what they say when they are trying to increase your taxes and take away your rights, look at what they do when they think no one is looking.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ncing-for-developing-nations/article27626639/



> On Monday, premiers Kathleen Wynne of Ontario and Philippe Couillard of Quebec and Christy Clark of British Columbia will be in Paris to highlight the efforts their provinces have made to reduce carbon emissions.


I don't know about Couillard and Clark, but for Wynne, it will be her second trip to Paris in the span of 7 days. She was in Paris on Nov 30 for the conference opening. Then she flew back to Toronto. And now she is back to Paris again.

I must say... she is setting a great example on how to reduce your personal CO2 emissions. Not to mention her great respect for the tax dollars.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

can we change the climate j-u-u-u-s-t enough so NL winters don't last 6 months.....please...?


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

The current government is big on symbolism and mending fences around the world, even if any new actions by Canada on reducing carbon emissions make an immaterial difference. They are signalling virtuousness which is the currency of the liberal crowd and the UN. All you need is good intentions and you need to signal that.

It is interesting to note that, on the the topic of symbolism, the Liberals can play both sides of the coin simultaneously. On bombing ISIS, Canada can abandon its allies because it was merely filling a symbolic role fighting ISIS, it made no real difference. But...on global warming where we make no real difference, symbolism rules and the average Canadian can expect to pay more to ultimately have less to please the UN.

What we can expect in the future in a slow erosion of our national sovereignty and wealth as we pass decision making and resources to others throughout the world. Underlying every environmental agenda is a thinly veiled program to take wealth and redistribute it.

You can say what you want about Harper, he was standing up for what is best for Canadians while Trudeau is only concerned with Canada's image, the actual Canadians hurt are not important.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Dontcha just love this one vote per person democracy thing? I think they should drop the voting age to 12. Children are the future, you know I'm sure they have some fresh and diverse perspectives on how to save THEIR own planet. Maybe make it 10 in fact. I remember learning about dinosaurs and fish and plants and stuff in grade 4. We need to hear from more grade 4s on this vital issue that is surely going to leave our planet doomed if we DON"T ACT NOW!!!


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

CPA Candidate said:


> The current government is big on symbolism and mending fences around the world, even if any new actions by Canada on reducing carbon emissions make an immaterial difference. They are signalling virtuousness which is the currency of the liberal crowd and the UN. All you need is good intentions and you need to signal that.
> 
> It is interesting to note that, on the the topic of symbolism, the Liberals can play both sides of the coin simultaneously. On bombing ISIS, Canada can abandon its allies because it was merely filling a symbolic role fighting ISIS, it made no real difference. But...on global warming where we make no real difference, symbolism rules and the average Canadian can expect to pay more to ultimately have less to please the UN.
> 
> ...


Well said! Thank you.


----------



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

There won't be many scientists there, and if there are, they will be the kind that can be depended on to toe the party line.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

CPA Candidate said:


> The former government was big on symbolism and mending fences around the world, even if any new actions by Canada on reducing carbon emissions make an immaterial difference. They were signalling virtuousness which is the currency of the PC crowd and the UN. All you need is good intentions and you need to signal that.
> 
> It is interesting to note that, on the the topic of symbolism, the Conservatives could play both sides of the coin simultaneously. On bombing ISIS, Canada could abandon its allies because it was merely filling a symbolic role fighting ISIS, it made no real difference. But...on global warming where we make no real difference, symbolism rules and the average Canadian can expect to pay more to ultimately have less to please the UN ...
> 
> You can say what you want about Trudeau, he is standing up for what is best for Canadians while Harper was only concerned with Canada's image, the actual Canadians hurt were not important.


lol





GoldStone said:


> Well said! Thank you.


lloll


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau and the Liberals are flying high in the polls though.

Canadians overwhelmingly approve.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> lloll


fyi

*China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks - The New York Times*

===============

NOV. 3, 2015

BEIJING — China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data. The finding could complicate the already difficult efforts to limit global warming.

Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense. *The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated.

The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.*

===============

Chinese *correction* to their annual carbon emissions is nearly double Canada's *total* annual emissions. Think about that.

Enjoy your carbon taxes. Your sacrifice is purely symbolic. But hey, whatever floats your boat. each:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Forget November reports...today's news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ly-shut-down-as-chinese-capital-a6763286.html


----------



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

How about this one from the same site? Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for the second year in a row. Wonder how much play this will get in the news?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good grief............the Chinese are literally killing themselves in the pursuit of money.

What would shutting down all business in Beijing cost in economic terms ? What if they had to close everything down for days, weeks, months..........?

Maybe China will finally wake up and realize what they are doing to themselves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Beyond climate change...........we have oceans full of garbage. There is a huge glob of plastic bobbing around in the Pacific Ocean. When looking for the Malaysian airplane in the South China Sea, they had a difficult time picking out wreckage from all the garbage floating around. There are huge toxic piles of old cellphones in India.

In North America, we are fracking for oil over fresh water reservoirs, and creating minor earthquakes across the fracking zones.

There is talk of putting nuclear waste underground and adjacent to Lake Huron. Radiation from the Fukishima disaster is now evident off the coast of BC.

And yet, in every instance there are people who will say.......but what about the jobs or the money.

I fear that we are making too many mistakes to survive as a species. Then again, maybe we don't deserve to.


----------



## NewBrunswick (Nov 30, 2015)

sags said:


> And yet, in every instance there are people who will say.......but what about the jobs or the money.
> 
> I fear that we are making too many mistakes to survive as a species. Then again, maybe we don't deserve to.


I have the same fears. Will there be much of a world left in 50 years to enjoy retirement? Time will tell.

As for Justin, it seems like he has a gang mentality (look after me and mine). I don't think this is a bad thing in politics, I hope it will create a united government. A government working together can actually accomplish great things instead of everyone just doing their own thing working against eachother and making little impact on the larger scale.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How about this one from the same site? Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for the second year in a row. Wonder how much play this will get in the news?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html


It's great that emissions are slowing, largely due to economic stagnation, but it's important to understand that emissions don't relate directly to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we could reduce emissions by 20-30 percent today and keep them there, the world would continue to warm for at least 1,000 years. The warming is already in the system -- in the ocean mainly.

The next ice age isn't due for 30,000 years (ice ages can be predicted pretty accurately because they relate to changes in the earth's orbit around the sun), so that's not going to help us.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Of course, it may also be just another global warming period and not a human factor at all...not like it hasn't happened before:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Which was followed, unexplainedly by...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The problem is, humanity has been given the new toy of science and now think they know everything. When it doesn't work out the way we think (remember it was global cooling in the 80's, then global warming around the millennium), instead of admitting we may not really know anything, we arrogantly just change the wording (climate change) until we find a way out of the arguement without admitting any wrongness. 

I understand his of course, I've had 4 kids all go through either toddler years. 

Now, I'm not suggesting that man may not be influencing the environment...I'm just pointing out that, in reality, mankind doesn't really know, but is too arrogant (or childish) to admit that.

If we look at our "solution", making changes in Canada is downright silly until something is done about China and similar countries. 

Of course, not to be harsh, but if we were to eliminate poverty, pollution, starvation, disease, wars, etc. And make every country the same what would happen to the global population? What about the consumerism that would evolve out of that? The food and space demands? If mankind cured all the things that currently ail it, it would probably destroy the planet in less than a generation as we expand like a plague to consume the planet.

Our stupidity is the best control on our population.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How about this one from the same site? Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for the second year in a row. Wonder how much play this will get in the news?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html


It's good news if sustainable (and not just a one year blip due to Chinese economic slowdown), but it is by no means an excuse to do nothing. CO2 concentrations are still rising at a rapid clip, even if the rate at which it is rising did not accelerate.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Of course, it may also be just another global warming period and not a human factor at all...not like it hasn't happened before:


When you talk to actual climate scientists, most of them are actually quite open about uncertainty and nobody claims to have all the answers. All they say is that the warming we've experienced over the past 100 years can't be explained by natural causes (everyone knows the climate changes for natural reasons, that there are natural cycles, etc; all of that is taken into account in the science of climate change), and that human factors are the only explanation that can account for it. The climate changes we're experiencing now have a combination of natural and human causes; every climate scientist will tell you that. There's no arrogance or overconfidence here; the only overconfidence I see is from the denyers who claim that it's a hoax.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You'll note, in the links I posted, that climate scientists cannot explain the two changes I mentioned. They look for natural reasons because, back then they couldn't say humans were responsible. 

It's been my experience that people tend to find what they go looking for. In my company, I often walk into companies and point out different ways of thinking or doing thing. Oftentimes, the reaction is "I can't believe I didn't see that myself, it's obvious but we've always done it the other way".

As a climate scientist, studying humanity's impact on the environment, you look for that. You get tunnel vision (happens everywhere). And, before you go on about scientists being bound by scientific method, maybe read up on people like Millican (who discovered the electronic constants) where his notebook later showed how he fudged his results (where they didn't match what he wanted) on his way to getting the right answer. 

There are so many variables in the climate change debate that it's easy to miss something that could be a major, unknown factor. Again, I'm not denying mankind's impact, I'm just not agreeing with generalized blanket statements that have large holes in them.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

brad said:


> When you talk to actual climate scientists, most of them are actually quite open about uncertainty and nobody claims to have all the answers. All they say is that the warming we've experienced over the past 100 years can't be explained by natural causes (everyone knows the climate changes for natural reasons, that there are natural cycles, etc; all of that is taken into account in the science of climate change), and that human factors are the only explanation that can account for it. The climate changes we're experiencing now have a combination of natural and human causes; every climate scientist will tell you that. There's no arrogance or overconfidence here; the only overconfidence I see is from the denyers who claim that it's a hoax.


No, the arrogance comes from those who think that we can actually reduce the planet's temperature with a few % of emissions reductions from a few % of the worlds emitters, and that doing so isn't going to cost our prosperous western nations an arm and a leg and cripple our industries.

I agree most climate scientists probably espouse what you've stated above. The problem is that a few of the very loudest ones whom all the politicians want to listen to (because "green policies" are an excellent reason to increase taxes and grow government departments) are being disingenuous, unreasonable, and aren't in fact real scientists following the scientific method.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> You'll note, in the links I posted, that climate scientists cannot explain the two changes I mentioned. They look for natural reasons because, back then they couldn't say humans were responsible.


They looked for natural reasons to explain the current warming too. There are plausible natural explanations for previous warm and cold periods; there are dozens of studies pointing to possible explanations. There are no plausible natural explanations for all of the warming we've experienced in the last 100 years. Natural causes can explain some of it, but not all. Furthermore, greenhouse gases have an identifiable "fingerprint" on changes in climate that are different (especially in terms of changes by latitude and altitude) from those cause by variations in solar irradiance, volcanic activity, or long-term natural changes in the climate system. It's not like climate scientists are starting from the assumption that humans are changing the climate and amassing evidence to support that theory. They're starting from the question of "how can we explain this" and ruling out the causes that can't (fully) explain it.

You're assuming confirmation bias, but I have met climate scientists who started out as skeptics, they didn't believe humans were having an influence on the climate, but changed their minds after spending years studying the evidence. I don't think you can find a single reputable climate scientist today, even the prominent skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, who doesn't think that humans are influencing the climate. The only question is "how much" influence are we having and "how much does it matter?" Those are valid questions and nobody claims to have the definitive answer.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> No, the arrogance comes from those who think that we can actually reduce the planet's temperature with a few % of emissions reductions from a few % of the worlds emitters, and that doing so isn't going to cost our prosperous western nations an arm and a leg and cripple our industries.


How do you reconcile that view with the fact that just one program, the US EPA's Energy Star program, has saved Americans more than $295 billion in energy costs over the past 20 years while avoiding 2.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions? Improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective approach to reducing emissions, and generally provides a higher return on investment than you can get from the stock market. There's still plenty of low-hanging fruit out there.

Going beyond energy efficiency to renewable energy, leving carbon taxes, etc. has more economic impact. But I'd love to see evidence of a single company that has lost money by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions; I've been looking for 25 years now without finding a single example.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I assume your definition of "reputable" means "agrees with", since you'll never get 100% agreement. For example, I know of climate scientists who started out believing mankind was responsible and have subsequently changed their opinions based on their finding...

They were believed to be "credible" and "reputable" until they changed sides.

There are too many variables for there to be legitimate, 100% consensus despite the propaganda out there. 

Further, mat of the "solutions" being proposed have nothing to do with meaningful reduction as they are more designed to be wealth transfers.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> I assume your definition of "reputable" means "agrees with", since you'll never get 100% agreement.


No, I consider Richard Lindzen a reputable climate scientist, even though he disagrees with the mainstream view on climate change. i've done interviews with him and followed his work for almost 30 years now.

Science isn't done by vote: one person who's right is worth 10,000 who are wrong. Just look at the science of plate tectonics for a good example: at one point it was a minority view and now if you don't believe in plate tectonics you're lumped in with the flat-earthers, and for good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. But I'm sure there are some scientists who still don't believe in plate tectonics, just as there are actually some who believe in a flat earth, or who believe that humans aren't having any influence on climate.

Science doesn't aim for consensus, but conclusions can be drawn based on the balance of evidence. The majority view matters mainly in terms of policy: if decision makers ignore the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field and instead choose to believe the advice of a small minority who are telling you a more comfortable story, it's pretty hard to justify. If the minority view turns out to be right, great, but it's a pretty huge bet and one that could have significant costs if you're wrong.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Sounds like we are not so far apart brad.

Energy efficiency increases and toxic pollution (non-carbon) reductions are of course excellent goal to strive for and as you said, save use billions of dollars and protect the environment.

My beef is specifically and only with climate change, temperature targets (lol), and carbon taxation, and the bad science that so many "scientists" pass off as "conclusive". Relatedly, on the seemingly foregone conclusion that a global increase in temperatures is inherently a bad thing, when there is quite a bit of intelligent research and argument that would suggest that a rising planetary temperature would be a net benefit to life on this earth.

Finally, in the oh-so-transparent power and money grab that governments are implementing (as is their natural behavior) as a result of the publically accepted climate change science "conclusions".


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> Relatedly, on the seemingly foregone conclusion that a global increase in temperatures is inherently a bad thing, when there is quite a bit of intelligent research and argument that would suggest that a rising planetary temperature would be a net benefit to life on this earth.


If it were only about rising temperatures I could see that as a potentially valid argument for some parts of the world, but the reason it's now called "climate change" instead of "global warming" is that global warming implies that it's all about temperature. Temperature increases are perhaps the least important impact: it's what the climate system does when there's more energy (due to that added warmth) that's the problem. More intense storms, more intense and frequent droughts, wildfires, etc. And there are direct impacts of warmth such as sea level rise, which isn't theoretical but already being observed all over the planet, changes in species ranges (malaria and dengue fever moving into new areas where they weren't seen before, a dramatic expansion of the range of ticks carrying Lyme disease, etc.).

I haven't seen any studies from actual scientists suggesting that a warmer planet would be a "net benefit." Sure there are benefits from warming, such as longer growing seasons for crops. But all of the analyses that have looked at the evidence on both sides conclude that the negatives far outweigh the positives.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

brad said:


> If it were only about rising temperatures I could see that as a potentially valid argument for some parts of the world, but the reason it's now called "climate change" instead of "global warming" is that global warming implies that it's all about temperature. Temperature increases are perhaps the least important impact: it's what the climate system does when there's more energy (due to that added warmth) that's the problem. More intense storms, more intense and frequent droughts, wildfires, etc. And there are direct impacts of warmth such as sea level rise, which isn't theoretical but already being observed all over the planet, changes in species ranges (malaria and dengue fever moving into new areas where they weren't seen before, a dramatic expansion of the range of ticks carrying Lyme disease, etc.).


Sure all that bad stuff could happen, but will it? where? and by how much? It's a lot of speculation. The models can't even predict temperature accurately based on an extensive data set of known measurements. How can they predict global ecological and meteorological reactions to said temperature fluctuations accurately? The answer is they can't.

Even oceans rising being one of the simplest things to model is not so cut and dry (heh). When I worked with the Geological survey of Canada I recall a lecturer speaking about polar ice caps melting. Gravitational effects of one pole melting preferentially more than the other have significant effects on sea levels at varying latitudes. Increased atmospheric humidity and uptake of water due to rising temperatures is not negligible.

All of these things are intrinsically complex and impossible to model. Yet some "scientist" says they can do it, gets funding, their boss's boss who's whole department depends on the outcome presents the "facts" to a government minister who has been pre-prepared to accept the correct answer from said scientist, and public policy is swayed.

It is not real science. It is perverse.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

And besides. Even if all the things you say do come to pass. Which is easier? Irradiating malaria, fighting fires, digging canals and fortifying infrastructure? Or altering the chemical composition of the entire planet's atmosphere and controlling it indefinitely? Causing a great number of industries to go bankrupt, 3rd world peoples to starve to death, in the process.

It is clear that the answer to climate change (if it's even happening, and if it's even a problem) is to adapt to it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Adapting will have to be part of it, but failing to contain global warming has potentially very risky outcomes. We don't know with great confidence whether there is a tipping point that, once we reach it, will cause much more dramatic changes to the climate that will swamp society's ability to adapt. Possible drivers include the absolutely enormous amounts of methane currently trapped in permafrost and methane hydrates from deep in the ocean that could be released rapidly, dramatically and uncontrollably if the earth warms too much.

Of course the planet itself will survive if such a dramatic change occurs--it has happened in the past (as people are fond of pointing out), but there is no guarantee that it won't result in the deaths of a non-trivial percentage of humanity. Given the uncertainty, I think we should apply the precautionary principle and make at least a basic effort to slow the change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> Sure all that bad stuff could happen, but will it? where? and by how much? It's a lot of speculation. The models can't even predict temperature accurately based on an extensive data set of known measurements.


I think you're basing that on old information: climate models today do an accurate job of predicting current and past climate based on known measurements. And the "bad stuff" is already happening -- just go to Alaska if you want to see buildings and roads being destroyed by melting permafrost, entire villages being relocated because they're falling into the sea (not because of sea level rise but because of vanishing sea ice, which used to prevent large waves from building up in ocean bays so now the coast is being eroded rapidly), and extensive forest die-offs caused by beetles whose range has expanded due to warmer winters. The climate models predicted that high northern latitudes would experience the most significant changes in climate, and that's exactly how it's playing out already, you don't have to wait for 2070.

But the larger question of predicting the future is valid: it's not so much that climate models aren't accurate but that the outcome depends on the emissions scenario you assume. Climate modelers use a range of possible scenarios, but in the real world there will be only one actual scenario and we don't know what that will be. There's almost no variation among models across scenarios for the next 30-40 years; the changes across scenarios start becoming more apparent starting around 2070, ranging from moderate impacts to catastrophic change.

It sounds like your solution to this uncertainty is to just shrug and continue business as usual, letting future generations deal with it. I guess not everyone agrees with that approach. ;-)


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

brad said:


> And the "bad stuff" is already happening --
> 
> ...
> 
> It sounds like your solution to this uncertainty is to just shrug and continue business as usual, letting future generations deal with it. I guess not everyone agrees with that approach. ;-)


Which bad stuff though? The rise in global temperatures has stopped(Wall Street Journal) the Antarctic ice sheet is growing(NASA) and bad weather is becoming less extreme(Forbes).

My solution is to deal with problems if and when they become apparent or _slightly_ before. Not relying on models going out to 2070 with 50 different variables all compounding uncertainty in an accelerating rate as you add on more years. Not impoverishing the world's population with expensive energy that stifles growth and standards of living (energy poverty is a real problem in poor countries, and even is becoming more and more of a _real_ burden to those lower income households in rich countries like Canada).

If it's that, or dealing with some beetles, bushfires and rescuing a few seaside cities from erosion, I choose to fix the beetle problem first.

Edit: To be clear again to those casual readers. These arguments of mine regard only "climate change" and the social and political reaction to it. Reductions in toxic pollution and increases in energy efficient products are, of course, something to be aspired to.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> Which bad stuff though? The rise in global temperatures has stopped(Wall Street Journal) the Antarctic ice sheet is growing(NASA) and bad weather is becoming less extreme(Forbes).


Like I said, old information. The Wall Street Journal article is from September 2014. Since then climate researchers have demonstrated that there was in fact no hiatus in global warming (see http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/global-warming-hiatus-091715.html for example), and 2015 is shaping up to be another record warm year anyway.

The Antarctic sea ice story is also more than a year old; here's the update for 2015: still above average but not record-setting: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/10/antarctic-sea-ice-at-its-2015-maximum/

But climate models don't predict the Antarctic to warm as much as the Arctic. You're conveniently forgetting the trend in Arctic sea ice.










The "extreme events are becoming less extreme" is from two years ago and is a classic illustration of confirmation bias: a journalist compiled a bunch of evidence supporting his conclusion that extreme events are becoming less extreme. When you ask actual scientists to look at all the evidence (not just the cherry-picked statistics) and report on the trends, the results look a bit different. 

See for example: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heavy-precip.html

or http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

And sea ice extent is quite different from sea ice volume. Multi-year ice is still melting, so even if first year ice extent is high due to a colder than trend winter, the volume of sea ice is still falling dramatically.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Well, I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not an expert.

But the volume of ice in the arctic is a tiny fraction of the volume of the Antarctic is, is it not? What's the global ice melting rates? Are they significant? Why?

The lecture I mentioned earlier was about Arctic ice. It showed how that as the arctic ice melts, the gravitational pull from the mass that is being lost exerts less of a pull on the free flowing waters in the oceans. As the artic ice melts the ocean levels in the northern hemisphere can actually go _down_ (and presumable up in the southern hemisphere) due to this effect.

Not that I'm saying that this is some sufficient explanation, only that it's always more complex than it seems. What if, instead of media outlets telling European and North American people that because the arctic ice melting their oceans might rise a foot, they were told "the ocean might rise a foot but it's mostly going to be in Africa and Australia and South America" what would the reaction be? Perhaps not as favorable to the continued funding of climate research?

Now, I'd like to see the research that quantifies the economic loss in the trillions, the degraded standards of living globally, and the unethical nature of saying to 4 billion impoverished people who just want an chance at a better life that "you can no longer use gasoline or cheap electricity because we western nations want to reduce carbon" and compare that to the cost of adapting our infrastructure and ways of interacting with the environment, as the need arises, to the changing conditions of the planet. Which is more costly in the end?

What were those articles the other week saying about how high energy prices have cost Ontarians 37B over the last 20 years in wasted money? 37B sure sounds like an awful lot... and that's just in Ontario. I bet you could plant a lot of trees and armor a lot of shorelines and kill a lot of beetles (or are we trying to save them? I've lost track) for 37B.

I sure hope all this spent money (taxes) and poverty and loss of freedom that western governments seem intent on subjecting us humans to is worth it all in the end. We better be averting a friggen apocalypse, because the price is pretty friggen high!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think the arctic ice would be providing a significant gravitational force when compared to the earth as a whole and the moon (many orders of magnitude smaller in mass).

Most of the rise to date has been the water expanding due to warming. It's only later that the melting of ice sheets will contribute substantially to sea level rise. Sea ice melting does not cause sea level rise because it is already displacing water (it's floating on the sea, not resting on ground). Sea ice melting is relevant because the sea is darker than ice and absorbs much more heat. New ice is also darker than multi-year ice.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> Well, I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not an expert.
> 
> But the volume of ice in the arctic is a tiny fraction of the volume of the Antarctic is, is it not? What's the global ice melting rates? Are they significant? Why?


Melting ice in the Arctic has no impact on sea levels for the same reason that if you put an ice cube in a glass of water and the ice melts, the water level in the glass remains the same. Arctic sea ice is floating on water like an ice cube. It's the Antarctic (and Greenland) melting that affects sea level because that ice is actually land-based. Melting in place isn't so much the issue in the Antarctic; the larger fear is that big chunks will break off and melt, and if those do it will raise sea levels a lot.

Melting sea ice in the Arctic is important for a few reasons (e.g., leading to the extinction of polar bears), but the biggest issue is that it reduces the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) in the Arctic, which causes even more warming in the region and leads to more sea ice melting, which then leads to more warming and so on. This is why climate models predict the Arctic to warm much more rapidly and dramatically than the Antarctic, and this is in fact happening: as sea ice and snow cover decline, the Arctic is effectively getting darker, which means it reflects less solar energy back out to space, which means it just keeps getting warmer, and that causes more ice and snow to melt. It's a viscious cycle.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Thanks brad. I'm not purposes trying to argue with you. :biggrin: You're a good guy. I just keep finding holes in these theories and need adequate explanation! Like I said, I'm not an expert.



brad said:


> Melting sea ice in the Arctic is important for a few reasons (e.g., leading to the extinction of polar bears), but the biggest issue is that it reduces the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) in the Arctic, which causes even more warming in the region and leads to more sea ice melting, which then leads to more warming and so on. This is why climate models predict the Arctic to warm much more rapidly and dramatically than the Antarctic, and this is in fact happening: as sea ice and snow cover decline, the Arctic is effectively getting darker, *which means it reflects less solar energy back out to space, which means it just keeps getting warmer, and that causes more ice and snow to melt. It's a viscious cycle*.


So what % in heating does the reduced albedo effect cause? This isn't like an albedo sunburn when you're out at the ski hill in the winter at 45N latitude... This ice is WAY up there at latitudes above 70 degrees on a spherical earth. How much solar energy is even hitting the polar ice in the first place? like 1%? So it's some small % of 1% and another small % change in albedo effect. What's that all add up to and what's it mean? Not much, in my estimation. I mean it's dark up there half the year and the other half you can't even get a sunburn. :biggrin:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know some people who've written about another known greenhouse gas and its impact on the environment. It's commonly known as water. Places like Las Vegas have been pumping it into the atmosphere for decades and it's had a major effect from their, peer reviewed studies. The fact that Las Vegas has been pumping the water from far away to evaporate has had measurable impacts according to them.

I suppose it would be a good reason to implement a water tax.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

peterk said:


> So what % in heating does the reduced albedo effect cause? This isn't like an albedo sunburn when you're out at the ski hill in the winter at 45N latitude... This ice is WAY up there at latitudes above 70 degrees on a spherical earth. How much solar energy is even hitting the polar ice in the first place? like 1%? So it's some small % of 1% and another small % change in albedo effect. What's that all add up to and what's it mean? Not much, in my estimation. I mean it's dark up there half the year and the other half you can't even get a sunburn. :biggrin:


I see why this is confusing, but this isn't an issue of reduced albedo in the Arctic contributing to global warming, although it does play a role. It's more of a regional warming due to this feedback effect. Take a look at this map of the warming measured in the United States over the past two decades, see Alaska in the bottom left, it's obvious that it has warmed more than most of the other states. The warming in the Arctic and especially the decline of sea ice has an impact on weather patterns throughout North America; there's a study at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/bib/Vihma_accepted_in_Surv_Geophys.pdf if you want to learn some of the details.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Saw this on Facebook...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=...binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1


----------

